Julian Assange

[Inglorius]

This guy must be the ultimate scrounger from the state, some figures quote a Metropolitan policing bill of nearly £13 million since he has been holed up in the Ecuadorean Embassy evading justice from the Swedish courts. Sweden is obviously such a backward third world country that he's rightly in fear of being put in front of some kangaroo court, more like he is frightened of being made accountable for his alleged gross misconducts. A coward and a leech, excellent combination.

[LesterRam]

i would go to Benidorm for a fortnight to get some vitamin "D"

[uttoxram75]

None of us know if he is guilty of the charges Sweden want him for but I think we all know that the Americans will end up with him serving life for embarrassing them.

If he's done ote wrong in Sweden then he should be punished, but for WikiLeaks he deserves a Nobel Prize for services to mankind.

 

 

[Srg]

6 minutes ago, LesterRam said:

i would go to Benidorm for a fortnight to get some vitamin "D"

more likely to get that in Thailand.

[Pearl Ram]

Not disputing the figure you quoted Inglorious, I've seen figures myself running into the millions but I don't understand how anywhere near that amount can be reached.

I'm obviously not au fait with how things work in the Met but the way I'm working it out is 10 coppers on 8 hour shifts earning 50 grand a year = 500 grand. 

Now multiply that by 3 (shifts to provide 24 hour surveillance) = 1.5 million

Then multiply that x 4 easily covers the amount of years he's been in the embassy) = 6 million.

I think my workings out have been on the generous side as well incidentally, 10 blokes to sit watching a building, yeah right.

That's bad enough and when he does come out he should be given the bill for it. The bloody world's going mad, millions of pounds and man hours wasted on some tw@t who, in my opinion,  if innocent would be fighting tooth and nail to clear his name.

[LesterRam]

did he have female company in all this time ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

he would blow the top of her head off after three years

[LesterRam]

4 minutes ago, Srg said:

more likely to get that in Thailand.

no that's an STD

[Srg]

2 minutes ago, LesterRam said:

no that's an STD

Sun tan delight?

[Inglorius]

30 minutes ago, EastHertsRam said:

Not disputing the figure you quoted Inglorious, I've seen figures myself running into the millions but I don't understand how anywhere near that amount can be reached.

I'm obviously not au fait with how things work in the Met but the way I'm working it out is 10 coppers on 8 hour shifts earning 50 grand a year = 500 grand. 

Now multiply that by 3 (shifts to provide 24 hour surveillance) = 1.5 million

Then multiply that x 4 easily covers the amount of years he's been in the embassy) = 6 million.

I think my workings out have been on the generous side as well incidentally, 10 blokes to sit watching a building, yeah right.

That's bad enough and when he does come out he should be given the bill for it. The bloody world's going mad, millions of pounds and man hours wasted on some tw@t who, in my opinion,  if innocent would be fighting tooth and nail to clear his name.

The average I've seen quoted in the red tops as well as the broadsheets is £10 million which I agree is a hell of a lot of police overtime 

[RicME85]

I have no idea what the actual situation is...but if he is hiding in the embassy...surely that already has all the protection necessary to start with...so how is it him that is costing that much?

[SillyBilly]

4 hours ago, EastHertsRam said:

Not disputing the figure you quoted Inglorious, I've seen figures myself running into the millions but I don't understand how anywhere near that amount can be reached.

I'm obviously not au fait with how things work in the Met but the way I'm working it out is 10 coppers on 8 hour shifts earning 50 grand a year = 500 grand. 

Now multiply that by 3 (shifts to provide 24 hour surveillance) = 1.5 million

Then multiply that x 4 easily covers the amount of years he's been in the embassy) = 6 million.

I think my workings out have been on the generous side as well incidentally, 10 blokes to sit watching a building, yeah right.

That's bad enough and when he does come out he should be given the bill for it. The bloody world's going mad, millions of pounds and man hours wasted on some tw@t who, in my opinion,  if innocent would be fighting tooth and nail to clear his name.

He hasn't cost us a penny. It is our government who opted to put that much surveillance on an "alleged" rapist. The fact they are prepared to spend that much, doesn't that indicate how badly they want this man? He has about as much chance of a fair trial in Sweden as Snowden would in the U.S.A. Can't claim to know whether he is innocent or not but I'm not so sure, given his background, I could fully trust the word of anyone testifying against him without a strong suspicion is a set-up. Lets face it, he is 1 man who has picked some big fights with some big boys.

 

 

[Pearl Ram]

Oh, where did the government who opted to put that much surveillance on the "alleged" rapist get the money to pay for it if it doesn't come from the taxpayer ? I'm puzzled. 

[Gaspode]

11 hours ago, SillyBilly said:

.....It is our government who opted to put that much surveillance on an "alleged" rapist.....

So are you saying we should have let him get on a plane to Ecuador? What if he did do it? Surely the whole point of the judicial system is that if someone has been acused of something, they should be apprehended and have to stand trial. We have no idea wether he did or didn't commit the crime, but what we do know is that the Swedish police have issued a valid warrant for his arrest and that we have an agreement with Sweden to apprehend people in his situation. It's not up to public opinion (or for that matter, a UN 'panel') whether we try to arrest this man or not, it's the law.

And what if the alleged victim had been a member of your family - would you be quite so quick to write off the complaint against him as part of a conspiracy and ask why the police were bothering to try and arrest him?

[Wolfie]

From Beeb:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35499942

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange should be allowed to walk free and compensated for his "deprivation of liberty", a UN legal panel has found.

Mr Assange, 44 - who faces extradition to Sweden over a rape claim, which he denies - claimed asylum in London's Ecuadorean embassy in 2012.

He has been arbitrarily detained since his arrest in 2010, the panel said.

Swedish prosecutors said it would have "no formal impact" on their inquiry and UK police said he still faces arrest.

The five independent rights experts, who make up the UN's Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, insisted Mr Assange's detention "should be brought to an end, that his physical integrity and freedom of movement be respected".

The Wikileaks founder has been subjected to "continuous" and "different forms of deprivation of liberty" it said, initially while he was held in isolation at London's Wandsworth Prison, in 2010.

The panel said he had since been under "house arrest and then confinement at the Ecuadorian embassy".

It also found a "lack of diligence" by the Swedish Prosecutor's Office in its investigations resulted in his lengthy loss of liberty.

In September 2014, Mr Assange - who has been living in the embassy for more than three years - complained to the UN that he was being "arbitrarily detained" as he could not leave without being arrested.

The complaint against the UK and Sweden claimed Mr Assange had been "deprived of his liberty in an arbitrary manner for an unacceptable length of time".

In a statement posted on Twitter on Thursday, Mr Assange said his passport should be returned and his arrest warrant dropped if the UN panel ruled in his favour.

Downing Street said the panel's ruling would not be legally binding in the UK and a European Arrest Warrant remained in place.

"We have been consistently clear that Mr Assange has never been arbitrarily detained by the UK but is, in fact, voluntarily avoiding lawful arrest by choosing to remain in the Ecuadorean embassy," a spokesman said.

"The UK continues to have a legal obligation to extradite Mr Assange to Sweden."

The Swedish foreign ministry said in a statement that it noted the UN panel's decision "differs from that of the Swedish authorities".

'Avoiding lawful arrest'

The Australian was originally arrested in London in 2010 under a European Arrest Warrant issued by Sweden over rape and sexual assault claims.

In 2012, while on bail, he claimed asylum inside the Ecuadorean embassy in Knightsbridge after the UK Supreme Court had ruled the extradition against him could go ahead.

Swedish prosecutors dropped two sex assault claims against Mr Assange last year. However, he still faces the more serious accusation of rape.

In the statement, published by Wikileaks on Thursday, Mr Assange said: "Should the UN announce tomorrow that I have lost my case against the United Kingdom and Sweden I shall exit the embassy at noon on Friday to accept arrest by British police as there is no meaningful prospect of further appeal.

"However, should I prevail and the state parties be found to have acted unlawfully, I expect the immediate return of my passport and the termination of further attempts to arrest me."

Last October, Scotland Yard said it would no longer station officers outside the Ecuador embassy following an operation which it said had cost £12.6m. But it said "a number of overt and covert tactics to arrest him" would still be deployed.

 

I agree with the Govt (bold bit above) on this. He's just hiding from the police. Any other person choosing to run away from the police & hide in someone else's house would have been dragged out 10 minutes later, through a beaten down door. Just because this narcissistic coward chose to do it in an embassy, he can't be touched and it has cost us a fortune to watch the door ever since.

[eddie]

28 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

So are you saying we should have let him get on a plane to Ecuador? What if he did do it? Surely the whole point of the judicial system is that if someone has been acused of something, they should be apprehended and have to stand trial. We have no idea wether he did or didn't commit the crime, but what we do know is that the Swedish police have issued a valid warrant for his arrest and that we have an agreement with Sweden to apprehend people in his situation. It's not up to public opinion (or for that matter, a UN 'panel') whether we try to arrest this man or not, it's the law.

And what if the alleged victim had been a member of your family - would you be quite so quick to write off the complaint against him as part of a conspiracy and ask why the police were bothering to try and arrest him?

He won't get to stand trial in Sweden - once on Swedish soil - or even once on British soil - he will be extradited to the USA and that will be the end of him.

[Gaspode]

7 minutes ago, eddie said:

He won't get to stand trial in Sweden - once on Swedish soil - or even once on British soil - he will be extradited to the USA and that will be the end of him.

But if the Swedish police have issued a valid arrest warrant for him, we have an obligation to carry that out - in the same way that Britain would expect Sweden to arrest suspected criminals over there that may have commited crimes in this country. That is the law - it's not a matter for public opinion or supposition as to what will happen. We have an obligation to do our best to arrest him and then to hand him over to Sweden. You may be correct in what is likely to happen, but that cannot change the course of action that the police have to take - and that is why we've wasted such a huge amount of money on him.

It's easy to point the blame for this expense at the government or the police, but the real culprits here are Assange (did he not realise that the US would be a little bit miffed with him?) and Ecuador who seem to be getting a bit of a thrill from playing on the international stage and annoying Eurpoe & the US....

[Shang]

Assange has offered to stand trial for the rape case, and that alone, and would happily do that if Sweden guaranteed that he would not be extradited to the US for the WikiLeaks case. Obviously they haven't so he's still holed up the embassy.

Don't disregard this UN Legal Panel decision and reaction. One of the founding members of the UN has said that it does not agree with it's ruling because it doesn't suit them, yet as a country we're constantly talking about international law and the importance of the UN.

It is a smart move by Assange, we've made ourselves look like massive hypocrites and have damaged the perception of Britain across the world. What will Russia be thinking about this?

 

[eddie]

1 hour ago, Gaspode said:

But if the Swedish police have issued a valid arrest warrant for him, we have an obligation to carry that out - in the same way that Britain would expect Sweden to arrest suspected criminals over there that may have commited crimes in this country. That is the law - it's not a matter for public opinion or supposition as to what will happen. We have an obligation to do our best to arrest him and then to hand him over to Sweden. You may be correct in what is likely to happen, but that cannot change the course of action that the police have to take - and that is why we've wasted such a huge amount of money on him.

It's easy to point the blame for this expense at the government or the police, but the real culprits here are Assange (did he not realise that the US would be a little bit miffed with him?) and Ecuador who seem to be getting a bit of a thrill from playing on the international stage and annoying Eurpoe & the US....

I'm not pointing the blame at anyone - it is debatable as to whether Assange is a culprit or not, certainly as far as the leaks are concerned. Hero, culprit - or traitor? I suppose it all depends upon your viewpoint. People are missing the point - if he was purely facing an extradition to stand trial on the rape charge - the two sexual assault charges which were in place two years ago were mysteriously dropped - then I would have no sympathy whatsoever. The problem is, as you have pointed out, he has peed America off by fronting an organisation whose 'crime' is telling things which needed to be told.

[Gaspode]

If I understand it correctly (and the reports of the comments from the UK & Swedish governments seem to back this view), the UN panel is not part of the law of this country and therefore the judgement is not legally binding. I don't think we look like hypocrites - we've followed the rule of law in this country and in Europe - the only person who looks hypocritical in this mess is Assange who was happy to take the publicity for disclosing state secrets that could have got people killed and yet is now trying to use the law to protect himself from the consequences

[Shang]

47 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

If I understand it correctly (and the reports of the comments from the UK & Swedish governments seem to back this view), the UN panel is not part of the law of this country and therefore the judgement is not legally binding. I don't think we look like hypocrites - we've followed the rule of law in this country and in Europe - the only person who looks hypocritical in this mess is Assange who was happy to take the publicity for disclosing state secrets that could have got people killed and yet is now trying to use the law to protect himself from the consequences

But as a country we have used similar United Nation panel rulings to hold other countries to account, using previous rulings as proof that the international community did not agree with them. Similar rulings judge that Saudi Arabia crime punishments are bad and should be changed. But their beheadings are written into their laws so it's technically not illegal.

Now this has happened we can't do that anymore because we'll be seen as hypocrites.