back to article Assange will 'accept arrest' on Friday if found guilty

Julian Assange's long-distance couch-surfing binge may be about to end, as the white-haired Wikileaker-in-chief has signalled he is willing to be arrested on Friday if he loses a case against the United Kingdom and Sweden. Assange revealed the news with the Tweet below. Assange: I will accept arrest by British police on …

  1. aberglas

    Looks like he knows the UN has agreed with him

    The decision has already been made, he was supposed to find out Friday, but others already know. Somebody leaked.

    Or, he is just sick of it. It would be very difficult for Sweden to actually find him guilty of the major charge of "rape" given the minor charges have expired.

    1. Scorchio!!

      Re: Looks like he knows the UN has agreed with him

      "Or, he is just sick of it. It would be very difficult for Sweden to actually find him guilty of the major charge of "rape" given the minor charges have expired"

      ...because of course, and as we all know, the UN is the ruling legal body on matters of inter personal violence, whether between nations or individuals and, quite soon, we will all appeal above the European courts of justice to the United Nations courts of justice, if we do not receive the ruling of our desire in our homelands. Oh yes. Also there will be UN peacekeeping forces stationed outside of the Old Bailey, and the UN will have forensic labs for DNA testing and whatnot.

      That will be the day when we are handed our soma by a peace keeper with a smiley face.

    2. Richard Jones 1
      WTF?

      Re: Looks like he knows the UN has agreed with him

      I had forgotten all about him! The headlines came as a blast from the past.

      I guess his publicist had some spare time in their diary.

      How the whole saga got spun the way it was I struggle to know - or care. To me he will always be the creep from Wikicreeps after the way he has behaved. While he was happy to dig the dirt on others he really did not like his dirty laundry paraded about.

      As far as I am concerned, he is still trying to deflect that odium.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Looks like he knows the UN has agreed with him

        To me he will always be the rapey creep from Wikicreeps after the way he has behaved

        FIFY

        1. Christoph

          Re: Looks like he knows the UN has agreed with him

          he will always be the rapey creep

          Interesting. You consider him definitely guilty as charged? So you have conclusive rebuttals to all the defence arguments pointing out several major holes in the prosecution case?

          Could you outline those here please?

          1. BoldMan

            Re: Looks like he knows the UN has agreed with him

            He's guilty as charged for the offence he committed in the UK, namely jumping bail, as for the others, that is up to the Swedish courts, but he definitely broke the law in the UK.

          2. Scorchio!!

            Re: Looks like he knows the UN has agreed with him

            " 'he will always be the rapey creep'

            Interesting. You consider him definitely guilty as charged?"

            Misquote. OP:

            "To me he will always be the creep from Wikicreeps after the way he has behaved."

            Followup:

            "To me he will always be the rapey creep from Wikicreeps after the way he has behaved

            FIFY"

            As to your remarks:

            "So you have conclusive rebuttals to all the defence arguments pointing out several major holes in the prosecution case?"

            Kindly detail, with links, the "several major holes in the prosecution case", and kindly point out who the prosecution is at this point. (Edit from this point) Kindly also outline, using links, the exact prosecution case and what commentators from the British CJS have said in respect of this "case"

            1. Christoph

              Re: Looks like he knows the UN has agreed with him

              Kindly detail, with links, the "several major holes in the prosecution case", and kindly point out who the prosecution is at this point.

              I'm sorry, I think I may be misunderstanding your post. It reads almost as if you are condemning him as guilty without knowing what the defence case is.

              1. Scorchio!!

                Re: Looks like he knows the UN has agreed with him

                "Kindly detail, with links, the "several major holes in the prosecution case", and kindly point out who the prosecution is at this point.

                I'm sorry, I think I may be misunderstanding your post. It reads almost as if you are condemning him as guilty without knowing what the defence case is."

                I do no such thing, I merely ask clarification of a number of preconceptions, that is who the prosecution are, what their prosecutorial line is and, finally, what what the "several major holes in the prosecution case" are. Do not read anything more than that and do not fusk with quotes and attributions.

      2. Roq D. Kasba

        Re: Looks like he knows the UN has agreed with him

        Ecuadorian ambassador on the phone to UN 'pleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseplease...'

    3. Richard 12 Silver badge

      Re: Looks like he knows the UN has agreed with him

      I suspect that the embassy have been making life progressively less pleasant, and he's realised that this self-imposed isolation has almost completely destroyed his reputation.

      He clearly still doesn't understand that what he did was wrong though. He thinks he is King.

    4. PleebSmasher
      Stop

      Re: Looks like he knows the UN has agreed with him

      BBC reports the UN panel agreed with him.

      http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35490910

      He is going nowhere!

  2. Ole Juul

    Maybe not Friday.

    Apparently the verdict is already in the hands of the UK and Swedish authorities but will be publicly revealed on Friday morning. However, if he gets a positive outcome from the UN complaint his lawyer says he won't just walk out until he is guaranteed safe passage. Yet another stumbling block. If all goes well for Assange in these endeavours then I think there is still a great likelihood of the US pulling some nasty trick at the last moment. It's not like that's never happened before.

    1. Danny 14 Silver badge

      Re: Maybe not Friday.

      US couldnt care less at the moment, Obama does seem to be of the feeling that he doesnt like the underhand renditions. That might change if a madman such as trump wins.

      That bloke is a nutter.

      1. David Neil

        Re: Maybe not Friday.

        You are kidding right? Obama dramatically expanded the use of covert ops across international borders, ramped up the drone strikes and seriously increased funding and capabilities of the Special Operations command.

        Just because he closed Gitmo don't for a minute think he's better than the last lot - he's the one who authorised the extrajudicial killing of US citizens via drone strikes

        1. Mark 85 Silver badge

          Re: Maybe not Friday.

          Just because he closed Gitmo don't for a minute think he's better than the last lot - he's the one who authorised the extrajudicial killing of US citizens via drone strikes

          When did Gitmo close? To my knowledge it hasn't.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Maybe not Friday.

        US Election years are a good time to pull off a discreet "political-prisoner" exit/pardon/ignore episode.

        First, the US administration is far too busy thinking about election stuff to waste time on side shows like Assange.

        Second, publically letting out the dobermans could have messy, unmanageable and unpleasant consequences. It could seriously damage people's careers after a power change. Hillary is already sharpening her knives for some un-supportive State Department folks when she gets in, believe me.

        Also there are voters (and journalists) out there who surely sympathize with Assange and WikiLeaks. We certainly can't alienate them, now can we?

        So when in doubt, always do nothing.. No one gets fired for making non-decisions in government.

        My crystal ball sez:

        Assange gets a public UN "get-out-of-jail" card (more politics), scuppers off to Sweden, gets fined or is made to pick up litter in Stockholm for 3 months.

        Asange then ends up somewhere else (the Old Bailey being a very distinct possibility). Or on the lecture circuit. Who knows?

        Obama and co don't really want Assange's dirty socks in their front garden (or G-Bay) right now. But the fixers will happily use him for improved election mileage. Republicans can blame it on those soft, pudgy, smiley UN people. Democrats can promise to vote OK on the next UN budget in return for a job well done. Or vice-versa.

        Everyone wins....!

        Lastly, if Trump gets elected, Assange WOULD be better off taking his medicine now. I can't wait to hear the reporter's questions to the US candidates once the deal is complete. I'm sure it will be priceless.

        All in all, looks like a very politically astute move/gamble by Assange's lawyers. He might even get a legal truce in exchange for temporarily shutting up, playing along and letting the US election carnival continue unabated.

        ************ OLD FART QUESTION ALERT **********************

        Does anyone remember when most US Hostages were released from the Iranian embassy back in 1981? Anyone....? Yes, you there in the red tie, flag pin and Brook Brothers suit...

        CORRECT, it was the very day Ronald Reagan was first sworn in as US president! Timing is everything in politics. The Democratic party then sat out another 3 terms before returning a candidate to the Oval Office (where he was nearly impeached). Republicans should thank the Iranian students profusely for their assistance in perpetuating the NeoCon wet dream project we have all inherited today.

        Cynical me? Nahhh........

        Popcorn, please.....

        1. Scorchio!!

          Re: Maybe not Friday.

          "Does anyone remember when most US Hostages were released from the Iranian embassy back in 1981? Anyone....? Yes, you there in the red tie, flag pin and Brook Brothers suit...

          CORRECT, it was the very day Ronald Reagan was first sworn in as US president! Timing is everything in politics"

          Except of course that Assange is not a hostage (except perhaps to his own stupidity and obsessiveness), but is rather accused of rape. That the UN of all people have come out with a pronouncement which does not meet the facts does not surprise me: http://www.wnd.com/2004/12/28177/

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Maybe not Friday.

      However, if he gets a positive outcome from the UN complaint his lawyer says he won't just walk out until he is guaranteed safe passage.

      Granting Assange free passage would be a travesty of justice and an insult to any citizen who has to just abide by the law as Assange should. If the UN has truly allowed itself to be hitched in front of the Assange cart I would say that the UN has surrendered the last shred of its credibility.

      Why would Assange have more rights than the girls on the other side of this affair? Are they now allowed to apply to the UN as well? Since when has the UN the ability to override national sovereignty?

      1. SundogUK Silver badge

        Re: Maybe not Friday.

        "...last shred of its credibility." They lost that long ago. Upvoted anyway though.

        1. Gotno iShit Wantno iShit

          Re: Maybe not Friday.

          According to the beeb a few moments ago the UN has indeed flushed away it's last shred of credibility.

          Unbe-f##king-lievable.

        2. Scorchio!!

          Re: Maybe not Friday.

          " '...last shred of its credibility.' They lost that long ago. Upvoted anyway though"

          Most especially in the wake of so many rape and related scandals: http://www.wnd.com/2004/12/28177/

      2. fuzzie

        Re: Maybe not Friday.

        I'm probably wrong on this since I've not kept up with the details, but as I rercall he'd not actually been charged with anything yet. The Swedish prosecution wanted to interview him to decide whether to proceed. They declined a remote interview and didn't take up on offer to do the interview in the embassy. Again, as I recall, the girls had withdrawn their complaint.

        It all that's still vaguely accurate, there does appear to be something whiffing in he state of Sweden.

        1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

          Re: Maybe not Friday.

          You recall most of it wrong...ish.

          Sweden took up the offer of interviewing him here, but only seriously last year. Partly I think becasue they got told off by a judge. I've no idea why the didn't try before. But it didn't happen anyway. They say because Ecuador and Assange were trying to impose conditions on it. Who knows the actual truth. They were trying to negotiate this before the statute of limitations ran out on the lesser charges in the Summer, and supposedly an interview was still expected soon after that on the rape charges, but nothing seems to have happened.

          You're correct he's not been charged though. Apparently in Sweden you get a final interogation where they charge you. This was what he'd been invited to attend via his lawyer when he left Sweden for the sunny shores of the UK. The lawyer claimed in the court hearing not to have been told, and was then forced to admit he had been - rather embarrassingly. Can't imagine that went down well with the judge...

          Finally, I don't believe the women involved ever withdrew their complaints. Unless there's something I've not read about (perfectly possible). But the Swedish prosecutors weren't going to continue the case at first, then I believe one (or both) of the womens' lawyers appealed, and they changed their mind. Don't know if that was because they thought there was no significant chance of a conviction, or something else though.

          1. Sir Runcible Spoon
            Paris Hilton

            Re: Maybe not Friday.

            The one thing he is definitely guilty of is contempt of court by jumping bail.

            That's a crime in this country, which is why he is marked for arrest. He is in self-imposed exile - the UK government didn't make him seek sanctuary in an embassy - they gave him full access to the judicial process.

            When he didn't get the answer he wanted he ran for a rabbit hole and has been there ever since.

            This finding by the UN panel is unfathomable.

        2. SolidSquid

          Re: Maybe not Friday.

          The problem Sweden have is that their legal process requires someone to be arrested and in custody before they can bring charges, they're not able to bring charges or hold trials in abstentia. They also agreed to a remote interview recently, but Ecuador insisted that they be provided the questions and do the questioning on Sweden's behalf rather than Swedish prosecutors being able to question him directly, which Sweden refused

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Thumb Down

            Re: Maybe not Friday.

            I personally think, on the basis of his behaviour, he is guilty of both failure to appear as bailed, and the charges in Sweden.

            That said I think that it is indisputable he is guilty of "Failing to attend court on time as required". On the legality of the other charges there is a good summary here -

            http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

            The recent decision by "United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention" may well be good for Assange but really does seem to fly in the face of the human rights of the women in Sweden.

      3. Adrian 4 Silver badge

        Re: Maybe not Friday.

        He's not guaranteed safe passage to walk free. He's guaranteed safe passage to face trial in sweden without being handed over to an uninvolved country whose war crimes he publicised.

        There's rather more levels to this than the ambiguous rape case.

        Remember, if you will, the video scens that Manning and Wikileaks published, of helicopter fire on unarmed civilians and journalists accompanied by commentry that indicated a total lack of concern.

        This isn't just about Assange escaping justice. It's about the US military murderers - who have already escaped justice - being able to silence their critics.

        1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

          Re: Maybe not Friday.

          Remember, if you will, the video scens that Manning and Wikileaks published, of helicopter fire on unarmed civilians and journalists accompanied by commentry that indicated a total lack of concern.

          Would that be the video footage called "Collaterol Murder" where Wikileaks edited out the footage showing the group they fired on were armed? Although to be fair they did release an undedited version at some point as well.

          Also the audio was pretty unpleasant with the pilots treating it far to much like some video shoot-em-up. But even there, you can't have it both ways. When the gunner shouts "RPG", and it's obvious they believe they're being engaged by insurgent with a rocket launcher, you can't say that's somehow acting, given how unpleasant they're being for the rest of the time. A crime requires intent. Accidents are usually not crimes for that reason.

          I don't know if journalists train for this, given that a big shoulder-mounted camera poked cautiously round a corner might look similar enough to a missle launcher to a scared soldier. On the other hand, standing up in plain sight is often going to be just as risky.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Maybe not Friday.

            Although to be fair they did release an undedited version at some point as well.

            As far as I recall they only released the raw version after being called on their not-exactly-impartial editing and put under pressure to show the truth and nothing but the truth. To me, that specific stunt removed a large amount of credibility from Wikileaks (even before Assange's antics) because an information source that is not reasonably impartial is not an information source, it's simply a propaganda machine under another name.

        2. Scorchio!!
          FAIL

          Re: Maybe not Friday.

          "There's rather more levels to this than the ambiguous rape case."

          Oh really? For a start the UK cannot allow Assange to be extradited to the US without Swedish permission, and the Swedes have already said this will not be forthcoming. In addition, whilst an EAW is in force the accused must be sent to the arresting country and only there.

          The quickest thing to do would have been for the Swedes to remain silent, not request an EAW, and for the US DoJ to issue an extradition request under the ToniBler we-bend-over-for-theUS agreement. Assange would have been there as quick as you like.

          The problem with your argument is that Assange, as pointed out, is not an American national and it is difficult to conceive of how to charge a non American national for leaking documents that arrived through a third party.

          On unprotected sex (the matter in hand), starting with the sorts of sentences handed down where infected people have not disclosed and unprotected sex took place:

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2026598/David-Golding-gave-girlfriend-Cara-Scott-herpes-JAILED-14-months.html

          http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11097934

          An appropriate article on living by the "sword":

          http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/03/assange_documents_leaked/

          The incriminating Today Programme interview:

          Q: That leaves us with the fact, because you accept this, that one of those women at least did make a complaint against you.

          JA: Not even a complaint. It appears, from the records that we do have, the suggestion is that they went to the police for advice and they did not want to make a complaint. What they say is that they found out that they were mutual lovers of mine and they had undertaken sex and they got into a tizzy about whether there was a possibility of sexually transmitted diseases. They went to the police to…

          Q: They wanted you to have a test as well.

          JA: …to have a test.

          Q: Did you have a test?

          JA: Ridiculous thing to go to the police about.

          [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9309000/9309320.stm ]

          Ridiculous? The man is alleged to have had unprotected sexual intercourse where permission was given only for protected sex.

          Assange the self styled journalist and ethics:

          "A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. "Well, they're informants," Assange replied. "So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it." A silence fell on the table as the reporters realised that the man the gullible hailed as the pioneer of a new age of transparency was willing to hand death lists to psychopaths. They persuaded Assange to remove names before publishing the State Department Afghanistan cables. But Assange's disillusioned associates suggest that the failure to expose "informants" niggled in his mind."

          [ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/18/julian-assange-wikileaks-nick-cohen ]

          NB, "the gullible"

          "An Australian official has described as "incredibly irresponsible" Wikileaks' release of a US cable that appears to name Australian terror suspects.

          The cable was among more than 130,000 confidential US cables released by the whistle-blowing group, many of which did not remove the names of sources.

          Such information has previously been redacted in Wikileaks releases."

          [ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14722030 ]

          “ 'Of course I'm a goddamn journalist.' ”

          [ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/28/assange_journalist/ ]

          "Former WikiLeaks spokesman Daniel Domscheit-Berg claims to have destroyed more than 3,500 unpublished files obtained from unknown informants. The information they contained is now apparently lost, irrevocably. The documents in question were stored on the WikiLeaks server until late summer 2010, when Domscheit-Berg left the organization, taking the files with him upon his departure.

          Now Domscheit-Berg says that these documents were 'shredded over the past few days in order to ensure that the sources are not compromised.' "

          (How wise)

          "The Guardian felt strongly that the secret material ought to be redacted to protect informants or bystanders named in it, and Julian was inconsistent about that. I never believed he wanted to endanger such people, but he chose to interpret the Guardian’s concern as ‘cowardice’."

          [ http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n05/andrew-ohagan/ghosting ]

          (How uncharacteristically wise of the Guardian)

          [ http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/assange-battle-escalates-ex-wikileaks-spokesman-destroyed-unpublished-files-a-781581.html ]

          http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/11/assange_claims_suing_guardian/

          No lawsuit yet.

          "He is vain, secretive, paranoid and jealous, prone to leering at young women and making frequent sexist jokes – and that's not the view of one of his many enemies, but of a friend who regards him sympathetically." and "Earlier O’Hagan had watched as Assange leered at two 14-year-old girls as they walked past a café table at which they were sitting. O’Hagan writes how Assange thought they were “fine”, until he saw one was wearing braces."

          [ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/10655638/Paranoid-vain-and-jealous-the-secret-life-of-WikiLeaks-founder-Julian-Assange.html ]

          " 'People are finally seeing the darker side of Julian Assange, the fact that he doesn't tell the truth, that he lies,; Gibney said."

          [ http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/alex-gibney-fires-back-at-657677?mobile_redirect=false ]

          "Assange pleaded guilty to 24 offences before Judge Leslie Ross, who said the crimes were ''quite serious'' and ''troublesome behaviour''.

          ''The intrusion into these computers was quite extensive, it carried with it the potential to cause particular harm, I thought,'' the judge said."

          [ http://www.smh.com.au/national/for-lonely-teenager-assange-a-computer-was-his-only-friend-20110114-19rcq.html ]

          “ 'Of course I'm a goddamn journalist.' ”!!!

          "Police spoke to Miss W's ex-boyfriend, who told them that in two and a half years they had never had sex without a condom because it was "unthinkable" for her. Miss W told police she went to a chemist to buy a morning-after pill and also went to hospital to be tested for STDs. Police statements record her contacting Assange to ask him to get a test and his refusing on the grounds that he did not have the time.

          On Wednesday 18 August, according to police records, Miss A told Harold and a friend that Assange would not leave her flat and was sleeping in her bed, although she was not having sex with him and he spent most of the night sitting with his computer. Harold told police he had asked Assange why he was refusing to leave the flat and that Assange had said he was very surprised, because Miss A had not asked him to leave. Miss A says she spent Wednesday night on a mattress and then moved to a friend's flat so she did not have to be near him. She told police that Assange had continued to make sexual advances to her every day after they slept together and on Wednesday 18 August had approached her, naked from the waist down, and rubbed himself against her."

          [...]

          "The Guardian understands that the recent Swedish decision to apply for an international arrest warrant followed a decision by Assange to leave Sweden in late September and not return for a scheduled meeting when he was due to be interviewed by the prosecutor. Assange's supporters have denied this, but Assange himself told friends in London that he was supposed to return to Stockholm for a police interview during the week beginning 11 October, and that he had decided to stay away. Prosecution documents seen by the Guardian record that he was due to be interviewed on 14 October."

          [ http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden ]

          "Between 3:13 and 3:30 it is quite clear to me, as both a former infantry sergeant and a photographer, that the two men central to the gun-camera’s frame are carrying photographic equipment. This much is noted by WikiLeaks, and misidentified by the crew of Crazyhorse 18. At 3:39, the men central to the frame are armed, the one on the far left with some AK variant, and the one in the center with an RPG. The RPG is crystal clear even in the downsized, very low-resolution, video between 3:40 and 3:45 when the man carrying it turns counter-clockwise and then back to the direction of the Apache. This all goes by without any mention whatsoever from WikiLeaks, and that is unacceptable."

          [ http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/reaction-on-military-blogs-to-the-wikileaks-video/ ]

          As I type these lines Julian Assange has been "arbitrarily detained" at the Ecuadorian embassy. Perhaps now he will have his day in court for bail jumping and for alleged sexual offences.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Maybe not Friday.

            @Scorchio, that's about the most comprehensively referenced summary I've seen on matters Assange, my compliments.

            You mentioned the STD test. If I were to speculate, I have a feeling that the complete silence from the girls' end (girls as well as lawyer) and the progression of rape charges come from that corner, and there is every chance that Assange is acutely aware of this, hence his absolutely desperate attempts to avoid Swedish investigators.

            This would explain his refusal to be tested (he's had plenty of time since), because it is certain his Swedish lawyer (the one that advised him to run for it) would have otherwise advised him to get it over with because it would have stopped the complaints from turning into rape charges.

            I'm biased, of course, but with the above assumption all Assange's desperate activity to avoid going back to Sweden make sense, including the ludicrous US extradition charges which would make more sense in the UK.

    3. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Re: Maybe not Friday.

      until he is guaranteed safe passage.

      To where?

      1. Ole Juul

        Re: Maybe not Friday.

        To where?

        Ecuador I think. That's where he applied for asylum before.

  3. Winkypop Silver badge
    Meh

    Don't like his chances

    The powers that be don't like to be mocked.

    1. PleebSmasher

      Re: Don't like his chances

      The U.S. have given up on Assange and won't interfere. That leaves his business with the UK and Sweden.

      1. collinsl

        Re: Don't like his chances

        We have no business with him, we merely have to extradite him as per the EU arrest warrant Sweden issued.

        1. bazza Silver badge

          Re: Don't like his chances

          We have no business with him, we merely have to extradite him as per the EU arrest warrant Sweden issued.

          Yes we do. He skipped bail (costing his chums a fortune) and is in contempt of court. There's no way the English judiciary will want him to get away with that without a hearing, verdict and almost certainly a prison sentence. They will want to deal with that first before packing him off to Sweden. Doing otherwise hints at setting an undesirable precedent.

          The Americans have already said publicly that they don't have a case against him. Stands to reason - he's not a US citizen and he handled the leaked material whilst not on US territory. It would be hard even for them to show that an offence in US jurisdiction had been committed.

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

          2. Alan Brown Silver badge

            Re: Don't like his chances

            "The Americans have already said publicly that they don't have a case against him. Stands to reason - he's not a US citizen and he handled the leaked material whilst not on US territory. It would be hard even for them to show that an offence in US jurisdiction had been committed."

            That said (and I don't think they want him), the same applies to Kim Dotcom yet they seem very keen to lay their hands on that particular guy.

          3. SolidSquid

            Re: Don't like his chances

            "It would be hard even for them to show that an offence in US jurisdiction had been committed."

            Iirc the closest they've come to a valid complaint is that he (apparently) assisted in the removal of the classified data by advising Manning on ways to remove it without being detected. It's still pretty flimsy, and depends on him being able to be charged for conspiracy to commit a crime while not within US jurisdiction, but it is a potential criminal charge

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Don't like his chances

          We do have some business with him. I think the UK courts would like a short and very pointed chat on the subject of skipping bail. I also suspect that Assange's "friends" who put up his bail money would also like a chat, but this one will be in a dark alley and will involve something blunt and heavy.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Don't like his chances

            I also suspect that Assange's "friends" who put up his bail money would also like a chat, but this one will be in a dark alley and will involve something blunt and heavy.

            If Assange truly wants to support Wikileaks he should allow us to sell tickets to that. There may then even be enough to meet his promise of supporting Manning's defence. Actually, spending a week in a pillory on Trafalgar Square whilst selling rotten fruit would be a good alternative, also because it's a good way of recycling dead fruit.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @ Pleeb Smasher Re: Don't like his chances

        They wont until he is "freed" then, the first chance they get, they will have him on some technicallity.

    2. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: Don't like his chances

      Be that as it may, the penalties for bail breaches are quite low(*) and should he be nailed to the wall it would be selective enforcement - which would be overturned on appeal.

      (*) Most offenders are given a dressing down by the courts and told "Don't do it again" even for repeat offences. First-timers almost never get a stronger penalty than this.

      Ass hat may be a creep, but bear in mind the charges were originally dismissed by swedish police and only taken up when pursued by a politician with an obvious agenda. The original complainants didn't seem to want to take it further. That does lend some credence to his paranoia, although personally I can't see the USA actually wanting him. He's far more trouble than he's worth.

      1. LucreLout

        Re: Don't like his chances

        Most offenders are given a dressing down by the courts and told "Don't do it again" even for repeat offences.

        Most offenders don't run up £x Million pounds in policing costs by hiding in an embassy while evading rape charges. Innocent men don't run from rape charges, as there's no more certain a way to proclaim guilt. Add on his thumbing his nose at the judiciary, and they'll likely have a very dim view of him.

        Assange is almost certainly looking at a short custodial penalty once he scurries out from under his rock. And very well deserved it will be too.

        I couldn't care less about what America may or may not do to him; what he did to those women is unacceptable and to flee from it until the offences time out is willfully denying them justice and their day in court. The coward owes them that much at the very least.

        1. Schultz

          "Most offenders don't run up £x Million pounds in policing costs"

          The cost involved in catching a suspect should have no impact on the penalty. It's the job of the executive to catch him and the job of an independent judicative to judge him. If you start mixing those two, you dilute the separation of powers. I should mention that I am not British and don't really know how serious they take the separation of power over there.

          1. Scorchio!!

            Re: "Most offenders don't run up £x Million pounds in policing costs"

            "I should mention that I am not British and don't really know how serious they take the separation of power over there"

            Very seriously. Unless it is a Labour government telling its chief legal officer that it wants an assessment of proposed war with Iraq to be in favour.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Don't like his chances

        Ass hat may be a creep, but bear in mind the charges were originally dismissed by swedish police and only taken up when pursued by a politician with an obvious agenda. The original complainants didn't seem to want to take it further.

        Not quite. He was asked as per Swedish law to get an STD test, that's what the girls went back to the police for (as he had ran away already, they could only ask the police to find him and get him to test himself). Now his actions up until that point were already enough to bring rape charges against him in the UK (which was subsequently proven by a tour of UK courts), but his refusal to get himself tested made the charge escalate into rape - he had the chance to stop this from happening, and remember, he did have a Swedish lawyer at the time who will have been advising him on this too.

        It is exactly the fact that he was asked to have an STD test done and refused to do so that I suspect to lie at the root of his subsequent activity: he has been doing things that I would read as absolute desperation to stay out of the hands of the Swedish courts, including dreaming up that idiotic US extradition claim. Assange knowns full well that the UK would have been a far easier route for that so we can disregard that as a smokescreen.

  4. Likkie

    WTF?

    Lemme get this straight....

    He's complaining to the UN about his self-imposed imprisonment AND they may agree with him?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: WTF?

      That's an adequate summary. Whacked world we live in.

    2. bazza Silver badge

      Re: WTF?

      I imagine that whatever UK judge takes the contempt of court hearing would say "United What?" and ignore the UN completely. If they're feeling particularly grumpy they may hold the relevant bods in the UN in contempt too.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: WTF?

      If that's true I'd love to know which specific bored UN nutcase considered it a good idea to get involved in this idiocy. It's not like they have much left in the way of credibility to start with.

    4. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: WTF?

      What exactly is the "arbitrary detention" that the UN's ruling on?

      It can scarcely be questioning in Sweden and any possible imprisonment after due process of law. There's nothing arbitrary about than.

      Nor can it be arrest and possible imprisonment in the UK as there's nothing arbitrary about that.

      Nor can it be about being holed up in the embassy because he's there entirely voluntarily and could have walked out through the front door on any day since he entered the place.

      I don't even see that it could be extradition to the US through legal channels as that would also require due process of law in Sweden or the UK so that too wouldn't be arbitrary.

      The UK, if they don't extradite him to Sweden, or Sweden, at the end of the legal process there could deport him but presumably that would be back to his place of origin, Australia. I don't see that being repatriated is arbitrary. Would Australia send him to the US without going through a legal extradition process?

      So AFAICS the only thing he can appeal about is the possibility that he could be taken to the US without going through an extradition process. How does the UN rule about something which hasn't happened and seems to exist primarily if not entirely as a possibility in his own mind?

      1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

        Re: WTF?

        It is bizarre. But then is this another one of those joke UN committees? Like when the Human Rights committee was chaired by Saddam's Iraq - where the members were voted on by the General Assembly?

        Anyway the only arbitrary thing about the case would be if a politician or the police were to give him free passage. A court has ruled that he has to be extradited to Sweden, that decision has been appealed twice (or was it three times?), and upheld each time. He's appealed in Sweden against the process and lost in their highest court too.

        I suppose the only other arbitrary thing would be a UN ruling. Given that they have no place in the judicial process. His only choices are to rot in the embassy until the 10 year statute of limitations runs out on the rape charges, then skulk off (possibly after a brief stay in chokey for bail-jumping) - or to go off to Sweden and face the music. And probably get off for lack of evidence - given there were only two people in the room at the time of each allegation.

        I feel really sorry for the juries in rape cases. Having done a couple of stints of jury service, all on ABH cases, we had multiple witnesses and even some CCTV footage. And it was bad enough trying to piece things together from the often conflicting evidence. It was a pretty horrible feeling letting someone off that people thought guilty, becuase there just wasn't enough evidence. Then again it's even worse being responsible for sending an innocent person to prison.

        1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

          Re: WTF?

          Just done a quick bit of research. It's not a joke committee. It's stuffed with human rights lawyers, as you might expect, but the Aussie member for example was previously on the Australian delegation to the UN General Assembly. So has been an officially accredited Australian diplomat.

          The only way I can imagine them justifying a decision that he's been arbitrarily detained is if Sweden have been telling porkies about why they haven't questioned him in the embassy. To be honest I still don't buy that, as I don't see why he should have any more rights than any other alleged criminal in the UK or Sweden. And that means you get arrested, when the police say you get arrested. And if you run away, then they get to chase you. Just because you've successfully hidden for several years, doesn't magically make that process unfair.

  5. Tromos

    Whatever the case with Sweden may be, he does have charges in the UK to answer as regards jumping bail and probably contempt of court in addition. A short spell in HMP followed by deportation as an 'undesirable' would be about right in my opinion.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "A short spell in HMP followed by deportation as an 'undesirable' would be about right in my opinion"

      this is one Aussie pratt we'd like to send back in return for them sending us back a paedo

  6. Mark 85 Silver badge
    Coat

    I'll believe it when I see it.....

    Has the Embassy ordered in the fumigators yet? Ordered a new couch?

    Icon ------> the Ambassador handing Julian his coat.

    1. bazza Silver badge

      Re: I'll believe it when I see it.....

      This is going to make the Ecuadorian authorities look ridiculous. They chose to shelter him to make what must have been in their eyes some kind of point of principle. By leaving he would in effect be saying that he no longer believes in that principle himself. It goes something like this:

      Assange: "I'm being illegally hounded by the UK and Sweden"

      Ecuador: "We agree, have a comfy sofa"

      <Divers alarums>

      Assange: "I've changed my mind, I'm throwing in my lot with the UK and Sweden"

      Ecuador: "So you actually don't mind being hounded after all?"

      Of course, one way out of that would be to not let him out of the embassy at all. Sort of like:

      Assange: "I've changed my mind"

      Ecuador: "We haven't..."

      Assange: "Er, can I go now?"

      Ecuador: "Nope"

      Assange, through a window: "The UK government must forcibly enter the embassy and rescue me"

      <Divers alarums>

      If he does quit their embassy, they should at the very least bill him for the accommodation.

      1. Scorchio!!
        Angel

        Re: I'll believe it when I see it.....

        "If he does quit their embassy, they should at the very least bill him for the accommodation."

        I wonder if they issued him with strong condoms?

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    He "agrees" to arrest?

    Assange "agrees" to an arrest?

    Who the fuck does this idiot think he is? A nation on his own?

    He is no less and no more important than any other citizen, and he has to abide by the same rules. That he has been able to evade some of them by abusing the asylum process does not suddenly suspend his obligations to follow the rule of law like everyone else.

    Sorry, but such wank is irritating. Even more is that news articles repeat this unquestionably instead of rephrasing it, or at least put it beween inverted commas.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: He "agrees" to arrest?

      Quite. Arrest is, almost by definition, something you cannot agree with. If you do, you may as well go straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect £200...

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: He "agrees" to arrest?

      Even more is that news articles repeat this unquestionably instead of rephrasing it, or at least put it beween inverted commas.

      The Register has, thankfully.

    3. Desidero

      Re: He "agrees" to arrest?

      I think he used the asylum process exactly as he should have.

      Yes, he's more important than most citizens in that he released videos of war crimes by the world's greatest military power. Perhaps you can discern distinctions, but I can.

      That he was taken down by groupies with "exploding condoms" are the only inverted commas I need to see.

      The later revelations about the NSA & Britain's own spook service (GCHK?) only increase his importance - he inspired Eric Snowden.

      To pull a Godwin, technically Anne Frank broke the law and was guilty of crimes far past her self-imposed detention. Shame on her, eh? But she could have surrendered at any time to face her charges, yet chose not to do it, instead resorting to self-aggrandizing by writing a sensational little memoir. Talk about egotistical martyr syndrome.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: He "agrees" to arrest?

        Yes, he's more important than most citizens in that he released videos of war crimes by the world's greatest military power. Perhaps you can discern distinctions, but I can.

        Ah, you mean that bit of footage which later emerged to have been edited, and of which the raw version showed a rather different story?

        I'm not sure that using events that clearly show Assange to be rather creative with his interpretation of reality is really helping to make your case.

  8. Adam 52 Silver badge

    ..."if found guilty"

    Why this in the headline? Are you expecting the UN to rule on guilt or innocence, or just whether being stuck in an embassy amounts to imprisonment?

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So let me get this right....

    ...you are alleged to have committed a crime in one democratic (and some would say quite liberal) country, but are only asked to appeal to answer questioning.

    You then break the law in another democratic country

    You then hide out in an embassy and complain that you may be sent back to the UN and only say you will come out if they side with you.

    And people think that's ok.

    Now if you are coming from a war torn country, where you may of lost most of your family in the most brutal of ways. You then commit a minor crime in the same country as above and the "people" want to ship you back.

    What an interesting world we live in.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Did Sweden really "allow" him to leave? It was more fleeing before arrest..

    Sweden has long wanted to talk to Assange about complaints made by two women with whom he shared sexual encounters in 2010, but allowed Assange to return to the United Kingdom as it investigated allegations of rape

    That is not the version I heard, or requires a rather liberal interpretation of the concept "to allow". Assange was briefed by his solicitor that there were moves to bring him back in for questioning (something the solicitor was later made to admit in court), and so he ran. If he had remained he would have never made the UK and this affair would have been solved in 2010.

    But hey, that would not have made a fortune in advertising revenue next to articles..

    1. Richard 12 Silver badge

      Re: Did Sweden really "allow" him to leave? It was more fleeing before arrest..

      Sort of. In a way.

      They didn't prevent him leaving.

      Although that takes longer to arrange than it takes to book and board a plane, as one of those (should) involve judicial process and the other doesn't.

      1. Scorchio!!

        Re: Did Sweden really "allow" him to leave? It was more fleeing before arrest..

        "Sort of. In a way.

        They didn't prevent him leaving."

        Wrong; they told his legal counsel that they expected him to be present for interview - which in their CJS means 'prior to arrest' - his legal counsel told him, and then he ran. You may wish to argue that they should have placed him under obs, but that is not "Sort of. In a way", which is like saying someone is a "little bit pregnant".

    2. Scorchio!!

      Re: Did Sweden really "allow" him to leave? It was more fleeing before arrest..

      "Assange was briefed by his solicitor that there were moves to bring him back in for questioning (something the solicitor was later made to admit in court), and so he ran. If he had remained he would have never made the UK and this affair would have been solved in 2010."

      Indeed; his legal counsel denied having received contact from the Swedish police right up until the moment, in a British court, when he checked his mobile phone and 'found' they had indeed been in contact. This prompted his bar association to say they would be speaking to him. This is a part of a PC tide that has swept the world's intelligentsia, who mistake military/defence secrets for oppression.

  11. Lee D

    "Accept arrest" / "Hand yourself in".

    Amazing the difference a little rewording can make.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    will 'accept arrest'

    as in: "come and get me", I won't run away to the top floor.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What are the odds looking like?

    Last time I looked, the bookies were offering 500:1 odds on him leaving the embassy by jetpack. Worth a punt if you have one lying around.

    1. Tim Jenkins

      Re: What are the odds looking like?

      Wonder what odds I could get on him departing via glider off the roof.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colditz_Cock

      (which could also be his new nickname...)

      1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
        Happy

        Re: What are the odds looking like?

        I don't think he's got access to the roof. The embassy is in a block of flats, it's just a converted flat itself I believe. So he'd have to walk out of the embassy limits into the corridors to get up to the roof, where he could be arrested. Assuming the police have a seat in the warm inside, rather than standing out in the cold...

        There is a balcony though, didn't he do a press confrerence from it once? But not sure if it's big enough for a glider. So a jepack is a better option, but probably a bit hard on the embassy's curtains...

        As I recall they're also not on the ground floor, so tunnelling is a bit of a no-no as well.

        1. Scorchio!!
          Happy

          Re: What are the odds looking like?

          "As I recall they're also not on the ground floor, so tunnelling is a bit of a no-no as well.

          I know! He could leak his way out!

          (Edit) Speaking of which; I have a feeling that a) he asked this committee to 'adjudicate' because he knew they were a barrel of spanners just waiting for this kind of thing and b) I think they leaked their 'findings' to him in advance.

          It is risible and the risk of further discrediting the UN has now passed into actuality. They are now the BBC of international politics.

          1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
            Happy

            Re: What are the odds looking like?

            Are you suggesting he gets a blender and has himself liquidised? There are two problems with this. Firslty, someone might accidentally drink him. Secondly, I'm not sure if we've yet got the technology to put him back together again.

            I suppose he could use it to make his case though, by having himself smuggled out in an Innocent Smoothies carton. OK, OK, I'll get my coat.

            1. Sir Runcible Spoon
              Thumb Up

              Re: What are the odds looking like?

              " Innocent Smoothies"

              nice one :)

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: What are the odds looking like?

              Secondly, I'm not sure if we've yet got the technology to put him back together again.

              I have the impression that reassembly is a bit lower on the list of priorities so that's is not really an issue as such..

  14. Richard 12 Silver badge

    He still doesn't understand "Rule of Law"

    He clearly thinks that there are people to whom the law does not apply. The usual name for that is "despotism" or "rule of power" - and is clearly anathema to everything the organisation he started has ever stood for.

    It doesn't matter whether Sweden drop all charges and cancel the arrest warrant.

    He deliberately skipped bail, and must suffer the consequences of that.

    Ecuador just wanted to embarrass us, so they won - but then have hosted him for far longer than they must have expected. They must be sick of him by now!

    That's probably why the Met aren't posted outside anymore, likely they now have an agreement that they'll be notified before he leaves in plenty of time for an officer to walk up and put a friendly hand on Julian's shoulder.

  15. Jay 2

    Go and never darken our shores again

    As soon as he steps out he should be arrested for jumping bail, then as fast as possible processed for that crime then deported (with a nice stamp in his passport to say don't come back) to wherever... unless the Swedes still want him under a European warrant, then they can have him.

    1. Bota

      Re: Go and never darken our shores again

      Oh do stfu, you're talking like the guy committed war crimes. He exposed war crimes.

      What's so morally superior about Blighty anyway?

      1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

        Re: Go and never darken our shores again

        He exposed war crimes.

        Bota,

        Got any evidence for that? I don't remember Wikileaks exposing any war crimes. The diplomatic cables were very interesting, but told us little new, I'm presuming most intelligent people already know that diplomats have to talk to some rather unpleasant people - and aren't always complimentary about everyone. We did learn a few useful things, though it probably did some mild damage to the process of diplomacy - there is often good reason why this stuff is done quietly. I'd say a score draw.

        The Afghanistan stuff as I recall didn't reveal anything interesting. It talked about some incidents where NATO bombing had killed civillians, that were already known about. But did reveal the names of some low level intelligence sources, mostly villagers on the ground. Allegedly Assange is supposed to have said when asked to redact their names to protect them that they were informers so fuck 'em. Nice chap. That's not a score for wikileaks. They revealed potentially sensitive information on innocent people caught in the middle of a war (not of their making), and risked their lives for no significant gain.

        And the only thing I can remmeber from Iraq was the "collaterol murder" video. Which definitely wasn't a war crime, since the people that helicopter engaged were part of an armed group. Admittedly they saw a camera poking round a corner, mistook it for an RPG, panicked a bit and fired. Either that or the pilots were bloody good actors. But there was no reason to think that they didn't genuinely believe they were about to be fired at by an RPG, and so they returned fire. That was an accident, not a war crime, by any sensible definition. Wikileaks then blotted their copybook by releasing an edited version, which edited out the bit afterwards where the group's weapons were shown, though to be fair they also released the unedited footage, so it's not like they were trying that hard to hide it.

        So I'd say, he's not the messiah. He's a very naughty boy...

        1. Bota

          Re: Go and never darken our shores again

          And the only thing I can remmeber from Iraq was the "collaterol murder" video. Which definitely wasn't a war crime

          In an June 7, 2010, article in The New Yorker, Raffi Khatchadourian addressed several issues involved in determining the legality of the attacks, including "proportionality", "positive identification" ("reasonable certainty" that the target has hostile intent), and "the treatment of casualties during an ongoing military operation".[111] Mark Taylor, an expert on international law and a director at the Fafo Institute for International Studies in Norway, has stated that there is "a case to be made that a war crime may have been committed

          Nice try.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Go and never darken our shores again

            In an June 7, 2010, article in The New Yorker, Raffi Khatchadourian addressed several issues involved in determining the legality of the attacks, including "proportionality", "positive identification" ("reasonable certainty" that the target has hostile intent), and "the treatment of casualties during an ongoing military operation".[111] Mark Taylor, an expert on international law and a director at the Fafo Institute for International Studies in Norway, has stated that there is "a case to be made that a war crime may have been committed

            .. none of which has had any bearing on any document released through Wikileaks. Whatever conclusion that article came to, none of that was based on data provided by Wikileaks. For all the noise, one single person called Snowden has done more to highlight issues than the whole of Wikileaks. Basically, I have found Wikileaks seriously underwhelming, more like Wikidrips, really, and being headed by this clown in the Ecuadorian embassy has not exactly helped either.

            1. Bota

              Re: Go and never darken our shores again

              .. none of which has had any bearing on any document released through Wikileaks. Whatever conclusion that article came to, none of that was based on data provided by Wikileaks. >> it was based on the video released by Wiki-leaks.

              Amusing you keep trying to de-rail the conversation with "facts".

          2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

            Re: Go and never darken our shores again

            Bota,

            Thanks for your reply. An interesting and well balanced New Yorker article: link here

            As you say, Raffi Khatchadourian does address whether there was a war crime. I'll point out that he's a journalist, and so no more an expert on the matter than I am. Nor does he quote any expert sources to back up his opinion. But he does say:

            Assange saw these events in sharply delineated moral terms, yet the footage did not offer easy legal judgments. In the month before the video was shot, members of the battalion on the ground, from the Sixteenth Infantry Regiment, had suffered more than a hundred and fifty attacks and roadside bombings, nineteen injuries, and four deaths; early that morning, the unit had been attacked by small-arms fire. The soldiers in the Apache were matter-of-fact about killing and spoke callously about their victims, but the first attack could be judged as a tragic misunderstanding. The attack on the van was questionable—the use of force seemed neither thoughtful nor measured—but soldiers are permitted to shoot combatants, even when they are assisting the wounded, and one could argue that the Apache’s crew, in the heat of the moment, reasonably judged the men in the van to be assisting the enemy. Phase three may have been unlawful, perhaps negligent homicide or worse. Firing missiles into a building, in daytime, to kill six people who do not appear to be of strategic importance is an excessive use of force. This attack was conducted with scant deliberation, and it is unclear why the Army did not investigate it.

            The first attack is the one that kills the journalists and the armed group with them. The second is when they attack people that have gone to help after the first - some of whom I remember as being armed. The third attack is a Hellfire missile strike on a building that I don't remember from the video:

            Assange had decided to exclude the Hellfire incident from the film; the attack lacked the obvious human dimension of the others, and he thought that viewers might be overloaded with information.

            And I guess that explains why. So it's possible the bit they cut out does show a war crime. I'd have to see it. That certainly looks like a breach of the rules of engagement - at least it would be for the air force. But helicopters are counted as ground forces, so may operate under different rules of engagement. Air strikes tend to be either planned, or called in by ground controllers - whereas this helicopter was operating independently as a sort of flank guard for an operation a few streets away.

            So thanks for the article. I learned something. I'd agree that the footage could have been helpful in improving the public debate, although I'd question the way it was used by Wikileaks. But it certainly wasn't an example of some sinister cover-up of major war crimes. And the fact that Wikileaks put the spotlight on a military incident that should have been investigated doesn't let Assange off scot free when he should be investigated for serious allegations of rape.

            I'll end with a nice (and highly relevant) quote from the New Yorker piece:

            a deeper question that WikiLeaks must address: What is it about? The Web site’s strengths—its near-total imperviousness to lawsuits and government harassment—make it an instrument for good in societies where the laws are unjust. But, unlike authoritarian regimes, democratic governments hold secrets largely because citizens agree that they should, in order to protect legitimate policy. In liberal societies, the site’s strengths are its weaknesses. Lawsuits, if they are fair, are a form of deterrence against abuse. Soon enough, Assange must confront the paradox of his creation: the thing that he seems to detest most—power without accountability—is encoded in the site’s DNA, and will only become more pronounced as WikiLeaks evolves into a real institution.

  16. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: ᗅᗺᗷᗅ

      Isn't it the land of "Saga Norén, Länskrim, Malmö" these days?

      Depends on which side of the bridge she's working :). Fantastically played role, btw.

  17. JonnyBravo

    In reference to the picture caption: "Fail: Any technically-adept crim could read crime reports submitted through the Met's “secure” online portal"

    O RLY.

  18. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    "If Assange is indeed willing to give himself up to Police he risks the fate he's long declared intolerable and unjust."

    He risks a worse fate than that. Being ignored.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Only the UN could rule a alleged sex offender skipping bail of their own volition is being unlawfully detained.

  20. Creslin

    Its not "rape" as almost every other nation understands

    Assange is accused with continuing consensual sex for less 1 than minute after the condom came off "mid-flow" and was asked to stop.

    This is classed as rape in Sweden, but even there a very minor variant that would not normally warrant such after-the-fact attention, lest alone an international extradition request.

    To think this case is criminal/justice focused and not political over-reach is short-sighted, in my humble opinion

    1. Scorchio!!
      FAIL

      Re: Its not "rape" as almost every other nation understands

      "This is classed as rape in Sweden, but even there a very minor variant that would not normally warrant such after-the-fact attention, lest alone an international extradition request."

      It's been pointed out a few times that a senior British police officer has already indicated that Assange would be charged in this country for his alleged deed, so no you are wrong. I'll dig up the cite and link if you hold me to it.

    2. SolidSquid

      Re: Its not "rape" as almost every other nation understands

      From what I recall the reason it was considered rape (or a variant of it) was that she had given consent on the condition that he wear a condom. If he continued despite knowing the condom had been removed or removed it himself without her agreeing (which was what I'd originally heard) that would mean that condition had been broken and it would no longer be considered consensual, even if she hadn't been aware until the end, and would be considered a crime in the UK as well.

      I'm sure there was also an accusation that he had sex with her again after she was asleep, when she would be unable to give consent and so would be considered rape pretty much anywhere

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Its not "rape" as almost every other nation understands

        My recollection is similar to yours. If this is the actual basis of the complaints against him they are both very dubious.

        Consent cannot be like a contract with specific terms and conditions by both parties because it can be withdrawn at any time and consent is not forced just because one party did everything that they had agreed. You can think of many promises that someone may make which turn out not to be fulfilled does this make the sex that results rape (or if the 'victim' is a man - sexual assault)? Does any deviation from prior agreement also become rape? The protection against abuse is that consent may be withdrawn at any time. Interestingly none of the reports that I remember say that consent was withdrawn.

        The sleep issue is similar. Consent does not last forever and consent cannot be given while asleep but consent given late at night could reasonably assumed to continue early into the morning. The protection is again that it can be withdrawn at any time and once again none of the media sources say that this occured.

        Overall the swedish actions seemed very suspicious but what is beyond any doubt is that Assange broke his bail costing his friends a lot of money when he broke his promises. Whatever the merits or otherwise of the swedish cases this makes him a serious sh*t.

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "I am the Law"

    So it is he who dictates whether the British police can arrest him or not, even if he had jumped bail and is a criminal.

    I have doubts that he did things for the "good of the world", all I see is a selfish, self-obsessed moron.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Accept arrest

    But it's only fair they give him a 2 minute head start.

    Coming ready or not! *

    Cue: Yakety Sax

    * No pun intended.

  23. Bota

    Gentlemen put away your pitchforks

    It's fairly obvious to even the casual observer that any charges against him are political in origin, I'm not saying he didn't do anything wrong - I wasn't there. The fact that the original claimants have gone on record to say that actually they knew it was consensual etc yet charges persisted anyway, should make things more than crystal to you all.

    If you want to talk about countries bending the rule of law for US sensitivities look at Kim Dot com, he's lost his family, his business, his fortune and he's going to be extradited to the US for "most likely" life in prison. He refused to back door his business and then got the back door.

    Julian, whatever his actual real life deeds gave us (the plebs) a glimpse of American psychopathy, and we should be grateful for that. That people are on here acting like witch burners from the dark ages is sad. Mob justice isn't justice.

    To summarize: 2 individuals that were shown to be "persons of interest" to the US both ended up getting the shaft. It isn't rocket science.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Gentlemen put away your pitchforks

      It's fairly obvious to even the casual observer that any charges against him are political in origin, ...

      No not obvious to me and certainly not the charge of "Failing to attend court on time as required" to which he is almost indisputably guilty.

      If you want to talk about countries bending the rule of law for ... that were shown to be "persons of interest" to the US both ended up getting the shaft. It isn't rocket science.

      Really? Sweden the country to which Assange had originally decided to apply for residence on the basis of their laws prohibiting extradition on the basis of "a political offense" or "an offense connected with a political offense".

      1. Bota

        Re: Gentlemen put away your pitchforks

        No not obvious to me and certainly not the charge of "Failing to attend court on time as required" to which he is almost indisputably guilty. >> See "wikileaks", and when did you pass the bar?

        Really? Sweden the country to which Assange had originally decided to apply for residence on the basis of their laws prohibiting extradition on the basis of "a political offense" or "an offense connected with a political offense". >> the UK and US don't legally fly rendition flights to torture sites all over the world "legally" either. What's on paper is seldom what happens when you're an enemy of the "most powerful" country on Earth.

        I imagine you also think torture followed by a life sentence for Manning was "just" and Snowden is a "traitor"?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Gentlemen put away your pitchforks @Bola

          It is on record that Assange jumped bail .. whilst I have not passed the bar I really cannot see a court giving this one a 'not guilty'. Can you?

          As you say the UK and US fly rendition flights. The UK being one of the countries Assange tried to stay in rather than return to Sweden. This being the most inconsistent behaviour by Assange given his stated fear that the US were planning his extradition. This is even more inconsistent given that (and I repeat) Sweden has laws prohibiting extradition on the basis of "a political offense" or "an offense connected with a political offense".

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Gentlemen put away your pitchforks

      The fact that the original claimants have gone on record to say that actually they knew it was consensual etc yet charges persisted anyway, should make things more than crystal to you all.

      I would be interested in a link to a reliable source where this is stated, because that's not quite what I recall of what happened. Assange was asked to get himself tested, which any sensible man with a shred of ethics would have done after an issue with condoms. He decided not to do so (any amount of assumptions can be made here, including potentially already knowing of an STD), and that's how it turned into a full blown (sorry) rape case instead of ending there and then.

      I would not be surprised if any of the girls has tested positive for a nasty, and that that forms the real reason why St Jules fled as quickly as possible. If that comes out it's pretty much over for Jumping Jules, and, to be honest, it's about the only theory I can come up with that explains why he has not tried to brazen it out in court. It's also worth noting that not a single note has been heard of the girls involved.

      But, in absence of facts, this too is but a theory.

      Julian, whatever his actual real life deeds gave us (the plebs) a glimpse of American psychopathy

      Really? I'm frankly astonished by the sage wisdom of the Americans involved here because they just left him to his own devices, which turned out to be the smartest decision they have ever made, the guy is perfectly capable of digging his own holes. I cannot see any American wanting to give the guy any credibility by going after him, he's just not worth it.

      The only psychopathy I have seen so far is a pathological liar who will do anything, really *anything* to avoid having to face the consequences of his own actions, and I'm glad that ride is almost over.

  24. NBCanuck

    Wil be glad to have him out of the news

    My preferred outcome to all of this:

    1) He gets the max time for skipping bail (pretty hard to be found "not guilty" on this one).

    2) Sweden has their trial. Either outcome is bad for him. Obviously so if found guilty, but also if found not guilty as it means he wasted years, potentially for nothing

    3) He publishes the book he has probably been writing and no one buys it.

    4 He goes on to be completely irrelevant, ignored and forgotten.

    Other opinions may vary.

    1. Desidero

      Re: Wil be glad to have him out of the news

      Either that or he continues his work at Wikileaks and documents how the US + UK bollocksed their way to the rise of ISIS and the EU's refugee crisis - that report would be worth 12.5m quid in bobby fees all by its lonesome. The story behind a decade of groundless attacks against Iran would be bonus.

      1. Bota

        Re: Wil be glad to have him out of the news

        Be careful, the thought policed mob scene here will be relentlessly down voting you.

        In advance of that, have an upvote from me.

        1. Sir Runcible Spoon

          Re: Wil be glad to have him out of the news

          "Be careful, the thought policed mob scene here will be relentlessly down voting you."

          I'm not sure you've really grasped how the comments section on here works. You see, it is entirely possible for an intelligent human being to hold many conflicting views simultaneously. It is also possible to have a nuanced view of a situation/person.

          For example, it is possible to appreciate some of the work that Assange has contributed to in the past, yet totally abhor the way he has gone about his defense in this scenario.

          I can also think that his published behaviors and attitudes could cast some doubt as to his motives for all his endeavours (both good and bad).

          The one thing that I am remembering right now is that a legal fund was set up through Wikileaks to help Bradley Manning. I don't recall that ever being sent to the poor sod when he was being held, naked, in isolation with charge or trial in the US.

          I've lost interest in his actions, and I think he's a total arsehole. He might, conceivably, be hiding even more motives deep down that could end up showing him in a better light and thus redeem himself within the eyes of the educated commentards on El Reg - but I'm not going to be holding my breath!

          1. Bota

            Re: Wil be glad to have him out of the news

            I'll bite,due to the interesting and thought provoking response on your part.

            I'm not sure you've really grasped how the comments section on here works. >> let's aim for a little less condescending overtones next time shall we?

            You see, it is entirely possible for an intelligent human being to hold many conflicting views simultaneously.>> double think you mean? Or do you mean that situations/ events aren't only one dimensional and hold a wide array of variables upon which we can draw different conclusions depending on the current frame of reference?

            It is also possible to have a nuanced view of a situation/person. >> I also think he's a bit of a c**t, truth be told. However, the work he has done politically will have him spoken about for decades. Who will remember you? It's easy for us to judge those with bigger foot steps, and knowledge = power, he had/has a lot. He went from a jobless nobody hacker in Oz, to a vocal mouth piece against one of the largest powers the world has ever seen. For that alone he gets my respect. Did Michael Jackson do something immoral with the children in his care? Maybe, but Thriller is still one of the greatest albums ever made.

            I can also think that his published behaviors and attitudes could cast some doubt as to his motives for all his endeavors (both good and bad). >> irrelevant to me, he provided knowledge, most notably about the illegal invasion of Iraq and most recently about the TPP which about to fist f**k us all.

            The one thing that I am remembering right now is that a legal fund was set up through Wikileaks to help Bradley Manning. I don't recall that ever being sent to the poor sod when he was being held, naked, in isolation with charge or trial in the US. >> no amount of money could of saved him, I'm sure of that. There is also the fact that VISA cancelled payment transactions for Wikileaks.

            I've lost interest in his actions >> So why are you commenting?

            Whether you take my comments at face value or not is no business of mine, however, I read your comments and agree with a small % of what you stated. In the future though, if you want to have a discussion with me then approach me with a sense of equality, not projecting a pseudo-asynchronous mis-balance of intellect. I may not express myself the way "you like", that's the beauty of so called free speech. Either that or ignore me, it's your choice.

            1. Sir Runcible Spoon

              Re: Wil be glad to have him out of the news

              @Bota, I appreciate the response, but I can't help but feel you've taken its intent and tone as some kind of put-down; nothing of the sort was intended.

              Don't forget that I was only responding because you made a disparaging remark about the posters on this forum, of which I am one; a very generalized and presumptuous remark if I may say so (imho).

              I'm not entirely certain we are on different wavelengths in our views, but it looks like we are poles apart in our manner of communication.

              For what it's worth, I treat everyone as an equal, even if they are making valiant efforts to prove otherwise (not directed at you, just in case you think it is).

              1. Bota

                Re: Wil be glad to have him out of the news

                @Bota, I appreciate the response, but I can't help but feel you've taken its intent and tone as some kind of put-down; nothing of the sort was intended. >> Water under the bridge.

                The other issue I have is that wikileaks were instrumental in getting Snowden safely out of Hong Kong to a safe place of asylum. If you're hesitant with Assange (most are) then what about his work with Snowden? Or should everyone just "play by the rules" and we call all forget about over reach/ corruption/ murder by various powers?

                1. Sir Runcible Spoon

                  Re: Wil be glad to have him out of the news

                  "If you're hesitant with Assange (most are) then what about his work with Snowden?"

                  A good point, and anything Assange had to do with getting Snowden safe is definitely in the plus side of his ledger in my opinion.

                  He does like to load the negative side up though doesn't he? :)

  25. Anonymous John

    If the Americans want him, why haven't they tried to extradite him from the UK?

    1. Bota

      Because he's not "in the UK" he's in the Ecuadorian embassy which is classed as sovereign land.

      1. Lee D

        *MEMEMEMERRRRRR*

        Wrong.

        No such thing in law or otherwise. It's merely international convention not to intrude on a nation's embassy.

        1. Tempest

          Diplomatic representation is by Treaty ...

          which is why the USA allowed the Japanese diplomats to sail back home after Pearl Harbour - another, earlier, demonstration of US incompetency.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      If the Americans want him, why haven't they tried to extradite him from the UK?

      Ssssh - don't ask perfectly logical questions. Apparently it upsets some conspiracy theorists here :)

      1. Bota

        Can't decide if trolling or just like staying anom?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Can't decide if trolling or just like staying anom?

          Not mutually exclusive options :)

  26. Tempest
    WTF?

    Assange and Snowden have more guts than most. Period.

    Both the USA and Britain have no moral grounds to stand on - the USA promoting torture and casting aside international law and invading countries whilst Britain, trying to demonstrate it's 'prowess', follows along sniffing the USA's nether quarters.

    Britain and the USA have breached international agreements and treaties with their governments playing the Three Monkeys Game. They have broken the trust that is supposed to exist between the voters and the voted. They spy on the population as if we are terrorists, or whatever. They strip us of our privacy and the mentally-challenged May thinks it is fine and gives them billions of Pounds to GCHQ and the MI mob to carry on.

    The employees of these agencies have been at it so long they wouldn't recognise a moral if it hit them in the face.

    But Snowden, regardless of his personal safety and freedom, knee-capped the US government that had few coherent justifications for it's activities. That past-retirement Clapper lied, in Congress and on TV, asserting the US government didn't do mass communications tapping. Not once but twice or more - outright lies which he maintained even though he was offered opportunities to retract ot 'correct the record'.

    And Assange is equally as committed to honesty in government by allegedly exposing the lies protected by secrecy. If these lies were supportable by fact, things might be different. The charges being sought by Sweden have, at different times, been renounced by the women involved. How many Register readers have struck it 'lucky' only to have their sexual partner express regrets?

    And who knows of the underhanded US government agencies didn't set him up like they have with so many including Martin Luther King. The FBI is an expert in framing people, look at their laughable record of security and the staged 'terrorism' events that serve only to increase the myth of the FBI.

    There is no defence for what the UK and the USA have done and are doing. I am sure Her Majesty wouldn't condone the castration of Kenyan POWs in Her name.

    What Assange is offering takes bravery - given that he is essentially at the mercy of these governments ... and Sweden. How many of you envy his position?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Assange and Snowden have more guts than most. Period.

      Snowden, yes, Assange, not so much.

      Calling Assange brave is a serious insult to people who really risk their lives every day for what they hold as right.

    2. Bota

      Re: Assange and Snowden have more guts than most. Period.

      In a sea of anom cowards, you say what you feel is right. For that, have an upvote.

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Assange knows how to manipulate the media

    Mr. insignificant sure knows how to manipulate the media for self-serving benefits.

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 © 1998–2022