Assange - foreign office threaten to arrest him

[Empusa]

Article here

They are talking about revoking the Ecuadorian embassy's diplomatic immunity in order to enter the embassy.

Wonder if they will actually do so?

I really wouldn't put it pass him

Outside the embassy building but inside the gates is presumably what is meant?

This Embassy is a suite of offices in a multiple occupancy building. The stairs and common parts will not have diplomatic status. "Outside" in any normal meaning of the word has to mean into a place where he can be arrested.

Thanks again Edith!

Sweden has not changed it's legal system or it's extradition deal with the US in any way that would have an effect on the Assange case for a very long time.

Assange applied to be a Swedish citizen in 2010 so he obviously had no problem with the Swedish legal system before he started preying on Swedish woman.

So why is he now refusing to go and answer the sexual assault allegations against him. He knows in himself if he did or did not assault the woman.

The British should insist the Swedish come and question him here - as he has offered, or tell the Swedish the can foot the bill for the policing. No reason why the Swedish couldn't temprorarily dub the embassy a police station - presumably when they open a new one they have to include it on a list, so just set up a temproary one in the Ecuador embassy. I have no axe to gring re JA - I don'tt suppose he's someone I'd like in RL, but ordering someone to go to a foriegn country for questioning is unacceptable.

MrsGuy See Kladdkaka's post of Fri 17-Aug-12 13:24:07 for a clear explanation of why questioning here is not possible or appropriate.

I heard on the news earlier that Ecaudor haven't taken too kindly to Britain refusing to grant Assange safe passage. They're whining about Britain interferring in the business of a sovereign nation . Pot meet kettle.

MrsGuy, WHY should Sweden temporarily designate the Ecuadorian embassy a police station for Julian Assange if they wouldn't do it for Joe Bloggs? Sure, it might be possible for a suspect physically unable to travel.

And yeah, read Kladdaka's post. And the We Believe You page.

Kladd's post is very interesting and useful, thank you. However, it just shows what a mess the EAW has created. The point abou the Swedish coming here is that it is outrageous to exect an individual to travel to a foreign counrty to be questioned - clearly the Swedish syustem was devised for the Swedish - ie assuming the accused person would normally be in Sweden at the time they are required for questioning - hence the point that they should change the law, since it is not fit for purpose for overseas accused - not just for Assange but for any person in this situation, so that the lawmen travel, not the ' innocent until proven guilty' chargee.

When an accused person is first brought before the magistrates court in the UK that is for questioning. Is that unreasonable? Should the magistrates court be convened abroad prior to extradition?

People come before a magistrate when they have been arrested and charged with an offence. Assange has not been charged.

Guy, as per Kladdaka's post, the system is not the same as in the UK and the investigation has reached a stage equivalent to being charged in the UK.

MrsGuy Are you suggesting european legal jurisdictions should be changed so that a person who has committed a crime in a member state could be investigated, charged, tried and convicted in the state they happen to be in rather than the one they committed the crime in?

The Swedish system is basically ready to charge JA. He knew they were before he left Sweden and came to the UK. I don't think any EU member is able to charge a person in another country. I'm pretty sure in the UK we can't even charge a person with a Scottish crime whilst in England or vice versa. Swedish courts and police have no powers in the UK. How could they charge him here, let alone require him to participate in the investigation as they can in Sweden?

Or have I completely misunderstood you?

The formal charges are laid out and the person is indicted in the magistrates court and they are questioned and can answer guilty or not guilty.

In Sweden the formal charges are laid out and the person is indicted in the prosecutors 'interview' and they are questioned and can answer how they like.

What you are saying is that Sweden should change its way of doing things because they are not like the way they are done in the UK. That's rather jingoistic. Especially given that the difference arises because they have a civic law system as opposed to a common law system like the UK, which means the Swedish system is in line with most other countries and it's the UK which is the odd fellow.

"The point abou the Swedish coming here is that it is outrageous to exect an individual to travel to a foreign counrty to be questioned"

You know what, I'd buy that, except he was in the country and then ran the fuck away.

I think the outrageous thing is that people think that someone who is under investigation should have his whims pandered to, when he ran away.

Good point about the running away, Empusa.

I get the feeling from this thread that many people believe he raped and/or assaulted those women. My recollection is that both women say sex was consensual and that the charges are about not using a condom.

Have I missed something?

Cote, further up the thread I laid out the four charges, three of which I think would be offences in the uk too.

By the way, I don't know if JA is guilty but as there is enough evIdence for the Swedes to take the case forward, he should go and face the case.

Sex with a sleeping woman is rape in the UK, Cote.

"Re the other woman, iirc, they had sex the previous night. And then in the morning, he initiates sex when she is still sleeping. He probably assumed consent, since they were having consensual sex only hours earlier and were sleeping together."

Sex without consent is rape.

he is doing very well,. Many of us salute him although I cannot see much support for him in the UK.

He has not been convicted of any crime. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Sometimes they choose to return like Asil Nadir has done many years later to have their day in court.