UK and Ecuador working on Assange escape mechanism

Re: And what does Assange say?

Well, all the Ecuadorians have to do is push him out the embassy door. Or just invite the police in to arrest him, they're fully entitled to enter with permission from the ambassador or home government.

Alternatively, if they want something less public, they cut off his internet access, and nice food, and ration him to one Ferrero Rocher per day.

Re: And what does Assange say?

He has his freedom, he chooses not to use it.

Is the Daily Mail website closed for the day?

22 Para? Is that a combined-ops group of 2 Para and 22 SAS?

It worked on the Iranian embassy.

Did it really? Due to our feckless and disgraceful government, the main Libyan suspect for the murder of an unarmed policewoman now lives in the UK, and although arrested a few weeks ago for the murder of Yvonne Fletcher, was released on "national security grounds" the next day.

You have to wonder what exactly is so utterly rotten about our governments, the Home Office, the immigration authorities, and our rather crappy security services that foreign murderers from unstable and hostile countries are welcomed here.

Re: On a serious note

All sorts of rich and powerful people would be given the impression that if they make it expensive for the law to be applied they would be given an exception.

Hardly an impression, more a matter of fact. And not just rich people, big companies. Why make US tech companies and coffee chains pay their dues, when you can persecute individual IT contractors? Why prosecute dangerous driving by Saudi "princes" and moron top footballers when you can just use speed cameras on the hoi-polloi? Why force banks to behave ethically when you can just waste everybody's time micro-managing gas and electricity suppliers?

Re: On a serious note

There's no mechanism to do this, unless they pass a special law. The government can't officially tell the police what to do in operational matters and they can't tell the courts what to do at all.

And of course Sweden's investigation has been dropped for lack of progress. Their prosecutors office is apparently forced to act proportionately, and so give up when they can't get anywhere. It appears (though it's obviously hard to know), that Ecuador lied about cooperating with the Swedes, and didn't allow the formal interview at which Assange could actually be charged - only alllowed some sort of limited questioning - hence they gave up.

However as soon as Jules leaves the embassy, Sweden can re-issue the EAW on the one remaining outstanding charge and get him back. So even if he's only held by the Met for one day, before being taken to a magistrates court, fined for bail jumping and deported to Oz - that gives Sweden the time to get him again.

Last time Ecuador tried to get the Foreign Office to talk, they didn't get very far. And that was when the Met were supposedly spending a million pounds a second stopping his daring escape attempts - presumably overtime doughnuts cost extra...

So I suspect this is wishful thinking, give the attitude displayed here by the FCO:

At a meeting last Tuesday between Ms Alban [Ecuador's ambassador] and Hugo Swire, the Foreign Office minister responsible for Latin America, Ms Alban is said to have asked: "What are we going to do about the stone in the shoe?"

Mr Swire's response, according to a source who was in the room, was: "Not my stone, not my shoe."

From what I've read from Charles Crawford (an ex ambassdor of ours), the Foreign Office take a dim view of this sort of thing - he says the job of an embassy is to build as good a relationship as possible with the host country, and be as clear a communications channel as possible - and not deliberately creating embarrassment for them. Which is why British embassies would try to avoid taking in even legitimate cases seeking asylum if they can manage it, let alone this crock of shit cooked up by Assange. So they've no incentive to help, and from what I understand actively want Ecuador to suffer the consequences of having taken this pot-shot at the British system.

Re: Is it worth it

Sweden haven't dropped the case. They've dropped the arrest warrant. On grounds that it's disproportionate to continue pursuing the case when there's zero chance of an arrest.

However the prosecutor made it clear that the case can be revived, should there be a chance to do so. The statute of limitations on rape charges is 10 years, so I think that leaves Julian 4 more to wait? And as soon as he ends up in UK police custody, Sweden just need to re-issue that EAW and the Swedish then get him. So even if our magistrates let him off with a fine, a slapped wrist and a one-way trip to Australia - that's enough time for Sweden to get the paperwork faxed across, if they want to.

Re: Escape tunnel ...

Apparently there's a tunnel, with an entrance close to the embassy, that runs all the way to Heathrow Airport. Perhaps he could be smuggled down that.

Nope, he could never afford Heathrow Express' fares.

Re: Mail readers

I did think for myself. He's an arsehole. A narcisistic self-publicist who doesn't give a fuck for anyone other than himself. He may, or may not, genuinely believe in his professed ideals - but that doesn't entitle him to sexually assault people. Now I don't know whether he's guilty of that, the running makes him look guilty, but I suspect he is genuinely paranoid so that could also explain his behaviour.

But most of the bad PR about Julian Assange, is generated by Julian Assange.

Did I say he was a total arsehole?

As for your bollocks about "Corbyn style character assassination", it's bollocks. He's supposed to be a big boy. He ran for leadership of a major political party, and then the country. With that territory comes both unfair political attacks and legitimate scrutiy. He doesn't appear to like either. Also with that comes standing on your own record. His record is pretty shit. Even many of the people on his own side don't think he's up to the job, why should anyone else?

There is no global conspiracy. Evil or otherwise. It's scarier than that. Nobody is in control. Stuff just happens. And conspiracies also happen, but more of them fail spectacularly than succeed. Conspiracy is hard.

Re: Mail readers

it's frightening to hear otherwise intelligent people regurgitating that wholesale. Think for yourselves!

Yes, it is indeed worrying to detect just how uncritical anything that Assange has said has been accepted by his fans/followers as the gospel truth. Clearly, critical independence of thinking has given way to groupthink where even the rather large gaping holes in the Assange story are glossed over in what emerged to be an early version of the "fake news" tactic that Trump now deploys.

Kindly refrain from projecting your failures onto others, thanks.

Re: Why make it so complicated?

"he could have left with Nigel Farage"

Now I like that idea. One simple mistake, and .....

Re: Honestly

I think the world needs organisations like Wikileaks it just doesn't need Assange.

The world only needs WL if it stops trying to play politics. It is worth remembering that they helped getting that orange disaster in the White House to power, and probably soon Mike Pence as an inevitable consequence.

No. At least not officially. And I doubt they'd trust Ecuador or Assange not to blab/gloat about it afterwards.

Officially, and legally, the government can't tell the police what to do. Unofficially ministers can obviously have a quiet word. So long as the risk is worth it, or the likelihood of getting caught is low.

In this case I don't think anyone cares enough to risk their career over it. Plus I strongly suspect the Foreign Office are enjoying Ecuador's discomfort. They accepted his asylum for some cheap publicity, and to make the US look bad. With a side order of embarrassing the UK government.

So I think the FCO want to make them suffer for it. As well as the genuine policy goal of discouraging other embassies in London from sheltering criminals. The fact that Assamge suffers ten years self-imposed imprisonment for a crime many suspect he's both guilty of and would get off in court, is just a bonus...

Re: "while he nips over to Heathrow or Gatwick and gets on a flight to Ecuador?"

"There's no direct flights from the UK to this neck of the woods."

Even assuming there was a direct flight, would that be safe?

Honest question: if a suspected criminal is on an international flight, does international law allow an overflown country to demand that the flight lands on their territory so that the suspect can be arrested? If the answer is yes, Assange needs the willing connivance of more than just the UK.