Julian Assange jailed for 50 weeks over Ecuador embassy bail-jumping Former WikiLeaker-in-chief Julian Assange has been sentenced to 11 months in prison after jumping bail and fleeing into Ecuador's London embassy for more than seven years. Delivering sentence at Southwark, her honour Judge Deborah Taylor said: "Your continued residency [in Ecuador's London embassy] has cost £16m of taxpayers' …
Next step, after he has served his UK sentence, will most likely be an extradition to Sweden under the European Arrest Warrant. That would take precedent over any US extradition request, should one be filed.
If the Americans would then like him extradited to the US they would have to send a request to Sweden. If I recall correctly the UK would then still have the opportunity to protest the onward extradition but my knowledge of those details of EAW procedure are limited.
This post has been deleted by its author
Ok, this had been going on for a long time so if my aging memory still works...
I thought he would face the EAW if the Swedes still want him.
There's only one count that they could charge him on... and then its a question of if its worth it. Since many moons have passed, memories have faded and people have moved on with their lives. Do they want to dredge up all of this? I don't know and I'm not going to second guess that.
But my point is that if Sweden wants him, they take him. At the end... they return him back to the UK and then the US could nab him.
And the US could grab him in the UK, Sweden or Australia. When all said and done, he's still an Aussie citizen traveling on an Aussie passport, so he will eventually end up there.
(Remember... he wanted to return to Australia to visit his ol mum... (Read some of the articles in the CBS [Aussie news])
And since the Death Penalty is off the table and we know its going to be just straight prison time... there's not really much he can fight.
That said... how he behaves in prison is going to determine how well he survives.
"if Sweden wants him, they take him. At the end... they return him back to the UK"
I'm not sure about the last bit. The extradition proceedings from which he was originally bailed were to return him to Sweden to face charges. After that process ended, including any sentence which might have been imposed either Sweden would have let him go free, dealt with any extradition proceedings which might have started in the interim or deported him as appropriate. I don't see why this would have changed; the bail charges here have been dealt with so, on completion of his sentence here, then there's no reason to demand his return.
"That said... how he behaves in prison is going to determine how well he survives."
Presumably you meant in a US prison. He could, of course, misbehave in a UK prison to extend his stay as a guest of HM hoping that a subsequent US government will simply ignore him.
To extend his stay at Her Maj's pleasure, Assange could say that he raped the cat. I hear naysayers "but the cat won't be in gaol with Mister Julian". Indeed, but we know how good he and his organisation are at remote interference. Or they could just arrange a prison visit.
Please excuse the flippancy. I do think he should face whatever justice Sweden wants, if any, and then he should be free. He is a hero for revealing the truth, and USA would agree wholeheartedly if it were not USA's dirty linen that he had exposed. Yes, non-citizens of the USA have been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Presumably you meant in a US prison. He could, of course, misbehave in a UK prison to extend his stay as a guest of HM hoping that a subsequent US government will simply ignore him.
Not necessarily just in a US prison. It's not the turnkeys one has to worry about so much as cellmates and other members of the population.
This post has been deleted by its author
And since the Death Penalty is off the table and we know its going to be just straight prison time... there's not really much he can fight.
I'm sure he'll try. But would remain in detention whilst fighting against extradition given his obvious flight risk.
Also not entirely sure the death penalty is off the table. I suspect the US has gone for the indictment it has because it should simplify extradition, but once in the US, other charges would follow. Like obvious offences under their Espionage Act. Which does allow for the death penalty, but highly unlikely prosecutors would call for that.
Which makes me a bit curious. Can US prosecutors state pre-trial that they won't seek the death penalty, if that decision is up to a judge in sentencing?
According to the extradition treaty the USA can not bring additional charges once they've got hold of him, what's in the request is it. Additionally the UK will not extradite for capital crimes unless a guarantee is made that the death penalty will not be invoked. Yes, the USA could ignore both of those conditions, provided they are willing to never have an extradition request go through again.
the USA can not bring additional charges once they've got hold of him, what's in the request is it. Additionally the UK will not extradite for capital crimes unless a guarantee is made that the death penalty will not be invoked. Yes, the USA could ignore both of those conditions, provided they are willing to never have an extradition request go through again.
The USA wields power and pressure and will do what it likes. If another nation doesn't like that and decides to block USA extradition requests, then good luck getting extradition the other way. USA could become a haven.
Additionally the UK will not extradite for capital crimes unless a guarantee is made that the death penalty will not be invoked.
Not only is that not actually true, the UK extradites for technically capital crimes all the time - nothing Assange has been accused of and is likely to face trial is realistically a capital crime. I believe the last people in the US to be executed for espionage were the Rosenbergs and that was in 1953 - and they were stealing nuclear weapon secrets on behalf of Russia. Nothing Assange has done makes that standard even if the same standard applies - and it doesn't - and Assange would have a hard time making the case to either a UK or Swedish court that he was likely to.
I believe the last people in the US to be executed for espionage were the Rosenbergs and that was in 1953
There are public executions, and there are "tragic accident while in custody". And the "lone wolf who shot him while he was being transferred to court", "choked on his lunch", "Tripped and fell down 30 flights of stairs", "suicide".............
There are public executions, and there are "tragic accident while in custody". And the "lone wolf who shot him while he was being transferred to court", "choked on his lunch", "Tripped and fell down 30 flights of stairs", "suicide".............
Are you're saying this never happens any other prison in the UK?
As wikileaks has exposed, the US is already A haven.
It doesn't recognise the ICJ in The Hague, hasn't punished the perpetratirs of the war crimes that were exposed, blocks ICJ investigations by threatening the investigators and even if a US citizen were ever goimg to be on trial in The Hague, Bush put in a law that allows the US to invade the Netherlands.
I realise that the US govt no longer represents the population, but at the moment it fits all the check boxes of a rogue state. Barbarians at the gate. Destroying cities as an example and then threatening to do the same to other cities if these don't comply worked for Ghengis Khan, now it's just being done on a global scale with whole countries.
Jellied Eel. In the US prosecutors must notify of intent to seek the death penalty once the charges have been filed. They have so many days to do this after the initial charges are filed . If convicted and the prosecutor asked for the death penalty there is a second trial for the penalty phase . After that if the second jury trial says he deserves to die the judge then can issue a death warrant or give the person life in jail with out parole .
@kain
Cheers.. I thought the process was fairly involved, which given the potential outcome, makes a lot of sense. I'd been a bit dubious about the Espionage Act carrying a possible death penalty as an excuse to avoid being deported given it would be an unlikely outcome. Presumably the UK could just ask for assurances & the AG say 'No death penalty'. Then possibly lie, because that is after all a perk of government.
But IMHO, the likely charges aren't serious enough to warrant execution. I do think he should face charges though, and he can probably look forward to a fair stretch in Leavenworth.
Perhaps the SuperMax would be best. Isolation and no electronics for Twitter, etc. No publicity.
Perhaps a bit harsh, but AFAIK Leavenworth is a popular repository for Federal criminals & espionage prisoners.. Which I guess is one of those challenges, ie if someone is known to possess classified information, and has displayed a tendency to share it, then I guess you may have to isolate them to prevent more leaks.
But it may give Assange quiet time to work on yet more books. 50 Weeks of Southwark, or something along those lines?
I'm also still curious about the journalism aspects, ie should the Espionage or Official Secrets Acts be repealed because it's much nicer living in an 'open society'?
Are you saying that a government has no legitimate information which needs to remain secret e.g. military?
Well, Wikileaks published a lot of classified information. Assange used some for political purposes, or just to make money. Assange supporters seem to think what he/Wikileaks did was just journalism. So no more secrets?
Which is the problem.. There are a lot of official secrets that should stay secret, and who gets to decide what is in the public interest, or when journalism overrides protective marking?
It's not like addresses and names were divulged of undercover operatives.
So if your government is covering up war crimes that (its armed forces) comitted, it's not in the public interest to disclose that fact?
Committimg (and condoning) war crimes in other parts of the world indirectly puts US citizens at risk from retaliation.
Citizens have a right to know what the government does in their name, so they can make an informed decision on who to vote in.
If you do not agree with this statement, maybe this democracy thing is not really something for you.
Democracy != Capitalism
no electronics for Twitter, etc. No publicity
Loosely translated as 'cover up any embarrassing information about war crimes and make sure it's a deterrent to future whistleblowers, leakers and journalists who would foolishly want to do disclose wrongdoing and corruption'
Land of the Brave, home of the Free(tm)
That might be the case but at least one US Prosecutor is already talking about wanting a 250 year sentence. They get that by taking all his crimes and adding the max sentence for each and then making them run one after the other after the other...
The US (In)Justice system is wonderful is it not?
As a self proclaimed diplomat of the US, we don't want him. We do want him to go back to work exposing the corrupt scum that have infiltrated our government, as well as others around the world.
Hillary doesn't want him either, or he would be sleeping with the fishes, so,, just set him free or give him to Sweden.
Trump doesn't want him, it's just a nuisance to him to deal with, besides all the BS was during the last administration, which karma is just starting to catch up with.
Thank you,
and from those of us in the US, have a pleasant day.
"Trump doesn't want him," as of this particular instance of time, but situation can and will change based on multiple random external, internal, and completely illusory events.
Largely affected by whether Trump thinks pursuing Wikileaks bobblehead will make him appear more manly to his fanbase.
On the smaller hand, Trump will be reluctant to allow the media to focus on anybody but himself...
You're welcome.
Is it really worth the cost of extraditing him, organising flights, detention, trials, punishment and then further detention while the USA argues for their pound of flesh? He has effectively done a 14 year sentence, with 50% time off for bad behaviour and probably lived a space a lot smaller than most UK prison cells. Let the bugger sink into obscurity and go back home to Oz.
Monty Python Applies: "He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy".
This post has been deleted by its author
They have followed their obligations and have and will continue to provide consular assistance. He is undoubtedly guilty of jumping bail, and despite bits of the country looking like it, the UK is not some 3rd world s**thole. So why the need to comment until the next phase, extradition to either US or Sweden .
From https://www.government.se/government-of-sweden/ministry-of-justice/international-judicial-co-operation/extradition-for-criminal-offences/
Extradition may not be granted for military or political offences. Nor may extradition be granted if there is reason to fear that the person whose extradition is requested runs a risk - on account of his or her ethnic origins, membership of a particular social group or religious or political beliefs - of being subjected to persecution threatening his or her life or freedom, or is serious in some other respect.
And I imagine his lawyers will be saying that anything the US charge him with would be purely political (which isn't an unreasonable argument imo).
Rendition was ALWAYS JA's concern, especially while in Sweden (or the threat of returning there) as SÄPO had been very supportive of renditions from Sweden.
Which would be totally believable if he hadn't spent weeks/months in Sweden and had openly talked abotu applying for permanent residency there. And only left and suddenly discovered these terrifying fears of rendition after he had been accused of rape.
And his fear of extradition to the US was so strong that he came to Britain, the only country in the world that has an extradition treaty with the US that doesn't allow politicians discretion to refuse to extradite - thanks to that fuckwit Tony Blair and his merry men.
On an unrelated note it was also Blair that gave us the European Arrest Warrant - again a pretty unique extradition treaty that doesn't give politcians discretion to protect their own citizens from foreign governments. Another shit treaty. Though at least in the case of the EAW the system is mutual - whersas the US never signed their reciprocal half of the extradition treaty with us into law.
This post has been deleted by its author
Depending on what charge he's convicted of, he'll probably be sent to a fairly low security prison. As a non American, he would be ineligible for a so-called prison camp, plus his failure to appear conviction, the feds would be certain that he's in a secure facility. Rape is pretty uncommon in such low security prisons, for those of you that are tempted to make rape jokes.
I bet you'd have fallen asleep or gone for a crap within the first 30 days, maybe even the first 10.
Have you never tried to plan support for an application that is so simple one person can handle it, then you realise it's needed 16 hours/day so 2 shifts x 3 people to cater for leave and illness and then there's training for them and some admin resource etc. until what seemed a cheap option is costing more than paying someone else to do it? Why do you think SaaS sells??
Because SaaS comes from OpEx not CapEx budget.
It's incredibly bad value in most cases, compared to actually having a support contract with a third-party.
In many cases, the fact it's non business critical enough to outsource to a SaaS provider means, it's not that big a deal if it falls over.
That is not the case for everybody, or even every SaaS service but if it matter, you better be able to put your hands on the tin.
If the staff costs are too high, then your business is dangerously underfunded.
You can make a case for IaaS but this isn't it.
yes. ive planned for a 24/7 critical monitor. you need 4 man days per day minimum. the 1 extra is the holiday/sickness plan with 8 hour shifts plus breaks. Its the breaks that are the issue and always the weak flag. Plus lateness due to traffic. You need contingency on minimum for long term sickness, this client wanted to pull from core IT as contingency.
That being said I budgeted just short of 100k per year and that included pension and tax. Job was circa 18k for the technician grade and 4 people were employed. This ran for 2 years until it was offshored.
Assange may or may not be reprehensible as a person but I think he deserves credit for the way he has brought attention to the actions of governments that are illegal and not in the best interests of those they are supposed to represent. Wikieaks has changed the World.
I prefer to look for the good in people rather than just focus on their negative points.
I'd love to agree with you, but unfortunately I can't see that anything has changed. In fact, despite them being caught with their hands well inside the cookie jar, both the US and UK governments seem to have said "what the fuck", have actually gotten worse, and will just make sure that the penalties for exposing their actions are worse; rather than actually improving their behaviours or accountability.
@ChrisG
I agree with this, just with a caveat. Any good he did was wiped out when he not only allegedly committed rape, but then ran from the investigation looking in to the accusation, ran to another country which, as has been discussed before, was more likely to extradite him to the US, then ran from justice in that country as well.
Sorry, I just don't buy the "falsely-accused-only-perfect-person-in-the-entire-world-surrounded-by-corrupt-nations-all-of-whom-do-the-US's-bidding-at-the-drop-of-a-hat" gimmick he's trying to portray. For me, the US issue was always a smokescreen to avoid the rape allegation. If extradition to the US was his concern, he was far safer in Sweden.
I guess the point is, it doesn't matter how much good you do, it doesn't make you above the law.
For me, the US issue was always a smokescreen to avoid the rape allegation. If extradition to the US was his concern, he was far safer in Sweden.
You've hit the nail on the head. If this had happened before the Natwest Three, then maybe, maybe he'd have had a point. But after that? No, there's very few places easier to be extradited to the USA from than the UK.
"I guess the point is, it doesn't matter how much good you do, it doesn't make you above the law."
Absolutely agree, I was going to post the same thing.
Take WikiLeaks out of it. The guy who has recently been convicted of causing the death of a girl in a speedboat accident and fled to Georgia has been roundly condemned, and quite rightly. Assange is alleged to have committed a crime, has not faced due process for those allegations, and fled himself, but seems to think it is OK because the US are out to get him for something else.
"think it is OK because the US are out to get him for something else."
They ARE out to get him for something else, and as rendition from Sweden had ALREADY occurred for some other poor bastard, JA's fears of the same happening to him were well based.
The "rape" charge (which was always bogus) was dropped/expired. The trumped up espionage case is the basis for extradition. Let's just wait and see whether there is any evidence of this.
The "rape" charge (which was always bogus)...
It was, was it? How do you know that? Were you there? Were you in the room when it happened? How is it you know so much about it? Why have you not come forward to the Swedish authorities to present your evidence and clear King Julian? What he is accused of is rape, and not just in Sweden, even in the UK it's classed as rape. Therefore, the authorities have a duty to investigate that and determine the truth, at least to within a certain balance of probability.
Spoken like a true misogynist. When faced with a woman alleging rape, or a wild conspiracy dreamed up by an Aussie cupboard dweller, you believe the latter, because no way could a woman be telling the truth about it. It's pathetic and frankly embarrassing.
Numerous logical flaws in your arguments here, including descending into ad hominem attack, and extending the specific into generalities by way of justification.
Your statement is based on what you want to believe, rather than careful examination of the documents of public record regarding this, which I stronlgy suspect you would struggle to even list.
Even if you are naive enough to believe that every allegation of rape is inherently true, one of the supposed victims has stated categorically that she was not raped.
So I wonder why you think she was?
Your opinion is worthless.
Ok, fine:
Numerous logical flaws in your arguments here, including descending into ad hominem attack, and extending the specific into generalities by way of justification.
Is it supposed to be ironic that you make an extremely generalised statement here to attack points which you can't mention specifically? And the ad hominem comment was justified, unless you care to class the automatic dismissal of a rape allegation as anything other than misogynistic?
Your statement is based on what you want to believe, rather than careful examination of the documents of public record regarding this, which I stronlgy suspect you would struggle to even list.
Against a comment drawing attention to the fact that no-one can really know what goes on between people in a private environment, vs someone stating categorically they know the allegation to be "bogus" you choose to say my comment is opinion based? I think the irony meter broke. And given the debate about the validity of the allegation against him has been gone over numerous times before on here and other places, I'd suggest you need to do further research yourself.
Even if you are naive enough to believe that every allegation of rape is inherently true, one of the supposed victims has stated categorically that she was not raped.
I believe they are worth investigating, yes. People do shit things to other people, and those things should be investigated by the police to establish their validity but your King Julien didn't even want to allow that. He's hidden for seven years to avoid exactly that. He ran to a country MORE likely to extradite him to the US than allow it.
Your opinion is worthless.
You can't even bring yourself to attribute your opinions to a pseudonym, making yours even less so, were it possible.
Actually, yeah, the 'she says she wasn't' thing isn't true.
She said the actions were true, but that she didn't consider it rape itself (but thats more her disagreeing with the term at the time) - she did consider it rape enough to high a lawyer and file an appeal after Eva Finne declined the initial prosecution.
It's always the little details, like major facts, that undo the Wikileaks narrative. I think Wikileaks think it's so pesky when people don't take their claims at face value, and demand evidence, from both sides, with wikileaks usually doesn't have and the other does which proves wikileaks wrong.
"They ARE out to get him for something else, and as rendition from Sweden had ALREADY occurred for some other poor bastard, JA's fears of the same happening to him were well based."
They were not at the time he fled to the Ecuadorian embassy, he only feared they were, committing a crime (bail jumping) as he did so and also avoiding the due process of the law for the crimes he allegedly committed in Sweden. The fact that he turned out to be correct 7 years later does not justify his fleeing. He, as part of WikiLeaks, claims to be fighting for truth and justice, whilst running away from it himself.
The fact that he turned out to be correct 7 years later does not justify his fleeing.
Yes it bloody well does. If your standing on the tracks and you hear a train coming, even if you can't see it yet, you get off the tracks.
I guess you'll keep on standing there until you've confirmed by touch if it is indeed a 100t freight train bearing down on you.
The statute under which JA was to be charged, was a sexual offence that is very difficult to prosecute and is quite a long way from "rape" in the general meaning of the word (which I admit has been watered down to include everything possible in Sweden).
This was a case of "buyers remorse" more than anything else and would unlikely have resulted in a conviction.
And yes, if JA had just gone and had an STD test things might have panned out a little easier for him.
Oh, I'm sorry, you've lost.
Even in the UK, the actions he's accused of constitute rape (sex without or other than in accord with consent) - it's an argument Assange tried in the High Court in November 2012, and lost. Kinda important since that element is needed for Dual Criminality.
And not that difficult to prosecute.
This was a case of "buyers remorse" more than anything else and would unlikely have resulted in a conviction.
Sorry, what?!
Look, try to pay attention because it's important for you personally that you understand. If a girl consents to giving you a handjob, that does not mean you can shag her bareback. What she's consented to she's consented to; what she hasn't consented to, she hasn't consented to.
The case in hand specifically revolves around multiple women consenting to protected sex but not bareback. Stealthing (taking the condom off without their knowledge) IS rape. Its a sexual act that they have not consented to. Given the bloke in question has a history of sleeping around without protection, it's understandable that some of the women may have refused to put themselves at risk of his STDs, and or pregnancy.
"Buyers remorse" is what you get when you buy a Citroen rather than a Ford. Rape is what you do when you force yourself on an unwilling partner, regardless of what she has consented to in the past. FFS.
Ah, you'd be talking about Ahmed Agiza and Muhgamed Al-zery. The one case always pointed to to try and give legitimacy to this point.
Shame the facts don't support the claims. They weren't snatched from the streets, thrown on a secret plane and tortured.
They were asylum seekers, whose request for asylum was denied, and so Sweden got guarantees from Egypt on their treatment, and Egypt broke that, allegedly.
They weren't thrown on a secret aircraft, they were sent back to their own country, and that country broke an agreement with Sweden.
Quite a different story than what we're talking about with Assange, eh?
They ARE out to get him for something else, and as rendition from Sweden had ALREADY occurred for some other poor bastard, JA's fears of the same happening to him were well based.
Well, he may get a Presidential pardon for Hillary leaks. Maybe a cabinet job? Who really knows what will happen or why?
Downvoted for confusing Wikileaks with King Julian - they are not the same.
He lost my sympathy when he pissed hundred of thousands of pounds of his supporters bail money up the wall by jumping.
Every action of his appears to have been calculated to gain maximum advantage for King Julian and sod everything and everyone else. His actions have tainted any good he did.
All Hail King Julian - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEMTuMzq-1s
Assange, Snowden and Manning have shown you only one thing:
If you discover your country doing something illegal, never reveal it unless you want to spend large portions of your life on the run, in prison, or at the behest of the Russian authorities.
They are *TERRIBLE* whistleblowers. Incompetent, amateur, unable to even cover their own tracks, and resulting in literally *nothing* happening. But they all now have spent a significant amount of their lives in fear of authorities, one way or another.
And, I'm sorry, but the man in the street is hardly in uproar about everything they "revealed". They'd literally be more shocked at Trump's tax return.
I think Wikileaks hasn't changed the world - if anything, they've merely revealed the dangers of trying to do just that. Which consists of US prison, 7 years in an embassy and 1 year in prison plus extras, or having to flee your entire life to Russia where you then get told *exactly* what you can and can't do because you're now their political prisoner and they can screw you to the wall any time they like.
I think you're confusing a childish act versus whistle blowing.
Manning's first video was of a combat action and they followed the RoE. Newsflash , war is hell and civilians do get maimed and/or killed when you live in a combat zone. And this is hardly new because there are stories dating back to the civil war on civilian casualties and they were fighting using Napoleon tactics.
If you want to talk about the theft.
Most of the information stolen wasn't really news worthy. Politicians who look like best of friends in front the media really had different private opinions. Oh wow.
But then they released operational details that did get servicemen killed. Caused harm. Intentional or Not, what they did was wrong.
And to be clear, there actions were illegal from the get go.
Want to talk about whistle blowers... talk to Ellsberg about Viet Nam while he was an employee of Rand. (If Memory Serves...)
Learn your history and learn it well.
> But then they released operational details that did get servicemen killed. Caused harm. Intentional or Not, what they did was wrong.
For the record (again): Wikileaks had a plan for disclosing the information in a responsible way to avoid exactly the kind of harm you describe. Initially that plan worked well. Then a journalist incompetently disclosed his password. The rest is history.
And to add onto that, from what I recall, Wikileaks first approached THE WHITE HOUSE ITSELF, said, "look, here's what we have. We don't want to get anyone killed, but we *are* going to be releasing a lot of this; but we're willing to work with you to delay what needs to be delayed until anyone potentially at risk is no longer in harm's way."
The White House categorically REFUSED to have anything to do with them. Going to allegedly responsible, respectable journalists for help with the whole "disclosure of things that will make the U.S. look really fucking bad but in a responsible way that won't put anyone at risk" was their Plan B.
And this is hardly new because there are stories dating back to the civil war on civilian casualties and they were fighting using Napoleon tactics.
Actually, you can go a lot further back than that. History is filled with armies on the move and towns being sacked and the population killed.
they would execute 1 out of every 10 legionaries
It went much further back than the Roman legions - various ancient societies were recorded as killing 10% of any population that resited them.
And then there was the Assyrians - they tended to only leave 10% alive if anyone resisted them. Not nice people at all.
Sir, on one hand you acknowledge
"war is hell and civilians do get maimed and/or killed when you live in a combat zone"
and next
"released operational details that did get servicemen killed"
Which is it?
What is good for goose good for gander I'd have thought. War is hell - I agree..
I must disagree with you there. What happened after Snowden was Schrems, who killed the existing data transfer agreement and forced the world to agree that the NSA are a bunch of above-the-law, cannot-be-trusted people. For you and I, not much has changed right now, but the GDPR came out of that mess, and that has kicked the hornet's nest for sure.
>> attention to the actions of governments that are illegal
>> not in the best interests of those they...represent
>>WikiLeaks has changed the World
I'd like to agree with you but I think it's still too early to say.
I've heard enough arguments to believe that WikiLeaks was leveraged by foreign agents at some point - knowingly or not?
I only know that I don't know... if Julian is an answer or a problem.
And that "Yellow" Journalism seems to be overtaking all of us.
“I found myself struggling through terrifying circumstances..."
Yes, that he bought on himself by running and hiding away like a girl rather than facing up to the charges that had been raised against him. He seems more than happy to have taken the "celebrity", but none of the accountability or responsibility.
I understand the figure of speech being used and find it acceptable if the context is meant honourably.
I have seen terms like 'Man up' and 'grow a set' on previous discussions on this subject. Didn't see anyone calling them out on those statements.
I wouldn't say it was juvenile either, quite the contrary as it's something more likely to be said by one of the less enlightened generations.
Misogynistic? Definitely, but then I'm a mysogonist...and so is my wife!
( Nod to The Life of Brian)
Chris G , more power to your elbow , Assange merely published the truth , whilst the judge (representing the English justice system , a position of responsibility you may think ) supports the misuse of taxpayer millions then tells lies to support the expenditure , plenty of work to do it seems.
"then tells lies to support the expenditure"
Which lies in particular? From the article there were only two quotations from the judge:
"Your continued residency [in Ecuador's London embassy] has cost £16m of taxpayers' money. No one is above the reach of the law."
"It's difficult to envisage a more serious example of this offence."
So, you believe one of the following:
1) it did not cost £16m. You seem to think it did by the rest of your comment.
2) Someone is above the reach of the law. I guess this could be considered true, depending on your position. Technically the Queen is above the law.
3) You can easily envisage a more serious example of bail jumping.
"Your continued residency [in Ecuador's London embassy] has cost £16m of taxpayers' money."
And that wouldn't be something the judge judge said off her own bat, it would have been said to her. It could have been in prosecuting counsel's statement to the court, in which case Assange's lawyer could have objected, or given as evidence by a witness in which case it could have been cross-examined. In the absence of a full court report it would appear that the £16m wasn't challenged by the defence. Not that that appears to have been a consideration of Menasco who, presumably, is posting from outside the jurisdiction or hasn't heard of contempt of court.
It's the judges opinion, stated during the summing-up - an opinion which suggests her judgement was far from neutral. Retrials have been demanded for less.
It won't have been stated or challenged in prosecution evidence because it won't have been a charge. His offence was to skip bail. Charging him for the costs the police incurred in stopping him from skipping somewhere else was not on the menu and would have been laughed out of court if it had been.
"It's the judges opinion, stated during the summing-up - an opinion which suggests her judgement was far from neutral. Retrials have been demanded for less."
But have they been granted?
Frequently the judge calls the convict a reprehensible human being or other such terms, once the verdict has been handed down.
The cost to the police and judicial system is entirely relevant to this case, since that's one of the measures used to determine how long a sentence to give.
For instance, from the sentencing guidelines for failure to surrender to bail ( https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/web_Fail_to_Surrender_to_Bail.pdf ) :
"When a Bail Act offence has been committed, the sentence must be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence and must take into account both the reason why the offender failed to surrender and the degree of harm intended or caused. For these purposes, ‘harm’ is not only that caused to individual victims and witnesses but includes the consequential effect on police and court resources and the wider negative impact on public confidence in the criminal justice system."
The bit you missed is that Assange did not spend 16 million : the home office did, by their own choice. By all means invoice him for the costs to the ecuadorian government , but that's not for british taxpayers to be concerned about.
It's not as if he posed any threat or harm to the british public which might have required such action : there's no suggestion at all that, if the alleged rapes occurred, they occurred in a vacuum. This is not some predator that creeps around in dark alleys at night : he is accused of unwanted sex with a person with whom he has recently had consensual sex.
This is rape, I agree : but I think only women who know him extremely well have anything to fear. Perhaps the home office would like to prove their point by putting a 24 hour guard on some other accused rapists. I'm sure their victims would be delighted : but the government
apparently doesn't believe in consistent application of the law.
If you think the home office had to spend that money, you're being absurd : they did it because they wanted to or were asked to. Has any either person accused of rape ever had such a sum spent on apprehending them ? I would suggest the only investigation in anything like that order would be some truly hideous child abuse cases.
You might also argue the home office 'had to' do that to uphold the rule of law. In other words, a PR campaign. Their choice, but not a good use of money imho.
It may be that that sum should be the subject of an inquiry into whether the home office is doing an adequate job.
On the other hand, you might look at the costs incurred in protecting our worthless politicians. I have no idea what it is, but suspect it's more like 16 million a month.
he is accused of unwanted sex with a person with whom he has recently had consensual sex.
In what possible universe do you think you have a point here? He is accused of unwanted sex, so rape, with women who were no longer consenting and who allegedly had never consented tot he kind of sex he was performing.
I think only women who know him extremely well have anything to fear
I'm glad *you* think that. So we should just let go anyone you don't think is dangerous enough? Hmm, or, crazy as this sounds, we could have laws n stuff that apply to everyone rather than just those you deem a threat?
You might also argue the home office 'had to' do that to uphold the rule of law. In other words, a PR campaign. Their choice, but not a good use of money imho.
I agree - which is why Assange should have scuttled out earlier rather than being dragged out like some madman in front of the worlds press. That he chose to hide from the law for so long, knowing that such amounts were being spent, can only rightly aggravate the sentence imposed.
Moaning about feeling the (nearly) full force of the law simply isn't cricket. He's a big boy and he's made all his own mistakes. No tears.
@1) it did not cost £16m. You seem to think it did by the rest of your comment.
It could have cost zero, or indeed one beelion. The cost was entirely up to what the police force and government decided to spend and they should be accountable for that spend and not, Mr Assange.
He skipped bail, there are thousands of others in the UK doing exactly the same and it is entirely up to the police force how much money they spend locating these people, usually very little I imagine and that is with people they do not know the location of, in this case they knew exactly where he was so it does seem overly excessive.
He skipped bail, there are thousands of others in the UK doing exactly the same and it is entirely up to the police force how much money they spend locating these people, usually very little I imagine
Most bail jumpers aren't publicly hiding in the middle of the capital city. It's rather expensive guarding a building 24/7 for years on end when one of them does. Allowing him to escape on a private plane / yacht would not have been acceptable, and Assange very clearly wasn't about to choose to face the consequences of his crimes. It's a situation entirely of his own making.
Most bail jumpers aren't publicly hiding in the middle of the capital city.
By this logic, the judge should have been more lenient if he had just hidden out of sight then?
He expressly asked for asylum in an embassy because he was fearing extradition due to political reasons.
If he had been 'just another rapist', don't you think he'd done a runner instead?
The Swedish prosecutor could have visited him or have had a video conference at any time. The fact that she didn't and has been reprimanded for this unusual behaviour back in Sweden, gives a strong air of a set up by the US.
Either that or the Swedish prosecutor was completely incompetent.
He jumped bail - or are you claiming that his observably (and well documented) doing of such was actually a lie from the judge? That's what he has been sent down for. As far as clear-cut cases go, I'm not sure how much clearer you could get.
As for "misuse of taxpayers millions"; presumably you are arguing that spending money on policing and holding everyone to the same level of accountability is misuse of money? Because he's "famous", he shoudl have been allowed to jump bail with no consequences? Really, just give it a rest. He committed a crime, got arrested, had a fair trial, was convicted on the evidence and got sent down - that's the justice system working properly.
No argument on the case. Yes, it's perfectly fine that he should be sent down. In fact, if he'd been sent down 8 years ago it would saved the unnecessary millions being spent.
The problem is with the spending and the allegation that Assange wasted it. And no, he was not held to the same level of accountability. Can you think of a rape case that comes close ? If you think that's all that's going on, you're being deliberately blind.
"No argument on the case. Yes, it's perfectly fine that he should be sent down. In fact, if he'd been sent down 8 years ago it would saved the unnecessary millions being spent."
Great, glad we can both agree it was Julilan's fault that the money was spent.
"The problem is with the spending and the allegation that Assange wasted it. And no, he was not held to the same level of accountability. Can you think of a rape case that comes close ? If you think that's all that's going on, you're being deliberately blind."
I can think of several: Crosby, Weinstein just off the top of my head.
Julian is a waste of a human being, i'm not sure why you are defending him. If you honestly think he's done something good and worthwhile that wasn't just for his own personal gain, you're being deliberately blind.
"The problem is with the spending and the allegation that Assange wasted it. And no, he was not held to the same level of accountability."
Try jumping bail and publicly holing yourself up in a building, and see if the cops don't come to arrest you. In his case he hid in a diplomatic mission, so they waited for him to come out.
Blaming anyone other than Assange for the cost of trying to apprehend him is bizarre.
Try jumping bail and publicly holing yourself up in a building, and see if the cops don't come to arrest you. In his case he hid in a diplomatic mission, so they waited for him to come out.
Part of the issue is the diplomatic mission and part is the guy having asylum in it. Assange is not exactly an individual who's not made enemies. I suspect the local police were there to ensure the safety of the embassy also.
Well. that's about 2 million a year. If we assume it's necessary to have 2 coppers on duty to cover toilet breaks, that's a million per copper per year (24 hours).
We have 122000 police officers in the UK. Assuming 8 hour shifts, that's 40,000 officer days or 40 billion pounds pa. Apparently we spend 34 billion on public order and safety so the justification is already starting to look dodgy. It would indeed be very interesting to find out how that figure was arrived at, and the justification for spending it.
Over a similar period we actually lost 20,000 officers due to government costcutting. Not sure what that says about government priorities but it isn't very encouraging.
No idea on the exact maths, but back in 2015 it was reported to be a rather large growing amount - so its been a consistently large number if nothing else!
Article from 2015: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31159594
"Between June 2012 and October 2014, direct policing costs were £7.3m, with £1.8m spent on overtime, police said.
Scotland Yard confirmed the cost of the operation to UK taxpayers in the first 28 months, until 31 October last year, had reached £9m.
The figures - which equate to more than £10,000 a day - were obtained by LBC radio under the Freedom of Information Act."
"We have 122000 police officers in the UK. Assuming 8 hour shifts, that's 40,000 officer days or 40 billion pounds pa. Apparently we spend 34 billion on public order and safety so the justification is already starting to look dodgy."
On an FEC basis, it looks like it's not so bad, actually. It already shows that it's the right order of magnitude. Now don't forget that most officers are employed during the day, and that 2/3 of the time spent watching Assange was overtime/nightwork/holidays.
3 shifts of 2 cops sitting outside front and back in cars waiting for him to leave 24/7 for ~8 years:
- 20 x £40k/yr for staff costs including
- £200k/yr for police cars
- £30k/yr coffee and donuts
- £25k/yr hire charges for the portaloo
- £100k/ye for new uniforms due to coffee/donut/other stains incurred in the line of duty
- £400k/yr to cover overtime for officers who were redecorating or working their side gigs
- £500k/yr for "administration" of these hardworking officers
Total: ~£2m/yr
Note: any resemblance to actual costs is purely coincidental.
£25,000 per copper.
£5000 an hour for lawyer's fees to consider the question of what the police / Home Office are legally able to do about the situation without causing an international incident or getting accused of over-stepping the law and thus (potentially) letting a criminal go free because of a legal ballsup.
To be honest, I've always thought that once found guilty you should be charged for the police and court time in dealing with you. When you get kids smashing through streets in a stolen car, with half-a-dozen cops spending a day chasing you, arresting you, charging you and doing all the paperwork and legal side, I don't see that a £200 fine and a "driving ban" (though they aren't allowed to drive anyway) is sufficient or sensible.
Like "victim surcharge", we should have an "enforcement surcharge". You co-operated, handed yourself in, came to the station quietly, etc.? No charge. You were found not guilty? No charge.
You resisted, and were later found guilty? 10% of everything it cost to apprehend and charge you, reparation for damage caused (whether insured or not), etc. Maybe then our police would actually have a lot less hassle, proper funding, and criminals would give themselves up rather than run away.
And if you go to prison? Cool, you don't get out until you have worked off the fines and charges, even if you served your sentence. Paid at minimum wage for each hour of work you complete in the prison without causing hassle for the prison officers.
Not a bad idea.
But it smacks rather of the situation with traffic fines : pay it immediately and get a discount. I always think that's borderline illegal (discouraging the target from disputing the charge). Yes, it costs more, but so would employing quality staff who made less mistakes, or avoiding illegal practices. Local authorities need to be held to account.
Unfortunately it costs about £32K a year to keep someone in prison, so by keeping them in prison and paying them a minimum wage to pay off the damage, it would be costing more in fees than would ever be recovered.
Better to make them do unpaid community service work while released and in the community, keep the prisons for those offenders who really arent safe to be released.
> To be honest, I've always thought that once found guilty you should be charged for the police and court time in dealing with you.
Constable: Sarge! We've had a call about a stabbing. Victim's a teenage lad. It's gang related. Shall I send a car over asap?
Sargeant: Nah. We've done our quota for the day. We'll take a bit longer to book in this Assange bloke and he can pay for all of us today. The stabbing can wait - besides it's a bit parky out.
You resisted, and were later found guilty? 10% of everything it cost to apprehend and charge you, reparation for damage caused (whether insured or not), etc. Maybe then our police would actually have a lot less hassle, proper funding, and criminals would give themselves up rather than run away.
Not a bad idea until the bean counters and elected officials roll into play. They would want the police budget reduced by the amounts collected because "hey, we're thinking of the taxpayers at election time".
I think the MET have been very creative with their accountancy on this one, as I doubt it is anywhere near £16m that is has actually cost the tax payer. And if it was costing £10000 per day WTF have they been spending it on?
They pulled the 24 hour guard outside the embassy years ago. And even that wouldn't have only been costing a few hundred quid a day of officers wages and expenses at best. They only need constables to stand guard outside a building not their top inspectors.
Can you show your working for that please?
Minimum of 3 people on duty on the ground (one front, one back, and one covering breaks). You need a 4th available to cover holidays and sick leave. You need that 24/7 so that means you need 9 police days per calendar day. Even with some clever staggering of shifts you're going to need at least 12 police officers to account for weekends. On top of that you're going to need someone in command back at base.
They're all going to have to carry a share of none front line costs (back office staff), and your media relations and command briefing to MPs etc is going to take a similar number of staff.
£2.2M per year, roughly divided by 26 police is £87k per year to include salary, NI, pension payments, equipment, training, expenses, office costs etc etc. It's entirely reasonable to accrue such a spend.
Argue whether its necessary if you must, but you're on a hiding to nothing trying to argue the costs aren't realistic.
I don't care if Sweden chooses to have him extradited to face trial, not do I care if the US grabs him. However I am very pleased that he is serving a suitable sentence for bail jumping. Hopefully at the end of his sentence, if he isn't extradited, we will deport him and never let him back.
What is the median punishment handed out for bail jumping in the UK. I would suggest that 11 months (maximum 12) is way out on the right hand tail of the distribution.
Do try to be objective.
He skipped bail for a sex offence, then hid in plain sight for 7 years, berating the English judicial system, while running up a significant multi-million pound policing bill.
In all of history can you find a worse example of skipping bail? Most people who do are untraceable and so cost little to police. While they do it they don't appear in front of the worlds TV cameras thumbing their noses at the judge.
Frankly, if he hadn't got very close to the outer limits of the tariff, there would have been an outcry. The median punishment simply doesn't apply in this case. That you are an Assange fan simply doesn't change the facts.
I used to enjoy the odd Gary Glitter song, but he's still an irredeemable nonce. I grew up watching Rolf Harris, but frankly he belongs in prison. That you like the person committing the crime or find value in their work product, does not absolve them of justice. In this case, justice has been done, for the bail offence.
The irony is Assange put a lot of effort into not being extradited and yet that's what may now happen.
From Wikipedia's definition
> Situational irony: The disparity of intention and result; when the result of an action is contrary to the desired or expected effect.
I think the irony thing is that when his extradition to Sweden was being considered, there was no serious attempt by the US to extradite him. Had he gone to court 7-8 years ago, he might have been found not guilty in Sweden, and gone on his merry way by now. After all he was accused of rape by women when nobody else was present, and both said they later (or earlier) consented to sex, so it's going to be pretty hard to prove unless someone was filiming it.
But by waiting, he may actually have succeeded in avoiding the Swedish charges - their prosecutors have been pretty slow in coming forward with a new EAW - only to find that things in the US have changed and now he's up for extradition. Oops.
As ad hominen is not recognised as a plausible argument, the only conclusion we can come to from your suggestion is that you are also an arse by trying to use it.
So you'd better be glad it's not illegal either. In fact, we usually reward it with promotion.
Arise, Sir Funkymunky of Arseshire.
No. The man is an arse. He's given plenty of proof of that. That's not an ad hominem, that's just an opinion.
An ad hominem is a method of arguing a case where you ignore the evidence (often because your argument is weak) and attack the other person to distract from their points.
No.
In order to be an ad hominem attack, a statement has to be unrelated to the disputed point. In a court case, what's being argued is "the defendant is guilty of the charge", so anything that relates to this is admissible, including things that may reflect badly on the defendant's character. If a claim establishes either a motive or opportunity for them to have committed the crime, or evidence that they did so, then it's allowed; if it doesn't relate to the case, it's ruled out.
(Also, it's usually not the defendant making the arguments, but rather his/her appointed legal counsel, so an ad hominem would be one lawyer attacking the character of another to undermine their argument, but let's imagine you're defending yourself...)
Here's an ad hominem: You're on trial for speeding, you say you weren't in the car that day, I respond that you're lying because I've evidence that you lift cash from your employer to feed a gambling addiction.
And here's an admissible counter-argument: You're on trial for insurance fraud, you say you've a modest lifestyle and wouldn't need the money that was taken, I respond that you're lying because I've evidence that you lift cash from your employer to feed a gambling addiction.
Mathematics was never my strong point, but let's have a go:
Assuming exactly 7 years holed up in the embassy, and sod leap years: 365 * 7 = 2,555 days.
£16,000,000 / 2,555 = £6,262.23 per day.
£6,262.23 / 24 = £260.92 per hour.
£260.92 PER HOUR.
I don't bloody well think so. Bullshit.
Hmmm, I'm not so sure that it smells that funny to be honest...
Get a couple of officers covering it, probably on overtime as it's not like we have Police officer to spare. Plus associated charges for equipment, back office admin etc... I imagine there was regular meetings to discuss the situation at a strategic level, all costs to be covered - and probably very senior officer involvement.
At times he has gathered quite a crowd - which would require additional officers at short notice, possibly higher ranks or specialist officers? All additional costs.
It seems a lot... but money doesn't go far with these things - and no doubt, there was plenty of waste along the way - but still... expensive business.
You never know, had he have just handed himself in right away, invested his time in fighting his case properly, he could be a free man by now... and it would have cost the tax payer very little in comparison.
The Swedes decided not to progress with the case, effectively saying there was no case to answer (at the time). Therefore he was on bail for not actually doing anything. Why is jumping bail that you shouldn't be on in the first place so terrible? Shouldn't the bail have been ruled null & void when the case was dropped? How can you be out on bail for a non-existent offence?
Similarly: plod aggressively attempts to arrest you for something you didn't do. You, reasonably, resist. Now they do you for resisting a wrongful arrest! It's not that different.
As I recall, they didn't say there was no case to answer - they said there was no way to progress the case, as Assange wasn't making himself available (by leaving the country, then eventually claiming political asylum with Ecuador).
"No case to answer" and "no way to progress the case" aren't the same thing, and the statute of limitations is still applicable for the crime he's accused of in Sweden, as far as I'm aware.
Anyone know what Swedens 'official' position is on the case? I've tried sniffing aboot, but being busy at work and most of the results being 'people calling for sweden to extradite' aren't making a clear cut answer easy to find for me.
The Swedish prosecutors office don't seem to have said anything much yet. Other than, "we're looking at it". They've taken their own sweet time, whereas I'd have thought you just dust down the old files, remove the pages relating to the stuff that expired under the 5 years statute of limitations, Tippex out the dates and fax it back to Blighty for an arrest.
However I read a piece in the Guardian that was from a Swedish lawyer (of unknown bias) saying that it won't happen. One they can't just do the above, you have to re-consider if there's sufficient evidence to charge, now peoples' memories are 7 years old - plus he said that extradition law is first-come-first-served. So the US get first dibs on him, as they filed first. If true, then Sweden's statute of limitations would likely run out before they could try him.
On t'other hand, one of the women's lawyers was sounding off that he was going to sue the prosecutors, in order to make them pull their fingers out, and not let Assange get away with waiting out the charges.
Which is a long way of saying, "Dunno guv."
"However I read a piece in the Guardian that was from a Swedish lawyer (of unknown bias)"
That would be Sven-Eric Alhem, who used to be a prosecutor. He was also one of the experts wikileaks had recruited to defend Assange at the extradition hearing.
He testified how bad the case had been handled, based entirely on what he'd been told by Wikileaks. Then the court pointed to all the evidence, and he said that actually, Ny was lenient by not putting him in custody to start with, and he'd have done the EAW in her position, and that wikileaks had lied to him, but still defended Assange despite the lies.
He's lost a fair bit of credibility, especially concerning this case.
Occam's razor suggests they won't : The US have found their reason to extradite him, they've wrung as much out the smear as they reasonably could, and Assange has wrung as much publicity out of it as he could. Forcing it back through Sweden benefits nobody.
The US have found their reason to extradite him, they've wrung as much out the smear as they reasonably could, and Assange has wrung as much publicity out of it as he could. Forcing it back through Sweden benefits nobody.
Lets bring a bit of objectivity to this shall we?
Lets pretend that all of the possible charges in the USA are totally and utterly made up. They're not, but lets pretend they are to save his shills the effort.
Allowing Sweden to have first dibs will quite possibly result in a conviction for rape and/or other sexual offences. It's very hard for a sex offender to claim any credibility at anything ever again as nobody looks past rape or noncing.
Letting Sweden have him, with the proviso he is either returned to us or sent to them after the trial and NOT released from custody for even a minute, makes a lot of sense. Especially if his shills are right. Best case you wait while he does porridge & he's discredited forever, worst case, you wait another few months and proceed from where you are now.
Shouldn't the bail have been ruled null & void when the case was dropped? How can you be out on bail for a non-existent offence?
Nope. Sweden issued an EAL, Assange was on bail arguing he shouldn't be sent to Sweden. He exhausted his appeal options, so skipped bail by hiding in the embassy.
So he's been charged, convicted and imprisoned for breaching his bail conditions, and the Bail Act.
Similarly: plod aggressively attempts to arrest you for something you didn't do. You, reasonably, resist. Now they do you for resisting a wrongful arrest! It's not that different.
Nope. If the police arrest you, you're their prisoner until they charge or de-arrest you. If you think the arrest was unlawful, then you complain or lawyer up for unlawful arrest.. But resistance is futile because once an officer utters the magic words 'I'm arrresting you..', then you're meant to comply, or potentially face charges for resisting arrest.
IF you find yourself in the position of having to deal with plod.
1) Be polite.
2) Say nothing, don't explain, don't justify, silence is your right. "No Comment", "Am I free to go?", "I would like legal representation" are the only three things you should say, and silence is better than any of them.
3) Ask for a lawyer, check they are in fact a lawyer and not plod.
4) You don't have to assist, don't give your name, or any other information. Let them read it off your driving license etc other pieces of ID on your person.
5) Don't consume any food offered to you if at all possible, water is fine, but they are not there to help you, they are there to provide information to CPS who will decide if "reasonable prospect of securing a conviction", sadly it doesn't matter to them to convict the right people. A "solve" is all that counts, as in their rather grubby book with large print, the court of appeal is there to deal with that.
6) Don't get lippy, 1096 deaths in police custody since 1990, zero convictions. https://www.inquest.org.uk/deaths-in-police-custody
1) Be polite.
Good advice.
2) Say nothing, don't explain, don't justify, silence is your right. "No Comment", "Am I free to go?", "I would like legal representation" are the only three things you should say, and silence is better than any of them.
Bad advice. The courts can an do take a dim view of a "no comment style interview" (text lifted directly from paperwork sent to the court by the CPS on one of my trips through the CJS. Co-operating, but only so far as to the advice of your solicitor, is always the better plan.
3) Ask for a lawyer, check they are in fact a lawyer and not plod.
Utter nonsense. It is illegal to pretend to be a solicitor or a barrister.
http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/fraud-dishonesty/bogus-fake-solicitors.page
https://www.legalchoices.org.uk/what-to-do-if-youre-not-sure-if-the-person-youre-dealing-with-is-a-barrister
4) You don't have to assist, don't give your name, or any other information. Let them read it off your driving license etc other pieces of ID on your person.
While this may be notionally true, you MUST give your name at the first court appearance, so refusing to do so ahead of time can only result in your being denied bail and held on remand.
The advice given by sed gawk guarantees your arrest and all but guarantees your detention until a court hearing may be scheduled. At best it's poor advice, at worst, it's rank stupidity - depending on why you find your self dealing with the police.
5) Don't consume any food offered to you if at all possible, water is fine, but they are not there to help you, they are there to provide information to CPS who will decide if "reasonable prospect of securing a conviction", sadly it doesn't matter to them to convict the right people.
Sorry, but that is just plain wrong. My best friend is a serving police officer, and he cares very very much about securing convictions against the right people. Everyone makes mistakes and the consequences of a police/CJS fuckup are severe, but pretending they don't care is plain ignorant and wrong.
6) Don't get lippy, 1096 deaths in police custody since 1990, zero convictions. https://www.inquest.org.uk/deaths-in-police-custody
Statistically true, but the statistic doesn't say what you're pretending it does. Take 2017 for example. Of 23 deaths, 3 died in a cell, 5 died in hospital having become unwell in the cell, while 17 had mental health, rug, and alcohol issues involved.
The fact is your most likely to kill yourself rather than be killed by the police while in custody.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/25/highest-number-of-people-in-a-decade-die-in-police-custody
IF you find yourself in the position of having to deal with plod.
Having pulled apart the woeful advice offered earlier, I thought I'd venture my own.
1) Comply with their instructions peacefully, respectfully, and calmly. It removes any justification to use escalating force upon you. If it transpires they are violating your rights, you can simply file a complaint and take their job another day. No really, the time to kick up a fuss is not while being questioned or taken into custody - in no circumstances will this ever help you.
2) If you do get arrested, ask for a solicitor and comply with the solicitors instructions. They know what they're doing more so than your interpretation of some guys advice on the internet. No comment isn't going to help you, it's just going to cause them to focus on you, due to the reasonable expectation that innocent people will cooperate. Obviously if your solicitors advice is "no comment" then do that, but where you can provide evidence of innocence, then compliance and answering questions will almost always produce a better outcome than sulking and stonewalling.
3) If you know you are guilty, admit it. That 1/3rd off your sentence can be important. If its a first offence and you admit guilt at your first court hearing, you'll get 2/3rd reduction in sentence, which means even GBH will be under the 2 year threshold for a suspended sentence - you walk free. Dicking about will leave you over the suspension threshold, and serving time (in cases of GBH you start off looking at 6 years, reduced by 2 years if its a first offence, and another 2 years if you plead guilty at the get go, which is then suspended for 2 years - dicking about will leave you facing 4 years even at a first offence, so you'll go away for 2).
4) If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Crying about it makes you look weak, and weakness in prison isn't a good thing. Killing yourself in custody may get you out of jail, but was whatever you did to get nicked really worth dying for?
I base this on many interactions with the police and CPS over the years - from carrying a pocket knife disclosed during stop & search (even though the blade locked in place and was millimeters too long for EDC rules), suspicion of fleeing a stolen car (wasn't me), driving offences too lengthy to list, and the drunk & wanton relocation of traffic cones and road signs whilst young. I've never been arrested, and that is due to respectful and polite compliance, and a tendency to actually be innocent of that which I was suspected of.
As well as being the police, the people you're interacting with are someones parent, someones child, someones spouse, and someones friend. They're real people, and they don't enjoy you verbally abusing them and making their day any harder than if I came to your work place and did the same to you. When most of your "customers" are disrespectful or abusive bellends, the ones you cut the slack are the ones that show respect, politeness, and basic decency.
That being said, police corruption (yes, it does exist) and misuse of powers (yes it does happen) should rightly be punished and punished harshly and publicly.
"You, reasonably, resist. Now they do you for resisting a wrongful arrest! It's not that different."
1) Yes it is. The Swedes dropped the case because he was too hard to get, not because it didn't have merit.
2) Indeed, you can be arrested for resisting arrest, even if the arrest, it later transpires, is wrongful. Although just because you didn't do something, doesn't mean the arrest is wrongful. A wrongful arrest would have to be if the officer does not have reasonable belief that you were a suspect, and enough evidence to make an arrest.
I remember reading many, many posts here on the reg forums where folks insisted that Assange's fear of extradition to USA was all in his imagination, that he was just being a drama queen, a narcissist*,'attention-seeking' and could walk freely out of the embassy at 'any time' (remember all these clichés?), without ending up in one of Uncle Sam's political prisons.
I also remember various insults and putdowns aimed at anyone who thought that Assange's paranoia might be well-founded. That these comments were completely unfair, boorish and just plain wrong is no longer in any doubt. Those who posted them? Some of them apparently still believe they know what they are talking about regarding Assange's case in more recent comments. No - you guys were just wrong, and Assange's risk assessment (if not his behavior) was right. They really were out to get him.
What is happening now is only "ironic" if you once took that mistaken position, and now pretend that the extradition attempt by the USA a complete surprise. Calling it "ironic" is as disingenuous as weeping over the low sales of a vaporware product.
*obviously didn't bother checking the psychology textbooks, either
If he genuinely feared extradition or rendition to the USA, then the stupidest thing he could possibly do would be to visit a country like the UK where he's not a citizen and has a record of sending people to the USA without resistance.
So by going there, he proved that he is either (a) incredibly stupid, or (b) was not actually worried about it.
However if he smears brown stuff all over the cell like he did in the embassy, then he will serve the full sentence. The 20 day deduction for time already spent inside will apply regardless.
Assange is without any shadow of a doubt, a bellend. An allegedly rapey, treacherous bellend, depending on which accusations you believe. I'm firmly of the opinion he should be sent to Sweden for trial, and that he's serving a fair tariff for bail jumping. The American issues I make no comment on just now.
However, I just don't quite believe the accusations regarding a fecal makeover of the ambassadors pad. If they are true, and I think it's a big if, then he clear has some level of mental health issue which should be treated and not mocked. I suspect this was just a pretext to disgust people enough to overlook the granting of permission for the police to enter the embassy.
I guess this is the price that is paid for revealing war crimes to the world + dog
Even Britain has political prisoners, it’s just that it has a slick PR team that waffles on with sentences such as “Britain leading in (insert whatever)” and never mentions the bad stuff
Oh and BTW
Beware, Astroturfers operate in this area
“Hearts and Minds™️“
Isnt what YOU think it is
I’m done here
Not political prisoner. He gained his 50 weeks in prison from fleeing from the Swedish prosecutors, who wished to try him for rape. So far he's dodged having to face those charges, but hopefully those women will get their day in court - now that he's managed to piss off his hosts in the Ecuadorian embassy enough for them to chuck him out.
███ ██ ███ ███ ████ ██████ █ ███████ ████ █████ █████ ██ ██████ ██████ █████████████████ █████ ████████ ████████ ███ ███ ███████ ████████████ ██ ███████ █████ █████ █████ █ ██ ███ ███ █████ ███████ ██ █████████ ████████ ████ █████ █ █████ ██ ████ ████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ █████ years...
Says Da Judge: Your continued residency has cost £16m of taxpayers' money. No one is above the reach of the law.
Not sure how that's been calculated, police time surveilling the building in case he popped out?If so, which lucky member of The Met's Finest benefited from such a nice little earner?
Fine details aside, however, it's good to see some consideration shown in regard to the poor ol' public purse. I now look forward to every pious preening pratt found guilty of a criminal offence arising from their Extinction of my right to walk and shop where I want in London being billed pro rata for the policing cost of their "Rebellion".
Likewise, if a charge of criminal stupidity is possible in the case of UK Transport minister Chris Grayling, could not his conviction also be coupled with a requirement to compensate the public purse for the waste of all the £millions he authorised to be spent on post-Brexit ferry services that never went anywhere and even a ferry company with no ships at all? The penalty could be attached to the fat Parliamentary pension Grayling will rake in for the rest of his life.
With so muchoney involved here, capitalist punishment should be mandatory.
Here's my question:
Does the UK offer sanctuary to those fleeing persecution for political acts? Does it grant those persons asylum?
If so, it needs to immediately stop doing that, round them all up and ship them back home to face "justice".
Because, you know, the UK are such fans of "justice" and "rule of law."
It is a case of wishful thinking if people think he is going to be aloud to get off lightly.
He has to be made an example of for others that take it upon themselves to play fast and loose with matters of national security - especially in view of on-going developments around the world.
LOL! A convicted hacker (in the 90s in Victoria) and embarrassed both major parties. I'll bet the Oz consulate is doing the minimum they have to.
He's a third rate person, a second rate hacker and but a first rate arse!
I hope he spends time in jail for all the people who have been murdered by Wikileaks releasing raw data. He's no journalist, just a nihilistic bastard and I'm enjoying this conclusion.
If he ends up going to federal prison in the USA, the prisoners will see him as a child molester and make his life hell.
Unfortunately, he won't get the same protections as child molesters and be segregated, since this isn't what he was sentenced for.
Karma buddy... karma.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
