Harry Dunn’s parents

[Suff]

Ossie, she no longer has diplomatic immunity because she is no longer a dependent on a diplomatic mission. It is no longer required.

If she was ordered to return you can be absolutely sure that she would return with full diplomatic immunity. Especially as it has become political and not legal.

WM says part of it for me. I have nearly 40 years of experience driving on both sides of the road. I have driven all over Europe, the US and Argentina.

Every evening the car park to work changes the road to two lane one way. Every time I turn right, in the right hand lane, I have to totally focus to push myself onto the left hand side of the road.

It is that easy.

What disturbs me more is that Harry's family actions are totally opposite to their stated aims. They claim they just want closure. But their actions, demanding that she return to the UK, speak more of revenge. They will have been advised that they will be able to claim she fled justice and that is a jail offence.

They want their pound of flesh and they don't care who they hurt to get it. That is my view of the whole thing. As the circus goes on it might be worth reflecting on.

[Kaz]

Justice, not revenge! It's the least that they deserve, end of! Your last paragraph there is quite awful.

[Workingman]

All that Anne Sacoolas has to do is return to the UK, swear in court to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, give her evidence, admit her mistake and then offer her apology. She will not be found guilty of any crime and Harry's death will be recorded as accidental. She will be free to go - case closed.

That will complete the paperwork in the proper and legal way and that is how the Dunn's get closure.

There will be no revenge or pound of flesh and to suggest that is what is sought is the lowest of low blows.

[medsec222]

I quite agree that she should come back to the UK and face up to her responsibilities. She should not have fled the country as she did, which is why Harry Dunn's family have become so distressed. Whether they should have gone to America in an attempt to get justice, however, I am not sure. Perhaps they thought the Foreign Office would not intervene as vigorously as they would have hoped. As regards Anne Sacoolas, she has to live with the fact that her careless driving was responsible for killing an innocent youngster. If she thinks about this, I am sure she will come to realises for her own peace of mind, that to return to the UK is by far the best course of action for her.

[Suff]

She can't be extradited. Even more, because of your statement, WM, there are no legal grounds to extradite her.

There are rules around this and, should the families lawyer choose to use them, she could make a statement in US court, under oath and be cross examined on her testimony.

Will this bring closure? To me it would not. This was an accident, pure and simple.

So what is the aim here? To have her appear in court and recount the accident? This is what you say WM. That can be done in the US.

So the goal is to have her come to the UK and do the same? Then what? Go home?

This family engaged a lawyer and flew to the States and kicked up hell with the press and met the president. Then refused to meet the woman.

But she is going to come to the UK and go to court, talk for 5 minutes, be cross examined for 10 more, then go home.

Really? Why will the court even be convened? She would have to be arrested and charged with a crime to be arraigned in court. The court case could take months to be heard.

Occams razor.

People die of accidents every day. The police investigate and they make a decision. In this case there are extenuating circumstances which would probably have never even caused an arrest.

This is all emotion. Take the emotion out of it and ask what the goal is here.

Then ask if the actions will lead to the stated goal. If the answer is No, then you have to question the stated goal.

She won't be coming back. Not just because she cannot be extradited under the law as it stands, but because the stated goal can be achieved under the US legal system.

You do not dismiss the US legal system then demand that they do what you want.

There is a precedent here. The US will never allow US military or diplomatic protected to be tried outside of the US once they are home. They will, however, allow the case to be heard in the US.

The families representative Must know this.

Anyway, enough. This is a media circus and my sympathies now lie with the family of WPC Yvonne Fletcher. We're I them I wold be both horrified and disgusted at some of the statements I have read over the last week.

I started out with a huge amount of sympathy for Harry's family and their loss, even though I did not agree with their approach.

My feelings have now changed.

I remember watching the Libyan Embassy leave the UK. I remember the colleagues, who had to stand there and watch them. I didn't like it, but I certainly understood it.

Apparently, in the following decades, my country has become something else.

Therefore I will shut up and leave it.

[cromwell]

I'm afraid that I'm with Suff on this.
I feel desperately for Harry's parents, but this really rang true with me.

What disturbs me more is that Harry's family actions are totally opposite to their stated aims. They claim they just want closure. But their actions, demanding that she return to the UK, speak more of revenge.

Plus, I don't believe in closure. To me it doesn't exist. I've seen it down this street. Two young man died some years apart, one 17, one 27. Both of natural causes. There hasn't been any closure for their parents. Time may have helped the pain to be less pervasive, but it's still there. How can there be closure?

Going to the States, kicking up a fuss, demanding that the driver return to the UK to face justice - what justice? How is it going to help? If she came back to the UK, pleaded guilty and was punished would it help? If she got a careless driving conviction (which it probably would be) she'd probably get a fine. Would that help? A fine for the loss of a child? Plus a legal process that would drag on for months and maybe years? I don't see it.

If they met and the lady sincerely apologised to me that would be the best thing. It was a horrible awful accident and nothing the courts can do imo can lessen the parent's pain in this case.

[jenniren]

Such an emotional subject, I've no idea how I'd react in similar circumstance and sincerely thankful I've not had to deal with such a dreadful loss.

On balance I tend to agree with both Suff and Crommers.

[Workingman]

I agree that they were ill advised] about going to the States, though I can imagine that, in their grief, how tempting it must have been. The meeting with Trump was also a big mistake. Those of us looking in could see that it was a trap designed to make the orange man-child look good.

However, I find the accusations of revenge given that every utterance they have made suggest otherwise, to be cheap shots and unnecessary.

[cromwell]

Anyway, the latest news is that Harry's parents have launched legal action against the Foreign Office. They have also referred Northamptonshire police to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) over the investigation into the death of their son.

[Suff]

In fact Cromwell, their "solicitor" has also started legal proceedings to sue Mrs Sacoolas, yep for money, plus taking an action out against the US government for, well, something or other.

I say "Solicitor" because their "voice" isn't actually working in that capacity today. Anybody actually looked him up? Since leaving his partnership of a Birmingham law firm he has:

Joined Carillion
Been put out of work in the collapse of the firm
gone self employed contracting

And, to today, become the Operating officer and legal representative of a computer gaming company that uses blockchain to upsell it's benefits. For those who are not aware, blockchain is the technology behind BitCoin and a dozen other offshoots. It is the most common scam on the market today.

Then there is the question as to how they even contacted and met their "voice" given that his company is in Truro.

Over and above that the press are making out that Mrs Sacoolas had an accident and did a bunk bolting from the country under her diplomatic immunity. Never have I seen it in the press that the police interviewed her at the scene, interviewed her at her home and about Three Weeks Later she left the country on a military plane under diplomatic immunity.

Not bolting. Three weeks.

Now let's look at police procedure. They interviewed her twice. There wasn't even one under caution because, after the initial accident review, it was not deemed necessary. By the time that she left, the investigation had been going on for weeks and there was no indication that the police were going to charge her with anything.

So why the sudden change? Nobody says a word. Was the family hassling the police every day to find out when she was going to be charged and dragged into court? Did they give up with the police and go to their MP? Anyone actually checked who their MP is? She's a member of the government. Not just parliament, Government. That makes it political and once it becomes political diplomatic immunity kicks in big time.

After my last post, the police went to the US and interviewed her under caution. She waived her RIGHT to make a statement under oath and have her solicitor present it to the police and, instead, met the police and answered their questions face to face.

The police have not sworn out an arrest warrant to this date. Which, in my experience, means they won't and never were going to.

The "voice" of the family, who I will hereafter refer to as "the ambulance chaser" has been warned by the Police chief to moderate his language and has generally caused so much noise and trouble that it is, essentially, impossible for Mrs Sacoolas to get a fair trial in the UK. She has been tried in the press and it's impossible to get a balanced jury without an opinion.

If there was ever the slightest shadow of a chance that the ambulance chaser could get her back into the UK, he nixed that by his prejudicing the entire process. No jury from a democratic country in the world would now send her back.

So what are we left with? The ambulance chaser is now suing all and sundry. There is a crowdfunding site set up to launch these legal actions and it has already received more than £70,000.

Tell me. Do. Just how much money brings closure?

This one is, eventually, going to die a death. Because the huge hump under the carpet of the questions the press never thought to ask, before jumping on the anti US, anti Spy, bandwagon, is becoming grotesque and impossible to ignore.