Swedish Supreme Court keeps AssangeTM in Little Ecuador Sweden's Supreme Court has decided not to let Julian Assange discontinue his ongoing attempt to extend the world couch-surfing record. The five-judge court yesterday released a decision (PDF) on Assange's application to have his arrest warrant quashed. Assange's legal team argued that his ongoing residence in London's …
The day he's finally shipped off to Sweden, where he's sentenced to a month of community service.
I heard rumours the Swedish people were now indeed coming to the UK. That could be interesting, because if he is indeed convicted in absentia after that interview the Ecuadorians will be actively harbouring a criminal. Not sure how well that one will go down in the annals of diplomatic history, but I have a feeling in that embassy is yet another person who is regretting the day they befriended St Jules. So, in short, you may have your wish soon. It's about time too.
Assange's legal team argued that his ongoing residence in London's Ecuadorian embassy is a disproportionate response to the investigation into his alleged crimes.
LOL - this shows a serious degree of desperation. The Swedes had nothing to do with that, so it won't influence matters one iota. That St Jules decided to bolt is not their problem, even less so that the embassy was stupid enough to abuse the asylum process.
The "dispropotionate response" Is by Assange to the issuance of an arrest warrant and it is nothing to do with Sweden or its courts. It was his choice to go to Ecuador to continue to evade arrest, and no matter how noble the cause, let's not forget that he has chosen to evade arrest.
"Please someone explain the down votes (the single one I get, always get at least one).
Please explain HOW it's Sweden's fault he is in an Embassy?"
It happens to me also and I consider it to be a badge of honour that, for citing facts, I elicit disapproval; it demonstrates how out of touch with the truth these people are; it occurs, not because they have some superb a priori argument against you, based on laws and morals, and no one has yet offered any coherent argument about the alleged rapey-man whose followers appear to accord him some latter day Neo status.
As to Julie himself, he absconded from Sweden (soon after his lawyer was informed the police wanted to interview and then arrest him as per Swedish legal practise, thereby causing his lawyer's professional society to interview him), having prior made it clear he wanted to reside there - it being that he felt safe from the US - but now feels they have banana republic justice, even though they subscribe to the same legal standards/ECHR/HRA that the Brits (for the while at least) do, and then locked himself in a a Latinate closet.
Julie's Knightsbridge balcony scenes were amusing, a sign of desperate manipulation. Not long now. Soon he'll need either a medical or dental operation that will require him to leave the building. He can be assured of an excellent escort, a clear route, and people at the point of treatment who will guard and protect him. Unless of course he chooses to have a sordid death in the closet. I'm sure the NHS won't mind this single instance of health tourism. ;-)
Please arrow this post down. I want to see as many down arrows as possible. Thank you.
I understand that there's a clock ticking in Sweden so Assange doesn't have long to wait to forget about that mess due to a statue of limitations
I still don't believe that the clock can be counted as running down when you're deliberately fleeing from justice and obfuscating the investigation of the crime.
As I've said before, it surely can't be the right that you could visit Sweden, get all rapey with the natives, then return home. When they don't find you for a few years, because they have no idea where in the world you are, you get off free as a bird? I just don't buy that. If, however, it is true, then Sweden should be urgently looing towards reforming its judicial process.
While I am not sure how the statute of limitations would be applied under Swedish law, I am curious as to whether he could be charged and tried in absentia. At least in a generic sense, the limitation is on the time between the crime and a person being charged with it. If he has been charged, I would think there would no longer be a ticking clock in that sense.
More seriously - who's paying the lawyers?
Because I'm assuming that, apart from the odd media interview, Assange isn't in full time employment or education. Presumably, the same people who bailed him out (which out worked really well!), or he's receiving funding from Wikileaks etc.?
Who's paying his day-to-day expenses while he's in the embassy? And who's funding these lawyers (plural)? And, secondly, they aren't actually very good at what they do (I mean, it's hard when your client is on the run, but even so).
Roll on the day when he's slung in a British jail, transported to Sweden, maybe slung in a Swedish jail, and then forgotten about when he comes out. Nobody cares any more. Along with Royal babies and who's now minister of whatever, I'm so bored of him I couldn't care less.
ISTR that he set his Wikipedia salary at around £80,000. Then there is the considerable advance given him by a publishing house for his autobiography, from which agreement he withdrew whilst keeping the money, thereby proving himself to be completely untrustworthy and pefidious. I believe there are other sizeable chunks hanging around. The whole Wikipedia set up seems to me to belong to the Dear Leader, who uses it as a milch cow.
You will remember that his earlier benefactors, the ones who stumped up bail for him, lost their money. I'd like to say that he's blown it in that respect, but I somehow think that some of them will continue to bet on this horse.
Say you need 5 plods to guard the embassy (assuming there's more than one entrance/exit). Mounting that guard 24x365 would require 30 bodies plus a few 'chiefs' to manage the 'indians'. Cost of those bodies is over £3 million a year* (not just salary, you need to include all their kit, pensions funding etc).
* Met police current budget £3.7bn pa for 37,000 pairs of boots on the ground.
Can't see any problem with a Rough order of Magnitude estimate of a plod being £100k pa. But "cost to the taxpayer" stuff is not as simple as adding this up.
Firstly, a figure of 'millions' is negligible compared to the tax pot, so reporting it in absolute terms can mislead those who are not aware of the annual tax take. Secondly, at least half of the salary of the plod ends up back in the tax system (and the purchase equipment with which he is supplied benefits the businesses who supply that equipment, and their employees, and the taxman benefits from both of these --- same is true for the coffee and doughnuts he buys when off duty etc.). Thirdly, the police keeping an eye on Assange are presumably not exclusively dedicated to that: if a high priority incident occurs nearby, some of them will surely be redeployed appropriately.
"Where does this £10m cost supposedly come from?"
It's one of those magic numbers usually reserved for phrases, like "... with a street value of £X,000 ...", beloved by official spokespersons.
It's calculated on the basis that the ambassador used to just leave the keys in the door when he nipped out to the shops, and the police had no idea it was even an embassy, before you-know-who turned up.
Employing people isn't just their take home salary costs. There's the NI, holiday pay, sick pay, maternity, recruitment, training, HR overhead, management of said staff, desk space, payroll run costs, IT overhead, uniforms, equipment, welfare vehicles, shift costs, plus the cost of what those coppers aren't able to at the same time. Employing people is expensive, the overhead is huge.
They'd simply appoint him to a role, and he's free to leave with them to the airport. A little like the Libyan embassy thing, where due to international law we had to let a murder of WPC Fletcher simply walk away. Of course, if the building were to catch fire Assange would be facing some uncomfortable choices...
I'm quite amazed he has lasted this long.... Self appointed house arrest for years on end, and all the charges will still be waiting for him when he eventually walks out the door. Certainly he will be looking at arrest and jail time for his bail jumping, and any extradition to the USA will happen during that period anyway. He seems to be acheiving little with his time, and may be better just serving whatever tariff is due.
"I'm quite amazed he has lasted this long.... Self appointed house arrest for years on end..."
You've answered your own statement. Without his self appointed house arrest he'd have disappeared into the mists of obscurity years ago. His continued "situation" merely keeps him in the (increasing diming) spotlight.
They'd simply appoint him to a role, and he's free to leave with them to the airport.
Nope, diplomatic protocol has been explained ad infinitum. The UK would have to first accept that appointment for it to have any status, and that is really not going to happen.
A little like the Libyan embassy thing, where due to international law we had to let a murder of WPC Fletcher simply walk away.
Unfortunately, in that case diplomatic immunity was in place so the only solution was to close that shop and expel the lot of them :(. However in Assange's case that would not protect him, because he has no way to acquire diplomatic status (as explained above) so he'd simply be arrested anyway the moment the cleaners carried him out with all the other rubbish that they would leave behind.
"They'd simply appoint him to a role, and he's free to leave with them to the airport"
No, utterly wrong; it would have to a) be done in advance, and b) be approved by the Court of St James, and you can bet your anus that they will not approve the application.
Yvonne Fletcher was another matter.
Assange does not have long left in the embassy. He will at some point face a pressing need of greater importance than avoiding the Swedish authorities. Perhaps they could relinquish their claim on him - and they have offered this to the US - then the UK CJS could arrest him for bail jumping, jail him on remand, and wait for the Americans to accept him into Hillary Clinton's loving bosom, or failing that into the Guantanamo womb, where Lindy could lead him around on a dog leash. Oh happy ironical thoughts.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
