Re: Ex-envoy (Doctor of Dispicable Crimes) Ionescu not protected by immunity

My reply to Trousers concerning representatives of the sovereign:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trouser Press I ask BicCherry with head buried into sand and clay, whether Ionescu, as a Diplomat, is: (a) More powerful than an Admiral, General or Air Marshal of respective forces; or (b) Less powerful. If Ionescu is more powerful, then the Air Marshals in charge of the Vulcan Bombers, the Admirals in charge of the Nuclear Fleets, and the Generals in Russia in charge of locomotives housing Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles, are below Ionescu, in a sense. Yes I am being facetious (BicCherry will think that I, an obscure pub-goer from the Bukit Timah area, am the most powerful and likely to start a war if I don't state that I am being facetious). But as you are the expert on the VCDR, please enlighten me, BiccyBoy. Or go away and find out pls.

Sorry about my absence, have been preoccupied with something else.
Tired of your taunting and hyperbolic examples too.
About myself being a Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 'expert', no lah, only use 'Wikipedia' regularly as reference.
So I shall quote about 'Diplomatic immunity' which I have cause to believe, is the stumbling block in relations between BOTH Romania and Singapore thus resulting in this fracas- the 'lack' of 'diplomacy' between the both countries resulting in Ionescu's continued verbiage to the press AND Singapore's abrasive effort at placing Ionescu on the Interpol wanted list (been taken down).

Quote:

Diplomatic immunity is a form of legal immunity and a policy held between governments, which ensures that diplomats are given safe passage and are considered not susceptible to lawsuit or prosecution under the host country's laws (although they can be expelled). It was agreed as international law in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), though the concept and custom have a much longer history. Many principles of diplomatic immunity are now considered to be customary law. Diplomatic immunity as an institution developed to allow for the maintenance of government relations, including during periods of difficulties and even armed conflict. When receiving diplomats — who are, formally, representatives of the sovereign— the receiving head of state grants certain privileges and immunities to ensure that they may effectively carry out their duties, on the understanding that these will be provided on a reciprocal basis.

The red and enlarged font print, to which I highlight, the lack of understanding of, is I believe, the source of all this misunderstanding thus far; the suspicion of the other party notwithstanding.
Key facts I note so far:
1) Romania hasn't withdrawn Ionescu's diplomatic immunity whilst emphasizing it's wishes to abide by convention (he's only 'suspended' apparently).
2) Article 31(4) of the mutually acceded to VCDR, making the specific provision for cases such as this: "The immunity of a diplomatic agent from the jurisdiction of the receiving State does not exempt him from the jurisdiction of the sending State."

Regarding Ionescu's verbiage to the press, Singapore need only express dissatisfaction, as well as demand apologies from the Romanian government as, in so far that Romania maintains Ionescu's status as a Romanian Diplomat (for which Singapore respects the Romanian stance), then the Romanian government is diplomatically obliged to ensure his good behavior, as reflective of his status as a ' representative of the Sovereign', his 'freedom' notwithstanding- perhaps a simple SG MFA reminder to the Romain MFA about this matter would simply resolve this problem, (Romania can always threaten Ionescu that they intend to cooperate with Singapore's use of VCDR article39.2 and this would 100% shut Ionescu up... ).
What for the reporting of Ionescu's comments in both newspapers but to drum up social discord? Not to mention the seeming 'backfire' (~18April2010) of Singapore's Interpol request which has seeming passed without notice.

For writing about the withdrawal of the Interpol notice and my 'marriage satire', I've already been banned and censured at a related forum with little in explanation but "You have been banned from The ******* ***** Discussion Board, following previous violations of our rules and regulations. You can no longer post any comments. You are still allowed, however, to browse the forum", perhaps the moderators there, like 'Trousers' are quite suspicious and cynical of differing view points, to this end, I believe our monolithic leadership has well succeeded.

Perhaps I should forewarn that i mightn't be around here too for long...

For Trousers, today must be a good day.

References:
- Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
- Interpol.int
- [13Jan2010] Quiet diplomacy not a sign of weakness
- 18April2010: Ionescu Interpol Notice withdrawn?


Regards

B.C.
Still waiting (pessimistically) for the reinstatement of my account on the ******* ***** ********** Board.

==================

he original of this message was posted to the following forum for discussion:

A1 forum

23April2010 ( Ex-envoy (Doctor of Dispicable Crimes) Ionescu not protected by immunity )

SG Forum:

23April2010 (Romanian diplomat's car in hit-and-run: cover up?)
SBoy
23April2010 (Re: Ionescu: I'm Not Interested in Coming Back to Sg! )

ST DB: I'm Banned so cannot post anymore.