jfish1936 Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Generally, it's accepted that, if two countries are at peace, each is entitled to maintain an embassy in the other country. It is usual for the embassy to be inviolate. "Angry mobs" might be used to storm an embassy, but I doubt whether Britain's "rent-a-mob" is prepared to do this. Up to the declaration of WW II, the British Embassy in Germany was safe, as was the US one until USA entered the war. The staff were allowed to leave under diplomatic immunity, despite the war. It's a silly old-fashioned way to behave, isn't it? Get the mob to storm the embassy, and accept the war with Ecuador which might result! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Do we have 5 million quid spare to protect an alleged nonce from the evil human rights abusers of..err Sweden???? No. Kick the door down, drag him out and put him a plane to Stockholm. I think this puts your social liberal claim into some perspective-you sound like a BNP sympathiser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Thought I'd drag this thread back up as he's in the news again: Julian Assange should be allowed to go free, UN panel finds http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35499942 More worryingly, this: and be compensated for his "deprivation of liberty", a UN legal panel has found. How much ££££££££££££££ do we think he'll ask for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Thought I'd drag this thread back up as he's in the news again: Julian Assange should be allowed to go free, UN panel finds http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35499942 More worryingly, this: How much ££££££££££££££ do we think he'll ask for? It's his choice to stay in the embassy...he can come out anytime he likes.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apelike Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 It's his choice to stay in the embassy...he can come out anytime he likes.. True but this is about being arbitrarily detained which is in a sense forced detention. The wiki link.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrary_arrest_and_detention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy lady Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 True but this is about being arbitrarily detained which is in a sense forced detention. The wiki link.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrary_arrest_and_detention He isn't being detained. This is a free country. He is at will to stay in the embassy or leave as he sees fit. The police are free to be on the streets of London whenever they like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 The UN has embarrassed itself here. The UK has done nothing wrong in this case. ---------- Post added 05-02-2016 at 14:56 ---------- True but this is about being arbitrarily detained which is in a sense forced detention. The wiki link.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrary_arrest_and_detention "in a sense" cuts no ice in law. The UN have dropped a bollock here. whoops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 He isn't being detained. This is a free country. He is at will to stay in the embassy or leave as he sees fit. The police are free to be on the streets of London whenever they like. And I suspect they wouldn't have tried hard to catch him if he'd done a runner. The man is a huge tool and the UN should be ashamed of themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 From one news source I read: It's the majority opinion by a panel of 5 lawyers looking at written submissions. One of the five declined to take part as she was Australian and did not want to be considered to be biased. Another said the whole thing was ludicrous because Assange is clearly not being detained so they should not even consider the case. The other 3 decided the words "arbitrarily detained" could be melded to fit Assange's situation. Amusingly, Assange is on Ecuadorian soil as long as he stays in the embassy, so the UK can't be detaining him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apelike Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 The UN has embarrassed itself here. The UK has done nothing wrong in this case. ---------- Post added 05-02-2016 at 14:56 ---------- "in a sense" cuts no ice in law. The UN have dropped a bollock here. whoops Maybe but that does not alter the ruling yet and also what the law states, the reason I linked to wiki. 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