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

There is a case to be answered, 2 women have accused him of rape and other sexual crimes. Whether he is guilty or not is irrelevant, that will be decided at any potential trial, but unless you think rape allegations shouldn't be investigated then there is most certainly a case to be answered. At the moment Assange refuses to answer it, and has broken the law to try and avoid answering that case.



Just because he doesn't want to go doesnt mean he shouldn't be extradited. And the political asylum is a ludicrous decision that interferes in the criminal justice system of this country.

The intimation is that this is a purely political prosecution. My point is that if so, just about every layer of the Swedish justice system is apparently complicit.





How droll. Did you have a point you wanted to make?





Did you read the justification for the decision? They have NOT decided that he is being persecuted. They have decided that he [imight[/i be persecuted IF Sweden chose to expedite him to the USA. The basis of the asylum offer is that Sweden could not give them a categorical guarantee that they would not expedite him to the USA. A guarantee that it is impossible for ANY democratic government to provide.



Oh - and there are a number of experts on international law who question whether it was, in fact, a valid request.





The problem with this question is that it presupposes that Assange's version of events is the truth.

A country he once lived in and in fact applied to have permanent residence in, on the grounds that he felt safe from persecution there. I wonder what's changed...

No we have a long standing tradition and a right one in my opinion of the presumption of innocence. It is in fact the accusation which is irrelevant, and limiting of an individuals freedom, is (or at least the that’s the image which we like to project) based on the evidence presented. Right now, no evidence has been presented. There is nothing to actually prove that this accusation has any merit. The absence of a prima facie judgement means that the Swedish prosecutors haven’t proved that there is a case to answer. The presumption of innocence demands that until such a time as a case to answer has been proved, it is wrong for us to infringe or limit a persons freedom or liberty.



Political asylum doesn’t interfere with the judicial system, it is part of the judicial system. It is part of the checks and balances which protects people from a governments nefarious actions.



Turn it round, would you argue that someone granted political asylum in by the British Government, in a British embassy, should be extradited to Ecuador to face charges they, and the British Government suspect to be politically motivated where the prosecutors refused to interview them in the embassy, but demanded extradition without providing evidence there was a case to answer?

I once live in Australia, I wouldn’t travel back there to answer questions. I have a life to be getting on with.

You seem to find this very unlikely, yet seem perfectly happy to believe a narrative that states the president of an independent democratically elected country has sparked a diplomatic crisis in a situation they had no prior involvement in, just to play silly buggers. And every level of the Ecuadorian foreign office is complicit.

Just wanted to highlight the double standards you were applying to the trustworthy ol’ Swedes (who were complicit in the secret rendition and torture of two men, with the US. The same US which has held Mr Assange’s source for 800 days without trial) and those dodgy South Americans



It’s a distinction without a difference. The country which facilitates persecution is no better than the country which persecutes.

And similarly they are a number who don’t.



A sovereign, independent, democratically elected country has granted him political asylum. If we ever, ever, want others to respect a British decision to grant political asylum, then we should probably respect other nations when they do it.







Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat



Aye, the presumption of innocence is a novel concept to some. But western jurisprudence has been based on it for about 1400 years and its served us pretty well up to now

Right, I give up. Life's too short. Nope, you're right Smokey. The legal system should demand someone is prosecuted, tried and convicted BEFORE they can be arrested. Political asylum to non-politically threatened people fleeing the justice system doesn't interfere with the justice system. Ecuador is Sweden. Black is white. White is black.

Or conversely, I can go to Sweden, say you raped me, then you can leave your job, family, home, responsibilities and spend months of your life trying to prove a negative. Good plan, seems fair.

I find all conspiracy theories unlikely by default. And I haven't at any point suggested that the Ecuadorian government has just decided to play 'silly buggers'. There are a number of perfectly good political reasons for Ecuador to have acted as they have - none of which involve the relative merits of the actual case. The clots in charge of our own government didn't exactly help with their ill-judged sabre-rattling.





The only person to even raise the alleged untrustworthiness of 'dodgy South Americans' is you. I am aware of the previous incidents involving the Swedes that you refer to, and it is highly unlikely that they would be able to get away with anything like the same again - even if they wanted to - given the high profile of the Assange case.





It's a distinction which Ecuador itself has made. The request for Sweden to promise to override it's own laws and judicial system was simply smoke and mirrors - no democracy could have agreed to that request.





Which would indicate that it's not quite as clear-cut as you claim, no?





We have a legal duty to comply with the EAW which was legally presented to us and tested at every level of our judicial system. Moreover, Assange has now committed a crime right here in the UK. Are you suggesting that we simply ignore our treaty obligation with the EU and also our own laws?





If you can indicate where a presumption of guilt has been made then you might have a point. Good luck with that.

Straw man.