back to article Assange™ slumps back on Ecuador's sofa after detention appeal binned

Ensconced WikiLeaker Julian Assange™ doesn't look to be leaving his hideout in Ecuador's London embassy anytime soon – a Swedish appeals court has rejected his request to set aside the detention order filed against him in that country. Assange's lawyers had argued that the order should be vacated because there is no way to …

  1. dan1980

    "It is also in the interest of the injured parties that the investigation advances."

    Whatever one might think about Assange, the above statement tells you a lot.

    Those seeking his appearance in Sweden are claiming left and right and up and down that it is just for this reason and this reason alone. Just questioning and only about this alleged incident - nothing else.

    They claim to be acting on behalf of a party that is claiming injury but their own behaviour is not doing anything to actually advance the cause of that party. There are many avenues open to them that they are refusing to take.

    If you want to interview him then you can. Otherwise charge him.

    Personally, I don't know why anyone should be compelled to be shipped to another country for an interview like this. If you are formally charged with a crime then you have a point but the idea that you can be sent overseas just for a talk is absurd.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: dan1980

      "......If you want to interview him then you can. Otherwise charge him...." As has been discussed here many, many, many times, A$$nut fled before being formally questioned and refused to return to Sweden for questioning. The Swedish criminal system requires the formal questioning before charges can be laid. And A$$nut's bleating about extradition to the U.S. has long since been debunked - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/04/assange_extradition_unlikely/

      http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-19426382

      1. dan1980

        Re: dan1980

        Is it possible for you to discuss a topic without saying things like "A$$nut"? Why do you do that all the time?

        While I accept all you points (though not the delivery) the question again comes back to: "why can't they question him in the UK"? Even the Judge is basically now asking the same thing.

        This is my point - if you want to question him then do so. Okay, Assange is not being as cooperative as the Swedes would like but he has never once said that he would refuse to have the formal interview, only that he did not accept that he should be deported to Sweden to do it.

        In this he is - in a way - supported by the judge, who has said that he can be questioned in the UK. So why don't they do that?

        Is insisting on a course of action (extradition to Sweden) that is very unlikely to happen better than conducting the desired process in a different location?

        Whatever your (or anyone else's) view of Assange or his actions now or in the past, this is the situation RIGHT NOW. He's not going to Sweden to answer questions so the prosecutors have to ask themselves which the better outcome is.

        The Judge is apparently nearly at that point - saying that there really isn't a good reason NOT to interview him in situ.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Is it possible for you to discuss a topic without saying things like "A$$nut"?

          You must be new around here?

        2. Vociferous

          Re: dan1980

          why can't they question him in the UK

          Because Swedish police and prosecutors have no jurisdiction in the UK. The questioning is not fact-finding, they already know they have grounds to arrest him.

          Also, as the prosecutor has pointed out, Sweden is not in the habit of negotiating with rape suspects about where and how they want to be interviewed.

        3. LucreLout Silver badge

          Re: dan1980

          why can't they question him in the UK?

          Why should they? He (allegedly) committed an offence in Sweden, against Swedish nationals, before fleeing Sweden. Why should the prosecutors office send someone to follow him around the world while he attempts to subvert their justice system?

          Assange isn't afraid that America might go to great lengths to have him deported and stuffed in a cell for all eternity next to Brad Manning. He's afraid they won't. He's afraid that he's simply not relevant anymore, if he ever was. Snowden, yes, he really is in hot water if he leaves hiding, but Assange? Why bother with him? He's made himself a credibility free joke.

          The chances are good that he'll die a lonely old man, on Ecuadors couch, with nobody remembering his name. Manning got 35 years, right or wrong, that's what he got. Assange has already done 7% of that sofa surfing - his only problem is that it doesn't count.

          1. dan1980

            Re: dan1980

            @Lucrelout

            "Why should they?"

            Why? BECAUSE HE'S NOT GOING TO LEAVE THE FUCKING ECUADORIAN EMBASSY!!!

            Why is this so fucking hard for everyone to fucking understand? Down vote me if you want but it's the simple truth. HE IS NOT LEAVING. You can say WHATEVER you want but he is NOT LEAVING..

            If you are the person in charge of this investigation you have two choices:

            1. - Insist on extradition and don't interview him.

            2. - Agree to do it in the UK and do interview him.

            If you want to interview him you only have one option.

            As I have said - perhaps there is enough found from such an interview and he is formally charged and Assange still refuses to leave. But if you are seriously pursuing justice then you can't let that risk halting your entire process.

            WHATEVER you all feel and whatever he did is, at this point, beside the point. The ball is in the the Swedish Police's court - are you really telling me that the best thing they can do is insist on a course of action that they have all the reason in the world to believe will be utterly ineffective?

            None of you seem able to take this as it currently IS. All I read is "what about this" and "if he hadn't done that" and "he should have done something else". You let me know when that changes the equation as it stands now. He is holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy and he is not going to Sweden to answer questions.

            If you believe he is guilty would you rather he answer the questions in the UK or not answer the questions at all? There is no third option and the Swedish police's insistence that there is just doesn't achieve anything.

            Despite our shared nationality I really have no feelings for this man. (But then I find empathy taxing at the best of times so I am perhaps not a good measure here.) But, my feelings do not alter the FACTS of this situation, and neither do your feelings. You just have to play the ball as it lies.

            1. dan1980

              Re: dan1980

              Apologies for the strong language. It's been a particularly tough week, personally, but that doesn't excuse rudeness.

              I'll not remove the post because that would be dishonest - I don't hide behind an AC tag so I won't pretend I didn't say something I did.

              There does seem to be a strong anti-Assange sentiment pervading this site which I think at times crosses the line to black-and-white "Assange = bad" bias but each to their own. For my part, I am neither pro- nor anti-Assange but that hardly seems to matter. You'll all be sorry when I'm gone, etc...

            2. Psyx

              Re: dan1980

              "Why? BECAUSE HE'S NOT GOING TO LEAVE THE FUCKING ECUADORIAN EMBASSY!!!"

              Oh, ok. So that's an ok legal precedent to set is it: If you evade police questioning then we just drop it and let suspects dictate terms?

              "HE IS NOT LEAVING. You can say WHATEVER you want but he is NOT LEAVING.."

              Good. I'm glad. I'm really quite happy that he has imprisoned and humiliated himself far more adequately than anyone else could have done.

              "If you are the person in charge of this investigation you have two choices:"

              3, actually: Don't negotiate to a wanted bail-jumper and let the bugger sit and stew.

              "There does seem to be a strong anti-Assange sentiment pervading this site "

              I'm anti- anyone who tries to buy their way around my nation's law by fighting to the last via the medium of expensive lawyers paid for by influential friends, who then elects to ignore a contrary court ruling, thumbs his nose at my nation's court system and then runs away, shouting 'waah conspiracy'.

              Frankly anything before then was eclipsed by that series of deeds.

              1. dan1980

                Re: dan1980

                3, actually: Don't negotiate to a wanted bail-jumper and let the bugger sit and stew.

                Which advances things how?

                I am not saying any particular action is right or wrong but they have just two options - talk to him in the UK or don't talk to him at all. Your suggestion is functionally equivalent to "don't talk to him at all".

                "Frankly anything before then was eclipsed by that series of deeds."

                Sure - that certainly changes the situation. Why didn't see it before!? He's bound to come out and face the music now that you've laid that down. Wow - they should have just asked you first. Quick - run and tell the Swedish police; it's been solved.

                And people the world fucking over escape justice by hightailing it off to some fuck-off nation. Russia houses fucking WAR CRIMINALS in luxury villas, all for the low-low price of the money the earned killing and torturing their own people. Don't pretend that this is the first time someone has evaded justice by hiding behind a sympathetic country. Precedent is hardly the word.

                1. streaky Silver badge

                  Re: dan1980

                  "Which advances things how?"

                  It doesn't advance things, it doesn't walk them back either.

                  By your argument Ronnie Biggs would have never served any time. You don't fuck off somewhere for 3 years and have charges dropped. Right or wrong it isn't a *legal* argument unless you also believe in unicorns.

                  If he'd not shown up at a friendly embassy he could have been tried, convicted and been released by now - instead the entire process hasn't started and there's *one* person on the entire planet to blame for that.

                  And not for nothing but if the Yanks wanted him they'd ask us to extradite him given it's about 100x easier from the UK than Sweden.

                  1. Looper
                    FAIL

                    Re: streaky

                    Have you been living under a rock for this entire story then? Or hadn't you noticed that he HASN'T BEEN CHARGED!

                    Since he HASN'T BEEN CHARGED, then they obviously do not have evidence to charge him. Since he HASN'T BEEN CHARGED, then what difference would it make where the interview takes place? If by his answers he implicates himself in a crime, then they CAN charge him from Sweden and his assertions about extradition would look a lot weaker. Until they charge him, I would say it's a 50-50 case of whether his assertions hold some water or not.

                    Sweden has a history of being a US lapdog. When other EU states would tell US administration where to go, Sweden says "how high would you like us to jump".

                    1. Ben Tasker Silver badge

                      Re: streaky

                      Apparently you've not been following very closely Looper.

                      The Swedish process demands a formal interview before a subject can be charged. Its that interview they want to have, and it seems even Assange's lawyer believed he'd be charged following interview.

                      So, no, he hasnt been charged but for the reason above it's an indicator of fuck all because they cant charge until theyve had the interview.

                      Whether or not Sweden is a US lapdog has no real bearing. A) there's no evidence the yanks will actually ask for him and b) he's been in the UK a fair while - we've a history of handing people over to the US with little evidence needed.

                      1. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        Re: streaky

                        "Whether or not Sweden is a US lapdog has no real bearing. A) there's no evidence the yanks will actually ask for him and b) he's been in the UK a fair while - we've a history of handing people over to the US with little evidence needed."

                        But in the UK it still requires judicial oversight. Once in Sweden it gets as simple as a civil servant saying OK to a request to "borrow" Assange for "assistance in other ongoing investigations" and off he's shipped.

                        Evidence or not, Assange obviously believes it - why otherwise spend more time in house arrest than he's likely to get (assuming he's convicted) in Sweden.

                        1. streaky Silver badge

                          Re: streaky

                          "Evidence or not, Assange obviously believes it - why otherwise spend more time in house arrest than he's likely to get (assuming he's convicted) in Sweden"

                          Assange might believe aliens started WW1 it doesn't make it true or relevant to his actual problem.

                  2. pffut
                    Paris Hilton

                    Re: dan1980

                    "It doesn't advance things, it doesn't walk them back either."

                    It's their job to advance the investigation. They haven't been doing much of that for a long time now.

                    They've conducted interviews abroad in other cases, so why not this one?

                2. Psyx

                  Re: dan1980

                  "Which advances things how?"

                  It stops a wanted bail-jumper wandering free.

                  Seriously: Why does it have to 'advance' things. It's an inescapable siege. If the castle is impregnable, you don't have to let the inhabitants out. You make the buggers miserable until they give in, as much as an example as anything else.

                  "Your suggestion is functionally equivalent to 'don't talk to him at all'."

                  On the other hand is it *isn't* functionally equivalent to back-pedaling and compromising the legal system of your sovereign nation, surrendering to the whims of a fugitive and potentially screwing up a chance of prosecution by dong so.

                  "He's bound to come out and face the music now that you've laid that down."

                  I think you may be labouring under the impression that I in an way view him as being holed up in a box of his own choosing something other than a satisfying result. By ignoring our laws he's given himself a longer sentence than he would have earned and make a joke of himself far more effectively than the States could have dreamed of doing. His bid for freedom and limelight has had the opposite effect. I like irony.

                  "And people the world fucking over escape justice by hightailing it off to some fuck-off nation."

                  Yeah, at which point the authorities don't say "well done, old bean: you outwitted us this time, so we'll call it quits. Be on your way you jolly scoundrel!" It sets rather a bad example to others considering the same thing.

                  "Russia houses fucking WAR CRIMINALS in luxury villas...<rant>"

                  Erm... what has that got to do with it? Is the inference that other people have got away with it before, so why shouldn't he?

                  Remember that those people who went on the run before weren't let off with a rubber stamp: Protests with the hosting governments were lodged and are ongoing. Breaking the law is one thing, but making a mockery of a nation and their legal system is something the State is a little less forgiving on.

            3. LucreLout Silver badge

              Re: dan1980

              Why? BECAUSE HE'S NOT GOING TO LEAVE THE FUCKING ECUADORIAN EMBASSY!!!

              Firstly, I can't imagine why you would begin to think that would cause Sweden any problems. And secondly, he will leave eventually. Even Assange is smart enough to figure out that once his legal wrangling is complete and the interview and extradition still stands, he either lives & dies on the couch, or he comes out to face the music.

              HE IS NOT LEAVING. You can say WHATEVER you want but he is NOT LEAVING..

              See above. The UK will run up significant charges for policing the situation, but quite why anyone else would have any issue at all if Assange chooses to grow old on the Ecuadorian couch is beyond me. His rights certainly aren't being violated and he is free to leave at any time.

              Fleeing incarceration by incarcerating yourself is the logic of an idiot.

              are you really telling me that the best thing they can do is insist on a course of action that they have all the reason in the world to believe will be utterly ineffective?

              Time is on their side. Best case for Assange and there is some statue of limitations on the case, he still faces immediate incarceration in the UK for crimes committed here, and we still have that extradition treaty with the USA. He will eventually understand that he isn't achieving anything.

              You let me know when that changes the equation as it stands now. He is holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy and he is not going to Sweden to answer questions.

              Still missing the point. Nothing need change. The only ones suffering from the situation are Assange and his children. How long he chooses to make them suffer is up to him.

              ETA: His victims would have wanted him imprisoned. Swedish jails are likely no worse than his current conditions, in which he is effectively incarcerated - he has no freedom. He's already served longer than he would have done had he been found guilty, with the added bonus that the charges will be waiting for him when he comes out. Even if he times them out, which will be a long time coming, he still faces jail in the UK for bail jumping and PCOJ, and he will then be extradited to America, should they actually request him.... and lets face it, he's not going to be given bail while he wastes 10 years fighting it, is he?

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: dan1980

            Methinks you underestimate the vindictiveness of the US towards anyone that embarrasses them...

          3. pffut

            Re: dan1980

            Because it's the prosecutors job to carry the investigation forward. It's not like they haven't done interviews abroad previously, in other cases....

            If he wasn't afraid of extradition to the US, why would he spend more time, in effectively house arrest, than he'd be likely to receive for the sexual offences in Sweden? Our jails don't have THAT bad a reputation (I believe.)

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: pffut Re: dan1980

              ".... It's not like they haven't done interviews abroad previously, in other cases...." If you wish to make that claim, please do provide a case where the Swedish police and/or prosecutor have agreed to carry out the formal questioning (not a preliminary interview, but questioning as a named suspect) of anyone.

        4. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Stop

          Re: dan1980 Re: dan1980

          ".....the question again comes back to: "why can't they question him in the UK"? Even the Judge is basically now asking the same thing....." Nope, the judge is saying Assange should surrender himself back to Swedish authorities - that is what upholding the EAW means. The reason the Swedes will not question him where they do not have jurisdiction is because, as Assange was warned by his lawyer, it is almost certain the Swedes will want to arrest him at the end of the formal questioning, as is their due process. Assange has deliberately attempted to make that impossible by fleeing (twice) to places he thought would be safe from the Swedes. His first attempt was to the UK, which failed due to his legal team not predicting the Swedes issuing an EAW - bad legal advice. He then thought his legal team could defeat the EAW in the English courts - more bad legal advice. What he should have done is flee straight to a country with no extradition agreement with Sweden or the EU, but his ego (and probably more bad legal advice) got in the way. Assange created this issue and has succeeded in making it worse for himself at every turn, avoiding jail by incarcerating himself in a jail of his own egotistical stupidity's making. The Ecuadoreans have only made it worse (and made themselves look politically naive) by farcically declaring they are 'safeguarding freedom of the press' by harboring a suspected rapist whom is not even legally a journalist, which has only drawn attention to the Ecuadorean regime's dubious record with their own journalists (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/27/1219389/-Ecuador-According-To-Human-Rights-Watch-And-Amnesty-International).

  2. Mark 85 Silver badge

    Tough choice...

    35 years in prison or live forever (or as long as they will put up with him) in the Ecuadorian embassy. My thought would be that sooner or later, he'll wear out his welcome and then possibly still have to face the jail time. Maybe it's time to leave and get things over with? But that's a tough decision. This won't go away just because he's hiding out.

    And yes, the fact the prosecutors won't visit him for a chat is very telling.

    1. ratfox Silver badge

      Re: Tough choice...

      My dream is that he is finally caught after many years, trying to escape from the embassy; shipped to Sweden; then sentenced to one month of community service.

    2. dan1980

      Re: Tough choice...

      @Mark 85

      Eh? "Live forever" is an option now?

      1. Mark 85 Silver badge

        Re: Tough choice...

        It may seem like forever to him being holed up in a room in an embassy. Then again, with all this in the news for a couple of years, it sometimes seems like forever. :)

        1. Giles Jones Gold badge

          Re: Tough choice...

          Meanwhile the policing bill reaches £10 million or so, which would be better spent on policing the really dangerous people on the streets.

          1. Tim Jenkins

            "...the really dangerous people on the streets..."

            such as the poor sods in SC&O19 who have spent the past couple of years polishing their G36s and staring at that monstrosity of a building:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy_of_Ecuador,_London#mediaviewer/File:Ecuadors_London_embassy_-_September_26,_2012.jpg

            I mean, those twirly bits on the balconies are going to start looking like eyes after a while...

    3. therealmav

      Re: "select markets"

      And yes, the fact the prosecutors won't visit him for a chat is very telling.

      What utter rubbish. The crime he's alleged to have done was a crime in Sweden. The Swedish investigation needs to take place in Sweden just like an alleged criminal who committed a crime in the UK would be shipped back here to be investigated. It's not like he's just a witness here. He's alleged to be the actual perpetrator.

      1. dan1980

        Re: "select markets"

        @therealmav

        "The Swedish investigation needs to take place in Sweden . . ."

        Actually no, that's not correct. The interviews CAN take place in the UK.

        This is one of the big problems so far as public opinion goes. Yes, Assange comes across as a self-righteous, holier-than-thou type. And yes, he absolutely appears to have acted in rather bad faith as regards his exit from Sweden and his skipping bail.

        BUT, and this is a huge 'but' - those acts have a ready explanation. You (and Matt and anyone else) may not believe it but there is no doubt that Assange can provide an answer as to why he did what he did. There is no doubt in my mind that he truly believes he will be extradited to the US if he ever sets foot on Swedish soils again - whether or not you think those fears are reasonable is largely beside the point. He may be paranoid with delusions of importance - picturing himself as a fighter for justice being targeted by government - but the point is that he believes that what he says will happen to him will actually happen to him.

        One the other side, however, the Swedish police/prosecutors.just don't have a reasonable explanation for why they are refusing to conduct their interviews as things stand now. The judge has said that they can interview Assange in the UK but they refuse to do so, insisting instead on extradition to Sweden first.

        Given - again - that extradition to Sweden is not a legally-necessary pre-condition for conducting a formal interview, this clearly raises questions as to the motives behind the insistence that he be extradited.

        Whatever you or Matt may think - and indeed whatever the actual truth of the matter is - this is a bad look. It is easy to understand the reasons why Assange felt he needed to do what he did and those reasons are entirely consistent with his claims now - he believes the aim of all this is to ship him to the US. It is far harder to understand the reasons why it is being insisted that he MUST be extradited to Sweden - especially when the (Swedish) judge has said that it is not necessary.

        In short, Assange's actions add up. Whether you think he is imagining things or lying or a raping, lying terrorist who wants to help Al Qaeda to bomb your children's school - his stated reasons and actions are consistent. As much cannot be said for the other 'side' in this palaver.

        Personally, I disapprove of the way Assange has acted but I understand it. I do not understand the actions of the Swedish police and prosecutors.

        Now, perhaps he gets interviewed and they decide to press formal charges and he still refuses. Okay, so you take that when it comes but the Swedish police are now on the front foot, at least so far as opinion is concerned. At that point, at least some of Assange's support evaporates. Perhaps nothing, ultimately, changes but how exactly is that different from the situation now?

        1. LucreLout Silver badge

          Re: "select markets"

          Given - again - that extradition to Sweden is not a legally-necessary pre-condition for conducting a formal interview, this clearly raises questions as to the motives behind the insistence that he be extradited.

          Dan, I think you may be missing the point. He was at large in the UK. We very much have an extradition treaty with the States and had they asked, he'd have been sent there for trial. He might have spun it into a lengthy leagal process, but one year or another, he'd have been on a plane.

          His refusal to go to Sweden because he can be extradited simply doesn't hold water. He's in at least a greater danger in the UK and he always was. Skipping bail automatically makes him a criminal and will require his detention - that isn't in debate or doubt. If Sweden dropped the charges, and he left the embassy, we'd lock him up. America would have plenty of opportunity to request his presence, and unlike McKinnon, he really doesn't have a reason not to go.

          So why hide from the charges? Potential answers include:

          - He's guilty of rape.

          - He gave one or both women an STD and is trying to hide the fact (I'm thinking one that doesn't go away as this is way more trouble than a little penicillin is worth)

          - He's afraid America WON'T deport him, and that the world just won't care. "Erm, sorry kids, daddy's PR stunt sort of back fired and erm, sorry for missing out on half your lives to date".

        2. Psyx

          Re: "select markets"

          "There is no doubt in my mind that he truly believes he will be extradited to the US if he ever sets foot on Swedish soils again"

          That's absolutely no defense.

          If you or I elected to go on the run from the police pending a trial because we thought we genuinely believed that we were going to be sent to jail for a long time, would that be ok? Would a court see that as an ok justification?

        3. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

          Re: "select markets"

          the Swedish police/prosecutors.just don't have a reasonable explanation for why they are refusing to conduct their interviews as things stand now.

          They have a perfectly reasonable explanation: "why the fuck should they?".

          Assange wants to have his cake, and eat it. If they question him they may decide to charge him, or they may decide there's no case to answer, and he goes free. Assange just wants to make sure that if they go for the first option, he can still evade arrest by staying in the embassy. It's like letting a burglar decide that he'll only show up for trial if he's sure of being let off. Why should the Swedish authorities give him the choice, it's no problem for them if he wants to deprive himself of his freedom for the next ten years.

        4. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Stop

          Re: dan1980 Re: "select markets"

          ".....Actually no, that's not correct. The interviews CAN take place in the UK....." Male bovine manure. It is not an 'interview', it is formal questioning and precedes his being charged and arrested for the Swedish crime of 'sex by surprise'. As part of the Swedish legal process, Assange has to undergo formal questioning before he can be charged - think of it as a chance to enter a plea before going to trial - and the Swedish prosecutor, Ny, has already stated that Assange will be charged after the questioning on the evidence already uncovered during the investigation. Assange knows this, it is the reason why he fled Sweden because he knows he can only be charged and arrested under Swedish jurisdiction. As long as he stays outside of Swedish jurisdiction the process cannot proceed and the European Arrest Warrant remains valid.

        5. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "select markets"

          "bad faith as regards his exit from Sweden"

          Not so - he checked with the prosecutors if it was OK for him to leave Sweden. Later on someone got excited...

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "select markets"

        "What utter rubbish. The crime he's alleged to have done was a crime in Sweden. The Swedish investigation needs to take place in Sweden"

        Bzzzzt, the prosecutors are free to do the interview anywhere, and have indeed done interviews abroad in other cases. It makes it a bit less convenient if the result of the interview is that they want to take him into custody, but no excuse not to continue the investigation with the next step needed.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Stop

          Re: AC Re: "select markets"

          "....Bzzzzt, the prosecutors are free to do the interview anywhere, and have indeed done interviews abroad in other cases...." So you have details on one of these prior cases where the Swedes have made the formal interview of a named suspect - not preliminary investigation interviews - anywhere other than on Swedish soil? No, I didn't think you did.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Tough choice...

      Just to add to Assange's (self inflicted) woes, when he does step (or get thrown) out of the embassy, the first thing that will happen is that he is going to be hauled in front of some very unamused UK judges who will want a *very* good answer as to why he skipped bail. It is entirely likely that he could spend a month or two in a UK slammer before having his backside kicked over to Sweden.

    5. Vociferous

      Re: Tough choice...

      35 years in prison

      There is no 35 year sentence for anything in Sweden. Rape & sexual assault like that of Assange will give him one to two years in prison, with half of it free on parole. He'll also be required to pay compensation to the victims, which will be in the 2000 pounds range.

      1. dan1980

        Re: Tough choice...

        @vociferous

        The 35yr sentence is what he is claiming he will get if extradited to the US.

        Again, and for the umpteenth time - I don't care if it's really true or not. All I am saying is that I believe that he believes it is true.

        That may make him delusional but his detractors could hardly argue with that - they have alwasy maintained that he thinks he's more important than he is. In this instance, assertions of that delusion count in his favour as if one believes that he is delusion and believes he is public enemy no 1 in the US then his actions have plausible motive beyond the otherwise more obvious reason of trying to run from a guilty charge.

    6. Psyx

      Re: Tough choice...

      "35 years in prison"

      <Citation needed>

      1. Mark 85 Silver badge

        Re: Tough choice...

        RTFA to wit: "This is about the threat of extradition to the US and 35 years of jail there," Per Samuelson, Assange's Swedish lawyer, told Reuters on Thursday. "As long as that threat remains, there is no doubt he will stay at the embassy."

  3. h3

    It is definitely dodgy. They should have dealt with it whilst he was in the country (They had the opportunity).

    Sex by surprise is a stupid concept.

    1. Marketing Hack Silver badge

      I think you'd feel differently about the silliness of "sex by surprise" if it was your wife/daughter/sister who woke up after being knocked on the head, intoxicated or drugged and was surprised to find a guy on top of her. Now, Assange is not being accused of something that low, but what he is accused of is questionable enough that it represents a danger to members of Swedish society that the government there has a right to take issue with.

      1. DiViDeD Silver badge

        eh.? wot?

        ".what he is accused of is questionable enough that it represents a danger to members of Swedish society.."

        if "I had sex with him that night, but when I woke up the next morning he was trying to have sex with me again" is the worst danger the Swedish people have to worry about the I think they have it pretty bloody easy.

    2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: h3

      "It is definitely dodgy....." The only dodgy bit was A$$nut declaring he wanted a 'fair hearing' in the UK courts, getting one and losing, and then him suddenly deciding a 'fair hearing' wasn't enough and jumping bail to hide in the Ecuadorean Embassy.

      ".....They should have dealt with it whilst he was in the country (They had the opportunity)...." No, Assange was tipped off by his lawyer that he was going to be formally questioned and probably charged and promptly fled Sweden. Assange had the opportunity to stay and clear his name but chose to flee, and also chose not to go back to Sweden when asked to, hence the EAW.

      ".....Sex by surprise is a stupid concept." Do you think rape is a 'stupid concept'? Because, as part of his failed appeal, the judge stated that what Assange is accused of would constitute rape under English law.

    3. Chad H.

      >>>>>Sex by surprise is a stupid concept.

      If only we could say that inserting ones penis into the vagina of anoter without consent is equally stupid.

      Instead, we get crazy defenses like this.

    4. Vociferous

      They should have dealt with it whilst he was in the country

      He fled the country when he got the second summons.

      1. DiViDeD Silver badge

        Re:He fled the country when he got the second summons.

        Actually, he LEFT the country before the summons was issued, after his lawyer had obtained an assurance from the state prosecutor that he was not required for interview.

        And he's not 'wanted' for anything. The Swedish prosecutor's office want to interview him regarding a complaint which has been made. You have to be charged with something before you can be 'wanted'

        for it, surely?

        Seriously, the original accounts are easy enough to find. What's with the communal memory loss?

        1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

          Re: Re:He fled the country when he got the second summons.

          Seriously, the original accounts are easy enough to find. What's with the communal memory loss?

          DiViDed,

          They certainly are. Which is why I'm tempted to conclude that Assange's supporters are lying deliberately, rather than suffering a 'lapse of collective memory'.

          So it's a matter of fact that Assange's lawyer was told that Assange was wanted for questioning the day before he left Sweden. The lawyer denied this in one of the original hearings. Only to then be forced to admit to the judge that he was wrong, as the evidence was on his own phone. Weirdly they seem to have sent him a text (seems a tad informal for these purposes to me), don't know if there was a supporting phonecall as well.

          Next he is wanted for something. This was the only legitimate part of Assange's appeals. There's not supposed to be any grounds for appeal over the EAW, as it's supposed to work like we're one happy family in the EU. A system I don't approve of myself, but that's the law. So as the UK has a different legal system I believe an EAW has to be signed off by a judge, whereas in Sweden (or anyone else using the inquisitorial system) it's going to come from the prosecutor (or equivalent).

          He's had his questioning and investigating, and was invited for his final "we might charge you after this" type of interview that the Swedish system apparently requires. The UK Supreme Court got to rule on this, that it's compatible with UK law that these foreign legal systems are allowed to issue European Arrest Warrants at the appropriate stage of their legal process. It is, after all, a European Arrest Warrant. Not extradition. That was the whole (wong-headed) point of the system.

          Finally we come to your above allegation about the minor nature of the charges. Again, this is in the judgement of the UK Supreme Court. Freely avaiblable online, and mentioned many times here, and elsewhere. The 2 charges the Swedish ticked as rape, would be rape under UK law as well.

        2. This post has been deleted by its author

    5. Vociferous

      > Sex by surprise is a stupid concept.

      Yes, so it's a good thing it doesn't exist. That Assange is wanted for the uniquely Swedish crime of 'sex by surprise', punishable by a fine of 700 pounds, is one of the many many lies from the Assange camp. He's wanted for rape, sexual assault, and sexual coercion.

  4. Marketing Hack Silver badge
    Flame

    "Assange's lawyers had argued that the order should be vacated because there is no way to enforce it as long as Ecuador grants Assange asylum in its embassy."

    Assange's crime (if he committed it) is hardly the worst thing I have ever heard someone accused of. However, I am genuinely offended that responsible legal counsel would argue "Well, you can't get my client into custody because he has asylum in Ecuador, so you should let the whole thing go." That's not justice, that's simply favoritism.

    Next we'll have crime lords paying off regimes here and there so that they can get asylum somewhere sunny and corrupt?

    1. dan1980

      @Marketing Hack

      To be clear, Assange's council is not asking them to "let the whole thing go" - they're asking them to revoke the detention order.

      In this case, the detention order is counter-productive because they want to detain him - in Sweden - for questioning. Given that it appears quite clear he won't leave the embassy while the order remains, the purpose that is claimed to be served (questioning Assange) is not being fulfilled.

      I was going to say that they don't have to drop the charges but - oh right - he's not been charged with anything.

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: dan1980

        ".....In this case, the detention order is counter-productive because they want to detain him - in Sweden - for questioning....." The 'counter-productive' bit in this affair was Assange's jumping bail after losing his appeal against the EAW and extradition to Sweden, after his earlier 'counter-productive' action of fleeing Sweden when he was tipped off he was going to be formally questioned and likely charged. That bail-jumping in itself is a crime in England and makes him a fugitive and criminal (to go along with his Australian criminal record). Your selectve amnesia is amusing.

        ".....oh right - he's not been charged with anything." As has been pointed out many times in these forums, Swedish law requires formal questioning before charges can be made, and it is that formal questioning that Assange fled from. Your continued denial of the facts is simply hilarious.

        1. dan1980

          Re: dan1980

          @Matt

          My point was just to correct that his lawyers were requesting the detention order to be dropped, not "the whole thing".

          Can you put aside you own bias long enough to agree with that?

          1. DiViDeD Silver badge

            Re: dan1980

            Matt Bryant puts aside his bias? Somebody call Guiness.

      2. Mark 85 Silver badge

        There's one small problem with all this... he's in an embassy in England where he's now wanted for jumping bail. So even if the Swedish allegations are unfounded, he still has to answer to English Law.

        1. dan1980

          @Mark 85

          Perhaps, but even that is consistent with what Assange has maintained this whole time - he is convinced that if he goes to Sweden he will end up in a US prison for charges utterly unrelated to the matter at hand.

          If you genuinely believed that if you complied with one lawful order - carrying a penalty of some few years prison should you refuse - that you would end up being tried in the US for espionage and serving 35 years in a country that considers you to be a terrorist, what would you do?

          Now, maybe you would comply anyway, stoically resigned to whatever fate had in store for you and that is a fine trait. But I feel that most people - if they really believed that- would choose a charge of breach of bail and 2-3 years in jail in the country they lived in over what they believed was an assured 35 years in a US jail on charges of espionage. What do you think your friends would do? Your family? Your partner? Your children? What would you want them to do?

          My point, as in a post above, is that Assange's behaviour is consistent with his stated beliefs which do go someway to offset the guilt that is inevitably implied by his actions.

          1. Psyx

            "he is convinced that if he goes to Sweden he will end up in a US prison for charges utterly unrelated to the matter at hand."

            So- just to view that in perspective - any mentally unstable and paranoid homeless person should be spared the indignity of being Sectioned or imprisoned for a crime, so long as they're totally convinced in their head that they will do bad things to him there and never let him out again?

            1. dan1980

              @Psyx

              You and everyone else seem to be ignoring my point - which is causing me genuine upset. Why won't you just read my posts?

              What I am saying and all I am saying is that what he says accords with his actions. He really appears to believe that this will happen and this provides an alternative explanation for his ("dodgy" in Matt's words) behavior. As in an alternative to "he's a rapist looking to avoid justice".

              I never - not once - suggested that the case should be dropped and quite the opposite: I think they need to MOVE IT FORWARD. But the only way to do that at this point is to interview him in the UK. If this process is a legal requirement before charges can be laid (I accept that correction - I genuinely didn't know) then the refusal of the Swedish police to conduct this interview in the UK prevents the case proceeding.

              Yes, Assange shouldn't have left Sweden. Yes, he shouldn't have skipping bail and yes. But he DID do those things and the Swedish police have to accept that and deal with the situation at hand now. They have to look at the options they have and decide what to do.

              I want the case to progress, which is why I am so much in favour of them taking this course of action.

              To address the second paragraph, no, mentally unstable or paranoid people must be deal with. BUT, they sometimes must be coaxed into 'coming along nicely'. I am not saying that this necessarily applies to Assange - I am just addressing your point. To broaden so it might apply to Assange, the police need to look at each situation as it is and figure out the best way to do their jobs and accomplish the goal. Sometimes that's barging in somewhere with force, sometimes that's a formal request for compliance, sometimes that's negotiation.

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                FAIL

                Re: dan1980

                "....I think they need to MOVE IT FORWARD. But the only way to do that at this point is to interview him in the UK....." Assange has deliberately made that impossible. He has asked for and been granted asylum by Ecuador, hence he is under their law now. Ecuador does not have an extradition treaty with Sweden, so if he is formally interviewed by the Swedes in the Embassy then the Swedes will not be able to arrest him (no jurisdiction) or request that the Ecuadoreans do so, and the Swedish prosecutor has already said Assange is due to be arrested at the end of his formal interview as a designated suspect - ".... On 18 November 2010, Marianne Ny ordered the detention of Julian Assange on suspicion of rape, three cases of sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. The Stockholm District Court acceded to the order and issued a European Arrest Warrant to execute it...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Arrest_warrant - so Assange knows he will be arrested and formally charged at his formal questioning. That is why Assange is deliberately not letting things move forward by surrendering himself to British or Swedish custody.

                "....But he DID do those things and the Swedish police have to accept that and deal with the situation at hand now...." They did, just as they would deal with any other suspected rapist fleeing justice - they issued an European Arrest Warrant.

                "....To broaden so it might apply to Assange, the police need to look at each situation as it is and figure out the best way to do their jobs and accomplish the goal....." So far, Assange has declined his peaceful and rightful day in court in Sweden, and pursued his case against the EAW in the English courts as far as he could. He has thrown away all peaceful options by jumping bail and fleeing again to the Ecuadorean Embassy, and is now going to be dragged back to Sweden in handcuffs the minute he steps out of the Ecuadorean Embassy, just like any other fugitive from the law would and should be.

          2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            WTF?

            Re: dan1980 Re: @Mark 85

            "......he is convinced that if he goes to Sweden he will end up in a US prison for charges utterly unrelated to the matter at hand....." That paranoid legal mumbo-jumbo has long-since been debunked - the Swedes cannot extradite anyone for military or political crimes, it's in their laws. It would actually be far easier to extradite A$$nut from the UK. This was all included in the very first link I posted, which you obviously didn't read because it was too likely to upset your carefully constructed fantasy world of hero-worship. None of this is new, the only new bit is the amazing lengths you sheep will go to in avoiding acknowledging the fact A$$nut created this issue and has run from facing it ever since.

            1. dan1980

              Re: dan1980 @Mark 85

              Matt

              "This was all included in the very first link I posted, which you obviously didn't read because it was too likely to upset your carefully constructed fantasy world of hero-worship."

              Stop. Just stop.

              I believe I am a good and largely civil person and I give everyone the benefit of the doubt but yours has just run out. You are guilty many times over of exactly that which you accuse others of and it's getting old. I have read your points and accepted them - they just don't materially alter my argument, which is (just to court a few more downvotes) that he believes these things - not me.

              If you don't think he does (believe what he claims) then that's fine - we disagree there and this is understandable because it is based on our personal assessments, which sit aside from the facts. I believe he is paranoid and partly delusional and from there find it plausible. I am not saying that Assange is right to fear being locked in a US prison for espionage if he leaves the Embassy; I am saying that he does fear it. You don't and that's fine.

              Does that mean I didn't read your post? No. Does that mean I am living in a fantasy world? No. Does that mean I 'hero-worship' Assange? No. Hell no.

              I know you won't, but for the record, stop calling people "sheep". It weakens your argument every single time.

              We are all sometimes arrogant or rude or ungracious or ill-informed, but you, Matt, are all four and frequently in the the same post. I defended you once against Trevor but, though I still wouldn't join him in laughing "uproariously", I'd not beat an eyelid anymore.

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                FAIL

                Re: dan1980 @Mark 85

                "....that he believes these things...." Then you and him are choosing to believe against all the presented evidence - that is more akin to faith than reason.

                "....I am saying that he does fear it...." I'm saying - as did the English Courts and the Swedish Government - that he is talking bollocks and it is not a legal reason for him not tor eturn to Sweden and face charges. It is simply an excuse.

                "....Does that mean I didn't read your post? No. Does that mean I am living in a fantasy world? No....." If you read the post, read the link, even Googled the Swedish laws involved, and still believed his baloney then you are, IMHO, very much living in denial of reality.

                "....stop calling people "sheep". It weakens your argument every single time....." Stop acting like one of Orwell's sheep and I won't need to make the accusation. And - for once - actually answer an argument with a verifiable fact rather than denial, that would seriously strengthen what you seem to think is an 'argument'. All these points have been debated in these forums before so stop pretending they are either new or not thoroughly debunked.

          3. Mark 85 Silver badge

            Dan1980,

            I quite in agreement with you. This whole mess is more about what he believes than what we see. Looking at what has transpired if it were thee or me doesn't matter as we would make our choices based on our perception and also based on the input from our trusted sources. Which is exactly what Assange is doing. Whether or not he has good and valid information and input from said sources is an unknown to us.

            1. dan1980

              @Mark 85

              "Thee or me".

              That reminded me of Justice Scalia's dissent in Maryland v King - "The Court repeatedly says [it] will not befall thee and me, dear reader, but only those arrested for serious crimes."

              No relation to this issue - just reminded me of it and so brought a smile to my face (something I needed) as I very much enjoyed that line and how it brought a kind of mock conspiratorial tone to it.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Amazing all of the police and legal resources going into this case compared to Bill Cosby.

      It's almost as if Assange has pissed off the security services or something....

  5. This post has been deleted by its author

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    However in the UK he is a guilty criminal

    Regardless of the Swedish ruling, 'St' Assange should still serve jail time in the UK, as he is quite clearly guilty (no judgement required for this, its automatic) of jumping bail & contempt of court.

    Given the cost of policing the embassy, he should be sentenced to stay in a UK jail for as long as he has held out for (imo) so the longer he drags this on, the longer his punishment. His choice

    Also as I recall at the time it was said that for any interview to be legally admissable in a swedish court, a suspect has to be interviewed while under caution/arrested? Is this the case? Can that be done by swedish police on foreign (UK) soil?

    1. Chad H.

      Re: However in the UK he is a guilty criminal

      Given the Swedish Police have no Jurisdiction here, I'd think not.

      1. ScottAS2

        Re: However in the UK he is a guilty criminal

        If there was the will, I'm sure some sort of extraterritoriality could be negotiated between Sweden, the UK and, if necessary, Ecuador that would satisfy everyone's legal systems - c.f. the Scottish Court in the Netherlands.

    2. Psyx

      Re: However in the UK he is a guilty criminal

      "Can that be done by swedish police on foreign (UK) soil?"

      They say no.

      " quite clearly guilty (no judgement required for this, its automatic) of jumping bail & contempt of court."

      Quite. Traditionally a crime that's treated with quite harshly, as it should be.

  7. Winkypop Silver badge
    Devil

    How long does Ecuador's London embassy lease have left?

    If they had to move buildings I imagine that would be a problem for The Great Assange™

    1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

      Re: How long does Ecuador's London embassy lease have left?

      The embassy is part of the state of Ecuador. If there is a lease, the freeholder will find it impossible to evict the tennants.

      The saga of the Iranian Embassy some 30 years ago plus the shooting of the WPC Elaine Fletcher outside the Libyan Embassy set the precident here.

      There are all sorts of international treaties govening this. You could expell the ambasador etc but you can't take (legally) take over something that is part of a foreign country.

      In the scope of things his crimes are fairly minor. There may come a time when it is no longer in the Swedish public interest to persue the case. (Not sure is Sweden has a statute of limitations but if they do, then when that runs out, that's it. The scumbag is safe.)

      1. David Dawson

        Re: How long does Ecuador's London embassy lease have left?

        This is a complete fallacy. Embassies are NOT part of their sponsoring country.

        The treaty of Vienna is the root of most agreements regarding embassies. It talks about access to the embassy by the forces of the host being by agreement of the ambassador. Not territorial exchange, no claims.

        This is international treaties, that our government has signed up to.

        1. dan1980

          Re: How long does Ecuador's London embassy lease have left?

          The effect is the same.

          Treaties are essentially a bunch of countries all getting together and promising to do what they say they'll do.

          The UK police could get Assange RIGHT NOW even if the embassy was foreign soil. It certainly wouldn't be the first time a person has been abducted from a foreign country by state forces.

          If they did so, however, the diplomatic backlash would be huge - not just from Ecuador but from every country with whom they have embassies and who have embassies there.

          Rape and sexual assault are serious crimes. On a 'world stage', however, wanting to question someone about a rape just can't justify breaking these treaties.

      2. Don Dumb

        Re: How long does Ecuador's London embassy lease have left?

        @Steve Davies 3 - "The embassy is part of the state of Ecuador."

        That is entirely untrue although a very common misconception.

        "The saga of the Iranian Embassy some 30 years ago...set the precident here."

        Yes, it so set a precendence that the UK passed the 'Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987'. In fact the UK Government rather poorly pointed out to the Ecuadorian government that this law "would allow us [The UK Gov] to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy."

        The unwritten reason that embassies are generally protected, is that if Country A messes around with the embassy of Country B, then all of Country A's people in all of its embassies around the world are vunerable. I wouldn't want to be a Brit in the UK embassy in Quito (or anywhere in South America) if the Ecuadorian embassy in London had just been stormed by the Met.

      3. Psyx

        Re: How long does Ecuador's London embassy lease have left?

        "The embassy is part of the state of Ecuador."

        No it isn't.

        "The saga of the Iranian Embassy some 30 years ago plus the shooting of the WPC Elaine Fletcher outside the Libyan Embassy set the precident here."

        No it did not. It in no way set any form of legal precedent.

        "There are all sorts of international treaties govening this."

        No: There's one. The Vienna Convention.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Diplomatic_Relations

        "You could expell the ambasador etc but you can't take (legally) take over something that is part of a foreign country."

        Embassies are STILL PART OF THE HOST COUNTRY. they have a lot of leeway, but ultimately that piece of dirt is still property of the UK.

        "In the scope of things his crimes are fairly minor."

        Saying 'fuck you' to our entire legal system is not minor.

  8. Tom 7 Silver badge

    Since we're paying £7000 a day for some police officers to lurk around the embassy

    (and what brainless fuck authorised that?????) perhaps we could pay for all the Swedish prosecutors to come on a week long jolly to London so they could interview and then charge him or not?

    There does seem to be some reticence on their part to actually prosecute the case.

    1. tom dial Silver badge

      Re: Since we're paying £7000 a day for some police officers to lurk around the embassy

      You would be paying the police the £7000 daily for whatever their assigned duties were. There is an excess cost only if their assignment to Assange Monitoring has necessitated additional hiring.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Since we're paying £7000 a day for some police officers to lurk around the embassy

      £7000 a day is around £2.5 million per year. Going by info on the Prospects website about typical police pay (assuming the higher end of the scale and including maximum London weighting), that would pay for 42 chief inspectors or 53 sergeants with several years' experience. More if you include a few more junior officers. I just had a look at the Equadorian Embassy on Street View. 53 officers would just about form a fairly tight ring all the way round the building, but I'm not sure they really need that many. Ok, I suppose we could split it down into 4 shifts of 13 officers. Perhaps the operation is not so over-resourced after all.

    3. TheWeddingPhotographer

      Re: Since we're paying £7000 a day for some police officers to lurk around the embassy

      Let's hope he doesn't call them a bunch of plebs when he walks out

    4. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

      Re: Since we're paying £7000 a day...

      Tom 7, care to name a figure that you think the arrest of a bail-jumping rape suspect is worth? Maybe we should hire OmniCorp to do the policing, I'm sure the'd whip the budget into shape.

    5. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Tom 7 Re: Since we're paying £7000 a day for some police officers to lurk around the embassy

      The UK pays millions every year to provide policing around the embassies based in London, as they are obliged to under international law, it is simply that the policing around the Ecuadorean Embassy has been made more overt to underline to Assange that he will be arrested should he leave the Embassy. HMG are probably quite happy to pay £7k-a-day to help Assange keep on discrediting himself.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Assange the vegetables

    http://passingtymes.tumblr.com/post/85363215903/sean-lock-waxes-eloquent-on-little-known

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    Ok for those defending him and saying he should be questioned in the Embassy.

    try this:

    Police: Did you do it?

    Ass: yes I did it, oh yes I so did it, guilty as sin...I did it, i did it, I did it.

    ......

    Now back in Sweden.

    Police: Here is the evidence:

    Ass lawyer: Sorry, taken in a foreign country, not following due process and tape may of been tampered with.

    Judge: Case dismissed.

  11. ukgnome
    Trollface

    I wonder what....

    UKIP think about him using a foreign embassy like that? Obviously trolling.

    What i meant to put is perhaps he like taking a leak in the waste paper bin.

  12. Glenturret Single Malt

    "Slumps back on sofa"

    Sofa? They must have very luxurious bathroom facilities in the Ecuador embassy.

  13. Vociferous

    It's about rape.

    ""This is about the threat of extradition to the US and 35 years of jail there,""

    No, it's about 2 years in a Swedish prison.

    If Assange was evading justice because he was scared of extradition to the US, he wouldn't have fled to the UK, the country with the famously lopsided extradition treaty with the US.

    Someone who is actually scared of extradition to the US, like Snowden, hides in a country like China, Russia, North Korea or Iran.

    1. dan1980

      Re: It's about rape.

      @Vociferous

      This is an excellent point, though I understand he was living in the UK at the time - whatever that counts for.

  14. alain williams Silver badge

    The wrong story

    Assange was about Wikileaks and, at the time, Snowden. It looks that the USA have succeeded in neutralising him as I seem to remember that there was a lot of talk about the rape charges being 'encouraged' by USA operatives. Assange has now been removed from this.

    What would Assange have gone on to do if he were not holed up at the embassy ?

    BTW: I wonder what he does with his time and how he pays for his keep ? Does he wash the dishes or perform office tasks ?

    1. Vociferous

      Re: The wrong story

      What's really happened is that Assange has managed to neutralize Wikileaks.

      Assange is a megalomaniac, a pathological liar and a psychopath. Read the New York Times article about what happened when they tried to cooperate with Wikileaks on publishing leaks.

      I've all along argued that Wikileaks should dump Assange before he destroyed their credibility. So have a lot of former employees and associates of Wikileaks. But instead, Wikileaks bet their credibility on a clown who lies about what he's charged of, lies about being afraid of extradition to the US, skips bail in a rape case, and constantly does his best to conflate him own persona with Wikileaks.

      And today Wikileaks is effectively dead.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The wrong story

        And today Wikileaks is effectively dead.

        And that is a very very good thing.

        For all the leaking, did anyone in any position of responsibility face a single charge? No. Only Brad Manning, who's life is now completely ruined, and it achieved nothing. A man with bigger balls than anyone reading this, big enough in fact to choose to have them chopped off, is going to be wasted in a prison cell for the rest of his life.

        If you're reading this from your couch Julian, the very least you owe Manning is to have the courage of your convictions: go face your charges in Sweden, and if in time you end up in the cell next to Brad, you can tell him it was all worthwhile.

  15. msknight Silver badge
    FAIL

    Flame Suit Donned

    UK Police travel all over the damn world to interview suspects. They traveled to Portugal to question three suspects just this year in the McCann investigation, for example.

    The Swedish prosecution team doesn't have a leg to stand on and are making their country look like fools with every passing day. The longer they keep this rolling on, the more fuel they give to Assange's claims that the Sweeds are the American's bitch. Now THAT is an image that is definitely NSFW.

    1. auburnman

      Re: Flame Suit Donned

      This has been said a thousand times and I can't believe I'm letting myself be sucked back in but here goes: It's not about interviewing him, it's about charging him with the crimes he is accused of - the interview is a mandatory part of Swedish law that must occur before he can be charged. There were warrants out for arrest years ago. Swedish officials coming to the UK would accomplish nothing and would probably actually be counterproductive.

      1. Persona non grata

        Re: Flame Suit Donned

        Really @auburnman, you seem to know more Swedish law than the court that made this very decision. From Ars Technica today:

        "However, the court also added that there was a “failure of the prosecutors to examine alternative avenues is not in line with their obligation,” suggesting that there may be an alternative method to questioning Assange, such as doing it at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London."

        So, like to admit you got that wrong then?

        Or are you better informed on Swedish law than their own courts?

        1. auburnman

          @Persona non grata

          "So, like to admit you got that wrong then?"

          Not particularly.

          The Swedish courts have a warrant for his arrest. (which has just been upheld)

          Interpol has a warrant for his arrest.

          The UK courts agree that there is sufficient grounds to extradite him to Sweden.

          I would imagine they also have a warrant for his arrest out given he skipped bail.

          Ergo, he is going to be arrested and held as soon as he leaves the embassy, for bail-jumping at least even if the Swedish charges were to magically melt away. Questioning him in the embassy accomplishes the square root of fuck all for the Swedish prosecutors, so why would they bother? It would be bad precedent to pander to a fugitive in this way.

    2. Psyx
      FAIL

      Re: Flame Suit Donned

      "UK Police travel all over the damn world to interview suspects....

      The Swedish prosecution..."

      You realise that different nations have different laws, right.

      What you appear to be saying is that something that's ok for UK law should be ok for all of those Johnny Foreigner types.

  16. StampedChipmunk

    Where would the interview be held?

    Point a. In the Ecuadorean Embassy? Can't imagine they'd be too keen about having a load of Swedish rozzers come and visit.

    Point b. How about the nearest Regus then? Oh, hang on, if the albino dingbat steps a foot outside the embassy, the British rozzers will have him for skipping bail.

    Ok then, how about we set up a Swedish court in the UK solely for the chance to charge the little twerp? Where exactly? In the Embassy? I can't see that happening (c.f. point a. above).

    Ok then, we'll set it up someplace else.

    Erm.. no, (c.f. point b. above)

    Assange, like him or loathe him (and personally I think he's a narcissist with a dangerous amount of influential friends), is in a pickle of entirely his own making. He's consistently flouted laws and given a big f-you to social convention across a wide range of states and countries, while evangelising about freedom of speech and encouraging people to spill national secrets. He then rides on the glory of these damaging revelations while letting the misled leakers suffer the consequences of their actions without a shred of remorse or regret (c.f. Bradley Manning). That arrogance has now led him to his current situation - cornered. Where everybody can quietly forget about him. Good.

  17. nice spam database '); drop table users; --
    Happy

    They seem to have told the lie enought times...

    Reading the posts around here makes me think they have told the lies enought times.

    People is starting to forget what this is all about... Remember the leaked documents? Anyone? If it wasn't "surprise sex" it would be drugs, guns, taxes or something else... You really forgot the leaked documents stuff? Next thing you'll be talking about 9/11 as an example of a terrotist act orchestrated by some guy in a cave in the middle east...

    Well, the masses are like this anyway. As for me I'll keep sharpening my mind everyday, tirelessly. And one day, one day my dear sheeps, I'll be the one ruling you all :)

    1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge
      WTF?

      Bingo!

      We're playing Grammar Nazi bingo here, right?

    2. Psyx

      Re: They seem to have told the lie enought times...

      "People is starting to forget what this is all about..."

      Crying wolf to avoid prosecution.

      "Next thing you'll be talking about 9/11 as an example of a terrotist act orchestrated by some guy in a cave in the middle east..."

      Pass me the tin foil, I desire new headwear!

  18. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

    The Swedish Prosecutors

    should agree to interview him in the UK. Not, however, within the Ecuadorian embassy. Assange would then have to step outside the aforementioned embassy, at which point the UK police can nab him for skipping bail, and he can then spend several months couch-surfing at Her Majesty's pleasure instead, before either being shipped to Sweden to face charges, or be let go, depending on the result of the interview with the Swedish prosecutors.

  19. TheWeddingPhotographer

    The Equadorians look bad

    its a legal cock up, making the Ecuadorians look bad. I don't see why they haven't thrown him out.

    Superficially, it looks like he acted like a loose canon for a while, with no respect fro anyone, broke laws in several places, and now is playing the system. He needs to man up, and face justice

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What I want to know is...

    how many other tulips besides Matt Bryant have connections to GCHQ?

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re. Assange

    Maybe he can hide out on Mars ?

    Just kidding.. the cost would be horrendous even if some Assange-friendly country is concealing an LENR bootstrapped reverse-engineered-from-Roswell-crash hyperdrive with a 14 day-to-orbit coast time and a small self contained plutonium oxide nuclear battery to power the atmosphere recyclers and hydroponics systems, that would fit in a single rocket.

    Also even if the above were true the radiation on the Martian surface would be a bit too much unless he either hides underground or has some sort of enhanced shielding on the lander.

    Moon, maybe possible. Perhaps near the pole?

    Lunar torrent server serving up 100% uncensored news 24/7 via satellite downlink on unused channels :-)

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why the downvote

    Don't tell me you believe it really was a weather balloon: there have been reports of two different crash sites in NM around 1947 not to mention the one in Aurora, TX in the 1890s.

    Also there has never been a satisfactory explanation given to the abnormal radiation readings to this day at Rendlesham Forest in the UK, sometimes 8* background in places.

    The "official line" of a lighthouse reflecting off low fog simply doesn't hold water as the eyewitnesses independently reported seeing a hovering row of rotating lights which reacted to movement.

POST COMMENT House rules

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

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019