'I do not wish to surrender' Julian Assange tells court over US extradition bid

Julian Asssange unsurprisingly told a judge today that he did not “wish to surrender myself” to a US extradition request. Appearing via video link from HM Prison Belmarsh in south-east London, the day after he was sentenced to 50 weeks’ imprisonment for jumping bail, Assange said: “I do not wish to surrender myself for …

[S4qFBxkFFg]

Isn't there still a valid European arrest warrant (from Sweden) out for him, that the UK courts have already ruled legal?

Despite any suspicions about the Sweden-side process that generated it, I thought UK law was clear that he was to be sent to Sweden, after his current sentence, and that the USA would have to get to the back of the queue.

[Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese]

That would seem to be the logical course of action, and if there's one thing that we Brits know about, it's how the system of queuing works

[Semtex451]

Unless you're in London where seathing mobs must be cordoned in, to enforce a narrow queue.

[NoneSuch]

Yes and the Swedish warrant should take precedence. However, you have a weak PM combined with strong US pressure, so that may be over-ruled. Don't be surprised if Assange (TM) flies west and not east.

He is in no way a journalist. At best, he's a intermediate source. Journalists take responsibility for what they publish, after appropriate fact checking, review and consideration. Assange put peoples lives at risk when he blanket released information including names of active undercover agents in hostile countries. Whatever good he did in the past (when he released the video of the Reuters journalists being killed by a US helicopter gunship) has been over-written by multiple idiotic and self-serving narcissistic actions since.

[JetSetJim]

The EU Arrest Warrant issued by the Swedes was withdrawn a couple of years ago:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/12/lawyers-doubt-julian-assange-ever-stand-trial-sweden

The Yanks are now at the front of the queue

[aberglas]

The Swedes do not want him.

The charges were always dubious, which is why they never interviewed Assange in London.

They would be laughed at if they tried to actually prosecute him. Better to let the Americans have him.

No surprise that the Swedes dropped, and then did not reinstate, the charge.

And that stuff about expiring is nonsense. Statutes of limitations only apply before you are charged, not after. And they never actually charged Assange with anything. Because that would mean they would have to present their case in detail to his defense. And there has never been any credible case.

That said, as turns out, Assange was an idiot for not going to Sweden earlier. Would have dealt with this, and be a little bit harder for the US to get hold of him.

[MacroRodent]

Re: The Swedes do not want him.

That said, as turns out, Assange was an idiot for not going to Sweden earlier.

Exactly. He would probably have been cleared, and I suspect there would have been a good change of him getting asylum status in Sweden. At the time he still had some freedom fighter reputation left.

[Aitor 1]

Re: The Swedes do not want him.

Maybe he would have been cleared, but the whole thing was to extradite him to the US, as we (UK) made quite clear by deploying illegal base stations near the embassy, and a massive police force to detain Assange, while bands of gangsters are knifing citizens not that far from the supposed sexual predator, and we essentially do little about it.

[phuzz]

Re: The Swedes do not want him.

"the whole thing was to extradite him to the US"

If the US had tried to extradite him from Sweden there's a good chance they'd have failed (short version, Sweden doesn't allow 'political' extraditions). That said, they could have just applied to Sweden for extradition, there would be nothing to gain from 'faking rape charges' as some of his supporters seem to think.

Instead he ran to the UK completely voluntarily, despite the fact that the UK is probably one of the countries in Europe most likely to extradite to the US. So he's made things worse for himself there.

You'll also notice that during the two years that he was on bail in the UK, the US didn't try to get him extradited. That's clearly a decision they've made since 2012, so no "the whole thing" wasn't to extradite him to the US. They've just take advantage of his string of bad decisions.

[Danny 2]

Re: The Swedes do not want him.

Sweden at the time was run by a very right wing, pro-American government as witnessed by the fact Karl Rove ("Bushs' Brain") was an official Prime Ministerial advisor. Oh, and there had already been a scandalous political extradition from Sweden.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery

[Andrew Norton]

Re: The Swedes do not want him.

That was a REPATRIATION, not extradition, of two men who applied for asylum, but had it denied.

Sweden was given certain assurances by Egypt. Egypt later broke those assurances, which Sweden then protested.

So, unless Assange is Egyptian, claiming asylum in Sweden, then being sent back to Egypt, it's not a very relevant case. It is, however, the only semi-relevant case that Assange supporters can muster, and DEFINITELY an attempt to try and hide the case of Edward Howard.

You know, Edward Howard the only CIA guy to defect to the USSR? The one arrested in Sweden, then where the US requested his extradition for espionage.

That sounds a lot more like the situation Assange is claiming, eh?

How'd it end up? Well, despite Howard being American, and openly admitting espionage (by defecting), Sweden refused (oops, there goes that whole conspiracy theory) and that's despite the 'presidential influence', which was greater than ever, what with the rise of important of NATO following the soviet collapse and regional instabilities, and that the President (bush 41) was facing [and losing] a re-election fight, AND he had been head of the CIA, AND he was vice president when Howard defected. Trumpy couldn't come close to what Bush was bringing to bear.

Oh, and Karl rove being a Prime Ministerial advisor? Nope. Maybe you're thinking about his 2010 induction into the Scandinavian-American hall of fame in 2010, but that was all, and it's in North Dakota. Rove stayed in the US, post-Bush43.

Oh, and not so much 'very right wing' government, Prime Minister Reinfeldt's government (of 'The Moderate Party') from 2006-2014 was center-right (which means center-left by US standards) and actually moved more to the center during his leadership.

I'd say 'try again, without the lies', but you'd have nothing to post.

[gnasher729]

Re: The Swedes do not want him.

Cleared or not, he would have been free to go back home years ago. Huge miscalculation on his part.

Now in Sweden he is accused of rape. In the USA, he is accused and 100% guilty of embarrassing the government. The first is something that deserves extradition and jail if guilty, the second doesn’t.

[gnasher729]

Re: The Swedes do not want him.

What a nonsense. He wasn’t interviewed in the embassy because no court allows itself to be told where to interview someone. The charges are very reasonable and would very likely lead to a conviction, and from man to man, his behaviour in Sweden was utterly contemptible.

[Stork]

Re: The Swedes do not want him.

This is plain wrong. Swedish law requires him to be seen by a Swedish court as he is a suspected criminal (lANAL and am happy to be corrected on finer points). Assange thought it reasonable that the law was charged for him, Sweden strangely didn't.

Statute of limitation normally applies from the alleged crime, you have to bring charges before.

In many places (not sure about Sweden) , it must be in the public interest to do so AND the prosecutor must be convinced the guilt can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Sweden was not there yet, as they needed Assange's version of events.

[Andrew Norton]

Re: The Swedes do not want him.

It's quite hard to be as wrong as you are, without effort. I would wager you've read the Wikileaks defense site, and not much else.

They didn't initially interview him in london, because at first (and I mean very first, september/october 2010) he kept saying, through his lawyer, that he was coming back to Sweden. When Ny got tired of the lies, she applied for hte EAW. At that point, there was no need to interview in London, because she was going to have him in sweden.

And BTW, it wasn't 'just for an interview', as she made clear to Hurtig (Assange's defense lawyer) the morning he went to the UK, she intended to place him in custody at the interview the following day. Now, Why would Assange suddenly (and yes, it was sudden) go to the UK that night, when he had NOTHING planned? Well, because it's the only place he could go that day, and stay for 30+ days. Now, his lawyer can't even be certain he didn't tell Assange that he would be arrested the next day, which considering he was certain (to the point of testifying and informing his experts) that Ny made no attempts to interiew assange and that assange could leave the country (which turned out to be a lie, with messages still on his phone exposing that lie at the hearing) then yes, preponderance of evidcence is that he was told he'd be remanded (as is *standard* for such cases, in fact one defense expert was amazed it hadn't been done earlier, as he would have done).

Now, that's why no UK interview until June 2012. Then Assange enters the embassy. Now there's a problem. See, The interview is a legal formality prior to arrest. It's going to be nigh-on impossible to put him on remand now he's in the embassy, so it wouldn't be able to proceed under the restrictions placed by the embassy.

Not that they didn't try later. At one point they sent a request to interview 5 weeks later by email and registered mail. When they turned up, no answer at the door. 6 months later the embassy wrote back saying 'no'.

As for the 'not charging', are you using the Swedish definition of charging, or the UK/US one?

The Swedish definition is irrelevant, because it's done right before trial, after arrest, because there's a strict clock of (I think) 20 days between charging, and the trial beginning, and the trial can't be paused mid-way through. So not being 'charged' is the same thing as 'not gone to trial' in Swedish terms.

Now, if you meant the UK definiton of charged, I've got a bit of sad news for you. They tried that claim in the UK High Court in November 2011. The judge said 'Mr Assange fails on the facts here', which is High Court speak for 'stop lying', and said that the actions he'd undergone in Sweden were the equivilent of the UK 'charging', the fact that it was in Sweden and so a UK custody sergeant didn't say 'I charge you' didn't mean he wasn't 'charged' under the meaning of UK law. For legal terms, he'd been 'charged' to the UK definition in the Stockholm District Court in October 2010, when the EAW was given, and those charges were affirmed (if reduced slightly) by the Svea Appeals court a short time after.

In short, he WAS charged, under the UK definition (albeit in absentia, but with his lawyer there) or not charged because the notion is irrelevant under the Swedish definition.

As the High Court would say, Aberglas fails on the facts in this case.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: The Swedes do not want him.

"The charges were always dubious, which is why they never interviewed Assange in London..... And they never actually charged Assange with anything."

And there was me supposing that it was because Assange was in the Ecuadoran embassy. Are you telling me he wasn't fleeing anything but had gone to see about a tourist visa, got lost and couldn't find his way out for 9 years?

Remember there was no extradition warrant out from the US, just Sweden.

[Cederic]

Re: The Swedes do not want him.

No, being in the embassy wasn't a barrier to the Swedes interviewing Assange:

https://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0811/808423-wikileaks-julian-assange/

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The Swedes do not want him.

Who's looking dumb now? Are the Swedes now being "laughed at"?

You poor little conspiracy theorist trvialising rape.

[Saruman the White]

As I recall Assange has already tried claiming to be a journalist in court. The judge slapped him down pretty hard on this subject.

[Anonymous Coward]

You recall?

I recall seeing a flying pig. If I state it to be true I'm certain many would ask for evidence.

Were you in the courtroom then? If not you must have a link?

Perhaps you read it in a newspaper. Some spun bit of hyperbole written to get clicks/papers sold. These days I would trust wikileaks publications over most of the chip paper in the shops.

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter. Assange's idea of journalism is still very much at odds with the actual profession. Journalists, for instance, do as a rule not threaten to publish more if one of them is facing jail time, mainly because they don't engage in activities that warrant jail (other than in totalitarian states).

Assange calling himself a journalist is an insult to the profession.

He can call himself a political activist, sure, that has been quite clear, or even Russian stooge. But not a journalist.

[LucreLout]

Assange calling himself a journalist is an insult to the profession.

I agree. And bear in mind that this is a profession that was just peachy with:

- Hacking the voicemail of a murdered school girl, giving her mother false hope she was alive

- Entrapping people with fake sheikh scams

- Harassment in order to manufacture stories

- Hide in bushes and on boats with very long lenses hoping to snag a picture of some celebutards tits

- Outing other peoples secrets for money

- etc etc

On the whole, journalism is a piss poor profession, and yet, even they don't want anything to do with Assange.

[Saruman the White]

Just to answer the question you posed with such politeness and intelligence, I originally saw it in multiple news sources, but subsequently read the court transcript (and yes, they are in the public domain if you wish to look for them).

[Pascal Monett]

Well since you can't be arsed to post a link supporting your views, I did the search and I found that :

Frida Ghitis, journalist on CNN, definitely states he is not a journalist

Peter Greste on stuff, another actual journalist, says he's not and why

Gabriel Schoenfeld, a columnist for The Bulwark, says the question is irrelevant and why

David French, journalist of National Review, calls him a leader of a non-state hostile intelligence service

On Wikipedia, his page states that he has been a member of the Australian Journalist Union

Kathy Kiely and Laurel Leff, two professors of journalism at The Conversation, explain why calling Assange a journalist is a bad mistake

Of course, I also found quite a lot of articles supporting the thesis that Assange is a journalist.

What I did not find is any report of a judge stating he is not.

So, citation please.

[Steve 114]

Category error

Point is, 'journalism' is not the alleged offence. Conspiring to hack passwords is.

[veti]

"Being a journalist" is neither here nor there. "Journalists" have exactly the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else, no more and no less, and they can be charged with all the same crimes.

(At least that's the way it works in semi-civilised countries, such as the US and UK. Discrimination is increasingly being introduced in the barbarian world (e.g. Australia), but that's out of scope for this case.)

[Graham Cobb]

You may not consider Assange a "real" journalist, but I can see no fundamental difference between what he did and the Pentagon Papers. The US government cannot be allowed to get away with an attempt to criminalise journalists actively working with their sources.

[DavCrav]

"You may not consider Assange a "real" journalist, but I can see no fundamental difference between what he did and the Pentagon Papers."

Journalism is not dumping a bunch of stuff on the table. Journalism is investigating, collating, and then writing it up in a neutral fashion. That's just one reason why he isn't a journalist.

[Augie]

By that definition, not one of the mainstream press could be called Journalists..

[Graham Cobb]

The crimes he is charged with are not publishing the papers (that is very clearly permitted under the US constitution -- and not restricted in any way to "journalists"). The crimes he is charged with are to do with the way he received the information.

How is that different from the Pentagon Papers?

[Anonymous Coward]

re. Journalism is investigating, collating, and then writing it up in a neutral fashion

I dare say this is a very naive and hugely outdated idea of what journalism "is". What is "should be", maybe, if not definitely, but not what is is. And definitely NOT in 2019.

[veti]

Re: re. Journalism is investigating, collating, and then writing it up in a neutral fashion

Journalism is about bearing witness. It's about publicly saying, day after day, "these are the things I saw and heard".

Doing it regularly is important (part of the word comes from the French jour - it's something you do every day. Even when nothing exciting is happening. After all, negative results are as important as positive ones.)

So really, the truest form of journalism nowadays is what you'll find on random blogs on Facebook and elsewhere. Second best is the ailing industry of local newspapers.

But - here's the rub - legally, "journalism" is just writing, no different from a private letter or a novel. A senior BBC correspondent doesn't have the right to report anything that you or I couldn't report just as well. (What they have is contacts that will help them to find out about it, and occasionally lawyers who will help them stand up to powerful people. But that's just a matter of resources, not rights.)

[Anonymous Coward]

How is that different from the Pentagon Papers?

I think the main difference is that Daniel Ellsberg was a member of the US establishment (Defense, MIT, RAND, Marines, Harvard) and Julian Assange is an Australian. And all charges against Ellsberg were dismissed after the court deemed there was evidence of “gross governmental misconduct.” ref

@Graham Cobb: ‘The crimes he is charged with are not publishing the papers (that is very clearly permitted under the US constitution -- and not restricted in any way to "journalists"). The crimes he is charged with are to do with the way he received the information. How is that different from the Pentagon Papers?’

It isn't a crime to receive ‘secret’ files, except in GB-land and the provider has signed the Official Secrets Act. But to be pedantic about, once a file is on the Internet, then it isn't a secret anymore. ref

Who really should be prosecuted is whoever designed a secure communications system, that anyone could walk in off the street and copy all the secrets to a writable DVD.

[Peter2]

Whatever good he did in the past (when he released the video of the Reuters journalists being killed by a US helicopter gunship)

And if we are going to be absolutely fair, that journalist decided to embed with the opposition in the hope of getting some combat footage.

The footage in which it shows him being killed clearly shows the group that he was with being armed with AK47's & at least one RPG. The group then only gets strafed by the Apache about 30 seconds after one chap aims and looks to be firing around the corner of a building towards the US troops the Apache is flying top cover for.

So it's not as if the US Military deliberately went aiming at a journalist or did something utterly unjustifiable. He just happened to be 3 meters away from somebody shooting at US forces in a war zone when they shot back.

[Anonymous Coward]

.. and here too there was evidence of the non-journalistic bend of Assange (and WL), as they edited the footage to remove the context and make it appear to be something completely different.

[Smody]

And that journalist just happened to be running for his life, alone, posing no threat, when he was casually gunned down.

[(func (param $db) (result void) drop $db)]

"And if we are going to be absolutely fair, that journalist decided to embed with the opposition in the hope of getting some combat footage." <citation-needed>

"The footage in which it shows him being killed clearly shows the group that he was with being armed with AK47's & at least one RPG."

There is absolutely no clear evidence of an RPG. That's clearly what one of the murderers thought they saw, but it never materialises in the video.

"The group then only gets strafed by the Apache about 30 seconds after one chap aims and looks to be firing around the corner of a building towards the US troops the Apache is flying top cover for."

Totally false, watch the video again. The group are all (but one guy) killed after the aforementioned murderer identifies the "RPG" being held by someone at the corner of a building. It is being pointed downwards - it is not someone "firing around the corner of a building towards the US troops". Look again. It's also a very short RPG isn't it. About camera-with-telephoto-lens-sized.

"So it's not as if the US Military deliberately went aiming at a journalist or did something utterly unjustifiable." Er, that's exactly what they did.

"He just happened to be 3 meters away from somebody shooting at US forces in a war zone when they shot back." Again, patently false. Just watch the video.

[Malcolm Weir]

Well, (func blah blah blah) is doing a nice job of spinning, but as usual with spinners (including Assange) he's omitting context and details and applying different standards on the fly.

First, there absolutely was evidence of RPGs, and no-one (not even func-dude or Assange) disputes that the group of men were carrying AK-47 or AK-M rifles. It's true that the video does not provide _conclusive_ evidence (but there is evidence), but the soldiers flying the helicopters were also equipped with things called "eyes" and had a better view than a standard def video gives. [Nevertheless, two RPGs were found at the scene.]

Second, there was an actual firefight going on a few blocks from the scene (which is why the helicopters were there). Putting those together, we have a group of men carrying weapons moving in a combat zone. There is no rational viewpoint that suggests that the men were not a legitimate target. (Sure, you can argue that the coalition forces shouldn't have been in the country at all, but given that they were, armed men out of uniform moving around an actual battle are targets). Yes, it's really unfortunate that two of the men were not fighters, but it's equally unfortunate that insurgents killed western journalists embedded with US troops (such as Briton James Brolan).

Third, the second attack (on the van/people carrier) is less clear-cut. The conclusion reached by the helicopter crews (that the van was picking up the weapons and injured fighters) is not wholly unreasonable (people driving around during a fire-fight are not unlikely to be somehow involved in the battle), but there is a good argument that picking up wounded fighters is not a belligerent act, and therefore they should have let the van go. But this is second-guessing people who were in the middle of combat, so I'm not sure there's a "good" answer to this.

Overall, I'd say Wikileaks is a publisher, and Assange is (sometimes) a journalist, but you could say the same for the Daily Mail and Paul Dacre. And there's no question that the Mail/Dacre engaged in shady practices that should have been prosecuted, but weren't because of the difficulty in obtaining evidence. If that evidence existed (as it allegedly does with respect to Assange), then prosecution should proceed, in no small part because they _are_ publishers/journalists: they already have the power to spin the story however they like (e.g. naming the video "collateral murders", highlighting cameras but not weapons, excluding the existence of an active gun battle blocks away, etc), so they should _also_ be able to break the rules with impunity.

Oh, yeah: for those who like to try to discredit true statements with "citation needed": https://web.archive.org/web/20131020142823/https://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Death%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists/6--2nd%20Brigade%20Combat%20Team%2015-6%20Investigation.pdf

[Anonymous Coward]

Journalist was amoung of AK47 armed group?

The so-called weapon was a camera with a telescopic lens

@Peter2: “And if we are going to be absolutely fair, that journalist decided to embed with the opposition in the hope of getting some combat footage.”

Embed: that's an interesting choice of word. For a long time, the military have been specifically targeting non-embedded journalists, accidentally on purpose, makes it easier to control the narrative.

@Peter2: “The footage in which it shows him being killed clearly shows the group that he was with being armed with AK47's & at least one RPG.”

No it doesn't .. The real Assange scandal is the piss-poor responce of the ‘real’ media in relation to wikipedia revelations: The Collateral Murder video, the human rights abuses at Guantanamo Bay, Tibetan discent against China, the Peru oil scandal, Russian mass bugging of cell-phones, toxic dumping in Africa, the massive Australian corruption scandal, the Iraq war logs, secretive Bilderberg meetings, the DNC and Podesta emails, the TPP chapters, the Stratfor emails, the Afghan war diaries, the State Department cables.

[Malcolm Weir]

Re: Journalist was amoung of AK47 armed group?

Nope, you're distorting the truth. There were both cameras with telescopic lenses and AK47 or AKM assault rifles -- even Assange acknowledges this. There is also a "long item" that Assange's cronies dismiss as possibly a tripod (because press photographers in war zones always carry tripods, nice backdrops, rolls of seamless paper, have makeup artists, etc), but which the military describe as an RPG.

Two RPGs were found with the bodies.

https://web.archive.org/web/20131020142823/https://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Death%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists/6--2nd%20Brigade%20Combat%20Team%2015-6%20Investigation.pdf

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Journalist was amoung of AK47 armed group?

For a long time, the military have been specifically targeting non-embedded journalists, accidentally on purpose, makes it easier to control the narrative.

Citation *really* needed. Most people I know will do their damnedest to protect journalists in the field so I'd like to hear where that came from other than as a weird conspiracy theory.

[Mark 85]

@Peter2

I'm still not sure what all the stink is about on this. As long as there's been combat reporters/photographers, there's been many who have died doing their job. It's a dangerous job. Crap happens in a battle. Civilians get caught in cross-fires in every war. So what makes this one so special? It's not like you can separate them from the soldiers they're with in the heat of battle.

My observation here is that most of the posters have never been in combat. They have no idea what kind of shit happens. It's not a tea party or happy time. It's grim, it's evil, there's confusion, and adrenalin. Simply put, it's kill or be killed. Unless a journalist/reporter/etc. is wearing something like dayglo orange, it's easy to mistake them for combatants.

[Peter2]

Re: @Peter2

Simply wearing a jacket with "PRESS" written on it with reflective tape would be sensible.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @Peter2

...that would be sensible for the fighters to do too!

[Anonymous Coward]

As I remebe rthe RPG was actually the journalists camera but it wa sthe cas ethat some time earir teh journalist has been with armed insurgents.

However killing journalists in the mistaken believe they are armed insugenets is understandable. What is not understandable is what came later when unarmed civilians who stopped when driving past the bodies to investigate and see if they can help were also killed. Amazingly killing civilians in these circumstances was within the US forces rules of engagement despite being an obvious war crime. I can't see any justification for shooting unarmed civilians, with no eveidenc eor suggetsion they are armed, simply for attempting to provide first aid. The US rules of engagement was explicitly that anyone providing aid to people shot by the US became legitimate targets.

Revealing this was in my view a service.

[steviebuk]

"Journalists take responsibility for what they publish, after appropriate fact checking, review and consideration."

Not always. Yes I know its now VERY old but was listening to an old recording of The Day Today on iRadio/iSound/iwhatever they call it now, and they had one of them calling up the News of The World pretending to have a recording of an MP in a restaurant being a dick. The recording was one of them doing an impression. Without doing any fact checking the paper offered them £1k I think it was, then they haggled for £1.5k and so on. They were going to meet them and give them cash in hand.

Things may have changed over the years, but I suspect not.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Swedish were offered to visit him at the embassy at any time.

They didnt bother.

They dropped the whole case, not surprising once it was found out the Swedish police tampered with the statement recorded by one of the women who publicly stated that she never said several things in it.

[JimmyPage]

RE: The Swedish were offered to visit him at the embassy at any time.

Do fuck off. Enlightened and liberal as Sweden is, tehy don't have a policy of allowing suspects to dictate the terms of engagement.

[Andrew Norton]

They tried a bunch of times to do so.

At one point they sent an email and a letter saying they'd come next month (I think sent May for a end of June arrival) to do the interview. The door stayed locked. The embassy sent a letter back saying they declined the request... in December. That's right, 6 months after the letter was sent, 5 after the date concerned, they said 'no'.

So don't talk crap, eh? Wikileaks may claim it, doesn't make it true.

[Anonymous Coward]

Journalist my arse

And who the hell is “FREXIT RIC”?