back to article Assange™ is 'upset' that he WON'T be prosecuted for rape, giggles lawyer

The Swedish director of public prosecutions, Marianne Ny, has announced that she will end the investigation into Julian Assange's alleged sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. According to an update on her official website, Ny has now "discontinued the investigation of Julian Assange with respect to suspected sexual …

  1. Bob Wheeler
    WTF?

    WTF?

    "He will be very unhappy if the conclusion is that he is the winning party here, he doesn’t see it like that at all: he wants to clear his name."

    Then why not go to Sweeden and clear your name?

    1. Lobrau

      Re: WTF?

      Isn't it because he's afraid of being extradited to the US if he goes to Sweden; hence the reason he's holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: WTF?

        Isn't it because he's afraid of being extradited to the US if he goes to Sweden

        No, that ego-stroking myth has already been thoroughly discredited.

        1. william 10

          Re: WTF?

          NO - He has asked for and has not been given guarantees, if it was a myth then the he would have been provided with the guarantees.

          The U.K. could have ended this years ago, by charging the Sweden for the Police presence out side the Embassy.

          It seems to me that the women, named in court as Miss A has a legitimate issue with the way she was treated by Mr Assange but the authorities have shown no desire to properly investigate the matter and this has created two victims Miss A & Mr Assange.

          1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

            Re: WTF?

            william 10,

            Your ignorance of UK law is total.

            How would we charge Sweden for policing our laws? I suppose we could pass some fancy new law to do so. Although it wouldn't be worth the vellum it was written on in Sweden of course.

            And there is no legal mechanism for a UK government to give a guarantee not to prosecute or extradite someone for an unspecified crime - of which no charge currently exists. It would have no validity with the courts. I know nothing about Swedish law, and what their government is allowed to do.

            There is also no ministerial discretion in either the European Arrest Warrant, or the US extradition treaty. They are entirely a process for the courts to enforce, only our extradition treaties with everyone else allow for the Home Secretary to have the final word.

            We did admittedly give letters of guarantee to certain IRA suspects, as part of the peace process. But that was not legal and therefore done in secret. And only came out as one seems to have been given out to someone in error. The Blair government managed to combine their usual lack of respect for due process and competence again... I don't know if the letters would stand up in court anyway, but of course political influence could be brought to bear on the police and prosecution services to stop any investigation from getting to court in the first place. It was also a rather unique situation, and frankly, Julian Assange just isn't that important.

            1. David Webb

              Re: WTF?

              @I ain't Spartacus

              There is a method for the CPS to inform a person they are not going to prosecute them, it is what is currently being used for that Bin Lorry case up in Scotland. They gave it to the guy so that he would answer the questions put to him by the inquiry without fear of prosecution from his answers.

              Of course, the Bin guy has turned out to be a complete and utter bastard who shouldn't have been driving, knew he shouldn't have been driving and is basically tantamount to murder.

              The whole thing of this case is just stupid, the Swedish have asked to interview him, the Embassy have kept rejecting their interview, time ran out and suddenly it's "ohhh, but I wanted to clear my name!". On the bright side, as long as he's stuck there, he can't go around raping other women (allegedly).

        2. krismach

          Re: WTF?

          Really? By whom?

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "Ego-stroking myth has been discredited"

          Oh really? Discrediting it in your own mind doesn't count. The US hasn't said it wants him, but they don't have to say it until the moment he walks outside the door of the Ecuadorian Embassy and the moment they do the extradition treaty would take effect.

          If the US really REALLY didn't want him, they could have provided his lawyer with a simple document stating that the US will not seek to prosecute him for anything related to Wikileaks. If I was the UK, spending six million pounds a year "guarding" him, I would have politely asked the US for this document if I thought there was a chance in hell the US has no intention of asking for his extradition.

          I think at first Assange may have legitimately been worried not about extradition but rendition. If he just disappeared everyone would have assumed he was in hiding to avoid the Swedish charges. The US has "renditioned" for less than what he's been accused of.

          1. Roq D. Kasba

            Re: "Ego-stroking myth has been discredited"

            We all know the worst thing that could happen for Assange is to go to Sweden and found not guilty, and not be extradited. He'd hate to feel that unimportant.

            We do, of course, have a serious UK contempt of court/bail jumping issue to deal with first, and that is when he would be extradited if he actually is wanted by our American pals.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "Ego-stroking myth has been discredited"

            If the US really REALLY didn't want him, they could have provided his lawyer with a simple document stating that the US will not seek to prosecute him for anything related to Wikileaks

            Don't be ridiculous. Since when does a government provide a document for non-prosecution? That would give the guy a free license to do whatever he wants.

          3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
            Thumb Down

            Re: "Ego-stroking myth has been discredited"

            "The US hasn't said it wants him, but they don't have to say it until the moment he walks outside the door of the Ecuadorian Embassy and the moment they do the extradition treaty would take effect."

            If the US REALLY wanted him extradited from the UK they had plenty of time to initiate proceedings while he was appealing the extradition from the UK to Sweden.

          4. streaky

            Re: "Ego-stroking myth has been discredited"

            they don't have to say it until the moment he walks outside the door of the Ecuadorian Embassy and the moment they do the extradition treaty would take effect

            But there's no situation where any of this makes any difference to his legal issues with Sweden. He's guaranteed the US has decided what to do or not to do with with him now so even if Sweden says "nah fuckit" which is unlikely considering the victims would probably turn up at some high level court the next day - he's still royally screwed. If he had any sense at this point he'd be hoping the US wants him and to walk out the door. Sooner whatever sentence he gets starts the sooner he gets out. If he hangs around for another 10 years he's just going to start his sentencing later. I mean it's all completely nonsense anyway but he obviously is incapable of applying logic to his situation if he really believes what he's claiming.

            The US has "renditioned" for less than what he's been accused of

            The UK has sent special forces into buildings for less than he's accused of, nay, has done. To see he's being treated with the utmost respect and total kid gloves is a HUGE understatement.

        4. h4rm0ny

          Re: WTF?

          >>"No, that ego-stroking myth has already been thoroughly discredited"

          By the fact that the USA has never abducted the people it wants even from European countries? By the fact they wouldn't love to get their hands on him? By the fact that Sweden doesn't have an extradition treaty with the USA?

          Because it has, they would and it does. Just saying.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: WTF?

            By the fact that the USA has never abducted the people it wants even from European countries? By the fact they wouldn't love to get their hands on him? By the fact that Sweden doesn't have an extradition treaty with the USA?

            Not relevant. Rendition has always been done in the dark, the US cannot afford to do so publicly and the publicity surrounding Assange would make that a political hot potato, not so much for the US as for the country allowing this without proper process.

            Secondly, the US has no interest in giving Assange extra martyrdom status. Personally, I think they way they have left Assange alone is a sign that someone over there is for once using their brains.

            As for the extradition treaty, that is irrelevant. The UK has far better agreements and tighter collaboration with the US than Sweden. If it was going to happen, the UK is a far better place for it. Sweden simply has the generic agreements in place between most sovereign nations, it's only the UK that has a "special" relationship.

          2. Irony Deficient

            Re: WTF?

            h4rm0ny, Article II. of the US−Sweden extradition treaty lists all of the offenses for which extradition can be granted. Which of these offenses would the US charge Assange with to allow his extradition from Sweden? (If an offense isn’t on that list, then he can’t be extradited to the US from Sweden because of it.)

          3. Col. Muckstard
            Black Helicopters

            Re: WTF?

            >>By the fact that the USA has never abducted the people it wants even from European countries?

            In the words of the great Willy Wonka, 'Wrong sir! Wrong!"

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case

            Black helo as one was probably used for him and for reminding you, one will probably be used for me..

          4. LucreLout

            Re: WTF?

            @Harmony

            And which of those things you list does not apply to the UK please?

            Oh, I see, they all apply here too, in spades. Assange is not hiding from America, he is hiding from rape allegations and bail jumping.

            1. Fred Flintstone Gold badge

              Re: WTF?

              Assange is not hiding from America, he is hiding from rape allegations and bail jumping.

              I don't know. As far as I can see he's more desperately hiding from obscurity...

          5. Maty
            Thumb Up

            Re: WTF?

            Right, right, and right.

            For example the Abu Omar case, where a Muslim cleric was abducted from the streets of Milan by CIA operatives.

            The US Counterintelligence Analysis Report published under the auspices of the Department of Defense Intelligence Analysis Program (DIAP) which claims Assange is a terrorist supporter who has engaged in cyber-spying. Also, the US justice department's refusal to deny that it has closed the book on any prosecution for these 'offences' by Assange.

            Finally https://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/us-sweden-extradition-treaty-14-ust-1845.pdf

            Research all these, and then decide if assange is making this all up to boost his ego.

          6. Jaybus

            Re: WTF?

            Really? As far as the US is concerned, the culprits were their own people selling secrets, many of whom have already been caught and prosecuted. Why care so much about who they sold them to? If not Assange, then it would be someone else. They have been dealing with insiders selling secrets since at least the early cold war days. In any case, if the US wished to kidnap him, then why didn't they do so sometime during the 2 years he was under "house arrest" living in the UK when it would have been dead simple to do so.

        5. LucreLout

          Re: WTF?

          @AC

          No, that ego-stroking myth has already been thoroughly discredited.

          Exactly. I always ask Assange supporters the same simple question and they uniformly fail to provide an answer:

          Please take a moment to explain why extradition to the US wasn't more of a risk in the UK than it is in Sweden?

          The way I see it the risks were at best identical, and at worst manifestly more likely to be extradited from the UK to the US. And he was bumming about here for years before he fled the rape charges.

    2. 2Fat2Bald

      Re: WTF?

      Well. Because the USA has an extraction treaty with the UK. If he left the embassy, he would be arrested and rendered to the USA before he could get to Sweden.

      I don't know what to think now. Is he an innocent man on trumped up charges, the victim of dirty tricks by the US government, or some mix of both?

      1. Anonymous Coward 101

        Re: WTF?

        "Is he an innocent man on trumped up charges, the victim of dirty tricks by the US government, or some mix of both?"

        Or even - it's ridiculous, I know! - guilty as fuck and has successfully eluded justice?

        1. Craigness

          Re: WTF?

          "Or even - it's ridiculous, I know! - guilty as fuck and has successfully eluded justice?"

          This is why he's unhappy about not being able to have these trumped up charges put before a court.

          1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

            Re: WTF?

            This is why he's unhappy about not being able to have these trumped up charges put before a court.

            Craigness,

            You're quite right! He was so desperate to clear his name that he fled the country, went to every legal effort possible in the UK in order to avoid being sent back for his pre-charge interview, and then when that also failed broke bail and ran away again (as close to South America as he could manage). Incidentally costing his "friends" a few hundred grand that they'd put up to cover his bail.

            Then he loudly shouted how he was eager to be interviewed in the Ecuadorian embassy, but amazingly, that hasn't happened either! Who would have thought it? Ecuador and/or he, managed to find various excuses as to why the interview couldn't happen until the statute of limitations kicked in.

            Now were I an uncharitable chap, I would be mighty suspicious of this series of actions, that has led to him not having to face any of the charges he's apparently so eager to have his day in court about.

            If you put an impossible condition on your willingness to do something, that suggests that you are in fact trying to avoid doing it. Being given a legal indemnity against unspecified future charges is impossible. QED...

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: WTF?

              Incidentally costing his "friends" a few hundred grand that they'd put up to cover his bail.

              I was originally under the impression it was £50k or so, but that was just from one person. You're right, it's more like £340k, from money put together by a lot of people. How's that for pissing in the face of friends?

              Ugh.

        2. CheesyTheClown

          Re: WTF?

          haha Or worse, guilty as fuck and locked up tight in an Ecuadorian Embassy where people keep wondering "How do we get rid of this asshole?"

      2. chivo243 Silver badge
        Black Helicopters

        Re: WTF?

        @2Fat2Bald

        I can't say I like the guy, but something has smelled fishy since the Swedish charges were levied.

        So to answer your question, yes, a little of column A and a bit of column B.

        Now the song "One way or another" by Blondie is running through my head.

        Black Helicopters...

        1. S4qFBxkFFg
          WTF?

          Re: WTF?

          Yes - ISTR that the Swedish prosecutors originally concluded he should be free to go, but then changed their minds (specifically, a more junior prosecutor got overruled). Whether this is uncommon enough to be suspicious, I don't know - someone familiar with the prosecution process in Sweden would need to comment here.

          Another question of this sort that I'd be interested to hear answered by the hypothetical Swedish commentard, is whether the vigour with which Assange is being pursued is typical of cases where a suspected sexual offender is outside Sweden, and wanted there for questioning/charging. (I remember at least one organisation supporting victims of sexual offences stated that they cynically welcomed the exceptional efforts in this case.)

          While knowing the answers to the above doesn't tell us whether or not he actually did it, it would go a long way to figuring out if there are some deeply sketchy reasons for him being pursued.

        2. streaky

          Re: WTF?

          something has smelled fishy since the Swedish charges were levied

          Only thing smelling fishy is Assange.

          If the US wants him they'll ask the UK government not the Swedish one. The UK and US have one of the world's most comprehensive extradition treaties - it's asymmetrical (the bad way for Assange) but you can be assured it exists.

      3. mmeier

        Re: WTF?

        2F2B: I call BULLSHIT! Texas sized!

        He had been in the UK under house arrest for how long? Dezember 2010 until he ran away in Feb 2012. So the Brits had over a year to catch and release him. Sorry, even Monty would have been able to plan and perfom that operation.

    3. Mark 85

      Re: WTF?

      The Swedes wanted to interview him in the embassy... that would have been a start. As it is, with charges being dropped now and possibly in the future, the embassy may say the reason for his asylum will evaporate. Which will lead to his bail problem...

      I can believe he's unhappy... he'll have a tough time to play martyr card now.

    4. aberglas

      Re: WTF?

      > Then why not go to Sweeden (SIC) and clear your name?

      Who writes this garbage? The answer is completely obvious. And even if he was found guilty he would have spent less than 5 years in a comfortable Swedish jail.

      Put your negative, bigoted grunts where they belong.

  2. Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese Silver badge

    Name clearing

    Best way to clear your name would be to man up and go to Sweden to face the charges, instead of running away and hiding.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Name clearing

      Not this gender bullshit again.. man up? why, because all women are cowards? or because penises shrink and fall off unless fed a constant diet of bravery?

      1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

        Re: Name clearing

        I would expect that a man "man up" and that a woman "woman up". The exhortation need not be gender determined, nor involve gender roles. It refers to the difference between a "man" and a "boy": namely that adults are required to accept certain levels of responsibility, especially social responsibility, as a matter of course.

        It has nothing to do with bravery. It has everything to do with meeting the obligations of adulthood. And yes, sometimes those obligations require sacrifice - even of one's own life - for the greater good.

        "Adult up" would be a possible gender non-determinative, though most people seem to prefer "(wo)man up" when gender is unknown. In this case, gender is known, so Assange needs to man the fuck up.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Name clearing

          I always assumed "man up" used 'man' as the shortened form of 'human' (say "human up" if you prefer!).

          I also figured it was related to "are you a man or a mouse?"

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Name clearing

            I always figured that man up, woman up, human up, mouse up or "act like an adult" meant "do this thing that I want you to do, or I will arbitrarily decide that you are not a *real* man/woman/human/mouse/adult".

            Don't you know that real scotsmen slap themselves in the face the moment they wake up in the morning?

            1. Pascal Monett Silver badge
              Coat

              Re: "real scotsmen slap themselves in the face the moment they wake up in the morning"

              I thought that was to dissipate the hangover.

              Right, I'm out.

            2. TitterYeNot
              Coat

              Re: Name clearing

              "Don't you know that real scotsmen slap themselves in the face the moment they wake up in the morning?"

              Yes, but the truly remarkable thing is that a real scotsman manages to do it without using his hands - what those fine gentlemen keep under their kilts is more than just a rumour you know.

              Speaking of which, I bet Assange feels a right bawbag for not keeping his own haggis* in his breeks now...

              *A suitably well endowed man may be adjudged to be the proud owner of a haggis due to the inferred organ content, as in "Fuckin' hell Donald, bet tha's got its awn heart an' lungs!"

          2. Stevie

            man up

            "I also figured it was related to "are you a man or a mouse?""

            It's actually basketball court slang. Or was before it was co-opted for general use by street gangs and then used Fungus The Bogeyman style by ordinary people who "assumed" a meaning (without actually checking and without confirming the listener was using a compatible understanding of the phrase's meaning themselves).

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Name clearing

          "I would expect that a man "man up" and that a woman "woman up". The exhortation need not be gender determined, nor involve gender roles. It refers to the difference between a "man" and a "boy": namely that adults are required to accept certain levels of responsibility, especially social responsibility, as a matter of course."

          - I accept that generally we are all required to accept certain levels of responsibility as members of a given society, but are you suggesting that the things that Assange stand accused of doing in Sweden, only a man should have to accept responsibility for, and a boy should not, as a matter of course? At which age do you think one has to man up and take responsibility for ones alleged sexual assaults?

          1. Dr. Mouse

            Re: Name clearing

            are you suggesting that the things that Assange stand accused of doing in Sweden, only a man should have to accept responsibility for, and a boy should not, as a matter of course?

            When you are born, you are not responsible for your own actions. If a baby somehow managed to fire a gun and kill someone, you wouldn't say that baby should be locked up for murder.

            As we grow up, we are steadily expected to accept more responsibility for our actions. This is not really a case of age, but of mental capability, understanding, and emotional maturity. It is also why there are different legal procedures for minors compared to adults, and why (AFAIK) it is possible for a minor to be prosecuted as an adult: If it can be shown that the person is capable of understanding what he did at the same level as an adult (in simplistic terms) then he should be treated as an adult.

            So, yes, a "boy" who raped someone should not be treated the same as an "adult" who raped someone. They may well be locked up still, but they should be treated differently. Basically, they should be "locked up" to prevent them from being a danger to others, and to allow for rehabilitation. It should not be about punishment. IMHO as soon as they are no longer a danger to society, and it can be shown that they understand that what they did was wrong and will not do it again, they should be released (including if it can be shown that they have already reached this point by the end of the trial).

      2. LucreLout

        Re: Name clearing

        Not this gender bullshit again.. man up? why, because all women are cowards? or because penises shrink and fall off unless fed a constant diet of bravery?

        I was going to say "Bollocks", but instead shall settle for yelling "Ovaries" at you until you give the PC bullshit a rest.

        All men know that women are braver then men. If men gave birth there would have been exactly two generations of humans and no more.

  3. phil dude
    Joke

    generic comment form

    Please mark with an X as applicable.

    [ ] He's Innocent!

    [ ] He's Guilty!

    [ ] Who is he again?

    [ ] I liked him in Sherlock

    [ ] What sort of fruit is an Assange?

    That's enuf...

    P.

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
      Happy

      Re: generic comment form

      Is there an option for beer and a pork pie? My local pub has started selling enormous (and delicious) pork pies. They've always sold beer. I like beer and pork pies! Where's my option?

      They also sell scotch eggs. The perverts!

      1. Sir Runcible Spoon
        Joke

        Re: generic comment form

        "They also sell scotch eggs. The perverts!"

        I used to think they were called 'scotched eggs' until someone pointed out that this would make them flat.

  4. C Montgomery Burns

    "Samuelson added "He will be very unhappy if the conclusion is that he is the winning party here, he doesn’t see it like that at all: he wants to clear his name.""

    Yeah, I too smell an odour of BS from that statement. You weren't "clearing your name" hiding out in a foreign embassy to duck extradition.

  5. Velv
    Mushroom

    "wants to clear his name"

    Asshole(™) wants to clear his name under his own terms. Great idea, lets just wipe out 1,000 years of proven justice process and skip straight to the point were the defendant runs the trial. What could possibly go wrong.

    Want to clear your name? GO TO COURT. Let due process prove you're innocent.

    And before someone jumps in "he'll be extradited from Sweden", he stands more chance of being extradited from the UK (when they get hold of him). And he better pray Hillary follows Obama, otherwise Jeb Bush is going to issue an extradition warrant to Ecuador. And then where will he go...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      He wants to attend court with God mode on. Sure, he can be found guilty. Just as long as he doesn't have to deal with the consequences.

      "And then where will he go..."

      Russia, a la Snowden, I presume

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I don't know if he is right, but he (Assange) seems believe that "1,000 years of proven justice process" have already been wiped out, and that is why he is currently hiding in the ecuadorian embassy?

      1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

        To be fair, most western nations seem pretty keen on getting rid of "innocent unless proven guilty", so I'm not sure why anyone would trust any western government if they made their living trading in governmental secrets.

        "For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone."

        --David Cameron,

        Prime Minister of the UK.

        WTF

    3. chris 48

      @Velv

      "And he better pray Hillary follows Obama, otherwise Jeb Bush is going to issue an extradition warrant to Ecuador. And then where will he go.."

      It doesn't matter who is in power in the US. It matters who is in power in Ecuador. Although it often doesn't seem that way, US law != World law

    4. Irony Deficient

      an extradition warrant to Ecuador

      Velv, the US−Ecuador extradition treaty was written in 1872, and last updated in 1939; it’s the oldest extradition treaty still in effect in the US. Among its list of extraditable offenses is abortion, which is no longer an extraditable offense since it no longer has dual criminality. Which criminal offense might Assange be charged with for the US to be able to extradite him from Ecuador?

    5. x 7

      "otherwise Jeb Bush is going to issue an extinction warrant ......."

      thats more like it

    6. JeffyPoooh
      Pint

      "Assange™ wants to clear his name..."

      Well that's easy.

      Using your mouse, select the "™". Then press 'DELETE'.

      There, that nasty ™ has been cleared from his name.

  6. Anonymous Coward 101

    The sheer chutzpah...

    ...of this announcement takes the biscuit.

    Julian Assange is a prick of the highest degree.

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      Actually, he is obviously intent on creating a new degree in that area.

  7. JimmyPage Silver badge
    Flame

    OH FOR FUCKS SAKE

    Even if Assange were to be extradited to Sweden. HE COULD NOT BE EXTRADITED ON TO ANYWHERE ELSE WITHOUT THE EXPRESS PERMISSION OF THE UK.

    Although since that has been explained clearly, many times, I have no confidence anyone who doesn't already know it will correct their understanding.

    You can invent all sorts of black helicopter conspiracy scenarios whereby someone who at one point must have been the most recognisable man on the planet, mysterious appears in a US court, but real life is not a comic book.

    Assange is more at risk of being eaten by an arctic lion in Sweden, than of being extradited to the US.

    1. John G Imrie

      Re: OH FOR FUCKS SAKE

      HE COULD NOT BE EXTRADITED ON TO ANYWHERE ELSE WITHOUT THE EXPRESS PERMISSION OF THE UK.

      And what makes you think the UK will lift a finger to protect a non UK national from a US Extradition order. We don't even protect our own.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: OH FOR FUCKS SAKE

        I can't believe anyone could suggest with a straight face that the UK would refuse to extradite Assange to the US.

        1. mmeier

          Re: OH FOR FUCKS SAKE

          GB had 14 month to wrap him up nicely and send him to the Amis. He was in the UK, under UK house arrest. And - he was not shipped to whereever. Why?

          Lets face facts - the MEANEST thing the USA can do to Assi is - NOTHING!

          That's why he hates this recent news. Sweden did not go for a "Lex Lasagne" and prolong the time frame he could be prosecuted under. They just used due process and let it slip. Showing that for them Assi is just another petty criminal.

          My guess is within the next 12 month an SAS Jumbo will land in Sydney and the first thing leaving it will be Assange. If he behaved nicely on his own feet and after the stairs have arrived. If not with a helping hand from Bjorne and Agneta for a belly landing on the tarmac. After that he'll start a new career as a laughing stock for his paranoia with an option for alcoholism.

          Then, a few years later, the CIA can drown him in a billabong and all the news will report is "wino drowned in an accident"

        2. LucreLout

          Re: OH FOR FUCKS SAKE

          @DougS

          I can't believe anyone could suggest with a straight face that the UK would refuse to extradite Assange to the US.

          Of course we wouldn't. We wouldn't have before he allegedly raped a number of women. We wouldn't have before he jumped bail. And we won't when he eventually gets his fat arse off the couch.

          Sweden has nothing to do with that. The sole reason he is hiding in the embassy is because he wants to deny the women he allegedly sexually assaults their day in court.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: OH FOR FUCKS SAKE

      "You can invent all sorts of black helicopter conspiracy scenarios whereby someone who at one point must have been the most recognisable man on the planet, mysterious appears in a US court, but real life is not a comic book."

      And only the evil Ruskies use Polonium.

    3. Medixstiff

      Re: OH FOR FUCKS SAKE

      "You can invent all sorts of black helicopter conspiracy scenarios whereby someone who at one point must have been the most recognisable man on the planet, mysterious appears in a US court, but real life is not a comic book."

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/13/cia_rendition_jet_was_waiting_in_europe_to_snatch_snowden/

      As the whistleblowing NSA sysadmin Edward Snowden made his dramatic escape to Russia a year ago, a secret US government jet - previously employed in CIA "rendition" flights on which terror suspects disappeared into invisible "black" imprisonment - flew into Europe in a bid to spirit him back to America, the Register can reveal.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: OH FOR FUCKS SAKE

        "You can invent all sorts of black helicopter conspiracy scenarios whereby someone who at one point must have been the most recognisable man on the planet, mysterious appears in a US court, but real life is not a comic book."

        http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/13/cia_rendition_jet_was_waiting_in_europe_to_snatch_snowden/

        As the whistleblowing NSA sysadmin Edward Snowden made his dramatic escape to Russia a year ago, a secret US government jet - previously employed in CIA "rendition" flights on which terror suspects disappeared into invisible "black" imprisonment - flew into Europe in a bid to spirit him back to America, the Register can reveal.

        Yes, and bizarrely, this FAR more public event yielded no reports of such activity. Funny that. Any more "evidence" you care to offer?

        The US has no interest in making Assange a martyr, but it behooves Assange to behave like they have because it pumps up his ego and still makes him interesting enough to write about. Not that whatever he utters is of any significance, it's more because plenty advertising can be served on people debating the twat.

        Or did you not notice that practically every report about him in certain papers have comments enabled? Ah, you missed it. Well, now you know. The only value this man has left is helping to sell advertising. A bit like the Kardashians or whatever they're called, but a heck of lot uglier and with (from what I hear) lower standards of personal hygiene.

  8. Little Mouse

    "Assange is still wanted in the UK for breach of bail conditions"

    I understand that Assange plans to escape once he gets his hands on a large bar of soap, some plastic explosive, and a dress.

    There's a huge network of Snufflegruff tunnels running under the Embassy, apparently.

    1. James O'Shea

      Re: "Assange is still wanted in the UK for breach of bail conditions"

      Getting his hands on (the contents of) a dress was the problem in the first place.

    2. Unep Eurobats
      Alien

      +1 for the DR & Quinch reference

      "If these Snufflegruffs are so cute and cuddly, how come they dug such massive tunnels?"

      "I dunno. Maybe they're claustrophobic..."

      1. Neil Barnes Silver badge
        Pint

        Re: +1 for the DR & Quinch reference

        And another...

  9. casaloco

    Just to clear this up...

    Just to clear this up... he has previously offered to surrender himself to the Swedish government if they agreed NOT to extradite his to the US. They said yes, OK, promise.

    He then asked them to provide a written, signed, guaranty that he would NOT be immediately handed over to the Americans and extradited back to the US. The Swedish government back-tracked, said they couldn't provide such a document or any formal guarantees, but would he mind coming back to Sweden anyway?

    At this point it became clear to everyone with a brain that he was being set-up.

    1. JimmyPage Silver badge
      Mushroom

      Or alternatively

      The Swedish authorities decided to treat Assange like any other person of interest in a criminal investigation, and refused to allow him to dictate terms ?

      I know which I believe,.

    2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: Just to clear this up...

      Bloody hell! Are people still peddling this shit? Have you guys never heard of the separation of powers? It's only basic political theory, not complicated, or new or anything...

      We have separate judicial systems for a bloody good reason! So that politicians can't pick and choose who gets tried and who doesn't. It's not perfect, but it's set up that way for a reason.

      And Assange is asking for a get out of jail free card, where he gets a guarantee of immunity from unspecified crimes he's not even been charged with. The legal advice given to a UK Minister would be that this would not be legal for them to do, as they have no legal power to give immunity. Also even if they gave such a guarantee, it would have no legal validity, and would be ignored by the courts.

      There is normally a right for the Home Secretary to use discretion in the case of extradition. But the last Labour government, in some bout of collective insanity, decided that in both the case of the posspoor US extradition treaty and the European Arrest Warrant, the Home Secretary would give up that power to protect out citizens. Sadly the coalition failed to correct this monstrous fuck-up, and so far the Conservatives haven't talked about it either.

      I don't know Swedish law. So don't know what their ministers can or can't do. Although I believe they have a standard block on extradition for "political crimes", so would be unlikely to extradite anyway. And of course with a European Arrest Warrant in place, Sweden would not be able to extradite without the permission of the UK courts as well.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Just to clear this up...

        Bloody hell! Are people still peddling this shit?

        Oh yes, and they will time and time again. I can't be bothered to spend too much time on Assange (on account of him being a huge waste of time and space to start with), but it would maybe be a good idea to summarise all the crap so it's just one post instead of half a forum peddling the same old BS.

        It does not matter how often you put the facts on the table, every f*cking time Assange shows up in the news you'll find the exact same claptrap and conspiracy theories posted again. Personally I would now actually *wish* they shipped him to the US and lock him up for a bit. If him and his idiotic followers are so desperate to play the martyr card, then let's do it proper and let him experience The Real Thing instead of the trumped up idiocy they're peddling, maybe that will end this nonsense.

        Alas, we have legal processes that prevent this. Shame.

  10. Greg J Preece

    The fun part of this rage-filled comment thread of hate is the presumption that he's guilty and hiding out from that, which conveniently ignores both that he was already in hiding when the allegations arose, AND this part of the article that you all seem to have missed:

    The former chief public prosecutor, Eva Finne told the BBC,"I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape."

    OK, former chief prosecutor, but someone who knows what they're on about says that there isn't enough evidence to prosecute anyway. Innocent until proven otherwise and all that, chaps? It's not like this whole thing could be a setup designed to discredit him and/or drag him out of hiding to somewhere he can be extradited...

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      He is indeed innocent. I have to say that he's innocent of these charges, because Swedish law says they have to be dropped, if you can successfully hide for 5 years. And I do believe in the rule of law. Although in the UK we don't run our system the same way, so the same trick wouldn't work.

      But the Swedes have a much more liberal judicial and penal system than us, and there's much to admire about how the Nordics go about running their societies.

      Of course that, and the fact that Assange said he was planning to seek permanent residency in Sweden, does rather undermine his claims about fearing that he's been set up by the evil Swedes to be fitted up for a crime he didn't commit without fair trial, then shipping off to the States. Given that he'd chosen to hang out in Sweden when he already claimed that the US were after him, and then chose to run to the UK - not a sensible place to be if you want to avoid Uncle Sam!

      So I am entitled to be of the opinion that everything he says is total bollocks. And that he's got a proven track record in this case of getting his lawyers to put out misleading statements, and has many loyal supporters willing to do the same.

      And no, he wasn't in hiding before all this blew up. He only went into hiding after the UK courts had finally blocked his final attempt to avoid being sent to Sweden to face the charges he'd already run away from. At which point he broke his bail, and fled to the Ecuadorian embassy.

      So he is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Which means I am very careful with my language. But, I am entitled to take a view on his actions too. And I find them rather objectionable. He came to my country, got a more than fair hearing from our courts, who ruled that there was at least enough evidence to answer to charges of rape, but obviously it wasn't their job to rule on how good that evidence was. Only that it was enough for charges under UK law. Then he abused our hospitality, and buggered off, costing us quite a bit of money to enforce the laws of the land.

      The only conclusions that I find that fit the data are that he's insanely paranoid, or that he's guilty. Admittedly the paranoia bit is quite likely, from everything I've read about him. But his attitude to women and what he's said about the charges could equally be interpreted to say that he's guilty as hell, and getting away with it.

      Although as he's voluntarily locked himself in a tiny embassy for years, "getting away with it" obviously isn't true.

      From a distance it's hard to know what combination of narcissim, his political beliefs, paranoia, publicity seeking and a weird childhood drives his actions. But he doesn't strike me as a particularly admirable human being. His supporters are often as self-righteous and annoying as he is. And I'm not all that convinced by Wikileaks. The Afghan war logs don't seem to have shown anything untoward, certainly I've seen nothing to justify the risk to the life of innocent Afghan locals of publishing them. Although I believe Julian Assange did say something like "they're informers, so fuck 'em". Which was nice...

      Anyway the 'Collateral Murder' video showed nothing of the sort, just the usual fuck up you get in warzones. Someone pointed a camera at a helicopter during a convoy escort operation, and got shot at. The initial version edited out the weapons that the party who were attacked were carrying too, not that those weapons were a reason to attack them, but the cockpit audio suggested that the crew thought they'd seen an RPG and so fired. They sounded more inexperienced, and a bit panicky, than malevolent.

      The diplomatic cables were interesting. I'm not sure they told us anything we didn't already know. It's hard to know whether they did more good (political transparency is worth something after all) than the probable slight harm to diplomatic communications - but I'm not sure they were worth Chelsea Manning going to prison for.

      1. Ben Tasker

        Just to add to your frustration (it certainly added to mine) with Assange. From the BBC news story

        "There was no need for any of this. I am an innocent man. I haven't even been charged," said Mr Assange.

        In a story about how the case was being dropped because they hadn't been able to interview him in time, and Sweden's requiring the suspect to be interviewed so charges can be brought. Of course he hasn't bloody been charged, because he's quite successfully evaded the step required before charges can be brought......

        Although as he's voluntarily locked himself in a tiny embassy for years, "getting away with it" obviously isn't true.

        The Ecquadorian ambassador has also, presumably, been getting a bit of come-uppance for sheltering him (he's a bail-jumper so regardless of your beliefs on the other charges, it seems a fair term).

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          The Ecquadorian ambassador has also, presumably, been getting a bit of come-uppance for sheltering him

          Oh, I suspect that the after effects of this will linger for decades in any diplomatic effort. UK's FO is not going to let them forget this in a hurry.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        That video

        Anyway the 'Collateral Murder' video showed nothing of the sort, just the usual fuck up you get in warzones

        Actually, that video DID show something, but not about the warzone. It demonstrated that Wikileaks was not adverse to manipulating data if it suited them. At that exact point they lost credibility. When it comes to disclosure of what is, after all, stolen information (i.e. the result of a crime), impartiality is crucial to attain any sort of whistleblower/journalism defence, otherwise it simply becomes malicious.

        The clearest evidence of malicious intent came IMHO when WL threatened to "release all" if something happened to Assange. If I were a worried government I would have called them on this blackmail - better have it over at once and then ride out the storm. In 2 months, people would be talking about the Kardashians and the whole thing would have been forgotten. As a matter of fact, WL hasn't really released anything of note of late, all the attention has been on Assange desperately trying to drum up some new publicity, which thankfully failed.

  11. nexsphil

    Is there any point in having a comment section?...

    ....if the Reg is just going to allow it to be used for astroturfing in such a hilariously blatant manner? Don't be deluded that we can't see through it. This kind of thing makes you look like absolute shit.

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: Is there any point in having a comment section?...

      Astroturfing for who? There's plenty of comments both for and against St Julian. Plenty of them from regular posters on here, who'd be going to an awful lot of effort if they were posting all their usual crap just a cover for the odd bit of shilling on behalf of Uncle Sam / the UK / Sweden / Space Lizards / whatever...

      I can confirm that my opinions (not very sympathetic to Assange) are entirely my own, and not paid for by anyone. If you can tell me where I can sign up to get paid decent money for posting any old crap online, please let me know. I might be tempted to quit my job, and sign up. So long as the hours are good.

      Otherwise, if you're going to accuse people of shilling, kindly come up with some sort of evidence, or at least argument. Put up, or shut up.

    2. Mark Exclamation

      Re: Is there any point in having a comment section?...

      @nexsphil, if you don't like this website, I think there are a few others around; perhaps you could go to one of those. No one is forcing you to visit and read here. Personally, I think El Reg is one of the best websites around!

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The Swedish investigation into the rape accusation was dropped by the chief prosecutor one day after it started in August 2010. What does that tell you about the evidence? Then the publication of some steamy consular love letters and magically he became Sweden's most wanted.

    He might not be a nice person but that doesn't stop him being a victim of childish foot-stamping by the establishment.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The Swedish investigation into the rape accusation was dropped by the chief prosecutor one day after it started in August 2010.

      Not all of it, only the part they had to drop because it's simply the law. This also suggest that the Swedish side of things is not about foul play, because in that cause they would have found some means to keep those charges going.

      What does that tell you about the evidence?

      It suggests they are clearly and strictly following the rule of law. Of course, that puts them at a disadvantage against someone who ignores any kind of personal accountability which must be frustrating, but they follow the law.

      He might not be a nice person but that doesn't stop him being a victim of childish foot-stamping by the establishment.

      He might not be a nice person, actually, no, we KNOW he's not a nice person (I'd call that an understatement), but he's also not special in any way. He must follow the law as much as we do, and not try to insist on some special treatment just because he has goaded others into disclosing government secrets and then not followed through on his promise of financial support.

  13. Killing Time

    Here’s an idea for the journo’s

    No one turn up for his next press conference, nobody phone him or his legal team to get the lowdown on his sad little drama. No one print the dissembling, dishonest and sanctimonious drivel that spews from him and his paid lackeys.

    Light a match under the faxes as they come into the various press offices he no doubt bombards with his self-serving crap and set a filter on incoming emails related to this subject straight to junk.

    Starve his ego of the ‘oxygen’ he requires to convince himself that he is relevant to this decade.

    Let the Ecuadorian's be his sole audience, them wanted him, let them listen to his BS, serves them right. They will either have tossed him out on the street or he will walk out like a lamb within twelve months…

    I know that this is unlikely in the UK but El Reg, why not set a precedent and lead by example? Be big for us....please?

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: Here’s an idea for the journo’s

      Do people still send faxes?

      Horrible, nasty things fax machines. I was very glad when email finally killed them. We killed our company fax number 3 years ago, I had one request to send us a fax about a year later - but haven't had anything since.

      1. Killing Time

        Re: Here’s an idea for the journo’s

        Re: Do people still send faxes?

        Sadly yes, though I have as little to do with them as possible.

        We have one in a murky corner which springs to life and disgorges what appear to be adverts every now and again, I think it's kept more for sentimental reasons really.

  14. ratfox

    So is there a statute of limitations about skipping bail?

    I'm unsure if that is the case. IIRC, Roman Polanski would still be put in jail if he is ever caught in the US, almost forty years after sex with a minor. There is no statute of limitations that apply, not due to the nature of the crime, but due to the particulars of how he escaped after pleading guilty.

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: So is there a statute of limitations about skipping bail?

      I don't think we have a statute of limitations on crimes in English law. I'm less good on the Scottish legal system.

      Civil matters usually have time limits, but I don't think there's anything even for minor crimes. Although the longer ago something is, the harder evidence is to produce.

      I remember there were a bunch of rape prosecutions and convictions in the 90s, based on the new ability to process DNA evidence. I think the police had a program where they re-opened unsolved cases where they still had physical evidence from the crime scene, from as far back as the 70s.

      1. Salts

        Re: So is there a statute of limitations about skipping bail?

        @I ain't Spartacus

        "I think the police had a program where they re-opened unsolved cases ...."

        It's called New Tricks :-)

        1. Fred Flintstone Gold badge

          Re: So is there a statute of limitations about skipping bail?

          It's called New Tricks :-)

          .. and the new series started off with a seriously good story in 2 parts!

          1. Salts

            Re: So is there a statute of limitations about skipping bail?

            @FF

            It sure did, that music for the start of episode one was very Sweeny ish as was much of the flash back and George Carter I mean Gerry Standing even alluded to it "Still got it", I know the timeline is out, but it made me smile, Dennis Waterman goes out where he came in*, many years on, Diamond Geezer:-) A John Thaw cameo(alas not possible) would have been the icing on the cake.

            Or maybe I read to much into it, nostalgia can do that to you, but what the hell, bloody good double episode!

            *yes I know he was around before the Sweeny :-)

    2. Richard 12 Silver badge

      Re: So is there a statute of limitations about skipping bail?

      No.

      Contempt of court is one of the things that will never expire, and has quite significant consequences - especially when apparently pre-meditated.

  15. Dave Stevens
    Thumb Up

    Tell all book incoming

    Easy way to clear his name an make a buck on the side.

    1. Richard 26

      Re: Tell all book incoming

      He's already done that but had a falling out with his publishers, so is almost unique in having an unauthorized autobiography.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    His biggest mistake was that he went to the wrong embassy.

    The UK doesn't extradite Rwandans, even when they're suspected of crimes against humanity. The Chilean embassy, cough Pinochet, might have been another good choice...

    When the UK authorities are prepared to spend as much on capturing a bail jumper as they have on stopping illegal international immigration, you know that, unless they're just being personal and vindictive (which is normal British justice BTW for people they don't like), there's more to it than they're admitting.

    Maybe if he'd done something really heinous, he'd be above the law...

  17. Steven Roper

    Statute of limitations?

    I always thought that the statute of limitations only applied if you weren't wanted in connection with a crime. For example, if you steal someone's car and nobody knows it was you, then after a time you can't be charged for it. But if you steal the car and the police want to question you about it, then simply evading the police for that time doesn't invoke the statute, because you were a person of interest from the start.

    At least that's how I thought it worked. Otherwise you'd have criminals of all stripes hiking it off to sketchy countries for however long knowing they can return with impunity after the statute time is up, which would make a mockery of any justice system.

  18. JaitcH
    Thumb Up

    Sweden's statute of limitations on prosecuting rape allegations is 10 years.

    Sounds sensible.

    Of course, UK Plod, unable to handle current crime, has been busy locking up aged entertainers who are collecting their pensions.

    How can justice be done of the expiration of 40 or 50 years?

    1. Sir Runcible Spoon

      Re: Sweden's statute of limitations on prosecuting rape allegations is 10 years.

      Perhaps the victims of the aforementioned pensionable age entertainers might feel differently, even though it was 'a long time ago'.

  19. SolidSquid

    I guess he should be blaming his lawyer then. After all, it was admitted during the high court challenge to the extradition that his lawyer at least knew that he was going to be questioned on additional charges before they left the country

  20. Rabster

    And again ....

    David Allen Green in the New Statesman on the legal facts

    http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange

  21. LucreLout

    Dear Mr Assange

    Talking to the Telegraph, Per Samuelson, Assange's lawyer, said: "He was quite worried when I spoke to him today. It's not a moment of happiness for him."

    It is a moment of your own doing. You will now always be an alleged sex offender, absent persuading the women, who you've denied their day in court, to withdraw their allegations.

    Samuelson added: "He will be very unhappy if the conclusion is that he is the winning party here, he doesn’t see it like that at all: he wants to clear his name."

    No you don't. You could have cleared your name at any time in the past 5 years. You could even have served any jail time required should you have been found guilty. And you could have been back home with your family, on your own couch years ago.

    Guilty people run Julian... guilty people run.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'm not a huge Assange fan, but given US behaviour on both this issue with Snowden and Manning and their continued refusal to either release or charge people from Guantanamo 14 years on his behaviour definitely isn't proof of guilt on the Swedish issue.

    I think a reasonable man would fear possible extradition and I believe there's a 100% chance that if he'd ended up in the US he'd still be indefinitely detained.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I'm not a huge Assange fan, but given US behaviour on both this issue with Snowden and Manning and their continued refusal to either release or charge people from Guantanamo 14 years on his behaviour definitely isn't proof of guilt on the Swedish issue.

      I think a reasonable man would fear possible extradition and I believe there's a 100% chance that if he'd ended up in the US he'd still be indefinitely detained.

      BS. That would require first a US decision that he's got something to answer for (which has no happened in all that time), next an extradition request which should be sufficient under UK law to warrant extradition (and offer certain guarantees) and even that could be problematic because it could lead to politically charged debates - that is, if he was CLEARED from all the other charges. Otherwise he'll first have to answer those.

      A "reasonable man" would have allowed the law to follow its normal cause as the whole process would be under intense scrutiny from the press which doesn't give much leeway in creative abuse of legal process. Unless, of course, he does indeed have something to hide, which is a suspicion I'm more inclined to lean towards.

  23. RonWheeler

    Guilt all round

    Sweden for having idiotic sex crime laws that shouldn't be a crime in the first place.

    USA for being arrogant international bullies with a shady record in treatment of foreign prisoners ( G. Bay)

    Assange for being an arrogant annoying twit, and jumping bail.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Guilt all round

      The alleged sexual event involved Assange having non-consensual unprotected sex with someone who had expressly said that they didn't want unprotected sex.

      And you think the interpretation of that as potentially being a crime is "idiotic"?

    2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: Guilt all round

      From the High Court hearing into the Assange case it was shown that the accusations of rape met with the UK defnition of rape. At the time there were two accusations:

      1. That he'd been told no sex without condom. After a bit of sulking they went ahead. So it was made fully clear what the rules were But when she was asleep he allegedly had another go and didn't put on a condom. That's clearly sex without consent, as her consent was conditional. The definition of which is rape. Obviously it's not rape with violence, but it's still rape. And the UK judges confirmed this would also be so under UK law. I could equally imagine it getting prosecuted as a less serious charge though.

      2. In the other case he also had been told no condom, no sex. But in this case he's accused of not just complaining but trying to carry on regardless. She claims to have closed her legs, while he was lying on top of her trying to force himself on her. No violence is alleged, just superior size, weight and leverage. Eventually he realised it wasn't working, put on his condom like a good boy, and got some sex as a reward.

      Not the most serious accusations ever for sure. But not minor either. As Ken Clark got into trouble for saying, there are degrees of rape, and some are more serious than others.

      But if using your superior size and weight to force yourself on an unwilling partner isn't being counted as rape - then the people trying to make that claim in Assange's support need to take a long, hard look at their idea of morality. Because they're doing it wrong.

      1. RonWheeler

        Re: Guilt all round

        No lie like a half-truth.

        http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Annoying

    Just ignore the *ugger, remove the Police presence as in these austere times its plainly money for old rope (for the coppers) and if he comes out deport him to France where he can join all those Job Seekers.

  25. deconstructionist

    eh the rape charge still stands the assault charge is dropped because the limitations on charging him has passed and they must interview him before charging him. so he is not off the hook as their is no limitations on an Rape case.

    He is a moron who thinks he is above everyone else and the rules don't apply to him , he'd make a fine politician

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Apparently there is a statute of limitations in Sweden on rape. And that's 10 years. So if they don't drop it, he may have to hole up for another 5 years in the Ecuadorian embassy. Then it's just the UK bail-jumping sentence to face.

      I hope Ecuador are charging him rent. Knightsbridge is an expensive area...

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like