Mr Kissyfur wrote:
I liked the letter from the UK government:
"You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy.
We need to reiterate that we consider the continued use of the diplomatic premises in this way incompatible with the Vienna convention and unsustainable and we have made clear the serious implications that this has for our diplomatic relations."'
Diplomatese for "Look, there are laws about this sort of thing, and you're on the wrong side of them. Hand him over or we'll start to get pissed off, you tinpoint banana republic bunch of twats"
And this is the letter that Ecuador said was Britain threatening to attack the nation’s London Embassy if it did not hand over WikiLeaker Julian Assange...
"You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy.
We need to reiterate that we consider the continued use of the diplomatic premises in this way incompatible with the Vienna convention and unsustainable and we have made clear the serious implications that this has for our diplomatic relations."'
Diplomatese for "Look, there are laws about this sort of thing, and you're on the wrong side of them. Hand him over or we'll start to get pissed off, you tinpoint banana republic bunch of twats"
And this is the letter that Ecuador said was Britain threatening to attack the nation’s London Embassy if it did not hand over WikiLeaker Julian Assange...
Didn't they refer to some UK legislation though, which I thought was directly incompatible with the Vienna doodah?
ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:
Didn't they refer to some UK legislation though, which I thought was directly incompatible with the Vienna doodah?
The Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act, yes. I'm not sure it's incompatible with the Vienna Convention, tho.
The Vienna Convention says a lot less than most people assume it does.
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:
Didn't they refer to some UK legislation though, which I thought was directly incompatible with the Vienna doodah?
The Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act, yes. I'm not sure it's incompatible with the Vienna Convention, tho.
The Vienna Convention says a lot less than most people assume it does.
This means nothing to me.
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
The Vienna Convention says a lot less than most people assume it does.
It means nothing to me.
FUCK YOU, FUCKFACE.
Craster wrote:
FUCK YOU, FUCKFACE.
Da Da La Da La Da Da Da Daaaaa - HA!
Heh.
Anyway, it seems the Veinna Convention actually is pretty clear on the "you no steppy inny the embassy without our sayso, okeyday?", so I'm not clear on the UK act's basis.
Anyway, it seems the Veinna Convention actually is pretty clear on the "you no steppy inny the embassy without our sayso, okeyday?", so I'm not clear on the UK act's basis.
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
The Vienna Convention says a lot less than most people assume it does.
Article 22 seems pretty clear:
Quote:
1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter
them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises
of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the
mission or impairment of its dignity.
3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of
transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises
of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the
mission or impairment of its dignity.
3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of
transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
ETA: Mr Kissyfur wins!
HOWEVER, on further research it seems the Act allows the government to at will declare the embassy to no longer be an embassy, which is a fairly neat way around the problem of the inviolability of the embassy premises.
Anyway, we should just get the Yanks in to black bag the egotistical oversexed little twat.
Anyway, we should just get the Yanks in to black bag the egotistical oversexed little twat.
Bamba wrote:
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
The Vienna Convention says a lot less than most people assume it does.
Article 22 seems pretty clear:
Quote:
1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter
them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises
of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the
mission or impairment of its dignity.
3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of
transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises
of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the
mission or impairment of its dignity.
3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of
transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
ETA: Mr Kissyfur wins!
o/
Bamba wrote:
ETA: Mr Kissyfur wins!
Mr Kissyfur wins o'clock, do you mean?
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
HOWEVER, on further research it seems the Act allows the government to at will declare the embassy to no longer be an embassy, which is a fairly neat way around the problem of the inviolability of the embassy premises.
If the UK government can do this, what's to stop any foreign government from doing it to UK embassies overseas? The entire diplomatic service is based on the central agreement that 'if you don't fuck with our embassies/diplomats we won't fuck with yours', so if one country unilaterally violates that agreement doesn't the whole thing fall apart?
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
o/
\o
What it amounts to is 3 kids playing tig and one kid camping in the safe area. The other 2 reckon it's not fair and try to tig him anyway. But them's the rules, if you don't like it, take your ball and go home.
Bamba wrote:
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
HOWEVER, on further research it seems the Act allows the government to at will declare the embassy to no longer be an embassy, which is a fairly neat way around the problem of the inviolability of the embassy premises.
If the UK government can do this, what's to stop any foreign government from doing it to UK embassies overseas? The entire diplomatic service is based on the central agreement that 'if you don't fuck with our embassies/diplomats we won't fuck with yours', so if one country unilaterally violates that agreement doesn't the whole thing fall apart?
Absolutely so, yes. The whole thing is based on mutuality, as there's no big international diplomatic court you can go to to whine about how the congestion charge is really a tax and we shouldn't have to pay it and they arrested me for abusing children this wouldn't happen in the US waaah waaah waaah.
So if you piss someone off they may well piss right back.
However, bear in mind that here we're talking about a dispute between the UK and Ecuador. I fancy our chances. We completely beat them at the Olympics.
To be honest I'm amazed Julie didn't pitch up at the Argentinian embassy as they'd be well up for sticking two fingers up at us.
Bamba wrote:
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
The Vienna Convention says a lot less than most people assume it does.
Article 22 seems pretty clear:
Quote:
1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter
them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises
of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the
mission or impairment of its dignity.
3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of
transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises
of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the
mission or impairment of its dignity.
3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of
transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
ETA: Mr Kissyfur wins!
I'm always wary about reading something in to Article X without reading the other Articles A - Z. We don't know, for example, that Article 23 doesn't say that Article 22 doesn't apply if you're harbouring someone against whom the state has valid grievances who has no other connection with your state.
However, it seems that my 'can stop diplomatic car' theory was wrong. However, I'm sure that I could be stopped, but wouldn't be, because I had immunity from prosection. Unless I'd been drink driving, in which case it was waived by the UK on your behalf.
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
The validity of the charges is of course a separate point to quite how cynically cold he appears in the emails (and quite how badly he writes). I still approve of the leaks, but I wouldn't want the fellow sniffing around the daughters I don't have.
Nor would I want him sniffing round my daughters, if I had any.
I think Mr Assange will be sobered to learn that if something which isn't the case, were the case, I would still have the same attitude that I do actually have with respect to that which isn't the case (I mean, the attitude is the case, in that it does exist, but it relates to the hypothetical positing of an ontology which does not exist). As I say, the man just can't write.
Nor would I want him sniffing round my daughters, if I had any.
I think Mr Assange will be sobered to learn that if something which isn't the case, were the case, I would still have the same attitude that I do actually have with respect to that which isn't the case (I mean, the attitude is the case, in that it does exist, but it relates to the hypothetical positing of an ontology which does not exist). As I say, the man just can't write.
Wow. I'm fuckling awesome.
You really are quite the ugly fuckling, yes.
ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:
Bamba wrote:
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
The Vienna Convention says a lot less than most people assume it does.
Article 22 seems pretty clear:
Quote:
1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter
them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises
of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the
mission or impairment of its dignity.
3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of
transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises
of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the
mission or impairment of its dignity.
3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of
transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
ETA: Mr Kissyfur wins!
I'm always wary about reading something in to Article X without reading the other Articles A - Z. We don't know, for example, that Article 23 doesn't say that Article 22 doesn't apply if you're harbouring someone against whom the state has valid grievances who has no other connection with your state.
Wise words. However, Article 43 adds, in effect, "we really really mean article 22, even if the ambassador has got a sex slave factory in there.". I do this work so you don't have to.
Craster wrote:
You really are quite the ugly fuckling, yes.
I decided to keep the typo as it amused me.
What's an amuse bouche?
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:
Bamba wrote:
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
The Vienna Convention says a lot less than most people assume it does.
Article 22 seems pretty clear:
Quote:
1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter
them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises
of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the
mission or impairment of its dignity.
3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of
transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises
of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the
mission or impairment of its dignity.
3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of
transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
ETA: Mr Kissyfur wins!
I'm always wary about reading something in to Article X without reading the other Articles A - Z. We don't know, for example, that Article 23 doesn't say that Article 22 doesn't apply if you're harbouring someone against whom the state has valid grievances who has no other connection with your state.
Wise words. However, Article 43 adds, in effect, "we really really mean article 22, even if the ambassador has got a sex slave factory in there.". I do this work so you don't have to.
Even if the "furnishings" are a nuclear bomb? We should totally do this in Argentina.
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
However, bear in mind that here we're talking about a dispute between the UK and Ecuador. I fancy our chances. We completely beat them at the Olympics.
To be honest I'm not worried about Ecuador specifically, more the fact that a move like this might devalue our diplomatic standing to the point that the next time some banana republic explodes into a military coup or whatever that the aggressors in question just storm our embassy with an attitude of 'fuck the UK, they demonstrably don't give a shit about diplomatic agreements anyway so why should we care about their rights here' rather than stopping to think about it for a while (which might end up saving lives). Or, to make a slightly less hysterically dramatic example, someone seeking refuge in a UK embassy overseas gets pulled out of there by the local government because we've undermined our own ability to claim that privilege with this nonsense.
From what little I know about diplomatic immunity (hey I have watched lots of American TV), its the Diplomatic Pouch that is unstoppable, so all they have to do is get a nice big 6ft pouch for him to climb into before transport?
I am a fricking genius
I am a fricking genius
The answer must therefore be to promote kangaroos to be your nation's ambassadors.
Bamba wrote:
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
However, bear in mind that here we're talking about a dispute between the UK and Ecuador. I fancy our chances. We completely beat them at the Olympics.
To be honest I'm not worried about Ecuador specifically, more the fact that a move like this might devalue our diplomatic standing to the point that the next time some banana republic explodes into a military coup or whatever that the aggressors in question just storm our embassy with an attitude of 'fuck the UK, they demonstrably don't give a shit about diplomatic agreements anyway so why should we care about their rights here' rather than stopping to think about it for a while (which might end up saving lives). Or, to make a slightly less hysterically dramatic example, someone seeking refuge in a UK embassy overseas gets pulled out of there by the local government because we've undermined our own ability to claim that privilege with this nonsense.
I see your point, and agree with it to an extent. Bear in mind, though, that our embassies don't even give refuge to UK citizens in local trouble.
Slightly Green wrote:
From what little I know about diplomatic immunity (hey I have watched lots of American TV), its the Diplomatic Pouch that is unstoppable, so all they have to do is get a nice big 6ft pouch for him to climb into before transport?
I am a fricking genius
I am a fricking genius
That would be someone tactless, seeing as it was climbing into pouches that got him into this mess.
Craster wrote:
The answer must therefore be to promote kangaroos to be your nation's ambassadors.
I thought they handled the court side of things?
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Bamba wrote:
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
However, bear in mind that here we're talking about a dispute between the UK and Ecuador. I fancy our chances. We completely beat them at the Olympics.
To be honest I'm not worried about Ecuador specifically, more the fact that a move like this might devalue our diplomatic standing to the point that the next time some banana republic explodes into a military coup or whatever that the aggressors in question just storm our embassy with an attitude of 'fuck the UK, they demonstrably don't give a shit about diplomatic agreements anyway so why should we care about their rights here' rather than stopping to think about it for a while (which might end up saving lives). Or, to make a slightly less hysterically dramatic example, someone seeking refuge in a UK embassy overseas gets pulled out of there by the local government because we've undermined our own ability to claim that privilege with this nonsense.
I see your point, and agere with it to an extent. Bear in mind, though, that our embassies don't even give refuge to UK citizens in local trouble.
They do, however, give out lots of Pimms to expats on the queens birthday, so swings and roundabouts.
Galloway's an idiot.
Plissken wrote:
Excellent blog post.
Curiosity wrote:
Plissken wrote:
Excellent blog post.
You're very unlikely to get hits from a legitimate blog post. The internet shuts down and protects itself.
MaliA wrote:
Galloway's an idiot.
This is news, how?
ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Galloway's an idiot.
This is news, how?
I feel the need to reaffirm my views.
He's mentally ill. I heard a bit of that podast, and could just imagine him sat in a room on his own, shouting at his increasingly spittle-flecked microphone, waving his arms around as if to fend off the very Great Satan itself.
MaliA wrote:
ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Galloway's an idiot.
This is news, how?
I feel the need to reaffirm my views.
Whatever Galloways latest ravings are, they find themselves redirected to the part of my brain that just says 'Galloway is being a dick'. He's such a parody of himself that I can't get as angry with him as a sitting MP about comments as I do with a Republican candidate over the pond who did the same. Odd, but scary.
Letter about Galloway in the Metro today, which made a lot of sense and had good points in it from a woman in a rape counseling service/thing, which was then punctuated by the statement (paraphrased as I can't remember exactly) "Rape is defined as non-consensual sex with a woman"
I'm sorry, what? This is the same paper that had a story about a 14yr old boy being raped in manchester.
The whole story seems to be bringing out the idiots on all sides...
I'm sorry, what? This is the same paper that had a story about a 14yr old boy being raped in manchester.
The whole story seems to be bringing out the idiots on all sides...
If I were in charge, I'd arrange to charge JA with the leak of secret documents that were really quite dull, and ignore the rest of them. That way, his supporter's can't be grumpy, as what Mr Smith likes for dinner isn't the US being stompy on poor people's heads, and they can still execute him, as it is spying or whatevers. Everyone's a winner. After he goesto Sweden and faces arrest and trial. And serves his sentence there. Trips across the Atlantic should be soemthing to look forward to.
Following on from this victory, I'd rebuke Ecuador in some public fashion for wanting to play with the big boys. I'd invade it and donate it to Sweden.
Following on from this victory, I'd rebuke Ecuador in some public fashion for wanting to play with the big boys. I'd invade it and donate it to Sweden.
Vote for MaliA.
There's the usual grumpy leftwing twat Milne's defence of Assange and Ecuador in the Graun today. That man would support any regime as long as it hated the West.
There's the usual grumpy leftwing twat Milne's defence of Assange and Ecuador in the Graun today. That man would support any regime as long as it hated the West.
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Vote for MaliA.
There's the usual grumpy leftwing twat Milne's defence of Assange and Ecuador in the Graun today. That man would support any regime as long as it hated the West.
There's the usual grumpy leftwing twat Milne's defence of Assange and Ecuador in the Graun today. That man would support any regime as long as it hated the West.
Yeah, I read that, too.
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Vote for MaliA.
There's the usual grumpy leftwing twat Milne's defence of Assange and Ecuador in the Graun today. That man would support any regime as long as it hated the West.
There's the usual grumpy leftwing twat Milne's defence of Assange and Ecuador in the Graun today. That man would support any regime as long as it hated the West.
Anti-Cornwall sentiment is everywhere these days.
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Vote for MaliA.
There's the usual grumpy leftwing twat Milne's defence of Assange and Ecuador in the Graun today. That man would support any regime as long as it hated the West.
There's the usual grumpy leftwing twat Milne's defence of Assange and Ecuador in the Graun today. That man would support any regime as long as it hated the West.
Actually, I'd have walked in there the day after the nice letter was sent and said:
"We warned you, you're fucking about with our justice ssytem, something which is important to us. You're behaving like knobs. He's already skipped bail which was paid for by other people, had a trip around the court systems of the land and now he's done a runner. If he's happy to use the justice system when it suits him, he has no complaints when it finds against him. You can either shut the fuck up, or there'll be a couple of submarines off you coast by nightful as a reminder. It's got nothing to do with his business, it's to do with his actions regrading two women in Sweden, so climb down off that high horse, or we'll show you what real first world repression is. Starting in Quita". And then be done with it.
EDIT: So pretty much that cartoon Gaywood's been hawking around at most opportunities.
wha...?
This one?
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
wha...?
There's a cartoon that I think you've linked to several times about the inability to keep both issues seperate from each other. If I'm misrememebring I apologise. A bit.
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
That man would support any regime as long as it hated the West.
We should really have stopped using 'The East' and 'The West' once we realised that the world was round.
Craster wrote:
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
That man would support any regime as long as it hated the West.
We should really have stopped using 'The East' and 'The West' once we realised that the world was round.
It would be a pain in the arse to navigate London though.
Cover of this week's 'Private Eye' really goes for Assange (and I felt slightly bad about laughing once I worked out the joke)
(No spoilers)
(No spoilers)
Kern wrote:
Cover of this week's 'Private Eye' really goes for Assange (and I felt slightly bad about laughing once I worked out the joke)
(No spoilers)
(No spoilers)
It's not subtle, I'll give it that.
ZOMG Spoiler! Click here to view!
