surely? What might does the UK have in this respect? None at all? Who could they punish for a tit-for-tat reprisal, and how could they do it? They are a minnow -- if minnows were capable of wagging fingers that is (phoxinus phingerinus, ha ha) -- but beyond that why would anyone fear them? . For mine, two conclusions are inescapable. The smashing of the convention is the point of the exercise . Secondly, this is driven not by any laughable concern for a loss of privilege but rather by a far more powerful interests , ones that clearly supercede both the UK's (or any other country's) sovereign rights and interests, and that clearly would view the destruction of an otherwise necessary, sensible, and time-honoured mechanism for cooperation between nation states as a good thing. . And no it's not the US. This smashing of the convention will be non-partisan biter-of-every-arse, with the US not just 'not-least-amongst-them', but foremost amongst them . And so! The question is: in whose interests is this being done? Sexual political pressure is employed wherever people feel powerful enough to get away with it. Utilised by the UK FCO on Craig and utilised by political Islam in Syria. Forbidden in secular and Islamic Law equally. . Diplomatic sanctuary is inviolable in secular and Islamic Law equally. Empires have been destroyed in revenge for murdering envoys. e.g. Ghengis Kahn . It's no good wittering about these powerful people regretting their law-breaking. In the new world order