retep Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 why? the embassy and their Government and Assange obviously are using our very lax diplomatic system to gain an avantage! remove the immunity until Assange is arrested, fairly straightforward.......? That seems a slippery slope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 it seems the cost of policing "round the clock" outside the embassy where julian Assange is claiming asylum has risen to somewhere between £2.5 and £3m, is it about time that diplomatic status is removed from this embassy and the police go in and arrest Mr Assange so he can face the charges that he is so obviously scared of? its a waste of resources and police time. The solution would be to stop wasting police time and resources and arrest him if he tries to leave the country or is seen out and about. There are worse people than him walking our streets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 That seems a slippery slope. exactly change the whole system just to get one man? who might be facing made up charges due to political wrangling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamSmith Posted February 17, 2013 Author Share Posted February 17, 2013 exactly change the whole system just to get one man? who might be facing made up charges due to political wrangling? why a slippery slope?? who said change the system ? just suspend the diplomatic immunity for a very short while so he can be arrested and deported to face the charges trumped up or not, he is not a british citzen as i understand so why are we paying to "protect" and hinder another countries charges, there are far more things to spend £3m of taxpayers money on....and actually why do we allow an Ecuadorian embassy here anyway, do we trade much with them???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 The people who should be financially charged are those who pose a threat to the person.Are you saying the police are only there to monitor Assange's movements?There was never any suggestion that the cost of policing be borne when the police were filming protestors.or getting involved in the miners' strike or sponsoring agents provocateurs to sleep with female protestors to gain their confidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 deported to face the charges trumped up or not, He's not been charged with anything tho, there are no charges to face at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamSmith Posted February 17, 2013 Author Share Posted February 17, 2013 The people who should be financially charged are those who pose a threat to the person.Are you saying the police are only there to monitor Assange's movements?There was never any suggestion that the cost of policing be borne when the police were filming protestors.or getting involved in the miners' strike or sponsoring agents provocateurs to sleep with female protestors to gain their confidence. no i am saying the police presence is a waste of taxpayers money and he should be arrested & deported, i am not saying he or anyone should be charged, just that this waste should be stopped. ---------- Post added 17-02-2013 at 13:10 ---------- He's not been charged with anything tho, there are no charges to face at the moment. exactly! even worse then, so basically he is hiding from questioning?:loopy: at our expense:shakes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 exactly! even worse then, so basically he is hiding from questioning?:loopy: at our expense:shakes: He's not hiding from questioning- they're welcome to question him where he is now; but they don't want to do that. What he's hiding from is the fact that, if he goes to Sweden, there's a good chance he'll be extradited to the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamSmith Posted February 17, 2013 Author Share Posted February 17, 2013 He's not hiding from questioning- they're welcome to question him where he is now; but they don't want to do that. What he's hiding from is the fact that, if he goes to Sweden, there's a good chance he'll be extradited to the US. questioning or extradition either way get him deported, most taxpayers dont really care if he has to go to the US, the sooner the better, less cost to the Uk when we can ill afford the policing costs! next we will be paying legal aid for him:loopy: its probably not if! but when he goes anyway only a matter of time and during that time we pay:loopy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 The cost of something is often less important than its value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now