Assange to go!

[Malevolence]

Thought it was common knowledge that his charges of rape were dropped in (can't remember what country) very quickly, invalidating the need for extradition for that

They were only dropped because the statute of limitations on three of the allegations ran out whilst the cowardly little weasel was hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy. They dropped the rape allegation a while later, again because he was holed up in the embassy. And then they had to drop the rest of the investigation because, again due to the coward hiding in the embassy, the evidence had weakened due to the elapsed time.

 

[Mr Jack]

Thought it was common knowledge

I guess that adage about common sense also applies to "common knowledge" then - it is neither common nor knowledge.

...that his charges of rape were dropped in (can't remember what country) very quickly, invalidating the need for extradition for that, and his persecution is all part of the same legalese nonsense of weaponizing the law that other high profile targets have suffered for controversially shining a light on things wanted kept dark.

None of this is true. @Malevolence already dealt with the factual errors re: the timeline of events; but I'd also like to note that the women who accused him were long standing supporters of Wikileaks and it's highly unlikely that there was any of this totally unevidenced "legalese nonsense of weaponizing the law" going on.

The idea he was a partisan for Trump that got him in trouble - he fled to the Ecuadorian embassy in 2012, so that doesn't figure.

Who has articulated this idea? I've not seen it anywhere.

 

[GGizmo]

We need to stop being America's poodle. He's nothing to do with us.

Extradite him back to Australia.

 

[Vexr]

I guess that adage about common sense also applies to "common knowledge" then - it is neither common nor knowledge.



None of this is true. @Malevolence already dealt with the factual errors re: the timeline of events; but I'd also like to note that the women who accused him were long standing supporters of Wikileaks and it's highly unlikely that there was any of this totally unevidenced "legalese nonsense of weaponizing the law" going on.



Who has articulated this idea? I've not seen it anywhere.

Damn, was lucky it's only the rapist types who happen to be on the cutting edge of international espionage and general sedition.

Thank god our powers that be nipped that in the bud.

Jesus Christ, join Discord or something, the world consensus is very different compared to what this forum has decided on.

 

[Diddums]

Damn, was lucky it's only the rapist types who happen to be on the cutting edge of international espionage and general sedition.

Thank god our powers that be nipped that in the bud.

Jesus Christ, join Discord or something, the world consensus is very different compared to what this forum has decided on.

Ah yes, Discord, the bastion of factuality.

 

[Vexr]

Ah yes, Discord, the bastion of factuality.

OCUK forum being the finest bastion of fact so few can compete with.

 

[Diddums]

OCUK forum being the finest bastion of fact so few can compete with.

Comparing Discord to OCUK is like walking through Harrods and thinking you're missing Aldi.

 

[Vexr]

Comparing Discord to OCUK is like walking through Harrods and thinking you're missing Aldi.

Don't think so.

Can't lie. Thinks about it for a full statement from me.

 

[Mr Jack]

Damn, was lucky it's only the rapist types who happen to be on the cutting edge of international espionage and general sedition.

Is there a counterpoint in this word soup?

Jesus Christ, join Discord or something, the world consensus is very different compared to what this forum has decided on.

I've seen some stupid arguments on here, but join Discord to Find Out The Truth is a new low.

 

[Vexr]

Is there a counterpoint in this word soup?



I've seen some stupid arguments on here, but join Discord to Find Out The Truth is a new low.

Not really. The Assange issue not a hill I'd personally choose to die on, but like another said here about even the vaguest of conservative arguments being swarmed on in Speaker's Corner, the consensus on the OCUK forum on every notable issue of the day is obviously settled.

Nearly finished reading The Grapes of Wrath. Like one of the heroes says (forgive me if slightly paraphrasing): "anything said against us goes".

That sets the standard for depth of argument in hostile territory as far as I'm concerned. Whether it's Great Depression California or here.

There are still things I like about OCUK, so best not get too political if I want to enjoy certain privileges.

 

[Sankari]

We need to stop being America's poodle. He's nothing to do with us.

Then send him to the US, and be rid of him once and for all. Simple.

Extradite him back to Australia.

Why? He can't be extradited without a request, and Australia has not requested his extradition. Even if he was extradited to Australia, he'd be immediately extradited to the US.

 

[Mr Jack]

Not really. The Assange issue not a hill I'd personally choose to die on, but like another said here about even the vaguest of conservative arguments being swarmed on in Speaker's Corner, the consensus on the OCUK forum on every notable issue of the day is obviously settled.

This is just laughable. You only need to scroll back a page to see that there is plenty of disagreement in this thread, as there has been for the entire 2000+ post run of the thread. Even more pathetic is the pretence that this is some anti-conservative affair when many of the most vocal defenders of Assange in this thread are on the left. OCUK isn't the bastion of the right that it used to be; but it's still a long way from being a left wing forum. What actually happens is that those who cannot hold their own with arguments quickly run away, sometimes going and posting cheap memes in the Random Images thread instead where they know that they won't have to defend the dribble they post.

Nearly finished reading The Grapes of Wrath. Like one of the heroes says (forgive me if slightly paraphrasing): "anything said against us goes".

It's a good book. Kind of ironic to reference such a socialist polemic from a writer known for his uncritical support of the Soviets after barking about an imagined consensus against conservatives, but there we go.

That sets the standard for depth of argument in hostile territory as far as I'm concerned. Whether it's Great Depression California or here.

Have you considered actually making an argument, instead of just whining about how difficult it all is?

 

[GGizmo]

Then send him to the US, and be rid of him once and for all. Simple.

Until the US start respecting our extradition requests they can jog on.

Where is Anne Sacoolas!?

Why? He can't be extradited without a request, and Australia has not requested his extradition. Even if he was extradited to Australia, he'd be immediately extradited to the US.

I don't care what Australia do. It's their citizen, not ours.

 

[plasmahal]

It's shameful that the UK imprisons political figures for no UK crimes in solitary confinement indefinitely.

 

[Werewolf]

It's shameful that the UK imprisons political figures for no UK crimes in solitary confinement indefinitely.

Really?

He was facing prosecution from a European country, they asked for him to be extradited to face his accusers in court, in a completely normal manner (although it is worth noting he appears to have run from that country as soon as he realised there was an allegation, before he could be questioned).
He fought the extradition as was his right.
When he failed to fight it because he couldn't show any legal reason it shouldn't go ahead he went and voluntarily put himself in solitary at the embassy for a third country (where he was, by all accounts an utter idiot), and thus breaching the conditions of his bail conditions in the UK.
By breaching his UK bail conditions with his attempt to evade the legal system he committed a major offence against the UK legal system, in much the same way that lying to the court about who was driving your car when it was found to be speeding can move you from a minor offence that no one really bats an eye at and only cost £70 and a couple of points on your licence into a potential jail sentence and a history that will see you screwed for any loans/many jobs.

So once he finally decided to stop hiding in the embassy/they kicked him out the courts in the UK were never going to let him walk the streets (and attempt to run again) whilst they had another extradition request because he had already shown he wouldn't honour any bail conditions.
So now he's in jail for the full time whilst he fights facing a US court.

Of course the funny bit about this is that if he hadn't messed about with the original extradition he would have been sent over to Sweden, a country whose prisons are basically much nicer than anything found in the UK, let alone the US, and a country that IIRC is far harder to be extradited to the US from, and if he'd cleared his name there he could then have potentially claimed asylum or simply applied to stay in the country.


Basically he chose to spend years in a small. reasonably room, without the ability to go outside and that backfired by leaving him much more vulnerable to not having a choice about being stuck in a small uncomfortable room.

The TLDR
He was an idiot who thought the law shouldn't apply to him and made it so the law had zero choice but to lock him up during the entirety of any remaining legal challenge once they got hold of him.

 

[plasmahal]

By breaching his UK bail conditions with his attempt to evade the legal system he committed a major offence against the UK legal system, in much the same way that lying to the court about who was driving your car when it was found to be speeding can move you from a minor offence that no one really bats an eye at and only cost £70 and a couple of points on your licence into a potential jail sentence and a history that will see you screwed for any loans/many jobs.

I don't dispute that bail conditions were breached, but the punishment was excessive and unlawful. How long has he been in solitary confinement in the UK's maximum security prison?

Failure to surrender to bail​

A defendant can be subject to bail imposed by police or the courts throughout the period of an investigation and court proceedings. Anyone released on bail has a duty to appear in court (surrender) in the future. If they fail to turn up to their court date, they have committed an offence.

What is the penalty for failing to surrender to bail?​

Failure to surrender to bail is a serious offence. The maximum sentence is 12 months’ custody.

The court will calculate the sentence by assessing the offender’s culpability and the level of harm or potential harm caused by their failure to surrender.

Culpability is an assessment of how blameworthy the person was for the breach. The offender would be more culpable if they deliberately attempted to evade or delay justice, and less culpable if they made some attempt to surrender to bail.

The level of harm caused depends on what kind of court the person was supposed to be surrendering to, and the delay and level of disruption that was caused by their failure to surrender. Failure to attend a Crown Court hearing is more serious than failing to attend a hearing in a magistrates’ court. This is because the kind of offences dealt with in the Crown Court are likely to be more serious. Disruption can involve preventing cases being dealt with, wasting court time and causing distress to victims or witnesses.

Is it normal for people in the UK who face extradition to somewhere they are unlikely to get a fair trial to be kept solitary confinement in the UK's maximum security prison?

Would house arrest be a more reasonable response?

He's permanently locked up for who he is and what he represents and not for what he has been found guilty of. This makes him a political prisoner.

 

[Pipe & Slippers]

Would house arrest be a more reasonable response?

I don't think that option is available in the UK (is it? I don't know!), but anyway in this case he's a known runner. Don't think the UK Judicial regime takes too kindly to being mocked

 

[potatolord]

I don't dispute that bail conditions were breached, but the punishment was excessive and unlawful. How long has he been in solitary confinement in the UK's maximum security prison?



Is it normal for people in the UK who face extradition to somewhere they are unlikely to get a fair trial to be kept solitary confinement in the UK's maximum security prison?

Would house arrest be a more reasonable response?

He's permanently locked up for who he is and what he represents and not for what he has been found guilty of. This makes him a political prisoner.

The main issue with Assange is he has demonstrated he will not comply with bail conditions.

A secondary problem, for him, is he dropped his bail guarantors deep in the muck.

A third issue is his alleged behaviour with his confinement in the Ecuadorean embassy.

In short, he's burned all his bridges.

 

[Mr Jack]

I don't dispute that bail conditions were breached, but the punishment was excessive and unlawful. How long has he been in solitary confinement in the UK's maximum security prison?

He isn't in solitary confinement.

Is it normal for people in the UK who face extradition to somewhere they are unlikely to get a fair trial to be kept solitary confinement in the UK's maximum security prison?

Why don't you believe he will get a fair trial? The US system isn't the best, but it's usually considered to meet reasonable standards of fair. I can't see a reason that Assange would be less eligible for extradition than anyone else who the US is trying to extradite. Do you think the UK should not extradite people to the US? And, as above, he's only in prison because he skipped bail.

Would house arrest be a more reasonable response?

No. He's shown he will skip out on bail. There's no reason to believe he will not do it again. That's the reason he's in jail, and the reason he's been there so long is because of the long legal process as a result of repeated appeals.

He's permanently locked up for who he is and what he represents and not for what he has been found guilty of. This makes him a political prisoner.

By definition, the guilt or innocence of people up for extradition for trial are not being extradited for what they've been found guilty of. Instead the criteria for extradition is that there is good evidence that they committed the crime that they will be charged with. I'm not sure Assange even denies that he carried out the acts he's accused of.

A secondary problem, for him, is he dropped his bail guarantors deep in the muck.

To be fair, the guy he stiffed said he was okay with it. Not sure he'd be up for doing it again though.

 

[plasmahal]

I don't think that option is available in the UK (is it? I don't know!), but anyway in this case he's a known runner. Don't think the UK Judicial regime takes too kindly to being mocked

Do you think being kept indefinitely in solitary confinement in the UK's maximum security prison, bearing in mind he's not on remand etc?