[Info-vax] Goodbye VAX

[Chris Townley]

On 11/01/2022 23:56, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 1/11/2022 6:36 PM, Chris Townley wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> I suggest you research diplomatic immunity, wikipedia has some 
> information, then reconsider your statement.
> 
> I may not seem "right" at times, but there are good reasons, rather 
> important reasons.
> 

Thank you, but  am very familiar with diplomatic immunity. But when a 
junior officers wife kills a young child by driving on the wrong side of 
the road, she is a killer - and one without diplomatic immunity - she 
deserves the full force of the law.

-- 
Chris