moo wrote:

The bill that enacts the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations into UK law is The Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964. This bill gives the UK government the right to reject any diplomatic status which is granted or inferred "improperly".

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations allows this modification, because in its preamble it outright states "Realizing that the purpose of such privileges and immunities is not to benefit individuals but to ensure the efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic missions as representing States", which means that granting Assange any immunity or privilege at all which is inferred to the Ecuadorian mission is obviously done for the benefit of the individual, not the efficient performance of the function of the mission, and as such is null and void.

The British police would be well within their rights to arrest Assange the moment he stepped out of the embassy, take the diplomatic mail off him, hand it to the Embassies receptionist and walk away with Assange in handcuffs.

As I said up thread, Ecuador is more respectful of the situation than those suggesting such a course of action.

I'll be very surprised if any court withdraws his outstanding arrest warrant.

moo wrote:

People do seem to like to make up seemingly interesting reasons for why the UK is in the wrong here, when they simply aren't.

And then some.

scbriml wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

It was considered at first, hence the UK said they don't care whatsoever which international treaties they had signed and ratified.

Words and actions are entirely different and separate. I'm sure even you understand that.

tommy1808 wrote:

It's the utter lack of respect for law shown by the UK government that led to the situation.

More utter tosh from you.

He jumped bail when it became obvious he was going to be extradited to Sweden per the international arrest warrant issued against him on a charge of rape. He chose to run and hide in the Ecuadorian embassy. Nobody forced him there, only his own desperation to avoid facing his accuser in a court of law.

He's a lying coward who said he'd give himself up if Manning was freed. #StillWaiting

tommy1808 wrote:

Only trust the UK if you have collateral to keep them honest is the lesson learned from all those years.

Your dislike of the UK comes through in most of your posts on the subject.

When is the "trial" and in which non-UK "court"?

I really don't understand people who are so quick to criticize Assange for exposing crimes committed by the USA and the UK, and forget about those crimes committed by the USA and UK . It wasn't Assange that went to war on fabricated intelligence, it wasn't Assange that caused the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's and destabilized the region for decades to come. That was Bush and his wee little poodle Blair. That responsibility lies on the shoulders of YOUR country, where is your outrage for that? Why are you ignoring the scores of innocent people dead because of an illegal war waged on false pretenses and trying to point the finger at the messenger?

There are no charges pending against Assange, the rape charges have been dropped, the women willingly shagged Assange and later turned the story into rape. In Sweden changing your mind about shagging someone days later apparently constitutes rape. Anyone who believes it was anything other than a US attempt to extradite Assange to the USA is at best naive, and if that sounds like to much to handle just look into what the USA went through to try to get Snowden.

Redd wrote:

There are no charges pending against Assange

Actually, there are - Assange committed a crime in the UK, which he is now wanted for.

And the rubbish about the US wanting extradition is just that - Assange fled to the UK, which has an easier extradition treaty with the US than Sweden, and yet he felt totally at home fleeing here and spending several years fighting extradition here. The "wah wah was the US wants to extradite me, that's why I won't go to Sweden" crap only started after he went to the Ecuadorean embassy, not before. It is, like everything, an excuse.

And you, as with so many other Assange lovers, need to read up on the exact charges in the European Arrest Warrant, because you have them completely and utterly wrong - for a start, they were all crimes in the UK as well (they have to be, under the concept of dual criminality, for the extradition warrant to be considered valid in a UK court).

Assange supporters simply come across as uneducated simpletons most of the time, because they seem to be spouting the propaganda put out by other pro-Assange people rather than anything based in fact.

moo wrote:

Redd wrote:

There are no charges pending against Assange

Actually, there are - Assange committed a crime in the UK, which he is now wanted for.

And the rubbish about the US wanting extradition is just that - Assange fled to the UK, which has an easier extradition treaty with the US than Sweden, and yet he felt totally at home fleeing here and spending several years fighting extradition here. The "wah wah was the US wants to extradite me, that's why I won't go to Sweden" crap only started after he went to the Ecuadorean embassy, not before. It is, like everything, an excuse.

And you, as with so many other Assange lovers, need to read up on the exact charges in the European Arrest Warrant, because you have them completely and utterly wrong - for a start, they were all crimes in the UK as well (they have to be, under the concept of dual criminality, for the extradition warrant to be considered valid in a UK court).

Assange supporters simply come across as uneducated simpletons most of the time, because they seem to be spouting the propaganda put out by other pro-Assange people rather than anything based in fact.

You've done exactly what I said you and every other Assange critic do, which is ignore what he exposed and shift the attention back to defaming his character... and call people uneducated and simpletons when they actually care about the real issues in this story....

His conduct would not fall under rape in the UK given that the acts on which this matter rests were said to be consensual. There hasn’t even been an allegation of criminal intent in Mr Assange’s conduct according to the police report. The only think he's wanted for in the UK is breaching his bail conditions.

While you're at it I'd encourage you to explain how you feel about the crimes Assange exposed. You know that thing which some of us uneducated simpletons actually consider the important part of the Assange story?. That seems to be something every Assange critic seems to avoid like the plague, including yourself. Straw please meet Man.

With the metoo discussion in major part of the world the rest of the world start to get closer to the discussion that we have seen in Sweden the last few years and that was behind the swedish law regarding rape and sexual haressment.

As I understand me Assange did erase a condom without both agreed "stealthing".

In UK or us law is this legal?

Br

Redd wrote:

I really don't understand people who are so quick to criticize Assange for exposing crimes committed by the USA and the UK, and forget about those crimes committed by the USA and UK . It wasn't Assange that went to war on fabricated intelligence, it wasn't Assange that caused the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's and destabilized the region for decades to come. That was Bush and his wee little poodle Blair. That responsibility lies on the shoulders of YOUR country, where is your outrage for that? Why are you ignoring the scores of innocent people dead because of an illegal war waged on false pretenses and trying to point the finger at the messenger?

Where have I criticised him for that? I haven't.

For the record, I'm ashamed of the UK's part in the Iraq war and the slime-ball Blair's complete lack of remorse for lying to the country. However, that is not the topic of this thread.

Redd wrote:

There are no charges pending against Assange

You're wrong. There's a UK arrest warrant outstanding for him jumping bail when he ran and hid in the Ecuador embassy. That's what his lawyers are now trying to have withdrawn.

Redd wrote:

His conduct would not fall under rape in the UK given that the acts on which this matter rests were said to be consensual.

Oh well, if his actions "were said to be consensual" then he must have been innocent all along! It's all a bit moot now that Sweden has dropped the case. That however, doesn't wipe his slate clean as far as the UK's concerned.

Redd wrote:

While you're at it I'd encourage you to explain how you feel about the crimes Assange exposed. You know that thing which some of us uneducated simpletons actually consider the important part of the Assange story?. That seems to be something every Assange critic seems to avoid like the plague, including yourself. Straw please meet Man.

You're conflating two separate issues. Feel free to start a thread about Wikileaks exposures. This thread is about Assange, his now-dropped rape charge and his self-imposed exile inside the Ecuador embassy in an attempt to avoid justice.

scbriml wrote:

Redd wrote:

I really don't understand people who are so quick to criticize Assange for exposing crimes committed by the USA and the UK, and forget about those crimes committed by the USA and UK . It wasn't Assange that went to war on fabricated intelligence, it wasn't Assange that caused the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's and destabilized the region for decades to come. That was Bush and his wee little poodle Blair. That responsibility lies on the shoulders of YOUR country, where is your outrage for that? Why are you ignoring the scores of innocent people dead because of an illegal war waged on false pretenses and trying to point the finger at the messenger?

Where have I criticised him for that? I haven't.

For the record, I'm ashamed of the UK's part in the Iraq war and the slime-ball Blair's complete lack of remorse for lying to the country. However, that is not the topic of this thread.

Redd wrote:

There are no charges pending against Assange

You're wrong. There's a UK arrest warrant outstanding for him jumping bail when he ran and hid in the Ecuador embassy. That's what his lawyers are now trying to have withdrawn.

Redd wrote:

His conduct would not fall under rape in the UK given that the acts on which this matter rests were said to be consensual.

Oh well, if his actions "were said to be consensual" then he must have been innocent all along! It's all a bit moot now that Sweden has dropped the case. That however, doesn't wipe his slate clean as far as the UK's concerned.

Redd wrote:

While you're at it I'd encourage you to explain how you feel about the crimes Assange exposed. You know that thing which some of us uneducated simpletons actually consider the important part of the Assange story?. That seems to be something every Assange critic seems to avoid like the plague, including yourself. Straw please meet Man.

You're conflating two separate issues. Feel free to start a thread about Wikileaks exposures. This thread is about Assange, his now-dropped rape charge and his self-imposed exile inside the Ecuador embassy in an attempt to avoid justice.

His only charge is for jumping bail on a charge which has been dropped. If you take a look at what the 'rape' charges were it's not what is traditionally considered rape in any other country, at least at the time. Having intercourse without a condom. Once charges have been dropped a person is considered innocent, so he's wanted in the UK for jumping bail on a charge which has been dropped.

Considering how hard the USA has gone after any whistle-blowers I don't blame him for hiding out at the Ecuadorian embassy. I don't believe there was any question that there would be 'fair' justice in this case. Once again, just look into the lengths which the USA went through to try to get Snowden, including forcing a landing of the Peruvian President Morales in France on the suspicion that Snowden was on that flight. According to international law that kind of action is illegal.

So when countries like the USA have no qualms about breaking laws to achieve their goals, I think it's reasonable to assume they have no qualms about breaking the law to try to get Assange, as has been shown in other cases.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like personally like the man but whistle-blowers are needed as they seem to be the only checks and balances in today's society.

Redd wrote:

His only charge is for jumping bail on a charge which has been dropped.

His arrest warrant is in respect of him breaching his UK bail conditions. The fact that Sweden no longer want to question him about the alleged sexual assaults doesn't change the fact he jumped bail.

I will be very surprised if the judge agrees to drop the warrant.

Redd wrote:

moo wrote:

Redd wrote:

There are no charges pending against Assange

Actually, there are - Assange committed a crime in the UK, which he is now wanted for.

And the rubbish about the US wanting extradition is just that - Assange fled to the UK, which has an easier extradition treaty with the US than Sweden, and yet he felt totally at home fleeing here and spending several years fighting extradition here. The "wah wah was the US wants to extradite me, that's why I won't go to Sweden" crap only started after he went to the Ecuadorean embassy, not before. It is, like everything, an excuse.

And you, as with so many other Assange lovers, need to read up on the exact charges in the European Arrest Warrant, because you have them completely and utterly wrong - for a start, they were all crimes in the UK as well (they have to be, under the concept of dual criminality, for the extradition warrant to be considered valid in a UK court).

Assange supporters simply come across as uneducated simpletons most of the time, because they seem to be spouting the propaganda put out by other pro-Assange people rather than anything based in fact.

You've done exactly what I said you and every other Assange critic do, which is ignore what he exposed and shift the attention back to defaming his character... and call people uneducated and simpletons when they actually care about the real issues in this story....

His conduct would not fall under rape in the UK given that the acts on which this matter rests were said to be consensual. There hasn’t even been an allegation of criminal intent in Mr Assange’s conduct according to the police report. The only think he's wanted for in the UK is breaching his bail conditions.

While you're at it I'd encourage you to explain how you feel about the crimes Assange exposed. You know that thing which some of us uneducated simpletons actually consider the important part of the Assange story?. That seems to be something every Assange critic seems to avoid like the plague, including yourself. Straw please meet Man.

I ignore it because it's a red herring - Assange "accomplishments" are a mixed bag, and have nothing to do with his current situation.

You can keep attempting to cloud the issue if you like, but be aware that people can still see that that is exactly what you are trying to do - create a smokescreen by reframing the debate about something else entirely.

That doesn't work here.

olle wrote:

With the metoo discussion in major part of the world the rest of the world start to get closer to the discussion that we have seen in Sweden the last few years and that was behind the swedish law regarding rape and sexual haressment.

As I understand me Assange did erase a condom without both agreed "stealthing".

In UK or us law is this legal?

Br

No, it isn't legal - earlier in this discussion I post links to two UK court decisions against him, the High Court one and the Supreme Court one. If you read them, the judges specifically discuss the legality of the actions Assange was wanted for, and they specifically discuss it because in the UK there is the concept of "dual criminality" for extradition requests, or rather the crime has to exist under UK law as well for the extradition warrant to be valid.

The EAW was found to be valid for all accusations made in it - so all the things Assange was wanted for would be crimes under UK law as well.

This is a big thing that Assange supporters miss when they claim "it's only rape in Sweden!!!", as all those claims do is highlight the fact that those people haven't actually read the UK courts rulings...

Redd wrote:

His only charge is for jumping bail on a charge which has been dropped. If you take a look at what the 'rape' charges were it's not what is traditionally considered rape in any other country, at least at the time. Having intercourse without a condom.

Oh look, a *perfect* example of what I was just talking about - an Assange supporter who hasn't read the UK courts decision and is just spouting the same old false rubbish about the charges against him!

The charges are also crimes in the UK. This has been affirmed by every UK court Assange took his case to.

Once charges have been dropped a person is considered innocent, so he's wanted in the UK for jumping bail on a charge which has been dropped.

Jumping bail is a crime all on its own merit, why should that get dropped?

moo wrote:

Jumping bail is a crime all on its own merit, why should that get dropped?

Sure, but don't you think the UK government is doing it all a bit to excessive for a jumping bail charge? He has been in his self-imposed jail for five odd years, constantly guarded, that bill alone should be in the millions and that for a jumping bail charge. Something does smell fishy there, especially since the rape charges were dropped.

Dutchy wrote:

moo wrote:

Jumping bail is a crime all on its own merit, why should that get dropped?

Sure, but don't you think the UK government is doing it all a bit to excessive for a jumping bail charge? He has been in his self-imposed jail for five odd years, constantly guarded, that bill alone should be in the millions and that for a jumping bail charge. Something does smell fishy there, especially since the rape charges were dropped.

You are aware that the British police stopped having a constant police presence outside the Ecuadorian embassy in October 2015, right? They monitor Assanges movements using other, cheaper methods which don't involve it. There is only a presence now on days when Assange has said he will do something.

There hasn't been a "constant guard" now for more than 2 years.

So no, it doesn't seem excessive at all.

And considering only the past 6 months of the surveillance bill can be solely attributed to the single bail related charge, that cost is nowhere near the millions you claim as "excessive"...

moo wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

moo wrote:

Jumping bail is a crime all on its own merit, why should that get dropped?

Sure, but don't you think the UK government is doing it all a bit to excessive for a jumping bail charge? He has been in his self-imposed jail for five odd years, constantly guarded, that bill alone should be in the millions and that for a jumping bail charge. Something does smell fishy there, especially since the rape charges were dropped.

You are aware that the British police stopped having a constant police presence outside the Ecuadorian embassy in October 2015, right? They monitor Assanges movements using other, cheaper methods which don't involve it. There is only a presence now on days when Assange has said he will do something.

There hasn't been a "constant guard" now for more than 2 years.

So no, it doesn't seem excessive at all.

And considering only the past 6 months of the surveillance bill can be solely attributed to the single bail related charge, that cost is nowhere near the millions you claim as "excessive"...

I'll tell you why the charges should be dropped. The MET has already spent around £15,000,000.00 guarding a man that was out on £240,000.00 bail for ''allegedly'' not wearing a condom while having consensual sex. Now the ''allegedly'' isn't even an issue anymore as Sweden has confirmed no such serious crime has occurred.

If you think that without the USA's hand up the UK's posterior, the UK would have gone through all that effort to arrest a man for the official reason of not wearing a condom, you're quite mad. Time to drop the circus, the only crime they have him on is jumping the most expensive bail in history for not wearing a rubber.

If it wasn't true it'd make a good comedy.

Redd wrote:

moo wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Sure, but don't you think the UK government is doing it all a bit to excessive for a jumping bail charge? He has been in his self-imposed jail for five odd years, constantly guarded, that bill alone should be in the millions and that for a jumping bail charge. Something does smell fishy there, especially since the rape charges were dropped.

You are aware that the British police stopped having a constant police presence outside the Ecuadorian embassy in October 2015, right? They monitor Assanges movements using other, cheaper methods which don't involve it. There is only a presence now on days when Assange has said he will do something.

There hasn't been a "constant guard" now for more than 2 years.

So no, it doesn't seem excessive at all.

And considering only the past 6 months of the surveillance bill can be solely attributed to the single bail related charge, that cost is nowhere near the millions you claim as "excessive"...

I'll tell you why the charges should be dropped. The MET has already spent around £15,000,000.00 guarding a man that was out on £240,000.00 for ''allegedly'' not wearing a condom while having consensual sex. Now the ''allegedly'' isn't even an issue anymore as Sweden as confirmed no such serious has occurred.

If you think that without the USA's hand up the UK's posterior, the UK would have gone through all that effort to arrest a man for the official reason of not wearing a condom, you're quite mad. Time to drop the circus, the only crime they have him on is jumping the most expensive bail in history for not wearing a rubber.

If it wasn't true it'd make a good comedy.

If *any* of this was related to US demands on the UK, why wasn't Assange extradited to the US during the 2 years he spent in the UK fighting the extradition to Sweden...? He seemed quite happy to live in the UK with no threat from the US right up to the point where he had to surrender for extradition to Sweden...

But then, Assange supporters have never made sense when trying to argue their points.

Redd wrote:

moo wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Sure, but don't you think the UK government is doing it all a bit to excessive for a jumping bail charge? He has been in his self-imposed jail for five odd years, constantly guarded, that bill alone should be in the millions and that for a jumping bail charge. Something does smell fishy there, especially since the rape charges were dropped.

You are aware that the British police stopped having a constant police presence outside the Ecuadorian embassy in October 2015, right? They monitor Assanges movements using other, cheaper methods which don't involve it. There is only a presence now on days when Assange has said he will do something.

There hasn't been a "constant guard" now for more than 2 years.

So no, it doesn't seem excessive at all.

And considering only the past 6 months of the surveillance bill can be solely attributed to the single bail related charge, that cost is nowhere near the millions you claim as "excessive"...

I'll tell you why the charges should be dropped. The MET has already spent around £15,000,000.00 guarding a man that was out on £240,000.00 bail for ''allegedly'' not wearing a condom while having consensual sex. Now the ''allegedly'' isn't even an issue anymore as Sweden has confirmed no such serious crime has occurred.

If you think that without the USA's hand up the UK's posterior, the UK would have gone through all that effort to arrest a man for the official reason of not wearing a condom, you're quite mad. Time to drop the circus, the only crime they have him on is jumping the most expensive bail in history for not wearing a rubber.

If it wasn't true it'd make a good comedy.

Oh, and Sweden haven't confirmed that no crime occurred - they simply ceased attempts to apprehend Assange due to the current situation, but at no point did they exonerate Assange and at no point did they say they would never attempt the extradition again should the situation change.

Dutchy wrote:

He has been in his self-imposed jail for five odd years

That was entirely of his own doing in a desperate attempt to escape facing his accusers in Sweden.

Redd wrote:

If you think that without the USA's hand up the UK's posterior, the UK would have gone through all that effort to arrest a man for the official reason of not wearing a condom, you're quite mad.

That sounds pretty conspiracy theoryish to me and I'm pretty sure that wasn't the "official reason".

moo wrote:

[Oh, and Sweden haven't confirmed that no crime occurred - they simply ceased attempts to apprehend Assange due to the current situation,
but at no point did they exonerate Assange and at no point did they say they would never attempt the extradition again should the situation change.

That is wrong. Initial prosecutor Eva Finné closed the case because NO crime had been committed. It was based on the women's story.
She also prohibited her staff from continue working on the case.Mats Gelin, assistant prosecutor, disregarded that and continued working on the case.
Eventually new "evidence" was brought in. It was a smoking gun or more specifically a broken but unused condom. It was claimed that Assange had broken
this condom on purpose but forensic tests found no DNA on the condom.Despite that, the condom was used as a reason to raise the suspicion level
from skäligen to sannolika skäl. This was needed to be able to issue an European Arrest Warrant.

There have never been a rape case. This whole farce is based on fabricated evidence and lack of effort from prosecutor Marianne Ny.
She is also responsible for not doing her job. It is an obligation of a Swedish prosecutor to progress her/his case in an expedient manner.
Either move ahead and prosecute the accused person or close the case. A prosecutor cannot drag his/her feet and sit on the a.. doing nothing year after year.

Dis-honorable mention to police assistant Irmeli Krantz who disregarded Judicial disqualification (jäv) since she was the one interrogating the "victims"
at the same time as she was a friend with the victims. She also admitted that she changed the contents of the victim's interrogation reports.
She basically edited them accordingly to her own opinion of what happened. She also leaked the story to the press. She was never investigated or
reprimanded for misconduct or anything similar.

I think this is allot of effort from Marianne Ny and her criminal associated regarding a case where it already have been determined that no crime
had been committed. There was no new evidence, only the fabricated condom "evidence". There was nothing that warranted a re-opening
of the case and then why re-open the case if you have no plans to do anything about it.

Well swedish police said that they cannon close the things before interviewing me Assange.

They asked him to come to Sweden and he did not show up. Before that the police did not put any effort to continue investigation.

Br

scbriml wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

He has been in his self-imposed jail for five odd years

That was entirely of his own doing in a desperate attempt to escape facing his accusers in Sweden.

Redd wrote:

If you think that without the USA's hand up the UK's posterior, the UK would have gone through all that effort to arrest a man for the official reason of not wearing a condom, you're quite mad.

That sounds pretty conspiracy theoryish to me and I'm pretty sure that wasn't the "official reason".

Of course it sounds like a conspiracy theory. But explain the amount of money spent (£15,000,000 on surveillance and £240,000 bail) on a EAW for a guy whose only charge was not wearing a rubber while shagging..... If you look at it that way, reality sounds even more absurd than the conspiracy

moo wrote:

If *any* of this was related to US demands on the UK, why wasn't Assange extradited to the US during the 2 years he spent in the UK fighting the extradition to Sweden...?

It is possible that the US may have been considering a request to extradite from Sweden. So far no evidence has been provided that an actual request was made despite the huff and puff from some members of Congress. It is known that the US did seek the opinion of Australia and Australia made it clear that it would not oppose any request.

Why did the US not make such a request to the UK? Possibly because they would have needed to await the outcome of the Swedish request to the UK as the latter would not consider two simultaneous requests. First come, first served, so to speak.

As it stands, Assange is still free to leave his self-imposed immolation at any time and surrender to the police. It would then be up to the court to determine what, if any, penalty be imposed for his breach of bail. During that time, the US, if it so desired, could lodge a request for extradition. As far as procedure is concerned, we would be back at square one as Assange would still be free to contest any such request. It would be up to the courts to decide whether the responsible Minister may approve the request. If the court rules that there is no legal reason to bar the request, it would still be up to the responsible Minister to approve Assange's removal from the UK to the US. The Minister could just decide to deport Assange to Australia.

It is highly unlikely that Assange would be granted bail during that time, given his obvious contempt for those who previously stood surety and for court orders.

It was never a rape investigation and it was never officially claimed to be one. It was always about consensual sex only. The debate is about if he used a condom or not. Branding Assange some rapist can be considered unfair from my point of view.

You can find all details here if needed:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/ ... nge-sweden

Redd wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

He has been in his self-imposed jail for five odd years

That was entirely of his own doing in a desperate attempt to escape facing his accusers in Sweden.

Redd wrote:

If you think that without the USA's hand up the UK's posterior, the UK would have gone through all that effort to arrest a man for the official reason of not wearing a condom, you're quite mad.

That sounds pretty conspiracy theoryish to me and I'm pretty sure that wasn't the "official reason".

Of course it sounds like a conspiracy theory. But explain the amount of money spent (£15,000,000 on surveillance and £240,000 bail) on a EAW for a guy whose only charge was not wearing a rubber while shagging..... If you look at it that way, reality sounds even more absurd than the conspiracy

It's in our government's best interests for J Assange to remain in the embassy indefinitely. He has served far longer and in far poorer conditions than he would have done on conviction in Sweden and Britain. The embassy has a serious and growing problem on its hands of their own making, and are looking for a way out, but nobody is taking the bait as they don't want this looney tune on their hands.

Also keeping Assange banged up acts as a deterrent to those who think they can commit a crime and run into an embassy and claim asylum.

I also believe he "Stealthed" the person in question - She consented to sex with a condom, but he removed it against her will.

Noshow wrote:

It was never a rape investigation and it was never officially claimed to be one. It was always about consensual sex only. The debate is about if he used a condom or not. Branding Assange some rapist can be considered unfair from my point of view.

You can find all details here if needed:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/ ... nge-sweden

This is the central point here. Swedish law is quit different and includes stuff that from international perspective is not considered haressment or rape. This is partly the reason why some people present all kind of statistics of rape in Sweden.

Quite simple.

Jumping bail is a crime.

Assange jumped bail.

Assange has imprisoned himself.

The UK legal system still has a case against him.

If he leaves the Ecuadorean embassy, he will probably face six months in prison for jumping bail.

With the revolving justice system, he will be out in 2-3 months.

——-

Now my opinion - Assange has leaked a serious amount of US classified documentation and should be extradited to the US for this. Let him have is day in court.

Assange is still trying to lean against US politicians.

BestWestern wrote:

Quite simple.

simple or simplistic viepoint ?

This depends on :

do you have to submit to the followups of an illegal administrative act?

If you remove the WikiLeaks context that pis*d of the US from Assange's persona
The Swedish (pseudo)rape would have never gone beyond the wild dreams of a feminist state attorney.
I would not be surprised if the environment was not artificially created or coerced after the fact.

Next down then is the trumped up extradtion request to the UK.

I have no idea why the UK was seen as a lesser threat of being handed to the US
than via the Swedish system. ( maybe something in the Wiki Leaks docs to help decide this?)
the Swedish state attorney and surrounding system already had done the US bidding in entangling Assange.

This will be a major smear on the Swedish judicial system in the future.
A state that has tainted it#s neutrality in support of US policy in the past.
Who was behind killing Olof Palme

It’s simple. He jumped bail.

If the plan was to send him to the US, why did he need to go to Sweden first. The US could have applied to the UK directly.

Their is also the rendition route, if they wanted him that badly.

Seems this huge plot was only in his head. Ecuador is now stuck with this problem.

This case has gone beyound bizarre. It should be dropped and Assange freed. He was "imprisoned" longer than enough for "nothing" and wrongfully and globally labelled a rapist. So "they" had their revenge. Let's move on.

I hope the british judge today decides this way.

bennett123 wrote:

If the plan was to send him to the US, why did he need to go to Sweden first. The US could have applied to the UK directly.
Their is also the rendition route, if they wanted him that badly.
Seems this huge plot was only in his head. Ecuador is now stuck with this problem.

Rendition is much more difficult in public view.
But nice that you seem to condone illegal means ...

Assange is a AUS national. What kind of extradtition rules govern commonwealth nationals in the UK?

I said the Rendition option existed.

I did NOT say that I approved of it.

How was he imprisoned.

BestWestern wrote:

Now my opinion - Assange has leaked a serious amount of US classified documentation and should be extradited to the US for this. Let him have is day in court.

Assange is still trying to lean against US politicians.

Explain to me this way of thinking you have because I would really like to understand it. The information released revealed horrific acts, possible war crimes and murder and other illegal activities on the part of the USA, all documented truths. Information which seems not to disturb you in the least, but what does is someone releasing this information to hold a government which had committed some major crimes and atrocities accountable? So a little red Classified stamp is immunity, totally and completely?

Noshow wrote:

This case has gone beyound bizarre. It should be dropped and Assange freed. He was "imprisoned" longer than enough for "nothing" and wrongfully and globally labelled a rapist. So "they" had their revenge. Let's move on.

I hope the british judge today decides this way.

The plea was thrown out, the arrest warrant for jumping bail still stands. Correctly, IMHO.

Assange's lawyers argued on other grounds and another decision will be made on 13th Feb.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42964699

At Westminster Magistrates' Court, senior district judge and chief magistrate Emma Arbuthnot said, having considered the arguments, she was "not persuaded that the warrant should be withdrawn".

She told the court that not surrendering to bail was a stand-alone offence under the Bail Act and Mr Assange must explain why he had failed to do so.

The offence carries a maximum penalty of one year in prison.

A year in prison is 4 months in reality. The quicker he surrenders, the quicker he walks Free.

The longer this goes on the more he is made a "hero". Free him fast and let this chaos be forgotten. The faster the better. This stupid sort of revenge for Wikileaks backfired massively.

BestWestern wrote:

A year in prison is 4 months in reality. The quicker he surrenders, the quicker he walks Free.

You are so much about freedom.
Why should he surrender to injustice.

Then, whatever the US stamps on documents: it does not apply to an AUS citizen.
"Secret" is a hint ofor legal US holders of the document ( in system ) . Once out in the wild....

Noshow wrote:

The longer this goes on the more he is made a "hero".

Hero?

Noshow wrote:

This stupid sort of revenge for Wikileaks backfired massively.

What "revenge"?

WIederling wrote:

Why should he surrender to injustice.

Why shouldn't he surrender to justice?

This whole mess was caused by him running from justice in the first place. Why can't he walk out of the embassy and face the consequences of jumping bail in the UK?

And he would be home free in four months maximum. The longer he sits like a coward in the Ecuadorean embassy of his own volition the longer he isn’t free.

Perhaps he has other reasons to sit in the embassy - Free rent in London, safe from
Arrest for other crimes perhaps. There are reasons why he is not leaving.

Not the guys that published Wikileaks (Assange and friends) but the leaking sources themselves should be investigated. They were obliged to keep their secrets.
Like him or not. But to hunt somebody like him and force him into a trap like the embassy for legally nothing is a scandal. How can this happen in the UK today? Feels like the soviet union in the 1950s.

Noshow wrote:

Not the guys that published Wikileaks (Assange and friends) but the leaking sources themselves should be investigated. They were obliged to keep their secrets.
Like him or not. But to hunt somebody like him and force him into a trap like the embassy for legally nothing is a scandal. How can this happen in the UK today? Feels like the soviet union in the 1950s.

For the umpteenth time.... Nobody forced Assange into the Embassy and seek asylum.

He did that all by himself, forcing many of his supporters to forfeit the cash they put up for his bail.

Assange surrendered himself to UK police on 7 December 2010, and was held for ten days before being released on bail. Having been unsuccessful in his challenge to the Swedish extradition proceedings, he breached his bail and absconded.

Nothing about him being forced their...

Noshow wrote:

Not the guys that published Wikileaks (Assange and friends) but the leaking sources themselves should be investigated. They were obliged to keep their secrets.
Like him or not. But to hunt somebody like him and force him into a trap like the embassy for legally nothing is a scandal. How can this happen in the UK today? Feels like the soviet union in the 1950s.

You really haven't understood the history of this case at all, have you?

Dear Mr Assange

Please leave the Embassy and the Met will chauffeur you to one of their luxurious and private locations for some secure R&R.

Then a swift appearance before the Beak. Six months, suspended, and immediate deportation to one of our penal colonies. It's called Australia. I believe you are familiar with it....?

Many thanks,

Theresa May and the British Taxpayer

Incidentally my idea of deportation involves Rohypnol and an LD3

If Asaange had let the embassy when this thread was started, he would be a Free man by now...

In Germany some judge would decide if years in some embassy weight up his possible fine from fleeing justice (which is not okay to do obviously). As no more real offence is under investigation I guess he likely would be set free in Germany.
How about UK law? Will he be threatened with jail forever now? Is there any amnesty possible?

Living in an embassy isn’t imprisonment. It’s an embassy in one of the most expensive parts of London with all mod cons where Assange was able to go about his job and get paid for it no doubt, even if in kind.

It is his choice that he fled bail and hid inside. That case is still outstanding. He broke the law, and the law will win.

The longer he stays hidden, the longer is postpones eventual fate. He already promised to leave the embassy if Obama gave a pardon. Pardon was given and Assange bilked, so trust in him isn’t very good.

His claim is he had to flee in there because he fears to be sent from the UK to the US for Wikileaks-retaliation not for the closed swedish case and fleeing bail, As there might be secret US-arrest warants pending he might have a point.
He will be monitored by secret agencies for the rest of his life wherever he is. So he has paid and will pay a high price already.

There may easily be another arrest warrant out for him. Because he has in my opinion committed espionage crimes against the US, and probably other NATO countries.

Assange loses his appeal....

Judge Emma Arbuthnot said she was not persuaded by the argument from Assange’s legal team that it was not in the public interest to pursue him for skipping bail.

Judge said: “I find arrest is a proportionate response even though Mr Assange has restricted his own freedom for a number of years.

“Defendants on bail up and down the country, and requested persons facing extradition, come to court to face the consequences of their own choices. He should have the courage to do the same. It is certainly not against the public interest to proceed.”