5 ms·

US diplomat secretly flown home ‘had child abuse images at flat’

63 points by Betelbuddy 1mo ago

jjgreen 1mo ago
Also on BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gjw1j1eq7o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gjw1j1eq7o
- lysace 1mo ago
  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?
  - muglug 1mo ago
    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.
    - lysace 1mo ago
      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.
      - muglug 1mo ago
        Other sources say it was a cargo plane, so unclear.
    - expedition32 1mo ago
      I have to give it to the Americans their sex offenders register is public. Hopefully he or she ends up homeless and penniless.
      - alexgieg 1mo ago
        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.
  - jrflowers 1mo ago
    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
EA-3167 1mo ago
Diplomatic Immunity isn’t just found in movies, and while it can lead to some unsatisfying outcomes it’s necessary.
- ygjb 1mo ago
  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.
  - EA-3167 1mo ago
    That gets into a discussion that HN as a whole doesn't excel at: The realpolitik of what goes on in embassies, what staffers might know about ops, and the need to keep those secrets rather than have them spilled in a foreign court. You also have the much grimmer reality that a country almost certainly wants to do their own investigation, since a scandal like this can be weaponized to remove someone or end their career. All told no country is ever going to shrug and say, "Sure take our guy, wring him out and let us know what he says." That's not how anything works and it's frankly not how it should work. But again... people here tend to have an extremely black-and-white way of thinking and very little actual knowledge beyond tech.
- traceroute66 1mo ago
  > 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.
specproc 1mo ago
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-military-prosecutes-alleged-rapes-of-women-in-uk-as-sexual-assaults 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 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49984737 And our lads die in their wars. The "special relationship" is an abusive relationship.
- gamblor956 1mo ago
  1) The military defines rape differently 2) She was convicted by the way.... 3) and our boys died in yours.
  - orwin 1mo ago
    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.
    - gamblor956 1mo ago
      Legally it makes all the difference in the world. It's the same as the difference between murder and manslaughter.
  - traceroute66 1mo ago
    > 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn

63 points by Betelbuddy 1mo ago

jjgreen 1mo ago

Also on BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gjw1j1eq7o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gjw1j1eq7o

lysace 1mo ago
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?
- muglug 1mo ago
  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.
  - lysace 1mo ago
    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.
    - muglug 1mo ago
      Other sources say it was a cargo plane, so unclear.
  - expedition32 1mo ago
    I have to give it to the Americans their sex offenders register is public. Hopefully he or she ends up homeless and penniless.
    - alexgieg 1mo ago
      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.
- jrflowers 1mo ago
  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

EA-3167 1mo ago

Diplomatic Immunity isn’t just found in movies, and while it can lead to some unsatisfying outcomes it’s necessary.

ygjb 1mo ago
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.
- EA-3167 1mo ago
  That gets into a discussion that HN as a whole doesn't excel at: The realpolitik of what goes on in embassies, what staffers might know about ops, and the need to keep those secrets rather than have them spilled in a foreign court. You also have the much grimmer reality that a country almost certainly wants to do their own investigation, since a scandal like this can be weaponized to remove someone or end their career. All told no country is ever going to shrug and say, "Sure take our guy, wring him out and let us know what he says." That's not how anything works and it's frankly not how it should work. But again... people here tend to have an extremely black-and-white way of thinking and very little actual knowledge beyond tech.
traceroute66 1mo ago
> 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.

specproc 1mo ago

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-military-prosecutes-alleged-rapes-of-women-in-uk-as-sexual-assaults 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 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49984737 And our lads die in their wars. The "special relationship" is an abusive relationship.

gamblor956 1mo ago
1) The military defines rape differently 2) She was convicted by the way.... 3) and our boys died in yours.
- orwin 1mo ago
  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.
  - gamblor956 1mo ago
    Legally it makes all the difference in the world. It's the same as the difference between murder and manslaughter.
- traceroute66 1mo ago
  > 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn