The point is whether the evidence justifies an arrest and/or charge in Sweden, not the UK. Or are you suggesting that the UK should set itself up as the sole arbiter of legal validity across the EU?

And why do you think that is? Perhaps it is because Assange does not face any charges in Sweden!! The proceedings in Sweden are at the preliminary investigation stage. That does not come to an end until evidence is served on Assange or his lawyer and there is an interrogation of Assange with the opportunity for further enquiries. Only after all that would there be a decision as to charge.

So your point seems to be based on a total misconception.


Again, they only want to question him. Had he turned up to be questioned, who knows whether or not charges would have followed? You are very confused on this. All we have are complaints of sexual offences, which are being investigated. The only reason the investigation is still pending is because Assange did a runner.


You seem to be arguing that doing a runner when the police want to question you about serious allegations should be the ultimate get out of jail free card. They only need to extradite him in the first place because he was in Sweden, and said he would remain there, but had it away on his toes. They do not want to detain him but to question him. After that they would make a decision.


Well, yes, and as I keep saying, that is precisely what all the hearings have been doing, but you're not listening.

C4 fact check on the "he's only wanted for questioning" meme http://t.co/GjaVD6V8”

C4 fact check on the "he's only wanted for questioning" meme http://t.co/GjaVD6V8”

tb wrote:C4 fact check on the "he's only wanted for questioning" meme http://t.co/GjaVD6V8” Ms Palmer said: “It is not true that Assange is only wanted for questioning. The next step in the Swedish proceedings is to conduct a second interview with him before making a decision whether to formally charge him. So he is wanted so they can conduct a second interview but is not wanted for questioning. You couldn't make it up, unless of course they plan not to ask him any questions at the second interview.

tb wrote:C4 fact check on the "he's only wanted for questioning" meme http://t.co/GjaVD6V8” Ms Palmer said: “It is not true that Assange is only wanted for questioning. The next step in the Swedish proceedings is to conduct a second interview with him before making a decision whether to formally charge him. So he is wanted so they can conduct a second interview but is not wanted for questioning. You couldn't make it up, unless of course they plan not to ask him any questions at the second interview.

It was common cause in the High Court appal - ie, both the Crown and Mr Assange agreed - that he was wanted not simply for questioning but for the purpose of prosecution.

Hey, but feel free to keep an arguing a legal nonsense when even Assange says you're wrong ...

It's certainly come to something when Derwent & Smokey make Kirkstaller seem lucid

He has not been charged with an offence so can not be wanted for prosecution yet.

Before a prosecution takes place he has to be charged.

Before he is charged he has to be questioned.

Before he is questioned he has to be extradited.

Ipso facto the extradition for questioning is the first link in the chain.

The ultimate intention may well be to prosecute him but that doesn't detract from the above.

As I have said previously, I don't really care what happens to Assange but there is a much wider implication at stake here and I am surprised so many people are in favour of it given the usually left-leaning bias on here. Hey ho.

Why do you insist on applying UK legal procedure? It's Swedish legal procedure that is relevant.

And why are you ignoring the fact that if he was just wanted for questioning he couldn't be extradited.

I know I keep saying this, but reading some of the links posted might clear up your apparent confusion.

Y'see that's the 'lefty' mistake people keep making.

Perhaps if you read the entire Commons Select Committee report that I linked to you would see that, while theoretically he couldn't be extradited just for questioning, it has been the case that many countries are using EAW's for "fishing trips" and the CSC were highly critical of the use of EAW's and how they are being abused. In particular they are scathing about the apparent erosion of the principle of dual criminality, something that would have been extremely relevant in this case. That is the real issue here, the abuse of powers by authorities, but if you're ok with that then fine.