back to article Julian AssangeTM to meet investigators in London

Couch-surfing sex crimes suspect Julian Assange will soon meet with Swedish authorities. In case you came in late, Assange has spent most of the last four years in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. He's there because Sweden wants a word over an investigation into possible sex crimes, but Assange fears if he sets foot in Sweden …

  1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Gimp

    While this is going on...

    Assange Strongly Implies DNC Staffer Was Murdered for Being Wikileaks Source

    It's like we are in the deepest thicket of Bush Junior's second campaign again.

    Now with added spice of "War with Russia Possible Any Minute Now, so vote Hillary". Great stuff, I have ordered a bunker full of popcorn.

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      Yeah, but the reality show named Assange is like all the others - I just can't be arsed.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
        Coat

        "Yeah, but the reality show named Assange is like all the others - I just can't be arsed."

        I thought he died years ago and the show got cancelled.

        I'll take Assanges Coat, 'cos he don't need one if he's not going outside.

    2. Bronek Kozicki Silver badge

      Re: While this is going on...

      Snowden demonstrated why you can't be too paranoid.

    3. DougS Silver badge

      Re: While this is going on...

      If he really believes Clinton had a DNC staffer murdered, why would he want to leave the embassy? That's probably about the safest place for him, even if the Swedish charges are dismissed and he's free to go wherever he wants he craves publicity too much to stay in hiding.

  2. Warm Braw Silver badge

    Ministerio de Movilidad Humana

    How to rub salt into his sofa-sores.

    1. Danny 14 Silver badge

      Re: Ministerio de Movilidad Humana

      The real salt will be when sweden say 'no further charges, off you go'. The he gets arrested by the UK for dodging court and bail thus gets extradited by the UK to the US.

      1. VinceH Silver badge

        Re: Ministerio de Movilidad Humana

        No, the real salt will be when Sweden says "no further charges, off you go." Then he gets arrested by the UK for dodging court and bail, and the US doesn't request extradition.

        (Whether that will be the case or not, I don't know - but it would be priceless if the twat gets ignored.)

        1. BillG Silver badge
          Holmes

          Re: Ministerio de Movilidad Humana

          No, the real salt will be when Sweden says "no further charges, off you go." Then he gets arrested by the UK for dodging court and bail, and the US doesn't request extradition.

          True. Assange's greatest nightmare would be if he is free on the streets and he finds that Obama doesn't want him. Although at this point I think Barry would rather leave Assange™ to whomever succeeds him.

          1. martinusher Silver badge

            Re: Ministerio de Movilidad Humana

            >Although at this point I think Barry would rather leave Assange™ to whomever succeeds him.

            A characteristically English view of our legal and government systems. Unfortunately the US runs a political/legal system which could be roughly characterized as 'organized anarchy'. The various bits sometimes cooperate, sometimes compete, but the one thing they don't do is act in a unified manner driven by dictates from the top.

            ...and there lies the danger. He's going to be seen as a handy way of furthering someone's career. So he's toast if he goes near the US. Truth? Justice? Mere details....

          2. Jaybus

            Re: Ministerio de Movilidad Humana

            Doubtful that Obama is interested. If Sweden does want him, then his only hope is to ensure that Clinton will want to extradite in the hope that Ecuador will take pity, rather than showing him the door. Thus the nastiness toward Clinton? Hmm. I love the irony of that, though, seeing as Clinton has probably already leaked far more than Assange could ever hope to.

        2. BarryUK

          Re: Ministerio de Movilidad Humana

          Well, given that the US never asked the UK for extradition in the time he was wandering the streets here after the leaks you have to wonder why it's more likely they would ask the UK, or indeed Sweden, for extradition now.

          Maybe it's all been about avoiding the rapey charges all along?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Ministerio de Movilidad Humana

            He has not been charged with anything.

      2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Ministerio de Movilidad Humana

        "The he gets arrested by the UK for dodging court and bail thus gets extradited by the UK to the US."

        You mean gets extradited just like he didn't when he was on bail?

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Ugh...

    So, after 4 years of a swedish bureaucrat waving their dick or vagina about insisting that they couldn't possible interview Assange outside of Sweden (due to the aforementioned "unclear reasons).. they are now going to interview assange outside of Sweden.

    I look forward to 10 years from now when I can watch the documentary and finally find out what the heck went on with this whole thing.

    Anyone else more clued up than me (about the assange thing I mean.. ;)) ?

    1. Scorchio!!

      Re: Ugh...

      "So, after 4 years of a swedish bureaucrat waving their dick

      [...] I look forward to 10 years from now when I can watch the documentary and finally find out what the heck went on with this whole thing.[...]

      Assange fled from their jurisdiction (which he should have been interviewed per Swedish procedure, if you read below), after his legal counsel had been advised the police wanted to interview him prior to charging him. Though his legal counsel denied having been in contact with him, he subsequently admitted this was not true in a British court, which led his professional association to declare they wished to interview him, the implication being that he must have tipped his client the wink, which wink precipitated his client's flight from Swedish justice. Later, back in the UK, Assange broke bail (put up by his 'friends'), and fled again, this time to the representative of the human rights abusing Ecuadorian government, where he's been for four years.

      Inconsistencies have plagued Assange's arguments from the very start, and here we are; Assange claimed it was inhumane to put him in Wandsworth prison, and applied for bail, the British CJS, as if blissfully unaware that he was by definition at risk of absconding (because he did so from Sweden when facing the probability of arrest under the normal Swedish procedure of 1) interview then 2) charge and 3) arrest), gave him bail. As I say, Assange gratefully and inexplicably again vanished in a puff of smoking packets, and reappeared in the Ecuadorian embassy. I note ironically this must have been the biggest ftp operation since the equally second rate Lawnmower man.

      In past times Assange indicated he wanted to settle in Sweden, apparently because it was liberal and actually housed a Wikileaks server. After he'd been advised of his status as a suspect in that fair country he declared it has banana republic standards of justice, whilst indicating he felt they'd extradite him to the US, mentioning capital punishment as a source of concern; it is the case that Sweden does not extradite to countries intending to apply capital punishment; so, having fled to the country most likely by virtue of a Tony Blair/US treaty to bend over for the US government and extradite him, then being subjected to a EAW (which means he cannot be extradited until the EAW is spent), he claimed he was at risk of extradition to the US from Sweden.

      My opinion? Although it is an opinion I'll save the Reg any agony by expressing it, but you can surely tell what it is, owing to the way the facts stack up and my expressions of disbelief.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Ugh...

        Sweden allows US "rendition" - a real possibility during the height of the "hang him high for treason" proclamations by some of the less intelligent US congresspeople.

        1. Gordon 10 Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: Ugh...

          Most of the US's allies have been complicit in rendition including the UK so your point is?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Ugh...

            Assange's concern (clearly grounded) was that rendition was likely, extradition is what most of the MSM and the anti-Assange crowd focused upon. The rhetoric from the US was running pretty hot at the time if you are able to recall.

            https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Ugh...

        He didn't flee. He was questioned while still in Sweden and they told him that "we have nothing on you, please go". And he did. Then the prosecutor decided to open the case again, against the will of the alleged rape victim, it should be noted (who recognise Assange as her then-boyfriend and not a rapist), and that's when the whole circus started.

        It doesn't take half a brain to suspect that Sweden is up to no good and that the prosecutor's alleged reason is just an excuse.

        Although Sweden is officially a neutral country, it has a long history of helping anybody who asks behind the scenes in order to maintain their neutral reputation.

      3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Ugh...

        @Scorchio!!

        You missed the additional gem: that his self-imposed exile in the embassy is a further breach of his human rights by being unlawful imprisonment or some such argument whose logic I fail to follow.

    2. veti Silver badge

      Re: Ugh...

      Ten years from now you'll be able to watch your pick of documentaries, and come out with whichever preconceived story the producers wanted you to.

      If you really want to know "what the heck went on", you'll have to pay much, much closer attention than that. I'm not sure it's even possible at this point, short of applying to work at the Ecuadorian Embassy: there are so many shills and trolls on both sides who both have plenty of mud to throw up, to defame Assange on one side or muddy the issue on the other.

      Neither side is making even the most cursory attempt to pretend to be fair or honest, and I don't see that changing in my lifetime.

  4. m0rt Silver badge

    "the Government of Ecuador has offered cooperation to effectuate the interrogation of Julian Assange on the premises of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, among other legal and political order to reach a satisfactory solution for all parties to end to unnecessary delays in the process and ensure effective judicial protection. "

    Translation of translation:

    We are sick of this shit. We're gonna sit down and have a natter to see if we can sort next steps.

    1. BebopWeBop Silver badge
      Trollface

      It will be interesting to see whether the UK government let him off his bail jumping - I suspect not. If they do, what is the betting that those mugs who put up the money will be waiting in the nearest dark alley?

      1. Ryan Kendall

        He jumped bail

        Unless the UK government can deport him to Ecuador without it being a media circus then Assange is stuck in the embassy to rot.

        Assange can only blame himself for his own stupidity.

        1. Grunchy

          Re: He jumped bail

          I betcha Assange has a whole list of other folks to blame for his woes.

          Sure he only has himself to blame - unless he gets creative!

      2. Scorchio!!
        Trollface

        "what is the betting that those mugs who put up the money will be waiting in the nearest dark alley?"

        Shorely shome mistake? Special Snowflakes don't jump people in dark alleys, do they?

  5. lglethal Silver badge
    Stop

    Actually lets be clear here...

    The reason Sweden never interrogated him before was that they were not legally (under Swedish law) ALLOWED to! Apparently that law has been changed so now they can.

    Not that it makes any difference, he still wont be able to come out of the Ecuador embassy anytime soon, he's still wanted for jumping bail in the UK...

    1. pffut

      Re: Actually lets be clear here...

      Got a link to that law? Swedish DAs had interviewed suspects both abroad and over the phone before Assange ever set foot in Sweden.

      1. steward
        Boffin

        Re: Actually lets be clear here...

        @pffut :

        Did you RTFA?

        "the proposed Ecuador to Sweden negotiating an Agreement on Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, which was signed last December and provides the legal framework for the practice of judicial proceedings required."

        Ecuador has stated that no Agreement on Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters existed until last December. Further, Ecuador has stated that without said agreement, there was no legal framework for the "proceedings required" - that is, the questioning of Assange by Swedish DA's while Assange is on the sovereign territory of Ecuador.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    i know but...

    ok, so i know we're not out of europe yet... but

    and its likely to be one of the negotiating points...

    and .. it probably would not be retrospectively applied but...

    does leaving europe take away the "european arrest warrant" that was what started this.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: i know but...

      does leaving europe take away the "european arrest warrant" that was what started this.

      Unlikely, but you do raise an interesting point - the UK will also have to agree a new cross judicial collaboration framework with both the EU and the nations the EU has previously negotiated with.

      The fun part is that the UK could soon be closer to China than any of the EU states once it exits, which creates all sort of interesting problems as it then also suffers less control from EU Human Rights laws. This May get ugly (pun intended).

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: i know but...

        Because those are our British values.

      2. jabuzz

        Re: i know but...

        EU does not have human rights laws, that's separate and nothing to do with the EU, other than being a member of the EU pretty much(*) requires you to be a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights and thus subject to the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights which has nothing to do with the EU and it's court aka the European Court of Justice. Yet another thing that many of those voting for Brexit failed utterly to understand.

        * The actual requirement is to have legislation protecting human rights. So far every state has achieved this requirement of EU membership by being a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. In theory you could do it some other way by strong enough national legislation and an sufficiently independent judiciary for example.

    2. Velv Silver badge

      Re: i know but...

      From a quick google, the EAW is a framework and therefore only comes into force when each member state enacts it into domestic law.

      So since it's already in domestic law, in or out of the EU makes no difference until domestic law is changed, we'll still play the same rules with the other counties covered by the domstic law (which may be labelled as "EU members" and not individually named, I haven't checked).

    3. Scorchio!!

      Re: i know but...

      "[...] does leaving europe take away the "european arrest warrant" that was what started this."

      No it was not; Assange fled the Swedish jurisdiction when he discovered that he was about to be 1) interviewed, 2) charged and 3) arrested, per Swedish criminal justice procedures; the EAW came after he arrived in this jurisdiction, which is (you are absolutely correct if you think so) still obliged to honour the EAW until after Brexit is complete, which will be some time after article 50 is activated.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: i know but...

        Nope, Sweden didn't want him while he was in Sweden. They had already interviewed him. He was free to leave.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: i know but...

          Nope, Sweden didn't want him while he was in Sweden. They had already interviewed him. He was free to leave.

          Sure, and he was so confident in his actions that he ran away the moment his lawyer warned him they wanted to have another chat...

    4. Anonymous Coward Silver badge
      Headmaster

      Re: i know but...

      You may have missed this, but we're not leaving Europe. We're leaving the European Union (if the politicians actually follow through). They're very different things.

      1. Fred Flintstone Gold badge

        Re: i know but...

        we're not leaving Europe. We're leaving the European Union

        It's a pity, actually, I would have loved to see the return of British engineering ingenuity to make the former happen. Not quite sure if the Eurotunnel would survive the move, though.

        :-)

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: i know but...

          Are the British Isles in fact part of Europe?

          I mean geologically/geographically. It would seem to me that they are Islands "floating" off the coat of Europe and thus not part of it.

          1. Dog11

            Re: i know but...

            Are the British Isles in fact part of Europe?

            I mean geologically/geographically. It would seem to me that they are Islands "floating" off the coat of Europe and thus not part of it.

            Just like Sicily, eh?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: i know but...

              The Azores?

          2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: i know but...

            The UK archipelago is part of the European continental plate, so yes, geologically speaking, and by geographical convention, the UK is part of Europe.

          3. organiser

            Re: i know but...

            The British isles are firmly attached to the European continental shelf and used to be connected to France by land.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: i know but...

          "we're not leaving Europe. We're leaving the European Union"

          LOL - you actually believe that?!?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Coat

        Re: i know but...

        Set up the Spindizzies (c James Blish) and we could actually move the UK or non-EU parts somewhere else - I recommend the West Indies - I can only dream...

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Assange has long argued that Swedish police should just hop on a plane, endure the horrors of Heathrow and drop in for a congenial chat over a cup of tea. The reasons why that hasn't happened are unclear. "

    The reasons should be crystal clear - the suspect in a criminal case should not be allowed to decide where and when questions can be asked. Not to mention the teeny tiny point that Swedish law didn't allow for it - nor should it ..

    1. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

      The Bridge/Broen/Bron

      I seem to remember in The Bridge that the Danish and Swedish cops were forever popping between the two countries, so presumably Swedish cops are allowed out of the country sometimes.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The Bridge/Broen/Bron

        Yes. Interestingly enough, there is a paragraph in the Danish Constitution which specifically and unequivocally prohibits the activity of the police of foreign states on Danish soil. Danish politicians (and the public servants) have zero respect for their Constitution, so ignored this when they signed the Schengen agreement, which specifically allows such activities.

        So, how can this happen?

        Easy, a High Court which considers the sitting government the "will of the people" and which rarely adjudicates on constitutional matters, and in principle when it does, always sides with the government.

        People who think that Scandinavia is some sort of ideal society with "rule of law" ensconced in their societies, have never lived here!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: The Bridge/Broen/Bron

          People who think that Scandinavia is some sort of ideal society with "rule of law" ensconced in their societies, have never lived here!

          Ah. Now I understand the initial attraction for Assange. Thanks for explaining that.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Happy

        Re: The Bridge/Broen/Bron

        But not allowed to run with sharp implements?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      He's on Ecuadorian Soil...

      Assange is not in the EU or the UK, he's on Ecuadorian Soil, granted Policital Asylum, by the Ecuador Government, who are making a point to stand up to, what they see as Americian Aggression, in this case, a potential abuse of Human rights.

      Assange has well-founded fear of persecution if he were to be extradited to Sweden. It's not him deciding when and where questions can be asked, its between Swedish Prosecution and Ecuador. Its often the case someone who causes the establishment trouble, is set up for a minor offence, so they are then curtailed from further activity, by dragging them through the courts which by all intent, has worked in this case for 5 years, if that is indeed what has happened. That sort of activity was rife during the cold war years.

      No one has come off well in this, least of which the UK Government. The original offence (if there ever was one) has long been served, by his self imprisonment.

      1. phuzz Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: He's on Ecuadorian Soil...

        The original offence he committed in the UK was skipping bail by fleeing to a foreign country (Ecuador), are you arguing that this isn't the case?

        Also, as far as I know, there's no country in the world that thinks that self imprisonment counts as time served. Not the UK, not Sweden, and not Ecuador either.

        The irony is that the maximum punishment for failing to attend court (technically it's not breaking your bail conditions that gets you into trouble, it's missing court) is twelve months in a prison which would almost certainly be nicer than living in one room of an embassy.

        Oh, and if you're worried about getting extradited to the US more than rape charges then you should stay in Sweden, not run to the UK.

      2. Ben Tasker Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: He's on Ecuadorian Soil...

        > Assange is not in the EU or the UK, he's on Ecuadorian Soil,

        No, he's on UK soil.

        The whole "an embassy is foreign soil" is a Hollywood thing, not a real-world thing.

        The Vienna convention prevents us from going in without very good cause, but to do so wouldn't be an invasion of foreign soil. The real risk is that failing to respect someone else's embassy would lead to British embassies suffering the same.

        > No one has come off well in this, least of which the UK Government. The original offence (if there ever was one) has long been served, by his self imprisonment.

        Except it's self-imprisonment so it doesn't actually count. If you're expecting that you'll be convicted of something you can't just hole yourself up somewhere of your choosing and then claim time served, that's just not how it works.

        1. steward
          Holmes

          Re: He's on Ecuadorian Soil...

          > The Vienna convention prevents us from going in without very good cause

          Wrong.

          Although the VCDR does not use the word "sovereign", it does forbid the receiving State from entering without permission of the sending State's representative, effectively cedng sovereignty over the embassy by the receiving State to the sending State (as the receiving State does not have what is known as "effective control" over the embassy.)

          Article 22

          1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.

          2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.

          3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.

          http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf

      3. Scorchio!!

        Re: He's on Ecuadorian Soil...

        "[,,,]Assange is not in the EU or the UK, he's on Ecuadorian Soil,

        Not so, and this has been covered many times in Assange related debates.

      4. Scorchio!!

        Re: He's on Ecuadorian Soil...

        "He's on Ecuadorian Soil..."

        No he is not. Read up on diplomatic privileges and property. It is not Ecuadorian soil.

      5. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: He's on Ecuadorian Soil...

        The original offence (if there ever was one) has long been served, by his self imprisonment.

        I love that one. So, basically, if I, for some as yet inexplicable reason, feel the need to rob a bank, I can return home afterwards, call it home imprisonment and happily stay at home in lieu of the place where the term 'love handles" doesn't quite have the same meaning?

        Honestly, you couldn't make it up..

      6. Muncher23

        Re: He's on Ecuadorian Soil...

        So rape is now (to quote from above) a "minor offence"? Who decided that? And since when has self imprisonment even been a real world thing -- now hiding in a cupboard (ha ha) is a thing, at least an Assange thing

    3. veti Silver badge

      Odd. In every police procedural I've ever seen, the cops are forever bimbling all over the place, talking to suspects wherever they happen to be at the time.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "The reasons should be crystal clear - the suspect in a criminal case should not be allowed to decide where and when questions can be asked. "

      Reality being what it was, Assange in the embassy and not inclined to leave, the DA has an obligation to bring the investigation forward (not doing so got them a weak wrist-slap a while ago)

    5. organiser

      "the suspect in a criminal case should not be allowed to decide where and when questions can be asked."

      Perhaps, but he is not even a suspect. The Swedes just want to have a friendly chat with him to find out whether he should be.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Perhaps, but he is not even a suspect.

        Sure. Sweden routinely issues European Arrest Warrants to just have casual chats with people that have suddenly bailed from their lovely country after previous loudly hailing it as the place to be. UK police is positively awash with such requests from Sweden and has asked them to be less chatty as they are legally required to follow up on them.

        /sarcasm

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Ah, sorry, the place to be turns out to be another country.

          Hey, it's Friday :).

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      >[...] the suspect in a criminal case should not be allowed to decide where and when questions can be asked.

      Sweden aside, in the UK, technically they can.

      For example, whilst at a police station, you can decline to be interviewed by the Police. Since they're not allowed to drag you to the interrogation room, they have to bring the room to you. (Translation, they have to go find a tape recorder and batteries.)

      If they can't be bothered to do that, they let you go. (They might caution/warn you - which again, you can refuse - though it'll become a CPS matter then.)

      Adverse inference doesn't apply in this case since they never bothered to question you to begin with. (R. vs. Hind (2005))

      Learning things about law is fun, and knowledge is power.

  8. Roq D. Kasba

    Assange, the Anti-Snowden

    Self-imposed exile for a sense of grandeur. The only thing worse for Assange than extradition world be not to be extradited.

  9. Commswonk Silver badge

    From the article...

    Assange has long argued that Swedish police should just hop on a plane, endure the horrors of Heathrow and drop in for a congenial chat over a cup of tea. The reasons why that hasn't happened are unclear. But there have been some diplomatic chats between Sweden and Ecuador about the idea.

    Perhaps the Swedes wanted to have some industrial - strength air freshener with them just in case, and the Ecuadorians weren't too keen on the idea.

    1. Scorchio!!

      Re: From the article...

      "Perhaps the Swedes wanted to have some industrial - strength air freshener with them just in case, and the Ecuadorians weren't too keen on the idea."

      No. Their legislation had to be amended to facilitate this but, in any case, he fled Swedish jurisdiction to a jurisdiction more likely to extradite to the US, having once said he intended to settle in Sweden. Moreover, the alleged offence was in their jurisdiction, he fled on finding out the Swedish CJS was about to follow procedure and 1) interview, 2) charge, 3) arrest him. His counsel claimed he'd not been in touch with him, but then coughed up to it in a British court, whereat his (Assange's counsel's) professional association said they intended to interview him.

      This has been discussed so many times in these debates, why don't you search it out.

      1. Fred Flintstone Gold badge

        Re: From the article...

        No. Their legislation had to be amended to facilitate this

        I suspect you quoted the wrong part, unless you have found any new legislation covering air fresheners in which case I want a link :-).

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: From the article...

      Perhaps the Swedes wanted to have some industrial - strength air freshener with them just in case, and the Ecuadorians weren't too keen on the idea.

      It could just be soap - Assange's aversion to the stuff appears to be well documented. That said, you could be right. Air fresheners could be problematic in that context too.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The inevitable "Assange is innocent" and "US conspiracy" thread

    I would appreciate it if you would be so kind to put all the "Assange is innocent" and "it's all a US conspiracy" posts here so I can skip them as one thread.

    I *know* they will show up sooner or later, so I thought I save everyone a bit of time :)

    1. S4qFBxkFFg

      Does this count?

      Nobody except Julian Assange and the alleged victims know whether he did it or not.

      However, there are parts of the whole affair which at least suggest some serious shonkiness/shenanigans on the part of the Swedish authorities in building this case:

      It was stated that the second alleged victim only complained after discovering he had sex with the first alleged victim - this of course doesn't mean she's lying, but is something that would gladden the heart of his defence lawyer if it ever gets that far.

      The Swedish prosecutor originally decided that the case was not worth pursuing and let him go (resulting in him ending up in the UK) - but was then overruled by a superior. Again, this could be a valid move but it's where I started thinking something stank.

      (2 minutes with Google finds all this, I didn't link the news stories because they explicitly name the women involved, which El Reg might not permit in the comments.)

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Does this count?

        ".... but was then overruled by a superior."

        Who herself is an outspoken feminist activist "on the side". Not exactly an impartial copper.

      2. Fred Flintstone Gold badge

        Re: Does this count?

        Actually, you will only have found whatever has been speculated. What seems to have been missed by all and sundry (for, against and neutral) is that the story of the women has not yet been told in a court of law.

        The only party that has been relentlessly in the press is Assange, and methinks he doth protests too much for there not to be another, as yet untold angle to this.

        There is a reason that Assange seems to be more frightened of his previous beloved Sweden than even the UK legal system, and we all know that the BS about fear of extradition to the US is just that, BS, because that was a LOT easier in the UK.

        In all the gigabytes spoken, speculated and argued about this, the actual story from the two women themselves has not been heard. Not because it was drowned, but because it has as yet not been told, at all.

        It may pay to keep that in mind.

        1. organiser

          Re: Does this count?

          "the actual story from the two women themselves has not been heard"

          Well, it has, and there are tweets from the about such a lovely and amazing guy he is. They were merely a bit disappointed about the condom thing, but they didn't want to prosecute. That was entirely the decision of the authorities.

          Since it doesn't align with the official story it is quite naturally being downplayed, but you will find it with a bit of Google karma.

  11. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
    Alert

    British Soil

    What if the Ecuadorians were to temporarily suspended their Embassy in London and moved their operation to a friendly country's consulate, leaving Assange alone in the building which would no longer be Ecuadorian soil? The coast is then clear for the Met to serve that warrant.

    1. S4qFBxkFFg

      Re: British Soil

      This would have the same practical effect as (and would probably be seen as equivalent to) him speedily exiting the embassy's street door with the ambassador's heel print on his buttocks.

      It's probably not the image the Ecuadoreans want to go for.

    2. JetSetJim Silver badge
      Headmaster

      Re: British Soil

      It isn't and never has been Ecuadorian soil - it merely has protected status under diplomatic law, which the UK Govmt is obliged to protect, and under which it is only allowed to enter with permission from the ambassador

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Devil

        Re: British Soil

        I think we all know that it is British Soil and only diplomatically Ecudorian, but it is a common usage even if not true and so should perhaps be ignored when some person inists on using it. Afterall the effect is similar.

    3. steward

      Re: British Soil

      Under the VCDR section 22 subsection 1 the Head of Mission can allow anyone from the Receiving State in anytime he or she pleases.

      Or not. The receiving State has no rights under the VCDR. The sending State holds all the cards, unless the receiving State (the UK) breaks diplomatic relations with the sending State (Ecuador.)

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What this is sadly lacking is a new direction and then a 70's style film to document it.

    Assange: Escape 2016!

    Doctor goes to the embassy and says "We can rebuild your face!" and does so with a striking similarity to Telly Savalas. Assange escapes in a tumultuous bicycle chase through old London and almost gets caught due to strikes on Southern, the Eurotunnel and confusion as to whether his passport is still valid due to Brexit. We next see Assange on a beach in an unknown country but it hasn't ended there, as an epilogue six months later Assange is caught in a Finish brothel with 3 women, 2 men and a donkey, he is then deported to America. The End.

    1. tentimes

      I'll pay to watch that film! hehe

    2. phuzz Silver badge
      Joke

      To be fair, the donkey was only there because of confusion over a request for "a piece of ass".

      1. Mark 85 Silver badge
        Trollface

        To be fair, the donkey was only there because of confusion over a request for "a piece of ass".

        Then wouldn't it be just "part of a donkey" and not the whole thing?

  13. Jonathan Smythe
    Devil

    Ejection opportunity?

    Maybe they've decided the easiest way to deal with Assange(tm) is to have a "chat" with him on the balcony, and throw him off so he's no longer on diplomatic property and the police can then pick him up?

  14. Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese Silver badge

    Imagined conversation

    "Oh, wait...you're *Julian* Assange. Sorry, our mistake - we're after *Jimmy* Assange. If only you'd spoken to us sooner we would have realised and stopped trying to bother you...."

    1. The First Dave

      Re: Imagined conversation

      I know what you mean - surely this is now a no-win for Assange: either they chat and walk away saying "no case to answer" or they go home and put out another arrest warrant.

      If there's no reason to remain in the Embassy, what is he gonna do?

      1. Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese Silver badge

        Re: Imagined conversation

        There is still a reason for him to remain in the Embassy I think - as soon as he steps through the door, the UK authorities want to arrest him for bail violation (and I expect that some of his (probably now ex-)friends who put up bail money will be wanting a chat as well)

      2. Scuby
        Joke

        Re: Imagined conversation

        Call Ghostbusters!

  15. Mycho Silver badge

    I am annoyed

    They waited until the betting markets on his method of leaving the embassy were closed.

    I was tempted by 250:1 on the Batmobile.

  16. corestore

    He's not been charged with anything. They just want to question him.

    Is there any good reason they couldn't have simply questioned him on Skype at any time in the last few years if they really wanted to?

    Assange is a prize plonker with an ego the size of a small planet - but his present circumstances are just suspiciously convenient.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      the Swedish authorities were required to interview in accordance with Swedish law, not Skype law or whatever jurisdiction Mr Assange thinks should apply. He's skipped bail in the UK, and is wanted for extradition to Sweden - and any "self imposed" time as an Ecuadorian guest is entirely that - self imposed, and irrelevant in terms of any offences he may have committed.

      1. organiser

        "the Swedish authorities were required to interview in accordance with Swedish law"

        Swedish law is silent on where and how such an interview should take place, so that is not a reason for refusing an interview via Skype or other means.

    2. matt g

      Apparently, in Sweden, the interview is, or was, the precursor, to the arrest/charge stage.

      I've never understood the 'they only want to interview him, so why don't they come over and do it' line of reasoning - if there was to be no subsequent arrest/charge, then he had no reason to flee Sweden in the first place to avoid the interview.

      There is nothing suspiciously convenient about the circumstances - they're just the signs of a paranoid egotist.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        " ... they're just the signs of a paranoid egotist."

        You have obviously never lived in Sweden. Paranoia is such matters is a pre-requisite when it comes to accusations of an "offence" against a woman ... unless of course you are an immigrant of a different colour and religion, in which case the most violent rape imaginable is perfectly acceptable and will not result in deportation (go google this if you don't believe it).

        Sweden is seriously fucked up. Trust me on this.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Julian AssangeTM to meet investigators in London

          To the thumbs downer.

          a) I live here

          b) https://shariaunveiled.wordpress.com/2016/04/29/sweden-muslim-immigrant-rapes-then-pours-lighter-fluid-over-a-swedish-girl-judge-allows-rapist-to-remain-in-sweden/

          Couldn't be arsed to find a better reference, but it's all over the net and the court case was in the public domain.

    3. Scorchio!!

      "He's not been charged with anything. They just want to question him."

      As has been repeatedly said, the Swedish procedure (and this is what the Swedish police had intended to do) is to 1) interview, 2) charge, 3) arrest. Strangely, after they had informed Assange's legal counsel of this he disappeared, whack-a-mole style, and he reappeared in the UK. His lawyer, in a British court resiled from his earlier claim that he'd not been in touch with him, because his mobile phone records showed that he had. This led the legal counsel's professional association to say they wanted to interview him. Shady bunch the lot of them. Anyhow, consistent with his absconding from Sweden, he broke bail and reappeared in the Ecuadorian embassy.

      As far as skype is concerned, no; one of the most important things in interviewing a suspect is non verbal behaviour. It informs the interrogators and facilitates pursuit of evidence. There is a lot more than this, apart from the fact that Skype is out of jurisdiction. It sets a legal precedent which no one should do. For obvious reasons that I am sure I do not need to spell out, though I could point out the Ronnie Biggs scenario, and many others too.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        "apart from the fact that Skype is out of jurisdiction."

        Not to mention that all Skype calls go via the US based MS servers these days, it's not peer to peer any more. The Swedes may not want official police interviews transiting the US "live" and I'm pretty sure Assange doesn't want that either.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "As has been repeatedly said, the Swedish procedure (and this is what the Swedish police had intended to do) is to 1) interview, 2) charge, 3) arrest. "

        They did (1) while he was in Sweden and found that they didn't had a case and let him go.

        Somebody further up didn't like it for political reasons and wanted to do (1) again. Why?

    4. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      "Is there any good reason they couldn't have simply questioned him on Skype at any time in the last few years if they really wanted to?"

      This has been dealt with so many times in this and other threads. If you can't be bothered to read the existing answers, why ask the question?

  17. VinceH Silver badge
    Trollface

    "Assange continues to argue for his release, claiming he is arbitrarily detained and that under United Nations regulations should be freed."

    I'm quite sure he is at liberty to leave the embassy whenever he wants to.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Could someone please explain what the Crimes are....

    ....In 'lay' mans terms (forgive the pun).... Thanks!

    1. Scorchio!!

      Re: Could someone please explain what the Crimes are....

      Effectively, rape; sex by surprise was one of them. People have tried to say that in the UK this would not be a criminal offence, but various CJS worthies have stepped forward to attest that this is not the case. The most distressing part of it, for the women, is that he is alleged to have shagged them without a rubber. There have been a number of cases in Europe, particularly Germany, where people (including women) have been prosecuted for transmitting HIV under such circumstances. It is tantamount to murder, and I shake my head when I see people from the UK saying it doesn't matter. Clearly we have lost the tradition which, under Thatcher, saw a lot of education about protected vs unprotected sex.

      In one of the cases the woman allegedly awoke to find Assange's dibber inside of her, and asked if he was wearing anything to which, again allegedly he replied "yes, you". Owing to a number of reports about his mating behaviours (including one where the cheeky toad walked off with a journalist's GF, pausing only to put up his fists) I have difficulty in trusting anything this man says. The Domscheidt-Berg episode, including the removal of sensitive information that could put lives at risk (after Assange made his contempt clear for those Afghan informants whose coordinates he made available) is an added facet, alongside which I remember that Assange received a substantial advance for his autobiography, and then pulled out of the affair, and kept the money.

      I do not trust this man, not in any way at all. As for Snowden, I find it hard to believe that a network supervisor can think himself an informed arbiter in respect of the data he plundered, just as much as I am incredulous at the access this creature had. I do hope that US institutions take better care of their classified data, as with all institutions in all countries across the world, even Russia; by keeping some things secret they introduce an element of uncertainty that helps to keep their adversaries at arms length.

      As Pat Condell often says, Peace.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Could someone please explain what the Crimes are....

        " ,,, rape; sex by surprise was one of them."

        There is almost no act of sex which cannot be prosecuted as "rape" in Sweden. Many of the circumstances require no proof, merely the say so of the accuser.

  19. YARR
    WTF?

    "attracted criticism for exposing the details of ordinary citizens ... and by doing so diverging from its stated aim of exposing government malfeasance"

    What's an "ordinary citizen" and hasn't WikiLeaks diverged from that aim since near it's inception?

  20. aberglas

    There never was a credible charge to answer

    That is why they Marianne Ny never hopped on the plane. If she did she would have to put up or shut up. Politically, she cannot drop the charges after all this time. But if she presses them in detail they will look ridiculous.

    Assange was initially questioned in Sweden and allowed to go. The use of the word "rape" is very misleading, sexual misconduct might be better. But even that is hard to sustain when the victim gave a lobster dinner for Assange afterwards.

    Whether the US really would extradite Assange is probably doubtful. But would you want to bet your *life* on that?

    This thread is full of sell-righteous rubbish based on total ignorance.

    And yes, the Swedes have inteviewed dozens of other suspects overseas during the last few years. If they had real charges, they could have done this long, long ago.

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Pint

    Removing the man

    I suppose the Ambassador could give Assange temporary Diplomatic Status so he could slide out of the UK unhindered by the local authorities, to return to Sweden?

    Its Friday have a drink anyway!

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