back to article Assange chums must cough up £93,500 bail over embassy lurk

While Julian Assange™ continues to sun himself under a SAD lamp in London's Ecuadorian Embassy, the supporters who put up his bail money - and so kept him out of British custody and free to hole up in the embassy - have been ordered to cough their cash up. Nine supporters of Assange have been told by judicial authorities to …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Perhaps he can pay them back

    From the money he earned as a presenter for that bastion for freedom of expression 'Russia Today'?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Perhaps he can pay them back

      Perhaps they can go into the embassy and give him a shove out of the door to avoid paying? Technically they will have ensured his surrender.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Perhaps he can pay them back

      They would have been safer giving the money to a bank robber.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Perhaps he can pay them back

      Better to work for 'Russia Today' than the vested interest ridden BBC. At least you get some balance on RT, as opposed to 'Yippee - Cost of shelter is going up' or 'Disaster - House prices have fallen' which seems to be all the beeb is concerned about. A corporation so devoid of intellect they recently ran headlines saying "the cost of living has fallen" when the rate of inflation dropped from 4% to 3%.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Perhaps he can pay them back

        You're so right. RT is totally balanced and has no agenda at all. Putin won that election fairly. And Pussy Riot deserved everything they got.

        Are you being sarcastic or just incredibly stupid?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Perhaps he can pay them back

          @AC 19:53

          This is not the first time on here RT has had similar compliments. Some people really are incredibly stupid.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Perhaps he can pay them back

        So ... how exactly does the BBC "run headlines"?

        A search on their website for "the cost of living has fallen" shows no hits. Link?

  2. Anonymous Coward 101
    FAIL

    HA HA

    Rich fools.

  3. Matt 116

    Do a runner then lose the money? Isn't this the whole point of putting up bond money?

    1. NightFox
      FAIL

      The Fall Guy

      Colt Seavers wouldn't take this shit

  4. Stratman
    FAIL

    "Both this court and the High Court assessed that there were substantial grounds to believe the defendant would abscond, ".....................

    .....................but we granted him bail nevertheless.

    WTF???????

    1. rurwin

      That's the whole point of bail money. It is set at a value such that the pain of losing the money is worse than the pain of standing trial.

      Of course that assumes that the defendant feels the pain of his "friends and supporters".

      1. auburnman

        And of course the curfew conditions made sure the authorities knew where he was on a daily basis. That did stop him jetting out of the country, but then the whole Embassy thing kind of blindsided everyone.

      2. Local G

        "that assumes that the defendant feels the pain of his "friends and supporters""

        "It is set at a value such that the pain of losing the money is worse than the pain of standing trial."

        This is true when the person standing trial is the person whose money it is.

        "the defendant feels the pain of his "friends and supporters""

        Unless the defendant and the 'friends and supporters' discussed and agreed to the possibility of jumping before bond was posted.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "that assumes that the defendant feels the pain of his "friends and supporters""

          "Unless the defendant and the 'friends and supporters' discussed and agreed to the possibility of jumping before bond was posted."

          Where did they discuss that then? In his cell?

          1. Local G

            Re: "that assumes that the defendant feels the pain of his "friends and supporters""

            According to the information I have, Assange arrived in the UK around November 20, 2010 and was taken into custody by the British police on December 7, 2010. This would give him an opportunity to discuss bail jumping and other felonies with the friends and supporters who bailed him out. No?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "that assumes that the defendant feels the pain of his "friends and supporters""

              He discussed bail jumping with people before any of them offered to post bail, before he'd been arrested?

              How do you reckon that works exactly? Half the people didn't even come out as behind him before he was taken into custody. Under what circumstances do you really think Assange called up Philip Knightley and said "Hey, if I get taken into custody, will you post bail, and then I'll jump bail. Okay with you?"

              Give us a break. That didn't happen.

              1. Local G
                Unhappy

                Interesting

                Perhaps you are correct and Assange and his bailors never thought he could possibly lose in the English Courts.

                And that if he did lose, in spite of the dubious Swedish demand that his questioning had to take place in Sweden and nowhere else, he wouldn't hesitate to turn himself in to be extradited there and guarantee his bailor's money would be safely returned.

                And if there were a wink and nod from Assange to a couple of his bailors (who in turn winked to others) don't expect to read their version of it in the English media, as that would make them accessories before the fact. More likely they are still weeping crocodile tears about the money that they lost that could have been spent on a month or two in Como or Mallorca, or wherever rich English like to dip their toes these days.

                No, you are right. Assange blindsided them. His friends and supporters are sick to death that he has asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy as we post these remarks.

                All are punished (pun-i-shed).

              2. Local G
                Go

                bail jumping discussion

                Supporter: We want to put up your bail.

                Assange: Thanks. I'll probably jump bail if the decision is against me.

                Supporter: Whatever.

      3. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

  5. John Styles

    Hmm

    Would non-members of the great-and-good, giving sureties for some random non-celeb get away with not paying the whole amounts like this lot have?

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Hmm

      They haven't got away with it, have they? Not paying a court bond is not as trivial as not paying a parking fine.

      1. sabroni Silver badge

        Re: Hmm

        But they put up 125,000 and have been asked to pay about 95,000. The question was why haven't they been asked to pay 125,000.

        1. midcapwarrior

          Re: Hmm

          I would guess he put up the remainder

    2. streaky
      Facepalm

      Re: Hmm

      "Would non-members of the great-and-good, giving sureties for some random non-celeb get away with not paying the whole amounts like this lot have?"

      In principle yes, though in this case it makes me feel a little sick that the judiciary has given itself an almighty slap in the face - this has been the intent from day 1. Still can't wrap my head round how he actually got bail.

      1. Psyx

        Re: Hmm

        "Still can't wrap my head round how he actually got bail."

        Because he promised to stay on a nice country Estate, because he could afford a very expensive lawyer, and because there was so much public scrutiny that people would be screaming "conspiracy" and blue murder had he not been?

        1. streaky
          WTF?

          Re: Hmm

          People promise all sorts of things, the court knew he was a flight risk and had no good cause to let him walk about freely. Same applies to this guy who shot the two WPCs near Manchester - can't fathom why he was out on bail either.

          It would be easy to blame the tories and their prison policy, have a funny feeling this has been an issue for a long time.

  6. Bob Hoskins
    Facepalm

    hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

    That is all.

  7. The Jase

    Foolish

    Foolish Julian, rich folk are no longer going to back him up.

    1. Psyx
      Meh

      Re: Foolish

      Meh... I disagree: £15k for some publicity is a bargain for some people.

      1. The Real Loki

        Re: Foolish

        Especially when it's someone else's money!

  8. David Dawson
    Facepalm

    "which is recognised legally as Ecuadorian territory"

    This is just wrong.

    Embassies are not the sovereign territory of their operating state, and have never been recognised as such. The treaty that this flows from is the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), and has been signed by almost all countries (this is how 'international law' works).

    The clause in question is this : " .. The premises of a diplomatic mission, such as an embassy, are inviolate .."

    This means the host country can't go in, by agreement. It does not give a piece of the hosts territory away to do with as the recipient chooses, which is what 'sovereign' means.

    There is a legal agreement that UK officials won't go in without prior approval by the ambassador, but thats a very different thing from having sovereignty.

    1. mccp
      WTF?

      Re: "which is recognised legally as Ecuadorian territory"

      Upvoted to counteract one of the incomprehensible downvotes.

      1. Shades

        Re: "which is recognised legally as Ecuadorian territory"

        @MCCP: Upvoted you for upvoting the incomprehensibly downvoted post.

        1. Dom 3

          Re: "which is recognised legally as Ecuadorian territory"

          I'm upvoting the upvote to the incomprehensibly downvoted upvote which had been downvoted in an incomprenesibibble bibble

        2. emmanuel goldstein

          Re: "which is recognised legally as Ecuadorian territory"

          @Shades: Upvoted you for upvoting the upvoter of the incomprehensibly downvoted post.

          1. ratfox
            Happy

            Re: "which is recognised legally as Ecuadorian territory"

            @emmanuel goldstein: We must go deeper, so…

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "which is recognised legally as Ecuadorian territory"

              With or without mineral rights?

    2. Shades

      Why...

      you've got down votes for stating fact I don't know?! Is it not the case that the "authorities" can revoke the inviolateness of an embassy should they have (damned) good reason to and have, so far, only chosen not to so as to maintain diplomatic relations with Equador, and the fact JA can't exactly go anywhere?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Why...

        Hell someone should give this sincere man the job of sweeping the alligator pens out. Whilst the occupants are still there. Better still, give him the job of keeping house for the Taliban.

      2. Dr. Mouse

        Re: Why...

        "Is it not the case that the "authorities" can revoke the inviolateness of an embassy"

        Yes. AFAIK they can just "close" the embassy down. They diplomatic staff still have immunity (at least for as long as it takes to get out of the country, I don't know if it's more than that), but anyone else would no longer be protected. Also, I believe the UK has a law saying that they can go in without closing the embassy.

        The reason they haven't (yet) done so is all down to international relations, not just with Ecuador. Many would see it, legal or not, as an assault on embassies in general, and it could put British diplomats at risk. They would need a much better reason than arresting someone to deport him, and are more likely to try every diplomatic avenue available before doing so.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Why...

        Downvoted for being a childish whinger about downvoting. Someone didn't like what someone said. Boo. Hoo. They're so mean on this forum, Mummy ...

    3. BillG
      Facepalm

      Re: "which is recognised legally as Ecuadorian territory"

      Upvoted to counteract one of the incomprehensible downvotes.

      Upvoted all those who upvoted to counteract one of the incomprehensible downvotes.

      I'm sure those downvotes would be happy to donate to Assange's lost bail?

  9. This post has been deleted by its author

  10. corestore

    Duties and powers

    The judge seemed to be of the opinion that those involved had a 'duty to ensure' Mr. Assange complied with his bail terms and surrendered.

    But do they have any *power* to carry out that duty? Does their status as providers of bail 'immunize' them against possible charges of assault, kidnap, etc?

    Even if was the case that it did, it could well be argued that they would be prepared to carry out the duty the judge claims they have - e.g. bundle him into a car and whisk him round to the police - but are frustrated by the fact that the embassy is diplomatic territory and they would face arrest if they tried to carry out their 'duty'.

    Isn't that force majeur?

    I very much doubt if they can be made to pay for something so completely outside their control.

    1. Chad H.

      Re: Duties and powers

      Now if they'd just let Dog the Bounty hunter into the UK, they would have the power. Julie would be outer there than you can say "go with Christ bro"

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Angel

      Re: Duties and powers

      It's rather more subtle than that - the judge explains his reasoning - about the system:

      A surety undertakes to forfeit a sum of money if the defendant fails to surrender as required. Considerable care is taken to explain that obligation and the consequences before a surety is taken. This system, in one form or another, has great antiquity. It is immensely valuable. A court concerned that a defendant will fail to surrender will not normally know that defendant personally, nor indeed much about him. When members of the community who do know the defendant say they trust him to surrender and are prepared to stake their own money on that trust, that can have a powerful influence on the decision of the court as to whether or not to grant bail. There are two important side-effects. The first is that the sureties will keep an eye on the defendant, and report to the authorities if there is a concern that he will abscond. In those circumstances, the security can withdraw. In granting bail I understand that Ouseley J expressly referred to this advantage of sureties. The second is that a defendant will be deterred from absconding by the knowledge that if he does so then his family and friends who provided the sureties will lose their money. In the experience of this court, it is comparatively rare for a defendant to fail to surrender when meaningful sureties are in place.

      and the specific detail that in this case those who advanced the bond have expressly declined to pressure Mr Assange to surrender:

      I say immediately that I have real respect for the way that the sureties have conducted themselves in difficult circumstances. I am satisfied that what they have said and written accurately reflects their genuine views. In declining to publicly (or as far as I know privately) urge Mr Assange to surrender himself they have acted against self-interest. They have acted on their beliefs and principles throughout. In what is sometimes considered to be a selfish age, that is admirable.

      So he has a sympathetic understanding of their position, makes allowance for their personal circumstances, but is acting to uphold the integrity of a well-tested and valuable part of our legal system. What more should we hope of a judge?

    3. Graham Bartlett

      Re: Duties and powers

      Er, yes they can. Floods, storms and lightning strikes are pretty well outside the control of your insurance company, but you expect them to pay up when something happens.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Duties and powers

      The judge spoke of the process of law. Whether or not they have the power, they lose their money. Should not have been given bail in the first place.

    5. Psyx
      Stop

      Re: Duties and powers

      "Isn't that force majeur?"

      No, it's the law.

      Unless you think it's fine and dandy for anyone stumping up bail money to not have to pay that money if the defendant does a runner? ...Which rather undermines the entire frikkin' point.

      1. corestore

        Re: Duties and powers

        Well the whole thing is rendered moot by the revelation that, out of principle, they have declined to try even verbally to urge him to surrender.

        But I still submit it's force majeur if the procedures of bail are trumped by the statute law that recognises the embassy as inviolate diplomatic territory; the law and the principle here is that you can't be held accountable or responsible for a situation you don't control and are expressly forbidden by law from interfering with - i.e. the embassy.

        1. Local G
          Holmes

          "But I still submit it's force majeur."

          I disagree that diplomatic asylum is a 'force majeure.'

          War, strike, riot, and crime are events caused by human behavior that would be considered a 'force majeure.' But we assume these events did not exist when the 'contract' was agreed to. Diplomatic relations, diplomacy and diplomatic asylum existed before this particular 'contract' was signed, thereby making 'force majeure' an ineligible defense for not fulfilling it.

          1. frobnicate
            Headmaster

            Re: "But I still submit it's force majeur."

            Your contracts must be quite old if they were agreed before War did exist.

    6. Ian Michael Gumby
      Devil

      Re: Duties and powers

      They do have the responsibility.

      You can't be charged with Kidnapping if they are posting the bond.

      In essence, Assange was released in to their custody. They are responsible for him.

      Assange's rights are severely limited while out on bail or even incarcerated.

      The whole thing is that Julian is no gentleman. I guess they learned that the hard way.

  11. Stephen Channell
    Pint

    If they want their money, they can always sue him in Equador.

    Would be ironic if he was subpoenaed to a debtors court in Equador for breach of contract!

    Bond-holders should be compelled to sue him as their defence against conspiracy.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: If they want their money, they can always sue him in Equador.

      Not nearly as ironic as someone trying to prevent their being locked up in a small room in a highly secure building for an indeterminate amount of time, skipping bail and hiding out in a small room in a highly secure building, etc. etc...

      1. Local G
        Trollface

        Re: Hardly ironic...

        When you get to prepare the food that's been delivered to your kitchenette and watch Swedish porn before retiring.

  12. John King 1
    Go

    And the alternative is...

    £100K to prevent you doing life in a US prison? I'd hope my family would sell their houses to help me out.

    1. Psyx

      Re: And the alternative is...

      "£100K to prevent you doing life in a US prison?"

      Really? How?

      I await with baited breath any answer that isn't a conspiracy theory with no evidence backing it up...

      1. TeeCee Gold badge
        Thumb Up

        Re: And the alternative is...

        @Psyx

        Yes, that one is a little daft, especially when you factor in the US has a "fast track" extradition procedure in effect with Britain that they lack with Sweden.

        So, if they want him, it's very much against their interests that he goes to Sweden. If you want a conspiracy theory with legs, start asking how much the US is paying the Ecuadorian government to keep him stuck in the UK while they make a decision and possibly move to get the paperwork sorted out........

        1. Psyx
          Thumb Up

          Re: And the alternative is...

          "If you want a conspiracy theory with legs, start asking how much the US is paying the Ecuadorian government to keep him stuck in the UK..."

          Meh: They don't really need him to be anywhere specific any time soon. The US has a very long reach. And the longer that they *don't* do anything, the more stupid Assange makes himself look.

          Assange can hide in a 'safe' country, but that means he'll be away from the Western media where accidents can happen and -more to the point- where he can't be so much of a media whore. Truth is that he loves the attention, so will be unable to keep himself out of countries that would willingly hand him over forever.

          The problem with most of the conspiracies that I've seen is that they don't actually make any *sense*.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    bugger the bail

    The irony is that Assange is now effectively banged up in an Ecuadorian prison at HM government's pleasure for an apparently indeterminate amount of time - and his chums still lost their cash!

    1. phuzz Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: bugger the bail

      And HM's taxpayers don't have to foot the bill, even better!

      (except of course, we are paying the overtime for the bobbies stood outside, still, perhaps we can bill Ecuador for guard services?)

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I still don't get the whole "It's a US plot". I mean if they had wanted to deport him to the states, the UK as already shown it's willingness to deport even it's own citizens to the US for completly made up offences. Why bother with sending him to Sweden first when they could have just sent him strait to the US?

    1. zooooooom

      "I still don't get the whole "It's a US plot". I mean if they had wanted to deport him to the states, the UK as already shown it's willingness to deport even it's own citizens to the US for completly made up offences. Why bother with sending him to Sweden first when they could have just sent him strait to the US?"

      The US doesn't "yet" have an extradition case. I think the people who think they would like to (who may or may not be wearing tin foil hats), would say that the aim of tying him up in a judicial process - either here or in Sweden - will keep him in an extradition safe country, providing them time to batter the truth out of bradly manning, er, I mean, complete the necessary paperwork.

      1. Richard 12 Silver badge
        WTF?

        If true, Assange played straight into their hands!

        So let's take Assange's story at face value.

        Had he just gone quietly, the case would have been over by now - and he seems quite confident of his innocence, so presumably he'd be a free man - or at least appealing in Sweden.

        Instead, he's now wanted across the whole of the EU for both the original arrest warrant and for absconding while on bail.

        In other words, he's almost certainly going to be spending several years in a British prison (where it's really easy to extradite to the US), regardless of the outcome of the Swedish investigation.

        All the while giving the US even more time to come up with something to extradite him for.

        Well done Assange. Either you're an idiot, or you don't actually believe the US angle and just wanted to run away - regardless of what it cost any of your friends.

        1. Matthew 25
          Joke

          Re: If true, Assange played straight into their hands!

          "or at least appealing in Sweden"

          I wouldn't find him appealing no matter where he was.

      2. Psyx

        "...providing them time to batter the truth out of bradly manning, er, I mean, complete the necessary paperwork."

        They stopped interrogating him ages ago and already have sufficient evidence to link Wikileaks to him, via the electronic trail and Bradley opening his mouth. So that doesn't really hold much water as regards an explanation.

      3. tom dial Silver badge
        Stop

        Nonsense.

        Bradley Manning is in trouble for allegedly copying and providing to Wikileaks classified materials which he had no authorization for access.

        Julian Assange, as point man for Wikileaks, might be wanted for actually publishing those materials. But the U. S. government has no need of information from Bradley Manning or, indeed, anyone else, to charge, if they can, on that. The fact of publication speaks for itself. I am not a lawyer and have no knowledge of the laws, if any, that would apply to a foreign national (e. g., Assange) who publishes U. S. classified information outside the U. S. The whole "getting JA to Sweden so the U. S. authorities can extradite him" is rubbish.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby
          Boffin

          @ Tom Dial ... Re: Nonsense.

          Please get your facts straight.

          In Manning's Article 32 hearing, evidence was presented as fact which links Assange to the actual theft. There was evidence showing conversations between Manning and Assange as Manning was breaking in to the systems where he stole the documents.

          It is the fact that Manning failed to cover his digital tracks properly that came out in the Article 32 hearing which also really spooked Assange.

          With respect to the publishing of classified docs, Elsberg's win in the US Supreme Court provides some shielding to reporters and journalists who post leaked information based on the fact that the leaked documents/data shows probative value.

          Weak as it is, had Assange just published the ill gotten materials, he would probably have nothing to fear in the US. The 1971 Elsberg decision would keep Assange safe and gave the Washington politico types a moment to stop and think....

          While the Article 32 hearing takes the evidence at face value as fact, the defense would have the chance at the court martial to question the evidence. If true, Assange would be a world of hurt over his involvement and facilitation of theft. Elsberg copied and leaked the information. Big difference. ;-)

          I do agree that the issue in Sweden on behalf of the US is rubbish.

        2. camnai

          Re: Nonsense.

          Considering what we've seen over the past decade, you have a touching faith in U.S., British, and now apparently Swedish, regard for 'law'. The Swedish judiciary only went ahead with their case against Assange after the Swedish government intervened and reversed a decision not to pursue it.

          1. Ian Michael Gumby
            Boffin

            @camnal Re: Nonsense.

            "Considering what we've seen over the past decade, you have a touching faith in U.S., British, and now apparently Swedish, regard for 'law'. The Swedish judiciary only went ahead with their case against Assange after the Swedish government intervened and reversed a decision not to pursue it."

            For some reason my first response was rejected, but hopefully this will make it past the censors....

            You seem to treat the entire governing body as "The Government". You're implying something that didn't occur.

            To give you a parallel case, Drew Peterson (A now infamous cop from a Chicago Suburb) was recently found guilty of having killed his second wife in her bathtub making it look like an accident.

            As to what happened to his third wife is still a mystery and unless he confesses, we won't know what happened.

            But I digress. The reason I point to this case is that initially the investigators considered his second wife's death an accidental drowning in her tub. It wasn't until the third wife's disappearance that they re-investigated her death.

            Using your logic, the "US Government intervened" which is true since the local prosecutors are part of the US Government, yet false because it implies that someone at the Country level of government intervened.

            I seriously doubt that the Governor of IL or even the State's Attorney got involved.

            To your point, my faith in "law" stems from the fact that if we choose to ignore law, we're screwed.

            Assange has put himself in to the spotlight and for that, it would be highly unlikely any US official will do anything that wasn't by the book. Note however, Julian has some new 'playmates' that have a serious track record of not being so nice. Lets hope Julian is smart enough to not drink the tea or to take a stroll out in the rain...

      4. Ian Michael Gumby
        Boffin

        Surely you jest sir!

        First, you are correct. The US haven't made a case against Assange.

        But you are incorrect in the assertions that keeping him in Sweden is part of a US cock up.

        When Sweden is done with him, He's bound for Australia.

        In Australia, the Australian Government has options in which they can detain him or make it impossible for him to leave the country. Or at least make it very difficult.

  15. Forget It
    Gimp

    Why do you think he is writing a book?

    A bestseller would mean he'll be able to payback debts.

  16. All names Taken
    Paris Hilton

    The signals are loud and clear

    BM banged up and some might add that a bit of torture has been used.

    JA banged up and some might also say a bit of torture has been used while others might argue otherwise.

    All this happens across several nation states giving a loud and clear message that Uncle Sam don't like meddlers whether or not it has explicitly been planned that way?

    As a ps:

    add into the equation the numerous thousands of years humans have graced the planet and still prefer weapons of awesome destruction while people starve unto death. What does that make us humans to be?

    1. nuked
      Pint

      Re: The signals are loud and clear

      "What does that make us humans to be?"

      drunk?

    2. sabroni Silver badge

      Re: What does that make us humans to be?

      Crap at sentence construction?

    3. Psyx
      Stop

      Re: The signals are loud and clear

      "JA banged up and some might also say a bit of torture has been used"

      I'd guess that they'd have to be stupid people, who don't know what the word "torture" means...

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    shouldn't it be Julian Assange ® not ™?

  18. Slabfondler
    WTF?

    Send in "Dog"

    ..the bounty hunter...oh wait, he was denied entry due to a previous murder conviction and missed Celebrity Big Brother...which is what this is turning into.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Cost to UK taxpayers

    Who haven't been consulted as to the cost of keeping a team of coppers outside the Ecuadorean embassy. I for one don't want my taxes spent this way when there are crimes which concern us to be cleared up. If the Swedish taxpayers were paying for the cost of this, that would be another matter.

    As far as I'm concerned, let him try to do a runner and risk being arrested at whichever port he arrives at. We're much best off shot of him regardless. The charges against him in Sweden may be disrespectful against the persons of his accusers. But they are not of a nature which are prosecutable in front of a UK court. So if the Swedes want him, they should be paying for the police guard outside the embassy.

    Taxpayers have rights too, and it's time laws were passed to make the courts recognise these rights.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      > they are not of a nature which are prosecutable in front of a UK court.

      This is incorrect - the initial ruling by the Magistrates' Court in the extradition process finds:

      The position with offence 4 is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape.

      And the High Court in considering this point ruled:

      It is clear that the allegation is that he had sexual intercourse with her when she was not in a position to consent and so he could not have had any reasonable belief that she did.

      So it is quite clear that the allegation would be taken seriously in the UK too - of course this is an allegation and what remains is for a court case to be brought and to be properly proven or dismissed. Which is where the European Arrest Warrant kicks in - in particular note that the "interview" that he is required to attend is in fact tantamount to arrest. The Swedish prosecutor stated for the initial Magistrates' hearing:

      Subject to any matters said by him [in the second interview] which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be lodged with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    GAGAssange

    you can all re-iterate your sock-puppet - ten separate identities per workstation (C)(TM) - discussions over at the Grauniad where they have an AssangeTM comments section open today: Guardian GaGa

    1. Psyx
      FAIL

      Re: GAGAssange

      At least we have identities...

  21. Bill Fresher

    Where's Dog the Bounty Hunter when you need him?

  22. Chris 228

    You lose

    Never trust an unscrupulous jerk.

  23. Merlin54
    WTF?

    What about the key evidence ?

    Not long ago we have been informed that a condom does not contain Assange's DNA, and so the "Key evidence in Assange case dissolves" which is the title of the article from Sept, 17th 2012. Are there any updates from Sweden about that ?

    I mean, British administration of justice is not considering the new findings, and so Scotland Yard still has to arrest Julian as soon as he gets out of Ecuadorian embassy, or what ?

  24. Spiny_Norman
    Unhappy

    They should pay every penny of the £125k

    They should be made to pay all of it. They collectively wagered £125,000 on JA not being a duplicitous bail absconder and lost. WTF 'doing the right thing' has to do with it escapes me - try that with your friendly local bookie when you try to welsh & see how much he lets you off.

  25. Peter C.

    Not a smart bet

    These people really should have used better judgment than to trust Assange with his past.

POST COMMENT House rules

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

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like