> it’s necessary.

Yes, but the point in this case is that we are told the person did not have diplomatic immunity.

Not everybody who works at an embassy has diplomatic immunity.

The Geneva Convention dictates who gets diplomatic immunity, and that is based around your job description and rank.

This is not the first time either that the US has flown somebody out of the UK in questionable circumstances before they were questioned by UK police.

The UK is not a third-world country, there is no reason why somebody should not be questioned by UK police or dealt with in UK courts.

You can also bet your bottom dollar that if the tables were turned and the equivalent happend on US soil, there would be little chance of being flown out covertley. Most sensible people don't like "One rule for US, another rule for everyone else", even more so under the present US administration.

> The Geneva Convention dictates who gets diplomatic immunity, and that is based around your job description and rank.

from what I know, this is not correct.

if the US said he's a diplomat or has diplomatic immunity and/or was given that by the US and notified the UK, then he has immunity and it is up to the US and UK to resolve their grievances through diplomatic channels.

for example, many family members of diplomats and government officials have such status in host countries

From the BBC article "It is understood the individual worked at the US embassy in Vauxhall, south west London, and though not a diplomat, he enjoyed the umbrella of diplomatic protection."