General Chat

i really think it should be scrapped myself
especially for rape and murder offenses

why should people be above the law

whats your opinion

I agree, why should anyone be immune, let them stand trial.

If they are living here - then abide by our laws. One sign of wrongdoing and they are on the first flight 'home'.

I have always held that view, especially when it comes to motoring offences - serious ones like death by dangerous driving. Why should the fact that they are diplomats mean they can't be charged in the courts. Nobody should be immune because of their job. does it work in other countries does anyone know? i.e. do our diplomats have immunity in France, Germany, Russia?

It should be scrapped, Everyone should be responsible for their action's even diplomats

yes girls i totally agree with every word that has been typed xx

poor yvonne fletchers parents
deserve justice for their daughters death

and how many times do they get away with speeding ect
some haven't even got licenses to drive in this is country
but it doesnt stop them getting behind the wheel

What brought this up?

My knee jerk reaction was the same as everyone elses, but looking at it from the other angle...diplomatic immunity for our diplomats working in countries which do not have the same democratic legal processes we have, is probably an essential?

For example, a British diplomat working in a country which became 'unfriendly' towards us may find that he/she was liable to being brought before the courts there without the same chance of a fair trial, and an independent defence,( and a sentence which would be considered barbaric in our system) , maybe even on a trumped up charge as 'payback' for Britain criticising something about their government etc.

That's the reason for it, Rose. It's to protect "our" people from abuses of the criminal justice system in other countries. So we have to offer reciprocal immunity.

What is needed is for most countries to agree to WAIVE immunity for common crimes in countries that have the same basic constitutional-type protections as they have.

Of course, the US would never agree to waive anything, even though some of us have probably better constitutional-type protections.

And that leaves the problem of diplomats from countries that don't have such protections -- we would never waive our people's immunities there, but we'd expect them to waive their people's in our ocuntries ... ain't gonna work.

Stronger diplomatic sanctions to encourage them to waive immunity might be possible and wise.

Waive immunity and let us try them on the charges, or find your embassy operating on half staff without an ambassador.

But then, we usually have interests ... like, oh, oil ... in countries like that, so we aren't likely going to go imposing sanctions to that extent.


There are situation where there is no perfect solution, and this has long been one of them.

We might try being as tough as we can when we can, though. A few more "persona non grata" expulsions from the country for lesser offences. Even then, though, we would risk retaliation and injuring our own interests ...

(Just a side note: why do the British media insist on saying "WPC" still when that term was abolished years ago?)



http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/304999

WPC Fletcher was gunned down outside the embassy on St. James Square in central London while policing an anti-Gaddafi demonstration organised by dissidents. The shots had been fired from within the Libyan People's Bureau. The bureau had been staffed by revolutionary Gaddafi supporters and not official diplomats at the time. They had threatened police they would hold a counter-demonstration if the dissidents turned up.

The bureau played loud music to drown out the protests and then fired shots from the first floor window which hit WPC Fletcher, killing her outright. Sodani was in the embassy at the time and despite an 11-day stand-off with armed police, all of the "diplomats" inside the bureau were set free and allowed to return to Libya; no one was held to account for the policewoman's murder.



So -- that person didn't actually have diplomatic status / immunity?

Another problem might arise, though -- if there was a deal to let them go.

If there was a deal, it means the British authorities got something out of it too.

Going back on deals can have bad consequences.

You may find yourself really needing to make a deal in future, and the other side refusing because they think you have your fingers crossed.

Once again, some situations just don't have perfect solutions.

I agree with you Joy...law of the land stands...whoever they are ...and wherever they come from. x

Including British citizens charged with crimes, no matter how trumped up, in, oh, Somalia.

Right Muffyxx?

"law of the land stands...whoever they are ...and wherever they come from"

I wish I had such easy answers to everything!