Yeah, damn them pesky humans and their constant demands for universal rights.

Nothing wrong with the principle.



It's the application that is at fault.

And haven't Australia been quiet about him...

There isn't. There are, however, conditions under which we could refuse such a request - that's why in the Assange case it went all the way to the Crown Court before it was approved.



There are also no countries that are exempted as you suggested in your post.



There are moves to review the system as some countries are using it for relatively trivial offences which it was never intended to cover. It's far from perfect but our police forces claim it's been of great assistance to them.

That decision was appealed and after due process was reversed. You can make all the claims of ulterior motives that you like, but the fact remains that a valid legal procedure was followed in both Sweden and the UK.





He opted out of a valid legal procedure when he skipped bail. And if you honestly think that Ecuador gives a fig about his human rights, freedom of speech, of freedom from persecution then you clearly haven't been following what they've been up to in their own country.



In any event, it's hardly a valid legal manoeuvre to apply for political asylum when you have not been subjected to political persecution, nor have been charged with a political crime, nor even be under direct threat of either.





I wouldn't be comfortable having carried out the acts that his own defence lawyer says he has. And if he's that 'uncomfortable' with the idea of travelling to Sweden, why did he apply to live there permanently?

Indeed. Mrs 28 worked with the team that did these in Yorkshire and a number of offenders were returned here because of the EAW

Being legal, does not mean being right.



I don’t think anyone at all has argued about the legality of the action so im not sure why it is being brought up?



That decision went through due process and asylum was granted. You can make all the claims of ulterior motives that you like, but the fact remains that a valid legal procedure was followed in Ecuadaor, Sweden and the UK. If you think Sweden is an unimpeachable bastion of democratic process and a shining light of jurisprudence you clearly havent been following what they have been up to in their country.



An independent democratic nation has decided, at the very highest levels that he is being persecuted, It is a valid legal option, and is in fact the only option he would have if the accusations are false and the prosecution vexatious.

That’s another straw man. I can only ask you the question again would you be comfortable submitting yourself to this procedure. Would you be comfortable leaving your job, and home and life, to face accusations, that haven’t even been proved on a prima facie basis, which you believe you are innocent of, and you believe are vexatious, and travel to a country complicit in torture and rendition for an ally, the same ally which has held your source for 800 days without trial?

And you are comfortable with this?

What job, home and life does he have in the UK/Ecuador at present?

And that argument just boils down to he shouldn't have to go if he doesn't want to, which is a ridiculous way to run a criminal justice system.

Well his job is running his website. His life is the things he does, and I don’t know what his address was.

I don’t see what is ridiculous about not forcing an innocent man, who hasn’t had even a prima facie case put against him, to have his live disrupted and forced to travel t a country he doesn’t want to go to.



It would be entirely correct for the onus to be on the Swedish prosecutors to prove there was a case to be answered prior to forcing him to do anything