web analytics

Iranian Police on My Back

By Mahons On January 12th, 2020

The UK Ambassador to Iran was arrested by the Iranian State for “inciting rioting” against Iran in Tehran. He had been attending a memorial service for the victims of the airline shooting. Propaganda against the State can carry a death sentence in that theocracy, where it is still possible to be stoned to death.
The British Foreign Office discovered that it might just like the idea of Diplomatic Immunity after all and that it rather objected to its diplomat being detained in violation of the Vienna Convention. Respect for the laws of the host country as the prevailing theme has seen a decline in enthusiasm.
As I understand it the Ambassador has been returned to the safety of his embassy. I should say relative safety given Iran’s record on respecting embassies. Given the UK’s strong protest it can be assumed it shall not honor any Iranian request to turn him over to face the music. Will we see the headline London Recalling due to this clash? It remains to be seen. Rediscovery is an important thing, and Im glad that the UK has rediscovered the use of Diplomatic Immunity.

144 Responses to “Iranian Police on My Back”

  1. As I stated in the other thread your comparison is moronic. This woman wasn’t the US Ambassador to the UK. Her likely unlawful killing of a teenager were in no way shape or form related to her or her husband’s diplomatic duties. And the UK and Iran are not allies.

  2. And to add to my comment on the other thread, this little post is a mixture of weak levity and desperately thin comparativity.

  3. Seamus – the reverence you have for your past comments is endearing. Let’s call them Seamus’s Letters to the ATWians by number, like Paul’s Letters to the Corinthians to give them the devotion they deserve.

  4. Colm – I happen to believe Iran grossly breached diplomatic immunity here. I imagine you’ll accuse me of being a Britain First advocate.

  5. Glibbest post so far of 2020?

    You will be aware of course that DI exists precisely for this kind of case, i.e. to protect foreign diplomats in sensitive situations in order that any vulnerabilities arising can not be exploited by the host governments for political gain?

    The comparison of this to the Sacoolas situation is like trying to compare night & day.

    Had the Brit diplomat’s wife carelessly driven her car against the flow of traffic in a friendly nation resulting in the death of a teenager and then abused DI to cowardly flee a police investiagtion then there may be a case for revoking the Brit diplomat’s wife’s DI.

  6. btw, great Equalisers/ Clash reference.

  7. I included the Clash references specifically to charm you into accepting my argument.

  8. “Seamus – the reverence you have for your past comments is endearing. Let’s call them Seamus’s Letters to the ATWians by number, like Paul’s Letters to the Corinthians to give them the devotion they deserve.”

    Probably like the post itself you think you are being clever. Also like the post itself you are devoid of any actual reasonable point.

  9. The UK Ambassador’s case is why we have to accept the Sacoolas case.

  10. “The UK Ambassador’s case is why we have to accept the Sacoolas case.”

    The arrest of Macaire shows why diplomatic immunity needs to exist. The evasion of justice by Sacoolas is nothing but an abuse of that system.

  11. Clearly the solution is for a bunch of British diplomats to bundle the woman into a van, then take her to the British embassy in the US and conduct the investigation there.

    After all they have DI so no worries. I suppose they could drive on the left too if they like, easy mistake to make and never hurt anybody.

  12. In order to have DI for the UK Ambassador in his case then DI must be absolute and allowed in the Sacoolas case. A host country can waive it in certain circumstances, but should do so rarely and only when those circumstances are extreme. I don’t find the circumstances extreme enough to waive the DI in the Sacoolas case. Others disagree.

  13. The UK Ambassador’s case is why we have to accept the Sacoolas case

    It’s not though. The Brit Diplomat’s case is why DI exists as opposed to the abuse of it by Sacoolas.

    Frank, now that’s sarcasm

    I included the Clash references specifically to charm you into accepting my argument.

    It almost worked.

  14. Frank – they would have diplomatic immunity, but I would think an intentional kidnapping as opposed to an unintentional car accident would be sufficient grounds for a waiver.

  15. The fake she is needed for the investigation argument is pretty thin. Had she remained in the UK she would have no legal obligation to answer questions, unless the right of a suspect to silence is another legal right that you are willing to disregard.

  16. “Had she remained in the UK she would have no legal obligation to answer questions, unless the right of a suspect to silence is another legal right that you are willing to disregard.”

    The right to remain silent is a qualified right in the UK. You don’t have to answer questions but the jury can draw a negative inference from your refusal to do so.

  17. An Iranian soldier would have been trying doing his job the best he could. But he accidentally shot down a loaded passenger plane. Surely he failed to act “ without due care and attention “, as the great British law teaches us.

    Let’s have the Daily Mail publish his name and his one town, and let’s have Ukrainian and Iranian mobs call for him to be punished.

  18. *qualified right in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is an unqualified right in Scotland.

  19. Home town

  20. “Surely he failed to act “ without due care and attention “, as the great British law teaches us.”

    Yes. I would have absolutely no difficulty with the Iranians who shot down the plane being punished for doing so.

  21. One can not be convicted based wholly on inference based on silence, and possibly not on an inference based mainly on silence.

    It is clear she isn’t wanted to help with the investigation, but rather to show up to be convicted.

  22. Being punished how, under Iranian law it would likely be death.

  23. “One can not be convicted based wholly on inference based on silence, and possibly not on an inference based mainly on silence.”

    No. But it would almost certainly be proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Ms Sacoolas was driving the wrong way down the road. It would almost certainly be proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Ms Sacoolas hit Harry Dunn. It would almost certainly be proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Ms Sacoolas hitting Harry Dunn killed him.

    Those would be grounds for conviction. For Ms Sacoolas to introduce reasonable doubt she would need to explain the circumstances. Should she not tell them to the police investigating the crime or alleged crime then the jury would be allowed to draw an adverse inference should she later rely on that explanation in court.

  24. I’m quite sure of that

    Yes, and let’s put all drivers who make fatal errors in jail also

    And if a doctor makes a serious error ( many will at some point in a career ) let’s punish him or her criminally also

    Because the legal standard must be utterly unforgiving of error. We should expect no errors at all. Strict liability.

  25. The fake she is needed for the investigation argument is pretty thin

    It’s not, for the reasons I gave last night. And Seamus is correct, you have the right to remain silent but a negative inferance may be drawn from it.

    Phantom, Mahons comparing the Sacoolas case to a British diplomat being arrested at an impromtu anti Iranian government march is overstrech enough but you comparing it to the shooting down of a passanger jet really does plow new depths of facile arseholery.

  26. “Because the legal standard must be utterly unforgiving of error.”

    The legal standard is forgiving of error. It depends on the circumstances. Not all errors reach the criminal standard. Not all errors are the fault of the person committing the error. However if an error could have been easily avoided then that person should be punished for failure to do so.

  27. The Dunn case and the Iranian plane case are identical enough.

    Persons made very serious errors resulting in death

    Let’s have mob rule and vengeance and Old Testament punishment

  28. And if a doctor makes a serious error ( many will at some point in a career ) let’s punish him or her criminally also

    No, let’s not. That’s what laws on strict liability and medical negligence exist for.

  29. All errors of the Secolas type are easily avoided

    You are again asking for punishment in all cases of wrong way driving as a result of error

    This is a call for injustice

  30. “Let’s have mob rule and vengeance and Old Testament punishment”

    No. Let’s have a sober, measured assessment based on the rule of law.

    Certainly in the Dunn/Sacoolas a person made a very serious error that was likely easily avoidable. She should be punished for that, unless she had reasonable grounds for her error (failure to drive without due care is not reasonable. Not knowing the rules of the road is not reasonable).

    I don’t have enough knowledge of missile launch procedures to determine whether or not the serious error made by the Iranian missile launchers could have been easily avoidable. If it was easily avoidable then they should also be punished for that. Though, as per Mahon’s point, it would likely involve a death sentence and I don’t support the use of the death penalty anywhere, or for anything.

  31. 99 percent of such driving errors resulting in injury are easily avoidable

    Have you been on the road lately?

  32. 99 percent of such driving errors resulting in injury are easily avoidable

    Which supports the claim that she was driving without due care and attention and that this resulted in the death of a teenager.

  33. “99 percent of such driving errors resulting in injury are easily avoidable”

    And it is largely the most egregious ones that are punished. The overwhelming majority of car accidents are not criminally punished. Only about 1/3rd of all deaths caused by driving are prosecuted. And about 1/4 of all deaths result in a conviction. The overwhelming majority of car accidents resulting in death are not criminally punished.

    Only the most serious ones are. Only the ones where it is easily demonstrable that the person was driving without proper care.

  34. How many British drivers are imprisoned for making such error resulting in injury or death in a year?

    There are thousands of deaths on the road there every year.

    If the standard works the way you wish and if it was applied equally there would surely be many hundreds of drivers jailed each year. Because error is always to be criminally punished

  35. The British Foreign Office discovered that it might just like the idea of Diplomatic Immunity after all

    These two incidents are not compatible. It’s ridiculous to claim they are.
    From what I’ve read the woman shouldn’t have diplomatic immunity anyway.

  36. How many British drivers are imprisoned for making such error resulting in injury or death in a year?

    Then she shouldn’t have any reason to fear returning for the investigation and potential trial?

    Unless of course you’re trying to suggest that there’s some other motive in getting her back?

    Because error is always to be criminally punished

    That is simply glaringly untrue shameless hyperbole.

  37. “If the standard works the way you wish and if it was applied equally there would surely be many hundreds of drivers jailed each year. Because error is always to be criminally punished.”

    In England and Wales in 2016 there were 157 people convicted for death by dangerous and 32 for careless driving under the influence. There were an additional 225 people convicted for death by careless driving, and 5 for death while driving without a licence or insurance. So 419 convictions for death by driving. The total road deaths in 2016 for England and Wales is 1,647. 419 convictions for 1,647 deaths (though some of those convictions would have been for killing more than one person).

    Now not all of those would have resulted in a custodial sentence. Often times (especially with careless driving without any aggravating factors) it would have simply been a driving ban.

  38. Paul

    You are making the case for an unjust punishment at 134while saying that she has nothing to fear at 201

    This case was Ginned up by the gutter press, resulting in a vengeful mob which exists, and which is on these pages also

  39. I’d support prosecution in all motor injury cases involving alcohol or drugs or speeding or going through red lights

    It would be hard to see justice in going beyond that.

    You may have prosecutorial misconduct. An overzealous prosecutor is the worst enemy of justice. I’ve discussed such abuse in the US here before

  40. Phantom,

    This case was Ginned up by the gutter press, resulting in a vengeful mob which exists, and which is on these pages also

    Vengeful mob! That’s a bit of exaggeration Phantom.
    As far as I can see, people, myself included, just want justice done. Are you saying this woman should not face any form of investigation in the UK?

  41. “I’d support prosecution in all motor injury cases involving alcohol or drugs or speeding or going through red lights”

    So going through a red light should be punished but driving on the wrong side of the road shouldn’t be?

  42. There is no no unjust punishment. You’re 1.32 suggests that she made an easily avoidable mistake which resulted in the death of a teenager while your 1.43 suggests that not many British drivers are imprisoned for such mistakes.

    If your second point is true then she shouldn’t have any fear for returning to face questions regarding the first.

    Unless you’re suffesting there’s another agenda at play?

  43. “You may have prosecutorial misconduct. An overzealous prosecutor is the worst enemy of justice.”

    Again it depends on the type of error. The majority of deaths on the road are deemed to be no one’s fault or a person’s fault but not rising to the level of careless or dangerous driving. 419 convictions for 1,647 deaths. 1 in 4 (though maybe a little higher due to 1 person being convicted for many deaths). Half of those are for careless driving which (short of a series of previous offences) would not result in a custodial sentence. The other half come from dangerous driving (which would likely be speeding, or driving with a complete reckless disregard for other people).

  44. I am in favor of an investigation of course

    But I don’t see the slightest evidence of any criminal act

    And I read a lot of comment indicating that people want criminal punishment for an error

    I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this issue, before this case even came up. Errors are not crimes in a decent system

  45. Phantom,

    I’d support prosecution in all motor injury cases involving alcohol or drugs or speeding or going through red lights

    It would be hard to see justice in going beyond that.

    But it’s not as simple as that Phantom. what if your a mother driving your sick child to a hospital in a remote location but you’ve had too much to drink?
    What if you run someone over and kill them because you were glancing at your phone.
    what if you’re an ambulance and you kill someone going through a red light?
    All of these things have to be investigated on their individual circumstances, that’s how justice works.

  46. “But I don’t see the slightest evidence of any criminal act”

    Driving without due care and attention is a criminal act. Driving on the wrong side of the road is almost exclusively evidence of driving without due care and attention.

  47. “Errors are not crimes in a decent system”

    It depends on the error. Why was it caused? Was it a simple error, that anyone could have made? Was it reckless?

  48. Phantom,

    But I don’t see the slightest evidence of any criminal act

    What’s that comment you like to regularly make on ATW, about everyone being a Philadelphia lawyer Phantom.

  49. //An Iranian soldier would have been trying doing his job the best he could. But he accidentally shot down a loaded passenger plane. Surely he failed to act “ without due care and attention “, as the great British law teaches us.//

    You shouldn’t need great British law to teach you that, common sense teaches it just as well.
    Of course he acted without due care and attention and should be punished, and no doubt will be, if he’s still alive.

    BTW If someone drives a car in the US in breach of the highway code and by doing so kills someone, is that driver not punished?

    BTW #2 I thought that the British authorities are disputing that the lady driver has diplomatic immunity as she was not a diplomat and was not in London or another area covered by the DI rule. Is that still the case, anyone know?

  50. //I’d support prosecution in all motor injury cases involving alcohol or drugs or speeding or going through red lights//

    But why? The driver doing 100 mph says he simply made a mistake and thought he was in a 100-mph speed section. Yes, he plowed into and killed a dozen people, but let him go, I say.

    Phantom, your arguments here are a complete shambles. Patrick-grade.

  51. Seamus

    It was a simple error that anyone could make. In yesterday’s comments, both Noel and I said that we have made the same mistake. I imagine that others here may have have made similar mistakes but choose not to say so

    Dave 226

    I’m not debating any technicalities. I am saying that the law is very bad on its face , that it is wildly imprecise and subject to the whim of overzealous prosecutors.

    100 percent of those driving on the wrong side of the road have failed to act with “ due care “ Whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. But 100% of the cases are not punished. But when you have a horrible result, Caused by an unpopular person ( whose husband is a spy, we are told every five minutes by helpful Pete ) then you have a selective prosecution

  52. According to Virginia DMV records Sacoolas has a previous driving conviction (in the United States). She was cited for failing to pay attention while driving in 2006, and was fined. So clearly the Americans has no issue with convictions for people who fail to pay attention while driving.

    “BTW #2 I thought that the British authorities are disputing that the lady driver has diplomatic immunity as she was not a diplomat and was not in London or another area covered by the DI rule. Is that still the case, anyone know?”

    Normally, diplomatic immunity is granted only to those working out of the embassy in London under the 1961 Vienna Convention. But the staff of RAF Croughton (a CIA listening post, that handles a third of the American intelligence surveillance in Europe – and for example wiretapped Angela Merkel) were granted special diplomatic immunity in 1994. But two leading specialist lawyers on diplomatic immunity, Mark Stephens and Geoffrey Robertson, have advised the Dunn family that Anne Sacoolas may not have had diplomatic immunity. It would largely come down to the specific terms negotiated in 1994.

    Either way they also advised that Sacoolas had immunity and lost it when she returned to the United States.

    “It was a simple error that anyone could make. In yesterday’s comments, both Noel and I said that we have made the same mistake.”

    It is not a simple error. If either you or Noel had been caught doing it you likely would have been prosecuted (most likely a number of penalty points and/or a fine). If you killed someone while doing so you would have received further punishment.

  53. What’s that comment you like to regularly make on ATW, about everyone being a Philadelphia lawyer Phantom.

    Ouch!!

    Of course Sacoolas has no case to answer. It’s the OJ doctrine in pracrice.

  54. Phantom

    100 percent of those driving on the wrong side of the road have failed to act with “ due care “ Whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. But 100% of the cases are not punished. But when you have a horrible result, Caused by an unpopular person ( whose husband is a spy, we are told every five minutes by helpful Pete ) then you have a selective prosecution

    All I’m asking for is the woman to face a fair hearing and/or trial in the UK. There aren’t really any details in this case but I’m willing to accept that it was a genuine mistake and I’m pretty sure she wouldn’t be clapped in irons and locked up for the rest of her natural life. Is actually facing up to her mistake in the UK a bad thing?
    And you’re jumping to conclusions, this may not even end up in court as many of these unfortunate accidents don’t.

  55. But when you have a horrible result, Caused by an unpopular person ( whose husband is a spy, we are told every five minutes by helpful Pete ) then you have a selective prosecution

    So, what you’re really suggesting is that you think she wouldn’t be subject to a fair investigation and perhaps a fair trial in Britain?

    Is that the crux of your objection to her returning?

  56. allan has the answer here
    everyone stay in their own countries , own neighbourhoods
    case solved
    could be allan’s day 😉
    # troll alert
    well its definitely a troll thread

  57. phantom you got this arse-ways upside down
    the emphasis is on the victim ie the dead kid
    all your blarney about the perp is dumb talk
    sorry, but it is crap way of thinking
    maybe for drugs, maybe alcohol
    THE BOY IS DEAD .. ffs
    moronic comments from you last few days – truly head up the backside
    ooh the poor perp, lets not upset the perp

    how about a lorry load of deaths ?
    ach just a wee driving error, nothing to see – move along .. Grrrr

  58. Mahons and Phantom have had their Yankee asses whipped by the Euroweenies* on this thread ! 😉

    * And yes for the purposes of geographical accuracy, Pete Moore is also a Euroweenie !

  59. Kurt

    I am aware that the boy, who was blameless, is dead

    I Choose to swat the gibbering hyenas who want to respond to that With injustice ( Hey Pete I heard that her husband was a spy )

    I don’t think that I’ve commented much on the diplomatic immunity issue

    I’ve never said that there should not be a complete investigation

    I see a law that as described here that is exceptionally vague

    The mob here is about as fair minded as the rabble at Trumper rallies hollering lock her up. If anything the Trump mobs are far more fair minded

  60. I suggest a compromise. Lets leave clumsy driver Anne Caloolas back home and instead extradite rogue yanks Phantom and Mahons (who definitely don’t have D.I.) to be prosecuted under the sensible English Law of “failing to concede defeat in debate to superior arguments” 🙂

  61. I’ve never said that there should not be a complete investigation

    So let’s talk about what you did say:

    But when you have a horrible result, Caused by an unpopular person ( whose husband is a spy, we are told every five minutes by helpful Pete ) then you have a selective prosecution

    Are you suggesting that the woman shouldn’t return to assist the investigation as it wouldn’t be fair and any subseqent trial also wouldn’t be fair?

    I see a law that as described here that is exceptionally vague

    As the standard and barhas been explained to you a number of times you’re either not very bright or wilfully obtuse. As you’re not stupid I suspect the latter.

  62. Phantom, I’ve a feeling even your own side is embarrassed by your performance here.

    But, again, will some American pls answer the following:

    If someone drives a car in the US in breach of the highway code and by doing so kills someone, is that driver not punished, or even have to answer to anyone for the death?

  63. Noel

    You’re normally an independent thinker, What happened to you

    In the US, I believe that wrong way driving Would rarely be prosecuted criminally , Unless it is intentional – which sometimes happens ( running from the cops, taking a shortcut ) – or unless it involves drunk driving etc

    To criminalize such errors goes against all the principles of justice.

  64. According to Virginia DMV records Sacoolas has a previous driving conviction. She was cited for failing to pay attention while driving in 2006, and was fined.

    What sort of behaviour would she have had to been engaging in for that to happen?

  65. I saw that report from one of your junk English newspapers, But I don’t believe it’s proven

    Who told you that

  66. The Times is now a “junk English newspaper”?

  67. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7548519/American-spys-wife-fled-UK-crash-conviction-poor-driving-Virginia.html

    This is where you got it from

  68. //In the US, I believe that wrong way driving Would rarely be prosecuted criminally//

    even if the car hits someone and kills him as a result of the driver’s mistake? That was my question.

    I find it hard to believe that the driver in such a case would get off scot free in the UK.

    //You’re normally an independent thinker, What happened to you//

    Phantom, do you think it’s a coincidence that the only two people supporting the driver in this case are her two compatriots, and all non-Americans, without exception, think she should face the authorities in the UK for the death she caused?

    A mere coincidence? Or are the two Americans simply “thinking independently” and nobody else is, for some reason?

  69. = would get off scot free in the US.

  70. Noel – absent an aggravated circumstance a traffic violation that resulted in a death would rarely result in a criminal conviction.

  71. “This is where you got it from”

    Wow. You magically reached into my computer and worked out which newspapers I read online – and yet somehow found one that I don’t read.

    Do you consider the Times to be a “junk English newspaper”?

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/diplomats-wife-anne-sacoolas-has-a-poor-driving-record-in-us-00rp6h75f

  72. The report of her supposed bad driving in Virginia was discussed here are a couple of months ago

    I believe that it was determined that the records in Virginia do not exist that would prove this assertion

    Mistakes are not crimes.

    Even wrong way driving error caused accidents where.multiple persons died have not resulted in criminal prosecution here.

    And Seamus – you oppose any punishment for any crimes I recall, You should be leading the charge here.Take away her drivers license if you must, that’s it

  73. Noel – Phantom and I are probably ATW’s foremost American critics of US policy when warranted. And we are coming at this from two different directions. My primary argument has been that she is entitled to DI and the US is entitled to reject the request it be waived. Phantom’s position has primarily been he doesn’t like DI but that her offense shouldn’t be criminally prosecuted.

  74. I am amused that people who’ve denied that she was protected by DI have sense conceded that she was and now seem to be challenging it again.

  75. “And Seamus – you oppose any punishment for any crimes I recall, You should be leading the charge here.Take away her drivers license if you must, that’s it”

    Which is something I have said in the past with regards to this case. Most likely, should she be convicted, she would receive a suspended sentence of 1 year to 18 months, with an automatic driving ban. Not all criminal convictions carry custodial sentence. In fact most don’t, and most shouldn’t. A fine, a driving ban, an apology.

  76. Dave – the comparison to the Iranian incident is not to suggest the incidents are identical but to demonstrate why DI as a custom and international law has to protect diplomats without exception.
    If you truly are interested in justice, then accept the law.

  77. Again, I fail to see examples of systemic prosecution of wrong way driving in the UK – even though it happens there often enough, with British drivers and with the many drivers newly driving on the other side of the road, as she was

    This is no quest for justice. It is un Christian quest for vengeance against an unpopular person ( see Paul’s comment of yesterday that he hopes she has this on her conscience for the rest of her life )

  78. You can achieve that result (driving ban and suspended sentence in abstentia).

  79. So when America asked Georgia to waive Gueorgui Makharadze’s immunity it was an attack on international law?

  80. “Again, I fail to see examples of systemic prosecution of wrong way driving in the UK – even though it happens there often enough, with British drivers and with the many drivers newly driving on the other side of the road, as she was”

    Have you any examples of people driving on the wrong side of the road, who are caught by the police, and have not been prosecuted?

  81. Phantom

    The mob here is about as fair minded as the rabble at Trumper rallies hollering lock her up. If anything the Trump mobs are far more fair minded

    The mob! Pathetic Phantom All any of the saying if she should come back to the UK to explain what happened.

    Mistakes are not crimes.

    amazing A man who repeatedly said he couldn’t form an opinion on the Cyprus rape case because he didn’t have enough information, apparently has enough information to form an opinion on this one.
    You don’t know that this woman necessarily made a mistake. unless you’re including as I’ve already asked you to explain, all bad driving such as looking at your phone as mistakes

  82. There were intentional killers and terrorists basically given amnesty/pardons under the law to achieve the peace in NI. I don’t recall some of the people here mentioning their hopes those people have their acts on their concierge for the rest of their lives.

  83. I can’t find it now but when this issue came up a few months ago I gave an example in Ireland where a German tourist was driving on the wrong side of the road and got into an accident

    He was fined but not criminally prosecuted

    There would be wrong way driving examples in the US Where there was no prosecution, including those involving fatalities

    Unless there is drinking involved, etc. it would generally be seen as opposing every concept of justice to prosecute such a case.

  84. ATW’s version of Godwin’s law. When someone is losing an argument they will inevitably mention the Ra. Mahons has clearly scraped the bottom of the barrel so hard he’s now out the bottom.

  85. Dave

    I’m not commenting on her fleeing. That’s another matter.

    Why can’t the police question her in the US or on video. I would want her to cooperate with such procedure

  86. “He was fined but not criminally prosecuted”

    It was a French tourist. Who was prosecuted.

  87. No, asking for another nation to waive DI is not a violation of international law. Your projecting an argument on me that I never made. I think anyone familiar with the facts of the Georgia incident understands why it was distint from the current incident.

  88. “Why can’t the police question her in the US or on video. I would want her to cooperate with such procedure”

    They have. The police have completed their investigation. They interviewed her, under caution, in the United States and sent the completed file to the prosecution authority, the CPS. She has been charged, is now being prosecuted, hence the UK seeking extradition.

  89. “No, asking for another nation to waive DI is not a violation of international law. Your projecting an argument on me that I never made. I think anyone familiar with the facts of the Georgia incident understands why it was distint from the current incident.”

    Mahons you argued “DI as a custom and international law has to protect diplomats without exception”. Then found an exception.

  90. //absent an aggravated circumstance a traffic violation that resulted in a death would rarely result in a criminal conviction//

    Mahons, my question was:

    If someone drives a car in the US in breach of the highway code and by doing so kills someone, is that driver not punished, or even have to answer to anyone for the death?

    Even apart from a criminal conviction, would a driver who kills someone on the road because he broke the rules, and the victim was blameless, not even have to pay a fine?

    I ask because a very good friend of mine was involved in a serious accident. He was driving slowly and carefully on a long and winding country road because he had to turn off into a laneway shortly ahead and he had all his family on board. The laneway turned off the road to the right, so, as this was in Ireland, he had to cross the opposite lane first.

    When he came to the lane, the road ahead and behind was clear, but still he put out the indicator and turned off to the right. When he was slowly crossing the other lane, a motorbike came flying around a bend ahead of him and crashed into the left rear corner of his car. The biker went flying and injured himself badly.

    The investigation found that he was driving slowly and had put out his indicator correctly. It also found that the motorbike had been driving around 20 mph above the speed limit. The motorbike was deemed to be mostly at fault.
    However, because the report – which I read – said that the driver should have kept looking ahead on the road, even when he was turning into the narrow lane, and should have stopped his car when he saw the motorbike coming, presumably allowing it to pass in front of him, the car driver was also deemed to be partly at fault.
    For this mistake, in not keeping an eye out in all directions, he was fined 6K EUR.

    I’d imagine the fine would have been much stiffer if the biker had died.

    There we have a very minor mistake on the driver’s part, recklessness on the motorcyclist’s part, but with serious conseqeunces, so the driver had to pay a very tough fine.

  91. Sorry for the italics after “I ask because..”

  92. One offers examples to illustrate a point. Think of it as a teachable moment.many of those critical of my position or Phantom’s have suggested it is because we are Americans. Absurd and against our histories here on a variety of issues. But a bit telling on the attitude of the lynch mob here.

  93. Phantom

    I’m not commenting on her fleeing. That’s another matter.

    Yes. leaving the scene of an accident in the UK is a criminal offence.

    Why can’t the police question her in the US or on video. I would want her to cooperate with such procedure

    Because she should face questioning in the country where she committed the offence or crime. The UK is not a fascist dictatorship. She will be treated fairly. This is a slap in the face to British justice and the family who lost their son.

  94. Mahons,

    But a bit telling on the attitude of the lynch mob here.

    I never thought I’d say this to you Mahons, but that’s truely pathetic.

  95. Seamus – no, I said DI applies to all diplomats without exception, but that immunity can be waived in certain circumstances. In the case of the Georgian the circumstances were significant enough to warrant both a request for a waiver and the waiver. I don’t think the incident involving this women does.

  96. Dave

    She most certainly did not leave the scene of the accident

    She stayed at the scene and spoke to police

  97. Noel – the result of causing a death by accidental operation of a motor vehicle would likely result in civil penalties on a license, possible loss of licence, civil lawsuit for wrongful death and possible criminal prosecution if there are aggravating factors (drinking, excessive speed).

  98. Phantom,

    She most certainly did not leave the scene of the accident

    She stayed at the scene and spoke to police

    That was bad wording on my part I should have said leaving the country after the accident.

  99. She left the UK about three weeks after the accident

  100. Ok

  101. If you truly are interested in justice, then accept the law

    Law & justice are very, very different concepts.

    It’s my reading that you are hiding behind the shield of DI to avoid any discussion surrounding the absolute unfairness of this case. As stated above, it’s the OJ principle in practice. My reading of Phantom’s position is that he doesn’t like the law so this woman shouldn’t be answerable to it.

    A man who repeatedly said he couldn’t form an opinion on the Cyprus rape case because he didn’t have enough information, apparently has enough information to form an opinion on this one.

    Ouch!!

    I don’t recall some of the people here mentioning their hopes those people have their acts on their concierge for the rest of their lives

    Piss poor attempt at a Trollesque ‘yeah, the IRA’ and about as comparable to this case as Phantom’s attempts to caompare it with an aircraft being shot down. I will however indulge you, the difference of course is that those people were tried and rightly or wrongly punished for their actions, something that there’s little chance of happening with Sacoolas.

  102. “In the case of the Georgian the circumstances were significant enough to warrant both a request for a waiver and the waiver. I don’t think the incident involving this women does.”

    And pretty much everyone else here thinks the incident is significant enough to warrant both a request for a waiver and the waiver. Hence the argument.

  103. Dave Alton – into each life some rain must fall. I find it pathetic you’d gloss over accusations made about the basis of my opinions, but I’m sure I’ll recover.

  104. Paul

    You seek to criminalize errors involving those who you don’t fancy

    I don’t fancy the Iranian military, so a I want your rules applied to the guy who erroneously shot down the passenger jet

    Injustice for all, equally!

  105. I’ve never adjusted my position to please what everyone else thinks, and I don’t intend to start doing so now.

  106. You seek to criminalize errors involving those who you don’t fancy

    Why would I possibly ‘not fancy’ this woman? Go on, spit out what you truly want to say instead of your characteristic vague passive aggression.

    Your argument comes down to the fact that you disagree with the law in another country and as a result of that disagreement you think that she should be above it.

  107. “I don’t fancy the Iranian military, so a I want your rules applied to the guy who erroneously shot down the passenger jet”

    Again you will find almost all of us think that the person who shot down the plane should be punished.

  108. Mahons

    Dave Alton – into each life some rain must fall. I find it pathetic you’d gloss over accusations made about the basis of my opinions, but I’m sure I’ll recover.

    I don’t believe I’ve made any comment on accusations about your opinions.
    Is there anything else you’d like to accuse me doing that I didn’t do?

  109. The fact is that, despite you claiming that we are acting like Trumpers, it is you who is doing so. Supporting selective application of the law. Attacking journalists and newspapers who don’t agree with you for no other reason than they don’t agree with you.

    The majority of people involved in fatal accidents are not prosecuted. So the law, and its application, is not vague. It is quite selective (and not in the negative way). It prosecutes those who should have, and easily could have, avoided doing what they did.

    Ms Sacoolas has been investigated by the police. They have found she has a case to answer. Ms Sacoolas has been charged by the CPS. They have found she has a case to answer. It is in the interests of justice for Ms Sacoolas to face a jury of her peers to determine whether or not the case against her meets the criminal standard.

    The US are within their rights to refuse extradition. They are within their rights to refuse to waive diplomatic immunity. But in doing either of those things they are (legally) obstructing justice. They are playing mafia attorney here. Within their rights, but morally wrong.

  110. Seamus

    The Iranian soldier who shot down the plane was likely poorly trained, had poor guidance and was operating in a time of great confusion and tension.

    Errors are not crimes. It would likely be against all the interests of justice to prosecute him.

    The US had ordered its civil aircraft to stay out of Iraqi and Iranian airspace.

    Iran should have likewise ordered civil planes not to fly in its airspace. The Ukranian airline was incredibly irresponsible to fly on that day

  111. I’m saying that unintentional wrong way driving errors not involving drinking or running from police should never be criminally prosecuted

    That’s the complete opposite of selective interpretation of any law

  112. Seamus 5:53.
    Well said mate.

    As I said before I can’t believe that certain people on here think that it’s wrong for this woman to come to the UK and face justice. She’ll be treated fairly and it’s highly unlikely she’s going to face prison.

  113. “I’m saying that unintentional wrong way driving errors not involving drinking or running from police should never be criminally prosecuted”

    Similarly to the Iranian missile operator who shot down the plane the culpability would depend on the level of negligence involved. If he wasn’t trained, had poor guidance etc… then he was not operating negligently (though those who failed to provide him with training and guidance would be).

    Unintentional, but broadly attentive, driving errors should not be punished. Unintentional, negligent, driving errors should be.

  114. Phantom,

    I’m saying that unintentional wrong way driving errors not involving drinking or running from police should never be criminally prosecuted

    I think today incident would have to be looked at on its individual merits. You can’t say that all incidents of wrong-way driving should not be criminally prosecuted.
    For example, what if the person drove the wrong way because they were busy looking at their phone?

  115. “As I said before I can’t believe that certain people on here think that it’s wrong for this woman to come to the UK and face justice. She’ll be treated fairly and it’s highly unlikely she’s going to face prison.”

    Especially given those same people supported the railroading of rape victim because it likely was legal in the country it occurred in.

  116. The fatal accident was the terrible outcome

    What the driver did was drive on the wrong side – the awful error

    Pete has made exceptionally similar mistakes ( high credit to him for saying that ) , so have I, so likely have others here who choose to be tactically quiet

    Should Pete and I have been prosecuted?

    The outcome in our cases was thankfully different but our actions were the same.

  117. “Should Pete and I have been prosecuted?”

    Yes.

  118. Being on the phone would be an intentional wrong action, right there with drinking

  119. Again you will find almost all of us think that the person who shot down the plane should be punished

    Absolutely. I would disagree with the punishment being death, (which is likely in Iran), though. The punishment should be proportionate to the action and any mitagating factors which arise. As should be the case with Ms Sacoolas.

    I’m saying that unintentional wrong way driving errors not involving drinking or running from police should never be criminally prosecuted

    We know what you’re saying. What we’re saying s that your opinion may be contradictory to the acyual law which exists in the country it happened in and subsequently your opinions are of little relevance to the legal reality.

  120. Seamus

    You’re insane

  121. “You’re insane”

    Not only should you have been prosecuted, if you had been caught doing so you would have been.

  122. I will be happy to prosecute Pete but not for this 🙂

  123. It is broken windows theory 101. If you prosecute the minor offences then you reduce the risk of the more serious ones.

  124. Seamus

    No, wrong again

    It would be very common for police to give a warning and to leave it at that

    If all these cases were prosecuted, you would have to build more prisons, for no good reason

  125. “If all these cases were prosecuted, you would have to build more prisons, for no good reason”

    Nope. Overwhelmingly the majority of prosecutions do not result in custodial sentences. In fact in England and Wales it is only 7% of prosecutions result in custodial sentences (which is still too high in my opinion).

    “It would be very common for police to give a warning and to leave it at that”

    Probably. But even for the police to give you a warning would indicate the illegal nature of what you are doing. And if you kill someone while committing a crime you will be prosecuted for that.

  126. Not here

    And broken windows theory doesn’t apply to errors, so again, you’re all over the place

    Errors are not crimes

  127. “Errors are not crimes”

    Some of them clearly are. Negligent errors are crimes. Reckless errors are crimes.

    “And broken windows theory doesn’t apply to errors, so again, you’re all over the place”

    Same theory though. By allowing minor offences to go unpunished you make it more likely that serious offences happen. By not punishing negligent or reckless errors you make those errors more likely (and the potentially serious consequences they have).

  128. In fact the CPS have charged Ms Sacoolas with causing death by dangerous driving. So the investigators clearly aren’t buying that this was some tragic accident. So they are confident that not only does her actions meet the criminal threshold but that they meet an additional dangerous threshold as well.

  129. Phantom,

    Pete has made exceptionally similar mistakes ( high credit to him for saying that ) , so have I, so likely have others here who choose to be tactically quiet

    Tactically quiet. FFS Phantom. I’ll freely admit that I’ve also made this mistake. You only had to ask.

    Should Pete and I have been prosecuted?

    Well I’m assuming you never killed anybody. if no harm is done and it was a genuine mistake then it my opinion no you shouldn’t be prosecuted.
    But what if you repeatedly make this mistake? what if you were looking when your phone when you made this mistake. As I’ve said already you have to look at the evidence and take each incident on its own merits. You can’t look at somebody driving on the wrong side of the road and say in every case the punishment should be exactly the same. That’s just ridiculous.

  130. Dave

    Good man

    Now I am sure this will be intentionally misunderstood by some, but in the event of an innocent error not involving intentional wrong action ( alcohol, drugs speeding, mobile phone use, going through red light, through lowered rail crossing gate ) ), the existence of injuries or fatalities Should have no bearing on criminal liability for the driver

    Going back to a fundamental principle of justice – An innocent error is not a crime. If it was, and if all driving and other error were always detected, everyone here would have had hundreds of convictions by now

    An innocent driving error involving injury or death can be as the man says grounds for revoking the drivers license and grounds for civil liability, but prison should not be a possibility in such a case.

  131. Driving on the wrong side of the road is always dangerous. That is known.

  132. An innocent error is not a crime.

    When it is the result of negligence it can become one.

  133. Phantom.

    Seem to be going around in circles.
    I’m not disagreeing with you that all things being equal, an honest mistake should not result in a harsh punishment.
    The point I’m making here is that this woman should come to the UK to face the UK’s justice system.
    I’m confident that she would be treated fairly by the UK’s legal system.
    Do you not agree with that?

  134. The point I’m making here is that this woman should come to the UK to face the UK’s justice system

    That’s the nub of the issue Dave. DI, disapproval of the law, intention, care & attention etc can all be abstractly debated to the cows come home. This is the crux of the matter :

    During the initial investigation we were given some assurances by the American authorities that she would co-operate fully with the police and… that she would not be leaving the community, and would not be leaving the country, and then the next minute we found out that, actually, she and her family had left.

    – Nick Adderley, chief constable for Northamptonshire Police

    She should be made amenable to face the justice system in which the country occurred.

  135. Whoops!

    in the country which the offence occurred

  136. She should have stayed.

    But if this was what it appears, a pure error, there should not have been any possibility of criminal prosecution.

    Negligence is not the same as error.

    If a rushed doctor ( and they’re all rushed now ) prescribes 30 days of Oxycontin and doesn’t warn you that it is possibly very addictive, he has been negligent.

    If the pharmacist was supposed to give you 10mg pills but he misreads a handwritten prescription and gives you 80mg pills instead, that’s a ( serious ) error, as is giving a child the same dose of something suitable for a grown man.

    The above type of thing happens every day in every state and in every country. i don’t know of cases where there have been prosecutions. There have been correct prosecutions where unethical doctors or pharmacists have done wrong things, giving out potent pills that are abused, but those involve intentional acts, not errors, not negligence.

  137. She should have stayed

    She shouldn’t have been allowed to go , particuarly as the American authorities had given assurances she wouldn’t.

    There, I fixed that for you.

    Negligence is not the same as error

    No?

    In general, vehicular manslaughter involves death that results from the negligent operation of a vehicle, or more so a result from driving whilst committing an unlawful act that does not amount to a felony. It is the crime of causing death of a human being due to illegal driving of an automobile, including gross negligence, drunk driving, reckless driving or speeding.

    https://definitions.uslegal.com/v/vehicular-manslaughter/

    I’d say that driving almost four hundred metres on the wrong side of the road would constitute reckless driving as determined above. Perhaps she should be investigated in the US and tried under US law? Do you think she’d get a fair investigation / trial?

    Why do you continuously try to equate this case to strict liability / medical negligence scenarios?

  138. Phantom,

    She should have stayed.

    Yes se should have stayed. She went back on her word and left the country.
    But the question I asked you is should she return to the UK to face an investigation here.

    But if this was what it appears, a pure error, there should not have been any possibility of criminal prosecution.

    As I’ve already said, if it was a genuine mistake then I don’t think she should be harshly punished. As to wheather this was a genuine mistake or not, why don’t we let the UK legal system investigate that.

    f a rushed doctor ( and they’re all rushed now ) prescribes 30 days of Oxycontin and doesn’t warn you that it is possibly very addictive, he has been negligent.

    If the pharmacist was supposed to give you 10mg pills but he misreads a handwritten prescription and gives you 80mg pills instead, that’s a ( serious ) error, as is giving a child the same dose of something suitable for a grown man.

    I’m not debating whether this lady made a genuine mistake or not, because I don’t know whether she did or she didn’t. Based on very limited evidence about it that could be possible. But That’s up for the UK justice system to decide.
    Giving me these hypothetical situations has nothing to do with what we’re discussing.
    But to answer your hypothetical question, in the case of the doctor giving out wrong medication there are many factors that would have to be considered in deciding how severe or not the doctor’s punishment should be.

  139. 1/4 of a mile is not a long distance at all

    Doctors in all the examples I gave are typically not criminally prosecuted in Europe or North America. If prosecution does error became the norm, no one would ever want to be a doctor. Because, hate to tell you, the error rate is never zero.

  140. 1/4 of a mile is not a long distance at all

    Driving on the wrong side of the road? I and I think that mosr reasonable people would disagree

    Doctors in all the examples I gave are typically not criminally prosecuted in Europe or North America.

    That’s because medical negligence has a different standard than driving without due care & attention / reckless / careless driving and an irrelevant comparison which I assume you being in the insurance game you already know.

    Perhaps she should be investigated in the US and tried under US law? Do you think she’d get a fair investigation / trial?

    Yes or no?

  141. She went back on her word and left the country

    As did the US authorities Dave.

  142. US JUstice is a joke, you send people to prison for 450 years
    no-one lives that long

    Phantom what you hailed failed to grasp is this simple notion

    its not the error itself, its the consequences that matter

    This in UK is manslaughter = killing by accident, ie not intentional

    our citizens have to be protected from careless drivers

    its because we value innocent life

    all your symapthy is for the perp, and what you very irritatiingly call errors .

    No, an error is pranging into an ols banger and swcraping your side wing

    get a grip , a man a boy was KILLED

    it fucking well matter kiddo – that’s why Justice is required

    Not vengance ,but Justice, she killed a man

    da I’m wasting my time ..

  143. Go to bed

  144. get yer head outa yer backside , it doesn’t belong there !