back to article UK: 'We're legally bound to arrest Mr Assange'

The UK's Foreign Secretary has refused to rule out storming the Ecuadorian embassy to arrest Julian Assange and pack him off to Sweden. On Tuesday, The Right Honourable William Jefferson Hague met with the vice president of Ecuador over the Assange issue. When questioned about it by the BBC on Wednesday, Hague described the …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Anonymous Coward

Oh for fecks sake

William Hague's gone even further down in my estimation. We're a country that's in a huge amount of debt, and we're pissing money away surrounding an embassy to try to arrest a citizen of another country who's wanted in a different country. If there was ever time for a bit of calculated police incompetence, it was now.

For example:

"Oh shit, he escaped while we went for a kebab*", or something of the likes.

He's not been charged with a crime, the Swedes can't be arsed to come over here to interview him, so fuck them. The whole situation smells badly of a US conspiracy anyway. Then Ecuador offered Sweden and the UK an out in terms of having to deal with the fuckwit, and we're not taking it!?? Instead we're pissing off the international community by sabre-rattling like a bunch of dicks.

Our own judicial system's clogged up enough as it is without worrying about a pair of Swedish broads who are engaging in a game of "he said"/"she said" at the behest of the US government - as I said, if the Swedes truly gave a fuck they'd have come over here and interviewed him, and subsequently charged him, instead of pissing about.

Arrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh this makes me sooooo mad.

111
29
Anonymous Coward

Re: Oh for fecks sake

Just in case there was any doubt about who wears the pants (and who the skirt) in the "special relationship".

35
10
Anonymous Coward

Re: Oh for fecks sake

That's some nice rape apology you've got going on there.

Fact of the matter is that Swedish criminal law demands that you be given the opportunity to face the prosecutor in an interview immediately prior to being charged with a crime - it gives you the chance to face your accuser and argue why you shouldn't be charged. Julian Assange is wanted for that interview. It follows that it can't happen anywhere other than Sweden, as he will most likely be arrested and charged immediately after the event.

24
36
Silver badge

Re: Oh for fecks sake

> We're a country that's in a huge amount of debt, and we're pissing money away surrounding an embassy to try to arrest a citizen of another country who's wanted in a different country

So you're implying that the UK wouldn't be paying those officers' wages if they were doing something other than surrounding an embassy?

4
21
Anonymous Coward

Re: Oh for fecks sake

Anyone else starting to suspect the el reg comment voting system has been compromised? 25 up votes within an hour and a half on a Thursday evening in a thread with half a dozen replies which have a few votes each...

11
16
Anonymous Coward

Re: Oh for fecks sake

Videoconferencing would allow Assange to face the prosecutor and argue why he shouldn't be charged. If he's happy to face the prosecutor that way, let him. If not, fly the prosecutor over at a cost of a few hundred quid for the airline ticket and however much in day-rate for the prosecutor.

If Assange WAS then charged he'd be a fleeing criminal rather than just a nutjob- not convicted of anything- holed up in an embassy. And the Ecuadorians would want slightly less to do with him as a convicted rapist on the run.

22
7
Bronze badge

Re: wouldn't be paying those officers' wages

No, but we'd be paying for them to do something worth while.

18
2
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: Oh for fecks sake

"That's some nice rape apology you've got going on there."

That's some nice pre-judgement you've got going on there...

27
9
FAIL

Re: Oh for fecks sake

"Fact of the matter is that Swedish criminal law demands that you be given the opportunity to face the prosecutor in an interview immediately prior to being charged with a crime - it gives you the chance to face your accuser and argue why you shouldn't be charged"

Fact of the matter is there is no reason why this could not be done via video link, like Assange and his legal team suggested

18
10
Silver badge
Paris Hilton

Re: Oh for fecks sake

"Fact of the matter is there is no reason why this could not be done via video link, like Assange and his legal team suggested"

Because it's the equivalent for an arrest warrant in the UK, it's how the Swedish legal system works. But maybe they should change all that on the whim of a paranoid egotist's say so?

14
9
gap
FAIL

Re: Oh for fecks sake

No, they would be doing something of benefit to the UK. (or perhaps humanity)

0
2
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Re: Oh for fecks sake

I love how lefty hipsters (e.g. George Galloway, 90% of the commenters here) now tell us that rape is OK if you fink she's gaggin' for it. It's like a seventies plod saying to a woman complaining of rape 'look luv, if you went out in a skirt like that men are going to notice'. Also, it's funny how Sweden is now a fascist state.

I don't know what Julian Assange did or didn't do, but it's eye opening what some people are arguing.

13
13

Re: Oh for fecks sake

"I love how lefty hipsters"

I reserve the right to ignore any comment with a party political standpoint of any direction or colour (color?) because they are clearly stem from prejudice.

7
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: Oh for fecks sake

For a particularly idiotic post, too.

1
1
(Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

Voting system

It's not entirely surprising given that the number of votes is a tiny fraction of the number of visits to the article.

Also, it was posted late on a Thursday evening UK time, but daytime US time.

C.

5
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Oh for fecks sake

By using an idiotic generalisation like "left hipsters" you pretty much ensure that most people won't read your comment beyond said phrase.

7
2
Silver badge

Re: Oh for fecks sake

@Magnus_Pym

Fair enough. Replace 'lefty hipsters' with 'sanctimonious cumstains'.

7
6
Anonymous Coward

Re: Oh for fecks sake

Sometimes wearing the skirt and getting a good rogering is not so bad.

3
5

This post has been deleted by its author

Silver badge
Stop

Re: Oh for fecks sake

"Storming the embassy to snatch Assange could open other countries to taking a similarly relaxed view to the legitimacy of British diplomatic premises."

It won't BE an embassy if its diplomatic status is withdrawn. Is this really too hard to grasp:

The Embassy would be closed down because it is being used for a purpose other than the intended one.

Embassy staff are asked to leave the country and have their diplomatic accreditation withdrawn.

It ceases to be an Embassy.

People leave.

Julian is in a building. The police arrest him.

Simples.

Furthermore, Vienna Convention permits the use of Diplomatic Bags for carrying diplomatic papers. There is really no such thing as 'diplomatic freight', unless it composes of papers. Sure: It gets mis-used and plenty of other stuff has been smuggled via diplomatic bags. However, the UK would be well within their rights to search a big Assange-shaped parcel with 'diplomatic bag' stamped on it.

6
8

Re: Oh for fecks sake

How dishonest - nobody in the conversation has rationalised rape. Your use of this dishonest, strawman, shaming tactic argument form, says a lot about the strength of your core position

9
3
Silver badge
WTF?

@Graham Marsden Re: Oh for fecks sake

"That's some nice rape apology you've got going on there."

That's some nice pre-judgement you've got going on there...

-=-

FFS, Really?

Are you now denying that Assange hadn't had his day in court where he was allowed to appeal the EAW?

Clearly he isn't going to be tried in Britain for an alleged crime he committed in Sweden, right?

Are you saying that he should have to face his accusers?

3
2
Silver badge
Boffin

@Ian Michael Gumby - Re: @Graham Marsden Oh for fecks sake

FFS can you not understand that he has *NOT* yet even been charged with rape let alone *CONVICTED* of it?

To say that this is "rape apology" is to totally fail to comprehend the situation.

5
3
WTF?

Re: Oh for fecks sake

I thought the alleged offence was failure to wear a condom. When did it become rape?

4
3
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Oh for fecks sake

@Ian Johnston - maybe you should read what the *four* complaints/investigations are for, of which yours is only one?

2
1
FAIL

Re: Oh for fecks sake

Furthermore, Vienna Convention permits the use of Diplomatic Bags for carrying diplomatic papers. There is really no such thing as 'diplomatic freight', unless it composes of papers ...... However, the UK would be well within their rights to search a big Assange-shaped parcel with 'diplomatic bag' stamped on it.

Wrong. The UK grubberment doesn't think so either, in fact they weren't too pleased when the Zimbabwean grubberement opened a six-tonne freight delivery intended for the British mission in Harare.

While you're at it have a look at the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (pdf), article 27. Not only is the diplomatic bag inviolable, but the courier (including temporary couriers) is also so protected, "The diplomatic courier, who shall be provided with an official document indicating his status and the number of packages constituting the diplomatic bag, shall be protected by the receiving State in the performance of his functions. He shall enjoy person inviolability and shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention".

Good to see that like that idiot Hague you don't let facts interfere with your opinion.

6
3
FAIL

@Graham Marsden - Re: @Ian Michael Gumby - @Graham Marsden Oh for fecks sake

"FFS can you not understand that he has *NOT* yet even been charged with rape let alone *CONVICTED* of it?"

Can you not understand he has to go to Sweden before he can be charged. Thats why they want him.

6
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Oh for fecks sake

Whilst I have very little time for that (IMHO) idiot Galloway, what he said about previous consent was not completely without some merit. What I say below is deliberately intended to provoke some thought.

I listened on Radio 4 to a representative from an organization campaigning for women's rights. It's gone from iPlayer now, so I can't get her name or who she represented, but the main idea of her point was that every insertion needs explicit consent (this was her language, and she used the words penis, willy and vagina before 18:00 on national radio, which simultaneously got her some respect from me, and also made me wonder what sort of adult uses 'willy' nowadays.)

Anyway. I know that I am nothing like the worlds best lover, but during a sexual act, I often completely withdraw, change position, and re-engage. If you take what this interviewee said as a definition of rape, then each time we change position, I would have to ask whether I still had permission to continue. And if I were to slip out or engage in some deep-thrusting that involves out-and-in-again, as seems enjoyable to my partner, I would need consent each time. So this is how it could go

Me: OK?

Partner: Yes,

Thrust, withdraw

Me: OK?

Partner: Yes

Thrust, withdraw

...repeat for a while...

Me: OK?

Partner :Yes YES oh YES! (she IS quicker than me - really)

Thrust, withdraw

Me: OK? ... OK? ...

Thrust

Partner: You rapist! You didn't wait for me to say yes!

OK, this is taking what was said literally, but lawyers are paid to take arguments to the extreme, and if her definition of rape and not-rape is correct, this is what could be argued.

Now Assange thinks that waking up in the same bed as a partner who was willing the previous night gives him automatic consent. It's a difficult question, and could be taken both ways. I certainly would not want to have to wake my wife up to ask, when she has enjoyed this different sort of wake up call in the past, but from what I remember hearing, Assange, fool that he is, used a condom or two the previous night, but did not in the morning. That's stupid, and shows no respect for the other person. In these days of incurable STIs, then rape may not be an unreasonable charge, although if there was an STI involved, assault, possibly with actual bodily harm (in English law, I don't know about Sweden) may be more appropriate (I sit back and wait to be flamed from both sides.)

The other thing that looks strange to me is that both women concerned appear not to have gone to the police immediately. I know that they may have needed some time to pluck up the courage and consider the implications of raising a rape accusation, but if you are trying to get something against a promiscuous person to get them into custody, how long would it take to find a participant in a one-night stand and offer them enough money so that they would lie about whether there was morning-after sex at all or whether it was by consent. I'm not saying that this is what happened, but you could manipulate a system like this to get someone into custody whether they were guilty or not. And once in custody..........

3
3
Bronze badge

Re: Oh for fecks sake

Right... and you're fine when this interpretation is applied by other governments to our embassies?

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: @Graham Marsden Oh for fecks sake

The answer is simple.

Assange claims the rape allegations are a smokescreen to extradite him to the US. Sweden denies this.

All Sweden needs to do therefore, is give an assurance he won't face extradition to any third country once he goes to Sweden. The two one night stands get their day in court and Assange isn't put on a CIA flight to a torture gulag. Everyone gets what they publicly claim they want. Ecuador has already suggested this, but the Swedes refuse.

Any idea why that might be? .

3
4
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Oh for fecks sake

"I thought the alleged offence was failure to wear a condom. When did it become rape?" Regardless of the original offence in Sweden, A$$nut is now a wanted criminal as he has skipped bail here in the UK.

2
5
Silver badge
Stop

Re: Re: @Graham Marsden Oh for fecks sake

".....All Sweden needs to do therefore, is give an assurance he won't face extradition...." OMG! How many different ways do you A$$nut groupies need it explained to you that it would be ILLEGAL for the Swedish government to give such an assurance. How thick are you lot?

1
6
Anonymous Coward

Re: diodesign

True, but I wonder how many of those up-votes were from accounts whose current IP address also happens to be that of a TOR exit node.

0
0

Re: Anyone else starting to suspect the el reg comment voting system has been compromised?

Hey troll! Go back to reddit.

Voting system is working just fine here. The slight inconvenience where you are taken from the thread to a separate page, and then have to click back makes one have to think before one votes. It discourages the casual upvoting/downvoting depending on whether you agree or disagree, and makes it a more deliberate matter.

You earned those downvotes because of the insidious, manipulative and deceptive nature of your comments.

2
1
Silver badge
Boffin

@Matthew 25 Re: @Graham Marsden - @Ian Michael Gumby - @Graham Marsden Oh for fecks sake

The point is that the claims of "rape apology" are nonsense since it hasn't yet been determined, even under the extremely broad Swedish law, that it *was* rape.

2
1
Silver badge
WTF?

@Graham Marsden Re: @Ian Michael Gumby - @Graham Marsden Oh for fecks sake

It seems that you don't understand the situation.

With respect to the EAW, Assange had his day in court. That were there an issue of Political Asylum, it would have been addressed by the courts in Britain. The fact is that his attorneys raised this issue in their third attempt to appeal the EAW. Are you now saying that Ecuador is actually a better judge of what constitutes a need for political asylum? That's exactly what you and everyone else who supports Assange and Ecuador is saying.

GB, Sweden are not capable of respecting the rights of an individual and face persecution.

Clearly that is not the case. Assange was afforded his rights within GB and appealed the EAW.

Assange lost all 3 appeals.

FFS, you live in a country where you don't understand the simple laws of the country. You're making the public schools in the US look better and better every day.

3
5
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: @Graham Marsden Oh for fecks sake

"All Sweden needs to do therefore, is give an assurance he won't face extradition to any third country once he goes to Sweden"

And for the 7 billionth time, they *can't* and Assange's team know this. They could "assure" all they like, but it wouldn't be a legal agreement as he's effectively asking for immunity from any further prosecution, regardless of what it is. The Swedish courts can't make a decision on a hypothetical, non-existent extradition order. Common sense should tell you this, it would be a weird and fucked up legal system that allowed you to make a decision in advance of a question.

2
0
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: @Graham Marsden @Ian Michael Gumby - @Graham Marsden Oh for fecks sake

"It seems that you don't understand the situation."

It seems you're moving the goalposts. I was referring to the OP's claim of "rape apology". Until he has been *CONVICTED* of rape (even under Sweden's extremely broad laws) there has been no "apology" because there has been no judgement that there even *was* a rape (unless you agree with the "all men are rapists" feminist who seems to have been the instigator of this nonsense).

FFS you can't even comprehend what's being discussed...

2
3
Silver badge
Boffin

@Cap'n Re: @Graham Marsden Oh for fecks sake

To answer your question...

Because under the existing EU treaties, they already assure that in order to honor a third country's extradition request both countries (GB and Sweden) would have to agree. This would afford Assange two countries legal systems and appeals processes. Not to mention the EU as a third set of courts. This would mean years of freedom while he potentially abuses 3 legal systems in the process.

So he already has that protection.

But he isn't asking for that. He is asking to not be extradited to the US period, when there are no charges being brought by the US. He is essentially asking for a blanket immunity from any potential prosecution that could be raised in the future.

This has been discussed in depth, yet Assnut's supporters seem to ignore this and still think this whole thing is just about questioning him. He is going to be charged.

2
1
Silver badge
Boffin

@GM. Re: @Matthew 25 @Graham Marsden - @Ian Michael Gumby - @Graham Marsden Oh for fecks sake

And my point is that Assange is accused of rape, fled jurisdiction, appealed the EAW, lost and then jumped bail.

FFS, how many times does it take for the simple point is that under Swedish law, they have to follow procedure and question him before they charge him, so he has to go back to Sweden so that they can charge him w rape.

When you say 'determined that is was rape', you ar talking about haviing a trial,

Or do you mean that Ny who is the prosecutor doesn't think that there is enough evidence to charge him w rape yet perjured herself in British courts? Really?

2
3

Re: @Ian Michael Gumby

"Are you now saying that Ecuador is actually a better judge of what constitutes a need for political asylum?"

So you are saying that once England, and her legal system, decides that someone with Assange's past doesn't have a claim for political asylum there and must be extradited to Sweden, that the 200 other nations on the planet are obliged to accept the English court's opinion on the matter and also not offer him asylum in their countries and embassies?

Condescend much?

1
2
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: @Matthew 25 @Graham Marsden - @Ian Michael Gumby - @Graham Marsden Oh for fecks sake

"The point is that the claims of "rape apology" are nonsense since it hasn't yet been determined..." True, but it must be very hard for even a blinkered troll like yourself to deny he jumped bail, which is a seperate offence. It is also impossible for anyone but a completely blinkered A$$nut groupie like yourself to deny that A$$nut had a full and transparent legal process regarding the EAW action.

1
1

Re: Oh for fecks sake

'@Magnus_Pym

Fair enough. Replace 'lefty hipsters' with 'sanctimonious cumstains'.'

Lefty hipster cumstains will do nicely, thank you

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100177730/in-their-worship-of-julian-assange-the-standard-bearers-of-the-left-are-destroying-everything-they-once-held-dear/

1
0
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: Re: Oh for fecks sake

The Left's abandonment of the values they claim to hold dear is nothing new. For a perfect example you only have to look at Archbishop Desmond Tutu, once held up as a beacon of hope to many during the fight against Apartheid. Since Mandela's release, Tutu has gone off the deep end in a quest to maintain some relevance, shouting stridently at journalists whenever they can be bothered to listen. Tutu's latest flight from reality is a demand that Bush and Blair stand trial for invading Iraq. Of course, Tutu's sudden enthusiasm for such an action has nothing to do with deflecting interest from his political buddies in the ANC being in hot water over the shooting of black miners. And no, you mustn't compare the events at Marikana to Sharpsville, that comparison would be so un-PC! And you definately mustn't ask how come those ANC leaders that promised the poor SA blacks so much would change are now so happy to be working with exactly the same platinum mining company as used to work with the old Apartheid regime, and was part of the old Lonrho group that were caught sanctions-busting to Rhodesia.

0
4
Silver badge

Re: @Matthew 25 @Graham Marsden - @Ian Michael Gumby - @Graham Marsden Oh for fecks sake

""The point is that the claims of "rape apology" are nonsense since it hasn't yet been determined..." True,"

Well at least I've got *you* to agree with that, now can you persuade your fellow "blinkered troll" Mr Gumby to accept that?

All the rest of your post (and his) is irrelevant to that point.

0
0
Silver badge
Black Helicopters

Re: Oh for fecks sake

"Wrong."

Capitals don't make you right.

In case you didn't notice, Ecuador got caught by Italy sending 40kg of Coke through diplomatic bags earlier this year, and didn't complain. Britain complained because it was legitimate diplomatic baggage and they were not being naughty. But there are plenty of things that you are NOT allowed to send through diplomatic baggage. Like Julian Assange.

"While you're at it have a look at the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (pdf), article 27. Not only is the diplomatic bag inviolable, but the courier (including temporary couriers) is also so protected"

What the hell has that got to do with anything. Assange isn't a courier. Nobody mentioned a courier. Ecuador can't just make him a courier because that's not how it works. Sheesh.

Really: Learn what you're talking about. Please.

1
2
Vic
Silver badge

Re: @Matthew 25 @Graham Marsden - @Ian Michael Gumby - @Graham Marsden Oh for fecks sake

> now can you persuade your fellow "blinkered troll" Mr Gumby to accept that?

You'll have to persuade him that Oracle isn't going to win beelions off Google in their little legal spat first...

Vic.

0
0
Happy

careful!

Lines like "Satan will have to drive to work in a snow plough." could cause damage to a keyboard!

6
0
Boffin

The Right Honourable William Jefferson Hague

does go on and on, does he right honourably not ? But does anybody in his right honourable mind listen to what the Right Honourable William Jefferson Hague has to say ?...

Henri

19
3

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums