Julian Assange loses extradition appeal at Supreme Court

[Eclassy]

CoolHands said:

if true, then what is the reason for guarding it for all these years and wasting nearly 13 million fkING QUID the s

£13 fg million over 3 years standing outside a building round the clock whilst Londoners cant get a policeman to come round to disperse local yobs riding unregistered bikes in public.

The cuts are biting real hard.

[anonymous-user]

Far too much money and it went on far too long. I expect there were political pressures involved.

[Jockman]

If I told you the govt spends more on staples and paper clips would this make you feel better?

I reckon someone has shouted 'plebs' from an embassy window so it's tools down.

[Halb]

It's nice that the police have stopped wasting money on this.
A disgrace that it went on for so long.

Have they never heard of Colonel Trautman?!

[jmorgan]

Send him the bill then stick a few coppers outside until he pays.

[Deisel Weisel]

Is he free to leave the embassy?

[Beati Dogu]

Deisel Weisel said:

Is he free to leave the embassy?

He always was.

There's the little matter of jumping bail that our authorities want to talk to him about. Whatever he got up to in Sweden, he certainly shafted the useful idiots that put up his bail money. Plus, we have his passport.

[Foppo]

Why not let him go? Vindictive situation by the Government what does it prove.Nothing but a lot of money wasted on a man who supposed to have raped a Swedish women.It was a honeytrap in my opinion the Yanks are keen to get their hand on him.

[williamp]

Foppo said:

Why not let him go? Vindictive situation by the Government what does it prove.Nothing but a lot of money wasted on a man who supposed to have raped a Swedish women.It was a honeytrap in my opinion the Yanks are keen to get their hand on him.

As above he was free to leave at any time. He would be arrested as soon as he did, but we were not holding him captive. He was seeking refuge in the embassy

[Transmitter Man]

Foppo said:

Why not let him go? Vindictive situation by the Government what does it prove.Nothing but a lot of money wasted on a man who supposed to have raped a Swedish women.It was a honeytrap in my opinion the Yanks are keen to get their hand on him.

...and has been already mentioned earlier in the thread the Swdes have already dropped all but one of the charges against Assange.

I'd also guess a honey trap.

Phil

[scherzkeks]

Martin4x4 said:

In fact he has done so much damage to the FOI cause, I would not be surprised if it turned out he was running a false flag operation.

Really. How has he damaged FOI?

[Andy Zarse]

Transmitter Man said:

Foppo said:

Why not let him go? Vindictive situation by the Government what does it prove.Nothing but a lot of money wasted on a man who supposed to have raped a Swedish women.It was a honeytrap in my opinion the Yanks are keen to get their hand on him.

...and has been already mentioned earlier in the thread the Swdes have already dropped all but one of the charges against Assange.

I'd also guess a honey trap.

Phil

The Swedes have not "dropped" the charges (as you disingenuously state). They charges have time expired, clearly not the same thing.

Thank you for you guess. My guess is Assange is guilty of sexual assault, what with him having spaffed his custard up a bird after she had told him to rubber up. So it's you guess against mine. Why don't we, in the traditional manner, let a court in the jurisdiction where the offence occurred hear the evidence and decide on the facts offered by the prosecution and defence?

Oh wait etc...

[Transmitter Man]

Andy Zarse said:

The Swedes have not "dropped" the charges (as you disingenuously state). They charges have time expired, clearly not the same thing.

Thank you for you guess. My guess is Assange is guilty of sexual assault, what with him having spaffed his custard up a bird after she had told him to rubber up. So it's you guess against mine. Why don't we, in the traditional manner, let a court in the jurisdiction where the offence occurred hear the evidence and decide on the facts offered by the prosecution and defence?

Oh wait etc...

The prosecution had the opportunity of interviewing him . It would not of been the first time a suspect has been interviewed outside the country of the investigation or crime. Prosecution left it too long. Not the fault of Assange surely.

Phil

[scherzkeks]

Andy Zarse said:

My guess is Assange is guilty of sexual assault, what with him having spaffed his custard up a bird after she had told him to rubber up. So it's you guess against mine. Why don't we, in the traditional manner, let a court in the jurisdiction where the offence occurred hear the evidence and decide on the facts offered by the prosecution and defence?

Oh wait etc...

Well, he'd need to be questioned first. Something the authorities refused to carry out at the embassy (just as they refused to guarantee that he would not be extradited). I wonder why they didn't bother if it was so critical that this questioning be carried out before the statute of limitations expired? All rhetorical of course. The answers seem rather self-evident, and the motives transparent.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/julian-assan...

[Andy Zarse]

scherzkeks said:

Andy Zarse said:

My guess is Assange is guilty of sexual assault, what with him having spaffed his custard up a bird after she had told him to rubber up. So it's you guess against mine. Why don't we, in the traditional manner, let a court in the jurisdiction where the offence occurred hear the evidence and decide on the facts offered by the prosecution and defence?

Oh wait etc...

Well, he'd need to be questioned first. Something the authorities refused to carry out at the embassy (just as they refused to guarantee that he would not be extradited). I wonder why they didn't bother if it was so critical that this questioning be carried out before the statute of limitations expired? All rhetorical of course. The answers seem rather self-evident, and the motives transparent.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/julian-assan...

Why should he be given leave to dictate where and when he is interviewed? Why should he be given this special status, particularly in light of the sexual nature of the allegations against him? If you or I tried that we would be instantly detained.

In any event, this was clearly a gambit by Assange; for him it was a one way bet. If, after the interview, the Swedish authorities decided to drop charges he would emerge a from the Embassy a self-proclaimed hero of political persecution, denigrating the British and Swedish governments.

If however they decided to proceed against him he would clearly refuse to leave his rathole and attend court in Sweden.

The authorities have quite rightly refused to play his silly little game.

I would add that if this was say Farage we were talking about then most of the folk on here defending him would be absolutely up in arms about him cheating justice.

[Scuffers]

Andy Zarse said:

Why should he be given leave to dictate where and when he is interviewed? Why should he be given this special status, particularly in light of the sexual nature of the allegations against him? If you or I tried that we would be instantly detained.

or the other view, why did the Swedish police and investigators drop all interest and release him before he left the country, only picking them up again later.

Why did they also not just issue a statement saying they would not be holding him for any other countries extradition?

Look, I am no fan of Assange per say, he's an arrogant tosser, but that does not make him some kind of master rapist general.

Even the 'victim' want's it all to go away...

[scherzkeks]

Andy Zarse said:

Why should he be given leave to dictate where and when he is interviewed?

He wasn't. He just happened to be in a position to negotiate. He offered three options for doing the interview. In-person at the embassy, via video chat, or in Sweden -- if Sweden could confirm he would not be extradited.

The authorities sat on their hands and let the SOL run out. I think we can all guess why that was. The rest is unsubstantiated drivel.

[Andy Zarse]

scherzkeks said:

The rest is unsubstantiated drivel.

You know this how?

[scherzkeks]

Andy Zarse said:

You know this how?

Because the authorities sat on their hands rather than question him. If the case had anything of substance to it, they would have simply interviewed him and proceeded from there.

[Andy Zarse]

scherzkeks said:

Andy Zarse said:

You know this how?

Because the authorities sat on their hands rather than question him. If the case had anything of substance to it, they would have simply interviewed him and proceeded from there.

Baloney.