Have you even read the letter? All it does is list the legal options available to Britain. If revoking the diplomatic status of the building is a legal option, it is not a threat to include that in the list.
Why did the UK send these legal options to the embassy when I think quite clearly the embassy knows the legal options of the UK. It sure doesn't seem like a friendly reminder to me.
What is your point? Don't you think degree of corruption is what is relevant?
My point wasn't on how the degree of corruption is relevant but rather this image that a few have that their country is an utopia and that it is perfect.
On that note, Sweden is 4th least corrupt country, UK is 16th and Ecuador a dismal 120th.
Corruption relative to what?
If it said that Ecuador was 1st in South America in terms of least corrupt it wouldn't be saying much would it?
Also, the corruption perceptions index states:
Perceptions Index (CPI) annually ranking countries "by their perceived levels of corruption, as determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys.''
Doesn't really show the whole picture when it is determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys.