Discussion:
Diplomatic Immunity
Add Reply
The Todal
2019-10-08 10:39:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.

America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other foot
the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity sometimes, so
that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.

The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to be
waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special relationship
with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The Sopranos. If
the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will pretend that he
never actually asked.

But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on trial
won't bring back Harry. It's not like fraud or murder, where the
perpetrator is likely to be a danger to society. Is it any different
from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of Edinburgh after his road
traffic accident?
tim...
2019-10-08 10:58:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed. She
leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but historically
it never does, although when the boot is on the other foot the UK and
other countries do waive diplomatic immunity sometimes, so that
perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to be
waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special relationship
with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The Sopranos. If the
answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will pretend that he never
actually asked.
Don't they, I thought that they did in such circumstances

Not that it's going to help

I can't see the US extraditing the woman for a traffic offence, however
serious

and she isn't likely to come back voluntarily, is she
Post by The Todal
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on trial
won't bring back Harry. It's not like fraud or murder, where the
perpetrator is likely to be a danger to society. Is it any different from
the decision not to prosecute the Duke of Edinburgh after his road traffic
accident?
and what sentence will she get if she does stand trial

banned from driving

I agree there's little point in this other than to placate the parents.
Norman Wells
2019-10-08 11:03:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other
foot the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity
sometimes, so that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to
be waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special
relationship with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The
Sopranos. If the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will
pretend that he never actually asked.
Don't they, I thought that they did in such circumstances
Not that it's going to help
I can't see the US extraditing the woman for a traffic offence, however
serious
and she isn't likely to come back voluntarily, is she
Post by The Todal
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on
trial won't bring back Harry. It's not like fraud or murder, where the
perpetrator is likely to be a danger to society. Is it any different
from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of Edinburgh after his
road traffic accident?
and what sentence will she get if she does stand trial
banned from driving
Causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.
nightjar
2019-10-08 11:29:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 08/10/2019 12:03, Norman Wells wrote:
...
Post by Norman Wells
Causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.
Causing death by careless driving as a result of momentary inattention,
which an American turning right onto the wrong side of the road might
count as, can result in nothing more than a community order.
--
Colin Bignell
R. Mark Clayton
2019-10-08 11:34:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by nightjar
...
Post by Norman Wells
Causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.
Causing death by careless driving as a result of momentary inattention,
which an American turning right onto the wrong side of the road might
count as, can result in nothing more than a community order.
Usually at least a ban and community work.

In the circumstances - can she be tried in absentia?
Post by nightjar
--
Colin Bignell
I did this emerging from a single track road onto a minor road in Washington State. Fortunately my boss was sat beside me and said "... what country are we in?", so nothing worse than embarrassment.
Grik-bastarde®™
2019-10-08 12:34:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by nightjar
...
Post by Norman Wells
Causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.
Causing death by careless driving as a result of momentary inattention,
which an American turning right onto the wrong side of the road might
count as, can result in nothing more than a community order.
Driving on the wrong side of the road isn't just careless...it's
dangerous.
Keema's Nan
2019-10-08 12:36:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by nightjar
...
Post by Norman Wells
Causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.
Causing death by careless driving as a result of momentary inattention,
which an American turning right onto the wrong side of the road might
count as, can result in nothing more than a community order.
Driving on the wrong side of the road isn't just careless...it's
dangerous.
Although, if you are in a foreign country where they drive on the opposite
side of the road to that which you are used to, it can be an easy mistake to
make if you are not concentrating fully.
abelard
2019-10-08 12:54:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:36:50 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by nightjar
...
Post by Norman Wells
Causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.
Causing death by careless driving as a result of momentary inattention,
which an American turning right onto the wrong side of the road might
count as, can result in nothing more than a community order.
Driving on the wrong side of the road isn't just careless...it's
dangerous.
Although, if you are in a foreign country where they drive on the opposite
side of the road to that which you are used to, it can be an easy mistake to
make if you are not concentrating fully.
in a free country you could drive on which ever side you wished
--
www.abelard.org
JNugent
2019-10-08 12:57:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:36:50 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by nightjar
...
Post by Norman Wells
Causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.
Causing death by careless driving as a result of momentary inattention,
which an American turning right onto the wrong side of the road might
count as, can result in nothing more than a community order.
Driving on the wrong side of the road isn't just careless...it's
dangerous.
Although, if you are in a foreign country where they drive on the opposite
side of the road to that which you are used to, it can be an easy mistake to
make if you are not concentrating fully.
in a free country you could drive on which ever side you wished
In the UK, you may do exactly that as long as no traffic is coming the
other way.

Or if you're on a bicycle.
Grik-bastarde®™
2019-10-08 13:24:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:36:50 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by nightjar
...
Post by Norman Wells
Causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.
Causing death by careless driving as a result of momentary inattention,
which an American turning right onto the wrong side of the road might
count as, can result in nothing more than a community order.
Driving on the wrong side of the road isn't just careless...it's
dangerous.
Although, if you are in a foreign country where they drive on the opposite
side of the road to that which you are used to, it can be an easy mistake to
make if you are not concentrating fully.
in a free country you could drive on which ever side you wished
In the UK, you may do exactly that as long as no traffic is coming the
other way.
No, you may not. You can't see traffic coming the other way if you're
approaching the brow of a hill (as the fugitive apparently was).
Post by JNugent
Or if you're on a bicycle.
Especially not on a bicycle.
JNugent
2019-10-08 15:05:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:36:50 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by nightjar
...
Post by Norman Wells
Causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.
Causing death by careless driving as a result of momentary inattention,
which an American turning right onto the wrong side of the road might
count as, can result in nothing more than a community order.
Driving on the wrong side of the road isn't just careless...it's
dangerous.
Although, if you are in a foreign country where they drive on the opposite
side of the road to that which you are used to, it can be an easy mistake to
make if you are not concentrating fully.
in a free country you could drive on which ever side you wished
In the UK, you may do exactly that as long as no traffic is coming the
other way.
No, you may not. You can't see traffic coming the other way if you're
approaching the brow of a hill (as the fugitive apparently was).
Post by JNugent
Or if you're on a bicycle.
Especially not on a bicycle.
It is as I said.
Grik-bastarde®™
2019-10-08 16:03:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:36:50 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by nightjar
...
Post by Norman Wells
Causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.
Causing death by careless driving as a result of momentary inattention,
which an American turning right onto the wrong side of the road might
count as, can result in nothing more than a community order.
Driving on the wrong side of the road isn't just careless...it's
dangerous.
Although, if you are in a foreign country where they drive on the opposite
side of the road to that which you are used to, it can be an easy mistake to
make if you are not concentrating fully.
in a free country you could drive on which ever side you wished
In the UK, you may do exactly that as long as no traffic is coming the
other way.
No, you may not. You can't see traffic coming the other way if you're
approaching the brow of a hill (as the fugitive apparently was).
Post by JNugent
Or if you're on a bicycle.
Especially not on a bicycle.
It is as I said.
No, it is not. It is the exact opposite.
Peeler
2019-10-08 16:17:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 09:03:27 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by JNugent
It is as I said.
No, it is not. It is the exact opposite.
HE's a Brit, and obviously not psychopathic! YOU are a serb peasant, and
CLEARLY psychopathic ...in addition to being utterly retarded and perverted!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic answering a question whether there
is any meaningful debate to lower the age of consent:
"If there isn't, there should be."
MID: <ZAMUE.174724$***@usenetxs.com>
Peeler
2019-10-08 15:47:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 06:24:29 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
No, you may not. You can't see traffic coming the other way if you're
approaching the brow of a hill (as the fugitive apparently was).
I believe, a real Brit would know better than a psychopathic serb "Brit" and
"WASP" wannabe! Innit, dreckserb Razovic?
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by JNugent
Or if you're on a bicycle.
Especially not on a bicycle.
"Especially"? Idiot! LOL
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Isn't it time that paedophiles were admitted to the LGBTQ rainbow?
Now that every other sexual deviation seems to have been accommodated?"
MID: <Y8LUE.513827$***@usenetxs.com>
Grik-bastarde®™
2019-10-08 13:23:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:36:50 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by nightjar
...
Post by Norman Wells
Causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.
Causing death by careless driving as a result of momentary inattention,
which an American turning right onto the wrong side of the road might
count as, can result in nothing more than a community order.
Driving on the wrong side of the road isn't just careless...it's
dangerous.
Although, if you are in a foreign country where they drive on the opposite
side of the road to that which you are used to, it can be an easy mistake to
make if you are not concentrating fully.
People like that should take the fucking bus.
Keema's Nan
2019-10-08 13:33:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:36:50 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by nightjar
...
Post by Norman Wells
Causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.
Causing death by careless driving as a result of momentary inattention,
which an American turning right onto the wrong side of the road might
count as, can result in nothing more than a community order.
Driving on the wrong side of the road isn't just careless...it's
dangerous.
Although, if you are in a foreign country where they drive on the opposite
side of the road to that which you are used to, it can be an easy mistake to
make if you are not concentrating fully.
People like that should take the fucking bus.
I would have done if someone had told me about the fucking bus in advance, if
I had to book early, and whether I would have had to pay for my fucking
partner or whether they would be provided free of charge by the bus owners.
Grik-bastarde®™
2019-10-08 13:35:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 14:33:20 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:36:50 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by nightjar
...
Post by Norman Wells
Causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14
years.
Causing death by careless driving as a result of momentary inattention,
which an American turning right onto the wrong side of the road might
count as, can result in nothing more than a community order.
Driving on the wrong side of the road isn't just careless...it's
dangerous.
Although, if you are in a foreign country where they drive on the opposite
side of the road to that which you are used to, it can be an easy mistake to
make if you are not concentrating fully.
People like that should take the fucking bus.
I would have done if someone had told me about the fucking bus in advance, if
I had to book early, and whether I would have had to pay for my fucking
partner or whether they would be provided free of charge by the bus owners.
Don't wait for someone to fucking tell you. Find out for yourself!
NEMO
2019-10-08 13:39:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Don't wait for someone to fucking tell you. Find out for yourself!
Do NOT use that tone when addressing HUMANS, you dirty little sub-louse.

Thank you.
Keema's Nan
2019-10-08 13:42:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 14:33:20 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:36:50 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by nightjar
...
Post by Norman Wells
Causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14
years.
Causing death by careless driving as a result of momentary inattention,
which an American turning right onto the wrong side of the road might
count as, can result in nothing more than a community order.
Driving on the wrong side of the road isn't just careless...it's
dangerous.
Although, if you are in a foreign country where they drive on the opposite
side of the road to that which you are used to, it can be an easy mistake to
make if you are not concentrating fully.
People like that should take the fucking bus.
I would have done if someone had told me about the fucking bus in advance, if
I had to book early, and whether I would have had to pay for my fucking
partner or whether they would be provided free of charge by the bus owners.
Don't wait for someone to fucking tell you. Find out for yourself!
I tried.

I googled “fucking bus” and all I got was links to x-porn sites.

I don’t want any dodgy stuff, just a bus service which allows/encourages
fucking during the journey.
Grik-bastarde®™
2019-10-08 14:33:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 14:42:14 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 14:33:20 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:36:50 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by nightjar
...
Post by Norman Wells
Causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14
years.
Causing death by careless driving as a result of momentary inattention,
which an American turning right onto the wrong side of the road might
count as, can result in nothing more than a community order.
Driving on the wrong side of the road isn't just careless...it's
dangerous.
Although, if you are in a foreign country where they drive on the opposite
side of the road to that which you are used to, it can be an easy mistake to
make if you are not concentrating fully.
People like that should take the fucking bus.
I would have done if someone had told me about the fucking bus in advance, if
I had to book early, and whether I would have had to pay for my fucking
partner or whether they would be provided free of charge by the bus owners.
Don't wait for someone to fucking tell you. Find out for yourself!
I tried.
I googled “fucking bus” and all I got was links to x-porn sites.
I don’t want any dodgy stuff, just a bus service which allows/encourages
fucking during the journey.
That *is* dodgy stuff...especially if it involves fucking oneself.
Peeler
2019-10-08 15:50:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 07:33:23 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
That *is* dodgy stuff...especially if it involves fucking oneself.
...the ONLY kind of "fucking" YOU know, housebound pedophilic psychopath!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic answering a question whether there
is any meaningful debate to lower the age of consent:
"If there isn't, there should be."
MID: <ZAMUE.174724$***@usenetxs.com>
Peeler
2019-10-08 15:49:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 06:35:35 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by Keema's Nan
partner or whether they would be provided free of charge by the bus owners.
Don't wait for someone to fucking tell you. Find out for yourself!
He STILL needs to find out what a perverted, abnormal, psychopathic swine
you really are, dreckserb!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"There will always be progressives such as Harriet Harperson who want to
take that extra step forward. Paedophiles are still a long way from
being widely accepted."
MID: <rlMUE.676067$***@usenetxs.com>
Peeler
2019-10-08 15:47:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 06:23:04 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by Keema's Nan
Although, if you are in a foreign country where they drive on the opposite
side of the road to that which you are used to, it can be an easy mistake to
make if you are not concentrating fully.
People like that should take the fucking bus.
People like you should be institionalized, psychopath!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"That [referring to the term "consenting adults"] is just an outdated legal
construct. Are you telling me that a 13-year old who spends 15 hours a day
on Facebook is incapable of consent?"
MID: <Og0VE.1298131$***@usenetxs.com>
Peeler
2019-10-08 15:44:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 05:34:06 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by nightjar
Causing death by careless driving as a result of momentary inattention,
which an American turning right onto the wrong side of the road might
count as, can result in nothing more than a community order.
Driving on the wrong side of the road isn't just careless...it's
dangerous.
No shit, psycho!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Why do we still have outdated laws prohibiting paedophilia? Do you
seriously think that a 12-year old who spends 15 hours a day on Facebook
doesn't know what's going on?"
MID: <FnMUE.676068$***@usenetxs.com>
nightjar
2019-10-08 15:49:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by nightjar
...
Post by Norman Wells
Causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.
Causing death by careless driving as a result of momentary inattention,
which an American turning right onto the wrong side of the road might
count as, can result in nothing more than a community order.
Driving on the wrong side of the road isn't just careless...it's
dangerous.
Easily done when abroad though. I have done it once in France. I was
turning left out of a one-way street. That meant I had driven down the
street on the left so, when I turned left, I stayed on the left side of
the road. Not long enough to hit any oncoming traffic before I corrected
myself, but if the oncoming car (British: the driver grinned and waved)
had been closer, it could have resulted in a collision.
--
Colin Bignell
Peeler
2019-10-08 16:19:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 16:49:02 +0100, nightjar, another brain damaged,
Post by nightjar
myself, but if the oncoming car (British: the driver grinned and waved)
had been closer, it could have resulted in a collision.
Was that really necessary, you troll-feeding senile asshole? Can't you try
to fight your senility?
The Todal
2019-10-08 11:29:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by tim...
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is
killed. She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other
foot the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity
sometimes, so that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to
be waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special
relationship with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The
Sopranos. If the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will
pretend that he never actually asked.
Don't they, I thought that they did in such circumstances
Not that it's going to help
I can't see the US extraditing the woman for a traffic offence,
however serious
and she isn't likely to come back voluntarily, is she
Post by The Todal
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on
trial won't bring back Harry. It's not like fraud or murder, where
the perpetrator is likely to be a danger to society. Is it any
different from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of Edinburgh
after his road traffic accident?
and what sentence will she get if she does stand trial
banned from driving
Causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.
Unlikely to stick. Causing death from careless or inconsiderate driving
carries a maximum sentence of 5 years.

I wonder if the sentence might be less in the USA, where Americans all
dote on their automobiles and probably have more collisions than we do.
Grik-bastarde®™
2019-10-08 12:30:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 12:29:17 +0100, Jon The Todal, a notorious semite
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by tim...
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is
killed. She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other
foot the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity
sometimes, so that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to
be waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special
relationship with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The
Sopranos. If the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will
pretend that he never actually asked.
Don't they, I thought that they did in such circumstances
Not that it's going to help
I can't see the US extraditing the woman for a traffic offence,
however serious
and she isn't likely to come back voluntarily, is she
Post by The Todal
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on
trial won't bring back Harry. It's not like fraud or murder, where
the perpetrator is likely to be a danger to society. Is it any
different from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of Edinburgh
after his road traffic accident?
and what sentence will she get if she does stand trial
banned from driving
Causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.
Unlikely to stick. Causing death from careless or inconsiderate driving
carries a maximum sentence of 5 years.
I wonder if the sentence might be less in the USA, where Americans all
dote on their automobiles and probably have more collisions than we do.
The sentences in the Great Satan are likely to be much higher: 99
years without the possiblity of parole.
Keema's Nan
2019-10-08 12:34:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 12:29:17 +0100, Jon The Todal, a notorious semite
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by tim...
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is
killed. She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other
foot the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity
sometimes, so that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to
be waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special
relationship with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The
Sopranos. If the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will
pretend that he never actually asked.
Don't they, I thought that they did in such circumstances
Not that it's going to help
I can't see the US extraditing the woman for a traffic offence,
however serious
and she isn't likely to come back voluntarily, is she
Post by The Todal
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on
trial won't bring back Harry. It's not like fraud or murder, where
the perpetrator is likely to be a danger to society. Is it any
different from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of Edinburgh
after his road traffic accident?
and what sentence will she get if she does stand trial
banned from driving
Causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.
Unlikely to stick. Causing death from careless or inconsiderate driving
carries a maximum sentence of 5 years.
I wonder if the sentence might be less in the USA, where Americans all
dote on their automobiles and probably have more collisions than we do.
The sentences in the Great Satan are likely to be much higher: 99
years without the possiblity of parole.
No, that is only for someone who has hacked their way into the
“unbreakable” code of the CIA and discovered things they don’t want
anyone to know about.

More trivial offences, such as killing someone, result in far more lenient
sentences.
Grik-bastarde®™
2019-10-08 12:39:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:34:42 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 12:29:17 +0100, Jon The Todal, a notorious semite
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by tim...
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is
killed. She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other
foot the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity
sometimes, so that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to
be waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special
relationship with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The
Sopranos. If the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will
pretend that he never actually asked.
Don't they, I thought that they did in such circumstances
Not that it's going to help
I can't see the US extraditing the woman for a traffic offence,
however serious
and she isn't likely to come back voluntarily, is she
Post by The Todal
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on
trial won't bring back Harry. It's not like fraud or murder, where
the perpetrator is likely to be a danger to society. Is it any
different from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of Edinburgh
after his road traffic accident?
and what sentence will she get if she does stand trial
banned from driving
Causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.
Unlikely to stick. Causing death from careless or inconsiderate driving
carries a maximum sentence of 5 years.
I wonder if the sentence might be less in the USA, where Americans all
dote on their automobiles and probably have more collisions than we do.
The sentences in the Great Satan are likely to be much higher: 99
years without the possiblity of parole.
No, that is only for someone who has hacked their way into the
“unbreakable” code of the CIA and discovered things they don’t want
anyone to know about.
More trivial offences, such as killing someone, result in far more lenient
sentences.
I suggest you put that to the test somewhere like Florida (where life
sentence means life sentence with no parole) and see if you get out in
less than 50 years.
NEMO
2019-10-08 13:09:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
I suggest you
AHEM. Look, sub-lice CANNOT suggest ANYTHING to humans.

Thank you.
Peeler
2019-10-08 15:55:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by NEMO
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
I suggest you
AHEM. Look, sub-lice CANNOT suggest ANYTHING to humans.
GOOD point!
Keema's Nan
2019-10-08 13:16:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:34:42 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 12:29:17 +0100, Jon The Todal, a notorious semite
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by tim...
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is
killed. She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other
foot the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity
sometimes, so that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to
be waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special
relationship with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The
Sopranos. If the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will
pretend that he never actually asked.
Don't they, I thought that they did in such circumstances
Not that it's going to help
I can't see the US extraditing the woman for a traffic offence,
however serious
and she isn't likely to come back voluntarily, is she
Post by The Todal
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on
trial won't bring back Harry. It's not like fraud or murder, where
the perpetrator is likely to be a danger to society. Is it any
different from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of Edinburgh
after his road traffic accident?
and what sentence will she get if she does stand trial
banned from driving
Causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.
Unlikely to stick. Causing death from careless or inconsiderate driving
carries a maximum sentence of 5 years.
I wonder if the sentence might be less in the USA, where Americans all
dote on their automobiles and probably have more collisions than we do.
The sentences in the Great Satan are likely to be much higher: 99
years without the possiblity of parole.
No, that is only for someone who has hacked their way into the
“unbreakable” code of the CIA and discovered things they don’t want
anyone to know about.
More trivial offences, such as killing someone, result in far more lenient
sentences.
I suggest you put that to the test somewhere like Florida (where life
sentence means life sentence with no parole) and see if you get out in
less than 50 years.
It is called sarcasm.

My theory is that if I subject you to it for a thousand times over a year or
so, you might actually go some way to actually recognising it.

You may never understand it, but at least you will know it when you see it.
Grik-bastarde®™
2019-10-08 13:25:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 14:16:09 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:34:42 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 12:29:17 +0100, Jon The Todal, a notorious semite
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by tim...
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is
killed. She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other
foot the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity
sometimes, so that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to
be waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special
relationship with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The
Sopranos. If the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will
pretend that he never actually asked.
Don't they, I thought that they did in such circumstances
Not that it's going to help
I can't see the US extraditing the woman for a traffic offence,
however serious
and she isn't likely to come back voluntarily, is she
Post by The Todal
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on
trial won't bring back Harry. It's not like fraud or murder, where
the perpetrator is likely to be a danger to society. Is it any
different from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of Edinburgh
after his road traffic accident?
and what sentence will she get if she does stand trial
banned from driving
Causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14
years.
Unlikely to stick. Causing death from careless or inconsiderate driving
carries a maximum sentence of 5 years.
I wonder if the sentence might be less in the USA, where Americans all
dote on their automobiles and probably have more collisions than we do.
The sentences in the Great Satan are likely to be much higher: 99
years without the possiblity of parole.
No, that is only for someone who has hacked their way into the
“unbreakable” code of the CIA and discovered things they don’t want
anyone to know about.
More trivial offences, such as killing someone, result in far more lenient
sentences.
I suggest you put that to the test somewhere like Florida (where life
sentence means life sentence with no parole) and see if you get out in
less than 50 years.
It is called sarcasm.
My theory is that if I subject you to it for a thousand times over a year or
so, you might actually go some way to actually recognising it.
You may never understand it, but at least you will know it when you see it.
Sarcasm? I thought it was ignorance or stupidity...or possibly both.
Keema's Nan
2019-10-08 13:35:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 14:16:09 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:34:42 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 12:29:17 +0100, Jon The Todal, a notorious semite
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by tim...
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is
killed. She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other
foot the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity
sometimes, so that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to
be waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special
relationship with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The
Sopranos. If the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will
pretend that he never actually asked.
Don't they, I thought that they did in such circumstances
Not that it's going to help
I can't see the US extraditing the woman for a traffic offence,
however serious
and she isn't likely to come back voluntarily, is she
Post by The Todal
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on
trial won't bring back Harry. It's not like fraud or murder, where
the perpetrator is likely to be a danger to society. Is it any
different from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of Edinburgh
after his road traffic accident?
and what sentence will she get if she does stand trial
banned from driving
Causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14
years.
Unlikely to stick. Causing death from careless or inconsiderate driving
carries a maximum sentence of 5 years.
I wonder if the sentence might be less in the USA, where Americans all
dote on their automobiles and probably have more collisions than we do.
The sentences in the Great Satan are likely to be much higher: 99
years without the possiblity of parole.
No, that is only for someone who has hacked their way into the
“unbreakable” code of the CIA and discovered things they don’t want
anyone to know about.
More trivial offences, such as killing someone, result in far more lenient
sentences.
I suggest you put that to the test somewhere like Florida (where life
sentence means life sentence with no parole) and see if you get out in
less than 50 years.
It is called sarcasm.
My theory is that if I subject you to it for a thousand times over a year or
so, you might actually go some way to actually recognising it.
You may never understand it, but at least you will know it when you see it.
Sarcasm? I thought it was ignorance or stupidity...or possibly both.
......is the stereotypical, but wrong, answer.
Grik-bastarde®™
2019-10-08 14:34:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 14:35:43 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 14:16:09 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:34:42 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 12:29:17 +0100, Jon The Todal, a notorious semite
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by tim...
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is
killed. She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other
foot the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity
sometimes, so that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to
be waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special
relationship with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The
Sopranos. If the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will
pretend that he never actually asked.
Don't they, I thought that they did in such circumstances
Not that it's going to help
I can't see the US extraditing the woman for a traffic offence,
however serious
and she isn't likely to come back voluntarily, is she
Post by The Todal
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on
trial won't bring back Harry. It's not like fraud or murder, where
the perpetrator is likely to be a danger to society. Is it any
different from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of Edinburgh
after his road traffic accident?
and what sentence will she get if she does stand trial
banned from driving
Causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14
years.
Unlikely to stick. Causing death from careless or inconsiderate driving
carries a maximum sentence of 5 years.
I wonder if the sentence might be less in the USA, where Americans all
dote on their automobiles and probably have more collisions than we do.
The sentences in the Great Satan are likely to be much higher: 99
years without the possiblity of parole.
No, that is only for someone who has hacked their way into the
“unbreakable” code of the CIA and discovered things they don’t want
anyone to know about.
More trivial offences, such as killing someone, result in far more lenient
sentences.
I suggest you put that to the test somewhere like Florida (where life
sentence means life sentence with no parole) and see if you get out in
less than 50 years.
It is called sarcasm.
My theory is that if I subject you to it for a thousand times over a year or
so, you might actually go some way to actually recognising it.
You may never understand it, but at least you will know it when you see it.
Sarcasm? I thought it was ignorance or stupidity...or possibly both.
......is the stereotypical, but wrong, answer.
Wrong. It was the correct...and only answer. Especially so in your
case.
Peeler
2019-10-08 15:58:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 07:34:16 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by Keema's Nan
......is the stereotypical, but wrong, answer.
Wrong. It was the correct...and only answer. Especially so in your
case.
It was another PSYCHOPATHIC answer, psychopath! You are just too retarded to
ever realize it!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Isn't it time that paedophiles were admitted to the LGBTQ rainbow?
Now that every other sexual deviation seems to have been accommodated?"
MID: <Y8LUE.513827$***@usenetxs.com>
Peeler
2019-10-08 15:57:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 06:25:30 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Sarcasm? I thought it was ignorance or stupidity...or possibly both.
You mean he could be your equal? Interesting point, idiot!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"That [referring to the term "consenting adults"] is just an outdated legal
construct. Are you telling me that a 13-year old who spends 15 hours a day
on Facebook is incapable of consent?"
MID: <Og0VE.1298131$***@usenetxs.com>
Peeler
2019-10-08 15:53:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:34:42 +0100, Keema's Nan, another brain damaged,
Post by Keema's Nan
No, that is only for someone who has hacked their way into the
“unbreakable” code of the CIA and discovered things they don’t want
anyone to know about.
More trivial offences, such as killing someone, result in far more lenient
sentences.
Are you an idiot or what? Or just as clinically insane as the psychopathic
asshole you KEEP humouring with your idiotic drivel?
Peeler
2019-10-08 15:52:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 05:30:02 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by The Todal
I wonder if the sentence might be less in the USA, where Americans all
dote on their automobiles and probably have more collisions than we do.
The sentences in the Great Satan are likely to be much higher: 99
years without the possiblity of parole.
Are you sure, psychopath? Psychopathically sure, again? <BG>
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Why do we still have outdated laws prohibiting paedophilia? Do you
seriously think that a 12-year old who spends 15 hours a day on Facebook
doesn't know what's going on?"
MID: <FnMUE.676068$***@usenetxs.com>
Incubus
2019-10-08 10:58:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other foot
the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity sometimes, so
that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to be
waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special relationship
with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The Sopranos. If
the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will pretend that he
never actually asked.
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on trial
won't bring back Harry. It's not like fraud or murder, where the
perpetrator is likely to be a danger to society. Is it any different
from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of Edinburgh after his road
traffic accident?
By the same token, if someone ran over your loved one and fled abroad, what
difference would it make if they never stand trial? It won't bring him or her
back and it's not like they're a danger to society. They're just a bit careless
on the road.
The Todal
2019-10-08 11:35:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other foot
the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity sometimes, so
that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to be
waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special relationship
with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The Sopranos. If
the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will pretend that he
never actually asked.
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on trial
won't bring back Harry. It's not like fraud or murder, where the
perpetrator is likely to be a danger to society. Is it any different
from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of Edinburgh after his road
traffic accident?
By the same token, if someone ran over your loved one and fled abroad, what
difference would it make if they never stand trial? It won't bring him or her
back and it's not like they're a danger to society. They're just a bit careless
on the road.
But is that always how you decide such things - on the basis of "how
would I feel if it happened to me?"?

You won't always be able to predict how you would feel. If a family
member dies as a result of a mistake by doctors, or even in a road
traffic accident which took place in a foreign country, I think many of
us would not want to embark on a crusade to pin blame on someone and get
compensation. We'd grieve and move on. But maybe this story has legs
because the perpetrator has left the country and is claiming diplomatic
immunity. So she must be running away! So we must catch her!
Keema's Nan
2019-10-08 11:51:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other foot
the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity sometimes, so
that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to be
waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special relationship
with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The Sopranos. If
the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will pretend that he
never actually asked.
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on trial
won't bring back Harry. It's not like fraud or murder, where the
perpetrator is likely to be a danger to society. Is it any different
from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of Edinburgh after his road
traffic accident?
By the same token, if someone ran over your loved one and fled abroad, what
difference would it make if they never stand trial? It won't bring him or
her
back and it's not like they're a danger to society. They're just a bit
careless
on the road.
But is that always how you decide such things - on the basis of "how
would I feel if it happened to me?"?
Isn’t that known as unselfishness and a consideration for others?

Were you not taught that as a child?
Post by The Todal
You won't always be able to predict how you would feel. If a family
member dies as a result of a mistake by doctors, or even in a road
traffic accident which took place in a foreign country, I think many of
us would not want to embark on a crusade to pin blame on someone and get
compensation. We'd grieve and move on. But maybe this story has legs
because the perpetrator has left the country and is claiming diplomatic
immunity. So she must be running away! So we must catch her!
abelard
2019-10-08 11:58:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:51:43 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other foot
the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity sometimes, so
that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to be
waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special relationship
with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The Sopranos. If
the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will pretend that he
never actually asked.
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on trial
won't bring back Harry. It's not like fraud or murder, where the
perpetrator is likely to be a danger to society. Is it any different
from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of Edinburgh after his road
traffic accident?
By the same token, if someone ran over your loved one and fled abroad, what
difference would it make if they never stand trial? It won't bring him or
her
back and it's not like they're a danger to society. They're just a bit
careless
on the road.
But is that always how you decide such things - on the basis of "how
would I feel if it happened to me?"?
Isn’t that known as unselfishness and a consideration for others?
Were you not taught that as a child?
do you think he may be 'autistic'? he does rather go on about it
--
www.abelard.org
JNugent
2019-10-08 11:59:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other foot
the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity sometimes, so
that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to be
waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special relationship
with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The Sopranos. If
the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will pretend that he
never actually asked.
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on trial
won't bring back Harry. It's not like fraud or murder, where the
perpetrator is likely to be a danger to society. Is it any different
from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of Edinburgh after his road
traffic accident?
By the same token, if someone ran over your loved one and fled abroad, what
difference would it make if they never stand trial? It won't bring him or
her
back and it's not like they're a danger to society. They're just a bit
careless
on the road.
But is that always how you decide such things - on the basis of "how
would I feel if it happened to me?"?
Isn’t that known as unselfishness and a consideration for others?
Were you not taught that as a child?
Indeed. And it is sometimes put in the form: "Do unto others as you
would have them do unto you".
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by The Todal
You won't always be able to predict how you would feel. If a family
member dies as a result of a mistake by doctors, or even in a road
traffic accident which took place in a foreign country, I think many of
us would not want to embark on a crusade to pin blame on someone and get
compensation. We'd grieve and move on. But maybe this story has legs
because the perpetrator has left the country and is claiming diplomatic
immunity. So she must be running away! So we must catch her!
The Todal
2019-10-08 18:20:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other foot
the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity sometimes, so
that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to be
waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special
relationship
with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The Sopranos. If
the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will pretend that he
never actually asked.
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on trial
won't bring back Harry. It's not like fraud or murder, where the
perpetrator is likely to be a danger to society. Is it any different
from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of Edinburgh after his road
traffic accident?
By the same token, if someone ran over your loved one and fled abroad, what
difference would it make if they never stand trial? It won't bring him or
her
back and it's not like they're a danger to society. They're just a bit
careless
on the road.
But is that always how you decide such things - on the basis of "how
would I feel if it happened to me?"?
Isn’t that known as unselfishness and a consideration for others?
Were you not taught that as a child?
Indeed. And it is sometimes put in the form: "Do unto others as you
would have them do unto you".
So, applying this maxim, I don't get involved in futile obsessive legal
crusades (other than to contribute a modest sum occasionally to a good
cause) and I urge Harry's family to follow my example.

Grieve for your lost son, and move on. This isn't a worthwhile crusade
and the enthusiastic interest of the gutter press doesn't prove that it
is worthwhile.
Incubus
2019-10-08 12:08:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other foot
the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity sometimes, so
that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to be
waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special relationship
with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The Sopranos. If
the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will pretend that he
never actually asked.
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on trial
won't bring back Harry. It's not like fraud or murder, where the
perpetrator is likely to be a danger to society. Is it any different
from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of Edinburgh after his road
traffic accident?
By the same token, if someone ran over your loved one and fled abroad, what
difference would it make if they never stand trial? It won't bring him or her
back and it's not like they're a danger to society. They're just a bit careless
on the road.
But is that always how you decide such things - on the basis of "how
would I feel if it happened to me?"?
That's called empathising with the victim's family. After all, lots of bad
things happen to other people. Why bother punishing criminals at all? It
wasn't my nose that got broken or my child who was hit by a cyclist.
Post by The Todal
You won't always be able to predict how you would feel. If a family
member dies as a result of a mistake by doctors, or even in a road
traffic accident which took place in a foreign country, I think many of
us would not want to embark on a crusade to pin blame on someone and get
compensation. We'd grieve and move on. But maybe this story has legs
because the perpetrator has left the country and is claiming diplomatic
immunity. So she must be running away! So we must catch her!
It seems to me that there is a case to answer.

I'm glad you weren't a defence solicitor.
The Todal
2019-10-08 18:21:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other foot
the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity sometimes, so
that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to be
waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special relationship
with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The Sopranos. If
the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will pretend that he
never actually asked.
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on trial
won't bring back Harry. It's not like fraud or murder, where the
perpetrator is likely to be a danger to society. Is it any different
from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of Edinburgh after his road
traffic accident?
By the same token, if someone ran over your loved one and fled abroad, what
difference would it make if they never stand trial? It won't bring him or her
back and it's not like they're a danger to society. They're just a bit careless
on the road.
But is that always how you decide such things - on the basis of "how
would I feel if it happened to me?"?
That's called empathising with the victim's family. After all, lots of bad
things happen to other people. Why bother punishing criminals at all? It
wasn't my nose that got broken or my child who was hit by a cyclist.
Post by The Todal
You won't always be able to predict how you would feel. If a family
member dies as a result of a mistake by doctors, or even in a road
traffic accident which took place in a foreign country, I think many of
us would not want to embark on a crusade to pin blame on someone and get
compensation. We'd grieve and move on. But maybe this story has legs
because the perpetrator has left the country and is claiming diplomatic
immunity. So she must be running away! So we must catch her!
It seems to me that there is a case to answer.
I'm glad you weren't a defence solicitor.
But I was.
Grik-bastarde®™
2019-10-08 12:32:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 10:58:51 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other foot
the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity sometimes, so
that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to be
waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special relationship
with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The Sopranos. If
the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will pretend that he
never actually asked.
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on trial
won't bring back Harry. It's not like fraud or murder, where the
perpetrator is likely to be a danger to society. Is it any different
from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of Edinburgh after his road
traffic accident?
By the same token, if someone ran over your loved one and fled abroad, what
difference would it make if they never stand trial? It won't bring him or her
back and it's not like they're a danger to society. They're just a bit careless
on the road.
Perhaps the family can sue the absconding woman (who apparently has a
driving conviction from 2006) in the American courts....BIG bucks!
Peeler
2019-10-08 15:43:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 05:32:53 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Perhaps the family can sue the absconding woman (who apparently has a
driving conviction from 2006) in the American courts....BIG bucks!
...says, of course, the resident psychopath! <BG>
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic answering a question whether there
is any meaningful debate to lower the age of consent:
"If there isn't, there should be."
MID: <ZAMUE.174724$***@usenetxs.com>
The Todal
2019-10-08 18:22:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 10:58:51 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other foot
the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity sometimes, so
that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to be
waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special relationship
with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The Sopranos. If
the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will pretend that he
never actually asked.
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on trial
won't bring back Harry. It's not like fraud or murder, where the
perpetrator is likely to be a danger to society. Is it any different
from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of Edinburgh after his road
traffic accident?
By the same token, if someone ran over your loved one and fled abroad, what
difference would it make if they never stand trial? It won't bring him or her
back and it's not like they're a danger to society. They're just a bit careless
on the road.
Perhaps the family can sue the absconding woman (who apparently has a
driving conviction from 2006) in the American courts....BIG bucks!
I'm sure she had a policy of motor insurance and that the insurers will
pay up - but only the sum that would be awarded in English law.
Peeler
2019-10-08 19:18:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:08:56 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by The Todal
I'm sure she had a policy of motor insurance and that the insurers will
pay up - but only the sum that would be awarded in English law.
That can all be done through the English courts. The family should
sue for punitive damages in the Great Satan's courts too.
What if the family were Jews, psychopath? What would you say if they sued?
Eh, idiot? <BG>
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"There will always be progressives such as Harriet Harperson who want to
take that extra step forward. Paedophiles are still a long way from
being widely accepted."
MID: <rlMUE.676067$***@usenetxs.com>
Keema's Nan
2019-10-08 11:36:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other foot
the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity sometimes, so
that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to be
waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special relationship
with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The Sopranos. If
the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will pretend that he
never actually asked.
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on trial
won't bring back Harry. It's not like fraud or murder, where the
perpetrator is likely to be a danger to society. Is it any different
from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of Edinburgh after his road
traffic accident?
Yes, I think so.

For a start, the DofE didn’t kill anyone and didn’t flee the country
after the event. And secondly, the police tend not to press charges with
elderly drivers if there are mitigating circumstances (low-level sun in the
eyes) and the culprit agrees to surrender their driving license.
Grik-bastarde®™
2019-10-08 12:35:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:36:27 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other foot
the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity sometimes, so
that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to be
waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special relationship
with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The Sopranos. If
the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will pretend that he
never actually asked.
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on trial
won't bring back Harry. It's not like fraud or murder, where the
perpetrator is likely to be a danger to society. Is it any different
from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of Edinburgh after his road
traffic accident?
Yes, I think so.
For a start, the DofE didn’t kill anyone and didn’t flee the country
after the event. And secondly, the police tend not to press charges with
elderly drivers if there are mitigating circumstances (low-level sun in the
eyes) and the culprit agrees to surrender their driving license.
Also if they're 'royalty' or 'nobility': forelock tugging comes into
play.
Peeler
2019-10-08 16:00:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 05:35:32 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by Keema's Nan
For a start, the DofE didn’t kill anyone and didn’t flee the country
after the event. And secondly, the police tend not to press charges with
elderly drivers if there are mitigating circumstances (low-level sun in the
eyes) and the culprit agrees to surrender their driving license.
Also if they're 'royalty' or 'nobility': forelock tugging comes into
play.
You sure, psychopath? Psychopathically sure again? <BG>
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"There will always be progressives such as Harriet Harperson who want to
take that extra step forward. Paedophiles are still a long way from
being widely accepted."
MID: <rlMUE.676067$***@usenetxs.com>
JNugent
2019-10-08 11:50:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
She didn't "claim" diplomatic immunity.

She *had* (and continues to have) diplomatic immunity.
Post by The Todal
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other foot
the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity sometimes, so
that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to be
waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special relationship
with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The Sopranos. If
the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will pretend that he
never actually asked.
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on trial
won't bring back Harry. It's not like fraud or murder, where the
perpetrator is likely to be a danger to society. Is it any different
from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of Edinburgh after his road
traffic accident?
OK, this is a fatal traffic accident, with all the seriousness and
import involved in such a thing. But "diplomatic" immunity is used all
the time - especially, but certainly not limited to - by the staff of a
certain High Commission in Northumberland Avenue, London WC. Where is
the outcry about their long-standing and flagrant non-compliance with
traffic rules, including parking restrictions and compliance with
pedestrian crossings, etc? I know of at least one case where a
pedestrian was knocked over and severely injured on a zebra crossing by
someone f=rom that "diplomatic" mission. It was never punished and the
victim received no compensation other than his normal UK benefits when
he had to give up work.
Keema's Nan
2019-10-08 12:06:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
She didn't "claim" diplomatic immunity.
She *had* (and continues to have) diplomatic immunity.
Then why flee the country?
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other foot
the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity sometimes, so
that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to be
waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special relationship
with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The Sopranos. If
the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will pretend that he
never actually asked.
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on trial
won't bring back Harry. It's not like fraud or murder, where the
perpetrator is likely to be a danger to society. Is it any different
from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of Edinburgh after his road
traffic accident?
OK, this is a fatal traffic accident, with all the seriousness and
import involved in such a thing. But "diplomatic" immunity is used all
the time - especially, but certainly not limited to - by the staff of a
certain High Commission in Northumberland Avenue, London WC. Where is
the outcry about their long-standing and flagrant non-compliance with
traffic rules, including parking restrictions and compliance with
pedestrian crossings, etc? I know of at least one case where a
pedestrian was knocked over and severely injured on a zebra crossing by
someone f=rom that "diplomatic" mission. It was never punished and the
victim received no compensation other than his normal UK benefits when
he had to give up work.
abelard
2019-10-08 12:08:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:06:45 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
She didn't "claim" diplomatic immunity.
She *had* (and continues to have) diplomatic immunity.
Then why flee the country?
if she did

'flee' is emotionalism
--
www.abelard.org
Grik-bastarde®™
2019-10-08 12:41:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:06:45 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
She didn't "claim" diplomatic immunity.
She *had* (and continues to have) diplomatic immunity.
Then why flee the country?
if she did
She obviously did. With her husband. At short notice.
Post by abelard
'flee' is emotionalism
And it was an emotional decision.
abelard
2019-10-08 12:48:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 05:41:23 -0700, Grik-bastarde®™
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:06:45 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
She didn't "claim" diplomatic immunity.
She *had* (and continues to have) diplomatic immunity.
Then why flee the country?
if she did
She obviously did. With her husband. At short notice.
or their posting expired in a month...
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
'flee' is emotionalism
And it was an emotional decision.
you have no evidence for that claim

or her bosses decided they'd rather not have the hassle
and/or publicity...
--
www.abelard.org
Grik-bastarde®™
2019-10-08 13:27:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 05:41:23 -0700, Grik-bastarde®™
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:06:45 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
She didn't "claim" diplomatic immunity.
She *had* (and continues to have) diplomatic immunity.
Then why flee the country?
if she did
She obviously did. With her husband. At short notice.
or their posting expired in a month...
That would have been exceptionally coincidental.
Post by abelard
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
'flee' is emotionalism
And it was an emotional decision.
you have no evidence for that claim
Fight or flight: those are the two human responses to situations such
as these. Both are emotional.
Post by abelard
or her bosses decided they'd rather not have the hassle
and/or publicity...
Her husband's bosses already have both.
abelard
2019-10-08 13:39:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 06:27:48 -0700, Grik-bastarde®™
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 05:41:23 -0700, Grik-bastarde®™
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:06:45 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
She didn't "claim" diplomatic immunity.
She *had* (and continues to have) diplomatic immunity.
Then why flee the country?
if she did
She obviously did. With her husband. At short notice.
or their posting expired in a month...
That would have been exceptionally coincidental.
life i riddled with coincidences
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
'flee' is emotionalism
And it was an emotional decision.
you have no evidence for that claim
Fight or flight: those are the two human responses to situations such
as these.
an a third response is 'freeze'
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Both are emotional.
so, you are defining emotion as instinct...i don't mind that
on bit...but i hardly accords with common usage...
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
or her bosses decided they'd rather not have the hassle
and/or publicity...
Her husband's bosses already have both.
it'll probably blow over in a few days..a cost they may well
be prepared to pay

america is the most powerful state on earth..by far...
a dividend of that is to be able to make the rules
and to regard all other power centres as subservient
--
www.abelard.org
Grik-bastarde®™
2019-10-08 14:40:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 06:27:48 -0700, Grik-bastarde®™
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 05:41:23 -0700, Grik-bastarde®™
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:06:45 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
She didn't "claim" diplomatic immunity.
She *had* (and continues to have) diplomatic immunity.
Then why flee the country?
if she did
She obviously did. With her husband. At short notice.
or their posting expired in a month...
That would have been exceptionally coincidental.
life i riddled with coincidences
It can be. There have been no indications of such riddling in this
case.
Post by abelard
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
'flee' is emotionalism
And it was an emotional decision.
you have no evidence for that claim
Fight or flight: those are the two human responses to situations such
as these.
an a third response is 'freeze'
Indeed. If one is too scared to fight or flee.
Post by abelard
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Both are emotional.
so, you are defining emotion as instinct...i don't mind that
on bit...but i hardly accords with common usage...
The emotion arises from the instinct.
Post by abelard
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
or her bosses decided they'd rather not have the hassle
and/or publicity...
Her husband's bosses already have both.
it'll probably blow over in a few days..a cost they may well
be prepared to pay
I doubt it will blow over that quickly now that the tabloids have got
their teeth into it.
Post by abelard
america is the most powerful state on earth..by far...
a dividend of that is to be able to make the rules
and to regard all other power centres as subservient
I look forward to a round of mutual expulsions of diplomats, similar
to what typically happens when the Russians break the rules.
Keema's Nan
2019-10-08 15:09:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 06:27:48 -0700, Grik-bastarde®™
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 05:41:23 -0700, Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:06:45 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is
killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
She didn't "claim" diplomatic immunity.
She *had* (and continues to have) diplomatic immunity.
Then why flee the country?
if she did
She obviously did. With her husband. At short notice.
or their posting expired in a month...
That would have been exceptionally coincidental.
life i riddled with coincidences
It can be. There have been no indications of such riddling in this
case.
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
'flee' is emotionalism
And it was an emotional decision.
you have no evidence for that claim
Fight or flight: those are the two human responses to situations such
as these.
an a third response is 'freeze'
Indeed. If one is too scared to fight or flee.
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Both are emotional.
so, you are defining emotion as instinct...i don't mind that
on bit...but i hardly accords with common usage...
The emotion arises from the instinct.
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
or her bosses decided they'd rather not have the hassle
and/or publicity...
Her husband's bosses already have both.
it'll probably blow over in a few days..a cost they may well
be prepared to pay
I doubt it will blow over that quickly now that the tabloids have got
their teeth into it.
The tabloids will feed the sheeple whatever they are told to print - which
will be nowhere even close to the truth.

You can bet that any relative of the dead motorcyclist and their
movements/homes etc., will now be the subject of intense individual 24 hour
surveillance by the spooks, just in case they let slip any snippet which
might expose the usual official lies as yet another sham.

They will now be high level suspects, and could be prone to an ‘accidental'
shooting by a 'lone nutcase gunman' if they don’t keep their mouths firmly
closed.

Apparently the foreign office (aka MI6) had no objections to the subsequent
post-death travel arrangement of the yank family, and were happy to keep the
whole affair hushed up, until the relatives of the deceased started to kick
up a stink.

Those in real power (i.e. in the bunkers) really don’t give a shit about
ordinary people, do they?
Grik-bastarde®™
2019-10-08 16:07:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 16:09:49 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 06:27:48 -0700, Grik-bastarde®™
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 05:41:23 -0700, Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:06:45 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is
killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
She didn't "claim" diplomatic immunity.
She *had* (and continues to have) diplomatic immunity.
Then why flee the country?
if she did
She obviously did. With her husband. At short notice.
or their posting expired in a month...
That would have been exceptionally coincidental.
life i riddled with coincidences
It can be. There have been no indications of such riddling in this
case.
Post by abelard
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
Post by abelard
'flee' is emotionalism
And it was an emotional decision.
you have no evidence for that claim
Fight or flight: those are the two human responses to situations such
as these.
an a third response is 'freeze'
Indeed. If one is too scared to fight or flee.
Post by abelard
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Both are emotional.
so, you are defining emotion as instinct...i don't mind that
on bit...but i hardly accords with common usage...
The emotion arises from the instinct.
Post by abelard
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
or her bosses decided they'd rather not have the hassle
and/or publicity...
Her husband's bosses already have both.
it'll probably blow over in a few days..a cost they may well
be prepared to pay
I doubt it will blow over that quickly now that the tabloids have got
their teeth into it.
The tabloids will feed the sheeple whatever they are told to print - which
will be nowhere even close to the truth.
Who 'tells' them what to print?
Post by Keema's Nan
You can bet that any relative of the dead motorcyclist and their
movements/homes etc., will now be the subject of intense individual 24 hour
surveillance by the spooks, just in case they let slip any snippet which
might expose the usual official lies as yet another sham.
Woo hoo!
Post by Keema's Nan
They will now be high level suspects, and could be prone to an ‘accidental'
shooting by a 'lone nutcase gunman' if they don’t keep their mouths firmly
closed.
Yes, of course. It's inevitable. It is Northamptonshire, after all.
<snigger>
Post by Keema's Nan
Apparently the foreign office (aka MI6) had no objections to the subsequent
post-death travel arrangement of the yank family, and were happy to keep the
whole affair hushed up, until the relatives of the deceased started to kick
up a stink.
What makes you think the Foreign Office were even made aware of the
fly-by-night departure?
Post by Keema's Nan
Those in real power (i.e. in the bunkers) really don’t give a shit about
ordinary people, do they?
Meanwhile, back in the Twilight Zone....
Peeler
2019-10-08 16:21:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 09:07:23 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Woo hoo!
Those two words sum up your entire "life", as your trolling history of the
last TWENTY YEARS shows, filthy dreckserb!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"That [referring to the term "consenting adults"] is just an outdated legal
construct. Are you telling me that a 13-year old who spends 15 hours a day
on Facebook is incapable of consent?"
MID: <Og0VE.1298131$***@usenetxs.com>
Keema's Nan
2019-10-08 17:12:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 16:09:49 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 06:27:48 -0700, Grik-bastarde®™
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 05:41:23 -0700, Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:06:45 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the
road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is
killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
She didn't "claim" diplomatic immunity.
She *had* (and continues to have) diplomatic immunity.
Then why flee the country?
if she did
She obviously did. With her husband. At short notice.
or their posting expired in a month...
That would have been exceptionally coincidental.
life i riddled with coincidences
It can be. There have been no indications of such riddling in this
case.
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
'flee' is emotionalism
And it was an emotional decision.
you have no evidence for that claim
Fight or flight: those are the two human responses to situations such
as these.
an a third response is 'freeze'
Indeed. If one is too scared to fight or flee.
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Both are emotional.
so, you are defining emotion as instinct...i don't mind that
on bit...but i hardly accords with common usage...
The emotion arises from the instinct.
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
or her bosses decided they'd rather not have the hassle
and/or publicity...
Her husband's bosses already have both.
it'll probably blow over in a few days..a cost they may well
be prepared to pay
I doubt it will blow over that quickly now that the tabloids have got
their teeth into it.
The tabloids will feed the sheeple whatever they are told to print - which
will be nowhere even close to the truth.
Who 'tells' them what to print?
The people who issue the DSMA notices.
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by Keema's Nan
You can bet that any relative of the dead motorcyclist and their
movements/homes etc., will now be the subject of intense individual 24 hour
surveillance by the spooks, just in case they let slip any snippet which
might expose the usual official lies as yet another sham.
Woo hoo!
I see you don’t take your lack of freedom seriously.
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by Keema's Nan
They will now be high level suspects, and could be prone to an ‘accidental'
shooting by a 'lone nutcase gunman' if they don’t keep their mouths firmly
closed.
Yes, of course. It's inevitable. It is Northamptonshire, after all.
<snigger>
Post by Keema's Nan
Apparently the foreign office (aka MI6) had no objections to the subsequent
post-death travel arrangement of the yank family, and were happy to keep the
whole affair hushed up, until the relatives of the deceased started to kick
up a stink.
What makes you think the Foreign Office were even made aware of the
fly-by-night departure?
The parents had three children at public schools in the area, and had only
been in the country for a month. If our authorities are not aware of people
who suddenly leave the country without any warning after killing someone,
then they are even more lax and ineffective than even I believed.
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by Keema's Nan
Those in real power (i.e. in the bunkers) really don’t give a shit about
ordinary people, do they?
Meanwhile, back in the Twilight Zone....
Grik-bastarde®™
2019-10-08 17:27:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 18:12:26 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 16:09:49 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 06:27:48 -0700, Grik-bastarde®™
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 05:41:23 -0700, Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:06:45 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the
road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is
killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
She didn't "claim" diplomatic immunity.
She *had* (and continues to have) diplomatic immunity.
Then why flee the country?
if she did
She obviously did. With her husband. At short notice.
or their posting expired in a month...
That would have been exceptionally coincidental.
life i riddled with coincidences
It can be. There have been no indications of such riddling in this
case.
Post by abelard
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
Post by abelard
'flee' is emotionalism
And it was an emotional decision.
you have no evidence for that claim
Fight or flight: those are the two human responses to situations such
as these.
an a third response is 'freeze'
Indeed. If one is too scared to fight or flee.
Post by abelard
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Both are emotional.
so, you are defining emotion as instinct...i don't mind that
on bit...but i hardly accords with common usage...
The emotion arises from the instinct.
Post by abelard
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
or her bosses decided they'd rather not have the hassle
and/or publicity...
Her husband's bosses already have both.
it'll probably blow over in a few days..a cost they may well
be prepared to pay
I doubt it will blow over that quickly now that the tabloids have got
their teeth into it.
The tabloids will feed the sheeple whatever they are told to print - which
will be nowhere even close to the truth.
Who 'tells' them what to print?
The people who issue the DSMA notices.
Why do you imagine DSMA notices were involved in this case?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by Keema's Nan
You can bet that any relative of the dead motorcyclist and their
movements/homes etc., will now be the subject of intense individual 24 hour
surveillance by the spooks, just in case they let slip any snippet which
might expose the usual official lies as yet another sham.
Woo hoo!
I see you don’t take your lack of freedom seriously.
I see you do take your conspiracy theories seriously.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by Keema's Nan
They will now be high level suspects, and could be prone to an ‘accidental'
shooting by a 'lone nutcase gunman' if they don’t keep their mouths firmly
closed.
Yes, of course. It's inevitable. It is Northamptonshire, after all.
<snigger>
Post by Keema's Nan
Apparently the foreign office (aka MI6) had no objections to the subsequent
post-death travel arrangement of the yank family, and were happy to keep the
whole affair hushed up, until the relatives of the deceased started to kick
up a stink.
What makes you think the Foreign Office were even made aware of the
fly-by-night departure?
The parents had three children at public schools in the area, and had only
been in the country for a month. If our authorities are not aware of people
who suddenly leave the country without any warning after killing someone,
then they are even more lax and ineffective than even I believed.
It doesn't follow. Wifey goes home to hubby and tells him she hit
some fat oik on a motorcycle who was driving on the left. Hubby says,
we'd better fuck orf out of it. The next morning, they all get in the
car and head for LHR, making sure to drive on the left. End of story.
Keema's Nan
2019-10-08 17:34:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 18:12:26 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 16:09:49 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 06:27:48 -0700, Grik-bastarde®™
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 05:41:23 -0700, Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:06:45 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the
road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is
killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
She didn't "claim" diplomatic immunity.
She *had* (and continues to have) diplomatic immunity.
Then why flee the country?
if she did
She obviously did. With her husband. At short notice.
or their posting expired in a month...
That would have been exceptionally coincidental.
life i riddled with coincidences
It can be. There have been no indications of such riddling in this
case.
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
'flee' is emotionalism
And it was an emotional decision.
you have no evidence for that claim
Fight or flight: those are the two human responses to situations such
as these.
an a third response is 'freeze'
Indeed. If one is too scared to fight or flee.
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Both are emotional.
so, you are defining emotion as instinct...i don't mind that
on bit...but i hardly accords with common usage...
The emotion arises from the instinct.
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
or her bosses decided they'd rather not have the hassle
and/or publicity...
Her husband's bosses already have both.
it'll probably blow over in a few days..a cost they may well
be prepared to pay
I doubt it will blow over that quickly now that the tabloids have got
their teeth into it.
The tabloids will feed the sheeple whatever they are told to print - which
will be nowhere even close to the truth.
Who 'tells' them what to print?
The people who issue the DSMA notices.
Why do you imagine DSMA notices were involved in this case?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by Keema's Nan
You can bet that any relative of the dead motorcyclist and their
movements/homes etc., will now be the subject of intense individual 24 hour
surveillance by the spooks, just in case they let slip any snippet which
might expose the usual official lies as yet another sham.
Woo hoo!
I see you don’t take your lack of freedom seriously.
I see you do take your conspiracy theories seriously.
And another one wriggles out of the woodwork.
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by Keema's Nan
They will now be high level suspects, and could be prone to an ‘accidental'
shooting by a 'lone nutcase gunman' if they don’t keep their mouths firmly
closed.
Yes, of course. It's inevitable. It is Northamptonshire, after all.
<snigger>
Post by Keema's Nan
Apparently the foreign office (aka MI6) had no objections to the subsequent
post-death travel arrangement of the yank family, and were happy to keep the
whole affair hushed up, until the relatives of the deceased started to kick
up a stink.
What makes you think the Foreign Office were even made aware of the
fly-by-night departure?
The parents had three children at public schools in the area, and had only
been in the country for a month. If our authorities are not aware of people
who suddenly leave the country without any warning after killing someone,
then they are even more lax and ineffective than even I believed.
It doesn't follow. Wifey goes home to hubby and tells him she hit
some fat oik on a motorcycle who was driving on the left. Hubby says,
we'd better fuck orf out of it. The next morning, they all get in the
car and head for LHR, making sure to drive on the left. End of story.
Grik-bastarde®™
2019-10-08 17:51:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 18:34:10 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 18:12:26 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 16:09:49 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 06:27:48 -0700, Grik-bastarde®™
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 05:41:23 -0700, Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:06:45 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the
road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is
killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
She didn't "claim" diplomatic immunity.
She *had* (and continues to have) diplomatic immunity.
Then why flee the country?
if she did
She obviously did. With her husband. At short notice.
or their posting expired in a month...
That would have been exceptionally coincidental.
life i riddled with coincidences
It can be. There have been no indications of such riddling in this
case.
Post by abelard
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
Post by abelard
'flee' is emotionalism
And it was an emotional decision.
you have no evidence for that claim
Fight or flight: those are the two human responses to situations such
as these.
an a third response is 'freeze'
Indeed. If one is too scared to fight or flee.
Post by abelard
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Both are emotional.
so, you are defining emotion as instinct...i don't mind that
on bit...but i hardly accords with common usage...
The emotion arises from the instinct.
Post by abelard
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
or her bosses decided they'd rather not have the hassle
and/or publicity...
Her husband's bosses already have both.
it'll probably blow over in a few days..a cost they may well
be prepared to pay
I doubt it will blow over that quickly now that the tabloids have got
their teeth into it.
The tabloids will feed the sheeple whatever they are told to print - which
will be nowhere even close to the truth.
Who 'tells' them what to print?
The people who issue the DSMA notices.
Why do you imagine DSMA notices were involved in this case?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by Keema's Nan
You can bet that any relative of the dead motorcyclist and their
movements/homes etc., will now be the subject of intense individual 24 hour
surveillance by the spooks, just in case they let slip any snippet which
might expose the usual official lies as yet another sham.
Woo hoo!
I see you don’t take your lack of freedom seriously.
I see you do take your conspiracy theories seriously.
And another one wriggles out of the woodwork.
Woodwork is usually what conspiracy theorists crawl out of.
Peeler
2019-10-08 18:42:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 10:51:48 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by Keema's Nan
And another one wriggles out of the woodwork.
Woodwork is usually what conspiracy theorists crawl out of.
BRILLIANT "retort" again, psychopath! <snicker>
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic answering a question whether there
is any meaningful debate to lower the age of consent:
"If there isn't, there should be."
MID: <ZAMUE.174724$***@usenetxs.com>
abelard
2019-10-08 18:24:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 10:27:02 -0700, Grik-bastarde®™
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
It doesn't follow. Wifey goes home to hubby and tells him she hit
some fat oik on a motorcycle who was driving on the left. Hubby says,
we'd better fuck orf out of it. The next morning, they all get in the
car and head for LHR, making sure to drive on the left. End of story.
looks like a realistic summary to me!
--
www.abelard.org
Peeler
2019-10-08 18:44:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 20:24:02 +0200, abeltard, the notorious, troll-feeding,
Post by abelard
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
It doesn't follow. Wifey goes home to hubby and tells him she hit
some fat oik on a motorcycle who was driving on the left. Hubby says,
we'd better fuck orf out of it. The next morning, they all get in the
car and head for LHR, making sure to drive on the left. End of story.
looks like a realistic summary to me!
Yeah, abeltard, psychopaths sure got a knack for convincing idiots like you
of the reality of their psychopathic world!
Peeler
2019-10-08 18:41:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 10:27:02 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
It doesn't follow. Wifey goes home to hubby and tells him she hit
some fat oik on a motorcycle who was driving on the left. Hubby says,
we'd better fuck orf out of it. The next morning, they all get in the
car and head for LHR, making sure to drive on the left. End of story.
Did you find a few senile assholes on uk.legal finally with whom you can
play your silly psychopathic games, you lucky perverted psychopathic
pedophile?
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"There will always be progressives such as Harriet Harperson who want to
take that extra step forward. Paedophiles are still a long way from
being widely accepted."
MID: <rlMUE.676067$***@usenetxs.com>
Peeler
2019-10-08 16:07:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 16:09:49 +0100, Keema's Nan, another brain dead,
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
I doubt it will blow over that quickly now that the tabloids have got
their teeth into it.
The tabloids will feed the sheeple
You senile idiots will feed the dumbest, filthiest and most perverted trolls
without even knowing what you are doing! Such is the degree of your
senility! <tsk>
Peeler
2019-10-08 16:05:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 07:40:51 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grik-bastarde®™", farted again:

<FLUSH more of the endless psychopathic bullshit>

This must be your "lucky" day, dreckserb Razovic. TWO prize idiots keep
feeding you with their senile shit! LOL
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Why do we still have outdated laws prohibiting paedophilia? Do you
seriously think that a 12-year old who spends 15 hours a day on Facebook
doesn't know what's going on?"
MID: <FnMUE.676068$***@usenetxs.com>
Peeler
2019-10-08 16:04:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 15:39:05 +0200, abeltard, the notorious, troll-feeding,
Post by abelard
life i riddled with coincidences
But especially with idiots like you and him, abeltard!
Peeler
2019-10-08 16:03:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 06:27:48 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
you have no evidence for that claim
Fight or flight: those are the two human responses to situations such
as these. Both are emotional.
LOL! More stereotypical psychopathic "wisdom" from the resident psychopath!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"That [referring to the term "consenting adults"] is just an outdated legal
construct. Are you telling me that a 13-year old who spends 15 hours a day
on Facebook is incapable of consent?"
MID: <Og0VE.1298131$***@usenetxs.com>
Peeler
2019-10-08 16:02:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 05:41:23 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
Post by Keema's Nan
Then why flee the country?
if she did
She obviously did. With her husband. At short notice.
Source, idiot?
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by abelard
'flee' is emotionalism
And it was an emotional decision.
Proof, idiot?
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic answering a question whether there
is any meaningful debate to lower the age of consent:
"If there isn't, there should be."
MID: <ZAMUE.174724$***@usenetxs.com>
JNugent
2019-10-08 12:16:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
She didn't "claim" diplomatic immunity.
She *had* (and continues to have) diplomatic immunity.
Then why flee the country?
In order to be out of the way of the inevitable press hysteria and abuse?

Why should she stay?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other foot
the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity sometimes, so
that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to be
waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special relationship
with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The Sopranos. If
the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will pretend that he
never actually asked.
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on trial
won't bring back Harry. It's not like fraud or murder, where the
perpetrator is likely to be a danger to society. Is it any different
from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of Edinburgh after his road
traffic accident?
OK, this is a fatal traffic accident, with all the seriousness and
import involved in such a thing. But "diplomatic" immunity is used all
the time - especially, but certainly not limited to - by the staff of a
certain High Commission in Northumberland Avenue, London WC. Where is
the outcry about their long-standing and flagrant non-compliance with
traffic rules, including parking restrictions and compliance with
pedestrian crossings, etc? I know of at least one case where a
pedestrian was knocked over and severely injured on a zebra crossing by
someone f=rom that "diplomatic" mission. It was never punished and the
victim received no compensation other than his normal UK benefits when
he had to give up work.
Pancho
2019-10-08 13:25:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other foot
the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity sometimes, so
that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to be
waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special relationship
with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The Sopranos. If
the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will pretend that he
never actually asked.
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on trial
won't bring back Harry.
It will act as a deterrent.
Post by The Todal
It's not like fraud or murder, where the
perpetrator is likely to be a danger to society.
Why not? I can't see any reason to believe recidivism rates of dangerous
driving are obviously less than fraud or murder. Bad driving is clearly
a danger to society. I have been put at risk by such a driver today, an
oncoming driver overtaking on a blind bend.

It's not like Rolf Harris and others, convicted of similar sex offences,
who really are now too old to pose a threat.
Post by The Todal
Is it any different
from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of Edinburgh after his road
traffic accident?
The Duke of Edinburgh should have been prosecuted, but it is different
in that he didn't kill anyone. He also agreed to stop driving.

Drivers seem to want it both ways, if they drive dangerously and don't
kill anyone they shouldn't be prosecuted because no one was hurt. If a
driver does kill someone they shouldn't be prosecuted because their
offence is no worse than other cases of dangerous driving where, by
luck, no one was killed.
abelard
2019-10-08 13:32:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 14:25:57 +0100, Pancho
Post by Pancho
Drivers seem to want it both ways, if they drive dangerously and don't
kill anyone they shouldn't be prosecuted because no one was hurt. If a
driver does kill someone they shouldn't be prosecuted because their
offence is no worse than other cases of dangerous driving where, by
luck, no one was killed.
nd law by consequences is bad law
--
www.abelard.org
Pancho
2019-10-08 13:43:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 14:25:57 +0100, Pancho
Post by Pancho
Drivers seem to want it both ways, if they drive dangerously and don't
kill anyone they shouldn't be prosecuted because no one was hurt. If a
driver does kill someone they shouldn't be prosecuted because their
offence is no worse than other cases of dangerous driving where, by
luck, no one was killed.
nd law by consequences is bad law
Yes, probably. It is also the case that deterrence seems to operate more
on the probability of being convicted than the severity of the conviction.

So I would prefer to seem more monitoring, more convictions for
dangerous behaviour. More driving bans. Cheaper than prison for causing
death.

In all probability the problem will be solved in a few years when we
have self driving cars.
abelard
2019-10-08 13:55:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 14:43:24 +0100, Pancho
Post by Pancho
Post by abelard
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 14:25:57 +0100, Pancho
Post by Pancho
Drivers seem to want it both ways, if they drive dangerously and don't
kill anyone they shouldn't be prosecuted because no one was hurt. If a
driver does kill someone they shouldn't be prosecuted because their
offence is no worse than other cases of dangerous driving where, by
luck, no one was killed.
nd law by consequences is bad law
Yes, probably. It is also the case that deterrence seems to operate more
on the probability of being convicted than the severity of the conviction.
true
but prison keep nuisances off the streets
Post by Pancho
So I would prefer to seem more monitoring, more convictions for
dangerous behaviour. More driving bans. Cheaper than prison for causing
death.
by far the best predictor of human behaviour is previous behaviour

yobs in large numbers are taking and driving away...usually they
get derisory sanctions...and they don't even obey them...
a proportion of those pests/people are *young* teen males

people mostly grow out of it...

heinlein him say...
all males should be put in a barrel until the age of 28...then taken
out and examined...and either let out or the bung driven in...

his only error was to put the age at 18 instead of 25

i go for franchise by examination!
Post by Pancho
In all probability the problem will be solved in a few years when we
have self driving cars.
i agree
--
www.abelard.org
JNugent
2019-10-08 15:04:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other
foot the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity
sometimes, so that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to
be waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special
relationship with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The
Sopranos. If the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will
pretend that he never actually asked.
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on
trial won't bring back Harry.
It will act as a deterrent.
There is no such thing as a deterrent to carelessness.

And there is no question that this was anything other than carelessness.
As important as it is to address deaths in specific road accidents, it
is even more important to maintain and observe the rules pertaining to
diplomacy and to diplomats.
Post by Pancho
Post by The Todal
It's not like fraud or murder, where the perpetrator is likely to be a
danger to society.
Why not? I can't see any reason to believe recidivism rates of dangerous
driving are obviously less than fraud or murder. Bad driving is clearly
a danger to society. I have been put at risk by such a driver today, an
oncoming driver overtaking on a blind bend.
It's not like Rolf Harris and others, convicted of similar sex offences,
who really are now too old to pose a threat.
Post by The Todal
Is it any different from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of
Edinburgh after his road traffic accident?
The Duke of Edinburgh should have been prosecuted, but it is different
in that he didn't kill anyone. He also agreed to stop driving.
Drivers seem to want it both ways, if they drive dangerously and don't
kill anyone they shouldn't be prosecuted because no one was hurt. If a
driver does kill someone they shouldn't be prosecuted because their
offence is no worse than other cases of dangerous driving where, by
luck, no one was killed.
Research the differences between dangerous driving and careless driving.
Grik-bastarde®™
2019-10-08 16:20:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pancho
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other
foot the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity
sometimes, so that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to
be waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special
relationship with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The
Sopranos. If the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will
pretend that he never actually asked.
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on
trial won't bring back Harry.
It will act as a deterrent.
There is no such thing as a deterrent to carelessness.
A prison sentence has a remarkable way of focusing the mind on being
careful in future.
Post by JNugent
And there is no question that this was anything other than carelessness.
As important as it is to address deaths in specific road accidents, it
is even more important to maintain and observe the rules pertaining to
diplomacy and to diplomats.
Why is that even more important? Diplomatic immunity is rarely
invoked.
Post by JNugent
Post by Pancho
Post by The Todal
It's not like fraud or murder, where the perpetrator is likely to be a
danger to society.
Why not? I can't see any reason to believe recidivism rates of dangerous
driving are obviously less than fraud or murder. Bad driving is clearly
a danger to society. I have been put at risk by such a driver today, an
oncoming driver overtaking on a blind bend.
It's not like Rolf Harris and others, convicted of similar sex offences,
who really are now too old to pose a threat.
Post by The Todal
Is it any different from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of
Edinburgh after his road traffic accident?
The Duke of Edinburgh should have been prosecuted, but it is different
in that he didn't kill anyone. He also agreed to stop driving.
Drivers seem to want it both ways, if they drive dangerously and don't
kill anyone they shouldn't be prosecuted because no one was hurt. If a
driver does kill someone they shouldn't be prosecuted because their
offence is no worse than other cases of dangerous driving where, by
luck, no one was killed.
Research the differences between dangerous driving and careless driving.
Driving on the wrong side of the road and killing someone as a result
is both.
JNugent
2019-10-08 16:26:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Pancho
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other
foot the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity
sometimes, so that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to
be waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special
relationship with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The
Sopranos. If the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will
pretend that he never actually asked.
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on
trial won't bring back Harry.
It will act as a deterrent.
There is no such thing as a deterrent to carelessness.
A prison sentence has a remarkable way of focusing the mind on being
careful in future.
There is still no such thing as a deterrent to carelessness.
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by JNugent
And there is no question that this was anything other than carelessness.
As important as it is to address deaths in specific road accidents, it
is even more important to maintain and observe the rules pertaining to
diplomacy and to diplomats.
Why is that even more important? Diplomatic immunity is rarely
invoked.
Because of the potential outcomes when barbarism is allowed to ride
roughshod over the rukles of diplomacy.

Libyan Embassy. Iranian Revolution.

Mobs of citizens of the PRC burning down the British mission in Peking.
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Pancho
Post by The Todal
It's not like fraud or murder, where the perpetrator is likely to be a
danger to society.
Why not? I can't see any reason to believe recidivism rates of dangerous
driving are obviously less than fraud or murder. Bad driving is clearly
a danger to society. I have been put at risk by such a driver today, an
oncoming driver overtaking on a blind bend.
It's not like Rolf Harris and others, convicted of similar sex offences,
who really are now too old to pose a threat.
Post by The Todal
Is it any different from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of
Edinburgh after his road traffic accident?
The Duke of Edinburgh should have been prosecuted, but it is different
in that he didn't kill anyone. He also agreed to stop driving.
Drivers seem to want it both ways, if they drive dangerously and don't
kill anyone they shouldn't be prosecuted because no one was hurt. If a
driver does kill someone they shouldn't be prosecuted because their
offence is no worse than other cases of dangerous driving where, by
luck, no one was killed.
Research the differences between dangerous driving and careless driving.
Driving on the wrong side of the road and killing someone as a result
is both.
That depends on whether it was deliberate. There can be no sane
suggestion that this was deliberate.
Keema's Nan
2019-10-08 17:03:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Pancho
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other
foot the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity
sometimes, so that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to
be waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special
relationship with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The
Sopranos. If the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will
pretend that he never actually asked.
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on
trial won't bring back Harry.
It will act as a deterrent.
There is no such thing as a deterrent to carelessness.
A prison sentence has a remarkable way of focusing the mind on being
careful in future.
There is still no such thing as a deterrent to carelessness.
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by JNugent
And there is no question that this was anything other than carelessness.
As important as it is to address deaths in specific road accidents, it
is even more important to maintain and observe the rules pertaining to
diplomacy and to diplomats.
Why is that even more important? Diplomatic immunity is rarely
invoked.
Because of the potential outcomes when barbarism is allowed to ride
roughshod over the rukles of diplomacy.
Libyan Embassy. Iranian Revolution.
Mobs of citizens of the PRC burning down the British mission in Peking.
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Pancho
Post by The Todal
It's not like fraud or murder, where the perpetrator is likely to be a
danger to society.
Why not? I can't see any reason to believe recidivism rates of dangerous
driving are obviously less than fraud or murder. Bad driving is clearly
a danger to society. I have been put at risk by such a driver today, an
oncoming driver overtaking on a blind bend.
It's not like Rolf Harris and others, convicted of similar sex offences,
who really are now too old to pose a threat.
Post by The Todal
Is it any different from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of
Edinburgh after his road traffic accident?
The Duke of Edinburgh should have been prosecuted, but it is different
in that he didn't kill anyone. He also agreed to stop driving.
Drivers seem to want it both ways, if they drive dangerously and don't
kill anyone they shouldn't be prosecuted because no one was hurt. If a
driver does kill someone they shouldn't be prosecuted because their
offence is no worse than other cases of dangerous driving where, by
luck, no one was killed.
Research the differences between dangerous driving and careless driving.
Driving on the wrong side of the road and killing someone as a result
is both.
That depends on whether it was deliberate. There can be no sane
suggestion that this was deliberate.
She may have been drunk, then who knows?
JNugent
2019-10-09 00:14:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Pancho
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other
foot the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity
sometimes, so that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to
be waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special
relationship with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The
Sopranos. If the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will
pretend that he never actually asked.
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on
trial won't bring back Harry.
It will act as a deterrent.
There is no such thing as a deterrent to carelessness.
A prison sentence has a remarkable way of focusing the mind on being
careful in future.
There is still no such thing as a deterrent to carelessness.
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by JNugent
And there is no question that this was anything other than carelessness.
As important as it is to address deaths in specific road accidents, it
is even more important to maintain and observe the rules pertaining to
diplomacy and to diplomats.
Why is that even more important? Diplomatic immunity is rarely
invoked.
Because of the potential outcomes when barbarism is allowed to ride
roughshod over the rukles of diplomacy.
Libyan Embassy. Iranian Revolution.
Mobs of citizens of the PRC burning down the British mission in Peking.
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Pancho
Post by The Todal
It's not like fraud or murder, where the perpetrator is likely to be a
danger to society.
Why not? I can't see any reason to believe recidivism rates of dangerous
driving are obviously less than fraud or murder. Bad driving is clearly
a danger to society. I have been put at risk by such a driver today, an
oncoming driver overtaking on a blind bend.
It's not like Rolf Harris and others, convicted of similar sex offences,
who really are now too old to pose a threat.
Post by The Todal
Is it any different from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of
Edinburgh after his road traffic accident?
The Duke of Edinburgh should have been prosecuted, but it is different
in that he didn't kill anyone. He also agreed to stop driving.
Drivers seem to want it both ways, if they drive dangerously and don't
kill anyone they shouldn't be prosecuted because no one was hurt. If a
driver does kill someone they shouldn't be prosecuted because their
offence is no worse than other cases of dangerous driving where, by
luck, no one was killed.
Research the differences between dangerous driving and careless driving.
Driving on the wrong side of the road and killing someone as a result
is both.
That depends on whether it was deliberate. There can be no sane
suggestion that this was deliberate.
She may have been drunk, then who knows?
That would rule out "deliberate".

Grik-bastarde®™
2019-10-08 17:33:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Pancho
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other
foot the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity
sometimes, so that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to
be waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special
relationship with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The
Sopranos. If the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will
pretend that he never actually asked.
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on
trial won't bring back Harry.
It will act as a deterrent.
There is no such thing as a deterrent to carelessness.
A prison sentence has a remarkable way of focusing the mind on being
careful in future.
There is still no such thing as a deterrent to carelessness.
Yes, there is: a prison sentence.
Post by JNugent
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by JNugent
And there is no question that this was anything other than carelessness.
As important as it is to address deaths in specific road accidents, it
is even more important to maintain and observe the rules pertaining to
diplomacy and to diplomats.
Why is that even more important? Diplomatic immunity is rarely
invoked.
Because of the potential outcomes when barbarism is allowed to ride
roughshod over the rukles of diplomacy.
Libyan Embassy. Iranian Revolution.
Mobs of citizens of the PRC burning down the British mission in Peking.
Shit happens when you have diplomatic relations with terrorist
regimes.

What about the potential outcomes when diplomats' wives are allowed to
ride roughshod over bikers?
Post by JNugent
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Pancho
Post by The Todal
It's not like fraud or murder, where the perpetrator is likely to be a
danger to society.
Why not? I can't see any reason to believe recidivism rates of dangerous
driving are obviously less than fraud or murder. Bad driving is clearly
a danger to society. I have been put at risk by such a driver today, an
oncoming driver overtaking on a blind bend.
It's not like Rolf Harris and others, convicted of similar sex offences,
who really are now too old to pose a threat.
Post by The Todal
Is it any different from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of
Edinburgh after his road traffic accident?
The Duke of Edinburgh should have been prosecuted, but it is different
in that he didn't kill anyone. He also agreed to stop driving.
Drivers seem to want it both ways, if they drive dangerously and don't
kill anyone they shouldn't be prosecuted because no one was hurt. If a
driver does kill someone they shouldn't be prosecuted because their
offence is no worse than other cases of dangerous driving where, by
luck, no one was killed.
Research the differences between dangerous driving and careless driving.
Driving on the wrong side of the road and killing someone as a result
is both.
That depends on whether it was deliberate.
Motive has nothing to do careless vs dangerous.
Post by JNugent
There can be no sane
suggestion that this was deliberate.
'Deliberate' is what distinguishes murder from manslaughter. This
wasn't simply a case of "Oops, my bad".
abelard
2019-10-08 18:25:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 10:33:48 -0700, Grik-bastarde®™
Post by JNugent
Because of the potential outcomes when barbarism is allowed to ride
roughshod over the rukles of diplomacy.
comes of wearing high heals over her ruckles
--
www.abelard.org
Peeler
2019-10-08 18:52:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 20:25:35 +0200, abeltard, the notorious, troll-feeding,
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Because of the potential outcomes when barbarism is allowed to ride
roughshod over the rukles of diplomacy.
comes of wearing high heals over her ruckles
Guess what comes of feeding perverted trolls like the serb pedo? You don't
know? Look at the state of affairs in uk.legal, you senile idiot, and GUESS
how it came about!
Peeler
2019-10-08 18:45:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 10:33:48 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Yes, there is: a prison sentence.
Did it deter you from hunting and even lusting after little boys, Razovic?
<BG>
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"That [referring to the term "consenting adults"] is just an outdated legal
construct. Are you telling me that a 13-year old who spends 15 hours a day
on Facebook is incapable of consent?"
MID: <Og0VE.1298131$***@usenetxs.com>
Peeler
2019-10-08 17:02:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 09:20:54 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Pancho
It will act as a deterrent.
There is no such thing as a deterrent to carelessness.
A prison sentence has a remarkable way of focusing the mind on being
careful in future.
Not going by the crime statistics, psychopath! And YOU, as a psychopath,
should know it!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Isn't it time that paedophiles were admitted to the LGBTQ rainbow?
Now that every other sexual deviation seems to have been accommodated?"
MID: <Y8LUE.513827$***@usenetxs.com>
Peter Percival
2019-10-08 15:01:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other foot
the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity sometimes, so
that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to be
waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special relationship
with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The Sopranos. If
the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will pretend that he
never actually asked.
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on trial
won't bring back Harry. It's not like fraud or murder, where the
perpetrator is likely to be a danger to society. Is it any different
from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of Edinburgh after his road
traffic accident?
Yes, it's very obviously different: the Duke didn't kill anyone.
The Todal
2019-10-08 18:24:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Percival
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other
foot the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity
sometimes, so that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to
be waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special
relationship with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The
Sopranos. If the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will
pretend that he never actually asked.
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on
trial won't bring back Harry. It's not like fraud or murder, where the
perpetrator is likely to be a danger to society. Is it any different
from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of Edinburgh after his
road traffic accident?
Yes, it's very obviously different: the Duke didn't kill anyone.
Which was pure chance. His negligence was much the same as hers.
Fortunately for him he collided with a car, not a bicycle or motorcycle.
Alistair Tyrrell
2019-10-08 16:15:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
Turns out her husband wasn't registered as a diplomat so
hard to see how she can claim immunity.
<https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/08/dominic-
raab-urges-us-to-reconsider-anne-sacoolas-immunity>
abelard
2019-10-08 18:18:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 17:15:51 +0100, Alistair Tyrrell
Post by Alistair Tyrrell
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
Turns out her husband wasn't registered as a diplomat so
hard to see how she can claim immunity.
<https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/08/dominic-
raab-urges-us-to-reconsider-anne-sacoolas-immunity>
britain/usa probably has a mutual agreement to treat each other's
spies under diplomatic protection without it being formal

meanwhile the politicians are trying to milk it as their trade
demands
--
www.abelard.org
Omega
2019-10-08 18:20:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
The wife of a diplomat drives her car on the wrong side of the road,
collides with Harry Dunn who is on his motorbike, and Harry is killed.
She leaves the country and claims diplomatic immunity.
America could if it wanted waive the diplomatic immunity but
historically it never does, although when the boot is on the other foot
the UK and other countries do waive diplomatic immunity sometimes, so
that perpetrators can stand trial in the USA.
The newspapers now say that Boris will ask for diplomatic immunity to be
waived as a special favour to him, as proof of his special relationship
with Donald. This is like one of those scenes out of The Sopranos. If
the answer is likely to be "no", I expect Boris will pretend that he
never actually asked.
But does it matter if the woman never stands trial? Putting her on trial
won't bring back Harry. It's not like fraud or murder, where the
perpetrator is likely to be a danger to society. Is it any different
from the decision not to prosecute the Duke of Edinburgh after his road
traffic accident?
Is it normal for diplomats and their families to have immunity outside
of London?

"Mrs Sacoolas, 42, left the UK not long after the death of Harry Dunn,
19, which police believe happened when she pulled out on to the wrong
side of the road as she emerged from Northamptonshire's RAF Croughton on
27 August".

omega
Peeler
2019-10-08 19:20:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:11:22 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Omega
Is it normal for diplomats and their families to have immunity outside
of London?
Why not? The Great Satan
That's what you are part of, you vile vicious little fiend!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic answering a question whether there
is any meaningful debate to lower the age of consent:
"If there isn't, there should be."
MID: <ZAMUE.174724$***@usenetxs.com>
Loading...