I suspect that I can't really understand this:

"A US embassy staffer accused of possessing indecent images of children, was detained at his south London flat and flown out of the UK in August, without being first questioned by British police."

Sure, I get the overall mechanics. "was... flown" - any brits here to help? What exactly does this mean in BBC English? It implies something, doesn't it?

Sure. It would be nice if countries would waive diplomatic immunity for things that are crimes back home. Diplomatic immunity should extend to foreign laws, but the diplomats shouldn't escape domestic criminal or civil consequences.

> 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.