The maximum prison sentence the court can impose for causing death by dangerous driving or careless driving is five years.
If the offender pleads guilty the sentence will be reduced by up to one third depending on how early the plea was made. I would have thought that by doing a runner, that will be significantly reduced.
Thank you for linking to the PDF that summarises the issue and from which I can see where you have made the mistake. You've misinterpreted a badly-written line in that PDF and one which the Sentencing Council should clear up, because others could misinterpret it in the same way.
The leaflet is badly written. It should say that "the maximum sentence the court can impose for EITHER causing death by dangerous driving OR causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs is 14 years; and the maximum sentence the court can impose for EITHER causing death by careless driving OR causing death by inconsiderate driving is five years".
In short - causing death by:
inconsiderate driving - max five years
careless driving - max five years (unless also under the influence, in which case, max fourteen years)
dangerous driving - max fourteen years
To be clear, the maximum sentence that a court can impose for causing death by dangerous driving (as defined by section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52), and, as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, c. 44, Part 12, Chapter 8, Section 285 (3)) is fourteen years, and had previously been ten years.
Hope that clarifies my criticism of your initial comment @Addickted and it explains it fully @Henry Irving
So not 'nonsense' then.
The only thing it clarifies is my initial post that the maximum prison sentence the court can impose for causing death by dangerous driving or careless driving is five years.
You're repeating the same mistake! The maximum sentence a court can impose for causing death by dangerous driving is fourteen years.
You do undersand and agree with that now, don't you?
No I'm not.
It's only 14 years if she was driving under the influence of drink or drugs, which she was clearly not otherwise the police would have arrested her there and then and waited for the DI to be called.
So the maximum sentence she can receive is five years.
You do understand and agree with that now, don't you?
The maximum prison sentence the court can impose for causing death by dangerous driving or careless driving is five years.
If the offender pleads guilty the sentence will be reduced by up to one third depending on how early the plea was made. I would have thought that by doing a runner, that will be significantly reduced.
Thank you for linking to the PDF that summarises the issue and from which I can see where you have made the mistake. You've misinterpreted a badly-written line in that PDF and one which the Sentencing Council should clear up, because others could misinterpret it in the same way.
The leaflet is badly written. It should say that "the maximum sentence the court can impose for EITHER causing death by dangerous driving OR causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs is 14 years; and the maximum sentence the court can impose for EITHER causing death by careless driving OR causing death by inconsiderate driving is five years".
In short - causing death by:
inconsiderate driving - max five years
careless driving - max five years (unless also under the influence, in which case, max fourteen years)
dangerous driving - max fourteen years
To be clear, the maximum sentence that a court can impose for causing death by dangerous driving (as defined by section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52), and, as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, c. 44, Part 12, Chapter 8, Section 285 (3)) is fourteen years, and had previously been ten years.
Hope that clarifies my criticism of your initial comment @Addickted and it explains it fully @Henry Irving
So not 'nonsense' then.
The only thing it clarifies is my initial post that the maximum prison sentence the court can impose for causing death by dangerous driving or careless driving is five years.
You're repeating the same mistake! The maximum sentence a court can impose for causing death by dangerous driving is fourteen years.
You do undersand and agree with that now, don't you?
No I'm not.
It's only 14 years if she was driving under the influence of drink or drugs, which she was clearly not otherwise the police would have arrested her there and then and waited for the DI to be called.
So the maximum sentence she can receive is five years.
You do understand and agree with that now, don't you?
I see where you're going wrong now. And it's almost entirely down to how badly written the leaflet is.
The maximum terms of 14 years applies for a conviction for either of two offences. "Causing death by dangerous driving" or "causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs". These are two, different offences. As far as we can tell she was not under the influence of drink or drugs, so cannot be charged with the latter. But, from what we know, it is possible for her to face the former charge, that is, "causing death by dangerous driving".
If she was not under the influence, she could be charged with "causing death by inconsiderate driving" (max five years), "causing death by careless driving" (max five years) "causing death by dangerous driving" (max 14 years).
The maximum sentence for a conviction for "causing death by dangerous driving" is 14 years, not five years.
Let's not fall out, because this is a really important issue, for lots of reasons. Do you agree with me now?
I hear from the news that she herself doesn't have diplomatic immunity but would seek it on the basis that she is married to someone who does have it.
Problem is her husband is not on "the list" of US diplomats that have DI. Well, not on the official "list" anyway as he is working for US Military Intelligence. Neat get out.
@golfaddick - Monday called. It wants its news back.
@Addickted - Chizz is right. There is no offence of "causing death by dangerous driving when under the influence of drink or drugs". That category only applies to careless driving. This would simply be "causing death by dangerous driving" and carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.
The news said yesterday that she was on the wrong side of the road. It also said she had recently left an American air base.
I wonder which side of the road vehicles drive on INSIDE the air base? To me, keeping to the left, as on the local public roads, would help keep the base personnel habituated to UK ways, rather than needing to constantly swap mindset, but I wonder if this is the case?
The news said yesterday that she was on the wrong side of the road. It also said she had recently left an American air base.
I wonder which side of the road vehicles drive on INSIDE the air base? To me, keeping to the left, as on the local public roads, would help keep the base personnel habituated to UK ways, rather than needing to constantly swap mindset, but I wonder if this is the case?
Might be the Chinese / Macau border as the two countries drive on the opposite side of the road to each other but swear I remember reading somewhere that there is a bridge that connects the two countries and when driving between the two, the road automatically switches you over to the side of the road that you should be driving on
May well have made that up or dreamt it as never been able to find it again
Just reminded me when you said about having to switch your mindset
The news said yesterday that she was on the wrong side of the road. It also said she had recently left an American air base.
I wonder which side of the road vehicles drive on INSIDE the air base? To me, keeping to the left, as on the local public roads, would help keep the base personnel habituated to UK ways, rather than needing to constantly swap mindset, but I wonder if this is the case?
Might be the Chinese / Macau border as the two countries drive on the opposite side of the road to each other but swear I remember reading somewhere that there is a bridge that connects the two countries and when driving between the two, the road automatically switches you over to the side of the road that you should be driving on
May well have made that up or dreamt it as never been able to find it again
Just reminded me when you said about having to switch your mindset
There's an even weirder situation on the new bridge between Macau and Hong Kong. Both Macau and Hong Kong use the proper side of the road, ie they drive on the left. But the bridge is right hand drive, as it extends to Zhuhai in China. So, if you're going from Hong Kong to Macau, you have to switch from left hand traffic to right hand traffic before you get on the bridge, then back again to left hand traffic when you reach Macau.
Until 3 Sep 1967, Swedish motorists drove on the left - which must have caused a similar issue at all of its international borders.
As I remember it, they were able to effect the change by banning all but emergency vehicles for the weekend, in order to change signage and road markings. It was helped by a high % of Swedish drivers already having left-hand drive vehicles.
There was discussion at the time whether the UK should do the same, but it was deemed too complex and expensive, largely because of the need even then for major road building to amend things like restricted motorway junctions which did not already have full freedom to join & leave in both directions, if we were to drive on the right.
The maximum prison sentence the court can impose for causing death by dangerous driving or careless driving is five years.
If the offender pleads guilty the sentence will be reduced by up to one third depending on how early the plea was made. I would have thought that by doing a runner, that will be significantly reduced.
Thank you for linking to the PDF that summarises the issue and from which I can see where you have made the mistake. You've misinterpreted a badly-written line in that PDF and one which the Sentencing Council should clear up, because others could misinterpret it in the same way.
The leaflet is badly written. It should say that "the maximum sentence the court can impose for EITHER causing death by dangerous driving OR causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs is 14 years; and the maximum sentence the court can impose for EITHER causing death by careless driving OR causing death by inconsiderate driving is five years".
In short - causing death by:
inconsiderate driving - max five years
careless driving - max five years (unless also under the influence, in which case, max fourteen years)
dangerous driving - max fourteen years
To be clear, the maximum sentence that a court can impose for causing death by dangerous driving (as defined by section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52), and, as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, c. 44, Part 12, Chapter 8, Section 285 (3)) is fourteen years, and had previously been ten years.
Hope that clarifies my criticism of your initial comment @Addickted and it explains it fully @Henry Irving
So not 'nonsense' then.
The only thing it clarifies is my initial post that the maximum prison sentence the court can impose for causing death by dangerous driving or careless driving is five years.
You're repeating the same mistake! The maximum sentence a court can impose for causing death by dangerous driving is fourteen years.
You do undersand and agree with that now, don't you?
No I'm not.
It's only 14 years if she was driving under the influence of drink or drugs, which she was clearly not otherwise the police would have arrested her there and then and waited for the DI to be called.
So the maximum sentence she can receive is five years.
You do understand and agree with that now, don't you?
I see where you're going wrong now. And it's almost entirely down to how badly written the leaflet is.
The maximum terms of 14 years applies for a conviction for either of two offences. "Causing death by dangerous driving" or "causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs". These are two, different offences. As far as we can tell she was not under the influence of drink or drugs, so cannot be charged with the latter. But, from what we know, it is possible for her to face the former charge, that is, "causing death by dangerous driving".
If she was not under the influence, she could be charged with "causing death by inconsiderate driving" (max five years), "causing death by careless driving" (max five years) "causing death by dangerous driving" (max 14 years).
The maximum sentence for a conviction for "causing death by dangerous driving" is 14 years, not five years.
Let's not fall out, because this is a really important issue, for lots of reasons. Do you agree with me now?
I’ve been in RAF Croughton numerous occasions. Literally is like being in Little America from the shops all the way to the cars. They don’t drive on their side though on base. It’s on our side. Forgot to mention too, the police are strict onsite too, if you don’t adhere to the traffic signs STOP 🛑, speed limits etc it has been know for us to get banned from site.
Regardless of this diplomatic immunity business and the strain it is having on the 'special' relationship between the UK and the US (although the cynic in me thinks neither government truly cares), it is a truly tragic story. Even if Sacoolas evades justice she will live with the burden of Harry Dunn's death til the end of her days, and for Harry's parents they have lost their child and may never see the protagonist pay for that. Perhaps a review of the law is urgently required now. Our thoughts should go out to the boy's family.
Regardless of this diplomatic immunity business and the strain it is having on the 'special' relationship between the UK and the US (although the cynic in me thinks neither government truly cares), it is a truly tragic story. Even if Sacoolas evades justice she will live with the burden of Harry Dunn's death til the end of her days, and for Harry's parents they have lost their child and may never see the protagonist pay for that. Perhaps a review of the law is urgently required now. Our thoughts should go out to the boy's family.
Yes. make guns legal & then at least the boys parents could have shot the cunt poor woman when she left the police station. Scummy doesn't even come close. If I were them I'd be on the next plane to the USA & buying myself a gun as soon as I got there.
Regardless of this diplomatic immunity business and the strain it is having on the 'special' relationship between the UK and the US (although the cynic in me thinks neither government truly cares), it is a truly tragic story. Even if Sacoolas evades justice she will live with the burden of Harry Dunn's death til the end of her days, and for Harry's parents they have lost their child and may never see the protagonist pay for that. Perhaps a review of the law is urgently required now. Our thoughts should go out to the boy's family.
Yes. make guns legal & then at least the boys parents could have shot the cunt poor woman when she left the police station. Scummy doesn't even come close. If I were them I'd be on the next plane to the USA & buying myself a gun as soon as I got there.
I know you to be lovably irrascible on here Golfie, but you want to be a bit careful writing stuff like that!
Regardless of this diplomatic immunity business and the strain it is having on the 'special' relationship between the UK and the US (although the cynic in me thinks neither government truly cares), it is a truly tragic story. Even if Sacoolas evades justice she will live with the burden of Harry Dunn's death til the end of her days, and for Harry's parents they have lost their child and may never see the protagonist pay for that. Perhaps a review of the law is urgently required now. Our thoughts should go out to the boy's family.
Yes. make guns legal & then at least the boys parents could have shot the cunt poor woman when she left the police station. Scummy doesn't even come close. If I were them I'd be on the next plane to the USA & buying myself a gun as soon as I got there.
I know you to be lovably irrascible on here Golfie, but you want to be a bit careful writing stuff like that!
Regardless of this diplomatic immunity business and the strain it is having on the 'special' relationship between the UK and the US (although the cynic in me thinks neither government truly cares), it is a truly tragic story. Even if Sacoolas evades justice she will live with the burden of Harry Dunn's death til the end of her days, and for Harry's parents they have lost their child and may never see the protagonist pay for that. Perhaps a review of the law is urgently required now. Our thoughts should go out to the boy's family.
Yes. make guns legal & then at least the boys parents could have shot the cunt poor woman when she left the police station. Scummy doesn't even come close. If I were them I'd be on the next plane to the USA & buying myself a gun as soon as I got there.
I know you to be lovably irrascible on here Golfie, but you want to be a bit careful writing stuff like that!
Regardless of this diplomatic immunity business and the strain it is having on the 'special' relationship between the UK and the US (although the cynic in me thinks neither government truly cares), it is a truly tragic story. Even if Sacoolas evades justice she will live with the burden of Harry Dunn's death til the end of her days, and for Harry's parents they have lost their child and may never see the protagonist pay for that. Perhaps a review of the law is urgently required now. Our thoughts should go out to the boy's family.
Yes. make guns legal & then at least the boys parents could have shot the cunt poor woman when she left the police station. Scummy doesn't even come close. If I were them I'd be on the next plane to the USA & buying myself a gun as soon as I got there.
I know you to be lovably irrascible on here Golfie, but you want to be a bit careful writing stuff like that!
Regardless of this diplomatic immunity business and the strain it is having on the 'special' relationship between the UK and the US (although the cynic in me thinks neither government truly cares), it is a truly tragic story. Even if Sacoolas evades justice she will live with the burden of Harry Dunn's death til the end of her days, and for Harry's parents they have lost their child and may never see the protagonist pay for that. Perhaps a review of the law is urgently required now. Our thoughts should go out to the boy's family.
Yes. make guns legal & then at least the boys parents could have shot the cunt poor woman when she left the police station. Scummy doesn't even come close. If I were them I'd be on the next plane to the USA & buying myself a gun as soon as I got there.
I know you to be lovably irrascible on here Golfie, but you want to be a bit careful writing stuff like that!
Do you have kids...?
I do. I have 2 young boys. But I was warning you to be careful what you write on a forum. Not what anyone privately thinks.
We have the same special relationship with the US as the Kurds do.
Nah, we're significantly less shat on than the Kurds are. But, erm maybe this should be taken over to The Other Place, as people keep straying into politics?
So the parents are in the USA and meet Trump who surprises them by saying the lady that killed their son is in the room next door and willing to speak with them!
Maybe i am clouded by my pure cynicism of the man but feels like an incredibly cruel and crass attempt at a publicity stunt.
Glad the parents said no and I hope they do not end up being used and further hurt by the shitrags in charge of the States currently.
So the parents are in the USA and meet Trump who surprises them by saying the lady that killed their son is in the room next door and willing to speak with them!
Maybe i am clouded by my pure cynicism of the man but feels like an incredibly cruel and crass attempt at a publicity stunt.
Glad the parents said no and I hope they do not end up being used and further hurt by the shitrags in charge of the States currently.
The parents also said that Trump was very kind to them, had promised to look at it from a different angle and was very open and honest about everything. They left with the feeling that he had taken them seriously and had been very empathetic towards them.
I suppose that, yes, individual cynicism would cloud some from ignoring the potential plusses of the meeting outlined by the very people that were there.
So the parents are in the USA and meet Trump who surprises them by saying the lady that killed their son is in the room next door and willing to speak with them!
Maybe i am clouded by my pure cynicism of the man but feels like an incredibly cruel and crass attempt at a publicity stunt.
Glad the parents said no and I hope they do not end up being used and further hurt by the shitrags in charge of the States currently.
The parents also said that Trump was very kind to them, had promised to look at it from a different angle and was very open and honest about everything. They left with the feeling that he had taken them seriously and had been very empathetic towards them.
I suppose that, yes, individual cynicism would cloud some from ignoring the potential plusses of the meeting outlined by the very people that were there.
I think it's more political than that. I think they've (the parents) been well advised.
We all know Trump - politely - is erratic at the slightest whiff of a challenge to his 'authority'. This approach keeps the 'maybe' within easy reach and gives him an option to change his mind without losing face.
So the parents are in the USA and meet Trump who surprises them by saying the lady that killed their son is in the room next door and willing to speak with them!
Maybe i am clouded by my pure cynicism of the man but feels like an incredibly cruel and crass attempt at a publicity stunt.
Glad the parents said no and I hope they do not end up being used and further hurt by the shitrags in charge of the States currently.
The parents also said that Trump was very kind to them, had promised to look at it from a different angle and was very open and honest about everything. They left with the feeling that he had taken them seriously and had been very empathetic towards them.
I suppose that, yes, individual cynicism would cloud some from ignoring the potential plusses of the meeting outlined by the very people that were there.
Yes, I found it a bit odd that the parents were full of praise for Trump especially after their comments following their meeting with Dominic Raaaaaab. How bad must Raaaaaaaaaab be if Trump comes across better?!
So the parents are in the USA and meet Trump who surprises them by saying the lady that killed their son is in the room next door and willing to speak with them!
Maybe i am clouded by my pure cynicism of the man but feels like an incredibly cruel and crass attempt at a publicity stunt.
Glad the parents said no and I hope they do not end up being used and further hurt by the shitrags in charge of the States currently.
This was an appalling stunt by him - he has no empathy or understanding. Ultimately looking for a photo op.
So the parents are in the USA and meet Trump who surprises them by saying the lady that killed their son is in the room next door and willing to speak with them!
Maybe i am clouded by my pure cynicism of the man but feels like an incredibly cruel and crass attempt at a publicity stunt.
Glad the parents said no and I hope they do not end up being used and further hurt by the shitrags in charge of the States currently.
This was an appalling stunt by him - he has no empathy or understanding. Ultimately looking for a photo op.
You can imagine that photo Trump with that stupid grin and a thumbs up sign
So the parents are in the USA and meet Trump who surprises them by saying the lady that killed their son is in the room next door and willing to speak with them!
Maybe i am clouded by my pure cynicism of the man but feels like an incredibly cruel and crass attempt at a publicity stunt.
Glad the parents said no and I hope they do not end up being used and further hurt by the shitrags in charge of the States currently.
This was an appalling stunt by him - he has no empathy or understanding. Ultimately looking for a photo op.
Maybe maybe not......I agree he’s a weird individual who repeatedly seems to put his foot in it, but that doesn’t mean everything he does has no value or isn’t done with genuine concern and empathy. I’d like to think on this occasion he may well have simply been trying to do the right thing and was genuinely trying to get the two parties together. Currently if there’s a heavy downpour of rain within 1000 miles of him there are some people who would blame him for it.
So the parents are in the USA and meet Trump who surprises them by saying the lady that killed their son is in the room next door and willing to speak with them!
Maybe i am clouded by my pure cynicism of the man but feels like an incredibly cruel and crass attempt at a publicity stunt.
Glad the parents said no and I hope they do not end up being used and further hurt by the shitrags in charge of the States currently.
This was an appalling stunt by him - he has no empathy or understanding. Ultimately looking for a photo op.
Maybe maybe not......I agree he’s a weird individual who repeatedly seems to put his foot in it, but that doesn’t mean everything he does has no value or isn’t done with genuine concern and empathy. I’d like to think on this occasion he may well have simply been trying to do the right thing and was genuinely trying to get the two parties together. Currently if there’s a heavy downpour of rain within 1000 miles of him there are some people who would blame him for it.
I'm unclear how he was trying to do the right thing? He had photographers in place for what would have been an incredibly awkward meeting and one which would have been inappropriate. He effectively put pressure on the parents at a very vulnerable time for them.
If he had any real empathy he'd send Sarcoolas back to the UK.
So the parents are in the USA and meet Trump who surprises them by saying the lady that killed their son is in the room next door and willing to speak with them!
Maybe i am clouded by my pure cynicism of the man but feels like an incredibly cruel and crass attempt at a publicity stunt.
Glad the parents said no and I hope they do not end up being used and further hurt by the shitrags in charge of the States currently.
This was an appalling stunt by him - he has no empathy or understanding. Ultimately looking for a photo op.
Maybe maybe not......I agree he’s a weird individual who repeatedly seems to put his foot in it, but that doesn’t mean everything he does has no value or isn’t done with genuine concern and empathy. I’d like to think on this occasion he may well have simply been trying to do the right thing and was genuinely trying to get the two parties together. Currently if there’s a heavy downpour of rain within 1000 miles of him there are some people who would blame him for it.
I don't like Trump, but I'm prepared to think that he arranged this for the best of reasons, not the worst. It does seem strange to go to America and not speak to the woman. When she was first interviewed, Harry's mother said that she didn't want the driver to go to prison, but that is exactly what will happen if she does come back to the UK.
So the parents are in the USA and meet Trump who surprises them by saying the lady that killed their son is in the room next door and willing to speak with them!
Maybe i am clouded by my pure cynicism of the man but feels like an incredibly cruel and crass attempt at a publicity stunt.
Glad the parents said no and I hope they do not end up being used and further hurt by the shitrags in charge of the States currently.
This was an appalling stunt by him - he has no empathy or understanding. Ultimately looking for a photo op.
Maybe maybe not......I agree he’s a weird individual who repeatedly seems to put his foot in it, but that doesn’t mean everything he does has no value or isn’t done with genuine concern and empathy. I’d like to think on this occasion he may well have simply been trying to do the right thing and was genuinely trying to get the two parties together. Currently if there’s a heavy downpour of rain within 1000 miles of him there are some people who would blame him for it.
I don't like Trump, but I'm prepared to think that he arranged this for the best of reasons, not the worst. It does seem strange to go to America and not speak to the woman. When she was first interviewed, Harry's mother said that she didn't want the driver to go to prison, but that is exactly what will happen if she does come back to the UK.
Why on earth was it strange? They want the woman to face justice in the UK so they can get closure regarding their son's death.
The meeting was sprung upon them and was for the benefit of the woman and Trump so that they could possibly close the matter. The parents are not being listened to here and I think it was pretty crass and insensitive the way this was set up.
If Sacoolas is truly sorry as she claims she would come back to the UK to face justice. I'm sure the parents would be willing to speak to her on UK soil.
I find it very sad the pressure that was applied on the Dunns and I admire their resolve.
Comments
It's only 14 years if she was driving under the influence of drink or drugs, which she was clearly not otherwise the police would have arrested her there and then and waited for the DI to be called.
So the maximum sentence she can receive is five years.
You do understand and agree with that now, don't you?
The maximum terms of 14 years applies for a conviction for either of two offences. "Causing death by dangerous driving" or "causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs". These are two, different offences. As far as we can tell she was not under the influence of drink or drugs, so cannot be charged with the latter. But, from what we know, it is possible for her to face the former charge, that is, "causing death by dangerous driving".
If she was not under the influence, she could be charged with "causing death by inconsiderate driving" (max five years), "causing death by careless driving" (max five years) "causing death by dangerous driving" (max 14 years).
The maximum sentence for a conviction for "causing death by dangerous driving" is 14 years, not five years.
Let's not fall out, because this is a really important issue, for lots of reasons. Do you agree with me now?
Problem is her husband is not on "the list" of US diplomats that have DI. Well, not on the official "list" anyway as he is working for US Military Intelligence. Neat get out.
@Addickted - Chizz is right. There is no offence of "causing death by dangerous driving when under the influence of drink or drugs". That category only applies to careless driving. This would simply be "causing death by dangerous driving" and carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.
It also said she had recently left an American air base.
I wonder which side of the road vehicles drive on INSIDE the air base?
To me, keeping to the left, as on the local public roads, would help keep the base personnel habituated to UK ways, rather than needing to constantly swap mindset, but I wonder if this is the case?
May well have made that up or dreamt it as never been able to find it again
Just reminded me when you said about having to switch your mindset
Edit: Found it
As I remember it, they were able to effect the change by banning all but emergency vehicles for the weekend, in order to change signage and road markings. It was helped by a high % of Swedish drivers already having left-hand drive vehicles.
There was discussion at the time whether the UK should do the same, but it was deemed too complex and expensive, largely because of the need even then for major road building to amend things like restricted motorway junctions which did not already have full freedom to join & leave in both directions, if we were to drive on the right.
”as Secretary Pompeo told Foreign Secretary Raab, that the spouse of the US government employee will not return to the United Kingdom”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-49995867
We’re kidding ourselves if we think there is actually a “special relationship”, as we will find out in trade negotiations shortly.
Seriously painful.
Maybe i am clouded by my pure cynicism of the man but feels like an incredibly cruel and crass attempt at a publicity stunt.
Glad the parents said no and I hope they do not end up being used and further hurt by the shitrags in charge of the States currently.
The parents also said that Trump was very kind to them, had promised to look at it from a different angle and was very open and honest about everything. They left with the feeling that he had taken them seriously and had been very empathetic towards them.
I suppose that, yes, individual cynicism would cloud some from ignoring the potential plusses of the meeting outlined by the very people that were there.
We all know Trump - politely - is erratic at the slightest whiff of a challenge to his 'authority'. This approach keeps the 'maybe' within easy reach and gives him an option to change his mind without losing face.
I’d like to think on this occasion he may well have simply been trying to do the right thing and was genuinely trying to get the two parties together.
Currently if there’s a heavy downpour of rain within 1000 miles of him there are some people who would blame him for it.
If he had any real empathy he'd send Sarcoolas back to the UK.
Surprised at your defence of him.
The meeting was sprung upon them and was for the benefit of the woman and Trump so that they could possibly close the matter. The parents are not being listened to here and I think it was pretty crass and insensitive the way this was set up.
If Sacoolas is truly sorry as she claims she would come back to the UK to face justice. I'm sure the parents would be willing to speak to her on UK soil.
I find it very sad the pressure that was applied on the Dunns and I admire their resolve.