Assange fails to make skipped bail arrest warrant vanish "Mr Assange is not present at court today," said the judge who denied the cupboard-dwelling WikiLeaker's latest bid to make legal proceedings against him go away. The judgment, handed down this afternoon by the Chief Magistrate of England and Wales, confirmed that the arrest warrant issued in 2012 against Assange for skipping …
Indeed, regardless of guilt or otherwise in the Swedish case, it was his choice to run, his decision.
From the article: Assange, reason 4. Spending 5½ years at the embassy is “adequate, if not severe, punishment” for the actions he took.
By this argument, people are allowed to choose where they spend their custodial sentences. I don't see that being allowed to become legal precedent. However if it does, then when I finally decide to take action against those who piss me off on a daily basis, I choose to spend the entirety of my sentence in a 5-star hotel in the Caribbean with a staffed BlackJack table and on-site brothel facilities. And a pool.
Great, as long as you can pay for their services and the endless supply of condoms...
Yeah the argument is flawed.
The underlying argument is "how would you like this to go away and the tosser to leave and to never be allowed to come back in to the country?"
Assange is destined to lose. He out hid the charges against him in Sweden, but I don't know if there's a statute for jumping bail.
He could just turn himself in and actually get better accommodations. Note: It would be a down grade except that he'll now have access to an outside yard and free medical benefits.
"By this argument, people are allowed to choose where they spend their custodial sentences."
Indeed, but you must remember that, in Assange land, one is not only allowed to choose how and where a sentence is served, but also the medium in which case police interviews and court cases are conducted!
By this argument, people are allowed to choose where they spend their custodial sentences. I don't see that being allowed to become legal precedent.
Precisely. He isn't being held in an actual prison then he isn't being held is the legal standard; being on the lamb in South America doesn't count else Ronnie Biggs would have never served time when he landed back in the UK; it doesn't count as time served and arguing it does is completely absurd. Sooner Assange realises this the sooner he'll be out of prison and deported to Australia so he can be deported to the US. If you're gonna fuck with legal systems at least learn how to do it right, be in a non-extradition country before you do it.
"it is for the accused to prove he has reasonable cause for his failure to surrender... Mr Assange failed to surrender to custody." ..... Senior District Judge Emma Arbuthnot, the Chief Magistrate
Surely the fact that he is still being persecuted/prosecuted long after removal of disputed facts, is grounds enough for reasonable cause that justice has not and is not being served and servered by judges?
He skipped bail. Now that the Swedish case has been closed, he is only wanted in the UK for skipping bail. What would you suggest? The evidence on him skipping bail is distinctly one sided so he would still need to serve his time.
He was named in a European Arrest Warrant. He was duly arrested, and bailed. He skipped bail. Skipping bail is a crime. He doesn't dispute any of those facts.
The underlying prosecution in Sweden has been paused as not a meaningful use of time while he's hiding away in his little cupboard. It hasn't been withdrawn or hit any sort of statute of limitations.
So no disputed facts have been withdrawn at any level, and he doesn't dispute having committed a crime.
That's a circular argument though, so he can't use it.
He's currently being pursued because he jumped bail. He needs to show that he had reasonable cause to jump bail, you can't then point at the result of you jumping bail as 'proof'.
Irregardless, I don't think that line of argument is likely to fly anyway. Even if an extradition request to the US were then to appear, he'd have had a right to challenge it, so the other side will argue that jumping bail still wasn't reasonable.
So he'd need to show a reasonable likelihood of a 'dodgy' removal to the US, which he's probably not going to be able to do. Even the rumours of the sealed indictment would ordinarily result in a formal extradition request rather than a snatch.
Just a nit... being a grammar Nazi... the word is regardless not irregardless. ;-)
But I digress.
If the US wants him, they will nail him in Australia and not in the UK. The Aussies will gladly hand him over without the red tape.
Assange will then be forced to talk about what he knows about the DNC hack and who his source really was in exchange for a lighter sentence over his alleged involvement in the Manning hack. (Why did you think he was afraid of the US in the first place? ) [See Manning's Article 32 hearing transcripts. ]
"Assange will then be forced to talk about what he knows about the DNC hack and who his source really was in exchange for a lighter sentence over his alleged involvement in the Manning hack."
The Australian judge who convicted him on 25 counts did warn him that next time he would serve a custodial sentence. Failure to talk could result in an even worse sentence too. One of those 'Max' prisons I hear so much about. He could even share a landing with that Muslim terrorist we sent over there; 'the hook', who apparently would far rather serve time in Belmarsh, which the civil rights mob here thing is so 'nathty'.
> Just a nit... being a grammar Nazi... the word is regardless not irregardless. ;-)
> But I digress
Please. Know apologies necessary. Its nonacceptable for they're post their too contain sew many errors. If your just going to let it slide, its going to be dog's living with cat's.
I've always seen it play out one of two ways, Asange goes back to Sweden and nothing happens or he gets deported to Oz and the Aussies hands him over on platter.
I'm not sure these is any circumstances that Sweden would hand assange over to the US.
I base this off the fact of a US airman that went awol and illegally entered Sweden and Sweden to this day refuse hand him over.
"I'm not sure these is any circumstances that Sweden would hand assange over to the US.
I base this off the fact of a US airman that went awol and illegally entered Sweden and Sweden to this day refuse hand him over."
Sweden does not extradite to the US for 'political crimes'. That includes espionage, going AWOL, etc.
Sweden was the second most common destination after Canada for those dodging the Vietnam draft (after canada because of its proximity) because of this.
In 1992 the *ONLY* CIA officer to defect to the USSR was arrested in Sweden and the US requested extradition. Sweden refused and let him go, because espionage is a 'political crime'. Do note that the President at the Time - Bush Senior - was Vice president at the time of the defection (85) and was a former CIA director. To say Bush had an interest in the case was an understatement.
And Assange knows this. In fact in his press conference to announce he was applying for Swedish residency in the summer of 2010 (just days before the first alleged sexual assault) he specifically mentioned that the inability of the US to extradite him from Sweden for 'political crimes' was a major factor in his decision to move there.
Funny how he conveniently forgot that bit on his website touting his Swedish extradition to the US fantasies...
Just a nit... being a grammar Nazi... the word is regardless not irregardless. ;-)
Trouble with grammar Nazis is they're almost always wrong. Irregardless is a valid word in English, whilst being strange at a technical level it is completely legitimate to use.
Also there's no such thing as Standard English which is precisely why English is such a great language, it evolves; in contrast to for example French. Hell, English is born of evolution.
This post has been deleted by its author
Very suspect how 98% of the comments on here originate by the same IP address.
As most people know, quite simply Assange went into exile due to the threats to his life made by an administration rife with corruption and whom know no bounds. It would not be right for Assange to have gambled his life by submitting to a bail condition where there was the possibility of risk to life. Active threats to his life were made by key figureheads within the US administration, this was not mere speculation.
Given the current Nunes upheaval only adding further weight to the nightmare that is the US justice system, it is undeniable that Assange had a justified basis to fear them. Given the conduct of the incarceration he has thus far endured and all the phases the process has traversed, it is Res ipsa loquitur that the UK have at best, played fast and loose with the rules without regard for the welfare of Assange or recognition that the evidence of the originating claim has been proven bogus.
Instead, the synthetic commentary hopes to divert us to the simple fact that due to a proposed bail offence, the basis of which being unlawful, therefore he deserves it, one would be forgiven for thinking the comments system is ran by the Clinton foundation. The facts of the matter seem to be, most of the comments show knee jerk reactionaries with zero knowledge of the whole affair. This is nothing less than a damning indictment of UK law enforcement and CPS conduct.
@The People
Very suspect how 98% of the comments on here originate by the same IP address.
What utter bollocks. Where would you get that information from?
As most people know, quite simply Assange went into exile due to the threats to his life made by an administration rife with corruption and whom know no bounds. It would not be right for Assange to have gambled his life by submitting to a bail condition where there was the possibility of risk to life. Active threats to his life were made by key figureheads within the US administration, this was not mere speculation.
Even more bollocks. At the time that Assange chose to break UK law and skip bail, there were no threats against him from the US administration.
This is nothing less than a damning indictment of UK law enforcement and CPS conduct.
And finally, BOLLOCKS!
> Very suspect how 98% of the comments on here originate by the same IP address.
Start your comment with a crock, that'll help establish your credibility.....
Others have already pointed out just how broken and wrong the rest of your comment is, so I won't repeat it
Still not taking your meds? ;-)
The law is that if someone posts bond, you do a runner, you're guilty of jumping bail and they forfeit the bail money.
You get caught, you're going straight to jail and do your time for jumping bail, regardless if everything else pans out.
Assange created his own mess. Now he has to live with it.
Surely the fact that he is still being persecuted/prosecuted long after removal of disputed facts, is grounds enough for reasonable cause that justice has not and is not being served and servered by judges?
1) Would that be a Linux or Windows server?
2) They have not actually dropped the charges against him. To quote the Swedish prosecutor "“If he, at a later date, makes himself available, I will be able to decide to resume the investigation immediately.”. Thus once he is winkled out of his broom cupboard the UK could then notify Swedish authorities (or US ones, according to your taste in conspiracy theories), and say "Here he is, would you like him gift-wrapped?".
"(or US ones, according to your taste in conspiracy theories)"
Just to make sure no one gets the wrong idea; it's been made abundantly clear that under the terms of the EAW prisoners cannot be extradited to a third party, e.g. the USA. However, and as we have both said over years now, in fleeing to the UK (after his counsel advised him that the Swedish police intended to interview and charge him, per Swedish due process) Assange in fleeing to the UK placed himself in greater risk, simply because one T Blair signed an agreement with G Bush that technically allows for swift extradition... ...tho' with offenders who have a diagnosis of ASD (Aspergers variant) this seems not to happen. Perhaps Julie could say he has Aspergers syndrome? Hur.
Long time no see. :-)
There are two things.
If Assange surrenders for jumping bail, it gives Sweden time to see if they still want him. Assuming that they don't, then the UK will toss him back to Australia. Technically they can send him anywhere but because he's been a tool and cost the UK $$$$$ in police hours... They'll most likely toss him back to Australia.
What happens next is going to be interesting.
1) Will Australia let him out?
Australia can take his Aussie passport away.
2) Will they allow him to leave using his Ecuador passport?
If he does, could the Aussies bar him from returning? He's no longer traveling on an Aussie passport ...
3) Does the US really want him?
So far nothing has popped up, but that doesn't matter.
If the US wants him... they'll nail him in Australia when he lands. No chance to clear customs and jump a flight to Ecuador ...
I think that was implied. The point was that the UK could say get out and leave never to come back. Or they could say... you came to us on an Aussie passport, so back to Australia you go.
Most likely they'll send him back to Australia who has to take him...
If memory serves, two of the charges have past their statute of limitations. If only Sweden allowed to be charged in abstentia... then all would be right in the world.
The third charge had a longer statute of limitations so he could theoretically be on the hook for that. However as time goes on... the victims will want to put this behind them if they haven't already and move on.
So the likelihood of Sweden grabbing him? Less and Less each day. Assange knows this. His bet is that if he can get the UK to drop the jumping bail charges, he can scurry out of the Embassy to Ecuador before anyone is the wiser and laugh at everyone. If he goes to the UK for jumping bail... it gives time for the Swedes to consider their options.
The US won't touch him in the UK. They will wait until he's back in Australia. You can bet the UK won't let him choose where he goes when he gets the boot. He's going back to mama.
Th US won't touch him anyway.
They'd like to, but there's too much risk for too little payoff. Even in the post Trump era of "fake news", the press still has the power to make life distinctly uncomfortable for politicians and even if they all hate him, letting Assange go down for receiving the Manning files would be massively against their interests.
An extradition from Australia or the UK would have political fallout for closely allied governments. Not necessarily a deal breaker, but when the chances of conviction are slim to none it's a big price to pay.
Mr Assange should probably assume his travel plans can't include any US destinations for the forseeable future, but unless he's done something other than what we know and he thinks the US can prove it, he's got zero chance of getting extradited.
Julian Assange's biggest worry is that the US won't extradite him and he'll be rendered even more irrelevant.
If memory serves, two of the charges have past their statute of limitations. If only Sweden allowed to be charged in abstentia... then all would be right in the world.
For those readers from the US or other jurisdictions
In the UK limitations on criminal acts are very limited (and to magistrates courts)
a magistrates’ court shall not try an information or hear a complaint unless the information was laid, or the complaint made, within 6 months from the time when the offence was committed, or the matter of complaint arose.
Unless the prosecution made a very big blunder, which does not appear to have happened here, there is no apparent limitation. In addition, the director of public prosecutions can override a time bar on any offence. And limiting bail in this way would be a 'get out of jail free' sticker for too many crims.
"If memory serves, two of the charges have past their statute of limitations. If only Sweden allowed to be charged in abstentia... then all would be right in the world."
Can't find Swedish rules. In California, for example, the clock for "statute of limitations" stops running in many cases when you leave the country. So it is quite likely that statute of limitations doesn't apply to Assange.
"In California, for example, the clock for "statute of limitations" stops running in many cases when you leave the country."
It also stops if you end up incarcerated anywhere. An episode of Dragnet had this very fact as a legal issue in the case for that episode (1970 season, involved someone about to be paroled and whether or not to extradite the person to California for 14-year-old offenses where the statute of limitations was postponed due to the previous imprisonment).
"Surely the fact that he is still being persecuted/prosecuted long after removal of disputed facts, is grounds enough for reasonable cause that justice has not and is not being served and servered by judges?"
Skipping bail is an offence in its own right. The magistrate lays out the law quite clearly in the judgement.
Surely the fact that he is still being persecuted/prosecuted long after removal of disputed facts, is grounds enough for reasonable cause that justice has not and is not being served and servered by judges?
When did you stop beating your husband?
No; he has not been prosecuted, and he cannot be excused, else every bail jumper in the UK will cite him as precedent. This cannot be allowed, but thank you for playing and using Assange logic.
the fact that he is still being persecuted/prosecuted long after removal of disputed facts
In what universe is he still being persecuted/prosecuted after removal of the facts? The ONLY case currently against him is that he jumped bail, a fact which remains entirely true and is not disputed in any way.
Surely the fact that he is still being persecuted/prosecuted long after removal of disputed facts, is grounds enough for reasonable cause that justice has not and is not being served and servered by judges?
That he's a bail skipper isn't a disputed fact, and that's what he's wanted for - at least today - and that's all that matters. If people are allowed to hide until everybody forgets about them it brings the entire legal system into disrepute. Given the people who put up his bail were let off for being simpletons it's fairly important that he not get away with it for that and because explicitly he's high profile, which is to say it passes the test of being in the public interest to prosecute him for that alone.
Did he?
Sure. He wanted to avoid going to Sweden to face Rape Charges. If found guilty... he'd pretty much have been banned from most of Europe. (That and for being a prat)
But that's not enough to get the bail jumping tossed.
Note: He went to court 3 times to get the EAW rejected. He lost 0-3.
He then jumped bail.
Now he's going to face time in the UK prison system and then sent packing to Australia.
Note: While he has an Ecuadorian passport, he entered the UK as a Aussie so that's where he's going to be sent packing. (BTW, that's where his dear old mum resides and she plead to the Brits to allow her son to come home...)
The best thing for Assange is to get the Ecuadorian Staff to help sneak him out and on to a private flight out of the country. But most likely someone would snitch and he'd be caught. (No longer an Ecuadorian issue...) ;-)
"The best thing for Assange is to get the Ecuadorian Staff to help sneak him out and on to a private flight out of the country."
Applicable word being "sneak". There's only one, maybe two ways out of there (the building itself is ordinary and the plans can be obtained; only the one section of the upper floor has the diplomatic easement), and part of the expense so far is to guard against that very "sneaking out".
As for why he refuses to step outside? Because he's afraid of an Extraordinary Rendition or "unfortunate accident" the moment he's out of sight.
When I was in the UK (London) I walked by the area, not really knowing that was where he was hiding. I saw a bobby standing around... just thought it was normal since that was Embassy row.
They can sneak him out into an embassy car, so it can't be searched. But what then? Put him in a burlap sack marked as a diplomatic pouch? The watch him get loaded on a diplomatic jet and flown away?
I mean its possible, but I really can't see that happening.
What I could see happening is the staff packing his bags, putting him in a car, tricking him in to believing its an embassy car, then dropping a dime on his arse as he's on his way to London City airport.
"They can sneak him out into an embassy car, so it can't be searched."
The embassy does not have an attached garage (it's upstairs), and there's no diplomatic immunity between the embassy and the car (it passes public property). They know the ways in and out and will be suspicious of ANY goings from that place. And they can't unilaterally designate him a courier because the UK holds rejection power under the Diplomatic Privileges Act.
"They know the ways in and out and will be suspicious of ANY goings from that place."
Which is probably pissing off the embassy staff no end. 5 years of all their comings and goings being logged and checked. No secret assignations etc for them!
I think that they can easy spirit him out the embassy. Using my trusty Google Maps I can see that there is a clear method over the rooftop of the adjoining Colombian Embassy and a quick abseil down to the Harrods staff entrance and he can be on his way with none the wiser.
Of course the poor cat will have to stay behind.
No size limit, but the Vienna Convention does state that pouches are ONLY meant for documentation and other official diplomatic business. Meaning anything larger than a briefcase is going to attract attention, and anything large enough to hold a person is going to raise the suspicion of abusing diplomatic immunity, meaning the UK could insist on a search on those grounds (remember, the Diplomatic Privileges Act gives the UK a procedure by which to reject or revoke immunity), and if they turn out to be correct, that's not going to look good for Ecuador since they then risk the UK severing diplomatic relations, and if they're severed justifiably, they won't be able to count on solidarity from the rest of South America.
Out of interest, what would be considered reasonable grounds to jump bail?
I assume that serious illness would do it, but is there anything else?
(This isn't relevant to Assange, it's a bit late for him to claim he's seriously ill and that the Ecuadorian embassy is the only place he could be treated.)
Julian has been free to leave the Ecuadorian embassy at any point he chose in the last 5.5 years. It's self-imposed exile, not incarceration.
Okay, once he steps outside he gets arrested and has to answer for skipping bail (which may or may not have had a financial security posted and ultimately forfeit). After that is resolved they can talk about any other charges he may be required to face in the UK or elsewhere, and whether the UK should or should not extradite him to those places.
...someone is putting the old Mk1 eyeball on him there in the embassy. To know that he is still really there, and not on some south Pacific isle returning to his cabana to record interviews and clips that make it look like he's still there in the UK. White walls are pretty easy to erect, after all. And as long as he's careful to not get a tan he could pull it off.
Because that would be kind of funny, after all of this.
bail ... end of
What it would mean to the criminal justice system with asshole winning would be
"Run from bail long enough and we'll drop charges"
Yeah.. great result for our leaker in chief and scourge of the corrupt western democracies
Hey some scumbags broken into my flat, nicked all my PC/camera gear and microwaved my kitten... oh thats a relife hes been arrested, charged and bailed.....and done a runner..... hey whats this.. because of asshat setting a precident, and mr scumbag being on the run for 5 years, mr scumbag is going to be let off.....
And as I've pointed out many a time here, Assange would have spent less time in jail if sent to Sweden and convicted than hes spent in the embassy......
With perfect hindsight, I guess the smartest thing would have been to turn himself in at the Swedish embassy before being arrested by the British police. Sweden doesn't extradite for political offences, or for offences relating to political offences. I guess he was paranoid about what could happen to him in transit.
The smart thing to do would have been to turn up to the interview in Sweden instead of running away to the UK.
No, sorry, the smart thing to do would have been to not have sex without a condom in the first place.
(As far as I can tell he never disputed that part, just whether the woman had consented to it)
You can see where I, or rather he, is going with this? He only needs some regular visitors of similar stature and a talented MUA on a particularly dreary Thursday and he is gone. Next to get out of the country, but I am told that is not at all difficult.
Not that I am actually advocating two fingers up to the MPS and 5, but as a tax payer I do think resources would be better spent elsewhere. Plus for an Australian he is mighty pasty which cannot be good for him. Where he should actually reveal himself once out of Blighty I leave to him. I would think CIA will have less qualms about actions on the streets of Quito than those of good old London town.
Icon because, well, are you sure that is me?
Screw him, let him rot in there ....
Doesn't matter what his arguments are for skipping bail and hiding, that doesn't change the simple fact fact that he broke his bail conditions and decided to try and get away with it, never mind the fact that he's basically managed to (allegedly) get away with raping someone just by running away and refusing to face questioning.
Yes, we've all considered 'extraordinary rendition' and 'unfortunate accident'.
Problem is, he spent 600 days in the UK where he traveled a fixed route on foot, in a rural area, at a set time every single day (when he was reporting for bail). If there was going to be an extraordinary rendition, or an accident, it would have happened there and then.
Likewise with a US extradition request, which would have competed with the Swedish one (leading the Foreign office and the judiciary to come to a decision) at least right up until the final Supreme Court ruling, two days before he ran to the embassy which made the Swedish extradition final and permanent.
Also, more fun facts, every one else investigated by the [now disbanded] Grand Jury, has had no such fears, even though they did the actual work on the cables and videos, and didn't just write a press release. Some even visited the US in 2013 and had no problems, no arrests, etc.
If you have (or had) little kids, you'll understand the bedtime problem. Every time it's bedtime, there's something else that just came up that means they can't go to sleep; they're hungry, they want a glass of water, there's a monster under the bed, read them a story etc. The claims about the US are nothing but 'monster under the bed is going to eat me' claims.
I might accuse most of these senseless comments as originating form some sad Clinton foundation shill, however humouring the lack of intelligence I might respond simply to those who get carried along by such mindless tripe... NO!
Comparing Lauri to Assange shows either a desperate attempt at deceit, or a reckless act of ignorance. Know your subject!
I know Assange (tm) is a bit of an ass and it is de rigueur to take the mickey on el reg.
But I have no doubt that he is innocent of what he was charged and the whole thing was a set-up by various governments completely prepared to abuse their position of power to silence Wikileaks.
We all benefit from a press in which journalists are free from persecution.
Nuf sed, back to laughing at the narcissist who hasnt comeout of the closet.
Posting anonymously because I can.
Unfortunately a lot of people don't share your unflinching belief in his innocence or your willingness to don a tinfoil hat to justify his actions, I include myself in that group.
I would like to think I reserve my judgement based on evidence and testimony. All evidence I see so far is that he has broken UK law in jumping bail. He claims he did this to avoid some grand conspiracy but conveniently it enables him to avoid testimony or possibly evidence on other charges.
'bit of an ass' is the most flattering description I can think of. Criminal and fugitive from the UK courts would be more accurate and factual.
You missed something. That being the entire history of how Assange got to where he is.
How convenient , as you say, truth is you know nothing, yet sadly a comment is dispensed anyway.
Because these anti Assange comments show no insight beyond the most recent event being the bail predicament, many are left taking them at face value which is clearly the intent of the mass postings. The ignorance shown in these comments arouses the strongest suspicion as their very legitimacy. So one can only hope the proportion of ignorance displayed within these comments is not representative of the same percentile of the population of the UK. It is a very sad day indeed if that were true and the world would indeed be doomed.
I think you'll find that most of the people commenting on this story have been following it since the beginning, so a certain amount of foreknowledge is assumed when reading these posts.
Constantly accusing people of knowing nothing, yet not contributing any evidence as to what they don't know is deceitful.
So one can only hope the proportion of ignorance displayed within these comments is not representative of the same percentile of the population of the UK
No, I think you can safely say that it is not representative of the population as a whole, because most of the population are indeed ignorant of such matters.
'how Assange got to where he is' is immaterial.
A medical doctor can do an enormous amount of 'good' yet still commit a crime. Should that doctor avoid due process based on how he got to where he is? I know the law definitely does and I think most reasonable people would say no.
Not that I am directly comparing St Jules to a medical doctor of course, there is no comparison between the two.
Dismiss the point if you wish, as you dismiss other opposing opinions. You could try joining his defence team and present your 'argument' where it could actually make a difference. sadly though I think, if you were lucky, you would be laughed out of court.
"the whole thing was a set-up by various governments completely prepared to abuse their position of power to silence Wikileaks."
It hasn't silenced Wikileaks. Wikileaks is more than Assange.
In founding Wikileaks he did something great but I think that was the pinnacle.
Sweden is one of the least corrupt and most transparent countries in the world. In 2016 it ranked 4th when the UK ranked 10th.
If the USA was going to try to orchestrate something Sweden would not be the partner of choice. If fake charges are going to be created in order to get him into some place more accessible by the USA you'd want to use a country that has some degree of credibility but with an opaque and corruptible administration. What you and others suggest doesn't make sense.
What really happened is that Julian Assange allegedly sexually mistreated a partner in a way that is illegal in Sweden and then used his position and connections to avoid questioning and possible charges. Sounds a bit Weinsteiny to me...
https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016
When the Law is an Ass, and a Option not to be Exercised, are Governments Guilty of Unreasonable Treason, and Justice Systems, of Gross Dereliction of Duty and Service? ........
Downey was charged with the Hyde Park murders and stood trial at the Old Bailey in 2013.But the case dramatically collapsed after it was revealed he had received a written assurance from former prime minister Tony Blair’s government that he was no longer wanted.
The letter was issued under the terms of the controversial On The Runs (OTRs) scheme.
Trial judge Mr Justice Sweeney ruled that Downey’s arrest at Gatwick Airport, as he transited the UK on the way to a holiday, represented an abuse of process and he put a stay on any future prosecution. ...... https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/ira-bomb-victims-brother-granted-legal-aid-to-sue-hyde-park-suspect-36573085.html
Some storms are bigger than others and some are politically incorrect witch hunts which are self-defeating and most revealing.
Further to amanfrommars' post, anyone wish to spend two minutes reading this : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42965637 referencing Operation Midland.
One of many, many instances where cases of a certain nature are collapsing.
Simply because someone makes allegations does not mean that they are necessarily true or factually correct.
Genuine question : Are the Police and CPS themselves immune from a charge of "Perverting the course of justice" when they prosecute a case with specifically chosen, or rather deliberately omitted, evidence to fit their own bias and agenda?
AIUI from the CPS's own website, the offence of ""Perverting the course of justice" is committed when the INTENT to do so is formented.
On the collapse of a recent trial didn't the Judge basically give the Police and CPS a short period to reflect and get back to him with an answer of basically, wtf is going on?
As for Assange, que sera sera.
Can't they just sentence him in absentia, say 6 months for skipping bail, then he knows where he stands for whenever he decides to do something about his situation.
According to the "hang him, he's broken one of our really important rules" brigade.
It's a pity the authorities aren't just as enthusiastic about investigating and prosecuting real criminals. But hey, if it means we can get some more low hanging fruit into prison, at £40,000 / year (after all it's only tax payers money), on top of the millions already spent, that's a success in their vindictive little world.
I believe Tony Blair is still walking the streets a free man.
Or the people involved in the illegal rendition.
Lying to Parliament and conspiracy to torture / murder is apparently fine but jumping bail - well that's a whole different league.
were hiding out in a embassy, I could get into the bail-jumping-is-bad discussion, but that is far from the case.
The important issues here are the United States committing war crimes, the NSA exceeding its constitutional limits when collecting data on citizens, backroom deals keeping Bernie Sanders off of the ballot, and the CIA stockpiling hacking tools. One case of bail jumping simply does not compare.
All the arguments about extradition procedure don't hold water either. It has been an extremely dark decade and a half for the United States, and legal norms do not necessarily apply. We had legislators calling for the execution of Chelsea Manning, a New York Times reporter in jail for contempt of court, at least one prisoner dying of hypothermia at a dark site, torture around the world, and during this whole period, we have had prisoners at Guantánamo Bay who have yet to receive due process. Anyone who truly jeopardizes this power structure can legitimately fear extrajudicial retaliation by Washington. That is why an embassy shielded this particular bail jumper.
As many have said before, you don't have to like Julian Assange. He may not have the style of a Gandhi or Mandela; he may be more of a self-promoter than a Manning, Snowden, or Aaron Swartz. But recognize that what little social progress we make every decade, we owe that progress to the misfits, the fed-up, the brave, and the difficult -- and we punish them severely for it.
Whenever Great Games are Rigged, are you Pwnd and as a Puppet ..... and fully expected to play further as a Prize Fool and Sub-Prime Tool confined by right dodgy rules for Remote Regulation .... in Invisible Fields of Intangible Virtual Command and Control.
Who/what pulls your strings, and has you dancing a merry dance on the warpath to their tunes?
Would you deny the veracity of the following, which is sympathetic to the above, The Nature of Existence, both Real and Virtual,.....
Hostile is the perfect description for the factions clashing for control of the American Empire. The last week revealed the Deep State conspiratorial plot to prevent Donald Trump from winning the presidency. A sitting president, his high level lackeys in the FBI and DOJ, crooked Hillary, and the left wing propaganda spewing media, colluded to steal the presidential election – essentially committing treason. A few years ago only obscure bloggers used the term Deep State to describe the shadowy wealthy interests pulling the strings behind the scenes and ruling over the peasants through a combination of fear, disinformation, surveillance, propaganda, and control of the legislative, judicial and executive branches.Now there is irrefutable proof Edward Bernays was telling the truth in 1928 regarding an invisible government manipulating the habits and opinions of the ignorant masses to benefit their own self interests. The level of control and manipulation has reached a tipping point. The internet, obscure bloggers, and a small but vocal irate minority setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of critical thinking citizens has foiled the plans of Deep State traitors.
The unanticipated election of Trump has unleashed a tsunami of civil strife, plots to undermine the presidency, exposing the corporate fake news media as co-conspirators of the Deep State, and an out of control surveillance state that makes Orwell’s 1984 Big Brother seem like a piker. Make no mistake about it, there is a civil war ongoing in this country and the outcome is very much in doubt. ..... "Hostiles..."
...the British state taking action against him for skipping bail is not in the public interest...
Public interest would be - please, forgive me for making assumptions about the public based on my own interests - to lock Assange in a dark gaol and throw away the keys. Not because I condone such punishment or because I believe it would be justified for what he did. But simply because I do not want to hear or read about this bloated prick ever again.
He should have gone to court to argue his case. The judge could have then turned around and said, if you'd come here five years ago I would have said what I'm about to say now. "Bail is cancelled. You are free to go. By the way your Visa has expired, so leave the country."
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
