Noshow wrote:

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.

Is there such a thing as a "secret arrest warrant"?

BestWestern wrote:

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.

Quite right too, IMHO.

BestWestern wrote:

“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.”

Good that she can see the wood for the trees!

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

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, that's an interestingly nuanced rant not supported by the facts.

Would you care to review previous posts in this and other Assange related threads yourself for refutation, or would you like me to waste my time yet again on proving rubbish like this wrong? All your points have been thoroughly destroyed previously.

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

Count 4 of the European Arrest Warrant explicitly set a charge of rape against Assange.

Please read the UK High Court ruling issued on the 2nd November 2011, its discussed at great length in that document.

The link to that ruling is provided by myself in an earlier post in this thread - I won't repost it, because I hope against hope that by making you go and find it by scrolling back through this thread, you might read some of the other informative posts in this thread.

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

Count 4 of the European Arrest Warrant explicitly set a charge of rape against Assange.

Please read the UK High Court ruling issued on the 2nd November 2011, its discussed at great length in that document.

The link to that ruling is provided by myself in an earlier post in this thread - I won't repost it, because I hope against hope that by making you go and find it by scrolling back through this thread, you might read some of the other informative posts in this thread.

olle wrote:

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.

This "central point" has been addressed by UK courts and Swedish law doesn't differ at all from UK law in this regard - for the EAW to stand, the concept of dual criminality has to be proven, each count issued in the EAW must also be a substantially similar crime under Uk law.

Multiple UK courts have ruled dual criminality exists for all 4 counts issued against Assange.

It's amazing what you discover when you read the actual court rulings, rather than rely on what Pro-Assange idiots spout...

In a new development, Ecuador have blamed for failed mediation on Assange situation, saying that the UK was unwilling to enter talks at all.

Which isn't surprising - what exactly is there to mediate? The courts have ruled that the outstanding charge against Assange is still valid, in the public interest and enforceable, so why should the UK government enter any talks about any outcome other than Assange ending up in UK custody?

Ecuador are smoking the whacky baccy here...

Multiple news outlets are reporting that Assanges time in the Ecuadorean embassy is about to come to an end, with Ecuador about to withdraw asylum and eject Assange...

moo wrote:

Multiple news outlets are reporting that Assanges time in the Ecuadorean embassy is about to come to an end, with Ecuador about to withdraw asylum and eject Assange...

Gracias a los ecuatorianos

moo wrote:

Multiple news outlets are reporting that Assanges time in the Ecuadorean embassy is about to come to an end, with Ecuador about to withdraw asylum and eject Assange...

I'm surprised it took this long. Will be interesting to see what happens.

Assange is finally going to get the justice he deserves.

With WikiLeaks working as an extension to Russian secret services perhaps he starts to create too much problems for equador?

Aesma wrote:

From what I could find almost 70,000 criminals a year are jumping bail in the UK. Almost as many as people actually in jail.

But I bet none of those embarrassed the US government.

The bloke wasn't trying to escape some rape charge, he was being setup for a govermental crusification.

Some of you make it sound so simple.. " he didn't show up to face his charge of rape"

As Scrimbl once expressed - what bollocks.

As far as I'm concerned, the US government isn't held to account for its actions, I have no sympathy for them when it comes to Assange

moo wrote:

Multiple news outlets are reporting that Assanges time in the Ecuadorean embassy is about to come to an end, with Ecuador about to withdraw asylum and eject Assange...

Wikipedia writes the following about Assange:

On 28 March 2018, Ecuador cut Assange's Internet connection at its London embassy "in order to prevent any potential harm." Officials said Assange's recent social media posts denouncing the arrest of a Catalonian separatist leader "put at risk" Ecuador's relations with European nations. Assange is now silent on social media.

It seems like the special guest in the Equadorian Embassy after well over six years is beginning to smell.

In a twist that can only be described as a step into the sublime and absurd, Assange has sued the Ecuadorean government in the Ecuadorean courts, accusing them of "violating his human rights" over their restrictions on his visitors, internet and speech.

This bloke well outstayed his welcome, how soon until he gets escorted off the premises...?

moo wrote:

In a twist that can only be described as a step into the sublime and absurd, Assange has sued the Ecuadorean government in the Ecuadorean courts, accusing them of "violating his human rights" over their restrictions on his visitors, internet and speech.

This bloke well outstayed his welcome, how soon until he gets escorted off the premises...?

All of this is quite absurd. This should be settled quite fast and Assange should be deported to a country of his choosing. How long has he been in that embassy? 4 years or so? This isn't due process anymore by the UK government.

Dutchy wrote:

moo wrote:

In a twist that can only be described as a step into the sublime and absurd, Assange has sued the Ecuadorean government in the Ecuadorean courts, accusing them of "violating his human rights" over their restrictions on his visitors, internet and speech.

This bloke well outstayed his welcome, how soon until he gets escorted off the premises...?

All of this is quite absurd. This should be settled quite fast and Assange should be deported to a country of his choosing. How long has he been in that embassy? 4 years or so? This isn't due process anymore by the UK government.

Assange is avoiding a valid arrest warrant issued by a UK court - this is completely legitimate "due process". You can't simply avoid a UK warrant because you want to - he should never have skipped bail.

It doesn't matter how long he has been in the embassy, he's there by his own choice and not for any reason imposed on him, so why should we have sympathy for him?

Dutchy wrote:

This isn't due process anymore by the UK government.

You'll find is it's the epitome of due process and the Judiciary is not the UK government.

Assange suspended 'due process' when he 'Failed to surrender' as per his bail instructions and hid in an embassy.
'Due process' will continue once he leaves, as he'll be picked up on the arrest warrant that was issued, when he chose to abscond.

Don't conflate the different charges, Failure to surrender is a separate offence and one the courts take seriously.

Assange is free to surrender himself or leave the embassy.
Assange chose to abscond, an arrest warrant was issued and is still valid for that suspected crime.
Once the outstanding warrant is fulfilled, due process will continue and he can have his say in court, should the crown prosecution decide to charge him for failure to surrender.

Due process will also continue on any other outstanding charges, warrants or extradition requests (if any).

moo wrote:

In a twist that can only be described as a step into the sublime and absurd, Assange has sued the Ecuadorean government in the Ecuadorean courts, accusing them of "violating his human rights" over their restrictions on his visitors, internet and speech.

Hopefully the Ecuadorians will just tire of him and kick him out.

Dutchy wrote:

All of this is quite absurd. This should be settled quite fast and Assange should be deported to a country of his choosing. How long has he been in that embassy? 4 years or so? This isn't due process anymore by the UK government.

Sorry, Dutchy. You normally talk sense, but on this issue I feel you're wrong. Assange chose to run and hide from justice. Passing of time doesn't change that.

KLDC10 wrote:

mbmbos wrote:

Not to go off-topic too much, but there's a bit of a gulf between what you describe above and the way that then-President Obama commuted Bradley Manning's 35-year sentence shortly before leaving office. I'm struggling to see how he was able to reconcile the two things. You're right, of course, about the fact that his administration went after whistle-blowers, but based on his commutation of Manning, I wonder if it was an issue he was genuinely conflicted about.

I struggle to see his commuting of Manning's sentence as anything other than a PR move. Commuting a sentence (remember, Manning wasn't pardonned) had no cost to him, he managed to chalk up a pro-whistleblower and pro-trans move in one go, and future presidents are extremely unlikely to try to undo it. This was so low effort I don't think there's much to reconcile here.

Assange is yesterday’s news and a puppet of Russia. He skipped bail, and should just do his time now - at least in jail he doesn’t have to clean his bathroom.

scbriml wrote:

Sorry, Dutchy. You normally talk sense, but on this issue I feel you're wrong. Assange chose to run and hide from justice. Passing of time doesn't change that.

I respect your opinion. I feel all things should be in balance and thinks can be dropped.

BestWestern wrote:

Assange is yesterday’s news and a puppet of Russia. He skipped bail, and should just do his time now - at least in jail he doesn’t have to clean his bathroom.

A classic 'useful idiot' and a nasty piece of work too. Those of the left who may still back him, why has he been so keen to meet Nigel Farage, who has earlier this year been seen at the Embassy.

Notice how his circle of friends/helpers, some well known, soon got smaller. Usually after having to meet/deal with him.
Still, Pamela Anderson still holds a torch for him it seems.

Dutchy wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Sorry, Dutchy. You normally talk sense, but on this issue I feel you're wrong. Assange chose to run and hide from justice. Passing of time doesn't change that.

I respect your opinion. I feel all things should be in balance and thinks can be dropped.

So in your mind it's perfectly fine to avoid a legitimate grounds for your arrest by hiding somewhere of your choosing? That's not balance, not by any measure.

moo wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Sorry, Dutchy. You normally talk sense, but on this issue I feel you're wrong. Assange chose to run and hide from justice. Passing of time doesn't change that.

I respect your opinion. I feel all things should be in balance and thinks can be dropped.

So in your mind it's perfectly fine to avoid a legitimate grounds for your arrest by hiding somewhere of your choosing? That's not balance, not by any measure.

Nuances are important and not just black and white reasoning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_As ... s'_opinion

Dutchy wrote:

moo wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

I respect your opinion. I feel all things should be in balance and thinks can be dropped.

So in your mind it's perfectly fine to avoid a legitimate grounds for your arrest by hiding somewhere of your choosing? That's not balance, not by any measure.

Nuances are important and not just black and white reasoning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_As ... s'_opinion

What nuances?

The opinion of a court that the UK has never recognised nor been a member of isn't exactly relevant here... that court can't tell the UK what time to go to bed, let alone what they can do on their own soil with a fugitive.

moo wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

moo wrote:

So in your mind it's perfectly fine to avoid a legitimate grounds for your arrest by hiding somewhere of your choosing? That's not balance, not by any measure.

Nuances are important and not just black and white reasoning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_As ... s'_opinion

What nuances?

The opinion of a court that the UK has never recognised nor been a member of isn't exactly relevant here... that court can't tell the UK what time to go to bed, let alone what they can do on their own soil with a fugitive.

How many people does the UK procecute with the same pressure for the same charge? None? Zero? Has never happend before? Thought so...
He is persecuted for political reasons only and that is crystal clear. 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. The UK violated diplomatic immunity just last month. It's basically on record it will act like Saudi Arabia. Assage is illegally retained, the ECtHR court has rules decades ago that being able to leave any time matters jack shit for that qualification. Ignoring the UN ruling that he is illegally detained is nothing but saying Khashoggi wasnt murdered as long as what happened is legal under Saudi law, since he voluntarily entered the Embassy.
The European human right court has already rules that mass survailance is illegal, the UK is just a criminal trying to get ahold of a key witness and Ecuador provides witness protection.

Best regards
Thomas

Dutchy wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Sorry, Dutchy. You normally talk sense, but on this issue I feel you're wrong. Assange chose to run and hide from justice. Passing of time doesn't change that.

I respect your opinion. I feel all things should be in balance and thinks can be dropped.

They may very well be, but you should understand, this cannot be done until he surrenders himself and/or the warrant is fulfilled.
This whole shebang ends one of two ways,
he either takes a trip down to the station where he can be formally charged/formally notified charges have been dropped
or when he shuffles off this mortal coil.

You can't just drop charges the whim of a dutchman, due process and all that!

ChrisKen wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Sorry, Dutchy. You normally talk sense, but on this issue I feel you're wrong. Assange chose to run and hide from justice. Passing of time doesn't change that.

I respect your opinion. I feel all things should be in balance and thinks can be dropped.

They may very well be, but you should understand, this cannot be done until he surrenders himself and/or the warrant is fulfilled.
This whole shebang ends one of two ways,
he either takes a trip down to the station where he can be formally charged/formally notified charges have been dropped
or when he shuffles off this mortal coil.

You can't just drop charges the whim of a dutchman, due process and all that!

Are you saying that within UK law, there is no possibility to drop these charges without the suspect being present?
Seems quite strange to me, in most framework for a rule of law of a country, there is a provision to convict someone in absence. Isn't that the case in the UK? Assange must have a lawyer to represent him in this case. I am quite sure that it could be done if the will is there to do so, unless you have some convincing argument that that isn't the case in the UK and therefore is not in line with outer rule of law.

tommy1808 wrote:

How many people does the UK procecute with the same pressure for the same charge? None? Zero? Has never happend before? Thought so...

People are arrested, charged and prosecuted for failing to surrender pretty much every day. (colloquially, 'skipping bail' 'skipping a court date')

Outstanding warrants are outstanding warrants, these remain outstanding until they're fulfilled or are no longer valid. People are arrested daily on outstanding warrants.

And just so we're clear. Unlike some countries where being arrested equals guilty, here being arrested allows police extra powers to investigate a suspected crime. After that is investigated, the decision is then made to charge/not charge for the offence.

Assange has an outstanding warrant for the suspected offence of failure to surrender to his bail conditions, ie he absconded. The warrant will remain in force until he surrenders/arrested.

Failure to surrender is an offence taken seriously by the UK courts.

tommy1808 wrote:

he is illegally detained
Thomas

It was his choice to hole himself up at the Ecuadorian embassy.

tommy1808 wrote:

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).

tommy1808 wrote:

He is persecuted for political reasons only and that is crystal clear.

Sorry Tommy, I don't subscribe to that load of cows dung.

tommy1808 wrote:

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.

tommy1808 wrote:

The UK violated diplomatic immunity just last month.

Oh, how? Please do fill us in.

tommy1808 wrote:

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!

tommy1808 wrote:

Assage is illegally retained,

No he isn't.

tommy1808 wrote:

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.

tommy1808 wrote:

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.

tommy1808 wrote:

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.

tommy1808 wrote:

The European human right court has already rules that mass survailance is illegal,

Which has no bearing on this case.

tommy1808 wrote:

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.

tommy1808 wrote:

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...

Dutchy wrote:

Are you saying that within UK law, there is no possibility to drop these charges without the suspect being present?

You are quite right, in the UK warrants and charges can be dropped at any time, regardless of the availability of the target of those warrants and charges.

Dutchy wrote:

Seems quite strange to me, in most framework for a rule of law of a country, there is a provision to convict someone in absence. Isn't that the case in the UK?

Trial in absentia does exist in English and Welsh law, however its a rare thing and there is no reason it needs to be enacted in a case of absconding from bail.

The charges can lie on file for as long as the judiciary want - and in most cases that period is the period of absentia of the defendant.

moo wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Are you saying that within UK law, there is no possibility to drop these charges without the suspect being present?

You are quite right, in the UK warrants and charges can be dropped at any time, regardless of the availability of the target of those warrants and charges.

Dutchy wrote:

Seems quite strange to me, in most framework for a rule of law of a country, there is a provision to convict someone in absence. Isn't that the case in the UK?

Trial in absentia does exist in English and Welsh law, however its a rare thing and there is no reason it needs to be enacted in a case of absconding from bail.

The charges can lie on file for as long as the judiciary want - and in most cases that period is the period of absentia of the defendant.

Ok, ChrisKen is wrong in his assertions, if the UK desires so, it could stop this at any time if they wanted to. Then I repeat it that I think it is time for the UK government do so. It serves no purpose anymore, and if you say, well people should be held accountable for this, I would say sitting in an embassy for as long as mr. Assange has done is punishment enough. This is an exceptional case, so making an exemption for this seems quite natural for me.

Dutchy wrote:

Then I repeat it that I think it is time for the UK government do so. It serves no purpose anymore, and if you say, well people should be held accountable for this, I would say sitting in an embassy for as long as mr. Assange has done is punishment enough.

Nope, I disagree with this - Assange had, until he upset his hosts enough, free access to the internet, mail and visitors and could essentially do what he wanted with regard to his political aspirations, including interfering in the British vote on the EU and the US Presidential elections, including potentially inciting someone or multiple people to commit a crime.

In no way is Assanges time in the embassy equivalent to any punishment enacted upon him involuntarily.

That is why this needs to be continued to be pursued.

As someone else put it on another site last week - Assanges greatest fear right now is not that he will be thrown out of the Ecuadorian embassy and subsequently extradited to the US, its that he will be thrown out of the embassy, dealt with by the British courts for his bail offences, and then (either via Sweden or not, depending on whether they decide to re-activate the last allegation against him that hasn't passed the statute of limitations), deported to either Australia or Ecuador (as he won't typically have a say in where he will be deported to, it will just be somewhere that cannot refuse him due to citizenship).

That is his greatest fear - the world just shrugging and laughing at him as his grand claims about a multinational conspiracy against him turns out to be nothing at all.

A number of people have pointed out that there can't be sealed warrants against him in the US, waiting for him to pop back up - in the US, sealed warrants require a grand jury to sit and still be sitting for the entire period the warrant is valid (and a Judge is required to reauthorise the grand jury on a regular basis, something like 6 months).

Which would mean that there would have to have been a grand jury sitting for several years now, and no such grand jury has sat for that long.

moo wrote:

s someone else put it on another site last week - Assanges greatest fear right now is not that he will be thrown out of the Ecuadorian embassy and subsequently extradited to the US, its that he will be thrown out of the embassy, dealt with by the British courts for his bail offences, and then (either via Sweden or not, depending on whether they decide to re-activate the last allegation against him that hasn't passed the statute of limitations), deported to either Australia or Ecuador (as he won't typically have a say in where he will be deported to, it will just be somewhere that cannot refuse him due to citizenship).

If that is the case, the UK can just let him go by retracting the warrant. Let's see what happens.

Dutchy wrote:

Ok, ChrisKen is wrong in his assertions,

The police will want to interview Assange in relation to him absconding, that interview will be under conducted under caution ie after being arrested.
The case is highly unlikely to be closed without interviewing the accused.

If that is the case, the UK can just let him go by retracting the warrant.

The warrant is highly unlikely to be withdrawn as it's a serious offence, Assange's whereabouts are known so the likelihood of Assange being arrested remains realistic, there are no significant changes in circumstances and the 'victim's' (Westminster magistrates court) views have not changed. These conditions are the same as the when the previous request to withdraw was refused.
I doubt the Dutch courts would just say "meh, whatever" either.

Assange WILL be arrested on that outstanding warrant for failing to attend court in accordance with his bail conditions.

I would say sitting in an embassy for as long as mr. Assange has done is punishment enough.

Assange chose to sit there, as he still chooses to sit there in an attempt to evade outstanding potential charges. Zero sympathy.

All the gutless wonder has to do is leave the embassy he chose to hide in. He'll get arrested, do his interview and then it's down to the CPS as to whether any relating charges will follow. No, he probably won't get bail if charged due to his previous absconsion but what's a couple of days in the cells? By his own accounts, those are somewhere with preferable conditions to where he's chosen to hide at the moment. Trying to sue the hosts that have put up with his antics for years, what a lovely fella!

ChrisKen wrote:

All the gutless wonder has to do is leave the embassy he chose to hide in.

Are you sure your opinion in this matter isn't clouded by your personal opinion about this man? I think Assange has gone to far with WikiLeaks, so I don't feel to much sympathy for him. On the other hand, I think the UK should be more reasonable and in this process, they have gone too far to. So I would say just drop it and see what will happen.

Dutchy wrote:

Are you sure your opinion in this matter isn't clouded by your personal opinion about this man?

Nope, my opinion isn't clouded. I'm old enough and ugly enough to separate personal opinion from process.

I think the UK should be more reasonable and in this process, they have gone too far

That opinion isn't shared by me, many others or indeed, the courts (the latter being the opinion that matters). Unless there's a major shift, Westminster Magistrates & the Met are saying those potential charges still remain to be investigated and due process served.

Assange remains in 'hiding' to any avoid potential charges. The fact he remains so adds to my already low opinion of him but the fact remains, those potential charges are still there. He needs to face them at some point.

Assange could bring it all to a end within days by growing a pair and handing himself in*. The longer he absconds.......











*He won't though, the guy is a coward.

Dutchy wrote:

ChrisKen wrote:

All the gutless wonder has to do is leave the embassy he chose to hide in.

Are you sure your opinion in this matter isn't clouded by your personal opinion about this man? I think Assange has gone to far with WikiLeaks, so I don't feel to much sympathy for him. On the other hand, I think the UK should be more reasonable and in this process, they have gone too far to. So I would say just drop it and see what will happen.

I completely disagree with this - aside from everything else, Assange broke English law and should face the repercussions for that. He took his case to the highest court in the land and lost and then absconded when required to surrender himself. Like a spoilt child.

Even if nothing else happens, seeing him face justice for absconding would be the ideal outcome here - why should he get away with giving the finger to our courts in the highly visible manner that he did?

moo wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

ChrisKen wrote:

All the gutless wonder has to do is leave the embassy he chose to hide in.

Are you sure your opinion in this matter isn't clouded by your personal opinion about this man? I think Assange has gone to far with WikiLeaks, so I don't feel to much sympathy for him. On the other hand, I think the UK should be more reasonable and in this process, they have gone too far to. So I would say just drop it and see what will happen.

I completely disagree with this - aside from everything else, Assange broke English law and should face the repercussions for that. He took his case to the highest court in the land and lost and then absconded when required to surrender himself. Like a spoilt child.

Even if nothing else happens, seeing him face justice for absconding would be the ideal outcome here - why should he get away with giving the finger to our courts in the highly visible manner that he did?

That is fine you disagree with me. Let's leave it with that.

Ecuador throws out Assange court case, says requirements on having to pick up his own cats poo and do his own laundry do not constitute an infringement of his human rights.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-46027963

I thought that suit was one of the loopiest things I had ever heard of.
I suspect he will soon be thrown out on his ass, cat and all.

It’s like my four year olds. Tidy your room and get pocket money.

So, Julian Assange indicted in the US. It has been mistakenly revealed by prosecutors.

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has prepared an indictment against the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, marking a drastic escalation of the government’s yearslong battle with him and his anti-secrecy group.

It was not clear if prosecutors have filed charges against Mr. Assange. The indictment came to light late Thursday through an unrelated court filing in which prosecutors inadvertently mentioned charges against him.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/us/p ... leaks.html

Dutchy wrote:

So, Julian Assange indicted in the US. It has been mistakenly revealed by prosecutors.

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has prepared an indictment against the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, marking a drastic escalation of the government’s yearslong battle with him and his anti-secrecy group.

It was not clear if prosecutors have filed charges against Mr. Assange. The indictment came to light late Thursday through an unrelated court filing in which prosecutors inadvertently mentioned charges against him.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/us/p ... leaks.html

So now, unless/until Ecuador throws him out or he becomes critically ill, Assange will stay in the embassy "for ever".

scbriml wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So, Julian Assange indicted in the US. It has been mistakenly revealed by prosecutors.

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has prepared an indictment against the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, marking a drastic escalation of the government’s yearslong battle with him and his anti-secrecy group.

It was not clear if prosecutors have filed charges against Mr. Assange. The indictment came to light late Thursday through an unrelated court filing in which prosecutors inadvertently mentioned charges against him.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/us/p ... leaks.html

So now, unless/until Ecuador throws him out or he becomes critically ill, Assange will stay in the embassy "for ever".

Probably yes. But it makes clear that mr. Assange wasn't paranoia for refusing to go to Sweden and refusing to put his faith into the UK government.

The wallstreet journal is a little more cautious in their wording on whether or not he's actually been indicted or if it was a draft indictment that is being readied. Eitherway it appears it's going to happen or has happened so the semantics are largely irrelevant.

What does he have on ecuador at this point? Why haven't they thrown him out? Surely there is nothing for them to gain politically here.

It also looks like Mr. Assange made a poor choice by his holing up in the Ecuadoran embassy in his effort to avoid facing charges against him. When he surrenders to the British he will have to acknowledge that he has wasted years of his life spent inside that embassy. I don't think any judge is going to credit him with time served.