The Assange Solution

It’s quite simple really:

Ecuador’s foreign minister has accused the British government of having no real interest in finding a diplomatic solution to the confinement of Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder who has spent more than two years in the country’s embassy in London.

Ricardo Patino told the Guardian that he believed the UK was violating Assange’s human rights by refusing to allow him to leave the building without fear of arrest.

“I do not think there is a will [in Britain] to find a solution,” Patino said, acknowledging that without a political or legal breakthrough Assange could spend years living in a handful of tiny rooms at the country’s small west London embassy.

He skipped bail. The solution is for him to surrender to the court. And that’s it.

40 comments on “The Assange Solution

  1. Sure he’s a wanker, but what do we really think about rape allegations being made about celebrities a long time after the alleged rape?

    Oh, wait …

  2. Well, usually, we say that witnesses should be interviewed, the police should investigate and a court should decide….,..

  3. Ecuador’s foreign minister has accused the British government of having no real interest in finding a diplomatic solution to the confinement of Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder who has spent more than two years in the country’s embassy in London.

    Quite. Once these dickheads in the Ecuadorian embassy volunteered to pay his room and board in what is effectively prison, we lost interest. Who’s at fault here?

  4. Sure he’s a wanker, but what do we really think about rape allegations being made about celebrities a long time after the alleged rape?

    idgi. The alleged behaviour occurred on 13-14 August, 17 August and 18 August 2010 respectively. The women went to the police on 20 August 2010. The investigation was terminated on 25 August 2010 and resumed on 1 September 2010. There are no decade long gaps here – not yet anyway.

  5. Assange at this mornings press conference;

    “‘Why are they burning £240,000 a month on me which could be better spent on hospital beds, meals for the needy or teachers’ salaries? The Metropolitan Police Service has now spent in excess of £7 million on guarding the embassy, which is a ridiculous waste of taxpayers’ money.”

    Two things;

    1) Are these numbers accurate? How many coppers do they have sitting outside?
    2) What a colossal bell-end Assanage is! It’s because you skipped bail, you albino tosser.

  6. Assange is such an “appealing” personage. It would not be hard for him to go to Sweden to assist with the enquiries. Despite his protestations, his behaviour makes one feel there might be some truth in the accusations. At the very least, he has handled this appallingly.

  7. It’s a theme he has been running with for at least a few months. There is a website with a £ counter representing the money supposedly being pissed away every second.

    Last I looked, the figure is extrapolated from an article in the Daily Mail. If you work out the shifts and support structure etc you could probably ballpark it around the figure he claims. But the essence of the argument appears to be, “if costs more than X to bring an alleged sex offender to justice, you shouldn’t bother.”

  8. Sweden is a feminista shithole where looking sideways at a woman = rape. Assange upset the Federal Tyranny. Leftist pukes the Swedish state may be, but they don’t–like the rest of the world it seems–have the balls to tell the Feds to take a hike (in a time when even the Swiss don’t have the gonads to defend their own banking secrecy laws against FACTA and such like shit). So this bogus rape allegation was codded up. Why rape instead of say–thieving?–Cos’ it is an accusation that makes it more difficult to sympathise with the accused.
    I despise Assange’s generally leftist views. He is another like Glen Greenwald, a leftist puke who, like a stopped clock, is entirely right about the gathering evil of the Feds. I can however, recognise a put-up job when I see one.

  9. Why are they burning £240,000 a month on me which could be better spent on hospital beds, meals for the needy or teachers’ salaries?

    I take it The Guardian is delivered daily to the Ecuadorean embassy.

  10. Mr Ecks>

    If it’s a put-up job, why did Assange confess? His defence has never been that he didn’t do it, but that it wasn’t rape – although, of course, his self-admitted actions constitute rape in any civilised country, which is why he did a runner.

  11. He admitted he had sex with her–don’t think he admitted to being a rapist. And the reason for his flight?. It is quite likely that he would be found innocent even in Sweden–but there would then be the little matter of extradition to the US to face a Federal kangaroo court and the certainty of spending the rest of his days in a Federal maximum security shithole. That might have something to do with it.

  12. Sweden is a feminista shithole where looking sideways at a woman = rape.
    With regard to single allegation of rape (there were four alleged offences in all), the alleged behaviour would constitute rape under the law of England and Wales if it occurred in England or Wales – two English courts confirmed this. It may be the case that he did not behave as alleged, but it is not the case that the alleged behaviour would not be rape under Swedish or English law.

  13. Mr Ecks>

    Yes, Assange has admitted to doing something that any normal person thinks is rape, and that both Swedish and English judges have said constitutes rape under the relevant legal systems. His defence, such as it is, was to argue a point of law rather than the facts – which entirely explains why he’s now on the lam, I’d have to say. Also by his own account, these two cases are just the tip of the iceberg.

    The extradition nonsense is a smoke-screen. It would be far easier for the US to extradite Assange from England than from Sweden, but they have no desire to extradite him at all – they’d much rather see him banged up for being a self-confessed serial rapist.

  14. UKL>

    “It may be the case that he did not behave as alleged”

    He’s admitted to the facts of the matter, though. Definitely an odd thing to do if they aren’t true.

  15. Having read the decisions of the English courts, it’s my understanding his defence was along the lines of, “if the events did occur as alleged it would not be rape” – there was no admission the events occurred as described.

  16. According to Wiki–not always the best source but no time to look any further now–he was charged with “non-consensual acts during consensual sex”–which sounds like a grey area to say the least. If the woman agreed to missionary and he decided to hang her upside down from the ceiling–ok maybe there is a case of some sort but it could also be giving her a love bite she didn’t ask for-for all we know. It seems just a bit “convenient” that Assange decides to start a career as a rapist just when the Federal Tyranny wants to see the colour of his insides. Rape is a the next best smear crime apart from murder.

  17. According to Wiki–not always the best source but no time to look any further now–he was charged with “non-consensual acts during consensual sex”–which sounds like a grey area to say the least.

    He hasn’t been charged and I don’t know why people quote that sentence instead of or absent the preceding sentence:
    “Assange is wanted for questioning over one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation, and one count of lesser-degree rape (mindre grov våldtäkt)”.

    You can read the English version of the arrest warrant in the English High Court decision, para 3:
    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

  18. All of those strongly suggest that the ” victim” was already in bed with Assange of her own free will when they occurred. Still a very grey area–and still very convenient for Uncle Sam.

  19. Mr E>

    Conveniently enough, UKL has posted the judgement of the English court, in which Assange stipulated to the facts.

    There’s a lot of this kind of thing:

    “84. It was therefore submitted that in the present case, as AA had consented to sexual intercourse, and as that was the nature of the relevant act, it did not matter that she had consented only on the basis that he used a condom, as that did not change the nature of the act. It was accepted on Mr Assange’ s behalf that this contention might not be one contemporary society would readily understand or consider justifiable, but Parliament had enacted the law in those terms and the duty of the courts was to apply the law.”

    His defence is that he found a legal loophole allowing him to rape without facing prosecution, not that he didn’t rape anyone.

    UKL>

    You should really read that judgement more carefully. Para 153:

    “Although we have approached the matter by asking the broad question posed by Lord Steyn as to whether Mr Assange was accused, it was the submission of Mr Assange that the court should ask the question asked by the Divisional Court in Ismail, namely whether a step had been taken which could fairly be described as the commencement of the prosecution. It is, in our view, clear that whilst Lord Steyn approved that approach, it was not the only approach to the question of whether he was an accused. The issue was to be addressed broadly on the facts. But, even if the court was constrained to determine whether someone was an accused by solely considering the question of whether the prosecution had commenced, we would not find it difficult to hold that looking at what has taken place in Sweden that the prosecution had commenced. Although it is clear a decision has not been taken to charge him, that is because, under Swedish procedure, that decision is taken at a late stage with the trial following quickly thereafter. In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed as dependent on whether a person had been charged, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of common law eyes. Looking at it through cosmopolitan eyes on this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange.”

    Once you skip all the dry legal arguments about procedure and admissible evidence (which were largely discussed and then ruled irrelevant, anyway) it becomes abundantly clear why Assange fled from justice. He would otherwise be going to jail for a long time. It’d be at least ten or fifteen years, probably, even if no other charges are brought, and that last isn’t particularly likely given that he’s probably been behaving the same way for years.

  20. Tim Newman.
    The Guardian will be delivered with all the other English papers as a matter of course. I like to imagine His Excellency sitting down to his breakfast tamales with the Sun and an offhand “and you can give rag to the twat in the attic”.

  21. It’s not really Britain’s problem so long as he’s hold up in some tin pot south American country’s embassy is it?

  22. I haven’t time to read all that legal shite right now–in detail. I’ve skimmed it and, despite your certainty Dave, it looks greyer than ever. He did wear a condom–which she says he tore but forensics says tore by “wear and tear”. Read 92 onwards. Read 122 onwards. If he had agreed to sex without French kissing and then stuck his tongue in her gob–should he get 15 years for that as well?.
    He has sex with two women–who manufacture a rape charge. Then the Feds can get the extradition bandwagon going.

  23. Dave, I did not suggest Assange isn’t the subject of criminal proceedings – perhaps you should have read my comment “more carefully.”

    Mr Ecks,

    I’ve skimmed it and, despite your certainty Dave, it looks greyer than ever. He did wear a condom–which she says he tore but forensics says tore by “wear and tear”. Read 92 onwards. Read 122 onwards. If he had agreed to sex without French kissing and then stuck his tongue in her gob–should he get 15 years for that as well?.

    Maybe the problem is you “skimmed it”. Para 124:
    It is quite clear that the gravamen of the offence described is that Mr Assange had sexual intercourse with her without a condom and that she had only been prepared to consent to sexual intercourse with a condom. The description of the conduct makes clear that he consummated sexual intercourse when she was asleep and that she had insisted upon him wearing a condom. “Consummated” refers to having intercourse, not to ejaculation. In our judgement it was not necessary to go further than was set out in the description of the conduct. as it is difficult to see how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complainant alleges a state of sleep or half sleep, and secondly it avers that consent would not have been given without a condom. There is nothing in the statement from which it could be inferred that he reasonably expected that she would have consented to sex without a condom.

  24. Mr Ecks>

    Now you just sound like you’re trying to defend rape, rather than claiming Assange didn’t rape anyone.

    “If he had agreed to sex without French kissing and then stuck his tongue in her gob–should he get 15 years for that as well?.”

    There’s no similarity to this case in that example. Amongst other things, Assange held a woman down and had sex with her while she begged him to stop – again, something he admits to doing. He also waited until one of his victims fell asleep and then initiated sex with her, despite the fact that she had explicitly withdrawn consent before going to sleep.

    He’d get ten to fifteen years for multiple counts of rape, not for a single offence, and certainly not just for kissing someone. There’s no conspiracy, nothing to defend, just a guy who thought he was holy and acted accordingly, raping his way around the world and moving on before getting caught out. This time his victims happened to compare notes rather sooner than normal, and so he hadn’t moved on in time.

  25. UKL>

    You claimed it is unreasonable to say he’s been charged with an offence. That is incorrect, as the para I quoted shows. It is in fact, as a matter of law, unreasonable to say that he has not been charged, since he is at the equivalent stage in Swedish law to the meaning of the term in English law.

  26. Dave,

    You claimed it is unreasonable to say he’s been charged with an offence.

    No, I didn’t. That’s something you appear to have inferred from what I actually wrote: “he hasn’t been charged…”

  27. UKL>

    I was inferring more from ‘I don’t know why’. The reason people say he’s been charged is that he has, to all intents and purposes, been charged. As the judicial quote I used before makes clear, in anything other than the most narrow technical definition, Assange has been charged according to the meaning of the words in English.

  28. Dave,

    I was inferring more from ‘I don’t know why’. The reason people say he’s been charged is that he has, to all intents and purposes, been charged.

    I didn’t write “I don’t know why people say he’s been charged” I wrote “I don’t know why people quote that sentence instead of or absent the preceding sentence”. (to spell it out, because “that sentence” is vague and doesn’t add anything to the preceding more specific sentence.)

    It’s there literally in black and white.

  29. UKL>

    I really have no idea what you are or were trying to say, but I get the impression that it wasn’t an important point.

  30. @ Dave

    “raping his way around the world and moving on before getting caught out.”

    Is that true?

    “This time his victims happened to compare notes rather sooner than normal”

    Wasn’t that part of the issue? ie, it was only “after” the two women spoke to each other – and realised that he had managed to bed the pair of them – that they both then went to the police and complained?

    I must admit that I know very little about this, but when I briefly read the sequence of events back at the time – ie, initially dismissed by the Swedish police / then later pursued afresh / the Wiki angle – it did all seem let’s just say interesting…

  31. I think out of courtesy to our host commenters should use “allegedly” in reference to offences that haven’t been proved to have occurred.

  32. So the Ecuadorian Ambassador has a festering little nuisance on his hands, and he’s trying to shovel his problem out of his nest, and onto Britain’s desk.
    Nope. We don’t have a problem with the status quo. Let them simmer on, indefinitely.

  33. I think it might be worth mentioning to ukliberty that I agree with her/him on this occasion.
    Julian Assange claims to be afraid not just that he will not get a fair trial in Sweden but that the most continuously left-wing state outside the USSR’s sphere of influence will extradite him to the USA without a charge (the USA has not yet filed one).
    “bells on” springs to mind

  34. I’m with Mr. Ecks.
    – ‘Assange is wanker so deserves all he gets’: maybe, but so was John Wilkes, and he gave us press freedom.
    – ‘English judges say what he’s alleged to have done is rape’: banging him up for 15 years for non-condom use is batshit mad.
    – ‘Swedish justice is fair’: see above. And if a Swedish GF wakes you with an unprotected morning surprise, does she go down for 15 years? I thought not.
    – ‘This is not a US play’: four weeks ago the secret service kidnapped a Russian from the Maldives.
    – And finally: what’s happened to the doctrine of proving harm v behaviour. If he’d knocked her up or given her the clap, fine, jail him. If she gave him the clap, ditto. Criminalizing behaviours instead of outcomes has left us with cops and courts that spend great pains clocking speeders while letting Hamas supporters trash supermarkets.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.