Discussion:
Harry Dunn
Add Reply
The Todal
2019-11-21 14:50:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Very unwise of Harry Dunn's family to adopt as their spokesman Radd
Seiger, an American who seems to know very little about the English
legal system and probably doesn't know enough about personal injury
litigation in the UK or the USA. The government is absolutely right to
defend any claims against it and to seek costs from an unsuccessful
claimant in accordance with the usual procedure in our courts.

Hence...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-50501097

Harry Dunn's family 'disgusted' with Dominic Raab over legal costs

The parents of Harry Dunn have said they are "disgusted" with Dominic
Raab after he defended the government's decision to seek legal costs
from them.

The 19-year-old died after a collision in Northamptonshire in August
that led to the suspect leaving the UK claiming diplomatic immunity.

His parents have begun legal action against the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (FCO). Mr Raab said the government needed to "protect taxpayers'
money".

Mr Dunn's mother Charlotte Charles told Victoria Derbyshire the foreign
secretary's comments were "just completely disgusting" and she also said
they had been "misled" by him. "A month ago he said in parliament there
were no obstacles to justice, but yesterday he said he was still working
to clear obstacles. I'm just really angry with that," she said.

The FCO said last month it would "seek costs" for any judicial review
brought and argues the family has not found "any reasonably arguable
ground of legal challenge".

Radd Seiger, the family's spokesman, said: "If [Mr Raab] is so concerned
about taxpayers' money in the litigation then he would come and talk to
us to find a resolution, rather than risking having taxpayers themselves
paying a very expensive legal bill if the FCO lose."
JNugent
2019-11-21 15:26:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Very unwise of Harry Dunn's family to adopt as their spokesman Radd
Seiger, an American who seems to know very little about the English
legal system and probably doesn't know enough about personal injury
litigation in the UK or the USA.  The government is absolutely right to
defend any claims against it and to seek costs from an unsuccessful
claimant in accordance with the usual procedure in our courts.
Hence...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-50501097
Harry Dunn's family 'disgusted' with Dominic Raab over legal costs
The parents of Harry Dunn have said they are "disgusted" with Dominic
Raab after he defended the government's decision to seek legal costs
from them.
The 19-year-old died after a collision in Northamptonshire in August
that led to the suspect leaving the UK claiming diplomatic immunity.
His parents have begun legal action against the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (FCO). Mr Raab said the government needed to "protect taxpayers'
money".
Mr Dunn's mother Charlotte Charles told Victoria Derbyshire the foreign
secretary's comments were "just completely disgusting" and she also said
they had been "misled" by him. "A month ago he said in parliament there
were no obstacles to justice, but yesterday he said he was still working
to clear obstacles. I'm just really angry with that," she said.
The FCO said last month it would "seek costs" for any judicial review
brought and argues the family has not found "any reasonably arguable
ground of legal challenge".
Radd Seiger, the family's spokesman, said: "If [Mr Raab] is so concerned
about taxpayers' money in the litigation then he would come and talk to
us to find a resolution, rather than risking having taxpayers themselves
paying a very expensive legal bill if the FCO lose."
Anyone with knowledge of the UK system of government, which should
include the BBC, is surely aware that it is absolutely normal for any
government department to counter any civil claim with a warning that
costs will be sought against the plaintiff?

This is the case irrespective of which party is in government and
irrespective of who holds the post of Secretary of State.

That *vast* majority of communications sent out ostensibly by a SofS are
in fact sent by civil servants under one of a number of layers of
permanently-delegated authority.

For instance, a letter detailing how much social security a claimant
will receive or how much tax they are being charged will be signed by an
officer exercising the authority of the minister. The minister will
quite simply never have seen the case and almost certainly (in excess of
99.9%) never will.
Grikbasstarder®™
2019-11-21 15:41:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Very unwise of Harry Dunn's family to adopt as their spokesman Radd
Seiger, an American who seems to know very little about the English
legal system and probably doesn't know enough about personal injury
litigation in the UK or the USA.
And obviously a jew shyster.
Peeler
2019-11-21 16:21:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 07:41:10 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grikbasstarder®™", farted
Post by Grikbasstarder®™
Post by The Todal
Very unwise of Harry Dunn's family to adopt as their spokesman Radd
Seiger, an American who seems to know very little about the English
legal system and probably doesn't know enough about personal injury
litigation in the UK or the USA.
And obviously a jew shyster.
Obviously someone superior to you ...AGAIN! <BG>
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Why do we still have outdated laws prohibiting paedophilia? Do you
seriously think that a 12-year old who spends 15 hours a day on Facebook
doesn't know what's going on?"
MID: <FnMUE.676068$***@usenetxs.com>
NEMO
2019-11-21 17:00:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
And obviously a jew shyster. Even a polack would have been
a better choice.
TSSK!
Martin Brown
2019-11-21 16:17:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Very unwise of Harry Dunn's family to adopt as their spokesman Radd
Seiger, an American who seems to know very little about the English
legal system and probably doesn't know enough about personal injury
litigation in the UK or the USA.  The government is absolutely right to
defend any claims against it and to seek costs from an unsuccessful
claimant in accordance with the usual procedure in our courts.
Whilst that may be correct in legal terms; how is an ordinary family
that finds themselves in a complex international diplomatic scandal
supposed to obtain competent legal advice that they can afford?
(serious question)

They are desperate grieving parents and easy prey for any chancer that
tells them what they want to hear.
Post by The Todal
Hence...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-50501097
Harry Dunn's family 'disgusted' with Dominic Raab over legal costs
The parents of Harry Dunn have said they are "disgusted" with Dominic
Raab after he defended the government's decision to seek legal costs
from them.
The 19-year-old died after a collision in Northamptonshire in August
that led to the suspect leaving the UK claiming diplomatic immunity.
Does her car insurance have to pay out for killing him?

The only slight chance of success might be if they could prove that as a
spouse resident outside London she did not in fact have "diplomatic"
immunity under the previously secret bilateral agreement on spies.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
JNugent
2019-11-21 17:00:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Martin Brown
Post by The Todal
Very unwise of Harry Dunn's family to adopt as their spokesman Radd
Seiger, an American who seems to know very little about the English
legal system and probably doesn't know enough about personal injury
litigation in the UK or the USA.  The government is absolutely right
to defend any claims against it and to seek costs from an unsuccessful
claimant in accordance with the usual procedure in our courts.
Whilst that may be correct in legal terms; how is an ordinary family
that finds themselves in a complex international diplomatic scandal
supposed to obtain competent legal advice that they can afford?
(serious question)
They are desperate grieving parents and easy prey for any chancer that
tells them what they want to hear.
Post by The Todal
Hence...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-50501097
Harry Dunn's family 'disgusted' with Dominic Raab over legal costs
The parents of Harry Dunn have said they are "disgusted" with Dominic
Raab after he defended the government's decision to seek legal costs
from them.
The 19-year-old died after a collision in Northamptonshire in August
that led to the suspect leaving the UK claiming diplomatic immunity.
Does her car insurance have to pay out for killing him?
The only slight chance of success might be if they could prove that as a
spouse resident outside London she did not in fact have "diplomatic"
immunity under the previously secret bilateral agreement on spies.
Hang on, though...

Surely there IS a point to be made here.

It is not unknown for a UK citizen to be killed or injured on the roads
in a collision with a vehicle driven by a diplomat or other foreign
embassy employee who holds diplomatic immunity. The reasons for such
immunity - worldwide - are clear and obvious, and should be respected.

But surely, this should not be extended as far the common highway, where
danger can threaten innocent citizens without any prospect of
compensation. That is, at base, quite outrageous.

In order to be fair to other road-users, my suggestion is that
foreigners with diplomatic immunity should be advised that this does not
extend to the driving of motor vehicles, and that if they wish to travel
by private motor vehicle, their diplomatic mission has to

(a) accept that immunity does not extend to traffic law and

(b) they consequently need to employ drivers who do *not* have such
immunity and who are expected to comply with every aspect of UK traffic
law (including parking restrictions) and who can and will be dealt with
by the law in the case of any contravention.

Any breach of this (eg, a CD car being found to be driven by someone
with treaty protection) would result in an immediate expulsion of the
person involved. Effectively, it would be easier for them to employ a
corps of UK citizens as drivers.

Alternatively, the UK government should assume all liability for
generous compensation for a UK citizen killed or injured on the highways
of the UK by a freigner with diplomatic immunity and this should be
administered at the same speed as any insurance claim would be processed
in analogous circumstances.

Getting compensation when run over by a diplomat should not be as
impossible as it currently is.
p***@gmail.com
2019-11-21 19:37:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Martin Brown
Post by The Todal
Very unwise of Harry Dunn's family to adopt as their spokesman Radd
Seiger, an American who seems to know very little about the English
legal system and probably doesn't know enough about personal injury
litigation in the UK or the USA.  The government is absolutely right
to defend any claims against it and to seek costs from an unsuccessful
claimant in accordance with the usual procedure in our courts.
Whilst that may be correct in legal terms; how is an ordinary family
that finds themselves in a complex international diplomatic scandal
supposed to obtain competent legal advice that they can afford?
(serious question)
They are desperate grieving parents and easy prey for any chancer that
tells them what they want to hear.
Post by The Todal
Hence...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-50501097
Harry Dunn's family 'disgusted' with Dominic Raab over legal costs
The parents of Harry Dunn have said they are "disgusted" with Dominic
Raab after he defended the government's decision to seek legal costs
from them.
The 19-year-old died after a collision in Northamptonshire in August
that led to the suspect leaving the UK claiming diplomatic immunity.
Does her car insurance have to pay out for killing him?
The only slight chance of success might be if they could prove that as a
spouse resident outside London she did not in fact have "diplomatic"
immunity under the previously secret bilateral agreement on spies.
Hang on, though...
Surely there IS a point to be made here.
It is not unknown for a UK citizen to be killed or injured on the roads
in a collision with a vehicle driven by a diplomat or other foreign
embassy employee who holds diplomatic immunity. The reasons for such
immunity - worldwide - are clear and obvious, and should be respected.
But surely, this should not be extended as far the common highway, where
danger can threaten innocent citizens without any prospect of
compensation. That is, at base, quite outrageous.
In order to be fair to other road-users, my suggestion is that
foreigners with diplomatic immunity should be advised that this does not
extend to the driving of motor vehicles, and that if they wish to travel
by private motor vehicle, their diplomatic mission has to
(a) accept that immunity does not extend to traffic law and
(b) they consequently need to employ drivers who do *not* have such
immunity and who are expected to comply with every aspect of UK traffic
law (including parking restrictions) and who can and will be dealt with
by the law in the case of any contravention.
Any breach of this (eg, a CD car being found to be driven by someone
with treaty protection) would result in an immediate expulsion of the
person involved. Effectively, it would be easier for them to employ a
corps of UK citizens as drivers.
Alternatively, the UK government should assume all liability for
generous compensation for a UK citizen killed or injured on the highways
of the UK by a freigner with diplomatic immunity and this should be
administered at the same speed as any insurance claim would be processed
in analogous circumstances.
Getting compensation when run over by a diplomat should not be as
impossible as it currently is.
I think immunity must - as it does - include the public highway as it does for other offences. Otherwise it would be a loophole that the UK's deputy underconsul for a nefarious place somewhere far away is arrested and subject to local imprisonment for alleged road traffic offences because the UK has put sanctions on the security minister's spouse. It would open up other incongruities, such as rape or murder would be immune but a road traffic collision wouldn't.

In any case I'm not sure your proposal is achievable, the UK doesn't solely decide the diplomatic immunity regime, treaties do.

If it is not already so covered, the UK could extend the compensation arrangements it has for other uninsured drivers (the Motor Insurance Bureau) or offences (Criminal Injuries Compensation). The cost would be peanuts, it's an uncommon event.

Patrick
JNugent
2019-11-21 20:17:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
Post by Martin Brown
Post by The Todal
Very unwise of Harry Dunn's family to adopt as their spokesman Radd
Seiger, an American who seems to know very little about the English
legal system and probably doesn't know enough about personal injury
litigation in the UK or the USA.  The government is absolutely right
to defend any claims against it and to seek costs from an unsuccessful
claimant in accordance with the usual procedure in our courts.
Whilst that may be correct in legal terms; how is an ordinary family
that finds themselves in a complex international diplomatic scandal
supposed to obtain competent legal advice that they can afford?
(serious question)
They are desperate grieving parents and easy prey for any chancer that
tells them what they want to hear.
Post by The Todal
Hence...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-50501097
Harry Dunn's family 'disgusted' with Dominic Raab over legal costs
The parents of Harry Dunn have said they are "disgusted" with Dominic
Raab after he defended the government's decision to seek legal costs
from them.
The 19-year-old died after a collision in Northamptonshire in August
that led to the suspect leaving the UK claiming diplomatic immunity.
Does her car insurance have to pay out for killing him?
The only slight chance of success might be if they could prove that as a
spouse resident outside London she did not in fact have "diplomatic"
immunity under the previously secret bilateral agreement on spies.
Hang on, though...
Surely there IS a point to be made here.
It is not unknown for a UK citizen to be killed or injured on the roads
in a collision with a vehicle driven by a diplomat or other foreign
embassy employee who holds diplomatic immunity. The reasons for such
immunity - worldwide - are clear and obvious, and should be respected.
But surely, this should not be extended as far the common highway, where
danger can threaten innocent citizens without any prospect of
compensation. That is, at base, quite outrageous.
In order to be fair to other road-users, my suggestion is that
foreigners with diplomatic immunity should be advised that this does not
extend to the driving of motor vehicles, and that if they wish to travel
by private motor vehicle, their diplomatic mission has to
(a) accept that immunity does not extend to traffic law and
(b) they consequently need to employ drivers who do *not* have such
immunity and who are expected to comply with every aspect of UK traffic
law (including parking restrictions) and who can and will be dealt with
by the law in the case of any contravention.
Any breach of this (eg, a CD car being found to be driven by someone
with treaty protection) would result in an immediate expulsion of the
person involved. Effectively, it would be easier for them to employ a
corps of UK citizens as drivers.
Alternatively, the UK government should assume all liability for
generous compensation for a UK citizen killed or injured on the highways
of the UK by a freigner with diplomatic immunity and this should be
administered at the same speed as any insurance claim would be processed
in analogous circumstances.
Getting compensation when run over by a diplomat should not be as
impossible as it currently is.
I think immunity must - as it does - include the public highway as it does for other offences. Otherwise it would be a loophole that the UK's deputy underconsul for a nefarious place somewhere far away is arrested and subject to local imprisonment for alleged road traffic offences because the UK has put sanctions on the security minister's spouse. It would open up other incongruities, such as rape or murder would be immune but a road traffic collision wouldn't.
The FCO could employ local drivers (I expect that would become mutual).
Post by p***@gmail.com
In any case I'm not sure your proposal is achievable, the UK doesn't solely decide the diplomatic immunity regime, treaties do.
If it is not already so covered, the UK could extend the compensation arrangements it has for other uninsured drivers (the Motor Insurance Bureau) or offences (Criminal Injuries Compensation). The cost would be peanuts, it's an uncommon event.
The Treasury could become the compensating party rather than the
non-existent insurance company of the diplomat involved.

I repeat: it is outrageous that ordinary individuals (that includes you
and me) should be at such uninsured and uncomensated risk.
The Todal
2019-11-21 23:08:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Martin Brown
Post by The Todal
Very unwise of Harry Dunn's family to adopt as their spokesman Radd
Seiger, an American who seems to know very little about the English
legal system and probably doesn't know enough about personal injury
litigation in the UK or the USA.  The government is absolutely right
to defend any claims against it and to seek costs from an
unsuccessful claimant in accordance with the usual procedure in our
courts.
Whilst that may be correct in legal terms; how is an ordinary family
that finds themselves in a complex international diplomatic scandal
supposed to obtain competent legal advice that they can afford?
(serious question)
They are desperate grieving parents and easy prey for any chancer that
tells them what they want to hear.
Post by The Todal
Hence...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-50501097
Harry Dunn's family 'disgusted' with Dominic Raab over legal costs
The parents of Harry Dunn have said they are "disgusted" with Dominic
Raab after he defended the government's decision to seek legal costs
from them.
The 19-year-old died after a collision in Northamptonshire in August
that led to the suspect leaving the UK claiming diplomatic immunity.
Does her car insurance have to pay out for killing him?
The only slight chance of success might be if they could prove that as
a spouse resident outside London she did not in fact have "diplomatic"
immunity under the previously secret bilateral agreement on spies.
Hang on, though...
Surely there IS a point to be made here.
It is not unknown for a UK citizen to be killed or injured on the roads
in a collision with a vehicle driven by a diplomat or other foreign
embassy employee who holds diplomatic immunity. The reasons for such
immunity - worldwide - are clear and obvious, and should be respected.
But surely, this should not be extended as far the common highway, where
danger can threaten innocent citizens without any prospect of
compensation. That is, at base, quite outrageous.
In order to be fair to other road-users, my suggestion is that
foreigners with diplomatic immunity should be advised that this does not
extend to the driving of motor vehicles, and that if they wish to travel
by private motor vehicle, their diplomatic mission has to
(a) accept that immunity does not extend to traffic law and
(b) they consequently need to employ drivers who do *not* have such
immunity and who are expected to comply with every aspect of UK traffic
law (including parking restrictions) and who can and will be dealt with
by the law in the case of any contravention.
Any breach of this (eg, a CD car being found to be driven by someone
with treaty protection) would result in an immediate expulsion of the
person involved. Effectively, it would be easier for them to employ a
corps of UK citizens as drivers.
Alternatively, the UK government should assume all liability for
generous compensation for a UK citizen killed or injured on the highways
of the UK by a freigner with diplomatic immunity and this should be
administered at the same speed as any insurance claim would be processed
in analogous circumstances.
Getting compensation when run over by a diplomat should not be as
impossible as it currently is.
It would indeed be outrageous if the driver was uninsured, or if her
insurers denied liability on the basis of diplomatic immunity. That
would be a real scandal. But I doubt if it is the case. Has anyone seen
any report saying otherwise?
JNugent
2019-11-21 23:41:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[ ... ]
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by Martin Brown
Post by The Todal
The parents of Harry Dunn have said they are "disgusted" with
Dominic Raab after he defended the government's decision to seek
legal costs from them.
The 19-year-old died after a collision in Northamptonshire in August
that led to the suspect leaving the UK claiming diplomatic immunity.
Does her car insurance have to pay out for killing him?
The only slight chance of success might be if they could prove that
as a spouse resident outside London she did not in fact have
"diplomatic" immunity under the previously secret bilateral agreement
on spies.
Hang on, though...
Surely there IS a point to be made here.
It is not unknown for a UK citizen to be killed or injured on the
roads in a collision with a vehicle driven by a diplomat or other
foreign embassy employee who holds diplomatic immunity. The reasons
for such immunity - worldwide - are clear and obvious, and should be
respected.
But surely, this should not be extended as far the common highway,
where danger can threaten innocent citizens without any prospect of
compensation. That is, at base, quite outrageous.
In order to be fair to other road-users, my suggestion is that
foreigners with diplomatic immunity should be advised that this does
not extend to the driving of motor vehicles, and that if they wish to
travel by private motor vehicle, their diplomatic mission has to
(a) accept that immunity does not extend to traffic law and
(b) they consequently need to employ drivers who do *not* have such
immunity and who are expected to comply with every aspect of UK
traffic law (including parking restrictions) and who can and will be
dealt with by the law in the case of any contravention.
Any breach of this (eg, a CD car being found to be driven by someone
with treaty protection) would result in an immediate expulsion of the
person involved. Effectively, it would be easier for them to employ a
corps of UK citizens as drivers.
Alternatively, the UK government should assume all liability for
generous compensation for a UK citizen killed or injured on the
highways of the UK by a freigner with diplomatic immunity and this
should be administered at the same speed as any insurance claim would
be processed in analogous circumstances.
Getting compensation when run over by a diplomat should not be as
impossible as it currently is.
It would indeed be outrageous if the driver was uninsured, or if her
insurers denied liability on the basis of diplomatic immunity. That
would be a real scandal. But I doubt if it is the case. Has anyone seen
any report saying otherwise?
I have had direct contact with such a victim. The driver hit him on a
pedestrian crossing in Central London (near Embankment Underground, if
that's of any help - it should be). The victim was unable to work and
unable to get compensation - a situation which had been the case for
some years before I encountered the gentleman. The driver may or may not
have been insured - but he and the insurance company (if any) certainly
didn't pay up, and that's what's important. Driving whilst uninsured
seems at least to be a distinct possibility and would be something the
driver could anyway do with total impunity. That's what diplomatic
immunity means. Especially for victims.
Grikbassterder®™
2019-11-22 14:12:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by Martin Brown
Post by The Todal
The parents of Harry Dunn have said they are "disgusted" with
Dominic Raab after he defended the government's decision to seek
legal costs from them.
The 19-year-old died after a collision in Northamptonshire in August
that led to the suspect leaving the UK claiming diplomatic immunity.
Does her car insurance have to pay out for killing him?
The only slight chance of success might be if they could prove that
as a spouse resident outside London she did not in fact have
"diplomatic" immunity under the previously secret bilateral agreement
on spies.
Hang on, though...
Surely there IS a point to be made here.
It is not unknown for a UK citizen to be killed or injured on the
roads in a collision with a vehicle driven by a diplomat or other
foreign embassy employee who holds diplomatic immunity. The reasons
for such immunity - worldwide - are clear and obvious, and should be
respected.
But surely, this should not be extended as far the common highway,
where danger can threaten innocent citizens without any prospect of
compensation. That is, at base, quite outrageous.
In order to be fair to other road-users, my suggestion is that
foreigners with diplomatic immunity should be advised that this does
not extend to the driving of motor vehicles, and that if they wish to
travel by private motor vehicle, their diplomatic mission has to
(a) accept that immunity does not extend to traffic law and
(b) they consequently need to employ drivers who do *not* have such
immunity and who are expected to comply with every aspect of UK
traffic law (including parking restrictions) and who can and will be
dealt with by the law in the case of any contravention.
Any breach of this (eg, a CD car being found to be driven by someone
with treaty protection) would result in an immediate expulsion of the
person involved. Effectively, it would be easier for them to employ a
corps of UK citizens as drivers.
Alternatively, the UK government should assume all liability for
generous compensation for a UK citizen killed or injured on the
highways of the UK by a freigner with diplomatic immunity and this
should be administered at the same speed as any insurance claim would
be processed in analogous circumstances.
Getting compensation when run over by a diplomat should not be as
impossible as it currently is.
It would indeed be outrageous if the driver was uninsured, or if her
insurers denied liability on the basis of diplomatic immunity. That
would be a real scandal. But I doubt if it is the case. Has anyone seen
any report saying otherwise?
I have had direct contact with such a victim. The driver hit him on a
pedestrian crossing in Central London (near Embankment Underground, if
that's of any help - it should be). The victim was unable to work and
unable to get compensation - a situation which had been the case for
some years before I encountered the gentleman. The driver may or may not
have been insured - but he and the insurance company (if any) certainly
didn't pay up, and that's what's important. Driving whilst uninsured
seems at least to be a distinct possibility and would be something the
driver could anyway do with total impunity. That's what diplomatic
immunity means. Especially for victims.
Was the driver driving on the wrong side of the road? That's all
right, then, according to you...it's quite legal. That's probably why
the insurance company wouldn't pay up.
Joe
2019-11-22 14:58:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 06:12:00 -0800
Post by Grikbassterder®™
Was the driver driving on the wrong side of the road? That's all
right, then, according to you...it's quite legal. That's probably why
the insurance company wouldn't pay up.
As you've been told, where a dashed line marks the centre of the road,
then any vehicle wholly or partly on the offside of it must give way to
traffic travelling in the other direction. Anyone involved in an
accident in such circumstances has by definition not given way and is
automatically regarded as the cause of the accident.

As you've been told, the law forbids crossing solid central lines, not
dashed ones.
--
Joe
Grikbassterder®™
2019-11-22 17:40:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 06:12:00 -0800
Post by Grikbassterder®™
Was the driver driving on the wrong side of the road? That's all
right, then, according to you...it's quite legal. That's probably why
the insurance company wouldn't pay up.
As you've been told, where a dashed line marks the centre of the road,
then any vehicle wholly or partly on the offside of it must give way to
traffic travelling in the other direction. Anyone involved in an
accident in such circumstances has by definition not given way and is
automatically regarded as the cause of the accident.
As *you've* been told, we drive on the left in this country...crossing
to the offside of the centre line is only allowed in limited
circumstances and only for the necessary duration of the manoeuvre.
Post by Joe
As you've been told, the law forbids crossing solid central lines, not
dashed ones.
As *you've* been told, the law forbids driving on the wrong side of
the road.
Peeler
2019-11-22 17:57:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:40:56 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grikbassterder®™", farted
Post by Grikbassterder®™
As *you've* been told,
As *you've* been told by countless people, you ARE a VERY VERY sick asshole,
pedophilic gay Razovic!
--
tomcov about poor psychotic asshole Razovic:
"Assholes come
Assholes go
But the revd asshole goes on forever.
(and he speaks through it)"
MID: <83356bf8-8666-4f4f-ac9a-***@n35g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
Joe
2019-11-22 20:47:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:40:56 -0800
Post by Grikbassterder®™
Post by Joe
As you've been told, the law forbids crossing solid central lines,
not dashed ones.
As *you've* been told, the law forbids driving on the wrong side of
the road.
So what is your explanation for the existence of solid white lines in a
few places?
--
Joe
Grikbassterder®™
2019-11-22 21:37:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peeler
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:40:56 -0800
Post by Grikbassterder®™
Post by Joe
As you've been told, the law forbids crossing solid central lines,
not dashed ones.
As *you've* been told, the law forbids driving on the wrong side of
the road.
So what is your explanation for the existence of solid white lines in a
few places?
That's where the otherwise allowable (very) temporary crossing to the
wrong side of the road is not allowed at all.
Peeler
2019-11-22 22:00:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 13:37:56 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grikbassterder®™", farted
Post by Grikbassterder®™
Post by Joe
So what is your explanation for the existence of solid white lines in a
few places?
That's where the otherwise allowable (very) temporary crossing to the
wrong side of the road is not allowed at all.
What are you now bullshitting about again, eh, psychopath? <BG>
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Why do we still have outdated laws prohibiting paedophilia? Do you
seriously think that a 12-year old who spends 15 hours a day on Facebook
doesn't know what's going on?"
MID: <FnMUE.676068$***@usenetxs.com>
Peeler
2019-12-01 17:41:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peeler
Post by Grikbassterder®™
That's where the otherwise allowable (very) temporary crossing to the
wrong side of the road is not allowed at all.
What are you now bullshitting about again, eh, psychopath? <BG>
The mangina always bullshits.
You can say THAT again! LOL
Michael Ejercito
2019-12-02 16:44:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peeler
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 13:37:56 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grikbassterder®™", farted
Post by Grikbassterder®™
Post by Joe
So what is your explanation for the existence of solid white lines in a
few places?
That's where the otherwise allowable (very) temporary crossing to the
wrong side of the road is not allowed at all.
What are you now bullshitting about again, eh, psychopath? <BG>
--
"Why do we still have outdated laws prohibiting paedophilia? Do you
seriously think that a 12-year old who spends 15 hours a day on Facebook
doesn't know what's going on?"
The mangina always liked 'em young.

Just like his hero, Kevin Alfred Strom.

Now here is Alan M. Dershowitz explaining how Trump and Netanyahu are
being accused of made-up crimes.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15217/trump-netanyahu-impeachment-indictment

Trump and Netanyahu: Both Being Investigated for Made-Up Crimes
by Alan M. Dershowitz
November 27, 2019 at 5:00 am

Send
Print

Share288
The most striking similarity is that both are being investigated for actions
that their legislatures have not explicitly made criminal.

Politicians always seek good coverage and many vote with that in mind. Some
even negotiate good coverage in advance of voting. That is why they have
press secretaries and media consultants.

Nor could a reasonable statute be drafted that covered Netanyahu's alleged
conduct, but not that of other Knesset members who bartered their votes for
good coverage. That is why no legislature in a country governed by the rule
of law has ever made positive media coverage the "quid" or "quo" necessary
for a bribery conviction, and that is why the bribery indictment of
Netanyahu should not be upheld by the courts.

[I]t is simply not a crime for a President to use his power over foreign
policy for political, partisan or even personal advantage. Imagine Congress
trying to pass a law defining what would constitute a criminal abuse of the
foreign policy power, as distinguished from a political or moral abuse....
Presidents have even engaged in military actions for political gain.

The central aspect of the rule of law is that no one may be investigated,
prosecuted or impeached unless his conduct violates pre-existing and
unambiguous prohibitions. Neither Congress nor prosecutors can make it up as
they go along, because they, too, are not above the law.


The most striking similarity between the investigations being conducted
against US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu is that both are being investigated for actions that their
legislatures have not explicitly made criminal. Pictured: Trump and
Netanyahu at a joint press conference in Washington, D.C. on February 15,
2017. (Image source: The White House)

There are striking similarities, as well as important differences, between
the investigations being conducted against American President Donald J.
Trump by the US Congress, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who
was just indicted.

The most striking similarity is that both are being investigated for actions
that their legislatures have not explicitly made criminal. Moreover, no
legislature in any country governed by the rule of law would ever enact a
general statute criminalizing such conduct. The investigations of these two
controversial leaders are based on using general laws that have never
previously been deemed to apply to the conduct at issue and stretching them
to target specific political figures.

Netanyahu has been indicted for bribery on the ground that he allegedly
agreed to help a media company in exchange for more positive coverage and/or
less negative coverage. There are disputes about the facts, but even if they
are viewed in the light least favorable to Netanyahu, they do not constitute
the crime of bribery.

Nor would the Knesset ever enact a statute making it a crime for a member of
Knesset to cast a vote in order to get good media coverage. If such a law
was ever passed, the entire Knesset would be in prison. Politicians always
seek good coverage and many vote with that in mind. Some even negotiate good
coverage in advance of voting. That is why they have press secretaries and
media consultants.

Nor could a reasonable statute be drafted that covered Netanyahu's alleged
conduct, but not that of other Knesset members who bartered their votes for
good coverage. That is why no legislature in a country governed by the rule
of law has ever made positive media coverage the "quid" or "quo" necessary
for a bribery conviction, and that is why the bribery indictment of
Netanyahu should not be upheld by the courts.

Upholding a conviction based on positive media coverage would endanger both
the freedom of the press and democratic processes of governance. Prosecutors
should stay out of the interactions between politicians and the media unless
specifically defined crimes, as distinguished from arguable political sins,
are committed, and no one should ever be prosecuted for actions that were
never made criminal, and would never be made criminal, by the legislature.

President Trump is also being investigated for alleged bribery. Originally
the Democrats thought they could impeach him for non-criminal conduct, such
as alleged maladministration, abuse of office or immoral conduct. I think
they have now been convinced by me and others that no impeachment would be
constitutional unless the President were found guilty of the crimes
specified in the Constitution, namely, "treason, bribery or other high
crimes and misdemeanors." So the Democratic leadership has now settled on
bribery as an offence for which they can impeach President Trump. The
problem with that approach -- similar to the problem with the Israeli
approach against Netanyahu -- is that it is simply not a crime for a
President to use his power over foreign policy for political, partisan or
even personal advantage. Imagine Congress trying to pass a law defining what
would constitute a criminal abuse of the foreign policy power, as
distinguished from a political or moral abuse.

Presidents have even engaged in military actions for political gain. They
have given aid to foreign countries to help themselves get elected. They
have appointed ambassadors based not on competence but on past and
anticipated future political contributions. None of these has ever been
deemed criminal, and Congress would never dream of enacting a criminal
statute that sought to cover such conduct.

Could it carve out a specific crime based on seeking personal political
advantage rather than partisan political advantage? I doubt it. But even if
it could parse such a statute, it has not done so. And if it has not done
so, neither Congress nor prosecutors can seek to criminalize the exercise of
a President's foreign policy power on the ground that they do not like the
way he used it or even if he abused it.

The central aspect of the rule of law is that no one may be investigated,
prosecuted or impeached unless his conduct violates pre-existing and
unambiguous prohibitions. Neither Congress nor prosecutors can make it up as
they go along, because they, too, are not above the law.

Now to the differences. Israel is a parliamentary democracy in which the
Prime Minister can be removed by a simple vote of no confidence. There is no
requirement of, or need for, an impeachment mechanism. The United States, on
the other hand, is a Republic with separation of powers and checks and
balances. The Framers, led by James Madison, saw the impeachment power as
central to preserving our Republic and not turning it into a parliamentary
democracy. That is why they rejected a proposal that would have permitted
impeachment on the ground of "maladministration." Such an open-ended
criteria, according to Madison, would have resulted in a situation in which
the President served at the will of Congress. That is why Madison insisted
on the specific criteria for impeachment that the Framers ultimately
accepted.

Although the differences between Israel and the United States are
significant, they share in common the rule of law. Under the rule of law,
properly applied, neither Netanyahu nor Trump should be deemed guilty of
bribery.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus at
Harvard Law School and author of The Case Against the Democratic House
Impeaching Trump, Skyhorse Publishing, 2019, and Guilt by Accusation,
Skyhorse publishing, 2019.

Follow Alan M. Dershowitz on Twitter and Facebook

Peeler
2019-11-22 15:09:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 06:12:00 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grikbassterder®™", farted
Post by Grikbassterder®™
Was the driver driving on the wrong side of the road?
YOU are ALWAYS on the wrong side of the road, psychopathic pervert!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"A lowering of the age of consent to reflect the rate at which today's
youngsters 'mature'."
MID: <gKNUE.1374684$***@usenetxs.com>
Martin Brown
2019-11-25 09:46:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by Martin Brown
Post by The Todal
Very unwise of Harry Dunn's family to adopt as their spokesman Radd
Seiger, an American who seems to know very little about the English
legal system and probably doesn't know enough about personal injury
litigation in the UK or the USA.  The government is absolutely right
to defend any claims against it and to seek costs from an
unsuccessful claimant in accordance with the usual procedure in our
courts.
Whilst that may be correct in legal terms; how is an ordinary family
that finds themselves in a complex international diplomatic scandal
supposed to obtain competent legal advice that they can afford?
(serious question)
They are desperate grieving parents and easy prey for any chancer
that tells them what they want to hear.
Post by The Todal
Hence...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-50501097
Harry Dunn's family 'disgusted' with Dominic Raab over legal costs
The parents of Harry Dunn have said they are "disgusted" with
Dominic Raab after he defended the government's decision to seek
legal costs from them.
The 19-year-old died after a collision in Northamptonshire in August
that led to the suspect leaving the UK claiming diplomatic immunity.
Does her car insurance have to pay out for killing him?
The only slight chance of success might be if they could prove that
as a spouse resident outside London she did not in fact have
"diplomatic" immunity under the previously secret bilateral agreement
on spies.
Hang on, though...
Surely there IS a point to be made here.
It is not unknown for a UK citizen to be killed or injured on the
roads in a collision with a vehicle driven by a diplomat or other
foreign embassy employee who holds diplomatic immunity. The reasons
for such immunity - worldwide - are clear and obvious, and should be
respected.
But surely, this should not be extended as far the common highway,
where danger can threaten innocent citizens without any prospect of
compensation. That is, at base, quite outrageous.
In order to be fair to other road-users, my suggestion is that
foreigners with diplomatic immunity should be advised that this does
not extend to the driving of motor vehicles, and that if they wish to
travel by private motor vehicle, their diplomatic mission has to
(a) accept that immunity does not extend to traffic law and
(b) they consequently need to employ drivers who do *not* have such
immunity and who are expected to comply with every aspect of UK
traffic law (including parking restrictions) and who can and will be
dealt with by the law in the case of any contravention.
Any breach of this (eg, a CD car being found to be driven by someone
with treaty protection) would result in an immediate expulsion of the
person involved. Effectively, it would be easier for them to employ a
corps of UK citizens as drivers.
Alternatively, the UK government should assume all liability for
generous compensation for a UK citizen killed or injured on the
highways of the UK by a freigner with diplomatic immunity and this
should be administered at the same speed as any insurance claim would
be processed in analogous circumstances.
Getting compensation when run over by a diplomat should not be as
impossible as it currently is.
It would indeed be outrageous if the driver was uninsured, or if her
But they clearly could be driving uninsured in the UK without any
consequences whatsoever since they are quite literally above the law.
You cannot impound or clamp a diplomatic car.

I am still interested in the question of how this family are supposed to
find the right sort of lawyer for this minefield of diplomatic immunity
(which might actually not be quite what it says on the tin anyway).

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/legal-updates/diplomatic-immunity-and-the-dunn-case/5101902.article

It looks to me like they have been taken in by a plausible self
promoting bloviator but only time will tell. It could be a very
expensive mistake if they do not have a sound case. I worry that the
government may invoke D-notices or whatever they are called now to
obfuscate any dark dealings (much as they did with Matrix Churchill).
Post by The Todal
insurers denied liability on the basis of diplomatic immunity. That
What is the price of a young life in car insurance payout terms?

Does the insurer really have to pay out now that their client is a
fugitive from UK justice and no longer within our jurisdiction?
Post by The Todal
would be a real scandal. But I doubt if it is the case. Has anyone seen
any report saying otherwise?
I have heard tales of people injured by badly driven diplomatic cars not
being able to obtain compensation or redress but only anecdotally. A bit
like with the unpaid congestion charges and parking fines.

It is interesting to contrast this US pseudo-diplomat incident where the
US spirited her away and then said "yah boo sucks she's safe" against
what happened when a Romanian charge d'affaires who hit pedestrians in
Singapore and was convicted of dangerous driving in his home country:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Singapore_Romanian_diplomat_incident

This was involving a high ranking *real* accredited diplomat, one dead,
he left the country and no extradition treaty. He was convicted in his
home country. Why do the Americans not offer the same deal to the UK?

What special UK-US relationship?
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Grikbassterdaeh®™
2019-11-25 12:52:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 09:46:12 +0000, Martin Brown
Post by Martin Brown
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by Martin Brown
Post by The Todal
Very unwise of Harry Dunn's family to adopt as their spokesman Radd
Seiger, an American who seems to know very little about the English
legal system and probably doesn't know enough about personal injury
litigation in the UK or the USA.  The government is absolutely right
to defend any claims against it and to seek costs from an
unsuccessful claimant in accordance with the usual procedure in our
courts.
Whilst that may be correct in legal terms; how is an ordinary family
that finds themselves in a complex international diplomatic scandal
supposed to obtain competent legal advice that they can afford?
(serious question)
They are desperate grieving parents and easy prey for any chancer
that tells them what they want to hear.
Post by The Todal
Hence...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-50501097
Harry Dunn's family 'disgusted' with Dominic Raab over legal costs
The parents of Harry Dunn have said they are "disgusted" with
Dominic Raab after he defended the government's decision to seek
legal costs from them.
The 19-year-old died after a collision in Northamptonshire in August
that led to the suspect leaving the UK claiming diplomatic immunity.
Does her car insurance have to pay out for killing him?
The only slight chance of success might be if they could prove that
as a spouse resident outside London she did not in fact have
"diplomatic" immunity under the previously secret bilateral agreement
on spies.
Hang on, though...
Surely there IS a point to be made here.
It is not unknown for a UK citizen to be killed or injured on the
roads in a collision with a vehicle driven by a diplomat or other
foreign embassy employee who holds diplomatic immunity. The reasons
for such immunity - worldwide - are clear and obvious, and should be
respected.
But surely, this should not be extended as far the common highway,
where danger can threaten innocent citizens without any prospect of
compensation. That is, at base, quite outrageous.
In order to be fair to other road-users, my suggestion is that
foreigners with diplomatic immunity should be advised that this does
not extend to the driving of motor vehicles, and that if they wish to
travel by private motor vehicle, their diplomatic mission has to
(a) accept that immunity does not extend to traffic law and
(b) they consequently need to employ drivers who do *not* have such
immunity and who are expected to comply with every aspect of UK
traffic law (including parking restrictions) and who can and will be
dealt with by the law in the case of any contravention.
Any breach of this (eg, a CD car being found to be driven by someone
with treaty protection) would result in an immediate expulsion of the
person involved. Effectively, it would be easier for them to employ a
corps of UK citizens as drivers.
Alternatively, the UK government should assume all liability for
generous compensation for a UK citizen killed or injured on the
highways of the UK by a freigner with diplomatic immunity and this
should be administered at the same speed as any insurance claim would
be processed in analogous circumstances.
Getting compensation when run over by a diplomat should not be as
impossible as it currently is.
It would indeed be outrageous if the driver was uninsured, or if her
But they clearly could be driving uninsured in the UK without any
consequences whatsoever since they are quite literally above the law.
You cannot impound or clamp a diplomatic car.
How would your average thick clamper recognise a diplomatic car if it
doesn't have the standard diplomatic number plates (or even if it
does!)? For instance, many embassies have plates such as FRA 1, USA 1
etc. The wife of a spook from the Great Satan is unlikely to have a
car with standard diplomatic plates.
Peeler
2019-11-25 13:09:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 04:52:23 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grikbassterdaeh®™", farted
Post by Grikbassterdaeh®™
How would your average thick clamper recognise a diplomatic car if it
doesn't have the standard diplomatic number plates
If someone wanted an asshole's opinion, they'd have farted, psychopathic
asshole!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Isn't it time that paedophiles were admitted to the LGBTQ rainbow?
Now that every other sexual deviation seems to have been accommodated?"
MID: <Y8LUE.513827$***@usenetxs.com>
JNugent
2019-11-25 14:56:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikbassterdaeh®™
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 09:46:12 +0000, Martin Brown
Post by Martin Brown
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by Martin Brown
Post by The Todal
Very unwise of Harry Dunn's family to adopt as their spokesman Radd
Seiger, an American who seems to know very little about the English
legal system and probably doesn't know enough about personal injury
litigation in the UK or the USA.  The government is absolutely right
to defend any claims against it and to seek costs from an
unsuccessful claimant in accordance with the usual procedure in our
courts.
Whilst that may be correct in legal terms; how is an ordinary family
that finds themselves in a complex international diplomatic scandal
supposed to obtain competent legal advice that they can afford?
(serious question)
They are desperate grieving parents and easy prey for any chancer
that tells them what they want to hear.
Post by The Todal
Hence...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-50501097
Harry Dunn's family 'disgusted' with Dominic Raab over legal costs
The parents of Harry Dunn have said they are "disgusted" with
Dominic Raab after he defended the government's decision to seek
legal costs from them.
The 19-year-old died after a collision in Northamptonshire in August
that led to the suspect leaving the UK claiming diplomatic immunity.
Does her car insurance have to pay out for killing him?
The only slight chance of success might be if they could prove that
as a spouse resident outside London she did not in fact have
"diplomatic" immunity under the previously secret bilateral agreement
on spies.
Hang on, though...
Surely there IS a point to be made here.
It is not unknown for a UK citizen to be killed or injured on the
roads in a collision with a vehicle driven by a diplomat or other
foreign embassy employee who holds diplomatic immunity. The reasons
for such immunity - worldwide - are clear and obvious, and should be
respected.
But surely, this should not be extended as far the common highway,
where danger can threaten innocent citizens without any prospect of
compensation. That is, at base, quite outrageous.
In order to be fair to other road-users, my suggestion is that
foreigners with diplomatic immunity should be advised that this does
not extend to the driving of motor vehicles, and that if they wish to
travel by private motor vehicle, their diplomatic mission has to
(a) accept that immunity does not extend to traffic law and
(b) they consequently need to employ drivers who do *not* have such
immunity and who are expected to comply with every aspect of UK
traffic law (including parking restrictions) and who can and will be
dealt with by the law in the case of any contravention.
Any breach of this (eg, a CD car being found to be driven by someone
with treaty protection) would result in an immediate expulsion of the
person involved. Effectively, it would be easier for them to employ a
corps of UK citizens as drivers.
Alternatively, the UK government should assume all liability for
generous compensation for a UK citizen killed or injured on the
highways of the UK by a freigner with diplomatic immunity and this
should be administered at the same speed as any insurance claim would
be processed in analogous circumstances.
Getting compensation when run over by a diplomat should not be as
impossible as it currently is.
It would indeed be outrageous if the driver was uninsured, or if her
But they clearly could be driving uninsured in the UK without any
consequences whatsoever since they are quite literally above the law.
You cannot impound or clamp a diplomatic car.
How would your average thick clamper recognise a diplomatic car if it
doesn't have the standard diplomatic number plates (or even if it
does!)? For instance, many embassies have plates such as FRA 1, USA 1
etc. The wife of a spook from the Great Satan is unlikely to have a
car with standard diplomatic plates.
I'm not sure what a "diplomatic number plate" is. AFAIAA, cars belonging
to or driven by those with diplomartic immunity are registered at
Swansea in tghe normal way but display a rear-mounted CD plate which is
what brings the attention of the authorities to its status (or rather,
the driver's potential status).

Do those cars you mentioned have vanity plates and no CD plates?
Grikbassterdea®™
2019-11-25 15:30:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikbassterdaeh®™
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 09:46:12 +0000, Martin Brown
Post by Martin Brown
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by Martin Brown
Post by The Todal
Very unwise of Harry Dunn's family to adopt as their spokesman Radd
Seiger, an American who seems to know very little about the English
legal system and probably doesn't know enough about personal injury
litigation in the UK or the USA.  The government is absolutely right
to defend any claims against it and to seek costs from an
unsuccessful claimant in accordance with the usual procedure in our
courts.
Whilst that may be correct in legal terms; how is an ordinary family
that finds themselves in a complex international diplomatic scandal
supposed to obtain competent legal advice that they can afford?
(serious question)
They are desperate grieving parents and easy prey for any chancer
that tells them what they want to hear.
Post by The Todal
Hence...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-50501097
Harry Dunn's family 'disgusted' with Dominic Raab over legal costs
The parents of Harry Dunn have said they are "disgusted" with
Dominic Raab after he defended the government's decision to seek
legal costs from them.
The 19-year-old died after a collision in Northamptonshire in August
that led to the suspect leaving the UK claiming diplomatic immunity.
Does her car insurance have to pay out for killing him?
The only slight chance of success might be if they could prove that
as a spouse resident outside London she did not in fact have
"diplomatic" immunity under the previously secret bilateral agreement
on spies.
Hang on, though...
Surely there IS a point to be made here.
It is not unknown for a UK citizen to be killed or injured on the
roads in a collision with a vehicle driven by a diplomat or other
foreign embassy employee who holds diplomatic immunity. The reasons
for such immunity - worldwide - are clear and obvious, and should be
respected.
But surely, this should not be extended as far the common highway,
where danger can threaten innocent citizens without any prospect of
compensation. That is, at base, quite outrageous.
In order to be fair to other road-users, my suggestion is that
foreigners with diplomatic immunity should be advised that this does
not extend to the driving of motor vehicles, and that if they wish to
travel by private motor vehicle, their diplomatic mission has to
(a) accept that immunity does not extend to traffic law and
(b) they consequently need to employ drivers who do *not* have such
immunity and who are expected to comply with every aspect of UK
traffic law (including parking restrictions) and who can and will be
dealt with by the law in the case of any contravention.
Any breach of this (eg, a CD car being found to be driven by someone
with treaty protection) would result in an immediate expulsion of the
person involved. Effectively, it would be easier for them to employ a
corps of UK citizens as drivers.
Alternatively, the UK government should assume all liability for
generous compensation for a UK citizen killed or injured on the
highways of the UK by a freigner with diplomatic immunity and this
should be administered at the same speed as any insurance claim would
be processed in analogous circumstances.
Getting compensation when run over by a diplomat should not be as
impossible as it currently is.
It would indeed be outrageous if the driver was uninsured, or if her
But they clearly could be driving uninsured in the UK without any
consequences whatsoever since they are quite literally above the law.
You cannot impound or clamp a diplomatic car.
How would your average thick clamper recognise a diplomatic car if it
doesn't have the standard diplomatic number plates (or even if it
does!)? For instance, many embassies have plates such as FRA 1, USA 1
etc. The wife of a spook from the Great Satan is unlikely to have a
car with standard diplomatic plates.
I'm not sure what a "diplomatic number plate" is. AFAIAA, cars belonging
to or driven by those with diplomartic immunity are registered at
Swansea in tghe normal way but display a rear-mounted CD plate which is
what brings the attention of the authorities to its status (or rather,
the driver's potential status).
Do those cars you mentioned have vanity plates and no CD plates?
A diplomatic number plate in the UK has the format NNN D NNN or
NNN X NNN; the following website identifies which country's
embassy/consulate the car belongs to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_codes_on_British_diplomatic_vehicle_registration_plates

The archaic CD plate is optional, even for those diplomatic cars with
vanity plates.
JNugent
2019-11-25 16:32:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikbassterdea®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikbassterdaeh®™
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 09:46:12 +0000, Martin Brown
Post by Martin Brown
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by Martin Brown
Post by The Todal
Very unwise of Harry Dunn's family to adopt as their spokesman Radd
Seiger, an American who seems to know very little about the English
legal system and probably doesn't know enough about personal injury
litigation in the UK or the USA.  The government is absolutely right
to defend any claims against it and to seek costs from an
unsuccessful claimant in accordance with the usual procedure in our
courts.
Whilst that may be correct in legal terms; how is an ordinary family
that finds themselves in a complex international diplomatic scandal
supposed to obtain competent legal advice that they can afford?
(serious question)
They are desperate grieving parents and easy prey for any chancer
that tells them what they want to hear.
Post by The Todal
Hence...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-50501097
Harry Dunn's family 'disgusted' with Dominic Raab over legal costs
The parents of Harry Dunn have said they are "disgusted" with
Dominic Raab after he defended the government's decision to seek
legal costs from them.
The 19-year-old died after a collision in Northamptonshire in August
that led to the suspect leaving the UK claiming diplomatic immunity.
Does her car insurance have to pay out for killing him?
The only slight chance of success might be if they could prove that
as a spouse resident outside London she did not in fact have
"diplomatic" immunity under the previously secret bilateral agreement
on spies.
Hang on, though...
Surely there IS a point to be made here.
It is not unknown for a UK citizen to be killed or injured on the
roads in a collision with a vehicle driven by a diplomat or other
foreign embassy employee who holds diplomatic immunity. The reasons
for such immunity - worldwide - are clear and obvious, and should be
respected.
But surely, this should not be extended as far the common highway,
where danger can threaten innocent citizens without any prospect of
compensation. That is, at base, quite outrageous.
In order to be fair to other road-users, my suggestion is that
foreigners with diplomatic immunity should be advised that this does
not extend to the driving of motor vehicles, and that if they wish to
travel by private motor vehicle, their diplomatic mission has to
(a) accept that immunity does not extend to traffic law and
(b) they consequently need to employ drivers who do *not* have such
immunity and who are expected to comply with every aspect of UK
traffic law (including parking restrictions) and who can and will be
dealt with by the law in the case of any contravention.
Any breach of this (eg, a CD car being found to be driven by someone
with treaty protection) would result in an immediate expulsion of the
person involved. Effectively, it would be easier for them to employ a
corps of UK citizens as drivers.
Alternatively, the UK government should assume all liability for
generous compensation for a UK citizen killed or injured on the
highways of the UK by a freigner with diplomatic immunity and this
should be administered at the same speed as any insurance claim would
be processed in analogous circumstances.
Getting compensation when run over by a diplomat should not be as
impossible as it currently is.
It would indeed be outrageous if the driver was uninsured, or if her
But they clearly could be driving uninsured in the UK without any
consequences whatsoever since they are quite literally above the law.
You cannot impound or clamp a diplomatic car.
How would your average thick clamper recognise a diplomatic car if it
doesn't have the standard diplomatic number plates (or even if it
does!)? For instance, many embassies have plates such as FRA 1, USA 1
etc. The wife of a spook from the Great Satan is unlikely to have a
car with standard diplomatic plates.
I'm not sure what a "diplomatic number plate" is. AFAIAA, cars belonging
to or driven by those with diplomartic immunity are registered at
Swansea in tghe normal way but display a rear-mounted CD plate which is
what brings the attention of the authorities to its status (or rather,
the driver's potential status).
Do those cars you mentioned have vanity plates and no CD plates?
A diplomatic number plate in the UK has the format NNN D NNN or
NNN X NNN; the following website identifies which country's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_codes_on_British_diplomatic_vehicle_registration_plates
Thanks for that. You can learn something new every day. They are still
registered at Swansea, though.
Post by Grikbassterdea®™
The archaic CD plate is optional, even for those diplomatic cars with
vanity plates.
Grikbassterdea®™
2019-11-25 16:43:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikbassterdea®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikbassterdaeh®™
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 09:46:12 +0000, Martin Brown
Post by Martin Brown
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by Martin Brown
Post by The Todal
Very unwise of Harry Dunn's family to adopt as their spokesman Radd
Seiger, an American who seems to know very little about the English
legal system and probably doesn't know enough about personal injury
litigation in the UK or the USA.  The government is absolutely right
to defend any claims against it and to seek costs from an
unsuccessful claimant in accordance with the usual procedure in our
courts.
Whilst that may be correct in legal terms; how is an ordinary family
that finds themselves in a complex international diplomatic scandal
supposed to obtain competent legal advice that they can afford?
(serious question)
They are desperate grieving parents and easy prey for any chancer
that tells them what they want to hear.
Post by The Todal
Hence...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-50501097
Harry Dunn's family 'disgusted' with Dominic Raab over legal costs
The parents of Harry Dunn have said they are "disgusted" with
Dominic Raab after he defended the government's decision to seek
legal costs from them.
The 19-year-old died after a collision in Northamptonshire in August
that led to the suspect leaving the UK claiming diplomatic immunity.
Does her car insurance have to pay out for killing him?
The only slight chance of success might be if they could prove that
as a spouse resident outside London she did not in fact have
"diplomatic" immunity under the previously secret bilateral agreement
on spies.
Hang on, though...
Surely there IS a point to be made here.
It is not unknown for a UK citizen to be killed or injured on the
roads in a collision with a vehicle driven by a diplomat or other
foreign embassy employee who holds diplomatic immunity. The reasons
for such immunity - worldwide - are clear and obvious, and should be
respected.
But surely, this should not be extended as far the common highway,
where danger can threaten innocent citizens without any prospect of
compensation. That is, at base, quite outrageous.
In order to be fair to other road-users, my suggestion is that
foreigners with diplomatic immunity should be advised that this does
not extend to the driving of motor vehicles, and that if they wish to
travel by private motor vehicle, their diplomatic mission has to
(a) accept that immunity does not extend to traffic law and
(b) they consequently need to employ drivers who do *not* have such
immunity and who are expected to comply with every aspect of UK
traffic law (including parking restrictions) and who can and will be
dealt with by the law in the case of any contravention.
Any breach of this (eg, a CD car being found to be driven by someone
with treaty protection) would result in an immediate expulsion of the
person involved. Effectively, it would be easier for them to employ a
corps of UK citizens as drivers.
Alternatively, the UK government should assume all liability for
generous compensation for a UK citizen killed or injured on the
highways of the UK by a freigner with diplomatic immunity and this
should be administered at the same speed as any insurance claim would
be processed in analogous circumstances.
Getting compensation when run over by a diplomat should not be as
impossible as it currently is.
It would indeed be outrageous if the driver was uninsured, or if her
But they clearly could be driving uninsured in the UK without any
consequences whatsoever since they are quite literally above the law.
You cannot impound or clamp a diplomatic car.
How would your average thick clamper recognise a diplomatic car if it
doesn't have the standard diplomatic number plates (or even if it
does!)? For instance, many embassies have plates such as FRA 1, USA 1
etc. The wife of a spook from the Great Satan is unlikely to have a
car with standard diplomatic plates.
I'm not sure what a "diplomatic number plate" is. AFAIAA, cars belonging
to or driven by those with diplomartic immunity are registered at
Swansea in tghe normal way but display a rear-mounted CD plate which is
what brings the attention of the authorities to its status (or rather,
the driver's potential status).
Do those cars you mentioned have vanity plates and no CD plates?
A diplomatic number plate in the UK has the format NNN D NNN or
NNN X NNN; the following website identifies which country's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_codes_on_British_diplomatic_vehicle_registration_plates
Thanks for that. You can learn something new every day. They are still
registered at Swansea, though.
Indeed. And can be traced even easier than non-diplomatic cars.
Peeler
2019-11-25 18:23:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 08:43:35 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grikbassterdea®™", farted
Post by Grikbassterdea®™
Post by JNugent
Thanks for that. You can learn something new every day. They are still
registered at Swansea, though.
Indeed. And can be traced even easier than non-diplomatic cars.
I can trace your STUPIDITY and PSYCHOPATHY in every single post of yours,
psychopathic cretin!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic answering a question whether there
is any "meaningful" debate to lower the age of consent:
"If there isn't, there should be."
MID: <ZAMUE.174724$***@usenetxs.com>
Peeler
2019-11-25 18:22:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 16:32:12 +0000, JNugent, another demented, notorious,
Post by JNugent
Thanks for that. You can learn something new every day. They are still
registered at Swansea, though.
A troll-feeding senile IDIOT and ASSHOLE thanking a psychopathic IDIOT and
ASSHOLE for her IDIOTIC "knowledge"! You can see something like that ONLY on
Usenet! LOL
Keema's Nan
2019-11-25 17:14:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikbassterdea®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikbassterdaeh®™
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 09:46:12 +0000, Martin Brown
Post by Martin Brown
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by Martin Brown
Post by The Todal
Very unwise of Harry Dunn's family to adopt as their spokesman Radd
Seiger, an American who seems to know very little about the English
legal system and probably doesn't know enough about personal injury
litigation in the UK or the USA. The government is absolutely right
to defend any claims against it and to seek costs from an
unsuccessful claimant in accordance with the usual procedure in our
courts.
Whilst that may be correct in legal terms; how is an ordinary family
that finds themselves in a complex international diplomatic scandal
supposed to obtain competent legal advice that they can afford?
(serious question)
They are desperate grieving parents and easy prey for any chancer
that tells them what they want to hear.
Post by The Todal
Hence...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-50501097
Harry Dunn's family 'disgusted' with Dominic Raab over legal costs
The parents of Harry Dunn have said they are "disgusted" with
Dominic Raab after he defended the government's decision to seek
legal costs from them.
The 19-year-old died after a collision in Northamptonshire in August
that led to the suspect leaving the UK claiming diplomatic immunity.
Does her car insurance have to pay out for killing him?
The only slight chance of success might be if they could prove that
as a spouse resident outside London she did not in fact have
"diplomatic" immunity under the previously secret bilateral agreement
on spies.
Hang on, though...
Surely there IS a point to be made here.
It is not unknown for a UK citizen to be killed or injured on the
roads in a collision with a vehicle driven by a diplomat or other
foreign embassy employee who holds diplomatic immunity. The reasons
for such immunity - worldwide - are clear and obvious, and should be
respected.
But surely, this should not be extended as far the common highway,
where danger can threaten innocent citizens without any prospect of
compensation. That is, at base, quite outrageous.
In order to be fair to other road-users, my suggestion is that
foreigners with diplomatic immunity should be advised that this does
not extend to the driving of motor vehicles, and that if they wish to
travel by private motor vehicle, their diplomatic mission has to
(a) accept that immunity does not extend to traffic law and
(b) they consequently need to employ drivers who do *not* have such
immunity and who are expected to comply with every aspect of UK
traffic law (including parking restrictions) and who can and will be
dealt with by the law in the case of any contravention.
Any breach of this (eg, a CD car being found to be driven by someone
with treaty protection) would result in an immediate expulsion of the
person involved. Effectively, it would be easier for them to employ a
corps of UK citizens as drivers.
Alternatively, the UK government should assume all liability for
generous compensation for a UK citizen killed or injured on the
highways of the UK by a freigner with diplomatic immunity and this
should be administered at the same speed as any insurance claim would
be processed in analogous circumstances.
Getting compensation when run over by a diplomat should not be as
impossible as it currently is.
It would indeed be outrageous if the driver was uninsured, or if her
But they clearly could be driving uninsured in the UK without any
consequences whatsoever since they are quite literally above the law.
You cannot impound or clamp a diplomatic car.
How would your average thick clamper recognise a diplomatic car if it
doesn't have the standard diplomatic number plates (or even if it
does!)? For instance, many embassies have plates such as FRA 1, USA 1
etc. The wife of a spook from the Great Satan is unlikely to have a
car with standard diplomatic plates.
No, because she was just the wife of a spook.

His job was to spy on us Brits, in order that the boss of GCHQ can state
quite honestly that they do not monitor the communications of yer average
Brit (presumably all the yank spooks do that for us - and in return our boys
must monitor the US population).
Post by Grikbassterdea®™
Post by JNugent
I'm not sure what a "diplomatic number plate" is. AFAIAA, cars belonging
to or driven by those with diplomartic immunity are registered at
Swansea in tghe normal way but display a rear-mounted CD plate which is
what brings the attention of the authorities to its status (or rather,
the driver's potential status).
Do those cars you mentioned have vanity plates and no CD plates?
A diplomatic number plate in the UK has the format NNN D NNN or
NNN X NNN; the following website identifies which country's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_codes_on_British_diplomatic_vehi
cle_registration_plates
The archaic CD plate is optional, even for those diplomatic cars with
vanity plates.
Peeler
2019-11-25 18:26:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 17:14:27 +0000, Keema's Nan, an especially retarded,
Post by Keema's Nan
No, because she was just the wife of a spook.
His job was to spy on us Brits, in order that the boss of GCHQ can state
quite honestly that they do not monitor the communications of yer average
Brit (presumably all the yank spooks do that for us - and in return our boys
must monitor the US population).
Geezuz Christ ...what a bunch of driveling idiots! LOL
Keema's Nan
2019-11-25 18:59:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peeler
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 17:14:27 +0000, Keema's Nan, an especially retarded,
Post by Keema's Nan
No, because she was just the wife of a spook.
His job was to spy on us Brits, in order that the boss of GCHQ can state
quite honestly that they do not monitor the communications of yer average
Brit (presumably all the yank spooks do that for us - and in return our boys
must monitor the US population).
Geezuz Christ ...what a bunch of driveling idiots! LOL
Well clever dick.

If you are so sure - WTF are they doing in this country?
Peeler
2019-11-25 19:42:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 18:59:54 +0000, Keema's Nan, an especially retarded,
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Peeler
Geezuz Christ ...what a bunch of driveling idiots! LOL
Well clever dick.
If you are so sure - WTF are they doing in this country?
Sorry, senile idiot, there's no way you could pull my down to your level of
stupidity!
Keema's Nan
2019-11-25 21:06:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peeler
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 18:59:54 +0000, Keema's Nan, an especially retarded,
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Peeler
Geezuz Christ ...what a bunch of driveling idiots! LOL
Well clever dick.
If you are so sure - WTF are they doing in this country?
Sorry, senile idiot, there's no way you could pull my down to your level of
stupidity!
......... Is the wrong answer.
Peeler
2019-11-25 22:10:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 21:06:57 +0000, Keema's Nan, an especially retarded,
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Peeler
Sorry, senile idiot, there's no way you could pull my down to your level of
stupidity!
......... Is the wrong answer.
It's the ONLY correct answer, senile fool!
Keema's Nan
2019-11-26 09:37:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peeler
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 21:06:57 +0000, Keema's Nan, an especially retarded,
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Peeler
Sorry, senile idiot, there's no way you could pull my down to your level of
stupidity!
......... Is the wrong answer.
It's the ONLY correct answer, senile fool!
Isn’t it time you tidied your bedroom?
Grikbassterdeah®™
2019-11-25 18:28:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 17:14:27 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grikbassterdaeh®™
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 09:46:12 +0000, Martin Brown
Post by Martin Brown
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by Martin Brown
Post by The Todal
Very unwise of Harry Dunn's family to adopt as their spokesman Radd
Seiger, an American who seems to know very little about the English
legal system and probably doesn't know enough about personal injury
litigation in the UK or the USA. The government is absolutely right
to defend any claims against it and to seek costs from an
unsuccessful claimant in accordance with the usual procedure in our
courts.
Whilst that may be correct in legal terms; how is an ordinary family
that finds themselves in a complex international diplomatic scandal
supposed to obtain competent legal advice that they can afford?
(serious question)
They are desperate grieving parents and easy prey for any chancer
that tells them what they want to hear.
Post by The Todal
Hence...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-50501097
Harry Dunn's family 'disgusted' with Dominic Raab over legal costs
The parents of Harry Dunn have said they are "disgusted" with
Dominic Raab after he defended the government's decision to seek
legal costs from them.
The 19-year-old died after a collision in Northamptonshire in August
that led to the suspect leaving the UK claiming diplomatic immunity.
Does her car insurance have to pay out for killing him?
The only slight chance of success might be if they could prove that
as a spouse resident outside London she did not in fact have
"diplomatic" immunity under the previously secret bilateral agreement
on spies.
Hang on, though...
Surely there IS a point to be made here.
It is not unknown for a UK citizen to be killed or injured on the
roads in a collision with a vehicle driven by a diplomat or other
foreign embassy employee who holds diplomatic immunity. The reasons
for such immunity - worldwide - are clear and obvious, and should be
respected.
But surely, this should not be extended as far the common highway,
where danger can threaten innocent citizens without any prospect of
compensation. That is, at base, quite outrageous.
In order to be fair to other road-users, my suggestion is that
foreigners with diplomatic immunity should be advised that this does
not extend to the driving of motor vehicles, and that if they wish to
travel by private motor vehicle, their diplomatic mission has to
(a) accept that immunity does not extend to traffic law and
(b) they consequently need to employ drivers who do *not* have such
immunity and who are expected to comply with every aspect of UK
traffic law (including parking restrictions) and who can and will be
dealt with by the law in the case of any contravention.
Any breach of this (eg, a CD car being found to be driven by someone
with treaty protection) would result in an immediate expulsion of the
person involved. Effectively, it would be easier for them to employ a
corps of UK citizens as drivers.
Alternatively, the UK government should assume all liability for
generous compensation for a UK citizen killed or injured on the
highways of the UK by a freigner with diplomatic immunity and this
should be administered at the same speed as any insurance claim would
be processed in analogous circumstances.
Getting compensation when run over by a diplomat should not be as
impossible as it currently is.
It would indeed be outrageous if the driver was uninsured, or if her
But they clearly could be driving uninsured in the UK without any
consequences whatsoever since they are quite literally above the law.
You cannot impound or clamp a diplomatic car.
How would your average thick clamper recognise a diplomatic car if it
doesn't have the standard diplomatic number plates (or even if it
does!)? For instance, many embassies have plates such as FRA 1, USA 1
etc. The wife of a spook from the Great Satan is unlikely to have a
car with standard diplomatic plates.
No, because she was just the wife of a spook.
His job was to spy on us Brits, in order that the boss of GCHQ can state
quite honestly that they do not monitor the communications of yer average
Brit (presumably all the yank spooks do that for us - and in return our boys
must monitor the US population).
They don't need to. The Great Satan has no problem openly spying on
its own people.
Peeler
2019-11-25 18:59:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 10:28:39 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grikbassterdeah®™", farted
Post by Grikbassterdeah®™
They don't need to. The Great Satan has no problem openly spying on
its own people.
Somewhat like you have no problem revealing on Usenet what a very sick
asshole you are, right, serb peasant?
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Why do we still have outdated laws prohibiting paedophilia? Do you
seriously think that a 12-year old who spends 15 hours a day on Facebook
doesn't know what's going on?"
MID: <FnMUE.676068$***@usenetxs.com>
Keema's Nan
2019-11-25 19:03:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peeler
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 17:14:27 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grikbassterdaeh®™
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 09:46:12 +0000, Martin Brown
Post by Martin Brown
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by Martin Brown
Post by The Todal
Very unwise of Harry Dunn's family to adopt as their spokesman Radd
Seiger, an American who seems to know very little about the English
legal system and probably doesn't know enough about personal injury
litigation in the UK or the USA. The government is absolutely right
to defend any claims against it and to seek costs from an
unsuccessful claimant in accordance with the usual procedure in our
courts.
Whilst that may be correct in legal terms; how is an ordinary family
that finds themselves in a complex international diplomatic scandal
supposed to obtain competent legal advice that they can afford?
(serious question)
They are desperate grieving parents and easy prey for any chancer
that tells them what they want to hear.
Post by The Todal
Hence...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-50501097
Harry Dunn's family 'disgusted' with Dominic Raab over legal costs
The parents of Harry Dunn have said they are "disgusted" with
Dominic Raab after he defended the government's decision to seek
legal costs from them.
The 19-year-old died after a collision in Northamptonshire in August
that led to the suspect leaving the UK claiming diplomatic immunity.
Does her car insurance have to pay out for killing him?
The only slight chance of success might be if they could prove that
as a spouse resident outside London she did not in fact have
"diplomatic" immunity under the previously secret bilateral agreement
on spies.
Hang on, though...
Surely there IS a point to be made here.
It is not unknown for a UK citizen to be killed or injured on the
roads in a collision with a vehicle driven by a diplomat or other
foreign embassy employee who holds diplomatic immunity. The reasons
for such immunity - worldwide - are clear and obvious, and should be
respected.
But surely, this should not be extended as far the common highway,
where danger can threaten innocent citizens without any prospect of
compensation. That is, at base, quite outrageous.
In order to be fair to other road-users, my suggestion is that
foreigners with diplomatic immunity should be advised that this does
not extend to the driving of motor vehicles, and that if they wish to
travel by private motor vehicle, their diplomatic mission has to
(a) accept that immunity does not extend to traffic law and
(b) they consequently need to employ drivers who do *not* have such
immunity and who are expected to comply with every aspect of UK
traffic law (including parking restrictions) and who can and will be
dealt with by the law in the case of any contravention.
Any breach of this (eg, a CD car being found to be driven by someone
with treaty protection) would result in an immediate expulsion of the
person involved. Effectively, it would be easier for them to employ a
corps of UK citizens as drivers.
Alternatively, the UK government should assume all liability for
generous compensation for a UK citizen killed or injured on the
highways of the UK by a freigner with diplomatic immunity and this
should be administered at the same speed as any insurance claim would
be processed in analogous circumstances.
Getting compensation when run over by a diplomat should not be as
impossible as it currently is.
It would indeed be outrageous if the driver was uninsured, or if her
But they clearly could be driving uninsured in the UK without any
consequences whatsoever since they are quite literally above the law.
You cannot impound or clamp a diplomatic car.
How would your average thick clamper recognise a diplomatic car if it
doesn't have the standard diplomatic number plates (or even if it
does!)? For instance, many embassies have plates such as FRA 1, USA 1
etc. The wife of a spook from the Great Satan is unlikely to have a
car with standard diplomatic plates.
No, because she was just the wife of a spook.
His job was to spy on us Brits, in order that the boss of GCHQ can state
quite honestly that they do not monitor the communications of yer average
Brit (presumably all the yank spooks do that for us - and in return our boys
must monitor the US population).
They don't need to. The Great Satan has no problem openly spying on
its own people.
Maybe, but we need to keep up the pretence.
Peeler
2019-11-25 19:43:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 19:03:25 +0000, Keema's Nan, an especially retarded,
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Peeler
They don't need to. The Great Satan has no problem openly spying on
its own people.
Maybe, but we need to keep up the pretence.
BOTH of you need institutionalization ...BADLY!
Keema's Nan
2019-11-25 21:08:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peeler
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 19:03:25 +0000, Keema's Nan, an especially retarded,
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Peeler
They don't need to. The Great Satan has no problem openly spying on
its own people.
Maybe, but we need to keep up the pretence.
BOTH of you need institutionalization ...BADLY!
Oh goody.

Free board and lodgings. Bring it on.
Peeler
2019-11-25 22:11:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 21:08:01 +0000, Keema's Nan, an especially retarded,
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Peeler
BOTH of you need institutionalization ...BADLY!
Oh goody.
Free board and lodgings. Bring it on.
Go for it!
Peeler
2019-11-25 18:20:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 07:30:25 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grikbassterdea®™", farted
Post by Grikbassterdea®™
A diplomatic number plate in the UK has the format NNN D NNN or
NNN X NNN; the following website identifies which country's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_codes_on_British_diplomatic_vehicle_registration_plates
That's the kind of idiotic, detailed "knowledge" a TYPICAL
pseudo-intellectual psychopath like you would brag about, you ridiculous
psychopathic assclown! LOL
--
More of deviated Razovic's psychopathic "wisdom":
"Smell? Most necrophilia is carried out on bodies that are either
freshly deceased or embalmed and refrigerated."
MID: <***@4ax.com>
Peeler
2019-11-25 18:16:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 14:56:15 +0000, JNugent, another demented, notorious,
Post by JNugent
I'm not sure what a "diplomatic number plate" is.
I'm sure that she is a psychopathic troll, and I'm also sure that you are
troll-feeding senile idiot!
Loading...