yes ok Smokey, because I and the rest of the world have seen Assange break his bail that means I want religious police.

I think everyone could see a crime was committed on 9/11, it doesnt always need a court for us to know when a crime has taken place. The courts formalise it and enforce the punishment.

For the love of god Smokey lad! What do you think Swedish prosecutors are there for! It is not up to us to try a case that is under Swedish jurisdiction. The Swedish prosecutors have decided the case deserves Assange be arrested.

Yes, and the Swedish prosecutors have done so in this case. Unless you are suggesting the UK CPS should investigate the case? In which case evidence and arrests will need to be made.

Yes, which is the Swedish prosecutors job, and here in the UK that evidence is not put to the courts before a decision to charge is made, and the decision to charge is taken AFTER an arrest.

Yes you are, the only way for the courts to decide on the evidence is to have it put forward to them, and the only way to decide on the merits of that evidence is to hear evidence from the suspect who could potentially refute the evidence. That is a trial. Which cannot happen outside the relevant jurisdiction and cannot be done BEFORE an arrest.

Lucky him

You obviously didn't notice that I was referring not directly to my own argument, but to the 30 September 2011 report to the Home Secretary by a Committee chaired by the Rt Hon Sir Scott Baker which reviewed the United Kingdom's extradition arrangements, and made those findings.

To me, they seem rational and compelling. But if you want to know what kind of nonsense is being argued, why don't you drop a line to Sir Scott Baker? I'm sure he'd be bowled over by your insight.

Curiously Call me Dave seems to have perhaps become exasperated by the EAW, as he indicated during a trade visit to Brazil last week (the perfect forum, obviously) that the government intends to exercise its opt-out powers to opt out of all of the police and criminal justice measures adopted under the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht - including therefore the EAW - "before the end of the year".

The government has until the end of May 2014 to notify the European Commission of any decision to opt out.

But what a mess! For starters, any opt-out can relate only to measures established before the Treaty of Lisbon came into force in 2009, so there's a splendid recipe for confusion.

Did I miss the Consultation which will obviously have been assiduously carried out on such fundamental measures?

If we opt out of EAW, how would we get future naughty teachers back from France? Or is it one of these "one way" opt outs?

I'm assuming we'd be back to old-style extraditions, like we have with many non-EU countries now.