No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Started by Pixiedust on May 28, 2020 10:08:44 AM
Julian Assange – to Extradition Trial and Beyond

Continuation of the previous thread, which can be found here:

Well, he's not exactly on the run any more, is he?

Pixiedust - 28 May 2020 10:10:26 (#1 of 2606)

The "Stuff they Don't Want You to Know" podcast did an update on Friday which is a handy summary of events leading up to today:

Interesting listen. And points are made that will please both Assange's supporters and detractors.

Pixiedust - 28 May 2020 10:24:21 (#2 of 2606)

Queensland's Independent Australia refers to Assange being "a prisoner" during his time in the Ecuadoran embassy.,13930

Looks like his team are pinning their hopes on COVID-19 to get him bailed. According to the podcast I linked above, there have been two cases of coronavirus in Belmarsh.

LazyDazy - 29 May 2020 23:19:04 (#3 of 2606)

There was some legal reason given, which I can't now remember, why he couldn't be released. I can't honestly see otherwise for not granting him at least temporary release. He won't have a passport and I doubt if he'll find another embassy to take him in.

Arjuna - 29 May 2020 23:24:57 (#4 of 2606)

They should fire him into space

Pixiedust - 29 May 2020 23:30:13 (#5 of 2606)

He would probably be a good candidate for compassionate bail if he hadn't spaffed any credibility he had up the wall when he did a bunk to the Ecuadoran embassy and cost his supproters a fuck-ton of money.

I note that there don't seem to be (m)any people offering to vouch for him this time round.

LazyDazy - 29 May 2020 23:44:42 (#6 of 2606)

The embassy was a huge mistake on his part. I imagine he thought that his stay would be rather shorter than it turned out to be. He seems to have done his mental and physical health quite a bit of damage by it. His own choice, I know, but the quality of mercy is not strained and all that.

guigal - 29 May 2020 23:49:41 (#7 of 2606)

LazyDazy - 29 May 2020 23:44:42 ( #6 of 6) The embassy was a huge mistake on his part.

He was prevented from travelling to Ecuador. Or anywhere else.

Pixiedust - 29 May 2020 23:57:34 (#8 of 2606)

Have you listened to the podcast, Guigal?

guigal - 30 May 2020 00:05:33 (#9 of 2606)


No. What does it say on this point?

LazyDazy - 30 May 2020 00:06:04 (#10 of 2606)

Of course he was prevented from going to Ecuador, and quite rightly so, guigal. His final appeal against extradition to Sweden had failed and he was due to be sent back there, as you perfectly well know. Your whole case against that rests on an assumption that he shouldn't have been extradited to Sweden because he wasn't guilty of the sexual assault allegations. You just never have the honesty or decency to say so outright.

I don't make any assumptions either way.

guigal - 30 May 2020 00:34:30 (#11 of 2606)

LazyDazy - 30 May 2020 00:06:04 ( #10 of 10)

Suspects can be questioned (a) by the prosecutor travelling to the country where the suspect is located (b) by requesting the local investigative authorities to carry out the interrogation on their behalf (c) by video link. I hope we can assume that the interrogation is not a mere formality and that it would have a bearing on the prosecutor's decision whether to proceed to a trial or not.

In its statement on the issue, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention requested Sweden and the United Kingdom to assess the situation of Mr. Assange to ensure his safety and physical integrity, to facilitate the exercise of his right to freedom of movement in an expedient manner, and to ensure the full enjoyment of his rights guaranteed by the international norms on detention. The Working Group also considered that the detention should be brought to an end and that Mr. Assange should be afforded the right to compensation. (5 February 2016)

None of this presupposes the outcome of the investigation by the Swedish prosecutor one way or the other.

Tripos - 30 May 2020 01:19:00 (#12 of 2606)

#1 Thanks Pixiedust.

chacqueschirac - 30 May 2020 06:05:53 (#13 of 2606)

The circle jerk continues.

guigal - 30 May 2020 07:53:04 (#14 of 2606)

Exciting as the sex case has been for the mob, it has fizzled out.

The Swedish Prosecution Authority website said chief prosecutor Eva Finne had come to the decision that Julian Assange was not subject to arrest. 21 August 2010 BBC

Another Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, piled in after the initial cancellation and resurrected the case. After years of insisting that it was impossible to conduct an interview outside Sweden, an interview was conducted in the Ecuador Embassy in London.

Prosecutors question Julian Assange at Ecuador embassy in London Reuters NOVEMBER 14, 2016

Fri 19 May 2017 Swedish prosecutors cancel the arrest warrant.

Sweden keeps the threat of reopening the 'investigation' hanging over Assange until they finally step back in 2019 to make way for the Americans to pursue their demand for extradition.

UK home secretary, Priti Patel, agrees, of course, to accept the American extradition demand and sends it to the courts for a decision, ensuring that Assange continues to be denied his freedom.

By contrast, a British request for the extradition of Anne Sacoolas is categorically rejected by the USA. No way, says Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo.

guigal - 30 May 2020 09:18:37 (#15 of 2606)

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe,wrongly deprived of her freedom, in the view of the UN committee on arbitrary detention, may be released shortly.

British-Iranian woman could be granted clemency soon, says husband (Sky News, today)

Pixiedust - 30 May 2020 11:22:46 (#16 of 2606)

#1 Thanks Pixiedust.

No worries. It came up in my regular rotation and I figured that other people might find it interesting.

Guigal seems to be too busy to spare an hour to listen to the points that it makes in Assange's favour.

guigal - 30 May 2020 11:32:59 (#17 of 2606)


You need some random blokes on a podcast to do your thinking for you, apparently. You're completely loopy to imagine that I have any interest in listening to 'points in his favour' . That's confirmation bias you're talking about.

Pixiedust - 30 May 2020 11:36:04 (#18 of 2606)

I absorb information from a large range of sources and then reach my own conclusions. But go ahead and comfort yourself by staying in your bubble if it makes you feel better. These are troubling times and you probably don't need the added stress of cognitive dissonance.

guigal - 30 May 2020 12:51:21 (#19 of 2606)

Pixiedust - 30 May 2020 11:36:04 ( #18 of 18) I absorb information from a large range of sources and then reach my own conclusions.

If you're calling opinion pieces by random blokes your 'sources', you have no idea of where you find information about the facts of the case. The suggestion that 'points in his favour', from nobody in particular, would be of interest is a recommendation to indulge in confirmation bias. Another deeply clueless notion of finding the facts.

If you are impressed by anything you heard on the podcast, by all means say what it is.

Pixiedust - 30 May 2020 13:06:54 (#20 of 2606)

If you're calling opinion pieces by random blokes your 'sources', you have no idea of where you find information about the facts of the case.

You can't make that judgement, because you haven't listened to the podcast. It's well-sourced and even-handed. Why are you so scared to listen to it? Are you worried that you might hear something that makes you uncomfortable?

Check Subscriptions
Home » UK News