How many people does the UK procecute with the same pressure for the same charge? None? Zero? Has never happend before? Thought so...
This has absolutely nothing to do with it (as an aside, the British police and judiciary do pursue bail jumpers and escaped prisoners - I suggest you look into one Ronnie Biggs as another famous example).
He is persecuted for political reasons only and that is crystal clear.
Sorry Tommy, I don't subscribe to that load of cows dung.
The UK is on record saying that they will violate diplomatic immunity if they get the chance without breaching the grounds, and threatened an act of war against Ecuador to get him.
Actually, the UK is on record saying they could use legislation that has been on the British legislative books for decades to enter the embassy and retrieve their person of interest - thats hardly an act of war, and in any case they didn't carry it out.
The UK violated diplomatic immunity just last month.
Oh, how? Please do fill us in.
It's basically on record it will act like Saudi Arabia.
Hahahahahah thats the best I've heard all year - if in doubt, compare the UK with a despotic regime because you have run out of all other arguments!
Assage is illegally retained,
No he isn't.
the ECtHR court has rules decades ago that being able to leave any time matters jack shit for that qualification.
Thats a ruling you are going to have to cite, and is a ruling you are going to have to show is applicable in this instance.
But you can't cite it, and you can't show its applicable in this instance, because if such a ruling existed, and if such a ruling was applicable, then Assange would already have appealed his UK Supreme Court rulings to the ECtHR citing said ruling.
Funnily enough, he hasn't.
Ignoring the UN ruling that he is illegally detained
I wondered when someone would start crying about the UNWGAD "finding".
Firstly, its not a "UN ruling", its a UN working group conclusion, it has little to do with the general assembly and is in no way legally binding on any UN member.
Its also laughable because the "conclusion" the UNWGAD published specifically included every single moment Assange was under a British courts authority - they didn't just say that Assanges time in the Ecuadorian embassy is "arbitrary detention", they also claimed that he was being "arbitrarily detained" from the very first moment the British judiciary and police took action on the European Arrest Warrant - including his time on bail. And they provided utterly no justification for this part of the "finding" either.
That just made the entire UNWGAD panel a laughing stock - so the (potentially) oldest legal system in the world (that is also one of the least corrupt, and has a very low wrongful conviction rate) is wrong for acting on an arrest warrant issued via a mechanism which has stood up to multiple courts, and is wrong for providing no special privilege to the defendant in that particular case? Pathetic. And rightfully ignored for the rubbish it was.
is nothing but saying Khashoggi wasnt murdered as long as what happened is legal under Saudi law, since he voluntarily entered the Embassy.
Trying to equate this with Khashoggi is quaint and all, and I'm sure you expect it to work in some way to support Assange, but its just more of the same pathetic rubbish from an Assange supporter.
You would also be wrong in your assertion, by the way, since the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations has the following to say about laws in embassies:
Article 41 1.Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State.
Murder is still murder, regardless of whether it happened in the Saudi embassy to a Saudi citizen or not. Your attempt to make a comparison fails the basic sniff test.
The European human right court has already rules that mass survailance is illegal,
Which has no bearing on this case.
the UK is just a criminal trying to get ahold of a key witness
Which again has no bearing on this case - the UK judiciary wants Assange for bail offences.
and Ecuador provides witness protection.
Only you seem to be under this impression.
The problem with the whole "wah wah wah Assange is wanted for political reasons" is that he came *voluntarily* to the UK. To a country which has a *very* loose extradition treaty with the country he is saying is out to get him. To a country which has many many US military bases. To a country which was actively involved in extraordinary rendition.
Yeah, I know many people already think he's as stupid as a ball of mud, but even he isn't that stupid. The political claims didn't start until much much later.
But still people seem to fall for it...
Last edited by moo
on Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:53 am, edited 1 time in total.