have this power and the silence of the Vienna Convention on this issue supports the case of the UK government rather than weakens it. This is obviously a completely distinct issue as to whether this is a sensible real politik move or an ethical move. It also raises the issue as to whether the Vienna Convention is complete and appropriate. Though I don't think any nation will agree to surrendering the very power the UK is using. But the Vienna Convention does very very specifically define the things you say it would need to define. And it does define in which conditions immunity can be violated; none. The meaning of inviolable, in fact the meaning of the whole Convention, is extremely clear. I doubt you have read it; it is linked in the post above. Gareth, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I think you have to ask yourself whether it would be acceptable for a country to pull the rug out from under a British diplomatic mission's feet by stripping it of its status, invade it and kidnap someone from inside, and then go round saying "well this building you see isn't technically diplomatic premises any more, so the Vienna Convention offers no protection". If this is all fine by you then you might as well just rip the treaty up. Setting the precedent that this kind of thing is acceptably completely defeats the spirit of the Vienna Convention. We seem to be writing the