Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 09/13/2026 12:47:27 PM PDT by Libloather
An American diplomat working at the US Embassy in London was detained and back to the US in a secret operation after authorities allegedly found child porn on his devices, according to a report. The unidentified diplomat is alleged to have received the twisted material from his US-based brother, leading to a raid by US Marines on his London apartment late last month, the UK Sun reported.
Now, UK officials and authorities are expressing outrage, who say that the US had no legal authority to seize him, according to the the Sun.
On Aug. 24, a day before the dawn raid, a Boeing 747 flew from Chicago to a Royal Air Force base in Gloucestershire, Southwest England, where the US Air Force has a large presence, according to reports.
The following day, the same plane left the base and flew back to the US, landing at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware shortly before 8 p.m local time.
Less than four hours later, the plane reportedly left Delaware and flew to O’Hare Airport in Chicago.
British police and authorities were only informed about the raid following the diplomat’s extraction, according to the Sun.
The clandestine operation has sparked fury among British politicians.
“The US Government is now protecting pedophiles,” conservative member of parliament Ben Obese-Jecty wrote on X.
“US Marines conducting a raid on British soil, on which they have no jurisdiction, to seize one of their own diplomats and then use US military resources to ferry the suspect out of the country and fly him to the US is completely unacceptable,” he added.
The diplomatic fallout comes just days before the new British Prime Minister Andy Burnham is set to meet with President Donald Trump at the UN in New York.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
“US Marines conducting a raid on British soil, on which they have no jurisdiction, to seize one of their own diplomats and then use US military resources to ferry the suspect out of the country and fly him to the US is completely unacceptable,”
https://www.lerctr.org/~transit/healy/idid.wav
He would have been safer from punishment in England
Normally a host country has no criminal jurisdiction over an accredited diplomat. That’s what “diplomatic immunity” means. If that is the case here, then the US is not protecting the diplomat from anything.
If he was a diplomat I doubt there was much the UK could do.
Maybe they just wanted to get him back on US soil so they could fire his ass ...
the whole State Dept is riddled with perverts, USAID too.
He was our diplomat, ours! If he was doing something naughty, it’s our responsibility to get him out of the country then charge him, arrest him, try him, then send him to prison. He is our plenipotentate, not the UK’s!
Uh, US embassy - US land. That’s how that works, right? Does that mean we have a right to pitch a fit if the roles are reversed?
Looks like CSA(M) is only a big problem if the perp is Western, so this is hypocritical coming from the English.
It is not a requirement to be hired by them, but it is a definite advantage since birds of a feather flock together.
““The US Government is now protecting pedophiles,” conservative member of parliament Ben Obese-Jecty wrote on X.”
Given the Muslim rape gangs in Britain that have been covered up/condoned for years by politicians and law enforcement officials, that’s pretty much the pot calling the kettle black.
Grok:
Yes, in a limited historical sense involving senior Labour figures and the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL, later Liberty) in the 1970s, though not as a direct personal defence of individual offenders or their crimes.The main episode centres on the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), a group that campaigned for the “rights” of paedophiles and to lower or abolish the age of consent (proposals included as low as 4–10 in some contexts). PIE was granted affiliate status by the NCCL around 1975 and remained linked for several years.
theguardian.com
Key Labour-linked figures involved with the NCCL at the time included:Patricia Hewitt (NCCL general secretary 1974–1983; later a Labour cabinet minister/MP). Under her leadership the organisation proposed lowering the age of consent to 14 (with provisions potentially allowing it at 10 if “consent” could be shown) and took other positions criticised as overly lenient on related issues. She later apologised, saying the NCCL was “naive and wrong” to accept PIE’s claims and that she took responsibility for the mistakes, while denying any personal support for child abuse.
bbc.com
Harriet Harman (NCCL legal officer from 1978; later Labour deputy leader and long-serving MP). She has expressed regret that PIE ever had any connection to the NCCL but has insisted she had nothing to do with promoting its aims, joined after the main affiliation decisions, and was the target of a smear. Critics pointed to NCCL documents from the period (including ones associated with her role) that opposed or sought to water down certain child-protection measures.
theguardian.com
Jack Dromey (on the NCCL executive and later chairman; later a Labour MP). He has strongly denied supporting PIE or age-of-consent reductions, stating he opposed the group and defeated related motions.
thetimes.com
Independent inquiries and reporting (including the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse) have noted that the NCCL’s affiliation gave “spurious legitimacy” to PIE and that leaders bore responsibility for it, even if they did not personally endorse child sexual abuse. The individuals involved have consistently rejected any suggestion they defended or supported paedophilia.
thetimes.com
There is no prominent record of a sitting Labour MP standing up in Parliament or publicly to defend specific convicted paedophiles or actively promote adult-child sexual activity. Broader modern controversies (e.g., associations with Jeffrey Epstein via Peter Mandelson, or campaigning for individuals later convicted of child-image offences) involve different issues of judgement and association rather than explicit defence of pedophiles. Claims of systemic “defence of pedophiles” by Labour MPs often amplify the NCCL/PIE history or criticise handling of grooming-gang cases, but the former is the clearest documented link to pro-paedophile advocacy via an organisation that future Labour MPs helped lead.
“The US Government is now protecting pedophiles,” conservative member of parliament Ben Obese-Jecty wrote on X.
And while asking this question in the U.K. would make me likely liable to be arrested, what kind of English/British name is Obese-Jecty?
(Of course what kind of American name is Zohran Mamdani?)
Would they like to talk about grooming gangs and child trafficking? No?
We arrested one of our own and returned him to the US for punishment here. 🙄
Protecting him? Or fixing to prosecute him?
Given the UK’s record regarding Rotherham, where they let a THOUSANDS of pedophile immigrants continue doing their thing, FOR YEARS (in order to prevent the public from turning against mass immigration), I’m not so sure that the UK is the appropropriate country to complain about the 1 US guy doing it there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.