back to article Assange: 'Ecuadorian embassy staff are like my family'

Julian Assange has said that the folks at the Ecuadorian embassy in London he currently calls home are like a family to him and he gets lots of visits from very silly people celebrity supporters. You know the old saying: you can choose your friends but clearly you can't choose which types your embassy will offer safe harbour …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Velv
    Mushroom

    The longer he stays a fugitive from Sweden the longer the US have time to trump up a case against him.

    If he'd gone to Sweden a year ago he'd probably have cleared his name by now and we'd all have forgotten about him. But that's not what he wants. He wants to keep his name in the papers, he wants to become a Martyr and be remembered forever.

    He doesn't really care about the leaks, they're just a means to and end in the publicity stakes.

    1. BillG
      Devil

      The longer he stays a fugitive from Sweden the longer the US have time to trump up a case against him.

      Obama wants Assange's ass and he's going to get it and mount it on the wall of the Oval Office.

      1. RealFred

        Good, I hope its soon. Assange is nothing but a self serving, self promoting git

      2. Scorchio!!
        Angel

        Alongside bin Laden's arse! Indeed there are plenty of games to be played... ...oh, but wait, this is a family show.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I lean the opposite direction: if Assange was willing to martyr himself he should have gone to sweden in the hope that the merkins would grab him. getting extradited to the US to face espionage changes would have given him the biggest possible soapbox to spread his message from (not to mention massive world-wide media attention). but by appearing to be avoiding rape charges at all possible costs he's damaged the reputation of wikileaks beyond repair (a situation his narcissism certainly isn't helping).

  2. Elmer Phud

    Family business

    "Julian Assange has said that the folks at the Ecuadorian embassy in London he currently calls home are like a family to him"

    'Julian, when are you going to get off your fat arse and get a proper job'

  3. lglethal Silver badge
    Mushroom

    Just for that statement....

    "I assume the Swedish case will disappear of its own accord in due course"

    You utter f$%kin prick. I hope the swedes when they do finally get you, string you up by the balls!

    1. Anonymous Coward 101

      Re: Just for that statement....

      This always works. Remain a high profile fugitive from justice long enough, and everyone just gives up eventually. Genius.

      1. Scorchio!!
        Happy

        Re: Just for that statement....

        Really?

        Does anyone remember Carlos the Jackal, aka Ilich Ramírez Sánchez? What about the now perhaps less spectacular Ronald Biggs. There are plenty more offenders who thought they could get away with it... ...but if Julie thinks that sitting in an embassy with a high profile will magic away his offences, well he may as well wait for Jesus to come and let him out.

        I have a sack of popcorn standing by for the arrest, prosecution and conviction for jumping bail and thereafter return to Sweden... ...unless of course the British and Americans take the Swedes up on the offer to revoke the EAW, and thereby enable a simple extradition from the UK to the US. After all, we are perfectly aware that the treaty signed by Toni Bliar means that we bend over for Uncle Barack if he wants something.

        Well Julie, I hope that you take a little time to read these words. Let them sink into that seemingly not very highly functioning pre-frontal grey. They are not going away Julie. Do you understand?

    2. Stephen Channell
      Pint

      Well, the Sweedish case will lapse when he dies..

      .. but I guess he's not thinking that far ahead

    3. DiViDeD

      Re: Just for that statement....

      "I hope the swedes when they do finally get you, string you up by the balls!".

      I believe the maximum penalty for 'Sex by Surprise' is a fine of around 5,000 kr, while being strung up by the balls is reserved for more heinous crimes, such as not liking herring.

      1. Scorchio!!
        Happy

        Re: Just for that statement....

        Oh, but Julian does like herring, as do his chorus on these pages; red herring! ;->

  4. Joseph Lord
    Stop

    Even assuming the Swedish allegations are false and are dropped...

    ...there is the matter of breaching his bail conditions in the UK to be dealt with.

    Note that I have no view on whether the Swedish allegations are true or false. If the case requires it I see no reason for him not to be sent back to Sweden to face their justice processes before or after the breach of bail conditions is dealt with in the UK.

    1. SuperTim

      Re: Even assuming the Swedish allegations are false and are dropped...

      Indeed. What he did, in fleeing to the embassy, will require him to be investigated by the British police (no doubt under caution). This will give the US ample opportunity to "suggest" that he needs to be handed over. I don't know if he is a rapist or not, but his self-imposed exile can only end two ways. Death or arrest.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Even assuming the Swedish allegations are false and are dropped...

        This will give the US ample opportunity to "suggest" that he needs to be handed over

        Wow. You conspiracy theorist are getting up earlier and earlier.

        As far as I can tell, the powers that be in the US have long realised that an Assange™ left to his own devices doesn't need any help to knot his own rope so I cannot see anyone so stupid to confirm this increasingly desperate assertions.

        1. Sir Runcible Spoon

          Re: Even assuming the Swedish allegations are false and are dropped...

          "he gets lots of visits from very silly celebrity supporters."

          such as the ones who posted his bail?

        2. SuperTim

          Re: Even assuming the Swedish allegations are false and are dropped...

          explain how pointing out an opportunity means that the US are definitely going to take it. I was merely suggesting that the UK requirement for evidence is so flimsy that the US only has to ask and we would happily hand him over (unless he claims to have aspergers, in which case a 10 year fight will ensue).

          I think that if they had wanted him, they would have got him long before he decided to imprison himself. I personally think he is unhappy at rape thing.

          1. JohnG

            Re: Even assuming the Swedish allegations are false and are dropped...

            "..the US only has to ask and we would happily hand him over.."

            It seems extremely unlikely that the Swedish authorities would agree to this and their claim has precedence.

            1. Scorchio!!
              Happy

              Re: Even assuming the Swedish allegations are false and are dropped...

              ""..the US only has to ask and we would happily hand him over.."

              It seems extremely unlikely that the Swedish authorities would agree to this and their claim has precedence."

              Not so; they offered to drop their business and allow the US to have first go, and extradite from here to there. It is much easier to do this than to negotiate the more complex Swedish and EAW arcana, believe me. By staying in the UK Julie is on top of a hornet's nest, never mind the bail jumping criminal offence.

              1. dogwatch

                Re: Even assuming the Swedish allegations are false and are dropped...

                @Scorchio!!: True. Also, the Swedish allegations have all the signs of a classical honey trap. Knowing where the women - and their counsellor(!) - are coming from, as well as what legal shenanigans took place _before Assange left Sweden, there is no doubt in my mind that Sweden would have gladly extradited Assange to the US. As they are wont to; cf. CIA 'renditions'. As it turned out, Assange outwitted them all. For now...

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Even assuming the Swedish allegations are false and are dropped...

                  Knowing where the women - and their counsellor(!) - are coming from

                  Ah, yes, it's all the women's fault now. They were hoping St Jules used an uncovered pecker so they could accuse him of rape, which is why they told him to use a condom. And conveniently fell asleep. Yup, makes perfect sense.

                  /sarcasm

                  1. Intractable Potsherd

                    Re: Even assuming the Swedish allegations are false and are dropped...

                    And believing the women just because they are women is just as bad.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: Even assuming the Swedish allegations are false and are dropped...

                      And believing the women just because they are women is just as bad.

                      Given that they are the weaker party without wannabe celeb status and lawyers paid by 3rd parties I'd pay attention. But the true test comes in a trial, exactly the thing Assange seems frantically trying to avoid.

    2. Julian Taylor

      Re: Even assuming the Swedish allegations are false and are dropped...

      “It’s interesting to go through this experience and see who walks the walk and who just talks the talk."

      Note to Ecuadorian embassy staff: don't lend the bugger any bail money.

  5. This post has been deleted by its author

  6. Ottman001

    I suspect for what he calls 'like family', the Ecuadorian embassy staff would have chosen a different wording. Can't be easy having an international toss pot hanging about while you're just trying to get on with your work. They probably had no idea what their government was getting them into.

    1. AndyS

      I believe it wasn't their government that got them into it, but the local ambassador, who granted asylum without checking with the higher-ups. While this was within his rights (and hence has to be honoured), if I remember the story right he was later given a dressing-down, and replaced by a new-comer. Who now has to cope with the celebrity hitch-hiker.

      1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

        Andy S,

        No I think that was Snowden. Possibly at the suggestion of Assange, the London embassy said he could have asylum. Which Ecuador then went back on I think - or certainly told the ambassador off. He may have been dumped for that, or for failing to get a deal on Assange with the Foreign Office.

        Assange was in the embassy for at least a month before Ecuador confirmed they'd give asylum. That was after our ambassador botched things out there, and gave them an excuse to play the injured party. Although it may be that the embassy staff should have kicked him out before it became public. But one suggestion was that Assange had already been to the top for his permission, when he interviewed the President for Russia Today.

        All-in-all, not a great advert for diplomacy. Our ambassador shouldn't have left them his written "speaking notes" (often done for clarification), then they'd have had nothing to shout to the press about. But Ecuador took a loud and sanctimonious public position, from which it's very hard to back down. They were hoping we'd do a deal, to get the problem out of our hair, but the FCO don't pay the policing budget, and have no power to just let Assange go, so Ecuador will have to back down (very embarrassing), or put up with him. Maybe buy the next door flat, and extend the embassy?

        1. AndyS

          Thanks for the clarification, I'd forgotten how long Assange was in the embassy before he was granted asylum. All makes for very interesting reading, but with very sad and depressing sub-tones.

          I'd wondered about extending the embassy too - presumably wouldn't be that hard to do, they could always move the real functions of the embassy into the new pad and leave Assange in a part of the old, if that proved easier for them. I've also wondered what scenarios would lead to him eventually leaving - fire? Medical emergency? Lack of funds? Shear boredom? I can't see that last one coming off.

          1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
            Happy

            Well I suppose he's got the whole internet in there with him. So an infinity of cat videos and things to hack should keep him occupied. Perhaps we could break their broadband, and he'd be out like a shot. All MI5 have to do is to persuade the Ecuadorian ambassador to go to TalkTalk - no one would ever suspect...

            I'm not sure they can extend the embassy. Property near Harrods ain't cheap. And they might need FCO permission to do so. Which I doubt they'd get.

            I guess it all comes down to the psychology of Assange. Is he willing to stay there for ever? He is apparently paranoid, but does he really believe his own propaganda about being shipped off to the US? Or does he know he's guilty, so doesn't fancy doing time in Sweden? Or will he leave the moment he can no longer generate publicity? After all, leaving will get him loads!

            Or Ecuador will just get pissed off, and chuck him out. Or the Met let their guard down, and he sneaks out.

            1. Ian 55

              "All MI5 have to do is to persuade the Ecuadorian ambassador to go to TalkTalk"

              Ha!

              I am waiting for the large and inviolate without serious repercussions 'diplomatic bag' to be seen to leave the embassy, to be pursued by half the Met.

            2. Fred Flintstone Gold badge
              Coffee/keyboard

              Perhaps we could break their broadband, and he'd be out like a shot. All MI5 have to do is to persuade the Ecuadorian ambassador to go to TalkTalk - no one would ever suspect...

              Hahaha, quality. That's another cleaning job..

          2. Scorchio!!

            Extending the embassy would require a number of things, not least of which is the permission of the host state and its local council, under planning laws. Secondly, do you know anything about property prices in the Knightsbridge area? I can assure you they are among the highest in London. It would cost millions to buy the neighbouring flat, even if permission for use were granted by a) the state b) the council under its planning laws.

            It will not happen. Julian has chosen his place of confinement and there he will stay.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          You don't cite the data. Even so, you are wrong; the embassador was sent home because she let Julian in. He seems to have an effect on women that causes them to do things they later regret. Hur. Like 'letting Julian in'.

          As to our embassador, why don't you give us a cite? I know for sure that Haig was supposed to have botched it by pointing out that we can, on our sovereign territory, enter and arrest a criminal on our soil - which the embassy is, though others will claim otherwise - in fact it was his department, rather than Haig, but there we go.

  7. Asinine

    Is it not mandatory to do a fire drill at all places of work...?

    https://www.gov.uk/workplace-fire-safety-your-responsibilities/fire-safety-equipment-drills-and-training

    The UK is a laughing stock for international fugitives, if Snowden doesn't come here for a holiday I'd be surprised.

    1. an it guy

      "Is it not mandatory to do a fire drill at all places of work...?"

      except that an embassy is not the UK, or the police would have entered it and arrested him much earlier. UK Health and Safety rules don't apply here

      1. David Dawson

        It is the UK, no territorial sovereignty is ceded to an embassy whatsoever, its confusing who owns the territory over who is permitted to control what goes on.

        The vienna conventions, which the UK is signed up to, allow embassies and embassy staff to be temporarily excluded from certain laws and regulations.

        Notably, the convention says that the host country cannot enter the embassy without the permission of the ambassador/ consul (can't remember which).

        So, the UK retains ownership of the territory in all cases, but in some cases permits, through an act of parliament, the ambassador to control what goes on.

        The law as it stands here is that any member of the embassy staff, the ambassador, and the embassy itself, can have its status revoked with notice can cause. This is what the home secretary threatened at the time, but backed down when they realised it would be far more productive to simply let him stew.

        it does illuminate the sovereignty question though that this is possible.

    2. FireBurn

      Except that little but of land isn't under UK rule, it's a little bit of Ecuador - might be worth checking their laws about such fire drills

      1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

        Fireburn,

        Nope. That little bit of land is still Blighty. It's just that we've done a deal. We don't walk into your embassy, and you don't walk into ours. It's called the Vienna Conventions. We could break it at any time, but only in exceptional circumstances, unless we want the same to happen to us.

        So when terrorists stormed the Iranian embassy, Iran's government allowed us to send in the SAS. It's an interesting question as to what would have happened, had they refused. When a Libyan diplomat murdered a police woman from inside their embassy, we didn't go in, but chucked him out of the country.

        However, after that incident, we did change the law to allow us to revoke diplomatic privilege under certain circumstances. So as I understand it, the threat to Ecuador was that we'd simply declare it 'no longer an embassy', then wander in at our leisure. Presumably having first given them notice. But the law was aimed at situations like the Iranian embassy, or idiot Libyan diplomats shooting out of windows - I doubt this interpretation would have got through the courts.

        Also note that asylum in embassies isn't really recognised by us, or the Vienna Conventions. But is commonly accepted in South America.

    3. John Deeb

      courtyard

      There's a courtyard where Julian get aired as well. Quite possibly it's used for the drill or at least it's allowed to use it for staff.Or they could make Julian safety officer and let him decide :)

  8. Smallbrainfield

    I still think this would make a good sitcom.

    For extra creepiness, Ricky Gervais could play Julian Assange, hanging around the office, making paper planes, playing Solitaire and perving over the secretaries.

  9. Pen-y-gors

    What really pisses me off

    is the continuing waste of millions of quid of public money supporting a 24/7 police cordon in case he sneaks out.

    Okay, he seems to be a mildly unpleasant plonker, but he doesn't seem to present any particular danger to British residents, even if he did a runner.

    Why are the Met willing to spend millions trying to get this one particular fugitive rather than tracking down other, rather more dangerous, criminals? I thought they had budget problems?

    1. Rob

      Re: What really pisses me off

      Surely it would be better to remove the visible police cordon and lull them into a false sense of security, they might have more chance of getting him then.

    2. Knives&Faux

      Re: What really pisses me off

      The amount of drooling morons in police uniform making their mothers proud doing a fine days 'work' surrounding the embassy for a 'fugitive' who didn't wear a condom in Sweden once tells us it's a vendetta by the authorities.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: What really pisses me off

        it's a vendetta by the authorities

        AFAIK, nobody asked Assange to break bail, and he was explicitly asked to wear a condom but didn't. So far, no authority involved other than to uphold the law. Even stronger, he still has to be tried so he could end all his problems by submitting to the legal system he's been so eager to clean up with his leaks.

        Ah, sorry. I brought logic into this. My apologies.

        1. Pen-y-gors

          Re: What really pisses me off

          @AC

          Exactly - logic would say that when resources are scarce you have to prioritise on getting best value for money, and having 8 plods on duty 24/7 waiting to pounce on a bail-jumper is probably not the best value.

          To provide that cordon the Met must be tying up at least 40 officers - and for comparison CEOP (which is arguably performing a rather more important function) only has about 120 staff.

          The Met commissioner really should be very, very embarassed and ashamed about this.

        2. andy 45

          Re: What really pisses me off

          "and he was explicitly asked to wear a condom but didn't."

          Come on you dont know that -- it's pure hearsay. You've convicted him already.

          this whole thing is obviously a setup.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: What really pisses me off

            Come on you dont know that -- it's pure hearsay

            Not quite. This is known from records that were leaked, rather inconvenient for St Jules as it put a rather more salacious slant on the story than St Jules was playing the media for.

        3. dogwatch

          Re: What really pisses me off

          "he was explicitly asked to wear a condom but didn't."

          How do you know?

    3. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: What really pisses me off

      Okay, he seems to be a mildly unpleasant plonker, but he doesn't seem to present any particular danger to British residents, even if he did a runner.

      That's the propaganda anyway... However in reality he's not only accused of not wearing a condom, he's also accused of rape. All the Appeal Court documents are public, where they list the charges and explain how they differ (or don't) from UK offences.

      He's accused of trying to physically force himself on one woman, not violently only by superior size and weight, because she said no sex without condom. Eventually he then stopped put one on, but it either split or he split it. So I guess that's an attempted rape plus something less serious. Then having a go when she was asleep, minus condom of course, when he'd only got permission for sex with. Which they said was also rape under UK law, although I'd have thought less serious than the one using force. I don't remember the details of the other woman now, it was a while ago.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: What really pisses me off

        Whether force is involved or not it's still non-consensual sex.

        My recollection is:

        She consented to sex with a condom.

        They had it.

        She fell asleep.

        He penetrated her without one.

        She later found out that he'd done it to other people and it wasn't just a one off.

        At least two of these people complained to the police.

        Unfortunately we live in a world where if you wear a tinfoil hat you seem to think

        that running a website absolves you from crimes of sexual assault. Given the

        misogyny normally on display in a lot of these circles that's hardly surprising.

    4. David Cantrell

      Re: What really pisses me off

      What millions of quid? A coupla plod standing there 24 hours a day (so you need four shifts of two, making 8 salaries) is about a quarter of a million.

    5. Scorchio!!

      Re: What really pisses me off

      It is much more than that, as the tale of the Snowdon arrests is beginning to show, and the Met have no choice; they are under government orders to apprehend a fugitive from justice, both justice in this land and in another EU country, a country which Assange itself alikened to a banana republic. Very silly of him.

      1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
        Happy

        Re: What really pisses me off

        Sweden is long, thin and bendy, and their football team play in yellow. So they're about the bananariest country you can get...

        1. Scorchio!!
          Thumb Up

          Re: What really pisses me off

          "[...]the bananariest country you can get..."

          Heh, indeed, though let's not forget the humble lemon, which has greater culinary value and taste.

  10. Martin Milan

    "It’s a bit counter-productive to trap me here, because what else can I do but work?"

    Erm - how about throwing it all in, and going back to Sweden to face your accusers?

    If you're innocent, great - best wishes clearing your name. If you're not, face the consequences.

    In either event, grow up.

    (I actually think he'd be somewhat safer from extradition to the US in Sweden than he is in the UK...)

  11. amanfromearth

    Delusional

    He don't think it be like it is, but it do.

  12. The FunkeyGibbon
    Facepalm

    Deluded

    "I assume the Swedish case will disappear of its own accord in due course,"

    Sure, because two women who accused you of rape will just wake up one morning and think "I'd quite like to be arrested for making a false accusation and spend the rest of my life vilified by other women for making up a claim that I'd been raped thus causing doubt for the next person who comes forward."

    No Julian, this isn't going to disappear, you are just kidding yourself. Face it you are either going to have to live in that embassy for another 30+ years or you're going to have to be a man and fight your way out of this situation.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      WTF?

      Re: Deluded

      It's almost a shame the Ecuadorean doss house doesn't back onto the Thames as St Jules would probably convince himself he could escape the coppers by walking across the water....

    2. John Deeb

      Re: Deluded

      FunkyGibbon: "I'd quite like to be arrested for making a false accusation and spend the rest of my life vilified by other women for making up a claim that I'd been raped thus causing doubt for the next person who comes forward."

      That might actually happen and many women already did vilify these women for escalating something that would not be even a punishable or fine-able offence in the rest of the civilized world. Morally wrong from Assange, possibly, disgusting behaviour, perhaps, but it's not a crime or offence and should never become one because of the "slippery, very slippery slopes" involved. Certainly not something risking a final trip to the US for! Which remains a very real scenario for anyone with the ability to read and comprehend what's actually written on various legal documents published by US authorities. As it happens Assange and his team can read and understand international law and practice but most of his armchair critics just glance and have opinions instead.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Deluded

        Certainly not something risking a final trip to the US for! Which remains a very real scenario for anyone with the ability to read and comprehend what's actually written on various legal documents published by US authorities. As it happens Assange and his team can read and understand international law and practice but most of his armchair critics just glance and have opinions instead.

        Specifics? Evidence? As far as I can tell, Assange and his hangers on are only experts on milking media. They were also experts on milking sentiment, but the Swedish case put a kink in that supply line, and after skipping bail milking money is no longer on the cards either.

        1. Scorchio!!

          Re: Deluded

          "Specifics? Evidence? As far as I can tell, Assange and his hangers on are only experts on milking media"

          Indeed, and the post to which you have responded is a fine specimen of the argumentum ad (admittedly bogus) auctoritatem. The post to which you respond is also glib, and like you I've seen no evidence of legal knowledge by Assange et al., but it's fun to laugh and play whack a mole.

      2. Admiral Grace Hopper
        Facepalm

        Re: Deluded

        "something that would not be even a punishable or fine-able offence in the rest of the civilized world".

        Those stupid Swedes and their stupid legal system holding people to higher standards than the rest of the civilized world. What were those stupid Swedes thinking?

        1. Don Dumb
          Thumb Up

          Re: Deluded

          Those stupid Swedes and their stupid legal system holding people to higher standards than the rest of the civilized world. What were those stupid Swedes thinking?

          Beat me to it. This is what always bugs me, is there is anywhere in the world where you are more likely to get a fair trial? Assange even went to Sweden because of their legal system, and now is running from Sweden because of it.

          1. dogwatch

            Re: Deluded

            "is there is anywhere in the world where you are more likely to get a fair trial?"

            Seems to me you and Assange both are / have been somewhat deluded about the Swedish justice system, and probably about things Swedish altogether. Things are often not what they seem to ignorant foreign journalists. Don't get blinded by propaganda.

      3. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

        Re: Deluded

        John Deeb,

        Nope. It's rape. That's the accusation, as confirmed by the Supreme Court, it would also be rape here. The condom/no condom offences are less serious. The attempting to force yourself on someone physically definitely goes down on the list as rape. As does waiting til she's asleep and then going for it without condom.

        I don't see how any of this can be proved, there were only 2 of them in the room at each time. So even if he doesn't seem terribly trustworthy (and he skipped bail), there's got to be reasonable doubt. But there's no doubt about the law.

      4. The FunkeyGibbon
        Boffin

        Re: Deluded

        Speaking of deluded...

        "that would not be even a punishable or fine-able offence in the rest of the civilized world."

        You don't get to select the rules you live by, the countries In large parts of Africa homosexuality is illegal. This is a morally repugnant and regressive set of laws that would not be even a punishable or fine-able offence in the rest of the civilized world. But if you go to Cameroon and have sex with your same sex partner and are caught, then you don't have much right to complain, that's the law. It might not be morally defensible in the eyes of most people but if that's the rules they have chosen to set you have to respect them.

        Assange has to accept he has committed a crime in the country where the act took place. Unless he thinks he is above the law...?

        1. Sir Runcible Spoon

          @FunkyGibbon

          So, if someone were to engage in a homosexual act in Cameroon, then skip the country to travel here, you would expect the UK to ship them back to face trial?

          1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

            Re: @FunkyGibbon

            So, if someone were to engage in a homosexual act in Cameroon, then skip the country to travel here, you would expect the UK to ship them back to face trial?

            Nope. It's not an offence here, and therefore under a normal extradition treaty you can't get shipped out for it.

            Things are a bit more muddy under the European Arrest Warrant, which is not really an extradition treaty at all, but a hybrid of that and an arrest warrant. All part of ever-closer-union. But as happens, the Supreme Court ruled that the allegations counted as offences here anyway.

            Also, that's why the Home Secretary has the final say on all normal extraditions. Except for that stupid treaty that the Labour idiots signed with the US, and the EAW (which I also think is a bad idea).

          2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            FAIL

            Re: Sir Runcible Loon Re: @FunkyGibbon

            "So, if someone were to engage in a homosexual act in Cameroon, then skip the country to travel here, you would expect the UK to ship them back to face trial?" The UK does not have a bilateral extradition treaty with Cameroon. D'uh!

          3. Scorchio!!
            FAIL

            Re: @FunkyGibbon

            "So, if someone were to engage in a homosexual act in Cameroon, then skip the country to travel here, you would expect the UK to ship them back to face trial?"

            See if you can see the differences and incompatibilities here; the Cameroon law concerns self regarding behaviours, in western democracies self regarding behaviours have a long and noble history of being left out of law, as long as they are self regarding.

            Rape is by definition not a self regarding behaviour, rape by virtue of proceeding without a condom (shakes head)... ...well, it's more than worse.

            Two different things, completely different and at variance with modern human rights legislation across the world, and your argument is thus a non sequitur.

            1. Sir Runcible Spoon
              WTF?

              Re: @FunkyGibbon

              I don't usually bother with correcting those who are hard of reading, BUT..

              FunkeyGibbon said:

              Speaking of deluded...

              "that would not be even a punishable or fine-able offence in the rest of the civilized world."

              You don't get to select the rules you live by, the countries In large parts of Africa homosexuality is illegal. This is a morally repugnant and regressive set of laws that would not be even a punishable or fine-able offence in the rest of the civilized world. But if you go to Cameroon and have sex with your same sex partner and are caught, then you don't have much right to complain, that's the law. It might not be morally defensible in the eyes of most people but if that's the rules they have chosen to set you have to respect them.

              Assange has to accept he has committed a crime in the country where the act took place. Unless he thinks he is above the law...?

              The implication being(since this was in reference to Assange being extradited to Sweden, where the crime was committed) that if you were to commit the crime of homosexuality in Cameroon, thems the rules and presumably have to expect that you can be sent back there to face the consequences, so I challenged this implication for clarification I asked the question outright..

              Sir Runcible Spoon said:

              So, if someone were to engage in a homosexual act in Cameroon, then skip the country to travel here, you would expect the UK to ship them back to face trial?

              Unfortunately FunkeyGibbon hasn't confirmed his position on the matter, but a few of the usual jumped up ego-twats have chipped in with..

              (I ain't Spartacus excluded from list because the post was a rational response to a question and provided clarification of the law)

              Matt 'troll of trolls' Bryant said:

              The UK does not have a bilateral extradition treaty with Cameroon. D'uh!

              Way to miss the point Matt, but delivered with your usual flair.

              Scorchio!! said:

              See if you can see the differences and incompatibilities here; the Cameroon law concerns self regarding behaviours, in western democracies self regarding behaviours have a long and noble history of being left out of law, as long as they are self regarding.

              Rape is by definition not a self regarding behaviour, rape by virtue of proceeding without a condom (shakes head)... ...well, it's more than worse.

              Two different things, completely different and at variance with modern human rights legislation across the world, and your argument is thus a non sequitur.

              I don't need to look at the different laws of anywhere because I was asking someone a question to highlight the absurdity of what they had actually said. I also didn't mention anything to do with rape, but thanks for the input. Lastly, but not leastly, I don't see how a question could reasonably be considered an argument, whether or not it is a non sequitur is therefore irrelevant*. Oh, and as for self-regarding behaviour being left out of Western law, I urge you to read the following Man dates local bike

              I don't mind engaging in opinion wars, I only mind when people respond to points being made in their own minds, and then attributing those points to someone else. It's just, well, boring - especially as it seems to crop up on here so often.

              *Yes, that's a self referencing joke.

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                FAIL

                Re: Sir Ranting Loon Re: @FunkyGibbon

                Oh, quit crying just because you didn't know Cameroon and the UK didn't have a bilateral extradition treaty. Your argument is pointless not just because the lack of extradition treaty, but because the act you suggested is not criminal in the UK but is criminal in the Cameroon, whereas what your Holy St Jules did IS rape in both the UK and Sweden. Read this (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition), and - frankly - quit whining. Your point has been debunked, your argument is philosophically, legally and technically worng, deal with it.

              2. Scorchio!!
                FAIL

                Re: @FunkyGibbon

                You've had it explained to you that this is from start to finish a non sequitur; not only is the 'act' or 'offence' not equivalent, but it is also the case that it would not be included in any bilateral extradition arrangement. Here, in this country, we have no legislation outlawing homosexuality, in the same way that we do not have such legislation in respect of heterosexuality. That is because we have negative rather than positive law; specimens of positive law would be any state which has a bill of rights, such as the US and a number of EU states; in these you can do whatever is in the law. It's a bit like sharia. In the UK you can do as you please unless the law says otherwise, but beware case law.

                Kindly put your Cameroon example in the bin where it belongs, and remember the distinction here in western law is between self and other regarding behaviours, which was the central point of my argument.

                I am fully aware of the bicycle case, and thank you for providing me with another non sequitur argument; it does not follow from that case because it was supposedly an offence against public decency. Had the bicycle been used in the privacy of his own home the matter would not be anyone's business, ditto dildos and any other sexual aid. Homosexuality in Cameroon, however, whether in the privacy of the home or what, that is illegal. Your attempt at slavishly transferring an argument to another situation is indeed a non sequitur, that is to say 'it does not follow from the original premiss or argument', vis self regarding and other regarding, which to say a basic premiss in western law.

                HAND.

                1. Sir Runcible Spoon
                  Trollface

                  Re: @FunkyGibbon

                  It wasn't my example, I was asking someone else to clarify their position so I could point out that it wasn't a good example.

                  You have just re-iterated my point about you not reading things correctly. You can go back to your knee-jerking now :)

                  I kind of feel quite happy now that I've trolled the trolls, although that wasn't my original intention.

                  1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                    Happy

                    Re: Sir Running Loon Re: @FunkyGibbon

                    ".....I kind of feel quite happy now that I've trolled the trolls...." And that is the sound of Sir Loon furiously backpeddling.

                    1. Sir Runcible Spoon

                      Re: Sir Running Loon @FunkyGibbon

                      I'm actually starting to think you are properly insane Matt, what you post seems to bear no real reference to the post you are replying to.

                      I'll give it a go, just for the anticipation of the bizarre reply I'm likely to get..

                      What back-peddling are you referring to?

                      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                        Happy

                        Re: Sir Running Loon Re: Sir Running Loon @FunkyGibbon

                        "....What back-peddling are you referring to?" The one where you made a silly comparison, got called on it, and then proceeded to try and pretend you were just "feeding the trolls". LOL!

                        1. Sir Runcible Spoon

                          Re: Sir Running Loon Sir Running Loon @FunkyGibbon

                          Ok, well, for a start it wasn't my comparison, I was responding to the comparison made by FunkyGibbon, it was their post that mentioned homosexuality in Cameroon being against the law, not me.

                          I was questioning them to see if they believed that that would justify the UK sending someone back there for the crime they committed in that country, since they seemed to be making that comparison with regards to Assange.

                          I didn't pretend I was feeding the trolls, I seem to recall that I said that it wasn't my intention, but that I was happy that that occurred as a result of my post.

                          You are either genuinely mentally impaired, in which case I apologise for continuing to highlight the fact - or you are doing it deliberately - in which case you are a troll.

                          It would be interesting to see if you can actually manage a rational response.

                          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                            FAIL

                            Re: Sir Lying Loon Re: Sir Running Loon Sir Running Loon @FunkyGibbon

                            "Ok, well, for a start it wasn't my comparison....." Ah, the denial is uberstrong with this one!

                            "....I was questioning them to see if they believed that that would justify the UK sending someone back there for the crime they committed in that country, since they seemed to be making that comparison with regards to Assange....." Oh, so you DID make a stupid comparison and got caught out. Thanks for admitting that. Please do explain how comparing consensual homosexual acts with non-consensual straight sex acts is valid? Please also explain how you view the Swedish legal system as somehow bigoted and biased in comparison to that of Cameroon? After all, you DID make the comparison.

                            Don't worry, there's no need for more back-peddling and denial, we all already know it's just your blinkered devotion to your Holy St Jules that stops you admitting you posted a very stupid comparison whilst trying to justify his alleged crimes

                            1. Sir Runcible Spoon

                              Re: Sir Lying Loon Sir Running Loon Sir Running Loon @FunkyGibbon

                              It's obvious you are insane, and there is no reasonable chance of eliciting a rational response.

                              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                Happy

                                Re: Sir Running Loon Re: Sir Lying Loon Sir Running Loon Sir Running Loon @FunkyGibbon

                                "It's obvious you are...." completely out of ideas of how to cope with being shown up. Relax, get over it, it's not like anyone actually cares enough about your opinion to actually do anymore than have a quick chuckle at your silliness.

                                1. Sir Runcible Spoon

                                  Re: Sir Running Loon Sir Lying Loon Sir Running Loon Sir Running Loon @FunkyGibbon

                                  "completely out of ideas of how to cope with being shown up"

                                  Not really. Just a bit tired of you trying to drag me down to your level of stupidity and then beating me with experience.

                                  1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                    Happy

                                    Re: Sir Running Loon Re: Sir Running Loon Sir Lying Loon Sir Running Loon.....

                                    What, no actual arguments, no conribution to the thread? Does the self-imprisonment of your Holy St Jules cause you that much pain? LOL!

                                    I would love to see some interviews with the Ecuadorean staff, especially the Ambassador that got sent home, Anna Alban, as to how they feel about their "guest".

                                    1. Sir Runcible Spoon

                                      Re: Sir Running Loon Sir Running Loon Sir Lying Loon Sir Running Loon.....

                                      "of your Holy St Jules"

                                      Please do point out the post in this thread where I mention support of Assange.

                                      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                        WTF?

                                        Re: Sir Lying Loon Re: Sir Running Loon Sir Running Loon Sir Lying Loon.....

                                        "Please do point out the post in this thread where I mention support of Assange." What, apart from your desperate attempt to justify the "unfairness" of your Holy St Jules being "persecuted" for his "not-even-really-rape" rape? You do remember that little bit of apologist dribbling you posted on Wednesday 16th October 2013 17:07 GMT, where you tried to shore up FunkyGibbon's very stupid comparison with consensual homosexual activity being a crime in the Cameroon? Gee, was that just because you though Gibbon had such a good point? Yeah, whatever!

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Deluded

          Assange is EXACTLY the sort of person who thinks he is above the law,

          and since most "celebrities" think they are too it's not surprising they are

          his loudest cheerleaders.

          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            Happy

            Re: AC Re: Deluded

            "Celebrities"? John Cussack? That's not very high up the Lefty Whacktor pole, it's not even like Sean Penn has stopped by, let alone a True Celebrity like Danny "Mugabe" Glover.

      5. Ben Tasker

        Re: Deluded

        Certainly not something risking a final trip to the US for! Which remains a very real scenario for anyone with the ability to read and comprehend what's actually written on various legal documents published by US authorities.

        When he eventually comes out (realistically, he's got to) and is taken into custody, do you know the very worst thing the US could do now? Absolutely nothing.

        I'm not saying they can't do anything, I'm saying the smart move would be to not make any requests for him, and let the case in Sweden go ahead (and the UK Bail jumping one). In that one (non) move, they'd let Assange rip his own credibility to shreds and he'd look like nothing more than a wild conspiracy nut.

        It's got to the point that Assange has talked about this 'risk' so much, that he actually needs it to be true. When you're squatting in an embassy to avoid being nabbed by the US, it's a bit egg-on-face if they then show absolutely no interest in you once you've been taken into custody.

      6. Scorchio!!
        FAIL

        Re: Deluded

        We've already seen the opinions of British lawyers and police officers that, under British law, Assange's acts would lead to a similar prosecution in the UK: NO means NO, even if there is a qualifier, NO condom NO sex, otherwise rape has been committed because the act of sexual intercourse would have been involuntary; then there is the wee matter of alleged force, holding down the alleged victim. In addition legal material has been cited over and over by other posters, to whom people apply the argumentum ad hominem simply because they cannot cope with the facts. However, you will be able to cite, chapter and verse, these supposed readings on international law and practise that Julian Assange (TM) have read and understood. Come on then, pony them up.

        Assange said on the Radio 4 Today Programme that the women were in a tizzy on the question of condoms; this is not an allegation, it is publicly verifiable and you can go to their site, read the transcript or listen to the interview again. I have put the link up in the past and if you are not able to find it by going to the Today Programme's home page on the BBC's site I'll do it for you.

        This is more than disgusting, as the case of Nadja Benaissa in Germany demonstrates, where a man has contracted HIV following unprotected sex with the woman, who knew that she had HIV but did not disclose. I know that there is a different attitude to sexual hygiene in the UK, and I know that it has unwanted consequences, but elsewhere in Europe this laxity if attitude is absent.

    3. Scorchio!!
      Happy

      Re: Deluded

      "[...]Face it you are either going to have to live in that embassy for another 30+ years[...]"

      Damn, that's an awful lot of masturbation, or do you think the embassy reptile fund can be used for 'comfort women'?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Deluded

        Damn, that's an awful lot of masturbation, or do you think the embassy reptile fund can be used for 'comfort women'?

        AFAIK that leads to RSI or Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, which leads to surgery, which leads to a need to leave the embassy. Or switch hands :)

        1. Scorchio!!
          Happy

          Re: Deluded

          (Chuckle)

          Perhaps one of his 'research assistants' or 'legal advisers' or ' bail contributors' can offer him some hand relief. After all, he's been taking them for a ride all these years in any case. They can wear rubber gloves. ;->

  13. smartypants

    Night-time needs!

    "We have lunch together, celebrate people’s birthdays and other details I don’t want to go into because of the security situation."

    It's ok Julian. You can talk about the other ways you enjoy the company of your prison wardens. We all have night-time needs.

    (Nurse! The screens!)

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    We understand we are all in this together

    we understand we are all in this together

    Serves them right for not installing enough toilets..

  15. The Man Himself Silver badge
    WTF?

    security

    "other details I don’t want to go into because of the security situation"

    I wonder how he'd feel if somebody leaked that information?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: security

      I wonder how he'd feel if somebody leaked that information?

      Ssssh! It may impair Assange's security. Draw your own conclusions.

    2. Miek
      Linux

      Re: security

      ""other details I don’t want to go into because of the security situation"

      I wonder how he'd feel if somebody leaked that information?"

      Why would they ? It's not like that information is in the Public's interest quite unlike the Diplomatic Cables and the Apache video that were released by Wikileaks.

      1. Don Dumb
        Boffin

        Re: security

        """other details I don’t want to go into because of the security situation"

        I wonder how he'd feel if somebody leaked that information?"

        Why would they ? It's not like that information is in the Public's interest quite unlike the Diplomatic Cables and the Apache video that were released by Wikileaks."

        Except that it is of public interest to the Ecaudorian people who pay his room and board and allow him to be very close to the operations of the embassy and its staff. How much do the Ecuadorians pay to keep him a fugitive? Or is Julian Assange and Wikileaks now the judiciary with power to decide what is and what is not in the public interest for the entire world?

        Perhaps Ecuador prefer to keep their reasons to themselves, for irony purposes. I mean, if Wikileaks, Assange and Ecuador think diplomatic cables are in the public interest, then why don't they release Ecuador's?

        1. Miek
          Linux

          Re: security

          "How much do the Ecuadorians pay to keep him a fugitive?" - I can see that information being in the Public's interest if you pay Ecuadorian taxes, but, what about the security aspect ? This is not in the public's interest, It is not like Wikileaks exposed how to break into GCHQ or what their security procedures are. You come across like a brat throwing toys out of their pram. Your point is moot and the reasoning behind wishing Assange's security arrangements to be leaked is one of only revenge. Go stand in the corner.

          "Or is Julian Assange and Wikileaks now the judiciary with power to decide what is and what is not in the public interest for the entire world?" --You have raised an interesting point here, worthy of discussion. Whom should decide what is in a given Public's interest? If we left it to politicians and security services to decide; it would be kept secret, particularly if wrongdoing would be exposed. Ultimately someone has to say "This needs to be made public!" and has to have the stern will to go head to head with some of the most resourceful, conniving and downright devious professionals known to humanity.

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: security

            No, Wikileaks staff are not THAT professional

            1. Miek
              Coat

              Re: security

              You forgot your coat!

  16. Miek
    Coat

    "When he wants to chill out, he watches ... Zero Dark Thirty" -- Yes I found it unbelievably tedious and boring, perfect for falling asleep to.

  17. redniels

    can someone please shine a light on this for me

    What I still don't get:

    What if Ecuador granted him an ecuadorian passport. next, add him to the diplomatic mission. tadaa: diplomatic immunity. OK, granted, appearantly as David dawson above states, this can be revoked in the UK (most likey passed as law after that lunatic in the libian(?) embassy who shot a police officer 20+ years ago) but still, he must be sent a notice, and by that time he is already in the air in an ecuadorian airliner/goverment jet. problem "solved". ...or is this train of thought too simple? what's the catch? why didn't this already happened?

    forgive my lack of knowledge of uk's laws: I'm dutch. On the other side of our small pond diplomatic immunity is still that: immunity. even when you knock your children around so hard that your neighbours complain to the police and let your drunk wife ram 4 cars with hers.

    the russian err.. "view" of this incident: http://rt.com/news/netherlands-apologize-russia-diplomat-938/

    (we don't have police in camouflage in the netherlands so that part is mosty likely false.)

    if you can read dutch or can be bothered to do a google translate:

    http://www.nu.nl/zoeken/?q=borodin

    it's a fun little read... this is the most neutral...if you go to telegraaf.nl it's more.. colored ;-)

    http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/21964592/__Russin_ontspringt_dans__.html

    http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/21957687/___Rus_sleurde_kind_aan_haren___.html

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: can someone please shine a light on this for me

      You can only add someone to a diplomatic mission with the permission of the country hosting the mission. So if Ecuador did try that (not that I think that they would be so stupid), the moment Assange stepped out the door the plods would be able to nick him since the Vienna convention would not apply.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: can someone please shine a light on this for me

      "What if Ecuador granted him an ecuadorian passport. next, add him to the diplomatic mission. ..."

      The host country has to agree to diplomatic status for new diplomats before they arrive. If the host country does not like a particular individual, that individual will not be granted diplomatic status.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      can someone please shine a light on this for me

      Sure:

      Ecuador can grant him a passport. That grants him nothing. They can even make him a member of the diplomatic mission. That is within their rights.

      They can't grant him diplomatic immunity. That is granted by the host country. The UK, in this case. It's nothing to do with Libyans, polices and shootings (that brought in the law that would allow the UK gov to remove the protected status of the embassy which the UK gov did consider doing back when this all started).

      Its so that countries can't grant diplomatic immunity to any old idiot (or serial killer or drug dealer or ranty priest type) and prevent a host country from doing anything about it.

      And daft as I think the UK gov is, I don't think they will agree to grant diplomatic immunity to someone who is wanted under a European arrest warrant and who jumped bail.

    4. Scorchio!!

      Re: can someone please shine a light on this for me

      "What I still don't get:

      What if Ecuador granted him an ecuadorian passport. next, add him to the diplomatic mission. tadaa: diplomatic immunity. OK, granted, appearantly as David dawson above states, this can be revoked in the UK[...]

      No, can't be done. This has already been discussed; diplomats have to be approved by the host country. It's one of the ways of making sure that known troublemakers (rapists, papists, papist-rapists) et al. do not have diplomatic cover. This has probably been there since the dawn of diplomatic time. HTH.

  18. cosymart
    Paris Hilton

    Free?

    Is there any payment for dossing in an embassy? If not might try that the next time I am in London for a long weekend. Choice: typical *** star London hotel for £120 a night or a free stay at an embassy of my choice....mmm tough one.

    Paris Hilton cos she isn't against putting it up for free.

    1. Fink-Nottle

      Re: Free?

      Typical whining Pom ... you seem to have forgotten that dossing on a sofa in London is part of the rich cultural heritage of Australia.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Expel the Ecuadorian Ambassador and the staff.

    Go in to steam clean the carpets. "Oh, you can't be in here... OUT!"

    Apologize to Ecuador and bring them back.

    Problem solved.

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Not worth the effort. It costs us money, it's making life difficult for Ecuador. They now want to solve it.

      Apparently their last ambassador said to the a junior minister at the FCO something like, how can we resolve this diplomatic issue between us? And got the rather awesome response, "not our stone, not our shoe." Ecuador got themselves into this, it's up to them to get out of it. Not that the Foreign Office can do much anyway. They don't have the legal right to waive the arrest warrant.

  20. NogginTheNog
    Thumb Down

    What a twat

    See above.

  21. SMFSubtlety
    Stop

    but with the US government in shutdown due to toys out of pram, isn't now a good time for IT to leave the embassy, get sent to Sweden, sort that out?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Not if the aim was to stay in the press. The moment he gets to Sweden he either gets nailed for rape, or gets thrown out on his ear with a fine for not coming earlier. The resounding silence caused by the absence of US helicopters at that point would also sound (if you pardon the pun) the end of that whole "the USA is after me because I'm super important" meme. Assange cannot afford that, as he'd have to go and find a real job.

      The end of this farce cannot happen soon enough IMHO.

  22. Graham Marsden
    Trollface

    Personally...

    ... I'd love to arrange with theatrical and model hire agencies for a large number of tall, thin, blond guys to wander in and out of the Ecuadorian Embassy all day and all night, just so the Met Police can feel like they're actually *doing* something by stopping them all and checking that it's not JA trying to sneak out..

    .

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: Marsbarbrain Re: Personally...

      "... I'd love to arrange with theatrical and model hire agencies for a large number of tall, thin, blond guys to wander in and out of the Ecuadorian Embassy all day and all night, just so the Met Police can feel like they're actually *doing* something by stopping them all and checking that it's not JA trying to sneak out..." Please do go ahead, just give me a few moments to send the coppers a screenie of your post so they can get a warrant for The Reg to reveal your IP address and login email on charges of wasting police time.

      1. NumptyScrub

        Re: Marsbarbrain Personally...

        quote: "Please do go ahead, just give me a few moments to send the coppers a screenie of your post so they can get a warrant for The Reg to reveal your IP address and login email on charges of wasting police time."

        The time is already being wasted though? If an officer is already standing there, how is it wasting any more time by giving them something to actually do?

        If you honestly think "stopping and searching anyone who looks like Julian Assange walking out of the Ecuadorian embassy" is wasting police time, then aren't you tacitly agreeing that them being there at all is a waste of time? If you think they are there doing an important job of stopping the blonde bimbo (and alleged rapist) from sneaking out, then the perfomance of that very job surely is not a waste of time?

        Sorry but there seems to be a bit of a logic bomb in your post there... ^^;

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: NumptyScrub Re: Marsbarbrain Personally...

          ".....aren't you tacitly agreeing that them being there at all is a waste of time?...." That's like trying to claim having coppers on patrol is a waste of time because they don't arrest a criminal each every day, a stupid attempt to prove the negative. Would you argue that we shouldn't have coppers looking for child pr0n websites simply because they don't arrest a paedo every five minutes? It is simply that you want to baaaaah-lieve there is a "logic bomb" in the post.

        2. Scorchio!!

          Re: Marsbarbrain Personally...

          "If you honestly think "stopping and searching anyone who looks like Julian Assange walking out of the Ecuadorian embassy" is wasting police time, then aren't you tacitly agreeing that them being there at all is a waste of time?[...]

          Sorry but there seems to be a bit of a logic bomb in your post there... ^^;"

          That is a fine specimen of a non sequitur argument; it does not follow that searching deliberately planted look alikes Assange leaving the embassy is a waste of time that being there is a waste of time; you presuppose that anyone resembling the five fingered will otherwise leave the building, and you presuppose that deliberately wasting police time resembles the task of ringing the embassy (in the domain of timewasteing) to prevent the bail jumper from leaving in any way resembles the misdemeanour of deliberately wasting police time [...]

          Close, but no cigar.

      2. Graham Marsden
        Facepalm

        Re: Marsbarbrain Personally...

        Oh dear, Matt, most people got over the fact that the first four letters of my surname are the same as the first four letters of a popular chocolate product back in school.

        As for the rest of your post, please, get yourself a sense of humour.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Happy

          Re: Marsbarbrain Personally...

          "Oh dear, Matt, most people got over the fact that the first four letters of my surname are the same as the first four letters of a popular chocolate product back in school....." But it was so in keeping with the childish level of intellect your post displays.

          "....As for the rest of your post, please, get yourself a sense of humour." Aw, don't cry. Tell you what, why don't you try and actually make an intelligent, well-researched point, just for a change? One that can't be debunked in a minute.

      3. Scorchio!!

        Re: Marsbarbrain Personally...

        "Please do go ahead, just give me a few moments to send the coppers a screenie of your post so they can get a warrant for The Reg to reveal your IP address and login email on charges of wasting police time."

        By the number of down votes it would seem that one or two of the Assange (™) Choral Society don't like you, and think that you are a 'sneak'.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Marsbarbrain Personally...

        give me a few moments to send the coppers a screenie of your post so they can get a warrant for The Reg to reveal your IP address and login email on charges of wasting police time.

        Weak as due process may be in the UK, AFAIK, a "suspicion of wasting police time" is insufficient to obtain a warrant under RIPA. It is was a suspicion of a conspiracy to commit crime or an act of terror it would be another matter altogether, but "planning to be a pain" (because you cannot call pranking the police any more than that) is insufficient. At least for now.

  23. phil dude
    Pint

    marmite...

    For some reason when I think of JA I can't help thinking about "the marmite public opinion division"....

    Beer, because it is almost time to go and see England can play a decent game of football...

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Happy

    In other news....

    Ecuador's ambassador said Julian Assange is just like family. Namely, a derelict brother who can't hold a job and stays home all day tanning under his sunlamp!!

    (Maybe the sunlamp is part Assange's devious plan to escape. Tan himself into leather, invite George Hamilton over as his next celeb guest, konk George on the head and sneak out the front door and into George's limo!)

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
      Happy

      Re: In other news....

      See also Peter Stringfellow...

  25. Tacitus

    As for diplomatic immunity, that agreement is ultimately on the permission of the host nation but bear in mind that an embassy is considered as a part of the nation who's embassy it is.....they can however be sent home or invaded by military or fanatics...but in the normal course of events the embassy is considered to be a part of the nation who's embassy it is. The risk is that if a host nation vio;ates that agreement, the same can be done to them and their complaints will be seen as utter hypocrisy. Even during war Ambassadorial privileges are usually maintained.Voila

  26. MrDamage Silver badge

    Just like family?

    So they're asking him when he is going to move out and get a job then.

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's more likely the swedish story is bull, after all the americans can get him extradited from sweden without breaking a sweat. However it will be interesting to see how this pans out...

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like