diplomatic immunity

[abilicious]

what is the origin and what purpose does it serve?

[Octavius]

here you go

[jake-the-peg]

If you read the Wikipedia article Octavius supplied, the column "may be issued a parking ticked" is "Yes" all the way down Fender.

The Americans are not paying the congestion charge because they consider this to be a tax and diplomats do not have to pay foreign taxes

Is this what's prompted your comment?

[jno]

A very convenient interpretation, jake. I wonder if they consider a ticket to the movies to be a tax.

[Drusilla1S]

The idea of diplomatic immunity can be traced back to the ancient Greeks. It enables diplomats to concentrate on their duties without fear of harrassment from the host nation, who may be in dispute with the diplomats homeland.

Without the protection offered by diplomatic immunity, many nations would not risk sending officers to countries such as Afghanistan under Taliban rule. Iran suffered economically and politically when American diplomats were taken hostage in the 1980's.

Diplomats who become involved in criminal activities or are caught spying cannot be prosecuted, but the host nation can insist on their removal.

[jake-the-peg]

I don't think it's that unrealistic jno.

Subtle perhaps though - they do have to pay tolls but tolls are generally to use a road to get somewhere. eg. Severn Bridge Toll, Motorway toll roads

In effect it's a tax on pollution caused by driving in a location.

Might be nice in a spirit of compromise to see an agreement where diplomatic vehicles pay congestion charge if they're say over 1500cc.

Maybe the US consular officials could find out that there's life beyond the V8

[jno]

rats, another long post vanishes. OK, in short: it's a toll on trips into London. Like toll roads in USA: turnpike quicker and emptier but dearer. Alternatives available (in London, frequent and fairly efficient public transport).

[JudgeJ]

I don�t think the Americans do consider a ticket to the cinema to be a tax and as far as I know, jno, they are not trying to avoid such payments.

Where their argument lies is that Mayor Livingstone is suggesting that the London Congestion Charge (LCC) is a �charge for a specific service� (likening it to a toll, as has been mentioned).

Tolls, of course, are often � though not always - avoidable. You do not have to drive over the Severn Bridge to get into Wales, nor do you have to use the Dartford Crossing to cross the Thames. The American Embassy considers the LCC to be a tax. There main reason for this is that it is compulsory and unavoidable (for them, anyway, with their embassy in Central London).

My view is that the congestion charge is no more a charge for a specific service than Income Tax, Council Tax or Fuel Duty is. It is simply an additional tax on people having the audacity to want to drive their cars in a specific area.

If you accept this view then the Embassy Officials are quite correct in declining to pay. Foreign Embassies and their officials do not pay British taxes. British Embassies abroad enjoy the same privilege. Whether this is right or wrong is another argument.

For reasons best known to himself Mr Livingstone has chosen to highlight the decision of the US Embassy to illustrate his argument whereas in fact a number of other embassies have taken the same view as the Americans.

[jno]

I believe the Americans are among the worst offenders JudgeJ, which would explain why they are singled out. But as I said, there are alternatives - namely, public transport, which the authorities want people to use. The notion of charging cars to use a piece of road, but letting other forms of transport go free of charge, isn't new, and I think it's well within the standard meaning of the word 'toll'.

[JudgeJ]

I would imagine that the Americans (with some justification) would cite �security� as a good reason why their Ambassador, Robert Holmes Tuttle, and his senior staff should not roam around London using buses and the tube.

I believe that it is stretching the imagination just a little to encompass the LCC within the meaning of the word �toll�. Interestingly, though, my dictionary describes it as �a tax or duty payable for some service or privilege, esp. for use of a road or bridge�..� So perhaps the Yanks consulted the same dictionary before embarking upon their campaign of downright disobedience!

[jno]

that's his choice, of course (a perfectly justifiable one, I agree, JudgeJ)... but then perhaps he could just pay the �8? Londoners seem to manage.

Sorry, I inadvertently allowed bias to peek through when I called them 'offenders' - I meant 'freedom fighters'.

[Peter Pedant]

The article cited in the first answer is quite good.

The Russian Ambassador was arrested for theft around 1705 in London, and this resulted in the Diplomatic Privileges act 1707, altho' it was previously thought diplomats had privileges under common law.

The privilege results at common law from the idea that the ambassador is the foreign power's soverreign representativve (ie is the sovereign) in that country, sovereigns routinely have immunity at law.

thisfaux pas resulted in the British Ambassador offering on bended knee a gloriously illuminated copy of the Act in Russian to the Tsar.

It is recorded that at the time neither the British Ambassador or the Tsar drove cars.

[jno]

indeed Peter, didn't Peter the Great (an ancestor of yours?) make a mess of John Evelyn's hedges while staying in London, by getting drunk and pushing his associates through them in a wheelbarrow? Just as well he never got behind the wheel of a 4x4.