Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is that supposed to be funny? Britain can brown nose the US all it wants, but we get a lot of out it such as shared military technology that no other countries have access to. The US should be grateful countries like Britain and Australia are willing to brown nose it, if we stopped then you would have no allies and would be isolated. So you're welcome for the extra (and often not deserved) support that countries like France and Germany have been reluctant to give in the past.
Are you trying to say that the USA shares ALL it's military technology with Australia ?
Strange that they will not sell the F22 to Aus.
And you are dreaming if you believe Australia will take part in a invasion of Iran that so many yanks are keen on.
Then again Brit politicians might still believe Saddam has Nuke missiles that could hit London in twenty minutes at any time.
Strange, Aus is not a Nato country so why should our grunts be in Afghanistan ?
'The letter said: "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." [1]
Apparently British authorities have threatened to storm the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, and remove Julian Assange by force......
Probably the most dumbass thing they could do. But Mr. Cameron is showing signs of being as weirdly wired as Blair was.
I doubt that anyone will bother to read but i'll give it another go anyway.
At no point was there any threat or implication by the British Government that it would storm the Ecuadorian Embassy. The word "Storm" was first used by the Ecuadorian Foreign Minister not by the British Government.
The letter was pointing out the legalities of the situation to the Ecuardorians nothing more.
There are many links in this thread and video clips but i doubt very much many (if any) will bother reading them... such a catchy phrase like "storm" is more interesting than facts... oh well, nevermind.
I doubt that anyone will bother to read but i'll give it another go anyway.
At no point was there any threat or implication by the British Government that it would storm the Ecuadorian Embassy. The word "Storm" was first used by the Ecuadorian Foreign Minister not by the British Government.
The letter was pointing out the legalities of the situation to the Ecuardorians nothing more.
There are many links in this thread and video clips but i doubt very much many (if any) will bother reading them... such a catchy phrase like "storm" is more interesting than facts... oh well, nevermind.
Sure BRITAIN passed a law allowing it to make any Embassy liable to be no longer seen as a Embassy by the British government as the Foreign office pointed out in a letter to Ecuador.
One small problem with that, it also gives Ecuador every moral right to do the same to the British embassy with 24 hrs notice.
Sure BRITAIN passed a law allowing it to make any Embassy liable to be no longer seen as a Embassy by the British government as the Foreign office pointed out in a letter to Ecuador.
One small problem with that, it also gives Ecuador every moral right to do the same to the British embassy with 24 hrs notice.
Very true.. what exactly is the problem with that? All they'd then need is the legal one. The UK act 1987 still needs to operate under the terms of the Vienna Accord which no-one including the British Government has denied. If the Ecuardorian Government also operated within the Vienna Accord to enter the British Embassy in Quito then there woudn't be an issue.
Like i said, Britain never said it was going to do it. It said that it could.
Very true.. what exactly is the problem with that? All they'd then need is the legal one. The UK act 1987 still needs to operate under the terms of the Vienna Accord which no-one including the British Government has denied. If the Ecuardorian Government also operated within the Vienna Accord to enter the British Embassy in Quito then there woudn't be an issue.
Like i said, Britain never said it was going to do it. It said that it could.
So if the Embassy manage to get him into a diplomatic car would the British police use armed coppers to grab him out of a car with diplomatic plates ?
Because that would just be asking for Ecuador to do the same to a Brit car and a member of the British Embassy.
It seems Britain wants a lot more trade with South America, strange they are putting that at risk.
Since when has Britain worried about criminals, remember Pinochet ?
So if the Embassy manage to get him into a diplomatic car would the British police use armed coppers to grab him out of a car with diplomatic plates ?
Because that would just be asking for Ecuador to do the same to a Brit car and a member of the British Embassy.
It seems Britain wants a lot more trade with South America, strange they are putting that at risk.
Since when has Britain worried about criminals, remember Pinochet ?
I feel it is unlikely they wouldn't drag him out of a diplomatic vehicle when it would be a lot easier to prevent him from getting in it or out of it at the other end to board a plane. With regards to "Since when has Britain worried about criminals" might I suggest you write a letter to the Home Secretary and ask him or maybe a general enquiry to the Home Office at: public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
You could also use this address for enquiries with regards to your first question about removal of people from Diplomatic vehicles and it's likelihood.
What are they gonna say when they pull the British diplomat out of the car ?
"You, sir are under arrest for........ummmm....well, just because"......
One would assume they would need a reasonable cause to be able to invoke such a power.
It can be argued that with Assange they have that just cause since he has broken UK law by breaking terms of his bail.
I'm guessing that should a diplomatic car be stopped, Assange would be duly arrested and no Ecuadorians would be harmed in the making of the movie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nzrugby
Because that would just be asking for Ecuador to do the same to a Brit car and a member of the British Embassy.
What are they gonna say when they pull the British diplomat out of the car ?
"You, sir are under arrest for........ummmm....well, just because"......
One would assume they would need a reasonable cause to be able to invoke such a power.
It can be argued that with Assange they have that just cause since he has broken UK law by breaking terms of his bail.
I'm guessing that should a diplomatic car be stopped, Assange would be duly arrested and no Ecuadorians would be harmed in the making of the movie.
Arrested for what, easy, at midnight our government has passed a law allowing the Ecuadoran police to arrest British Diplomats under the tit for tat law.
Now the British are probably taking instructions from Washington who want him in a USA jail for embarrassing the powers that be.
He has broken the terms of his bail but no British criminal laws.
And oh dear the stupidity of the police, waving restricted documents in front of the photographers. WikiLeaks: Met police embarrassed as Assange arrest plan revealed - Telegraph
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
