[Info-vax] Goodbye VAX

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 1/11/22 8:14 PM, Chris Townley wrote:
> 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.
> 

The same should apply to a diplomat.  No one should be above the law.

bill