UK administration done so? It would be nice if they actually read their own laws. The Act they're referring to actually specifically says that it's only legal if it's legal under international law. There seem to be two reasons in the Act -- one is for planning law, for instance if the building is in the way of a new road or railway line and the sending country is being awkward, they can remove diplomatic status, CPO the building and then allow the country to establish a new embassy elsewhere. I could see that being used for Crossrail, for example. The other is if the embassy is being used for purposes that are neither part of the mission nor consular. Granting asylum is specifically part of the mission of an embassy, so the law just doesn't do what they want it to do. Kevin: There is no chance any of the Whitehouse elite press corps will ask questions as awkward as that. Not if they want to keep their extremely well paid jobs, because then they'd never get "access" ever again. Being pessimistic, it doesn't matter that this domestic law doesn't actually allow them to do this -- they'll do it anyway, and then afterwards the courts will tell them they were wrong, there'll be some slaps on the wrists and apologies, but Assange will already be hanging. On the day the media's focus was about to shine a light on to A. Coulson's criminal acts whilst Cameron's press secretary,