News2 mins ago
Mrs Sacoolas.......clarification Please.
36 Answers
Now that diplomatic immunity is gone would Mrs Sacoolas face arrest if she set foot in any EUSSR country? Or is the fact that she had immunity at the time of the offence mean not?
So is she in effect not able to travel anywhere in the EUSSR for ever without potentially getting arrested?
So is she in effect not able to travel anywhere in the EUSSR for ever without potentially getting arrested?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//She was not charged because she claimed Immunity.//
hello everyone
it will soon become apparent why I am posting
[ cries of 'ffoo, will it?' what dat den? VBQ! and euro - something etc etc]
the system seems to have changed and become pretty chaotic. You ( one) used to be able to flick a card - say, I am diplomatic, and off you ( one) went ! leaving the police scratching their heads in the street
you didnt claim it - you had it - diplomatic privileges act 1707 as amended 1964. The idea was that the ambassadee had to be able to go about his duties as head of a foreign power( state immunity etc) - NOT be able to murder people and say "ha ha ha you cant touch me!"
and it was all done by a certificate
now I am afraid the courts have been looking behind certificates - which I thought was Matrix Churchill and Ponting - covering when govts lie in bad faith
but apparenty it was the search of Joan Ruddocks office which no one can remember which set it all off
https:/
and as you will recall the Manchester coroner has had a PII parked in front of him and he looked at and scrutinised the papers, and looked at his knighthood and said, " o yes yes these are very secret indeed, closed inquest". The point and change was that he looked at the papers and then confirmed the PII rather than looked at the certificate alone and stamped it.
So now Mr Plod the police man said: "she should have been arrested and charged, and then the claim for diplo immunity scrutinised in court !" I thought to myself, christ that is a bit of a change from 1964, is it really the case
but was Mr Plod, just making it up as he went along like Mr Fulcher did ( giving himself rights he didnt have and never had) or has the law changed ? Mr Plod has a long history of getting international law badly wrong. see the Yvonne fletcher case when they COULD have gone into the Libyan Embassy but they sat outside drinking tea saying - oh the law says we cant do this and we cant do that ( it didnt, they could)
they (The Police) also said - you only have immunity if you are recorded at the Palace in the big book of Immune Persons and she wasnt
which was ALSO a new one on me
As for - are you immune from suit for actions done in office when you have left office ? The answer is pretty obviously 'yes' only some presidents ( Zuma ) ( Ali Bhutto) were tried for crimes in office
so now the answer is yes but ..... ( or no )
and running down a 19 y o is hardly an action in pursuit of office
People who dont 'foo' a lot will see that this is related to the question of whether Trump can be arrested for shop lifting. or does Trump have blanket immunity for ever ?
the leading case - still with me TTT - or has 'foo' taken over the whole of your feeble frame? is a case from the Human Rights Court ( hahahahahah yes really) about whether the Dunns human rights have been violated, along with Fogarty ( does diplo immunity deprive citizens of their human rights to justice?)
https:/
I cdnt resist pointing out one of the leading cases is a human rights ( oops sorry ooman rights) case from the bugaaboo court - the Euro court of human rights
which I think was defeated.....
have fun readers - only the strongest will have reached this point
hello everyone
it will soon become apparent why I am posting
[ cries of 'ffoo, will it?' what dat den? VBQ! and euro - something etc etc]
the system seems to have changed and become pretty chaotic. You ( one) used to be able to flick a card - say, I am diplomatic, and off you ( one) went ! leaving the police scratching their heads in the street
you didnt claim it - you had it - diplomatic privileges act 1707 as amended 1964. The idea was that the ambassadee had to be able to go about his duties as head of a foreign power( state immunity etc) - NOT be able to murder people and say "ha ha ha you cant touch me!"
and it was all done by a certificate
now I am afraid the courts have been looking behind certificates - which I thought was Matrix Churchill and Ponting - covering when govts lie in bad faith
but apparenty it was the search of Joan Ruddocks office which no one can remember which set it all off
https:/
and as you will recall the Manchester coroner has had a PII parked in front of him and he looked at and scrutinised the papers, and looked at his knighthood and said, " o yes yes these are very secret indeed, closed inquest". The point and change was that he looked at the papers and then confirmed the PII rather than looked at the certificate alone and stamped it.
So now Mr Plod the police man said: "she should have been arrested and charged, and then the claim for diplo immunity scrutinised in court !" I thought to myself, christ that is a bit of a change from 1964, is it really the case
but was Mr Plod, just making it up as he went along like Mr Fulcher did ( giving himself rights he didnt have and never had) or has the law changed ? Mr Plod has a long history of getting international law badly wrong. see the Yvonne fletcher case when they COULD have gone into the Libyan Embassy but they sat outside drinking tea saying - oh the law says we cant do this and we cant do that ( it didnt, they could)
they (The Police) also said - you only have immunity if you are recorded at the Palace in the big book of Immune Persons and she wasnt
which was ALSO a new one on me
As for - are you immune from suit for actions done in office when you have left office ? The answer is pretty obviously 'yes' only some presidents ( Zuma ) ( Ali Bhutto) were tried for crimes in office
so now the answer is yes but ..... ( or no )
and running down a 19 y o is hardly an action in pursuit of office
People who dont 'foo' a lot will see that this is related to the question of whether Trump can be arrested for shop lifting. or does Trump have blanket immunity for ever ?
the leading case - still with me TTT - or has 'foo' taken over the whole of your feeble frame? is a case from the Human Rights Court ( hahahahahah yes really) about whether the Dunns human rights have been violated, along with Fogarty ( does diplo immunity deprive citizens of their human rights to justice?)
https:/
I cdnt resist pointing out one of the leading cases is a human rights ( oops sorry ooman rights) case from the bugaaboo court - the Euro court of human rights
which I think was defeated.....
have fun readers - only the strongest will have reached this point
PP I see the House of Lords considered the use of Public Interest Immunity (PII) in 1968 and decided it was up to the Court to accept it or no.
It came about after a police officer was accused of the theft of a torch and he alleged malicious prosecution. Various documents about his performance had been withheld under PII.
You would think politicians had better things to do than worry about a stolen torch.
It came about after a police officer was accused of the theft of a torch and he alleged malicious prosecution. Various documents about his performance had been withheld under PII.
You would think politicians had better things to do than worry about a stolen torch.
Thank you PP - Its all a very murky business - what with hand delivered letter being delivered to the parents revoking DI and now this White House fiasco. Trump obviously wanting tearful apologies and hugs for the camera - all agreed with our PM no doubt. It was virtually entrapment. And I still cannot understand how the question of DI was ever thought in her case to be applicable. As PP says they were never registered for it.
.
.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
about me - TOVI
hi readers back again !
//PP I see the House of Lords considered the use of Public Interest Immunity (PII) in 1968// can you give me a handle on that?
https:/
it is only later that the courts said that they would look at the documents behind a PII, and that involved govts lying and then trying to cover their tracks with a PII. [Matrix Churchill]
I was surprised to see Mr Plot on tel saying that this indictment run-around should be followed against the driver and the issue of diplomatic immunity decided at the trial.
(*) Kueckenmeister ( cook-n-meister) was detained under DORA ( oops sozza 3T, Defence of the Realm Act 1939) with regulations whilst the war with Germany obtainedK argued in 1946 that Germany was in a state of debellatio, ( = didnt exist thro invasion and surrender) so the regulations did not apply. Could he be let out of Brixton Prison please?
The foreign office certified that we were still 1946 at war with germany and so the regulations still applied.
The judge banged his gavel, screamed, "yup got it! case dismissed !" and that was the beginning of accepting certificates at face value - which now they do not.
hi readers back again !
//PP I see the House of Lords considered the use of Public Interest Immunity (PII) in 1968// can you give me a handle on that?
https:/
it is only later that the courts said that they would look at the documents behind a PII, and that involved govts lying and then trying to cover their tracks with a PII. [Matrix Churchill]
I was surprised to see Mr Plot on tel saying that this indictment run-around should be followed against the driver and the issue of diplomatic immunity decided at the trial.
(*) Kueckenmeister ( cook-n-meister) was detained under DORA ( oops sozza 3T, Defence of the Realm Act 1939) with regulations whilst the war with Germany obtainedK argued in 1946 that Germany was in a state of debellatio, ( = didnt exist thro invasion and surrender) so the regulations did not apply. Could he be let out of Brixton Prison please?
The foreign office certified that we were still 1946 at war with germany and so the regulations still applied.
The judge banged his gavel, screamed, "yup got it! case dismissed !" and that was the beginning of accepting certificates at face value - which now they do not.
Latest Posts
Nothing Is Unbelievable Anymore.
News4 mins ago
Food & Drink6 mins ago
Crosswords13 mins ago
Federal Prosecutions In The Usa.
News14 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.