SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[DaGaffer]

Now I'm confused. Is it powder?

No, its actual milk.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/costofliving/we-answer-your-burning-questions-about-things-like-milk-bags-tariffs-condo-insurance-and-printer-cartridges-1.5409407/here-s-why-milk-comes-in-bags-in-parts-of-canada-1.5409420

 

[Raven]

The mind boggles.

Every day is a school day!

 

[caLLous]

A local producer here sells unpasteurised milk in bags, I see it in most supermarkets. Like this but a different brand:

 

[Gwadien]

Belgian ambassador's wife claims diplomatic immunity over Seoul slap

The wife of Belgium's ambassador to South Korea is seen slapping a shop worker in CCTV footage.

www.bbc.co.uk

I think we should probably think about changing these silly silly rules.

 

[Raven]

They should at least add in trial in home country, extradition if found guilty. The law is there for a valid reason.

 

[Embattle]

It is never going to change, it can't have any hole that might become a loophole.

Ultimately you hope the people that a country puts forward are naturally going to be upstanding members of society, when it goes wrong all you can do is declare Persona non grata.

 

[Gwadien]

It is never going to change, it can't have any hole that might become a loophole.

Ultimately you hope the people that a country puts forward are naturally going to be upstanding members of society, when it goes wrong all you can do is declare Persona non grata.

Of course it can change.

Look at the historical cases, it's just countries soft-powering over each other whether they bend to the will of the country where the offence was committed.

I think it's an abhorrent concept to be quite frank, literally saying 'these are our elites, you can't touch them.' Why shouldn't that apply to all citizens, or at least any of your citizens working abroad.

As for claiming refugee status, then people should be shipped back to the country of refugee status.

I just find it such a bizarre concept tbh, especially with embassies being immune to laws of the land, North Korea could just start abducting people in London and hiding them in the embassy, lol.

 

[Embattle]

It still isn't going to be changed, about the best you can hope for in the future is it doesn't cover so many people.

 

[Scouse]

It still isn't going to be changed, about the best you can hope for in the future is it doesn't cover so many people.

Part of the reason change (for a lot of things) doesn't happen is inertia.

Inertia is borne largely of fatalistic attitudes.

 

[Scouse]

Israel keeping the pressure on (apparently after turning down a ceasefire agreement that the palestinians signed up to):

Gaza rocked by fresh airstrikes after Netanyahu vows to keep attacks at ‘full force’

Monday strikes appeared broader and more intense than Sunday’s, in which 42 Palestinians died in single attack

www.theguardian.com

 

[Raven]

Of course it can change.

Look at the historical cases, it's just countries soft-powering over each other whether they bend to the will of the country where the offence was committed.

I think it's an abhorrent concept to be quite frank, literally saying 'these are our elites, you can't touch them.' Why shouldn't that apply to all citizens, or at least any of your citizens working abroad.

As for claiming refugee status, then people should be shipped back to the country of refugee status.

I just find it such a bizarre concept tbh, especially with embassies being immune to laws of the land, North Korea could just start abducting people in London and hiding them in the embassy, lol.

On the other hand, countries could use trumped-up charges against diplomats for leverage. It's far from perfect but better than not having it.

 

[Raven]

Israel keeping the pressure on (apparently after turning down a ceasefire agreement that the palestinians signed up to):

Gaza rocked by fresh airstrikes after Netanyahu vows to keep attacks at ‘full force’

Monday strikes appeared broader and more intense than Sunday’s, in which 42 Palestinians died in single attack

www.theguardian.com

ofc they are, they want max damage to as many homes as possible.

 

[Gwadien]

On the other hand, countries could use trumped-up charges against diplomats for leverage. It's far from perfect but better than not having it.

Bit like other countries (Iran for example) use trumped up charges for British citizens and we do nothing about it?

One rule for one, One rule for the rulers.

 

[Raven]

You're missing the point. Diplomats and politicians need to be immune from being locked up for having bald tyres or something.

Now obviously there are fucked up events (like that lad that got hit by a car) where there needs to be a proper mechanism involved for trial and justice, but we definitely need diplomatic immunity, certainly immediately after the event.

 

[Scouse]

You're missing the point. Diplomats and politicians need to be immune from being locked up for having bald tyres or something.

No they don't. They need to abide by the same laws that the rest of us have to abide by.

If they get leniency for being "foreign" then other foreigners should get the same leniency. And we don't want to go down that path.

You abide by the laws of the country that you're in. Period.

 

[Raven]

Again, that is not the point, and you know it

But there is no point arguing about it.

 

[Scouse]

Again, that is not the point, and you know it

I kind of think it IS the point.

You say there needs to be a " proper mechanism involved for trial and justice " - we've got one. I'm still not clear why we need the immunity.

 

[SilverHood]

I kind of think it IS the point.

You say there needs to be a " proper mechanism involved for trial and justice " - we've got one. I'm still not clear why we need the immunity.

You need the immunity to prevent harassment of foreign officials. While the UK probably wouldn't do it, I can easily see some redneck cop deciding that the ambassador of some foreign country they don't like is fair game, and constantly stopping him / her, their spouse, and their kids, for trumped up charges, over and over again. Immunity also serves to prevent any form of retaliation against employees of embassies for actions of their home countries. I live in an area with an extremely high number diplomatically immune people, and apart from illegal parking, it's not an issue.

 

[Scouse]

You need the immunity to prevent harassment of foreign officials. While the UK probably wouldn't do it, I can easily see some redneck cop deciding that the ambassador of some foreign country they don't like is fair game, and constantly stopping him / her, their spouse, and their kids, for trumped up charges, over and over again. Immunity also serves to prevent any form of retaliation against employees of embassies for actions of their home countries. I live in an area with an extremely high number diplomatically immune people, and apart from illegal parking, it's not an issue.

Nah, don't buy those as reasons - or even as problems that would mean that they need immunity from prosecution for heinous crimes.

If a redneck cop is harassing a foreign ambassador (why?) then the ambassador needs to make a complaint to the country he's working in and the cop needs to be dealt with. We shouldn't be looking to give them immunity from all prosecution.

If the country is harassing him - then that's part of the game.

Still not seeing good reasons here...

 

[Gwadien]

You need the immunity to prevent harassment of foreign officials. While the UK probably wouldn't do it, I can easily see some redneck cop deciding that the ambassador of some foreign country they don't like is fair game, and constantly stopping him / her, their spouse, and their kids, for trumped up charges, over and over again. Immunity also serves to prevent any form of retaliation against employees of embassies for actions of their home countries. I live in an area with an extremely high number diplomatically immune people, and apart from illegal parking, it's not an issue.

But I don't see that happening in many countries - if you fuck around with someone's diplomat it's going to have negative consequences, period.

The UK is owned £100m on London OLEZ charges, £100m how's that fair for Londoners?

If shit kicks off in say Iran, do you really think those with immunity are actually going to be safe? really?

 

[SilverHood]

If shit kicks off in say Iran, do you really think those with immunity are actually going to be safe? really?

Not about safety, but about the opportunity. You know you can't go after diplomats or their families, so it never comes on the board as an action to take. As an official in Iran with diplomatic immunity, I would feel pretty safe, from the State apparatus at least.

Nah, don't buy those as reasons - or even as problems that would mean that they need immunity from prosecution for heinous crimes.

If a redneck cop is harassing a foreign ambassador (why?) then the ambassador needs to make a complaint to the country he's working in and the cop needs to be dealt with. We shouldn't be looking to give them immunity from all prosecution.

If the country is harassing him - then that's part of the game.

Still not seeing good reasons here...

But if the cop is harassing the officials as part of a state sponsored campaign of harassment? Or at least, a look the other way acceptance, then what? Ambassadors, consuls and other embassy staff are here to a job, they should be allowed to do so without fear of harassment. Immunity is part of that package. When they commit a crime, the immunity can be waived. If a country abuses diplomatic immunity, their staff will be asked to leave. Each host country has the right to grant admission and expel any diplomatic staff.

The US is pretty terrible at handling the consequences of crimes committed by those that have imunity , as seen with Dunn, and a colonel who killed a motorcyclist after running a red light in Pakistan, but that doesn't mean it should be removed entirely.

 

[Wij]

If a redneck cop is harassing a foreign ambassador (why?) then the ambassador needs to make a complaint to the country he's working in and the cop needs to be dealt with.

Good luck with that in Russia tbh.

The point is that in many countries you would just be handing them free hostages.

/edit: Obviously the system isn't perfect. Not arguing it is.

 

[Scouse]

But if the cop is harassing the officials as part of a state sponsored campaign of harassment?

Then that's part of the game and you withdraw your diplomat. Tough shit.

You don't give him immunity from prosecution for all crimes.

 

[Scouse]

Good luck with that in Russia tbh.

The point is that in many countries you would just be handing them free hostages.

/edit: Obviously the system isn't perfect. Not arguing it is.

They can take free hostages from the civilian population if they wanted to - it doesn't need to be diplomats. You could round up a shitload of holidaymakers on trumped up charges if you wanted to.

 

[Raven]

Yes, yes you do, because it is reciprocal. There is no way on earth anyone would happily place a diplomat in most countries without it and the diplomatic service is absolutely vital for all sorts of reasons.

 

[Scouse]

Yes, yes you do, because it is reciprocal. There is no way on earth anyone would happily place a diplomat in most countries without it and the diplomatic service is absolutely vital for all sorts of reasons.

I know the reasons they say they do it. I don't agree with them. See the holidaymaker point above.

Making people immune from rape, murder and embezzlement should be consigned to the 18th century.

 

[Wij]

You can advise holidaymakers not to go to certain countries.

 

[Scouse]

You can advise holidaymakers not to go to certain countries.

Or journalists, or anyone.

You can bring the full force of your diplomatic service to bear if your diplomats start getting locked up arbitrarily. It doesn't mean that they should be immune from raping children, for example.

You don't support the rule of law by supporting exemptions to the rule of law.

 

[MYstIC G]

Nah, don't buy those as reasons - or even as problems that would mean that they need immunity from prosecution for heinous crimes.

If a redneck cop is harassing a foreign ambassador (why?) then the ambassador needs to make a complaint to the country he's working in and the cop needs to be dealt with. We shouldn't be looking to give them immunity from all prosecution.

If the country is harassing him - then that's part of the game.

Still not seeing good reasons here...

It's to prevent them being coerced, you can't threaten someone with being locked up if you can't lock them up.

 

[Scouse]

It's to prevent them being coerced, you can't threaten someone with being locked up if you can't lock them up.

It's another of the obvious ones - I don't find the argument persuasive.

If you're a diplomat then being threatened with getting locked up is part of the game tbh. See above about full force of the diplomatic service being brought to bear if that's the case.


It'd have to be a spectacular reason to make someone immune from kiddy fiddling for me tbh.