I assume that means they won’t complain if the UK starts making sovereign decisions to interfere with governance of Ecuador. (Of course, the Ecuadorean government recently joined in a condemnation of the mere existence of a British government on islands that happen to be near South America, so I imagine that the right to unilaterally void judicial processes in another country is something that only travels one way in their minds.)
They can be of any size. They can be a truck, for instance.
Embassies hate this crap, even (possibly even more so) when it’s an embassy of a democratic country in an oppressive state. They generally try to get rid peacefully of the asylum seeker ASAP.
Except when the vehicle itself is the “diplomatic pouch” with appropriate documentation. Then, they can’t open or search it.
Why would they? Even if they couldn’t care less about Assange, it could set a precedent.
This part of that article makes no sense at all:
Uh if they made the offer months ago he never needed to go hide in the embassy, they could have quietly issued him travel documents or passport from the Ecuadoran government and whisked him out of London before anyone had a clue what was going on.
On the other hand, if I were Assange, the mere possibility of it happening, however remote, would give me a pause and would drive me to take whatever steps needed to avoid it. Also, he’s probably not enthralled by the prospect of facing rape charges, either.
Not sure about his supporters (I don’t have much of an opinion about any element of the scenario), but Assange’s behaviour makes sense.
Except about picking Ecuador. Why on Earth did he chose Ecuador? Has this been explained now? Personally, among South-American countries, I would have chosen Venezuela as the less likely to hand me out to the USA.
Did you read the update? The whole story was made up. Ecuador has never offered him asylum.
More of the high quality journalism we have come to expect from the British press. 
An African nation (I believe Nigeria) pulled this trick on France. They appointed a French citizen residing in France as diplomat to the UNESCO. Since the UNESCO seat is in Paris, the culprit didn’t even have to move to avoid prosecution (for weapons trafficking with said African country, unsurprisingly)
Drop that already. What you’re arguing against is one of the most basic element of international law you can think of. There isn’t the slightest doubt that it exists and it has been adequately described by several posters. You’re engaging in willful ignorance (or rather, you’re ignorant enough not to realize how ignorant your stance is).
And as it has already been explained to you several times, this norm can be ignored by a country. In the same way a treaty it has willingly signed can be ignored (say, if a court decides that the treaty is unconstitutional or for political reasons). It doesn’t negate the concept anymore than ignoring a treaty you’re part of negates the concept of “treaty”.
In no way would this ever happen… the craziest hypotheticals one could think of and you still get relevant answers… i love this place