Principles and Money

pblakeney

Seems money wins.
This is just my assumption about the Harry Dunn case. Shame on everyone if I am correct.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-58642224

oxoman

Sadly PB I think your 100% correct.

rjsterry

I've no idea what 'principles would be in such a case. It's a civil action. There is no other outcome than a financial settlement. The prospects of any kind of criminal case, let alone a conviction having evaporated why on earth shouldn't the family take the only thing on offer and why shouldn't Sacoolas pay some sort of settlement? Should they put some random bloke's vicarious indignation before their own wishes?

thistle_

rjsterry said:

I've no idea what 'principles would be in such a case. It's a civil action. There is no other outcome than a financial settlement. The prospects of any kind of criminal case, let alone a conviction having evaporated

I think that's more likely - there's no hope of getting a criminal conviction so they've gone for whatever they can for redress.

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

I've no idea what 'principles would be in such a case. It's a civil action. There is no other outcome than a financial settlement. The prospects of any kind of criminal case, let alone a conviction having evaporated why on earth shouldn't the family take the only thing on offer and why shouldn't Sacoolas pay some sort of settlement? Should they put some random bloke's vicarious indignation before their own wishes?

Don't go down the no disclosure route.
Get them to publicly admit their crime.
Set precedents for future events.
...

First.Aspect

Not sure what else the family could have done. Other than nothing at all. Most likely the legal advice was that a court action would take years and achieve little more than what has been on offer.

Their point was to make that woman do something other than disappear with a metaphorical note left under the windscreen saying "sorry I scratched your car". If it got them through the anger phase of grief to haul her through a legal action, then that's okay as far as I can see.

Compare that to skipping town to dodge a £300 and three points for careless driving, and all the hurt that's caused.

Also, not sure if they have other kids, but if as a family you have the opportunity to get a settlement to somehow help them all out, as opposed to not, why wouldn't you?

ddraver

Thanks to the vagaries of Diplomatic Immunity, I'm not sure they had much option...

kingstongraham

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

I've no idea what 'principles would be in such a case. It's a civil action. There is no other outcome than a financial settlement. The prospects of any kind of criminal case, let alone a conviction having evaporated why on earth shouldn't the family take the only thing on offer and why shouldn't Sacoolas pay some sort of settlement? Should they put some random bloke's vicarious indignation before their own wishes?

Don't go down the no disclosure route.
Get them to publicly admit their crime.
Set precedents for future events.
...

Would it help you for her to publicly admit her crime?

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

I've no idea what 'principles would be in such a case. It's a civil action. There is no other outcome than a financial settlement. The prospects of any kind of criminal case, let alone a conviction having evaporated why on earth shouldn't the family take the only thing on offer and why shouldn't Sacoolas pay some sort of settlement? Should they put some random bloke's vicarious indignation before their own wishes?

Don't go down the no disclosure route.
Get them to publicly admit their crime.
Set precedents for future events.
...

This doesn't happen in real life. There is no mechanism to get a party in a civil claim to publicly admit a crime - because it is a civil claim.

rjsterry

thistle_ said:

rjsterry said:

I've no idea what 'principles would be in such a case. It's a civil action. There is no other outcome than a financial settlement. The prospects of any kind of criminal case, let alone a conviction having evaporated

I think that's more likely - there's no hope of getting a criminal conviction so they've gone for whatever they can for redress.

Of course and why on earth shouldn't they? The idea that they have caved in or somehow let someone (cake stop?) down is pretty disgusting.

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

I've no idea what 'principles would be in such a case. It's a civil action. There is no other outcome than a financial settlement. The prospects of any kind of criminal case, let alone a conviction having evaporated why on earth shouldn't the family take the only thing on offer and why shouldn't Sacoolas pay some sort of settlement? Should they put some random bloke's vicarious indignation before their own wishes?

Don't go down the no disclosure route.
Get them to publicly admit their crime.
Set precedents for future events.
...

This doesn't happen in real life. There is no mechanism to get a party in a civil claim to publicly admit a crime - because it is a civil claim.

You don't think it will have any bearing on this? (I hope not.) -

"Speaking on the train to Washington where she will meet with Joe Biden, Ms Truss said the resolution of the civil case was "absolutely not" the end of efforts to get Mrs Sacoolas to return to the UK.
"We continue to press for justice for Harry," she said."

For the benefit of any doubt this sad story will not have any bearing on my life or mindset. My concern is that extradition does not appear to be applied fairly in both directions, and no, she did not have diplomatic immunity.

Pross

First.Aspect said:

Not sure what else the family could have done. Other than nothing at all. Most likely the legal advice was that a court action would take years and achieve little more than what has been on offer.

Their point was to make that woman do something other than disappear with a metaphorical note left under the windscreen saying "sorry I scratched your car". If it got them through the anger phase of grief to haul her through a legal action, then that's okay as far as I can see.

Compare that to skipping town to dodge a £300 and three points for careless driving, and all the hurt that's caused.

Also, not sure if they have other kids, but if as a family you have the opportunity to get a settlement to somehow help them all out, as opposed to not, why wouldn't you?

This is what I never understood. It was probably just a genuine mistake having driven on the other side of the road all her life (I made a similar error turning out of a junction in Florida having had to wait ages for a gap - luckily I got away with it) so I don't get why she didn't just allow the legal process to run its course. I doubt she would have got more than a ban and a fine. Instead she has made herself look callous and made the pain harder for the family.

* This of course assumes she hadn't been drinking / taking drugs etc. that may have given her more reason to be scared of the judicial system.

First.Aspect

Indeed. Or if she was uninsured or did not have a UK licence etc etc. Probably dangerous driving was on the cards, and death by dangerous driving can carry a prison sentence. But still, escaping prison for something you absolutely did do isn't a good look.

Point of correction to something above, she did have diplomatic immunity. It was then acknowledged it shouldn't have been extended to her from whom it really applied, and then there was a fudge along the lines of "oh yeah she did do that thing for the intelligence agencies that time, we just remembered".

The moral is don't pick up the phone to the American turkeys and ask whether they want to go ahead with Thanksgiving this year. You will only get one answer.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

Point of correction to something above, she did have diplomatic immunity. It was then acknowledged it shouldn't have been extended to her from whom it really applied, and then there was a fudge along the lines of "oh yeah she did do that thing for the intelligence agencies that time, we just remembered".

"Shouldn't have been extended to her" means she didn't really have it.
Wonder if any of my relatives have diplomatic immunity that I could tag onto. 🤪

orraloon

I used to live in a nearby village to where that kid was from. 'RAF' Croughton is Amerikansher, baseball diamond sports field etc. There are many signs outside the gates reminding them to drive on the left. I have seen the error being made, fortunately swiftly corrected without incident other than the 'Fuxxxx....' stress reaction to me and other oncoming drivers.

USA does not extradite USAnians because, why would they, being leaders of the world and such, hand over one of their own to some little irrelevant other place.

surrey_commuter

orraloon said:

I used to live in a nearby village to where that kid was from. 'RAF' Croughton is Amerikansher, baseball diamond sports field etc. There are many signs outside the gates reminding them to drive on the left. I have seen the error being made, fortunately swiftly corrected without incident other than the 'Fuxxxx....' stress reaction to me and other oncoming drivers.

USA does not extradite USAnians because, why would they, being leaders of the world and such, hand over one of their own to some little irrelevant other place.

Exactly this. When we were the big dog I am sure we did not go round extraditing our citizens to two bit countries

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

I've no idea what 'principles would be in such a case. It's a civil action. There is no other outcome than a financial settlement. The prospects of any kind of criminal case, let alone a conviction having evaporated why on earth shouldn't the family take the only thing on offer and why shouldn't Sacoolas pay some sort of settlement? Should they put some random bloke's vicarious indignation before their own wishes?

Don't go down the no disclosure route.
Get them to publicly admit their crime.
Set precedents for future events.
...

This doesn't happen in real life. There is no mechanism to get a party in a civil claim to publicly admit a crime - because it is a civil claim.

You don't think it will have any bearing on this? (I hope not.) -

"Speaking on the train to Washington where she will meet with Joe Biden, Ms Truss said the resolution of the civil case was "absolutely not" the end of efforts to get Mrs Sacoolas to return to the UK.
"We continue to press for justice for Harry," she said."

For the benefit of any doubt this sad story will not have any bearing on my life or mindset. My concern is that extradition does not appear to be applied fairly in both directions, and no, she did not have diplomatic immunity.

Did you ever think it did? America doesn't extradite nice middle class people, especially if they work for the government. Of course Truss has to say what she said, but it's not going to happen.

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

I've no idea what 'principles would be in such a case. It's a civil action. There is no other outcome than a financial settlement. The prospects of any kind of criminal case, let alone a conviction having evaporated why on earth shouldn't the family take the only thing on offer and why shouldn't Sacoolas pay some sort of settlement? Should they put some random bloke's vicarious indignation before their own wishes?

Don't go down the no disclosure route.
Get them to publicly admit their crime.
Set precedents for future events.
...

This doesn't happen in real life. There is no mechanism to get a party in a civil claim to publicly admit a crime - because it is a civil claim.

You don't think it will have any bearing on this? (I hope not.) -

"Speaking on the train to Washington where she will meet with Joe Biden, Ms Truss said the resolution of the civil case was "absolutely not" the end of efforts to get Mrs Sacoolas to return to the UK.
"We continue to press for justice for Harry," she said."

For the benefit of any doubt this sad story will not have any bearing on my life or mindset. My concern is that extradition does not appear to be applied fairly in both directions, and no, she did not have diplomatic immunity.

Did you ever think it did? America doesn't extradite nice middle class people, especially if they work for the government. Of course Truss has to say what she said, but it's not going to happen.

Let's see. The solution to something not working is to accept that it will never work?
Great.

womack

No different to the Hillsborough 96, all their legal expenses paid by the British Tax Payer and just after a pay out.

rjsterry

womack said:

No different to the Hillsborough 96, all their legal expenses paid by the British Tax Payer and just after a pay out.

Yes, it's *exactly* the same as Hillsborough.

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

I've no idea what 'principles would be in such a case. It's a civil action. There is no other outcome than a financial settlement. The prospects of any kind of criminal case, let alone a conviction having evaporated why on earth shouldn't the family take the only thing on offer and why shouldn't Sacoolas pay some sort of settlement? Should they put some random bloke's vicarious indignation before their own wishes?

Don't go down the no disclosure route.
Get them to publicly admit their crime.
Set precedents for future events.
...

This doesn't happen in real life. There is no mechanism to get a party in a civil claim to publicly admit a crime - because it is a civil claim.

You don't think it will have any bearing on this? (I hope not.) -

"Speaking on the train to Washington where she will meet with Joe Biden, Ms Truss said the resolution of the civil case was "absolutely not" the end of efforts to get Mrs Sacoolas to return to the UK.
"We continue to press for justice for Harry," she said."

For the benefit of any doubt this sad story will not have any bearing on my life or mindset. My concern is that extradition does not appear to be applied fairly in both directions, and no, she did not have diplomatic immunity.

Did you ever think it did? America doesn't extradite nice middle class people, especially if they work for the government. Of course Truss has to say what she said, but it's not going to happen.

Let's see. The solution to something not working is to accept that it will never work?
Great.

I don't think the effectiveness of extradition treaties (or lack thereof) is relevant to whether the family should accept a civil settlement.

kingstongraham

They were killed unlawfully and those responsible eventually had to compensate the victims' families despite the system having failed them. So there's that.

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

I've no idea what 'principles would be in such a case. It's a civil action. There is no other outcome than a financial settlement. The prospects of any kind of criminal case, let alone a conviction having evaporated why on earth shouldn't the family take the only thing on offer and why shouldn't Sacoolas pay some sort of settlement? Should they put some random bloke's vicarious indignation before their own wishes?

Don't go down the no disclosure route.
Get them to publicly admit their crime.
Set precedents for future events.
...

This doesn't happen in real life. There is no mechanism to get a party in a civil claim to publicly admit a crime - because it is a civil claim.

You don't think it will have any bearing on this? (I hope not.) -

"Speaking on the train to Washington where she will meet with Joe Biden, Ms Truss said the resolution of the civil case was "absolutely not" the end of efforts to get Mrs Sacoolas to return to the UK.
"We continue to press for justice for Harry," she said."

For the benefit of any doubt this sad story will not have any bearing on my life or mindset. My concern is that extradition does not appear to be applied fairly in both directions, and no, she did not have diplomatic immunity.

Did you ever think it did? America doesn't extradite nice middle class people, especially if they work for the government. Of course Truss has to say what she said, but it's not going to happen.

Let's see. The solution to something not working is to accept that it will never work?
Great.

I don't think the effectiveness of extradition treaties (or lack thereof) is relevant to whether the family should accept a civil settlement.

Except that the legal proceedings are still in progress.
I am of the opinion that legal should come before civil. I'm probably wrong, but hey ho.

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

I've no idea what 'principles would be in such a case. It's a civil action. There is no other outcome than a financial settlement. The prospects of any kind of criminal case, let alone a conviction having evaporated why on earth shouldn't the family take the only thing on offer and why shouldn't Sacoolas pay some sort of settlement? Should they put some random bloke's vicarious indignation before their own wishes?

Don't go down the no disclosure route.
Get them to publicly admit their crime.
Set precedents for future events.
...

This doesn't happen in real life. There is no mechanism to get a party in a civil claim to publicly admit a crime - because it is a civil claim.

You don't think it will have any bearing on this? (I hope not.) -

"Speaking on the train to Washington where she will meet with Joe Biden, Ms Truss said the resolution of the civil case was "absolutely not" the end of efforts to get Mrs Sacoolas to return to the UK.
"We continue to press for justice for Harry," she said."

For the benefit of any doubt this sad story will not have any bearing on my life or mindset. My concern is that extradition does not appear to be applied fairly in both directions, and no, she did not have diplomatic immunity.

Did you ever think it did? America doesn't extradite nice middle class people, especially if they work for the government. Of course Truss has to say what she said, but it's not going to happen.

Let's see. The solution to something not working is to accept that it will never work?
Great.

I don't think the effectiveness of extradition treaties (or lack thereof) is relevant to whether the family should accept a civil settlement.

Except that the legal proceedings are still in progress.
I am of the opinion that legal should come before civil. I'm probably wrong, but hey ho.

Just read about the stages of grief.

Right now there are no criminal proceedings and it is highly likely that there never will be. How long do you want them to wait?

pblakeney

Well, Ms Truss is currently on the case so you are probably correct.
Doesn't make it right.

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

I've no idea what 'principles would be in such a case. It's a civil action. There is no other outcome than a financial settlement. The prospects of any kind of criminal case, let alone a conviction having evaporated why on earth shouldn't the family take the only thing on offer and why shouldn't Sacoolas pay some sort of settlement? Should they put some random bloke's vicarious indignation before their own wishes?

Don't go down the no disclosure route.
Get them to publicly admit their crime.
Set precedents for future events.
...

This doesn't happen in real life. There is no mechanism to get a party in a civil claim to publicly admit a crime - because it is a civil claim.

You don't think it will have any bearing on this? (I hope not.) -

"Speaking on the train to Washington where she will meet with Joe Biden, Ms Truss said the resolution of the civil case was "absolutely not" the end of efforts to get Mrs Sacoolas to return to the UK.
"We continue to press for justice for Harry," she said."

For the benefit of any doubt this sad story will not have any bearing on my life or mindset. My concern is that extradition does not appear to be applied fairly in both directions, and no, she did not have diplomatic immunity.

Did you ever think it did? America doesn't extradite nice middle class people, especially if they work for the government. Of course Truss has to say what she said, but it's not going to happen.

Let's see. The solution to something not working is to accept that it will never work?
Great.

I don't think the effectiveness of extradition treaties (or lack thereof) is relevant to whether the family should accept a civil settlement.

Except that the legal proceedings are still in progress.
I am of the opinion that legal should come before civil. I'm probably wrong, but hey ho.

The UK criminal justice system is so starved of money that we are currently taking around 5 years from charge to bring sexual assault cases to trial. If we can't even sort out our domestic cases, then I think it is unreasonable that the family should just hang on - for what? 5? 10 years? - while the criminal proceedings work to some sort of probably unsatisfactory conclusion.

pblakeney

Again, the system is broken so just accept it instead of trying to fix it.
Would you suggest the same to apply to building regulations? It's difficult so don't bother.

kingstongraham

pblakeney said:

Again, the system is broken so just accept it instead of trying to fix it.
Would you suggest the same to apply to building regulations? It's difficult so don't bother.

Are you saying that the family have not tried to get her extradited? Or raise awareness of the fact that she isn't getting extradited?

pblakeney

As per above, Ms Truss.

Pross

kingstongraham said:

They were killed unlawfully and those responsible eventually had to compensate the victims' families despite the system having failed them. So there's that.

From memory Womack has a deep seated hatred of anything to do with Liverpool due to Capel Celyn around 60 years ago so presumably the Hillsborough comments are an extension of that as though dozens of football supporters were personally responsible for the action of teh UK Government / Liverpool Corporation.

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

Again, the system is broken so just accept it instead of trying to fix it.
Would you suggest the same to apply to building regulations? It's difficult so don't bother.

Fixing it is not the family's job. Undoubtedly the criminal justice system needs a huge overhaul. As with the Building Regs, that is the government's job.