oowee Posted October 10, 2019 Report Share Posted October 10, 2019 1 hour ago, Scully said: Too late now, she’s gone. She won’t be coming back, I’d have money on it. In that case she can be extradited. ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted October 10, 2019 Report Share Posted October 10, 2019 We could try, but I doubt the Americans would lose any sleep over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted October 10, 2019 Report Share Posted October 10, 2019 Trump says he is going to have a word with her 🙂 From the US embassy. Might work? The law enforcement relationship between the United States and United Kingdom is predicated on trust, respect, and the common goals of protecting our nations and eliminating safe havens for criminals. The United States has not denied a single extradition request from the UK under the treaty; the UK has denied 10 requests from the U.S. since the treaty took effect. Moreover, extradition requests from the U.S. to the UK have taken as long as 13 years to work their way through the UK and European courts. For extradition requests from the UK to the U.S. the subjects are in most cases extradited within several months. A panel of UK extradition experts, led by well-respected retired judge Sir Scott Baker, found that the treaty is fair and balanced. Its report, issued in October 2011, provides considerable data and analysis to support the panel’s conclusions. The Baker panel report notes that the U.S. has a population about five times the size of the UK, but there have been fewer than twice the number of people extradited to the U.S. than to the UK. The number of U.S. requests is therefore not disproportionate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchman Posted October 12, 2019 Report Share Posted October 12, 2019 stop press.........(again) it is now being reported by the foriegn office ....that the "diplomats wife does not have diplomatic immunity"....Quote unquote so im extremly sorry if i have misled you all for a 2nd time carry on now........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saltings Posted October 13, 2019 Report Share Posted October 13, 2019 accidents happen , driving the wrong side of the road happens , even on motorways here be it old ****, or chav thug / drug dealer in a stolen car , however the offending driver stands trial and does the time she took a life and ran, so now should feel the full weight of the law here, do the crime do the time ( as she ran thinking she could get away with it ) punishable by clink Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted October 13, 2019 Report Share Posted October 13, 2019 I've lost this. Forget about the harsh and possibly unfair treatment dished out to our armed forces in the past and for the purposes of this, start with a clean sheet. A troop of our soldiers are getting shot to bits by a machine gun post when Private Atkins sneaks up to it and lobs in a grenade killing everyone. Before too long the fracas ceases and peace is declared and everyone gets discharged and goes home. Mrs ******'s son was killed by the grenade thrown by ex Private Atkins. At the time when he threw the grenade he was protected in his actions by I know not what legislation - Geneva? - but now he's an 'ex' and peace reigns he no longer has the benefity of that protection and she wants him charged with murder. How on earth can you withdraw a protection at some time after an event which was totally valid at the point in question. Never mind what we might think about this, she (our lady driver), along with Tommy, either did or did not have immunity when the incident(s) occured and this can not be changed retrospectively. In attempting to draw a line under this, you can smell the bull poo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted October 13, 2019 Report Share Posted October 13, 2019 20 minutes ago, wymberley said: I've lost this. Forget about the harsh and possibly unfair treatment dished out to our armed forces in the past and for the purposes of this, start with a clean sheet. A troop of our soldiers are getting shot to bits by a machine gun post when Private Atkins sneaks up to it and lobs in a grenade killing everyone. Before too long the fracas ceases and peace is declared and everyone gets discharged and goes home. Mrs ******'s son was killed by the grenade thrown by ex Private Atkins. At the time when he threw the grenade he was protected in his actions by I know not what legislation - Geneva? - but now he's an 'ex' and peace reigns he no longer has the benefity of that protection and she wants him charged with murder. How on earth can you withdraw a protection at some time after an event which was totally valid at the point in question. Never mind what we might think about this, she (our lady driver), along with Tommy, either did or did not have immunity when the incident(s) occured and this can not be changed retrospectively. In attempting to draw a line under this, you can smell the bull poo. Isn’t this precisely what’s happening to British servicemen now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted October 13, 2019 Report Share Posted October 13, 2019 5 minutes ago, panoma1 said: Isn’t this precisely what’s happening to British servicemen now? Was rather hoping that my initial sentence would avoid this can of worms and that we could stay on specific topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
figgy Posted October 13, 2019 Report Share Posted October 13, 2019 (edited) Just been on that Anne Sacoolas does not have Diplomatic immunity and is no longer immune from prosecution A letter was sent to the family from the foreign office. Edited October 13, 2019 by figgy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted October 13, 2019 Report Share Posted October 13, 2019 1 hour ago, figgy said: Just been on that Anne Dacoolas does not have Diplomatic immunity and is no longer immune from prosecution A letter was sent to the family from the foreign office. So Ditchman was correct then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted October 13, 2019 Report Share Posted October 13, 2019 Growing up near a big US base as a kid, US service men who got into trouble always got reposted. The most common crime was drink driving, followed by fights etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
figgy Posted October 13, 2019 Report Share Posted October 13, 2019 I did some work on a American base in Yorkshire. It was winter and snowing, one of the brass commented that at least a few of them would end up in a ditch or a colision as they can't drive very well and especially on the other side of the road in winter weather. Suppose same happens with ours in other countries, humans make mistakes. She should face the courts if that's where it goes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted October 13, 2019 Report Share Posted October 13, 2019 2 hours ago, figgy said: Just been on that Anne Sacoolas does not have Diplomatic immunity and is no longer immune from prosecution A letter was sent to the family from the foreign office. So if this is indeed true, will she also face charges for absconding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
figgy Posted October 13, 2019 Report Share Posted October 13, 2019 It's true you can watch the poor lads dad on YouTube with the letter from the foreign office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchman Posted October 13, 2019 Report Share Posted October 13, 2019 (edited) 48 minutes ago, Vince Green said: Growing up near a big US base as a kid, US service men who got into trouble always got reposted. The most common crime was drink driving, followed by fights etc when i did my apprentishship on the sandringham estate...princess anne had a bit of a snogging session with one of the local young policemen at the house during the xmas break ...she brought him donuts and they ate them together in the wooden shed.....he was a local boy fromn Dersingham...the Duke found out and had a word with his Super' and the poor sod got posted to the Orkeneys for 6 mths....... Edited October 13, 2019 by ditchman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted October 13, 2019 Report Share Posted October 13, 2019 47 minutes ago, figgy said: I did some work on a American base in Yorkshire. It was winter and snowing, one of the brass commented that at least a few of them would end up in a ditch or a colision as they can't drive very well and especially on the other side of the road in winter weather. Suppose same happens with ours in other countries, humans make mistakes. She should face the courts if that's where it goes. She has made things a hundred times worse by trying to run away. Nieve in the extreme to believe it wouldn't follow her, stories like this go global instantly. It could have been dealt with by a straight forward admission of guilt and the whole thing wouldn't have even gone beyond a few columns in the local paper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manthing Posted October 14, 2019 Report Share Posted October 14, 2019 12 hours ago, Vince Green said: She has made things a hundred times worse by trying to run away. Nieve in the extreme to believe it wouldn't follow her, stories like this go global instantly. It could have been dealt with by a straight forward admission of guilt and the whole thing wouldn't have even gone beyond a few columns in the local paper True. Probably fine and ban as no malice intended. As for her disappearing, I'm more inclined to think it was a case of "get on the plene and keep quiet" than her leaving but I haven't followed it closely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted October 14, 2019 Report Share Posted October 14, 2019 32 minutes ago, manthing said: True. Probably fine and ban as no malice intended. As for her disappearing, I'm more inclined to think it was a case of "get on the plene and keep quiet" than her leaving but I haven't followed it closely. A very sad state of affairs and especially for the poor parents of the 19 year old victim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldypigeonpopper Posted October 14, 2019 Report Share Posted October 14, 2019 hello, more than likely upset a few on here but i think this tragic news on the loss of a young man has now become a media circus, it has only been some weeks since Harry lost his life, for the parents to get on a plane to the USA with reporters or maybe led by a newspaper exclusive, i cannot see this American citizen ever returning to UK and facing our Criminal Court, we do not know the full facts of what happened at the crash site , the British foreign office have been no help, all in all it still must be the worst suffering any parent can go through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted October 14, 2019 Report Share Posted October 14, 2019 The United States has not denied a single extradition request from the UK. For extradition requests from the UK to the U.S. the subjects are in most cases extradited within several months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted October 19, 2019 Report Share Posted October 19, 2019 (edited) On 14/10/2019 at 09:49, oowee said: The United States has not denied a single extradition request from the UK. For extradition requests from the UK to the U.S. the subjects are in most cases extradited within several months. Yes it has, several IRA related extradition requests have been turned down in the past. Even when the terrorists had entered the USA illegally under false passports etc. Edited October 19, 2019 by Vince Green Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted October 19, 2019 Report Share Posted October 19, 2019 16 minutes ago, Vince Green said: Yes it has, lots of IRA related extradition requests were turned down in the 70s. Even when the terrorists had entered the USA illegally under false passports etc. I was referencing the US consulate web site. The US - UK extradition treaty was written in 2003 and only came into force in 2006. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.