She refused to attend court in the UK. After a lot of pressure she reluctantly agreed to appear via video link. She was sentenced in absence by the UK court to eight months in prison, suspended for 12 months. The UK court had no choice but to suspend her sentence as her lawyers made it clear she would never travel to the UK to serve time.
Meanwhile the Wikipedia entry makes zero mention of any attempts by the US justice system to prosecute her. There was an attempt at a civil lawsuit by the Dunn family in the US, but no sign of a criminal lawsuit.
I mean, putting your penis in someone who didn't agree is rape. The fact that you use threats instead of using violence doesn't really change what it is.
"A US embassy staffer accused of possessing indecent images of children, was detained at his south London flat and flown out of the UK in August, without being first questioned by British police."
Sure, I get the overall mechanics. "was... flown" - any brits here to help? What exactly does this mean in BBC English? It implies something, doesn't it?
I assume he was taken to a US airbase and flown from there.
Americans can recall diplomats back to their home country at any time. He was recalled somewhat more hastily than most.
I imagine they said something to the effect of “you will be deported and stand trial in the US; the only question is whether you’re prosecuted in the UK as well”. I imagine that, plus promises to keep his name out of the media, were convincing.
The BBC article goes on with "He was flown back to the United States on a commercial flight, but their investigations are ongoing in conjunction with UK authorities." though.
That's good when the sex offense is for something truly evil.
The problem is the US is a Puritan asylum, so things that'd never register as offenses in sane countries, sexual or otherwise, can get people's names in that registry, destroying their lives.
And several States are weaponizing this by expanding what's legally labeled as sexually offensive so it covers harmless behaviors of minorities, so now there are people under risk of getting included in the registry due basically to existing.
Yes, but the point in this case is that we are told the person did not have diplomatic immunity.
Not everybody who works at an embassy has diplomatic immunity.
The Geneva Convention dictates who gets diplomatic immunity, and that is based around your job description and rank.
This is not the first time either that the US has flown somebody out of the UK in questionable circumstances before they were questioned by UK police.
The UK is not a third-world country, there is no reason why somebody should not be questioned by UK police or dealt with in UK courts.
You can also bet your bottom dollar that if the tables were turned and the equivalent happend on US soil, there would be little chance of being flown out covertley. Most sensible people don't like "One rule for US, another rule for everyone else", even more so under the present US administration.
> The Geneva Convention dictates who gets diplomatic immunity, and that is based around your job description and rank.
from what I know, this is not correct.
if the US said he's a diplomat or has diplomatic immunity and/or was given that by the US and notified the UK, then he has immunity and it is up to the US and UK to resolve their grievances through diplomatic channels.
for example, many family members of diplomats and government officials have such status in host countries
> many family members of diplomats and government officials
Point still remains. They will be family members of people with suitable job description and rank.
As an extreme example, nobody seriously expects a janitor at an embassy to be given diplomatic immunity.
There are a large numebr of roles at an embassy that simply do not require diplomatic immunity. And based on the media reports, it seems this person was in one of those roles that did not require diplomatic immunity.
From the BBC article "It is understood the individual worked at the US embassy in Vauxhall, south west London, and though not a diplomat, he enjoyed the umbrella of diplomatic protection."
> And you certainly don’t want an agency asset floating around in the legal/prison system of another country, friend or foe.
This person was allegedly looking at CSAM.
Police and courts interrogating someone as to why they were looking at CSAM is a specific line of enquiry and doesn't touch upon their job.
Also from the US State Department website:
Under international law and practice, persons enjoying immunity from the jurisdiction of a receiving State’s laws nonetheless have a duty to respect those laws. Immunity is not a license for misconduct. It is a doctrine intended to benefit the sending State or IO, not individuals.
If the allegation is correct and the guy was looking at CSAM at home, then that has zero to do with their job and therefore it is as per the State Department paragraph above, i.e. the doctrine does not apply. Allegedly looking at CSAM at home does not "benefit the sending state".
Not necessarily, administrative, service, and consular staff are not diplomats but still receive varying levels of diplomatic immunity, typically just as it relates to their job. A CIA officer would be under the cover of a diplomat, no one would ever say that they actually aren't a diplomat.
Sure. It would be nice if countries would waive diplomatic immunity for things that are crimes back home. Diplomatic immunity should extend to foreign laws, but the diplomats shouldn't escape domestic criminal or civil consequences.
US military personnel get off with a slap on the wrist for rape in the UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jul/29/why-us-milit...
A US diplomat's wife got flown home after killing a motorcyclist.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49984737
And our lads die in their wars.
The "special relationship" is an abusive relationship.
1) The military defines rape differently
2) She was convicted by the way....
3) and our boys died in yours.
> She was convicted by the way....
Not according to this[1]
She refused to attend court in the UK. After a lot of pressure she reluctantly agreed to appear via video link. She was sentenced in absence by the UK court to eight months in prison, suspended for 12 months. The UK court had no choice but to suspend her sentence as her lawyers made it clear she would never travel to the UK to serve time.
Meanwhile the Wikipedia entry makes zero mention of any attempts by the US justice system to prosecute her. There was an attempt at a civil lawsuit by the Dunn family in the US, but no sign of a criminal lawsuit.
So in effect she got away with it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn
I mean, putting your penis in someone who didn't agree is rape. The fact that you use threats instead of using violence doesn't really change what it is.
Legally it makes all the difference in the world. It's the same as the difference between murder and manslaughter.
Also on BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gjw1j1eq7o
I suspect that I can't really understand this:
"A US embassy staffer accused of possessing indecent images of children, was detained at his south London flat and flown out of the UK in August, without being first questioned by British police."
Sure, I get the overall mechanics. "was... flown" - any brits here to help? What exactly does this mean in BBC English? It implies something, doesn't it?
I assume he was taken to a US airbase and flown from there.
Americans can recall diplomats back to their home country at any time. He was recalled somewhat more hastily than most.
I imagine they said something to the effect of “you will be deported and stand trial in the US; the only question is whether you’re prosecuted in the UK as well”. I imagine that, plus promises to keep his name out of the media, were convincing.
The BBC article goes on with "He was flown back to the United States on a commercial flight, but their investigations are ongoing in conjunction with UK authorities." though.
Other sources say it was a cargo plane, so unclear.
I have to give it to the Americans their sex offenders register is public. Hopefully he or she ends up homeless and penniless.
That's good when the sex offense is for something truly evil.
The problem is the US is a Puritan asylum, so things that'd never register as offenses in sane countries, sexual or otherwise, can get people's names in that registry, destroying their lives.
And several States are weaponizing this by expanding what's legally labeled as sexually offensive so it covers harmless behaviors of minorities, so now there are people under risk of getting included in the registry due basically to existing.
He didn’t have wings or a pilot’s license so he had to have somebody else fly him in the plane to where he wouldn’t be in trouble for his CSAM
Diplomatic Immunity isn’t just found in movies, and while it can lead to some unsatisfying outcomes it’s necessary.
> it’s necessary.
Yes, but the point in this case is that we are told the person did not have diplomatic immunity.
Not everybody who works at an embassy has diplomatic immunity.
The Geneva Convention dictates who gets diplomatic immunity, and that is based around your job description and rank.
This is not the first time either that the US has flown somebody out of the UK in questionable circumstances before they were questioned by UK police.
The UK is not a third-world country, there is no reason why somebody should not be questioned by UK police or dealt with in UK courts.
You can also bet your bottom dollar that if the tables were turned and the equivalent happend on US soil, there would be little chance of being flown out covertley. Most sensible people don't like "One rule for US, another rule for everyone else", even more so under the present US administration.
> The Geneva Convention dictates who gets diplomatic immunity, and that is based around your job description and rank.
from what I know, this is not correct.
if the US said he's a diplomat or has diplomatic immunity and/or was given that by the US and notified the UK, then he has immunity and it is up to the US and UK to resolve their grievances through diplomatic channels.
for example, many family members of diplomats and government officials have such status in host countries
> many family members of diplomats and government officials
Point still remains. They will be family members of people with suitable job description and rank.
As an extreme example, nobody seriously expects a janitor at an embassy to be given diplomatic immunity.
There are a large numebr of roles at an embassy that simply do not require diplomatic immunity. And based on the media reports, it seems this person was in one of those roles that did not require diplomatic immunity.
From the BBC article "It is understood the individual worked at the US embassy in Vauxhall, south west London, and though not a diplomat, he enjoyed the umbrella of diplomatic protection."
In other words a spook.
And you certainly don’t want an agency asset floating around in the legal/prison system of another country, friend or foe.
> And you certainly don’t want an agency asset floating around in the legal/prison system of another country, friend or foe.
This person was allegedly looking at CSAM.
Police and courts interrogating someone as to why they were looking at CSAM is a specific line of enquiry and doesn't touch upon their job.
Also from the US State Department website:
If the allegation is correct and the guy was looking at CSAM at home, then that has zero to do with their job and therefore it is as per the State Department paragraph above, i.e. the doctrine does not apply. Allegedly looking at CSAM at home does not "benefit the sending state".Not necessarily, administrative, service, and consular staff are not diplomats but still receive varying levels of diplomatic immunity, typically just as it relates to their job. A CIA officer would be under the cover of a diplomat, no one would ever say that they actually aren't a diplomat.
https://1997-2001.state.gov/www/about_state/diplomatic_immun...
Sure. It would be nice if countries would waive diplomatic immunity for things that are crimes back home. Diplomatic immunity should extend to foreign laws, but the diplomats shouldn't escape domestic criminal or civil consequences.