Uk Threaten to storm Ecuador Embassy for Assange

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

I've had to delete a few posts on this thread. While people are entitled to their opinions on Assange and how this case is being handled, they are not entitled to misrepresent the Swedish legal allegations against him, as this is potentially libelous. The charges are widely available online, and as far as I am aware, have to do with issues around consent, not age. If you can produce a reputable news source that says otherwise, then link to it with your comments, but otherwise, please refrain from these kinds of conjectures, as they are legally quite dangerous.

Rascasse

golden lane wrote: »

rape and sexual assaults are a persistant problem in ecuador........

Can we stop using the word rape? He has not been accused of rape (nor sex with minors as was laughably suggested).

KerranJast

So he's been granted asylum. Surely the next step is bung him into a diplomatic car and drive to Switzerland. Can the UK police prevent a DC from using the Chunnel?

steve9859

Apparently, according to the legal guy in the BBC, diplomatic cars do not enjoy the same protection as the Embassy itself. He can be arrested as soon as he steps out the door, whether in a diplomatic car or not. I don't see the UK authorities letting Assange give them the slip, so he may be in the embassy for a very very long time!

golden lane

Rascasse wrote: »

Can we stop using the word rape? He has not been accused of rape (nor sex with minors as was laughably suggested).

i have not accused anybody of rape or assaults on minors...

i am just baffled that there are posters who seem to be happy that he may get away, and not be judged in a court of law.....

too many people have got away without being judged in my opinion....

as i have personal experience in such matters.....i am rather shocked....

Fratton Fred

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm not normally one for conspiracy theories but it does strike me as strange that the UK government is willing to threaten Ecuador with a diplomatic incident to force them to hand over someone who hasn't been found guilty of any crime.

Is the UK normally this determined to see those accused of sexual assault in another jurisdiction stand trial?

Can the victims of sexual assault across the globe now rest easy knowing that the UK government will not only track down their attacker should he enter their jurisdiction but will also leave no stone unturned to ensure that their attacker is extradited for trial - even to the extent of causing a diplomatic incident?

The UK is in an awkward position though. Both Julian Assange and Ecuador have taken the piss, very very publicly, out of the legal process.

What the British foreign office has done is remind Ecuador that they are on dodge territory and the UK could revoke the diplomatic status of the embassy should it wish.

Ecuador know full well they have overstepped the mark and are using the rallying cry of "help, nasty old imperial Britain is bullying us" to get the support of the usual left wing rent a mob.

BTW, I would be interested in your view of the actual charges and what he did.

Whilst not actually a criminal offence, the guy does sound like a real creep.

20Cent

golden lane wrote: »

i have not accused anybody of rape or assaults on minors...

i am just baffled that there are posters who seem to be happy that he may get away, and not be judged in a court of law.....

too many people have got away without being judged in my opinion....

as i have personal experience in such matters.....i am rather shocked....

He's said himself that he wants to address the allegations, he went voluntarily to a police station in the UK, has offered to be interviewed by Swedish police in the UK. Its going to Sweden that's the problem, once there he's afraid of being extradited to the US, with good reason.

jhegarty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

BTW, I would be interested in your view of the actual charges and what he did.

Whilst not actually a criminal offence, the guy does sound like a real creep.

What charges ?

He hasn't been charged with any crime.

I think there is no doubt he is a creep.

Fratton Fred

jhegarty wrote: »

What charges ?

He hasn't been charged with any crime.

I think there is no doubt he is a creep.

Ok, the allegations.

The Guardian ran an article on it and it would seem the charges are more to do with unprotected sex rather than actually having sex. This is something I think a woman would have a different view on.

blubloblu

steve9859 wrote: »

Apparently, according to the legal guy in the BBC, diplomatic cars do not enjoy the same protection as the Embassy itself. He can be arrested as soon as he steps out the door, whether in a diplomatic car or not. I don't see the UK authorities letting Assange give them the slip, so he may be in the embassy for a very very long time!

The cars can't be searched, but they can be stopped. He'd need to get from the embassy to the car though, not easy.

He hasn't been charged, he's wanted for questioning. Ecuador invited Swedish prosecutors to question him in London, but this was refused.

Under the European Arrest Warrant framework, he cannot be re-extradited to a non-EU country without the consent of the UK. He has 45 days of some immunity in Sweden before they can re-open a case (extradition or otherwise) against him, this is also voided if he leaves and returns to Sweden. That's the point at which he should head for Ecuador. UK is unlikely to consent to extradition if there is a threat of the death penalty, although that's for the lawyers to argue.

gobnaitolunacy

jhegarty wrote: »

What charges ?

He hasn't been charged with any crime.

I think there is no doubt he is a creep.

He's OBVIOUSLY dodging something.
And he's gotta come out of the embassy sometime....

20Cent

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

He's OBVIOUSLY dodging something.
And he's gotta come out of the embassy sometime....

Dodging life or the death penalty in the US.

ArmaniJeanss

Seems he can be sent to Ecuador 'in the diplomatic bag' quite easily.

Before the jokes start, the diplomatic bag is more than just a bag, it can be a shipping or airfreight container. Perhaps less likely he can also probably be sent as the courier of a diplomatic bag, such a role enjoying the same freedom of movement as the diplomatic bag itself.

Lemming

What concerns me most about this is the UK setting a precedent regarding foreign mission territory in nations that do not like each other or have heated disagreements on a particular matter, opening a whole new can of very ugly worms with very serious & far reaching unforseen consequences.

Tatankbull

The British govt are being very short sighted here. To invoke the 1987 Act which might allow them to revoke the diplomatic status of the embassy would just weaken their own ability to provide refuge to individuals in British embassies around the world.

What pronouncements about the sanctity of embassies, etc, would Britain have made if the Chinese had of stripped the American embassy in Beijing of it's status and arrested Chen Guangchang?

I really want to see Assange put on trial and justice to be done (whether it's him being found guilty or not) but the British are going to this much trouble and taking such long-term risks more for political reasons than to see justice is done in a sexual assault case.

Rascasse

The diplomatic pouch trick would be the last option. The slightest problem with the paperwork and the game is up. They'd probably only try this if the FCO decides to revoke diplomatic status of the building.

Diplomatic courier is a non starter.

Safe passage is what the Ecuadorians will ask for. Unlikely to get it anytime soon.

gobnaitolunacy

Agreed. The uk should have kept its cool and play the waiting game.

robinph

blubloblu wrote: »

The cars can't be searched, but they can be stopped. He'd need to get from the embassy to the car though, not easy.

He should have picked a country with a bigger embassy and a driveway onto their property rather than one in a block of terraced houses.

The diplomatic bag trick has been tried before with a big container and was stopped by customs anyway.

Dave!

Surreal that we're actually talking about the logistics of getting Assange into the boot of the car (not literally ). Sounds like something from a spy movie.

blubloblu

Lemming wrote: »

What concerns me most about this is the UK setting a precedent regarding foreign mission territory in nations that do not like each other or have heated disagreements on a particular matter, opening a whole new can of very ugly worms with very serious & far reaching unforseen consequences.

I'd say they will be very reluctant to do it. I'm not even sure if the Act gives them that power, the grounds are for public safety, national security, and town planning (and must be permissible under international law, the asylum status might now complicate things). Executing an extradition warrant is none of those. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/46

IvySlayer

Ecuador invited Swedish prosecutors to discuss the rape case and the Swedes said no....

robinph

This is probably actually good for the UK now. They just need to be shown to have a copper stood on the front door of the embassy to arrest him if he leaves, but the argument is now between Ecuador and Sweden. He's nothing to do with the UK now as he has effectively left the country.

There is no way the UK could take the step of removing the diplomatic status of the embassy for this.

Rascasse

blubloblu wrote: »

I'd say they will be very reluctant to do it. I'm not even sure if the Act gives them that power, the grounds are for public safety, national security, and town planning (and must be permissible under international law, the asylum status might now complicate things). Executing an extradition warrant is none of those. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/46

I asked that question last night in the thread in Legal Discussion.

My point was surely section 22 of the Vienna Convention trumps UK law here. But who is the arbiter?

Section 22:

1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.

2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.

3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.

jaykay74

If only there was some sort of technology that would allow Assange to answer Swedish prosecutor's questions from where he is...

IvySlayer

jaykay74 wrote: »

If only there was some sort of technology that would allow Assange to answer Swedish prosecutor's questions from where he is...

IvySlayer wrote: »

Ecuador invited Swedish prosecutors to discuss the rape case and the Swedes said no....

:P

PseudoFamous

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This is something I think a woman would have a different view on.

It's funny you should mention this, as both of the women were consenting, and both supposedly bragged to their friends/facebook after it, and neither of them are filing charges against him

jhegarty

jaykay74 wrote: »

If only there was some sort of technology that would allow Assange to answer Swedish prosecutor's questions from where he is...

He has offered to meet them in the over the phone or in person in the UK.

jaykay74

jhegarty wrote: »

He has offered to meet them in the over the phone or in person in the UK.

Thats kind of my point. Sweden isn't interesting in questioning him as such. They are interested in him being in Sweden.

IvySlayer

jaykay74 wrote: »

Thats kind of my point. Sweden isn't interesting in questioning him as such. They are interested in him being in Sweden.

So they can hand him over to the US.

US saying JUMP, UK saying how high?

Fratton Fred

PseudoFamous wrote: »

It's funny you should mention this, as both of the women were consenting, and both supposedly bragged to their friends/facebook after it, and neither of them are filing charges against him

Why do sex offence charges always result in the woman being ridiculed.

dunphy3

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Ecuador are deliberately interfering in the legal process of both the UK and Sweden.

Britain is actually threatening to revoke the embassy's privileges, which would allow the police to enter and arrest Assange.

Even if they grant Assange asylum, he has to leave sometime, but why would a government offer asylum to a man charged with rape?

Ecuador need to stfu and stop behaving like some tinpot banana republic.

We're not a colony ffs, what's that all about.

nobody has been charged with any offence?????????

PseudoFamous

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why do sex offence charges always result in the woman being ridiculed.

Where exactly did I ridicule anyone?

golden lane

ecuador believes it is setting world standards for justice...?????

20Cent

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why do sex offence charges always result in the woman being ridiculed.

What sex charges?
Who is ridiculing them?
If the Swedes had a case surely they would have charged him?
They only want to interview him, he's offered to do this but not in Sweden, they could call him or do it at anytime in the UK. The whole thing is about getting him to Sweden. If this was such an urgent matter they could have interviewed him at anytime while he was in the UK but they didn't. Why not?
The allegations are widely being called rape but different countries will have different laws about what rape is. In Sweden sex without a condom is rape, so if one breaks comes off or breaks which has happened to all of us at some stage thats rape there.

RATM

Diplomatic helicopter ftw:D:D:D

Dave!

Diplomatic underground tunnel

Fratton Fred

20Cent wrote: »

What sex charges?
Who is ridiculing them?
If the Swedes had a case surely they would have charged him?
They only want to interview him, he's offered to do this but not in Sweden, they could call him or do it at anytime in the UK. The whole thing is about getting him to Sweden. If this was such an urgent matter they could have interviewed him at anytime while he was in the UK but they didn't. Why not?
The allegations are widely being called rape but different countries will have different laws about what rape is. In Sweden sex without a condom is rape, so if one breaks comes off or breaks which has happened to all of us at some stage thats rape there.

the charges that will or will not happen are largely irrelevant. One eu country is trying to extradite a person from another eu country.

Incidentally, where have all Assange's celebrity supporters gone?

Just like wikileaks itself, this isn't about a crusade against the forces of darkness, it is all about Assange and his ego.

Fratton Fred

PseudoFamous wrote: »

Where exactly did I ridicule anyone?

You are claiming they bragged about it on Facebook.

pablomakaveli

PseudoFamous wrote: »

It's funny you should mention this, as both of the women were consenting, and both supposedly bragged to their friends/facebook after it, and neither of them are filing charges against him

Just out of curiousity, do you have any evidence of this?

steve9859

jhegarty wrote: »

He has offered to meet them in the over the phone or in person in the UK.

That would obviously never be a runner, and he knows it. Say the Swedish police questioned him on a videolink, and caught him out in some lie, resulting in a confession (unlikley I know). If that happens, and he is caught bang to rights, he is still not in Sweden, and is even less likely to go! So they Swedes are in an even weaker position. It is nonsense to think that questioning him on non-Swedish soil would ever work

timothybryce

20Cent wrote: »

Ecuador due to make a statement shortly hope they give him asylum.

Hope the US gets him.

20Cent

timothybryce wrote: »

Hope the US gets him.

Why?

golden lane

i just wonder how much it takes to bribe the ecuadorian government.......it took 8 weeks to get the money together...

nehemiah

golden lane wrote: »

ecuador believes it is setting world standards for justice...?????

So Ecuador can't set world standards for justice? If such standards exist, who would you like to set them? USA? UK?? Sweden???

The essential thing here is that no country would threaten invasion of a sovereign country's embassy on the basis of a sexual assault charge. There is no doubt of that and if there are any precedents that say otherwise I would be happy to stand corrected.

Could you imagine France invading Irish territory to arrest Ian Bailey? That would go down well...

force eleven

timothybryce wrote: »

Hope the US gets him.

Hilary Clinton interfered with Swedish due process. Anytime that evil witch gets involved in anything, you better watch out.

I hope he toughs it out. Will be difficult though, when Hilary says jump, Cameron and Hague go through the hoops.

Rascasse

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Just out of curiousity, do you have any evidence of this?

The quote is a tweet (not Facebook) sent after the alleged incident:

Assange stayed with his accuser for several days and she even threw him a barbecue after the alleged rape took place. At 2am that night she tweeted, "Sitting outdoors with the world's coolest, smartest people! It's amazing!" Assange's defence lawyer suggests it's a strange thing to say when attending a party with the man who molested you. According to witnesses she even refused offers of alternative accommodation for Assange that night, saying "he can stay with me"

This Australian documentary is quite good. Its by Australia's version of BBC's Panorama, not some pro Assange propaganda group.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu4WCskniEc

Fratton Fred

Rascasse wrote: »

The quote is a tweet (not Facebook) sent after the alleged incident:



This Australian documentary is quite good. Its by Australia's version of BBC's Panorama, not some pro Assange propaganda group.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu4WCskniEc

so are you (like the Ecuadorian foreign minister) claiming that the Swedish system is dodgey?

His guilt is irrelevant. If he is innocent then he should go to Sweden and clear his name.

jhegarty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so are you (like the Ecuadorian foreign minister) claiming that the Swedish system is dodgey?

His guilt is irrelevant. If he is innocent then he should go to Sweden and clear his name.

How can he clear his name when there are no charges filed ?

Fratton Fred

jhegarty wrote: »

How can he clear his name when there are no charges filed ?

Err, there is an allegation. You don't need charges to clear your name.

golden lane

nehemiah wrote: »

So Ecuador can't set world standards for justice? If such standards exist, who would you like to set them? USA? UK?? Sweden???

The essential thing here is that no country would threaten invasion of a sovereign country's embassy on the basis of a sexual assault charge. There is no doubt of that and if there are any precedents that say otherwise I would be happy to stand corrected.

Could you imagine France invading Irish territory to arrest Ian Bailey? That would go down well...

you chooses who you like.......i wouldn't choose ecuador.....

i believe thay have been bribed by another country to grant asylum......

as for assange......frankly i couldn't give a damn......