On 2022-01-11, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> On 1/11/2022 8:48 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2022-01-11, David Wade <g4ugm@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.

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.

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

In article <srkk24$m7g$3@dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley
<clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:

> 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.

James Brown's wife (or lawyer, I don't remember) once tried to get him
out of a speeding ticket by arguing that he had diplomatic immunity: as
the Ambassador of Soul.

On 1/11/2022 1:59 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-01-11, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 1/11/2022 8:48 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2022-01-11, David Wade <g4ugm@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.
>
> 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.

That is not a very complete picture of what happened.

Diplomats and family have automatic diplomatic immunity per Vienna
convention.

A special agreement between US and UK for that airbase waived
immunity for employees outside the base.

CPS (DA) claimed that also implicit waived immunity for family members.

Foreign Office (State Department) claimed she was still covered
by immunity.

A judge in high court ruled in favor of the Foreign Office view.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/nov/24/harry-dunn-parents-lose-high-court-immunity-case

Arne

On 1/11/2022 1:59 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-01-11, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 1/11/2022 8:48 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2022-01-11, David Wade <g4ugm@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.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

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@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/11/2022 8:48 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> On 2022-01-11, David Wade <g4ugm@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.

--
Chris

Dear Mr Reinhardt,

The VLF thank you very much for taking comp.os.vms on a guided tour,
sheltered workshop, of our, 2012, LMFGEN release, along the path to
relieving themselves of any VAX/VMS misery, it is very much
appreciated. And we do also compliment you on your ultra-dry sense of
humour.

The principal inaccuracy is that we did not release our source code,in
that release, you must be conflating that with some other PAKGEN kit
floating about.

As for the VLF Manifesto - well, we're old as the hills, over the
hill, mad as hell, quite possibly mad, pissed off, oft pissed, but
rarely off-piste, in our perspectives and analysis - but we would say
that, we're the VLF Liberation Front, after all. :-)

In furtherance of the VLF thesis, in general, and the VAX/VMS hot
retrieval mission, in particular:

https://pastebin.com/AB8xvgd7

The 'Pastebin' text snippet website benchmarks "safe to visit".

To the comp.os.vms collegiate: In regards to analogous VAX/VMS,
"Tyrell Corporation Nexus-6 Replicant Termination Date", problem - if
any VMS hobbyist, or VMS shop, for that matter, that you know, or are
aware of, is suffering, then relieve them of their misery, forthwith,
thank you very much.

As you have said, Mr Reinhardt:

"VAX/VMS is dead. Long Live VAX/VMS!"

We can all carry on.

Best regards,

VLF: The VMS Liberation Front
In VMS We Trust.

PS: VMS - Unstoppable!

digital.VAX.VMS.20.Years.1977.To.1997.eBook-digital.pdf
https://krakenfiles.com/view/BN9F0iuGjp/file.html

$!------------------------- damn straight --------------------------!$
$ opprobrium/level=kittens/mode=conniptions/input=VLF:/output=NL: !$
$!-------------------------- enough said ---------------------------!$

On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 11:49:29 -0600, "John H. Reinhardt"
<johnhreinhardt@thereinhardts.org> wrote:

>On 1/8/2022 11:41 AM, John H. Reinhardt wrote:
>> On 1/8/2022 8:29 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 1/8/22 9:12 AM, VAXman-@SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>>>> In article <k8phtg1c91pkfs7acaq102c04g4kd5bneh@4ax.com>, Subcommandante XDelta <vlf@star.enet.dec.com> writes:
>>
>>>>> With specific application to the expiration of VAX licenses.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is our RCE remedy from October 2012, the 35th Anniversary of VMS:
>>>>>
>>>>> LiBREVMS.LMFGEN.OpenVMS.Tru64.OSF1.ULTRIX.v1.2.WinALL.x86.x64.KEYGEN-VLF
>>>>>
>>>>> File-hosts:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.mirrored.to/files/0LOAT2SY/
>>>>
>>>> ... and this gets me what?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Apparently a scan of my Linux system and then a notice that my Norton
>>> is out of date.
>>>
>>> bill
>>
>> If you spin up a sacrificial Linux host (either VM or bare metal - bare metal preferred) and:
>> 1) download the file - a .RAR file
>> 2) take the system off line of ANY network
>> 3) unpack the RAR file
>> 4) you find
>>   a) a PAKGEN Windows exe
>>   b) the pacgen.c source
>>   c) a set of PAKs covering 1400+ DEC products for VAX with unlimited units and no termination date.
>>   d) some VLF manifesto junk
>>
>> No guarantees the Windows exe is virus free but the PAKs and the pakgen.c files are a plain text so fairly incorruptible.
>>
>
>I forgot step #5
>
>5) Wipe that Linux system down to the ground because you've satisfied your curiosity and that's the right thing to do.
>
>VAX/VMS is dead. Long Live VAX/VMS

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@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/11/2022 8:48 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-01-11, David Wade <g4ugm@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.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

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@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/11/2022 8:48 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-01-11, David Wade <g4ugm@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

On 1/11/2022 5:39 PM, Subcommandante XDelta wrote:
> Dear Mr Reinhardt,
>
> The VLF thank you very much for taking comp.os.vms on a guided tour,
> sheltered workshop, of our, 2012, LMFGEN release, along the path to
> relieving themselves of any VAX/VMS misery, it is very much
> appreciated. And we do also compliment you on your ultra-dry sense of
> humour.
>

Thank you. I get that from my mother. She was of extremely dry wit.

> The principal inaccuracy is that we did not release our source code,in
> that release, you must be conflating that with some other PAKGEN kit
> floating about.
>

It appears you are correct and I was mistaken. Delving back into my files I see that the RAR file did NOT have pakgen.c in it. It did have the Windows executable, the generated PAKs and other things. I must have moved the c source into the directory from some other place. My apologies.

--
John H. Reinhardt

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@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/11/2022 8:48 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-01-11, David Wade <g4ugm@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

On 1/11/2022 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:
>>>>> 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.

Diplomatic immunity has to cover all crimes - otherwise it would
be difficult to find diplomats willing to go
to the worst dictatorships around the world. They would not have
any moral trouble creating a fake murder charge.

But note that diplomatic immunity does not mean that they
automatically go free - it just means that decision about how
to handle it goes to their home country not the country where
they live as diplomat (or family to diplomat).

Their home country can decide to let them be prosecuted. Typical
that require confidence in that the crime was real and that the
court system will provide a fair trial. It has happened in the
past.

So it is all up to the US in this case.

Arne

PS: The "young child" was 19. It does not really change anything, but
I don't think it is appropriate to call a young man at age 19 for
"young child".

On 1/12/2022 11:16 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 1/11/2022 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:
>>>>>> 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.
>
> Diplomatic immunity has to cover all crimes - otherwise it would
> be difficult to find diplomats willing to go
> to the worst dictatorships around the world. They would not have
> any moral trouble creating a fake murder charge.
>
> But note that diplomatic immunity does not mean that they
> automatically go free - it just means that decision about how
> to handle it goes to their home country not the country where
> they live as diplomat (or family to diplomat).
>
> Their home country can decide to let them be prosecuted. Typical
> that require confidence in that the crime was real and that the
> court system will provide a fair trial. It has happened in the
> past.
>
> So it is all up to the US in this case.
>
> Arne
>
> PS: The "young child" was 19. It does not really change anything, but
> I don't think it is appropriate to call a young man at age 19 for
> "young child".

It is called "slanting the story", but, in reality, just another bold faced lie
to advance an agenda.

When I looked at the info on wikipedia, there were multiple instances where the
diplomat's country allowed prosecution, or did it internally.

Perhaps people should not jump to conclusions based upon what they read in the
news. The "news" has the agenda of "selling" the news. Perhaps they are not
totally unbiased. This incident really sounds like an "accident", which happens
all too often. I've got to ask, are there no other similar accidents in
Britain? Or elsewhere? Why do we only read about this one?

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 1/12/2022 1:49 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 1/12/2022 11:16 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 1/11/2022 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:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Diplomatic immunity has to cover all crimes - otherwise it would
>> be difficult to find diplomats willing to go
>> to the worst dictatorships around the world. They would not have
>> any moral trouble creating a fake murder charge.
>>
>> But note that diplomatic immunity does not mean that they
>> automatically go free - it just means that decision about how
>> to handle it goes to their home country not the country where
>> they live as diplomat (or family to diplomat).
>>
>> Their home country can decide to let them be prosecuted. Typical
>> that require confidence in that the crime was real and that the
>> court system will provide a fair trial. It has happened in the
>> past.
>>
>> So it is all up to the US in this case.

>> PS: The "young child" was 19. It does not really change anything, but
>>     I don't think it is appropriate to call a young man at age 19 for
>>     "young child".
>
> It is called "slanting the story", but, in reality, just another bold
> faced lie to advance an agenda.

> When I looked at the info on wikipedia, there were multiple instances
> where the diplomat's country allowed prosecution, or did it internally.

Yes. It happens. The most equivalent example is probably the diplomat
from Georgia (the country south of Russia) that killed a 16 year in
Maryland while driving under the influence. Georgia waived the immunity
and he got 7 years (served 3).

> Perhaps people should not jump to conclusions based upon what they read
> in the news.  The "news" has the agenda of "selling" the news.  Perhaps
> they are not totally unbiased.  This incident really sounds like an
> "accident", which happens all too often.  I've got to ask, are there no
> other similar accidents in Britain?  Or elsewhere?  Why do we only read
> about this one?

Accidents happen all the time.

But some times drivers actions is so negligent that it can become
a criminal case.

Driving in the wrong side of the road and hitting somebody is
rather negligent.

Everybody knows the context - in the UK they are driving in the
other side of the road than in US and continental Europe, so she
was driving US style in the UK.

But what would happen if a UK citizen drove UK style in Pennsylvania
and hit and killed somebody as a consequence?

Arne

On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 13:49:39 -0500, Dave Froble wrote:

> Perhaps people should not jump to conclusions based upon what they read
> in the news. The "news" has the agenda of "selling" the news. Perhaps
> they are not totally unbiased. This incident really sounds like an
> "accident",
> which happens all too often.

Well, of course it was an accident. But it was caused by carelessness.

The charge would not be murder. It might be manslaughter, but most likely
causing death by dangerous/careless driving. The penalty probably would
not be severe - not like the US, where they seem to chase a target for
the percentage of the population incarcerated for even minor crimes.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 1/12/2022 4:56 PM, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 13:49:39 -0500, Dave Froble wrote:
>
>> Perhaps people should not jump to conclusions based upon what they read
>> in the news. The "news" has the agenda of "selling" the news. Perhaps
>> they are not totally unbiased. This incident really sounds like an
>> "accident",
>> which happens all too often.
>
> Well, of course it was an accident. But it was caused by carelessness.

Was it caused by carelessness? The news makes a big deal of this, perhaps
because of diplomatic immunity. I'd rather look at whatever in depth
investigation may have been done.

Carelessness? Well, anytime anything doesn't happen perfectly, there can be
accusations of carelessness. Always part of the answer. But there are degrees
to just about everything. Was it dark? What was the visibility?

Just yesterday I was driving, nearing a traffic light, and the sun low on the
horizon totally blinded me. I knew the light was there, but I could not see it.
Mitigating circumstances happen all too often.

> The charge would not be murder. It might be manslaughter, but most likely
> causing death by dangerous/careless driving. The penalty probably would
> not be severe - not like the US, where they seem to chase a target for
> the percentage of the population incarcerated for even minor crimes.

I'm not aware of any results of an in depth investigation being made public.
Actually, I've not been interested.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 1/12/2022 7:54 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 1/12/2022 4:56 PM, Bob Eager wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 13:49:39 -0500, Dave Froble wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps people should not jump to conclusions based upon what they read
>>> in the news.  The "news" has the agenda of "selling" the news.  Perhaps
>>> they are not totally unbiased.  This incident really sounds like an
>>> "accident",
>>> which happens all too often.
>>
>> Well, of course it was an accident. But it was caused by carelessness.
>
> Was it caused by carelessness?  The news makes a big deal of this,
> perhaps because of diplomatic immunity.  I'd rather look at whatever in
> depth investigation may have been done.
>
> Carelessness?  Well, anytime anything doesn't happen perfectly, there
> can be accusations of carelessness.  Always part of the answer.  But
> there are degrees to just about everything.  Was it dark?  What was the
> visibility?

If the case goes to trial the that is what jury and judge will
have to figure out.

A US citizen driving in the wrong side of the road in the UK
immediately raises suspicion about carelessness.

And the CPS (DA) wanted to press charges. Which hopefully indicate
that they believe there are some evidence of anything criminal. People
get acquitted in court every day, but people should not be charged
if the prosecutor knows that there is no chance of a conviction.

> I'm not aware of any results of an in depth investigation being made
> public.

The prosecutor will have asked the police to do an in depth
investigation before taking action. Especially if they know that
they will have to fight Foreign Office (State Department) in court.

But again obviously the evidence needed to bring a case to court is
less than the evidence needed to convict.

Arne

On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 19:54:36 -0500, Dave Froble wrote:

> On 1/12/2022 4:56 PM, Bob Eager wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 13:49:39 -0500, Dave Froble wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps people should not jump to conclusions based upon what they
>>> read in the news. The "news" has the agenda of "selling" the news.
>>> Perhaps they are not totally unbiased. This incident really sounds
>>> like an "accident",
>>> which happens all too often.
>>
>> Well, of course it was an accident. But it was caused by carelessness.
>
> Was it caused by carelessness? The news makes a big deal of this,
> perhaps because of diplomatic immunity. I'd rather look at whatever in
> depth investigation may have been done.
>
> Carelessness? Well, anytime anything doesn't happen perfectly, there
> can be accusations of carelessness. Always part of the answer. But
> there are degrees to just about everything. Was it dark? What was the
> visibility?

The carelessness was pulling out of the base and driving on the wrong
side of the road.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 10:40:04 AM UTC+11, Subcommandante XDelta wrote:
>
> digital.VAX.VMS.20.Years.1977.To.1997.eBook-digital.pdf
> https://krakenfiles.com/view/BN9F0iuGjp/file.html

that's a nice book. thanks for the share.

i also enjoyed the documentary "Digital Man / Digital World" which i can recommend.

Long Live Big Ken!

To: Gabriele Zaverio

I Agree. But only If HP no longer have a commercial interest in the VAX version
of the product.
--- Synchronet 3.19c-Linux NewsLink 1.113
* The Dungeon - Canberra, ACT, Australia - telnet://dungeon.barnabasmusic.com