Julian Assange will 'probably' be cleared of all charges

[MrsToddsShortcut]

Sorry if this is elsewhere, but couldn't see it. Apparantly the statute of limitations for prosecution in Sweden (which I believe is 5 years) runs out next week.

On account of his 'hiding out' at the Embassy in London and avoiding extradition, it now looks as though he will be 'cleared'. (This is the term the media are using, although I have no idea if this is legally the correct term).

As a survivor of both rape and sexual assault that were not ever prosecuted, this has really shaken me up - far more than I expected. I feel very much for the two women involved and it didn't occur to me that this might be a possible outcome. It seems so wrong that women who have been potentially raped/assaulted should miss their day in court on what seems to me to be a technicality

I wonder whether he's hacking the embassy staff? Obviously he's hacking them off, but is he reading their personal emails to pass the time?

"Imagine going to work every morning and having that twat just hanging around all day, feeling sorry for himself."

like a particularly shit work experience kid.

"Cup of tea, Manuel?"
"I just had one five minutes ago, Julian. Go and ask Rosa if she needs any filing doing."

That's grim about him not washing Source?

He is an odious slimy coward. He is too cowardly to face up to allegations about what he has done. He disgusts me.

Jemima Khan has some interesting comments to make about him. She liked him and supported him until she got to know him.

I wish he really would just piss off to Ecuador and stay there.

Remember the guy who owns the Frontline Club (Mark something?)? He supported Assange devotedly, invited him to stay at his place for months, stood bail for Assange and swore he'd never default... Until he did. He's gone quite quiet now.

The personal hygiene piece was in the Times this week - here as another piece on him that shows what a loving and caring twat man he is.

I did a blog post about him a while ago when it was first reported that he was getting ill (poor love) because of the conditions in Ecuadorian embassy.

here

Just to clear up a few things that have been said in this thread:

1. Assange hasn't been charged with anything in the United States and the US has given no indication that they will charge him with anything in the future. The idea that he is wanted by the US is self-serving paranoia and allows him to elevate his own importance. Wikileaks published the material, he didn't steal it (unlike Manning, Snowden etc). It would be like wanting to charge the NYTimes or the Guardian.

1. Even if the US did want Assange, they would need the permission of both Sweden and the UK to extradite him from Sweden. Sweden would be unlikely to extradite him (especially given how high profile he is) as they do not extradite for political offences or for offences that would not also be an offence in Sweden (which whatever he did wouldn't be).

1. The definition of rape in the UK IS relevant because the UK would have only agreed to extradite him if the offences he is wanted for in Sweden would be crimes also in the UK (that is what one of the judgments against him was about).

Carol, fraid your link is behind a paywall.????

I think the rape allegation is still there and it's the sexual assault allegation that has "run out of time" so to speak. I agree it should not say cleared and should go with something like he is no longer able to be prosecuted for this offence.

I hope none of the Embassy staff ever decide to take a sly 40 winks on site. They might awaken to discover Assange having sex with them.

That really made me laugh. DISCLAIMER I do know it's very much gallows humour.

I agree he's a slimy foul individual and he ought to man up and face the fucking music. I don't believe for a second that the US is champing at the bit to charge him.

chaya, I don't understand this: 'Sweden... do not extradite for political offences or for offences that would not also be an offence in Sweden (which whatever he did wouldn't be).'

What are you referring to here? His Wikilinks activities or the alleged rape and/or sexual assault?

Sorry, I'm a bit dim.

Its a bit suspicious why he could not be questioned from Ecuadorian Embassy, I don't trust America.

My understanding of his case is that after having consensual unprotected sex, initiated when the woman was asleep, he refused to have a HIV test, and that the woman he had sex with went to the police to make him take one and because he had unprotected though consensual sex with her.

The law is different in the UK to the rest of the world.

Even consensual yet unprotected sex is rape in Sweden if one party wanted a condom.

The fact is that there are a lot of people who want assange's head on a plate for wiki leaks, and this was why he holed up in the Ecuadorean embassy.
The Ecuadorean president met assange and offered him sanctuary. The U.S. had been tapping his phone too, and no love is lost there.

Fwiw Assange seems to be an ego driven narcissist, with a self serving attitude, but he shouldn't be extradited to the U.S. for wiki leaks, using this woman's rights that he have a HIV test as an excuse.

The wiki leaks story is an interesting one, and this case does seem to be politically motivated, and all parties have been cynically used by the U.S. for their own aims.

I'm sorry if this news has stirred up any bad feelings for survivors of rape, and remind people that the rape crisis centres have people ready and willing to listen to your story, day and night.

I thought it wasn't consensual sex and that she woke up to find him penetrating her, without a condom.

Happy to be corrected though.

I think that too, only. Let me try and find the court transcript...

"Its a bit suspicious why he could not be questioned from Ecuadorian Embassy, I don't trust America."

Dad, every jurisdiction has its own rules. Sweden may not be allowed to use video link interviews at this stage of proceedings. If every suspect in a crime was able to demand that the justice system travelled to him, the system would grind to a halt.

wlcentral.org/node/2628

Sorry that's not the whole thing I will try again

Here it is, the charges are in the first two pages, clearly laid out

<a class="break-all" href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20131202164909/judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-approved-judgment.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20131202164909/judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-approved-judgment.pdf

Thanks *Yonic. I thought so.

Come to think of it, the statement 'consensual unprotected sex, initiated when the woman was asleep' is a nonsense, no? You can't consent to sex while asleep.

Oops. Yonic.

My understanding of his case is that after having consensual unprotected sex, initiated when the woman was asleep, he refused to have a HIV test, and that the woman he had sex with went to the police to make him take one and because he had unprotected though consensual sex with her.

Ye gods.... how wrong can a person be?

You can't consent to sex when you're asleep... and forcing someone's legs apart while holding their arms down in order to perform a sexual act that you know they haven't consented to sounds like rape to me, no matter what legalese it's couched as.

AFAIA he refused to submit to questioning anywhere.

Plays

I do think the complaint began because one of the women wanted him to take an HIV test - however, that doesn't mean the other charges weren't valid (just as in the Ched Evans case, the initial call to the police was because the woman didn't know what had happened)

Yonic, could well be.

Actually... I don't think it can be overstated how truly awful the statement consensual unprotected sex, initiated when the woman was asleep really is.

Consensual sex involves a person being compos mentis enough to consent when the act begins. JA doesn't get to call it consensual merely because she didn't try and kill him when she woke to discover an uncondomed penis inside her.

Men have been very clever about re-defining the meaning of consent when it comes to sex, haven't they?

Why do you think any sex is consensual if someone is asleep and has previously (while they were still awake) said they are unwilling to have sex without a condom Underbeneathsies?

Is it because once women ahve agreed to have sex with a man, they then are assumed to consent to all sex with that man (even under conditions they have previously said they would not want to - eg without a condom) for an unspecified period of time?

Does that definition of consent apply to any other activity than sex? If I buy a dress and say I want a red one, have I consented to have it delivered in blue, because after all, I bought a dress?

askbasil No, but any red dress that the shop wants to deliver to you will be charged to your account and you have no say in the matter.