[Info-vax] Goodbye VAX

[Chris Townley]

On 11/01/2022 23:20, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 1/11/2022 1:59 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2022-01-11, Dave Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/11/2022 8:48 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> On 2022-01-11, David Wade <g4ugm at dave.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> ... probably end up being extradited to the USA to face charges on
>>>>> things that happen outside the USA when we, the fully BREXITed UK 
>>>>> can't
>>>>> manage to get US citizens to face charges for things they did in 
>>>>> the UK..
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That last part really sucks. She should never have been allowed to
>>>> flee the country.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ya know, for someone who believes in following the rules, you sure are
>>> ambiguous.  I don't know much about that event, other than regardless 
>>> of best
>>> efforts, shit still happens.  But, If you're going to subscribe to 
>>> diplomatic
>>> immunity, you should not do so until you decide "maybe not".  As Yoda 
>>> mentioned,
>>> do, or do not.  Nor do I have much of an opinion about the practice, 
>>> but, as I
>>> mentioned, if you're going to have a rule, then follow it, always, 
>>> not when you
>>> maybe want to.
>>>
>>
>> That's because there's a very open question about whether she had
>> diplomatic immunity or not. She didn't have it for herself but claimed
>> she did as a result of her husband having it.
> 
> Ok, why would diplomatic immunity exist?  To protect designated people 
> from any pressures or such so they could do their jobs.
> 
> Now, if you are married, and have your family with you, and they didn't 
> have the same protection as you, would not then you be subject to 
> pressure from the host country, by them pressuring your family?  That 
> pretty much screws any such protections for you.
> 
> Note, I'm not arguing whether she should have had such, but, because she 
> did, then it's absolute.  If it is not absolute, then it doesn't exist 
> at all.  If the USA claimed it, or Britain agreed to it, then it 
> exists.  The most that could be done is expel the person.  Oh, wait, 
> that's just what you're complaining about.
> 
>> However the CPS disagrees:
>>
>> From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49984737
>>
>> |The move to charge Mrs Sacoolas comes after a file was handed to the 
>> Crown
>> |Prosecution Service (CPS) on 1 November. The CPS said immunity did not
>> |apply to dependants of consular officials outside of London.
>>
>> There are also some rumours that the UK government let her leave in
>> order to avoid an incident.
> 
> And there would be an incident.  Diplomatic immunity is one of the 
> lubricants to international relations.
> 
> 

But a killer should be subject to the penalties of that under the law.

-- 
Chris