London Contretemps: U.S.Emnbassy Refusing to Pay Traffic Charge
Mar 29th, 2006, 10:02 AM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
London Contretemps: U.S.Emnbassy Refusing to Pay Traffic Charge
A brouhaha has developed in London between the U.S. Embassy and Mayor "Red" Ken Livngstone over the embassy's refusal, on diplomatic immunity grounds to pay the city's Traffic Congestion Charge of about $14/day for cars entering the inner city. The refusal has caused Mayor Livingstone to lash out at the Yanks, accusing U.S. Ambassador Tuttle", according to the NYTimes report (3-29-06) of acting "like some chiseling little crook". Apparently the Embassy halted paying the charge in July, arguing the toll is a tax diplomats should not have to pay. The Mayor retorted that the trafic congestion charge is not a tax but a service. The Mayor further inflamed the Embassy by saying "When British troops are putting their lives on the line for American foreign policy, it would be quite nice if they paid the congestion charge." The Mayor is just returned to his job after being suspended, i believe, for some malfeasance in office.
Someone should tell the Embassy that they can save further bucks by investing in TFL travel cards!
Someone should tell the Embassy that they can save further bucks by investing in TFL travel cards!
Mar 29th, 2006, 10:36 AM
#2
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 34,738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do the British diplomats have to pay charges/tolls/fees in NY?
I know the Russian and other diplomats get away with a lot of traffic tickets that go unpaid..
Funny, "chiseling little crook"...
I know the Russian and other diplomats get away with a lot of traffic tickets that go unpaid..
Funny, "chiseling little crook"...
Mar 29th, 2006, 10:54 AM
#3
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The embassy is resisting by characterizing the congestion charge as being a form of "tax" and therefore not applicable to a diplomatic entity (the US Embassy). At issue, then is whether or not this is, in fact, a tax.
Some of the other embassies in London have been paying it.
Some of the other embassies in London have been paying it.
Mar 29th, 2006, 10:58 AM
#4
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It sounds like a Clintonesque use of words - a tax or a service? The London Tube is a service thus diplomats must pay for it, or is it a tax to ride public transit - i think the Mayor is stretching it a bit to call it a service charge but think the Embassy is a bit myopic in refusing to pay. I'm sure T Blair would blindly support the Americans on this one!
Mar 29th, 2006, 11:41 AM
#5
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the kind of sleazy nonsense we normally associate with the shyster embassies. Usually Nigeria's top of the list, generally followed by the countries that allocate ambassadorships on the basis of who's recently bribed the head of state most.
None of which excuses Livinstone's unprofessional language: it's clearly sizeist to draw attention to the ambassador's height like that, and he shouldn't do it.
But he's not paid to be a diplomat. America's ambassadors are. And this one - like his immediate predcecessor - is failing at it.
Whatever the legal niceities (and, oddly, I suspect the Americans are in the right under the terms of the Vienna treaties), US diplomats have created a wholly unnecessary squabble - a complete gift to rabble-rousers like Livingstone.
There are times in life when the grown-up choice is not to insist on every last legal right. This is one of them. And the sooner the US sends a proper ambassador to London, the sooner it'll stop presenting this kind of unnecessary gift to Livingstone's soulmates.
Bring back Raymond Seitz. Or Phil Lader. People who could be effective without rubbing Londoners' backs up.
None of which excuses Livinstone's unprofessional language: it's clearly sizeist to draw attention to the ambassador's height like that, and he shouldn't do it.
But he's not paid to be a diplomat. America's ambassadors are. And this one - like his immediate predcecessor - is failing at it.
Whatever the legal niceities (and, oddly, I suspect the Americans are in the right under the terms of the Vienna treaties), US diplomats have created a wholly unnecessary squabble - a complete gift to rabble-rousers like Livingstone.
There are times in life when the grown-up choice is not to insist on every last legal right. This is one of them. And the sooner the US sends a proper ambassador to London, the sooner it'll stop presenting this kind of unnecessary gift to Livingstone's soulmates.
Bring back Raymond Seitz. Or Phil Lader. People who could be effective without rubbing Londoners' backs up.
