BritInParis

Just blown any credibility you may have had on this one. RT is slavishly pro-Kremlin. Try and find a single critical piece they have put out on Putin. It's a propaganda mouthpiece. The BBC on the other hand regularly finds itself in conflict with the British government of the day. Andrew Gilligan and the Hutton Inquiry springs to mind.

Almost Canadian

On that previous BE thread, that you and I have both referred to, there was a link to the transcripts of all of the decisions of the UK courts.

I assume that posters on this site trust The Guardian's articles. This one paints a very different picture to the site you wish to rely upon: Article

I find it bizarre that the site you chose to rely upon didn't provide links to the UK Court's decision, although I note that the link to the agreed statement of facts supports what I had previously said above.

As I said, my recollection was that Assange's lawyer's conduct prior to the hearings was far from exemplary. The article suggests that that conduct continued through the court process too.

Almost Canadian

Here you go: Agreed Statement of Facts

I believe that I had most of the facts correct. Clearly, the statement doesn't deal with what happened once he obtain asylum.

withabix

Arsange just needs to grow some and walk out the front door of the Embassy.

If he doesn't, he's going to spend the rest of his life in self-imposed imprisonment anyway.

Nobody made him go to the Ecuadorian Embassy.

The UK are quite right to ignore the 'ruling'.

Novocastrian

I don't.

BristolUK

I find it bizarre you think I'm relying on that site and also that you think I'm commenting on UK courts.

My point was nothing more than Swedish matters and they had originally decided not to proceed. This was reported in a ton of media sources at the time.

UK courts and all the other stuff happened later, after the Swedish system had decided not to proceed.

It's what prompted the later stuff that caused suspicion as to motives.

bats

I think this sums up Assange and his er, detention
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/05/julian-assange-un-panel-blame-fugitive?CMP=share_btn_tw

Oink

You people are apologists for treason.

Alan2005

Can't be treason cos assange isn't even a septic. Though I'll grant you the other two.

Almost Canadian

I believe that, if you review the Statement of Facts (the document that both sides agreed upon) you will note that while, initially, the prosecutor had decided there was insufficient evidence to proceed, it appears that another prosecutor overruled that decision. It also appears that all of this occurred within a matter of weeks and while Assange remained in Sweden.

IIRC, the UK Court transcripts give an expanded version of the facts (those that weren't agreed) that show that Assange and his lawyer behaved less than honestly.

In any event, as I have repeatedly stated, there doesn't appear to be any basis for the "he will be taken to the US" allegation.

BristolUK

Yes, that's exactly what so many wonder about.

I have no idea if the reports that the women only raised an objection when they discovered they'd both had sex with him, continued to fraternise with their alleged rapist (throwing a party for him) and that they only wanted HIV tests rather than alleging a crime are true.

But this might be an indication for arriving at the initial decision.

It's what caused the apparent change of mind that people wonder about.

Did you never see Yes Minister and how the right person was put in a position to make the "right" decision?

Shard

Not a great fan of Assange, but the timing and history of the rape charged or raise some doubts about what is actually going on.