Sentence examples for premises act from inspiring English sources

However, the Foreign Office told Ecuador that it had the power to revoke the embassy's diplomatic status under the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987.

You should be aware that there is a legal basis in the U.K. the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act which would allow us to take action to arrest Mr. Assange in the current premises of the Embassy.

Though she was involved in drafting the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act, which the British embassy in Quito quoted in its letter to the Ecuadorian government, she says she "hadn't thought of using it" in this situation.

The UK government has warned that it can legally enter the embassy and arrest Assange under the 1987 Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act, but the foreign secretary, William Hague, has said there is no intention of "storming" the building.

"You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy.

The letter said: "You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy".

The first begins with the premise that acts of gratitude must be done spontaneously, or from natural inclination, in order to count as acts of gratitude.

Do you agree with the premise that acts of terror from "one of our own" are more upsetting, or do you think we should consider both foreign and "homegrown" terrorists under the common umbrella of extremism?

This argument may be vulnerable to the objection that the initial premise (that acts of gratitude must be done from natural inclination to count as such) is false (see section 3.4.2).

I dislike the aesthetic or moral premise of The Act of Killing.

In rejecting the former argument, the court accepted the basic premise of the act's opponents – namely, that rather than regulating the conduct of individuals already in market (in this case, for healthcare), the act instead sought to push people into the market for insurance, thereby overstepping the boundaries of its constitutional limits of power.