Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Anger at Oyster cards 'rip-off' as millions hit for not 'touching out'
On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 21:14:55 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 13:05:45 on Sat, 2 Jul 2011, Owain remarked: Tolls are rarely charged on routes you *have* to use, there's normally a "long way round". Which doesn't exist for the US Embassy, being inside the zone. So it's a lot more like car tax, than say the Dartford Toll. Wouldn't they get a 90% residents' discount anyway? Not if they're resident in the Embassy - it's on US territory. It isn't, many embassies are actually on Crown land. The privileges enjoyed by diplomats and consequentially their "offices" etc. derive from article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961:- 1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission. 2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity. 3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution. A U.S. lawyer's view [http://law.jrank.org/pages/20420/ext...oriality.html] re "extraterritoriaity":- "A theory in international law explaining diplomatic immunity on the basis that the premises of a foreign mission form a part of the territory of the sending state. This theory is not accepted in English law (thus a divorce granted in a foreign embassy in England is not obtained outside the British Isles for purposes of the Recognition of Divorces Act 1971). Diplomatic immunity is based either on the theory that the diplomatic mission personifies—and is entitled to the immunities of—the sending state or on the practical necessity of such immunity for the functioning of diplomacy." Does that matter in this case? They are resident in London, even if that bit of London isn't (for some purposes) GB. Or is the resident's discount a misnomer, and really something like a "Council tax payer's discount"? |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Oyster: still an unreliable rip-off | London Transport | |||
Oyster - a 60 million a year rip-off | London Transport | |||
Another Oyster Rip-off | London Transport | |||
Out of station NR interchanges: to touch out or not? | London Transport | |||
Touching in/out at Stratford | London Transport |