back to article London's Metropolitan Police arrest Julian Assange

Julian Assange has been arrested by London cops at the Ecuadorian Embassy after the nation revoked the asylum it had given him for nearly seven years. BREAKING: #Assange removed from embassy - video pic.twitter.com/qsHy7ZVPg5 — Ruptly (@Ruptly) April 11, 2019 The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) issued a statement this …

Page:

        1. GreggS

          Article was updated after i posted, so my original comments were correct at time of posting.

          1. Monty Cantsin

            "Article was updated after i posted, so my original comments were correct at time of posting."

            We truly live in the Post Truth era.

          2. CRConrad

            "my original comments were correct at time of posting"

            No they weren't, they just relied on bad information. Had you kept à jour with some better sources over the years, you would have known this and not have had to rely on the Vulture's (apparently originally misinformed) recap. Any which way, being wrong isn't "being right" just because you were misled.

    1. Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese Silver badge

      That might have to wait. As he's currently in the hands of the Met, I suspect that they have first dibs to have a chat with him about his bail-jumping before letting the Swede's get their oar in.

      1. JetSetJim

        Maximum sentence for jumping bail is (apparently) 12 months, so could do that and still be sent to Sweden to face at least a portion of the music there.

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

    3. This post has been deleted by its author

    4. joeW

      Even complete muppets still have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in court.

      1. DontFeedTheTrolls
        Headmaster

        However what they do not have is the right to avoid going to court where their innocence can be tested

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. Radio Wales
          Terminator

          You can't handle the truth!

          There is absolutely no way that any person's innocence can be tested when national politics are involved.

          It always reverts to smoke and mirror justice - and individuals can never come out on top.

          The truth in such circumstances will be diluted to an infinite point of improbability and be unrecognisable.

      2. defiler

        I prefer "unless" proven guilty. "Until" assumes it's a foregone conclusion.

        I know I'm swimming against the tide on this one, but I prefer the clarity. Not wanting to pee in anyone's ice cream over it though.

        1. joeW

          Fair point. If I could edit my post I would.

        2. the Jim bloke

          I agree with your statement, but still intend to pee in anyones icecream that is available.

        3. Jove Bronze badge

          The correct terminology is:

          "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law"

          ... which provides the correct context for the use of 'until' rather than 'unless'.

          1. defiler

            Oh, I agree that Joe is correct, "by the book". I just think that "the book" is wrong in this case.

            As I say, I'm not out to force everyone to change. I'm just pointing out that a small change in wording makes a large difference in intent. Clearly my old Artificial Intelligence lectures from 25+ years ago have stuck in my head. That and having to explain so many things to people who may as well be children when I'm at work...

            I'll be very happy if people take "unless" and run with it. I'll not be upset if they stick with "until".

            (Also, not sure why the downvotes. If its due to my inaccuracy per the accepted wording, I've explained that. But I'm certainly not offering an opinion on Assange's guilt - I think the bail jumping is pretty cut-and-dried, but the rest will have to be decided at trial.)

        4. Kiwi
          Unhappy

          I prefer "unless" proven guilty. "Until" assumes it's a foregone conclusion.

          Sadly many people live in nations where it is "Guilty despite being proven innocent".

          Many people who live in these countries don't actually realise it, until they or someone they know goes through the system.

          1. Jove Bronze badge

            It is not a matter of preference - it is law as adopted in the UK. You do not get to choose just because comes down against your own team.

    5. Pinjata

      Keep in mind that the so-called victims of these sexual assaults never agreed to the arrest and a trail of Assange. The arrest warrant and allegations come from a politically assigned special prosecutor that want to "test" whether or not it's sexual assault to have sex with a sleepy person, this after an ordinary prosecutor dismissed the case.

      1. Ian Michael Gumby
        Boffin

        Actually they did.

        Who do you think brought the complaint to the police?

        And what they wanted was for him to get HIV tested.

      2. jmch Silver badge

        "...the so-called victims of these sexual assaults never agreed to the arrest and a trail of Assange"

        That's not how criminal law works. If the police are aware of a crime, they don't need the victims' go-ahead to investigate , arrest or prosecute. And who do you think informed the police in the first place?

      3. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

        ...whether or not it's sexual assault to have sex with a sleepy person...

        FWIW, unless someone has clearly consented for you to have sex with them whilst they are asleep, it's rape. Whether or not you'll get prosecuted is by-the-bye, if you do it, you're a scumbag.

        1. adnim

          @Loyal commenter: Yup.

          After being invited back to a girls flat and then being invited to bed during the proceedings, during the foreplay my slightly drunken partner fell asleep. Being very aroused I looked at her naked body, fantasised and masturbated. Now some may consider this creepy, I did myself a little, but not enough to stop though. I was drunk too. I then cuddled up to her and went to sleep.

          In the morning she asked me why I didn't have sex with her whilst she slept. I told her it was because she was asleep and it didn't seem right. To be honest I would consider such an action rape, although I didn't tell her that.

          ihmo if it isn't mutual between fully cognisant and consenting people it ain't right, and for me isn't fun either.

      4. Ben Tasker

        > Keep in mind that the so-called victims of these sexual assaults never agreed to the arrest and a trail of Assange.

        And your point is?

        Here in the UK, if you mug someone and they forgive you, they don't get to say to the police "I don't want to press charges". This is real life not TV.

        The police work with the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether bringing the case is in the public interest (in the example, you're a mugger, so they'll likely decide yes).

        Guess what, Sweden, like most other countries has a similar system. Once the legal system becomes aware of it, it's in their hands - largely because although a victim may not want to proceed, they have to consider the risk you pose to other people

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          "they have to consider the risk you pose to other people"

          And also the possibility that the complainant might have been threatened into withdrawing the complaint.

          1. Ben Tasker

            Yes, that too, along with the possible waste of resources if they do a deep and thorough investigation into it and the victim then finds God and becomes more forgiving.

            Plus, with things like sexual assault, you'll sometimes find that a conviction leads to other victims coming forward

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Plus, with things like sexual assault, you'll sometimes find that an accusation leads to other victims coming forward.

              TFTFY

              It's wrong and has very little to do with justice.

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      You mean

      Those actors paid by the US gov to give them a mechanism to get hold of him and remove a risk to their covering up of questionable stuff that they think they should be allowed to get away with?

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: You mean

        "Those actors paid by the US gov"

        Citation needed.

        1. Ben Tasker

          Re: You mean

          You know, it's been *years*, and with many many leaks since then.

          And yet, despite the obvious motive to do so, Assange seems to have resolutely failed to find and leak anything that might "prove" that his accusers were anything approaching stooges.

          Funny that...

        2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: You mean

          "Those actors paid by the US gov"

          Citation needed.

          They probably did it in between gigs pretending be mass shooting victims </sarc>

          1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: You mean

            Oh wow! At least two people still think that shooting was staged fake news? </boggles>

      2. Alister

        Re: You mean

        Ahh, poor innocent ickle Assange, tricked by those nasty-wasty women paid by the US.

        I bet the US managed to make him skip bail and not pay back his mates, too, cos innocent ickle Assange wouldn't ever do anything naughty like that.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: You mean

          Downvote for talking like a bellend.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: You mean

            Downvoted for being a bellend...

            1. Alister

              Re: You mean

              Downvoted for repeating bellend

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: You mean

                Bellend for being downvoted

          2. werdsmith Silver badge

            Re: You mean

            yeah, was a bit cringey.

      3. LucreLout

        Re: You mean

        Those actors paid by the US gov to give them a mechanism to get hold of him and remove a risk to their covering up of questionable stuff that they think they should be allowed to get away with?

        And people wonder why rape victims don't come forward......

        Surely it's time to change the law and make wild accusations like this, against victims of an alleged serious assault (especially if he has HIV), a criminal offence? It can't be helping either of the women to have to read some brain fart from a total moron belittling their experience for their own purely political ends.

      4. rdhood

        Re: You mean

        "Those actors paid by the US gov to give them a mechanism to get hold of him and remove a risk to their covering up of questionable stuff that they think they should be allowed to get away with?"

        LOL. It strikes me that for thousands of years, folks really have done this time and again. From witch trials to .... who knows... maybe this, someone has always seen advantage in getting an "actor" to throw out allegations in order to get a desired outcome.

    7. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Regardless of what you think of him we have laws to stop people with opinions convicting people...on their opinions.

      He's not been convicted in a court of law...nor for that matter tried.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        "He's not been convicted in a court of law...nor for that matter tried."

        It's running away from being tried that's the immediate issue.

        1. BigSLitleP

          "It's running away from being tried that's the immediate issue."

          And of that he is guilty.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Errr he's guilty of whatever they accuse him of.

            Spending millions to catch a bail jumper has nothing to do with justice.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              They could have actually spent it catching some real criminals.

              A great decision though.

              /S

              1. bombastic bob Silver badge
                Devil

                "They could have actually spent it catching some real criminals."

                uh, bail jumping IS a crime, so it makes him a 'real criminal'.

                I'm sure the cops are doing their jobs. Spending too many resources to go after a high profile crime helps to DISCOURAGE criminals, so it all works out. It's unlikely anyone else will try the 'asylum to hide in an embassy' trick. It was like Assange was in a kind of 'jail' for the last few years, am I right?

                1. CRConrad

                  Yup, self-imposed...

                  ...imprisonment. Won't count as time served, though. Had he submitted to the legal proceedings in Sweden in stead of running in the first place, he'd be out free now... After a term in Swedish prison that would no doubt have been much nicer than what he got at the Embassy. Which only goes to prove what a stupid fuck he is.

  1. ArchieTheAlbatross

    Pointing and laughing.

  2. Jay 2
    Happy

    Popcorn time!

    This should be fun, pass the popcorn please! It'll be interesting to see what happens now. I'd like to think it'll be a swift trip to court and then prison for jumping bail. I'm not too up on what Sweden's position is with him now. Are they still interested and can they still extradidted?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Are they still interested and can they still extradidted?

      It's in the article.

Page:

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