Julian Assange Unlawfully Detained

larus · Feb 5, 2016

Interesting decision by the UN panel. This puts the UK & Sweden in a difficult position seeing as both countries like to be seen to be law abiding.

My personal view is that the charges are "trumped up" by Sweden under pressure from the US due to the leaks. I'll admit that I'm not certain on all of the facts, but something feels off about the whole thing.

Buzzer · Feb 5, 2016

It's a nonsense of a decision. This summarises it perfectly (read from bottom to top)

severnside gull · Feb 5, 2016

It might help the UN Committee's case if he was actually being detained.

Perhaps they should focus more on UN troops raping and sexually assaulting civilians in the Central African Republic

JC Footy Genius · Feb 5, 2016

Assange should be treated like any other citizen. There is a lawful warrant for his arrest he should surrender himself to Police rather than voluntarily hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy whinging on about spurious conspiracy theories and costing the British taxpayer millions.

That UN panel is a joke as is their Human rights monitoring objectivity with Saudi Arabia (FFS) playing a leading role.

Paul Reids Sock · Feb 5, 2016

I really don't understand this, as technically he is in a different country (on their territorial land). As such he has not been detained at all, he has just been informed that should he step foot back on British sovereign land he will be arrest in accordance with a European Arrest warrant and subsequent appeals going against him.

And what on earth is the compensation about?

Whether or not the charges against him are a ploy from the U.S. I fail to see how in this instance anything incorrect has been done?

Hugo Rune · Feb 5, 2016

Lock him up for trying to disguise himself as Noel Edmonds I say! Sick.

beorhthelm · Feb 5, 2016

larus said:
Interesting decision by the UN panel. This puts the UK & Sweden in a difficult position seeing as both countries like to be seen to be law abiding.

Does the UN set law? nope.

short version, if "they" had wanted to extradict him, its easier from UK than Sweden. the whole case is the delusions of a paranoid egomanic, who is wanted for rape and seeking to avoid the judicial process for that allegation. apart from that his is in contempt of court for breaching bail.

edna krabappel · Feb 5, 2016

Will this now apply to anybody who's wanted in the UK?

Is somebody who has an arrest warrant in their name for fraud, possession of indecent images or burglary allowed to piss off into the nearest embassy or consulate and then sue the UK for being mean by trying to arrest them?

Blue Valkyrie · Feb 5, 2016

Paul Reids Sock said:
I really don't understand this, as technically he is in a different country (on their territorial land). As such he has not been detained at all, he has just been informed that should he step foot back on British sovereign land he will be arrest in accordance with a European Arrest warrant and subsequent appeals going against him.

And what on earth is the compensation about?

Whether or not the charges against him are a ploy from the U.S. I fail to see how in this instance anything incorrect has been done?

Exactly. He is legally in Ecuador and nothing to do with us.

It's grim for him now - realistically he has just 3 options - give himself up, escape, or die there.

Medwayseagull · Feb 5, 2016

edna krabappel said:
Will this now apply to anybody who's wanted in the UK?

Is somebody who has an arrest warrant in their name for fraud, possession of indecent images or burglary allowed to piss off into the nearest embassy or consulate and then sue the UK for being mean by trying to arrest them?

That would mean some serious overcrowding in the few embassies which would accept them. They will need robust toilet flushes.

studio150 · Feb 5, 2016

Blue Valkyrie said:
Exactly. He is legally in Ecuador and nothing to do with us.

It's grim for him now - realistically he has just 3 options - give himself up, escape, or die there.

There is a fourth option in staying at the embassy until 2020 when the statue of limitations expires on the rape charge and he can no longer be tried

studio150 · Feb 5, 2016

edna krabappel said:
Will this now apply to anybody who's wanted in the UK?

Is somebody who has an arrest warrant in their name for fraud, possession of indecent images or burglary allowed to piss off into the nearest embassy or consulate and then sue the UK for being mean by trying to arrest them?

Presumably only those embassies where there is not an extradition treaty in place

studio150 · Feb 5, 2016

larus said:
Interesting decision by the UN panel. This puts the UK & Sweden in a difficult position seeing as both countries like to be seen to be law abiding.

My personal view is that the charges are "trumped up" by Sweden under pressure from the US due to the leaks. I'll admit that I'm not certain on all of the facts, but something feels off about the whole thing.

I thought the UN decision is a recommendation rather than anything binding. The only thing that is off about the case is the living in the embassy rather than facing the legal consequences of his alleged previous actions.

severnside gull · Feb 5, 2016

Medwayseagull said:
That would mean some serious overcrowding in the few embassies which would accept them. They will need robust toilet flushes.

It seems nothing gets rid of shit like Assange

Pavilionaire · Feb 5, 2016

Millions of taxpayer's money are being wasted on this case plus policing and security, Ecuador can do one and Miller Bolanos can stick his move up his ar*se.

Blue Valkyrie · Feb 5, 2016

studio150 said:
There is a fourth option in staying at the embassy until 2020 when the statue of limitations expires on the rape charge and he can no longer be tried

That sounds his best bet then.

Buzzer · Feb 5, 2016

studio150 said:
There is a fourth option in staying at the embassy until 2020 when the statue of limitations expires on the rape charge and he can no longer be tried

There's a statute of limitations on rape? Is that right? It's just that there was a case last week of someone getting convicted after DNA evidence identified him as the rapist some 30 years ago.

Jim D · Feb 5, 2016

studio150 said:
There is a fourth option in staying at the embassy until 2020 when the statue of limitations expires on the rape charge and he can no longer be tried

Is this something in Swedish law as I don't think it's in ours? Aren't all these historic sexual abuse allegations/investigations based on rape?

Goldstone1976 · Feb 5, 2016

Buzzer said:
There's a statute of limitations on rape? Is that right? It's just that there was a case last week of someone getting convicted after DNA evidence identified him as the rapist some 30 years ago.

In Sweden, yes. Disturbing, huh?

Buzzer · Feb 5, 2016

Goldstone1976 said:
In Sweden, yes. Disturbing, huh?

I'm gobsmacked. That's a terrible state of affairs.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Julian Assange Unlawfully Detained

Well-known member

Languidly Clinical

Well-known member

Bringer of TRUTH

Well-known member

Well-known member

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Well-known member

Not seen such Bravery!

JCB

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Not seen such Bravery!

Languidly Clinical

Well-known member

We Got Calde in!!

Languidly Clinical

Share this page