back to article Julian Assange: I'm quite happy to sleep on Ecuador's sofa FOREVER

Julian Assange says he'll stay in the Ecuadorian embassy in London even if allegations of sexual assault against him in Sweden are dropped. The Wikileaks supremo said that even if the Scandinavian cops decide not to clap their hands on him, he still fears he will be extradited to the US for publishing thousands of confidential …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. RISC OS
    Devil

    The question is...

    ... is the Ecuadorian embassy happy to let him sleep on the sofa forever?

    Either someone will have to pay for them or his dirt on Ecuador hat better be really good... you know the dirt he said he would release if they didn't take him in ;)

    1. Steve Crook

      Re: The question is...

      Sooner or later, he will need medical attention that cannot be managed in house. At that point it's going to get interesting.

    2. Michael Hutchinson

      Re: The question is...

      Aren't there H&S regulations that say you must have a fire drill every x months? That'd get him outside.

      1. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

        Re: The question is...

        Dunno - ask an expert on Ecuadorian H&S law...

        1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

          Re: The question is...

          Embassies are under the laws of the country they're in. They're not sovereign territory, that's a common misconception. Although they are immune from lots of local laws/fines.

          Anyway, it's so small, he doesn't have to come outside if there's a fire drill, just make his way to the nearest exit and shout, "I'm here".

          I wonder if this is now going to be the least desired posting in the Ecuadorian diplomatic service. Like Ulan Bator is in the British... "If you don't get that report on my desk by lunchtime, then I'll send you to London to cook Assange's dinner!"

    3. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: The question is...

      If they want him out... import some bed bugs. :-)

      Then all they need to do is flea bomb the place after he leaves.

  2. Titus Technophobe
    Stop

    This would be an Assange view of the law.....

    I would think if he goes to Sweden thus fulfilling the UK's international obligations to respond to an EAW, and then proves himself innocent neither country would have much problem allowing him his legal rights to have asylum as a political refugee in Ecuador.........

    1. Gordon 10 Silver badge
      Mushroom

      Re: This would be an Assange view of the law.....

      Indeed yet again we have Assange muddying the waters and confusing a personal legal issue with issues affecting Wikileaks. Julian Assange <> Wikileaks although the odious little man has a vested interest in creating a view that it does.

    2. Suricou Raven

      Re: This would be an Assange view of the law.....

      Until the US submits their own extradition request.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: This would be an Assange view of the law.....

        Any country in the world can submit an extradition request. This does not mean it will be granted.

        1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

          Re: This would be an Assange view of the law.....

          If he'd gone to Sweden last year, this could all have been finished by now. I can't see them being likely to find him guilty anyway, given there were only 2 people in the room at the time. And he's not accused of violence, so there shouldn't be any injuries to look at. There's not likely to be much evidence.

          But instead he's hung around here, stringing it out. A year ago the US didn't look to have an extradition case ready. Myself I doubt they'll be able to make one that's likely to be accepted by UK or Swedish courts. They've mistreated their potential witness, Bradley Manning, and that's not likely to go down well. But such case as they can put together is more likely to be ready, the longer this goes on.

          1. david wilson

            Re: This would be an Assange view of the law.....

            >>"But instead he's hung around here, stringing it out. A year ago the US didn't look to have an extradition case ready. "

            But at least if his delays does give the US time to put a case together and try to extradite him, he'll be proved both Right and Important, which is all that really matters.

          2. t.est

            Re: This would be an Assange view of the law.....

            Well, I don't want to take any sides here, but Sweden allowed CIA to transport people Egypt to be "interrogated" in the most mild way.

            So both parties have their point, it's hard though to know what the truth in reality is. I'm neither surprised of whether he hides from the rape investigation, or actually have real reasons to be concerned of own future. There is no neutrality anywhere.

          3. mmeier

            Re: This would be an Assange view of the law.....

            Let's face it, the worst thing the USA can do to Lasagne is: Nothing!

            Let's assume he goes to Sweden, is interviewed and blood tested. Results are either

            a) No charge, declared "persona non grata" and 48h later two burly stewards throw him out an SAS jumbo on Sydney international. If he was nice and calm they may even wait for the gangway

            b) Charge due to having unprotected sex while suffering from an STD. Basically the same as above with maybe a short stay in a Swedish prison

            In both cases he will have a last press conference on Sydney Airport (and the USA will make sure there is A LOT of press) and the world will remember him as what he is: A self-absorbed, paranoid egomaniac.

            Then, a few years later they will find a drowned Hobo floating in a dirty pond in the outback and the "Wayoutathere Inquirer" will report that Assange fell in there while drunk and died. And no one will care wether he had help staying in or not.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Down

      Re: This would be an Assange view of the law..... @Titus

      You and the poeple upvoting you don't seem to understand that his innocence or otherwise of the charges against him in Sweden have nothing to do with why he's in trouble in the UK.

      He skipped bail. Dropping the rape charges or being found not guilty will not alter that.

      1. Captain Scarlet Silver badge
        Mushroom

        Re: This would be an Assange view of the law..... @Titus

        I agree, slam him in a UK prison already!

        1. Scorchio!!
          Thumb Up

          Re: This would be an Assange view of the law..... @Titus

          "I agree, slam him in a UK prison already!"

          Indeed. His offence pre dates his attempt to obtain asylum; that is to say, in order to make his way to the embassy in which he is now domiciled (pun intended) he necessarily had to breach a bail order in connection with alleged sexual assaults; he is on bail because he flew from Sweden when he found out from his lawyer that the Swedish police wished to interview and charge him. He does not have a leg to stand on, no matter how much the barrack room lawyers that flit around these parts would wish. Then there is the little matter of his criminal record, which is unenviable, and it is the case that criminals rarely commit one type of offence; they are most noteworthy in respect of one general category of behaviour, an inability to follow societal rules, and that appears apply to everything in question in his life thus far.

          Quite apart from anything else, the Swedes will not allow extradition to the US if we respond positively to the EAW, and Julie has miles of travel in this alone but, no, not Julie; Julie's trying to fool all of the world for as long as he can.

          As to his lie that the UK would breach international law by arresting him in a diplomatic vehicle en route to Ecuador, he would first have to stand on UK soil, the very land whose laws he has breached and, besides anything else, if a country assists a known felon in this manner trouble will surely follow (and it should be noticed that, as others have pointed out, diplomatic 'bags' have been opened in order to rescue people illegally detained by African nations)... ...not that Julie will mind, because he is doing or trying to do a splendid job of team splitting. Just like the cluster B pests to whom I think he belongs.

          Go to Sweden Julie, do it now. It does not matter how loudly and for how long you scream untruths about the likelihood of rendition from Sweden, or how the UK will breach laws by arresting you if you try to flee the Ecuadorian embassy, or any other of your bizarre claims and oleaginous drivel on the Today Programme last year about the women being 'in a tizzy' because you did not use a functional condom. ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12047035 )

          HAND.

          1. t.est

            Re: This would be an Assange view of the law..... @Titus

            According to Swedish news, he had been interviewed and got the green light to leave Sweden from the authorities. So I'm not so sure that he just left because he knew the police would like to interview him.

            If that then is all lies or the truth I don't know. But I find it interesting as a spectator, because it's a pretty interesting political circus. One thing though, if USA really wanted him badly, they would have gotten him already.

            1. Titus Technophobe

              Re: This would be an Assange view of the law..... @Titus

              This seems another of the misconceptions that Mr Assange has it would seem that :

              'On 15th September Ms Ny (prosecutor) told [Mr Hurtig ] (Assange's brief) there were no “force measures” preventing Julian leaving the country, i.e. he was allowed to leave… [Hurtig] (Assange's lawyer) phoned his client to say he was free to leave the country'

              So what seems to have happened was that Mr Assange’s lawyer asked on the 15th if the prosecution were able to detain Mr Assange which they couldn't, and he was therefore able to leave the country. Not being able to stop somebody (a situation which probably changed a couple of weeks later), and being given permission aren't really the same.

              1. Titus Technophobe

                Re: This would be an Assange view of the law.....@t.est Posted Thursday 20th June 2013 12:32 GMT

                Regarding claims that Sweden has acted illegally in past extraditions. It would seem there is no dispute that Sweden acted illegally in deporting two Egyptian men – but that was a deportation to their home country. As it was not an extradition the process was different. Doesn't seem to have been any mention of CIA involvement as such.

                Further to this the deportation caused quite a scandal in Sweden, and CIA (maybe this is how this got confused into the Egypt deportation story) rendition flights were stopped altogether in 2006 when to prevent it the Swedish military boarded just such a flight.

                This caused a diplomatic row between the USA and their 'lapdog' partner Sweden. Sweden refused to back down and halted the flights. It would seem the details of all this were leaked in December 2010 by the rather unlikely source Wikileaks.

            2. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
              Boffin

              Re: This would be an Assange view of the law..... @Titus

              test,

              I think you need to reread the court documents of the first extradition hearing.

              He never had the green light to leave Sweden.

              He left because he knew that the interview was a formality before they charged him with the crime.

              And to your point, no. He's not worth creating an international incident over. He's a prick, sure, but if the US has enough evidence to haul him in on an espionage charge... there is no statute of limitations.

      2. tom dial Silver badge

        Re: This would be an Assange view of the law..... @Titus

        But doesn't that just mean that those who put up the bail forfeit? I seem to remember reading a while back about some long-faced benefactors who would be losing their money over this.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: This would be an Assange view of the law..... @Titus

          >But doesn't that just mean that those who put up the bail forfeit?

          No it doesn't just mean that. It means that, which is why the benefactors are a tad miffed, and that Assange has commited a criminal act, which is why he will be arrested as soon as he leaves the embassy.

    4. Velv Silver badge
      Flame

      Re: This would be an Assange view of the law.....

      If he'd gone to Sweden under the original request, he be out by now even if the Swede's had found him guilty.

      What he's done is used his power, influence and position to avoid prosecution for potential sexual offences (this remains for a court to prove). We've seen a few other people recently who've been found guilty of using their "public standing" and fame to get away with sexual offences.

      IF (and it is an IF) he's guilty of such offences, he should face the appropriate penalty. That does not automatically make him liable for extradition on entirely unrelated offences. If he was accused of murder would we be so defensive of his rights? What if there was video evidence of his guilt, would we be so quick to defend the Saint of Wikipedia. "He's done so much for us" has been said about many people, should they get away with crimes because of this. (sarcasm alert) It is, after all, "just rape" he is accused of (/sarcasm alert)

      1. mmeier

        Re: This would be an Assange view of the law.....

        What if there is a bit more in it? Normally I agree the basic offence is "slap on the wrist and then Lars and Olav throw him across the next border". BUT! if he has/had a nice STD then the not-use of a condom gets problematic. And given that a lot deals with "didn't use one" and he has refused a blood test...

        1. jason 7

          Re: This would be an Assange view of the law.....

          Chances are if he did a brief spell in Swedish clink he may find his cell roomier and better than his room at the embassy.

          Probably better internet access too.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: This would be an Assange view of the law.....

          BUT! if he has/had a nice STD then the not-use of a condom gets problematic. And given that a lot deals with "didn't use one" and he has refused a blood test...

          Actually, I have been thinking about that too, and I wonder if the girls have been tested. Their lawyer is very tightlipped, so he's not going to tell, but I think Assange's real concern behind al the BS about US extradition may be that he has indeed left a present behind (I agree with you that it appears he makes a habit of going at it without protection). It may even be the case that one of the girls had a test straightaway (although I don't know if anything presents that quickly, it is possible that she preserved "evidence" to test). If Assange's lawyer got wind of that it would be no surprise that he immediately fled the country.

          It's all speculation, of course, but it could offer an alternative explanation of Assange's frankly *desperate* attempts not to be extradited. I don't know what Swedish law says about wilful infection, but I doubt it will be mild. They seem to have done at least something decent about the rights of a rape victim instead of telling them it's all their fault because of the way they dress.

          There is another side effect: if Assange is indeed found to have infected someone he'll have an image problem that he won't be able to recover from (well, more than he has already). Being shipped to the US would at least give him some martyrdom, but being locked up in Sweden for distributing STDs will not just end the remnants of his "career" based on simple, hard facts, it could also possibly bring charges from other people he slept with.

          Hmm. We can't but speculate. Shame the Swedes don't do anything in absentia..

    5. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
      Black Helicopters

      @Titus Re: This would be an Assange view of the law.....

      If Julian goes to Sweden, faces the music... it gets murky.

      Because of his actions, the UK could refuse to let him in.

      He jumped bail, and caused a lot of embarrassment for the UK. Does he get charged after the Swedes are done? I don't know.

      Could he go to Ecuador? Maybe, but he may be forced to go back to Australia. He is travelling on an Australian passport.

      From Australia, he may be allowed to go to Ecuador or they may take his passport.

      I'm not saying that he can't get to Ecuador but that it may not be that easy.

      And this is regardless of what the US Government does or doesn't do.

      1. FrankAlphaXII Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: @Titus This would be an Assange view of the law.....

        Unless he keeps dragging ass in London, there is nothing the US will be able to do to him in Sweden. Unless the Swedes have an axe to grind because he's failed to appear for quite awhile now.

        The FBI may indict him here and issue a warrant, but its up to Sweden to extradite him, and at first, if he'd have just gone there and dealt with the Police, he'd have nothing to worry about. Now, he sure as hell does because I'm sure the Swedish Police and Prosecutors are on a mission to burn him because he's been evading. Whatever his paranoid reasoning, that's how it looks to a cop or Prosecutor. He may get his wish to be extradited here, they'll just convict him and throw him in Marion or Terre Haute, like all the high profile convicts. He would have been best off in a place like Sweden, but he had to be stubborn to attract more attention. Idiot.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge

          @Frank...Re: @Titus This would be an Assange view of the law.....

          Typically when someone flees jurisdiction, then fights the extradition warrant, and then bugs out to a foreign embassy, you can bet someone in Sweden is going to continue to want to pursue it.

          Assange wants to hide out in hopes that this dies down? That's not going to happen.

          Looking at Roman Polanski, he was found guilty and jumped bail before sentencing. To this day, he can never set foot in the US. (Even though the girl he raped doesn't want to be involved and has since put the past behind her.)

          One could expect the same for Sweden because Assange made this more than just a he said / she said case of rape. (non-consensual sex) He gave them the two finger'd salute. (We yanks just use one. ;-)

          So he can't expect the Swedish issue to die any time soon.

          To your point. If the US were to open a sealed grand jury vote to indict, because of his leaving Sweden for the UK, even if back in Sweden, The US would still require both the Swedes and the UK's permission. So that's going to be a non-starter unless of course Manning's trial reveals some nasty tid bits which is what Assange is really afraid is going to happen.

          The US can wait.

          You can google this, but just to be thorough...

          Section 3282 of Title 18 : non-capital offense unless expressly stated shall be instituted within 5 years.

          (This covers everything that isn't expressly listed separately. Its your catch all )

          Section 3281 of Title 18: Capital offenses can be filed at any time. Note that while Assange may not face the death penalty, the charge still has the option of a death penalty and therefore would fall in to this bucket.

          Section 3286 of Title 18: 8 year statute of limitation for non-capital terrorism charges. (But doesn't seem to be applicable depending on how you define 2332b.

          Then there is Section 783(e) of Title 50 which may be applicable under the 'Subversive Activities Control Act' (whatever that means) and is good for 10 years.

          So if the US has any evidence of Assange doing something other than publishing the documents, he's either going to be faced with a 10 year stay in the Embassy, or Life.

          I'd say that the US has plenty of time. (IMHO if the US has evidence and can charge him under the espionage act, that's one where there is no statute of limitations and they will wait until he leaves the UK and possibly Sweden.

          What I don't know is what the UK will do because of his jumping of bail. Do they get him after Sweden or do they just send him back to Australia?

        2. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
          Boffin

          Re: @Frank ... Re: @Titus This would be an Assange view of the law.....

          The charge of Espionage is a potential Capitol offense. Even if they take the death penalty off the table, there is no statute of limitations. This is what probably scares Assange.

          So the US can wait.

  3. Katz
    WTF?

    Bah

    It amazes me the amount of bashing Julian Assange receives. We in the UK regularly allow in refugees for asylum who either hate the UK or end up committing crimes/terrorist acts. At the very least these people just bleed the welfare system dry. But the government allows this to continue.

    But for somebody who wants information freely open in the public domain and let's face it, it wasn't 'dangerous' information, we're swallowing the media vilification of him. The more the media attacks Assange, the more I believe in his concerns. I don't blame him for feeling he's being screwed over by the U.S via Sweden and the UK. He highly like is. What worries me more is the evident level of corruption and manipulation of our own governments. That is frightening.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Bah

      I don't give a toss about Assange.

      His victims, on the other hand, deserve to see justice done.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: His victims, on the other hand, deserve to see justice done

        Don't be silly, he just published the video, he didn't pilot the helicopter.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: His victims, on the other hand, deserve to see justice done

          No, he edited the video, editorialised about it and published it.

          There is no point to wikileaks if they do anything other than publish the original documents/data with no comment and only redacting names of people who could see endangerment to life.

          As I understand it, the bit of the video which was chopped off is where someone with an RPG takes aim at the helicopter, but doesn't fire. This totally changes the perspective of what happened afterwards.

          1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

            Re: His victims, on the other hand, deserve to see justice done

            To be fair to Wikileaks they did publish the un-edited version of the 'collateral murder' video.

            To be realistic about Wikileaks they also did their own credibility massive damage by releasing an edited version (which I suspect is the one most people saw) that gave a false picture of the event.

            Funny how they then refused to edit out the names of the Afghan informers, because it was their job to just release stuff, but seemingly that didn't apply to playing silly-buggers with the evidence in a different case.

            1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
              Boffin

              Re: His victims, on the other hand, deserve to see justice done

              "Funny how they then refused to edit out the names of the Afghan informers, because it was their job to just release stuff, but seemingly that didn't apply to playing silly-buggers with the evidence in a different case."

              This could be potentially damaging since it would separate him and wikileaks from being a member of the press.

              1. Scorchio!!
                Thumb Up

                Re: His victims, on the other hand, deserve to see justice done

                I don't know if you've ever considered this, but doesn't Julie's face seem a little... ....well, a little bitchy? Do you think he is a case of 'bitchy resting face'? [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3v98CPXNiSk#at=51 ] (Please forgive my ignorance, I forgot how to do El Reg html tags.)

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Coat

            Re: His victims, on the other hand, deserve to see justice done

            "As I understand it, the bit of the video which was chopped off is where someone with an RPG takes aim at the helicopter, but doesn't fire."

            Well, how dangerous was it, anyway? What kind of RPG are we talking about? It's one thing if he was attacking with Breath of Fire or Shining Force, but Chrono Trigger or FFVII - that's entirely different.

            1. Scorchio!!

              Re: His victims, on the other hand, deserve to see justice done

              ""As I understand it, the bit of the video which was chopped off is where someone with an RPG takes aim at the helicopter, but doesn't fire."

              Well, how dangerous was it, anyway? What kind of RPG are we talking about? It's one thing if he was attacking with Breath of Fire or Shining Force, but Chrono Trigger or FFVII - that's entirely different."

              Taking the matter seriously for a second, with only a minute amount of time to decide, what would you do? To put it another way, Gerry Adams - formerly commander of the PIRA Belfast Bde - and his friends claimed the British were shooting to kill, but you never heard a shrewd journalist ask a couple of questions; 1) do the IRA shoot and/or bomb to kill? 2) what does it mean to not shoot to kill?

              It is only in Hollywood and computer games that the bad guy is wounded and not killed, or that his firearm is shot out of his hand. Even with a sniper scope (and I once was a marksman with a bolt action rifle, whilst terrified of my 9mm para side arm, a Browning pistol which bucked around in my hands like a mad thing[1] ) from a distance or close up you do not aim to wound; you aim at the thorax or give your enemy the advantage. This almost inevitably means death with a larger calibre firearm, partly because of the calibre involved, and partly because of the speed of the round, which quite literally pulls flesh from the target down the hole, and punches out a massive exit wound. Shit happens when you party naked, and no amount of cuddly, fluffy bunny thinking will change war, which is by definition fucking awful.

              This is clearly not Hollywood or a computer game, and the PC claims that people must not shoot at armed suspects, or must at very least shoot only to wound, these claims are made by idiots who lack knowledge about warfare and lack respect for those who are about to be shot.

              Your (I believe ironic) point is well made.

              [1] I was given a severe bollocking for my inability to hit the target, because my life could depend on it. For my performance on a bolt action rifle I was praised and I could never equate the two, and this to an extent illustrates my point.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Bah

        "His victims, on the other hand, deserve to see justice done."

        Which is precisely why he can't get justice, as people like you have already presumed his guilt.

        That should be alleged victims.

        1. Scorchio!!
          FAIL

          Re: Bah

          " "His victims, on the other hand, deserve to see justice done."

          Which is precisely why he can't get justice, as people like you have already presumed his guilt.

          That should be alleged victims."

          This is not the court in which he would be tried and, as you know, he fled the Swedish jurisdiction not long after their police rang his lawyer to tell him that they wanted to interview him prior to making an arrest if not satisfied with his responses - this is the usual pattern in the Swedish CJS, which gives people facing allegations the chance to make a satisfactory explanation and provide evidence to support their claims - and, what is more, his lawyer claimed the Swedish police had not subsequently been in touch with him; he was force to retract this claim in a UK court, on reading his mobile phone log. It seems to me that a lot of Assange's entourage and supporters are of a like mind where it comes to the truth and to justice; Julie comes first.

          As to the matter of whether people in this country, not the original jurisdiction note, have opinions that are of any import in respect of the presumption of guilt, irrelevant; Assange is wanted in a Sweden, not in the UK. YMLT to ask the Afghan informants whose locations he made publicly available, resulting in threats from the Taliban. They only wanted a few mines cleared apparently, but Julie said words to effect that it was tough, they are informants and knew what to expect. He did this in front of season journalists who were stunned.

          HTH. HAND.

          1. Titus Technophobe

            Re: Bah

            Julie said words to effect that it was tough, they are informants and knew what to expect. He did this in front of season journalists who were stunned.

            The same sentiment he presumably extends to Bradley Manning........

            1. Jack Project

              Re: Bah

              "The same sentiment he presumably extends to Bradley Manning........"

              Is he the ginger one in Eastenders?

            2. Scorchio!!
              Thumb Up

              Re: Bah

              " Julie said words to effect that it was tough, they are informants and knew what to expect. He did this in front of season journalists who were stunned.

              The same sentiment he presumably extends to Bradley Manning........"

              About whom Assange has said precious little, having donated only a minute amount of money to Manning's defence. Perhaps he believes he might reveal his link Manning if he does anything more... ...but, as Saint Joseph Stalin once indicated, it's a mere statistic.

              Anyhow. How depressing these kooks are. I think I need the release of nitrous oxide. [Half man half bike.]

      3. Bleu
        Paris Hilton

        Re: Bah

        Victims? Oh, I see, you mean the woman who bragged about her score and the quieter one who colluded with the other after they'd compared notes.

        Only thing they seem to be victims of is a desire for celebrity dong, hell, even Jules's famous lack of taste for the occasional bath or shower didn't put them off.

        Background of the first of Jules's very willing conquests is really interesting, as are her known movements immediately after the two `victims' had colluded.

        Paris, 'cos we'd like tothink she has the taste to avoid bedding those who enjoy being stinky.

        1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

          Re: Bah @ Bleu

          Traditionally it's considered bad form to accuse alleged rape victims of gagging for it, especially when your information comes from the internet rumour mill and not from court proceedings (which said alleged rapist is trying to avoid).

          Or does no not mean no where you're from?

          Pure class, Bleu.

          1. h3

            Re: Bah @ Bleu

            Yeah but the Swedish definition of rape includes all kinds of stuff that isn't even a crime here.

            Loads of other stuff has been lumped in with it.

            They could have sorted it out before he ever left Sweden they are abusing the system.

            Feminists are really female supremacists. (People generally realise stuff like White supremacists are bad).

            (I don't particularly like Assange but that is irrelevant).

            1. david wilson

              Re: Bah @ Bleu

              >>"Yeah but the Swedish definition of rape includes all kinds of stuff that isn't even a crime here.

              Loads of other stuff has been lumped in with it."

              Which suggests that some amount of caution would be advisable for someone who reckoned they were a target for dirty tactics.

              And that even for selfish reasons, it might have made sense for to agree to an STD test once it was clear that at the very least there was either some unhappiness with the claimed unprotected sex, or some Dark Scheme brewing.

              >>"They could have sorted it out before he ever left Sweden they are abusing the system."

              That might have been easier if he hadn't run away when they were trying to arrange an interview.

              >>"Feminists are really female supremacists."

              Personally, I find the word troublesome, since it seems to cover far too many positions, but is often used without qualification as if all those positions were meaningfully similar.

              Not to mention that (because of the wide range of views it gets used to cover) many people who would share the views of some people calling themselves feminists avoid the term because of the views of other people calling themselves feminists.

              I can think of a large number of intelligent women I know who believe in equality [according to one or other definition of equality] but unless they'd made a point of telling me, I would have little idea whether any particular one would consider herself a 'feminist'. Or any other kind of 'ist'.

              1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
                Boffin

                Re: Bah @ Bleu

                Uhm just a couple of nits...

                Rape is one of the 32 offenses where you don't have to show a duality of the crime.

                So whatever Sweden says is rape, is considered rape in Sweden.

                The interview where he 'ran away' was the formality meeting where he would be charged with the crime.

                Its not an 'interview' in terms that many people understand.

                The only person abusing the system is Assange.

                He needs to man-up.

                1. Scorchio!!
                  Thumb Up

                  Re: Bah @ Bleu

                  Good point, and thank you for the reminder. The trouble with his supporters, both online and in the media, is that they either deliberately or through an inability to memorise the data, flit about from point to point, trying to make what sound like substantive points but which are in fact at odds with various compartments of reality. There again, these people seem to have survived on a diet of Matrix like films and comics, so their difficulties with reality are perhaps understandable, even if inexcusable.

                  As to Assange 'manning up' I do believe that hell will freeze over first.

            2. Scorchio!!
              FAIL

              Re: Bah @ Bleu

              "Yeah but the Swedish definition of rape includes all kinds of stuff that isn't even a crime here."

              As someone has already mentioned, posting up a link, a British police officer when interviewed about the conditional 'only with a condom', said he'd be prosecuted in this country too; the women did not give him permission to have sexual intercourse with them if he did not wear a condom. Illustratively, a German woman who was infected with HIV was prosecuted for allowing a man to have sex with her; it resulted in him him contracting the infection.

              In Scandinavian and Teutonic countries sexual health has always been a more important matter than in this country, so I am unsurprised at much that has been said and that is very sad.

              "They could have sorted it out before he ever left Sweden they are abusing the system."

              Assange's legal counsel was told that the police wished to interview him prior to charging him, as is the procedure in Sweden; within a few hours Assange disappeared and then reappeared in the UK; Assange abused the Swedish legal system and hospitality. Even worse, his legal counsel denied the Swedish police had tried contact him but in a UK court he was forced to retract this and confirm that they had tried to make contact, on perusing his phone logs. His bar association at the time announced intent to interview him.

              As to the feminist bit, I don't care what they are nor should anyone; rape is rape, and not a matter for cultural relativism, what matters is the truth of these incidents, stripped of the politics, and that was the point of the proposed police interview and, if necessary, the subsequent charges that were to be laid if Assange's responses were not satisfactory.

          2. Bleu
            FAIL

            Re: Bah @ Bleu

            Interesting how many liars appear on threads like this.

            The major chaser of celeb dong is on record as:

            boasting about how amazing it was to be with the most happening people in the world *at a party for Jules at which he was present and that she'd helped organise*

            was a US agent of influence in Swedish jr politics

            colluded with the other celeb dong chaser to trump up the charges.

            A lot more.

            None of that is from 'net rumours, those of your ilk may have google-bombed those irritating facts to where they are hard to find now, but some of us still remember.

            I have no sympathy for celeb-dong chasers who post-facto collude to trump up charges.

            Not a great fan of those like Jules who can'tsay no and are stinky to boot, but those repeadly and falsely screaming `rape charges' are simply willful liars.

            1. david wilson

              Re: Bah @ Bleu

              >>"None of that is from 'net rumours, those of your ilk may have google-bombed those irritating facts to where they are hard to find now, but some of us still remember."

              Well,

              >>"colluded with the other celeb dong chaser to trump up the charges."

              Sounds rather like an allegation rather than a fact.

              Two people talking and realising that what they each thought was a one-off poor experience was less one-off isn't automatically 'collusion'.

              Likewise, with the official case starting with concerns of STD and unwanted unprotected sex, it's not hard to see how such concerns might be significantly amplified by hearing someone else's experiences.

              >>"I have no sympathy for celeb-dong chasers who post-facto collude to trump up charges."

              I would have no sympathy for anyone making false allegations.

              Though it's not actually clear in this case that that happened.

              And if the 'facts' prove even to people remote from the case that the allegations are lies, maybe it would have been better for Assange not to run away from the investigation, and to get things cleared up as quickly as possible?

            2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: Bleu Re: Bah @ Bleu

              Every one of your zombie "facts" has been shot down so many times you'd think the news would have managed to penetrate even the thickest of sheeples' brains. I suggest you go back to Indymedia and leave the tech sites to us adults, mmmmkay?

              1. Bleu
                Happy

                Re: Bleu Bah @ Bleu

                Interestingly testoroneOD post re. moi.

                Sure and all, I agree that the man is an egomaniac, comes from his mum it seems. A crappy honey trap doesn't negate the more informative reieases.

                As for IT. very likely a lot more than you.

    2. Tom 38 Silver badge

      Re: Bah

      What worries me more is the evident level of corruption and manipulation of our own governments. That is frightening.

      Evidence for your "evident corruption and manipulation"? Thought so.

      1. Katz
        WTF?

        Re: Bah

        Seriously? Ok.

        Operation Northwoods (U.S)- Military/political plan to motivate public support of an attack on Cuba- http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Northwoods.html

        Operation: Libya - Chasing the oil http://www.globalresearch.ca/operation-libya-and-the-battle-for-oil-redrawing-the-map-of-africa/23605

        Who owns big media- http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/thread-680460-1-1.html

        Who owns the world?- http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=B1j06Qt3rgY

        Join the dots. That's just 5 mins of digging. If you believe everything you're told by the media and don't realise how in the pocket of these mega rich few the world is, then you're deluding yourself as to the sad truths of this world.

        Thought so.

        1. david wilson

          Re: Bah

          >>"If you believe everything you're told by the media and don't realise how in the pocket of these mega rich few the world is, then you're deluding yourself as to the sad truths of this world."

          Who's saying they believe everything they read in the media, or that they think governments are perfectly moral?

          If you want to delude yourself into believing anyone who dares to disagree with you must hold extreme and quite opposite views, you have a very retarded black-and white idea of the world, which I can only hope you will grow out of someday.

          And if you're going to try and claim the Establishment is shit-scared of Assange revealing their deepest secrets in case the sky comes crashing down, I'm really not sure that quoting a declassified memo is the best way to start.

          Unless you don't understand what 'declassified' means.

      2. Mad Mike
        FAIL

        Re: Bah

        "Evidence for your "evident corruption and manipulation"? Thought so."

        Really? Are you seriously asking this question? Right at this very moment, various people in the Commons and Lords are being investigated over taking money (or other considerations) for tabling questions/seeing things through the system. Is that not corruption and manipulation. If there was one statement ever made that required less evidence to be presented by the writer, I'd like to see it.

        The evidence of govermental/political corruption and manipulation is absolutely everywhere and you'd have to walk around blind not to see huge amounts of it.

        1. Katz

          Re: Bah

          "Evidence for your "evident corruption and manipulation"? Thought so."

          Really? Are you seriously asking this question? Right at this very moment, various people in the Commons and Lords are being investigated over taking money (or other considerations) for tabling questions/seeing things through the system. Is that not corruption and manipulation.

          ABSOLUTELY. Thank you Madmike. These are even not the huge problems. We could go on all day uncovering lies and corruption. The very fact somebody cited the Daily Mail, perhaps to allude that I might be daft enough to swallow the utter bull, that I blame immigrants for all the UK's problems. This is patently untrue, my view is the opposite, without immigrants, the UK would be in deep trouble, to cut a long story short, having immigrants willing to work at a low wage not only keeps low skilled job positions fulfilled, but also keeps wages low. But anyway my comparison was simply to show 1 person vs another, i.e immigrants that are clearly dangerous have many rights, but somebody like Assange seem to have some serious muscle moving in against him.

          Just finally, and briefly, it's quite funny that the Daily Mail gets mentioned, since that's yet another outlet of biased, lies and manipulation. My point(s) well proven I think so the Sir Smart Arse who questioned my use of the word 'evident'.

          1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

            Re: Bah

            If you were able to take a a slightly more nuanced view of the world you might discover two things:

            1. Just because Wikileaks does good, doesn't mean that Julian doesn't do bad.

            2. Just because others do bad doesn't mean that Julian doesn't do bad too.

            It's not that black and white, sorry if that troubles you. Oh and the Daily Mail citing was ironic (as, I suspect, are all Daily Mail citings).

    3. david wilson

      Re: Bah

      >>"We in the UK regularly allow in refugees for asylum who either hate the UK or end up committing crimes/terrorist acts. At the very least these people just bleed the welfare system dry. But the government allows this to continue."

      And what's worse, some of these Johnny Foreigners have the damn check not to be white.

      >>"...we're swallowing the media vilification of him. The more the media attacks Assange, the more I believe in his concerns. "

      And the more the Daily Mail attacks asylum seekers, the more you hate them.

      But how is the media 'attacking' him?

      By failing to give him the unthinking praise some people think he deserves?

      By reporting that he's still hiding from the British legal system.

      A system he explicitly chose to place himself in when he came from Sweden some time after the allegations were made there.

      Has the UK radically changed in political establishment makeup in the last few years?

      Seems to me it's pretty similar to the way it was when he freely chose to come here rather than go anywhere else.

      It's just that he didn't get his way in court here, so the country has gone from 'ace' to 'crap' simply as a result of not treating him the way he thinks he deserves to be treated.

      1. Mad Mike

        Re: Bah

        @David Wilson.

        I think you're reading your own bias into this. His first statement is absolutely true, albeit you can argue about how many of them there are. He has never mentioned colour or race or anything at all, other than it's a refugee. You can argue about numbers, but we have refugees who come here, make no attempt to integrate, get a job or anything and simply sit on benefits for decades with no contribution to this country. I absolutely agree this is by no means all of them and some of them (including some friends) are the hardest working and nice people in the country. In fact, I've talked to loads who raise the very same question he's asked. Refugees who have become British and both taken and given back to the country who them complain about the refugees coming in now who have no intention of doing so.

        I welcome refugees who are genuine and (without suitable help) integrate and bring diversity to this country and give back to this country in some manner. I do not welcome those this poster is referring to, the like of Abu Hamza and others who come here, don't integrate, actively call for our destruction and do all this whilst taking fistfuls of money from the state.

        1. david wilson

          Re: Bah

          >>"I think you're reading your own bias into this. His first statement is absolutely true, albeit you can argue about how many of them there are."

          Given that people applying for asylum aren't likely to stand up and say 'I hate the UK' or 'I intend to commit terrorist acts', the fraction which may be in those categories can't easily be distinguished from the rest, and even when the odd person might have expressed various views about how societies should work which differ from your view or mine or society's or the government's, legally speaking, that isn't a valid ground for refusing asylum if they are in fear of persecution, even if it may justify keeping an eye on them and jumping on them at the first sign of illegal activity.

          If the 'fear of persecution' threshold is wrongly set, that's an issue whether the people coming here agree with UK society or not.

          >>"You can argue about numbers, but we have refugees who come here, make no attempt to integrate, get a job or anything and simply sit on benefits for decades with no contribution to this country."

          Well, that seems to be an argument for benefit reform (for natives as well as imports), not an argument against asylum.

    4. TeeCee Gold badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Bah

      There is a monumental bloody difference between someone attempting to escape persecution / torture in some rogue shithole and someone trying to dodge criminal charges brought in a democratic country with a balanced, independant and open legal system.

      Assisting the first makes you a good global citizen, assisting the second gets you the "rogue shithole" tag.

      1. Mad Mike

        Re: Bah

        "There is a monumental bloody difference between someone attempting to escape persecution / torture in some rogue shithole and someone trying to dodge criminal charges brought in a democratic country with a balanced, independant and open legal system.

        Assisting the first makes you a good global citizen, assisting the second gets you the "rogue shithole" tag."

        Hang on, let's correct this statement. If you help someone trying to escape persecution/torture in another country (it happens even in non-shitholes!!), you're good. If you accept refugees under any pretext and let them live off you for the rest of their (and their dependents) lives, then you're a soft touch.

        If you hadn't noticed, Assange was claiming persecution in another country when he came here. I know it was Sweden and people tend to think of Sweden as some sort of land of milk and honey, all liberal and do-goody etc. However, look through the history books and into their past and you'll find some pretty dodgy examples there, just as much as any other country. Clue: Looks up forced sterilisation of segments of the population. Went on till quite recently really.

        1. david wilson

          Re: Bah

          >>"If you hadn't noticed, Assange was claiming persecution in another country when he came here."

          He/his lawyers were claiming all kinds of stuff - the women were lying, the prosecutor was a biased feminist, ...

          If he genuinely thought it was all a high-level intergovernmental plot, why would he seriously think the UK any safer than Sweden, given the endless claims in the media about how slavish and one-sided our extradition arrangements with the US are?

    5. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: Bah

      Katz,

      We allow in refugees for asylum who we think have genuine requests to make for asylum. Assange doesn't.

      Anyway, Assange didn't ask us for asylum. He asked our courts to not allow a perfectly legal warrant for his removal to Sweden. His grounds were basically that we shouldn't have passed that law - and that the evidence/accusations didn't meet the requirements for extradition (which is a different legal process entirely). After a case and 3 appeals, he lost. The legislation was ruled to be compliant with our other laws, and the evidence/accusations were also deemed to be acceptable for both the EAW, and the traditional extradition process. Even though the second bit was irrelevant, as that's not a requirement of the EAW system, which is supposed to act like an arrest warrant with extra protections, not like an extradition.

      He is accused of rape by the way. He's accused of using his superior size and weight to force himself on an unwilling partner. Who was only willing if he put on a condom. I believe hat's the most serious of the allegations. If that's a false allegation, the only chance we'll find out if the legal process is completed. Assange had enough trust in the Swedish system that he applied for citizenship - so it's a bit late to claim their courts are rigged now.

      But for somebody who wants information freely open in the public domain and let's face it, it wasn't 'dangerous' information

      He published the names and addresses of people who'd given information to NATO troops about the Taleban. Do you not regard that as dangerous information? Because I fucking do! I believe he said something like it was their own fault if they got killed because of it.

      He also published diplomatic information that didn't advance our knowledge of any alleged government wrongdoing, but possibly did make the process of international diplomacy harder. It's a matter of opinion as to whether this was a good or bad thing. Woodrow Wilson called at the Versailles conference for "Open agreements, openly arrived at." Every comment I've read on this from other diplomats and historians has called it hopelessly naive - and said that the whole point of diplomacy is to allow nations to talk with some secrecy in order to allow them to negotiate and change positions with some freedom. This may be an arguable case, but the peace process in Northern Ireland could not have proceeded without the secret talks begun in the 80s (under Thatcher), and the closest we ever got to peace between Israel and the Palestinians also relied on a long process of secret negotiations. The process that allowed a mostly peaceful handover of power to the ANC in South Africa was also secret diplomacy.

      I suspect that although the diplomatic cable leaks have been interesting to read, and revealed a some (unsurprising) shenanigans, they've probably done slightly more harm than good.

      However, even if you think that Wikileaks has only done good things, that still doesn't give Assange a free pass to break any laws he likes. If he's guilty of rape, he deserves to spend a nice long time in prison. If he's guilty of espionage, rather than just receiving stolen information, then he has to face the consequences of his actions.

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Bah

      A number of years ago, I made a mistake and broke the law. I was caught out and charged, went to court and was punished by the court. I then got on with my life, picked up the pieces and have not misbehaved since.

      What annoys me is this insistence on making out that Assange is some sort of special case. If there is a case to answer, he needs to be a man and answer it instead of hiding away like this.

      Take off the tin hat, stop seeing conspiracies and see him for what he actually is. Stop making excuses for him. He needs to answer his accusers and accept the penalties for skipping bail, an offence in the UK.

  4. SuperTim
    Facepalm

    His legal status.

    It is my understanding that even if Sweden doesn't want him any more, he has still broken the law by not surrendering to bail. I think that he is now in a very awkward position. Even if he is not guilty of any kind of rape, he is now at risk of legal proceedings in the UK for his absconding.

    His liberty will forever be restricted because of his actions. His likely punishment for absconding would be light, if the EAW was withdrawn, but it would put him in legal custody long enough for him to be extradited to the US on whatever charge he appear to think they want him for (which has not ever been mentioned by the US or UK authorities as even existing). I think he is martyring himself and I don't think it reflects well on him.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Pint

      Great !

      After having been the hidden hand behind lots of coup-d'etats around the globe (from Chile to Iran), finally justice is coming to you Anglosaxons. You create your own hell-hole of political (in-)justice, secret courts, torture and a fully developed, all-encompassing system of Staatssicherheit.

      Cheers !

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Great !

        After having been the hidden hand behind lots of coup-d'etats around the globe (from Chile to Iran), finally justice is coming to you Anglosaxons. You create your own hell-hole of political (in-)justice, secret courts, torture and a fully developed, all-encompassing system of Staatssicherheit.

        I'm sure Assange will be proud of you for that one. The rest of us merely end up wondering what exactly you've been smoking so we can avoid it.

    2. Matthew 3

      Re: His legal status.

      More importantly does his current status explain why the trademark on his name has lapsed? I'm sure that every previous El Reg article quotes him as Julian Assange™.

    3. Scorchio!!
      Thumb Up

      Re: His legal status.

      "Even if he is not guilty of any kind of rape, he is now at risk of legal proceedings in the UK for his absconding."

      He absconded from Sweden, and this provided the basis for a request to not release him on bail but to keep him inside. He has fulsomely provided evidence that the CJS cannot, under any circumstances, extend him trust.

  5. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    Yawntastic juh-nah-lism.

    Wow, straight off the AP wire? Did you even change the font? No added info on how it is legally impossible for the Swedes to guarantee his extradition as A$$nut insists they can, even though this point has been shot down SOOOOOOOOO many times? No mention of the fact that the Swedes have shown no inclination to drop anything? No analysis of the legal position of his bail-jumping and possible ramifications even in the extremely unlikely event Sweden drop the matter? No analysis of whether the EAW trumps whatever UN treaty A$$nut is whittering about?

    You could have started with something easy, such as noting that the UN Convention on Refugees, which covers political asylum, notes that it can be applied to the following cases; "....Protected grounds include race, nationality, religion, political opinions and membership and/or participation in any particular social group or social activities....." - note, nothing in their about criminal activities such as sexual molestation, which is what Sweden want him for.

    1. Scorchio!!
      Thumb Up

      Re: Yawntastic juh-nah-lism.

      "No mention of the fact that the Swedes have shown no inclination to drop anything? No analysis of the legal position of his bail-jumping and possible ramifications even in the extremely unlikely event Sweden drop the matter? No analysis of whether the EAW trumps whatever UN treaty A$$nut is whittering about?"

      Good point, though of course it does not matter what Julie does from now on because he is likely to be in receipt of a legal cluster fuck, condoms or no.

  6. ShelLuser
    Boffin

    Not quite...

    "It is legally bound, under higher laws which it has acceded to, as part of its United Nations obligations, to accept the transfer of political refugees to the country which granted asylum,".

    Makes me wonder what those higher laws actually are. But if he feels this way; why not start a prosecution?

    I think he's totally off though. Because if you look closely you'll see that there still is no "official" system in place which regulates the use of immunity. For example; because of the immunity of ambassadors and their cars they normally also don't have to worry about parking violations. As a result plenty of diplomats basically allow their cars to be placed "where possible", even if it's officially not allowed.

    Yet there are also many countries which don't tolerate such behaviour and demand that their own embassy personal pays up for their own traffic tickets. And there are also host countries which use alternative means to enforce the law. In Holland it's not uncommon for a diplomatic car to get towed away. They can't search it but it seems they can move it out of the way.

    Or what to think about embassies which hire personal from the host country but immediately make it clear that they can't count on immunity because they're not citizens of the main country?

    A small example, but one which clearly shows that there currently is no specific ruling in these matters. Some countries are very strict with upholding diplomatic relationships (not paying for traffic fines) whereas others couldn't care less about "pesky details".

    As such, I think Mr. Assange is doing some wishful thinking here, but he seems to be completely off.

  7. mmeier

    Maybe a little fire in the (non embassy) basement would be a solution. Similar to the scene in "The Bronx" when the flush the criminal out of the flophouse where he is engaged to a prostitute...

  8. John Deeb
    Boffin

    Perfect sense

    Assange makes perfect sense, no matter if one agrees with his outlook or not and has all the written and spoken evidence in place which strangely enough many people trying to intelligently commenting on the story still keep ignoring. This is not about speculation, it's established as far as one can with official secret acts that the indictment will be forthcoming the moment Assange is in a position to be secured. Not sooner, obviously, I hope.

    After the Manning trail is over and Assange's role in the leak has been made more clear legally beyond any wiggle room for future revisions, obviously that's the time for Assange to start rethinking his position at the embassy. This might still take a while though.

    1. david wilson

      Re: Perfect sense

      >>"This is not about speculation, it's established as far as one can with official secret acts that the indictment will be forthcoming the moment Assange is in a position to be secured."

      Well, if that really is the case, more fool him.

      He should have gone straight to Ecuador, rather than pissing about here.

      And let us not forget that Assange was actually planning to stay in Sweden, before any allegations of sexual assault were made.

      If Sweden is in such thrall to the USA, that was another dumb choice.

      His choice.

      And if he really believed the CIA were out to get him, sleeping around with people he barely knew doesn't exactly sound like the smartest move either.

    2. Ben Tasker Silver badge

      Re: Perfect sense

      it's established as far as one can with official secret acts that the indictment will be forthcoming the moment Assange is in a position to be secured.

      I don't think it is, whilst there's every possibility, it's far from certain so the word 'established' has no place here at the moment.

      In fact, if the Yanks have any kind of a clue, there's a high probability that there won't be an indictment this time around. JA has made such a big noise about how they're determined to get him, all they have to do is do nothing (even after he's sent to Sweden) and he will have destroyed his own credibility. Given that a lot of JA's followers believe the rape charges are simply a smear attempt, think how much more damaging it would be to be considered a paranoid lunatic by most of the world.

      So whilst there may, possibly, have been an intention to try and extradite him, it's by no means clear that that intention remains (if it was ever present).

      1. david wilson

        @Ben Tasker

        >>"So whilst there may, possibly, have been an intention to try and extradite him, it's by no means clear that that intention remains (if it was ever present)."

        But Julian has Spoken and said it's almost a certainty.

        To two decimal places, no less.

        Therefore that is the Truth, unbeliever.

        If you say otherwise you're clearly a CIA shill, or someone who believes everything in the media despite the terminal cognitive dissonance that even trying to do that would result in.

      2. Bleu
        Trollface

        Re: Perfect sense

        The word should be pompous. not paranoid.

        He'd be much more fun if he were a true raving paranoid, might even do a good job at Black Sabbath's one for karaoke. Somehow I can't imagine that.

        Still, easy to see how a man accustomed to being led by his prong was entrapped by a pair of Scandinavian castrators.

    3. Annihilator
      Facepalm

      Re: Perfect sense

      "it's established as far as one can with official secret acts that the indictment will be forthcoming the moment Assange is in a position to be secured."

      More confusion of events, excellent. Remember the year or so he spent avoiding extradition to Sweden? He was "in a position to be secured" then (a pretty good one too, the UK extradite to the US on a mere whisper of an extradition order).

      Besides - wasn't his concern about being extradited from Sweden by the US as there was a sealed indictment waiting for him? Despite it being easier to extradite him from here? Now it's not?

      All pinning on his nonsensical demand to be rendered immune from any potential extradition order from the US. Frankly I think we'd be better off with him in Ecuador though - less likely to have people fawning at him and much less of a press presence out there. Perhaps that's why he went to the embassy in London instead of going directly there to seek asylum?

  9. Anomalous Cowshed

    About sofas

    Look, regardless of the merits and the politics of the issue, I can understand the bit about sofas. Contrary to popular belief, there's nothing wrong with a sofa. They are soft, yet firm. They are convenient, yet stylish. You can sit on them, lie on them, stand on them...With a sofa, there's something for the whole family. If you're a toddler you can jump up and down on them or draw on them with felt-tip pens; if you're a mama you can sit on them and chat for hours with your friends on the phone while painting your nails. If you're a papa you can slouch on them and work with your laptop in your underpants, or drink beer and watch football on TV...I spend most of my life on a sofa. Therefore, I understand how other people may be willing to do the same, and I urge all good men of this world to be more kind to the humble sofa...truly one of man's best friends.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: About sofas

      there's nothing wrong with a sofa

      The Ecuadorian embassy might beg to differ, there's has an Assange living on it!

      1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
        Happy

        Re: About sofas

        Just consider it a particularly large, and untidy, pale cushion.

        ...With an Aussie accent...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: About sofas

          Just consider it a particularly large, and untidy, pale cushion.

          ...With an Aussie accent...

          ... and smelly ...

          1. Scorchio!!
            Thumb Up

            Re: About sofas

            What he needs is a barbecue sauce impregnated towel. Then he can go into the basement of the building where he is and escape, through the discothèque.

    2. The Man Himself Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: About sofas

      "the humble sofa...truly one of man's best friends"

      and protection from Daleks

  10. Ian 62

    Whats the Ecuadorian embassy like in Sweden?

    Maybe theres a bit more space?

    Take the free flight to Sweden then leg it to the embassy there?

    At the very least it'd have a different view from the window.

    Oh, now I think about it, what happens if the Ecuadorian embassy doesn't get its lease renewed on the current flat? Not likely HMG will look the otherway while they load him and his sofa into a Pickfords van.

  11. ratfox Silver badge
    Happy

    Reality show will come out any time now

    It's usually the way used by people desperate for attention.

    That said, at look with much anticipation to the day Assange will leave the embassy. It is most likely he will get out in a very large Diplomatic bag, which would be disappointing; but I have not lost hope that he will eventually get sent to Sweden, and get sentenced there to a month of community service.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Reality show will come out any time now

      The problem with shipping Assange in a bag is that his rumoured lack of interest in personal hygiene will give the game away (either the smell or the flies). Using an airtight bag, of course, has its own problems :).

      1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
        Joke

        @AC...Re: Reality show will come out any time now

        You do realize that they could take him out in a trash bag.

  12. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

    I'll give him one thing

    He has perfected the art of living on other peoples money.

    First the Wikileaks donation fund buys his suits, hotel bills and air fares, then he shacks up with a couple of girls (we know how that ended), then he kips with some journalists in the UK before skipping out and causing everyone who backed him to lose their bail bonds, now he's holed up in an embassy and seems to assume that can go on indefinitely. And even if it doesn't, he'll be at HM Wandsworth for breaching bail at the taxpayers expense anyway!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Flame

      Re: I'll give him one thing

      Compared to the unpunished finance criminals and how they live off the population of the Western World, Mr Assange is an absolute idiot, parasite-wise.

  13. E-Penguin
    WTF?

    99.97%? Really?

    I'd like to see the workings-out on that particular statistic.

  14. Colin Millar
    Black Helicopters

    I would have thought

    That St Julian would welcome martyring himself for the cause

    Oh - hang about - thats just for the plebs

    1. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      Re: I would have thought

      I would have thought you would die next to your glorious sword in Crackistan, instead of doing propaganda work, soldier. Dismissed.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hmm, wonder when he last went to the Dentist?

    Suspect the status qou will remain until he needs medical treatment or is he literally prepared to die in the Ecudorian embassy? No doubt there will be a plea on humanitarian grounds that he should not be arrested/extrtadited whilst receiving medical treatment..

    It bugs me that won't answer for his actions and we are left to pick up the bill for his actions, why hasn't the government sent him an invoice for the cost???

    1. Scorchio!!

      "Hmm, wonder when he last went to the Dentist?"

      Speaking of which (and here I am whiling away some time), perhaps a leak of some nasty but not terminal airborne bacterium into the 'Embassy' flat, something that is only treatable by means of barrier nursing in a well equipped hospital, or perhaps a prison hospital wing. Heh.

  16. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
    Happy

    He's Australian

    Can't we have a permanent BBQ with XXXX (cos they can't spell piss beer) on the pavement outside. Perhaps a few of his countrymen getting stuffed at cricket as well. Plus a nice sheep or two to steal. I'm sure all that lot would make him feel at home, and maybe tempt him out.

    I guess we'd need to put up some floodlights to try and pretend that it's sunny though.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Flame

      Re: He's Australian

      Like you did with your former asset Noriega, when he turned insane and insisted that Panama is a sovereign nation ? Sounds like a great plan and surely all the Brito-sheeply will like that very much indeed.

      1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

        Re: He's Australian

        Firstly, I wasn't being serious. I was having an unjustified dig at Australia / Australians. I'm hoping for an Ashes triumph to celebrate soon, with a side-order of gloating.

        As for your 'points'. Norriega was a CIA asset. Not British. Much to their embarrassment he was supposed to be giving them intelligence on drug-running, and was in fact himself drug-running. I'm assuming he didn't get round to telling them that particular bit. I seem to recall they paid him serious money as well.

        I don't believe he was ever acting in the best interests of the people of Panama. Not that the CIA were either.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Pretty funny

    As if Assange has any choice. He's a marked man and will be brought to justice or die.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Pretty funny

      The very fact that Assange actually HAD the ability to make choices is what has so amusingly landed him in the hole he's in.

      He didn't have to go to Sweden. He didn't have to sleep with those 2 girls. He didn't have to try and get away with unprotected sex. He could have stayed and face the music in Sweden. He could have had an STD test when asked (this one I personally find rather interesting, because the STD angle has been seriously underplayed up until now and I wonder if any of the girls have come up positive). He could have collaborated with the extradition process. He could have hidden away in the UK somewhere. He could *still* face the music in Sweden and so demonstrate that the US was indeed grabbing him - hey, be a martyr for "the cause" (well, not if "the cause" is "the self promotion of Assange").

      I mean - the sheer string of free choices he's had so far is staggering, even more the complete hash he's made of it, and his explanations have managed to top all of this and have comprehensively blown the fuse of my BS meter (actually, that could have happened after hearing all those people "defend" him regardless).

      It's hard to believe all of this happened in the dramatically repressed and corrupt regimes of Sweden and the UK (I'm paraphrasing here, sorry, it's called sarcasm).

      1. Scorchio!!
        Thumb Up

        Re: Pretty funny

        "this one I personally find rather interesting, because the STD angle has been seriously underplayed up until now and I wonder if any of the girls have come up positive"

        Indeed, and I had pondered this matter long ago - how long is it since he fled the Swedish jurisdiction - you see, if this really was a put up job by the CIA, it would have been in their best interests to find a woman with a very transmissible STD to infect him, HIV preferably. That way they could claim that Assange infected them... ...it is also the case that Assange will make precisely such a claim, even if he were guilty of transmitting such an infection. Perhaps the Scandinavian predilection for regular health checks might reveal a negative test prior to Julian's 'entry'.

        Please do not apologise for your mixed sarcasm and irony. The situation merits it; sometimes children lie so convincingly and with such indignation, even when their material is so poor, that fools are pulled in to support them; Assange is, IMNSVHO, one of those children.

  18. A J Stiles
    WTF?

    So .....

    In order to avoid being locked up in a small room, he has locked himself up in a small room.

    That makes a lot of sense .....

  19. Derpity

    Digs

    Anyone know what the digs are actually like in the embassy? Perhaps they're way better than he had back home and just doesn't want to give them up.

    1. Scorchio!!
      Angel

      Re: Digs

      Only one thing is lacking; a 16 year old girl to bear him a son.

  20. Killing Time
    WTF?

    He really is stretching an semblance of credibility now..... It will be rather amusing to see him being booted out onto the street when the Ecuadorians have exhausted their political posturing. I wonder if his gear will be ejected after him. I'd buy a ticket to see that.

    His relevance faded some time ago...what a saddo....

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      That could actually be quite a good gag - set some fictitious date and start selling tickets nearby to "the ejection of Assange".

  21. bailey86

    the US has done it's work

    Somehow, someone who has more balls and more technical ability than anyone posting on these forums has been royally screwed over - and has been vilified and made into a scapegoat.

    He did not murder civilians, he did not even steal the info. He has merely set up a system to enable us to see what a morally bankrupt political system is up to.

    Ask yourself, would you rather wikileaks didn't exist? Do you think it's OK for the US government to secretly do whatever it likes - Guantanamo, rendition, regime change, police brutality, Drone attacks, Abu Grahib, Prism, etc etc etc?

    We need brave people to stand up to evil - not sheep who can't see a scapegoat being set up right before their eyes.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: the US has done it's work

      Somehow, someone who has more balls and more technical ability than anyone posting on these forums has been royally screwed over - and has been vilified and made into a scapegoat.

      If he had balls he'd have at least his blood tested for STDs. To me, that would have been an easy thing to do, and anyone with a shred of decency would have at least acted to put the minds of those 2 girls at rest. As for technical ability: seriously? You really have no idea of some of the people on this forum..

      As for the scapegoating, he's done that all by himself.

      He did not murder civilians, he did not even steal the info. He has merely set up a system to enable us to see what a morally bankrupt political system is up to.

      He encouraged people to report things that were wrong, and then abused that information for his own ends with no regards for the consequences. Technically, that makes you correct: he has only ever killed people by proxy. I leave it up to you to decide that the good outweighs the bad here - that's an opinion anyone should form for themselves. Just don't try to sell Assange as some sort of hero - he has always just been into this for himself as far as his actions show.

      Ask yourself, would you rather wikileaks didn't exist? Do you think it's OK for the US government to secretly do whatever it likes - Guantanamo, rendition, regime change, police brutality, Drone attacks, Abu Grahib, Prism, etc etc etc?

      Snowden has been smart enough to avoid Wikileak, although I noticed with some amusement that Assange was attempting to ride the publicity by claiming "he'd been in indirect contact with Snowden's people". That's total BS - "I have talked to someone who knows him from his years in primary school" has just about the same value.

      We need brave people to stand up to evil - not sheep who can't see a scapegoat being set up right before their eyes.

      If we really insist on the "evil" following laws and have the guilty punished, we cannot make exceptions. Even when the possibly guilty ones are called Assange. That's not scapegoating, that's being consistent.

      1. bailey86

        Re: the US has done it's work

        'As for technical ability: seriously? You really have no idea of some of the people on this forum..'

        OK - more technical ability than *most* of the people posting on this site.

        'for his own ends' - you're just assuming that.

        Could equally be 'for the benefit of freedom and democracy'.

        'Just don't try to sell Assange as some sort of hero'

        Anyone who stands up to the full might of the good ol' US of A is certainly brave - and doing it to expose immoral acts carried out by that government certainly makes them heroic. I'm not sure how many of us would have the balls to do it.

        'attempting to ride the publicity' - again that's merely your opinion.

        What I'm saying is that there is a cleverly built consensus that Asssange is an egotist - where did that come from? How was it built?

        'Snowden has been smart enough to avoid Wikileak' Why smart? I don't understand you. Are you saying you hate Wikileaks and would prefer it not to exist? Surely, the more ways of getting dirty secrets out the better?

        And let's now see what happens to Snowden. The vilification has probably already started.

        'by claiming "he'd been in indirect contact with Snowden's people". That's total BS'

        How do you know it's BS? That's you assuming the worst about Asssange - why? It could well be true.

        'If we really insist on the "evil" following laws and have the guilty punished, we cannot make exceptions'. I think you're saying that we should all obey all the laws at all times no matter what evil a government is up to.

        What about when governments are subverting/breaking/inventing laws for immoral reasons - protecting the rich, locking people up without trial, repressing the poor, etc etc. To point out the obvious (and to prove Godwin's law), Hitler/Stalin/etc all had plenty of laws. They also cleverly invented plenty of scapegoats and fooled millions.

        1. Don Jefe
          Meh

          Re: the US has done it's work

          Here's the thing. Assange doesn't care about anything that isn't Assange. He's screwed all his friends and supporters, isn't man enough to stand up to allegations besmirching his honor and his 'glorious mission' had no goal other than attention. He would blab his own mothers deepest secrets if it could get him an interview with anyone. He is a man without honor. No global conspiracy or grudge by other nations is required to make this person undesirable in every way imaginable.

        2. Scorchio!!
          FAIL

          Re: the US has done it's work

          [...]

          Paywall in connection with which he berated Guardian journalists for releasing 'his' data (I can only assume because it was Julie's passport to a wealthy future, in contradistinction to that which awaits the barely helped Bradley Manning), substantial advance from publishing company from whose contract he broke off without returning the money, £80,000 odd salary, request for one million (dollars I believe) for interview about film [...], convicted on 17 counts in the 1990s on of which involved hacking the Australian force investigating his illegal behaviours, fleeing a jurisdiction knowing that he was about to be charged, on arrival from flight (understandably) fighting for bail and gulling people to stand the money he again flees the jurisdiction, each flight based on spurious argumenta in respect of the bogeyman...

          ...the break by Domscheit-Berg (clearly a discerning man whose meatspace experience of Assange was enough to stimulate insight into this 'individual') on the very well known grounds that Assange was running a ropey organisation with no accountability and no controls and behaved badly to staff in the 'organisation', his track record of sexual behaviour which led his former 16 year old partner and mother of his child to indicate the son was as bad as the father (how interesting, a heritable trait presumably, since Julie didn't hang around to parent the child, and look how the son has turned out) and to hide herself, the episode in London where he 'snatched' a journalist's woman friend and, as he walked away, turned and adopted a puglilist's stance, shaking his fists at his chosen competitor...

          ...this is the tip of Assange's iceberg, and it is interesting to see, in spite of the preponderance of evidence showing him to be a thoroughly disreputable man whose predictable behaviour enabled him to gull the British CJS into giving him bail and all of the other nonsense, including his flight from Sweden...

          ...and remember, his legal counsel maintained, right up until he appeared in a UK court, that there'd been no contact from the Swedish police, at which point in court he consulted his mobile phone records and determined they had been in contact; how'd he miss that? Did he perhaps act in accordance with Julie's wishes, or what he thought were Julie's wishes? Is it not odd that seemingly sane people put themselves into such difficult positions, financially, legally and/or professionally, for this convict? Everything about him should say "run", but there are plenty of suckers, and therein lies a clue or three.

          What you've offered is speculation, what I've offered is fact. Rhetorically I wonder why you and many others continue to speculate in a manner that favours Julie, in the face of so much hard fact. Do you ever wonder if the Afghan informants survived, and perhaps their families and children too? Do you think that Julie does? What would you do if someone pointed a RPG at you? What do your soldierly instincts tell you to do? Think quickly now for, even though this is a simulation, you do not have long.

          1. bailey86

            Re: the US has done it's work

            OK.

            You're making bold statements. Do you have any links to back all the points you made?

      2. bailey86

        Re: the US has done it's work

        'Snowden has been smart enough to avoid Wikileak, although I noticed with some amusement that Assange was attempting to ride the publicity by claiming "he'd been in indirect contact with Snowden's people". That's total BS'

        Seems that it was not total BS as you so boldly asserted. So, the other statements you've made are suspect as well.

    2. david wilson

      Re: the US has done it's work

      >>"Ask yourself, would you rather wikileaks didn't exist? Do you think it's OK for the US government to secretly do whatever it likes - Guantanamo, rendition, regime change, police brutality, Drone attacks, Abu Grahib, Prism, etc etc etc?"

      a) It wasn't the first internet leaks site, though it certainly did do a good job at making more people aware of its existence then earlier ones, which may well have motivated many people to give it information

      b) People old enough to remember the mists of time *before* random citizens had the Internet know that there were outlets for information which managed to print it even when it did embarrass governments, even to the point of heads of government being removed.

      c) People who were grown-ups before wikileaks were already frequently cynical about their governments.

      d) The existence of Guantanamo bay detention and controversy surrounding it wasn't a secret wikileaks revealed. They released some information about it after it had long been a source of concern for many people, and frequently mentioned in mainstream media.

      e) People have been well aware of all mannner of police brutality for generations, via regular media.

      f) Abu Ghraib abuses were exposed by the army revealing their own investigation into them in 2004. Wikilieaks started in 2006.

      Wikileaks can be useful, but the world wouldn't wither and die without it, and it's not obvious why it should depend on one person if has importance to enough people.

      Neither is it immediately obvious that splurging large amounts of frequently irrelevant information onto the net has done more good than a few pieces of careful journalism would have done.

    3. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: failey86 Re: the US has done it's work

      ".....would you rather wikileaks didn't exist?......" A$$nut does not equal Wikileaks.

  22. mIRCat
    Pint

    I'm quite happy to sleep on Ecuador's sofa

    "...FOREVER"

    We've all had that guest that crashed on the couch for a night and was still there a week later.

    Cheers to whomever has to clean Equadors couch.

    1. Don Jefe
      Happy

      Re: I'm quite happy to sleep on Ecuador's sofa

      Julian Assange is the ultimate couch barnacle.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    New housing?

    Why doesn't the UK do this:

    Hey, Ecuador?

    Yea, UK?

    We feel bad about your embassy being a bit shabby - how about we give you this nice new building over here?

    What's the catch?

    None! we just want you to have a better building.

    OK, let's look it over. Hmm, very nice. Good parking, too. It's even furnished! We'll take it. Just let us move our stuff. Well, most of it. I guess we don't need to move our old furniture, like this ratty old couch - it is OK if we just leave it here?

    Sure, no problem, we can clean up the building when you are out of it.

  24. Benjol
    Paris Hilton

    Could someone explain to me why he only started worrying about the US extraditing him from Sweden AFTER the rape charges? Surely if there was a risk of them nabbing him, it wasn't dependent on him being simultaneously wanted by the Swedish police?

    Confused

    1. david wilson

      To be fair to him, he was supposedly in Sweden to try and get residence/legal protection as a journalist, and he had been expressing worries about action by other countries, which whether well-founded or not would be likely to be given a nudge by any kind of unwelcome contact with the state.

      And various people in the US *had* been calling for something to be done about him - even if that was largely politicians talking tough to play to the home crowd, it'd be hard to entirely ignore.

      1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
        Boffin

        Not exactly...

        Ok...

        First in releasing the data, he was in a little bit of hurt. But there is a SCOTUS decision back in 1971 that gave him a bit of a shield of protection. This was why many of the worlds press said that he was a journalist so he should be protected when he published the documents.

        But what scared him was what came out of the Article 32 hearing. That was the first time that any shred of evidence that would tie Assange to the theft of the documents occurred.

        What comes out in Manning's trial is going to end up scaring Assange.

        The other issue of the rape charges. If charged and found guilty, even if he doesn't face prison time, he's a convicted felon. So no safe haven in a lot of countries.

        The odds were that if he ran, they wouldn't charge him. But that didn't work. He definitely pissed off a few of the wrong crowd.

        1. Scorchio!!
          Thumb Up

          Re: Not exactly...

          "If charged and found guilty, even if he doesn't face prison time, he's a convicted felon."

          Let's not forget that he already is a convicted (on 17 counts) felon!

          "What comes out in Manning's trial is going to end up scaring Assange."

          I've invested in popcorn. I can't wait to see the evidence, not that he is a stranger to breaking and entering US military computers, because he did that in person. As we all know. Even his camp followers.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Yeah but the Swedish definition of rape includes all kinds of stuff that isn't even a crime here.

    Yet, the courts came repeatedly to the conclusion that the reasons for the extradition request had UK equivalents, and he would have faced the same problems in the UK, and this very conclusion formed the basis of approval of the extradition. What else the Swedes do is irrelevant.

    They could have sorted it out before he ever left Sweden they are abusing the system

    Well, if Assange had not fled from the consequences of his own actions it would have indeed been sorted long ago. I don't see any abuse here other than a man wanted for questioning using every trick in the book to avoid that questioning.

  26. Graham Jordan

    99.97%

    Well that's hardly as bad as 99.98%.

    Stop being a pussy and take the risks, the odds aren't that bad.

  27. Dr Patrick J R Harkin

    "There is a 99.97 per cent chance that I will be indicted."

    I bet he's rounding up...

  28. Rabster

    Legal myths

    Not surprising to see so many of the myths appearing here again.

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

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019