Chinese Suppression of Protest in Britain

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
D

Deleted member 49

Guest
 

C R

Über Member
A rather worrying story if true and accurately reported

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63280519

I was at university in Manchester in the early noughties and at the time there was an almost permanent phalun gong protest around the entrance of the Chinese consulate. It was fairly common for consulate staff to damage the placards and assault the protesters without consequences. A typical one was like reported today, dragging the protester into the consulate grounds to rough them up. Nothing seems to have changed :sad:.
 

Milkfloat

Active Member
It is going to be a 'two sides to every story' situation. Whilst we may totally disagree with how China operates their embassy needs to be protected and respected, balanced with the right to protest. I suspect the Chinese will get a telling off, they will complain that we are not protecting them and will complain about the police office breaching their sovereignty and it will be business as usual as we hold our noses and continue to trade.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: C R

C R

Über Member
It is going to be a 'two sides to every story' situation. Whilst we may totally disagree with how China operates their embassy needs to be protected and respected, balanced with the right to protest. I suspect the Chinese will get a telling off, they will complain that we are not protecting them and will complain about the police office breaching their sovereignty and it will be business as usual as we hold our noses and continue to trade.

The protesters should keep their distance from the gates, so that if the consulate staff try to drag someone in then the police can intervene outside of the consulate grounds. This is an obvious abuse of diplomatic immunity.
 
OP
OP
spen666

spen666

Active Member
It is going to be a 'two sides to every story' situation. Whilst we may totally disagree with how China operates their embassy needs to be protected and respected, balanced with the right to protest. I suspect the Chinese will get a telling off, they will complain that we are not protecting them and will complain about the police office breaching their sovereignty and it will be business as usual as we hold our noses and continue to trade.

This is a fallacy. A countries Embassy is not their sovereign territory ( ignoring this was not an Embassy(.

If for example a protestor went into the grounds ( voluntarily) and shot one of the Chinese staff in cold blood. They would be tried not in China, but in England.
 

albion

Guru
In the Saudi owned Independent, a sponsored content ad proclaimed 'Discover the Saudi wellness breaks you need in your life'.

I imagine there was all round worry about a Chinese style wellness break here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R

slowmotion

Active Member
I thought that consulates had a different immunity status from embassies. A much lesser one. I could be wrong.
 
OP
OP
spen666

spen666

Active Member
I thought that consulates had a different immunity status from embassies. A much lesser one. I could be wrong.
It's people who have immunity not places.

You either have diplomatic immunity or not. There is no inbetween status.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R
It is going to be a 'two sides to every story' situation. Whilst we may totally disagree with how China operates their embassy needs to be protected and respected, balanced with the right to protest. I suspect the Chinese will get a telling off, they will complain that we are not protecting them and will complain about the police office breaching their sovereignty and it will be business as usual as we hold our noses and continue to trade.
I don't see two sides to this story the video shows a protest in front of the consulate, which the consulate may not like but is none of their business as we have a right to protest in this country. The consulate then come in premediated because of the armour the guys are wearing and destroys the signs and tries to pull people in(probably in vain hope it would be out of camera view) to assault them.

No two sides just one, but your ''business as usual'' analysis is probably true nonetheless.

The protesters should keep their distance from the gates, so that if the consulate staff try to drag someone in then the police can intervene outside of the consulate grounds. This is an obvious abuse of diplomatic immunity.
They where in front of the gates, only dragged in by the consulate employees, i doubt they can claim diplomatic immunity if it would come to it in this case. First off it's an consulate and not a embassy, so if i'm correct only the consul general has diplomatic immunity in a embassy. Going with my own experience in the dutch Embassy vs the consulate there is an clear difference, the consulate looks and is run like you come into an normal office building basically, where as the embassy your immediately reminded your in a building with a very special status.

It's people who have immunity not places.

You either have diplomatic immunity or not. There is no inbetween status.

Yes but places do matter, i believe in a consulate it's only the consul general who has immunity as a person, but come to an embassy and it is slightly different, how else could Assange be at the Ecuadorian embassy for so long without the British government being able to do something? He was only arrested when the Ecuadorian embassy invited them in, and thus annulled his immunity
 
OP
OP
spen666

spen666

Active Member
....



Yes but places do matter, i believe in a consulate it's only the consul general who has immunity as a person, but come to an embassy and it is slightly different, how else could Assange be at the Ecuadorian embassy for so long without the British government being able to do something? He was only arrested when the Ecuadorian embassy invited them in, and thus annulled his immunity

Quite simply put you are wrong in law.
Anyone with a diplomatic passport has immunity from prosecution, unless their country waive the immunity.
Julian Assange never ever had immunity, so I have no idea what you are on about. Nobody has ever suggested he did have immunity apart from you .
 

Bazzer

Well-Known Member
I don't see two sides to this story the video shows a protest in front of the consulate, which the consulate may not like but is none of their business as we have a right to protest in this country. The consulate then come in premediated because of the armour the guys are wearing and destroys the signs and tries to pull people in(probably in vain hope it would be out of camera view) to assault them.

No two sides just one, but your ''business as usual'' analysis is probably true nonetheless.


They where in front of the gates, only dragged in by the consulate employees, i doubt they can claim diplomatic immunity if it would come to it in this case. First off it's an consulate and not a embassy, so if i'm correct only the consul general has diplomatic immunity in a embassy. Going with my own experience in the dutch Embassy vs the consulate there is an clear difference, the consulate looks and is run like you come into an normal office building basically, where as the embassy your immediately reminded your in a building with a very special status.



Yes but places do matter, i believe in a consulate it's only the consul general who has immunity as a person, but come to an embassy and it is slightly different, how else could Assange be at the Ecuadorian embassy for so long without the British government being able to do something? He was only arrested when the Ecuadorian embassy invited them in, and thus annulled his immunity
Assange was given asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. It had nothing to do with his status as a diplomat or immunity.

Under international rules, in general, an embassy is not sovereign territory of the country's representatives occupying the premises. However, it is afforded special rules, such as not having to comply with most local laws. Also, authorities of the host country cannot enter the embassy without permission, and an attack on an embassy is considered as an attack on the country occupying the embassy.

Which is why the murderer of PC Yvonne Fletcher couldn't be arrested in the Libyan Embassy, despite being shot from the Embassy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R

slowmotion

Active Member
It's people who have immunity not places.

You either have diplomatic immunity or not. There is no inbetween status.

Sorry, I didn't explain my point clearly. I thought that the local police had greater powers to enter a consulate than to enter an embassy. I'm wrong. Apparently they can only enter either type of property if they are invited in.
 
Top Bottom