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.
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.
It's people who have immunity not places.I thought that consulates had a different immunity status from embassies. A much lesser one. I could be wrong.
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.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.
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.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.
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
Assange was given asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. It had nothing to do with his status as a diplomat or immunity.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
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.