Cost of policing Julian Assange wikileaks siege.

[truman]

Maybe but that does not alter the ruling yet and also what the law states, the reason I linked to wiki.

 

I don't think what the UN thinks of this has any ruling in law...unless you can show me otherwise..even the Guardian thinks the UN got it wrong

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/05/un-julian-assange-wikileaks

 

from the beeb:

 

 

"The government says the panel's ruling is not legally binding in the UK and a European Arrest Warrant remains in place - meaning the UK continues to have a legal obligation to extradite Mr Assange."

Edited February 5, 2016 by truman

[999tigger]

What an absurd decision. I am not anti UN by any means but this decision is clearly wrong because they have overlooked the point he has detained himself by hiding in the embassy to prevent a lawful warrant being carried out. The man is a tool the way he keeps going on about him being vindicated and it being binding, which it is not.

 

All it will serve to do is increase public opinion that he should be arrested and he can stay in the Ecuadorian embassy. This is irrespective of any support for wikileaks.

 

Just to add the costs were £10m by Feb last year, so are likely to be in excess of £13m now. Just think what hat could ahve been spent on. We could have paid for his legal costs if hed just left.

 

The slimy toad he has made a big play about how he would give himself up if the panel found against him. he didnt tell how twitter followers he had already seen the preliminary results.

Edited February 5, 2016 by 999tigger

[foxy lady]

I don't think what the UN thinks of this has any ruling in law...unless you can show me otherwise..even the Guardian thinks the UN got it wrong

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/05/un-julian-assange-wikileaks

 

from the beeb:

 

 

"The government says the panel's ruling is not legally binding in the UK and a European Arrest Warrant remains in place - meaning the UK continues to have a legal obligation to extradite Mr Assange."

 

The UK would be in dereliction of it's duties to the EU if we ignored a European arrest warrant issued against a man charged with rape ans allowed him to walk free.

[tinfoilhat]

What an absurd decision. I am not anti UN by any means but this decision is clearly wrong because they have overlooked the point he has detained himself by hiding in the embassy to prevent a lawful warrant being carried out. The man is a tool the way he keeps going on about him being vindicated and it being binding, which it is not.

 

All it will serve to do is increase public opinion that he should be arrested and he can stay in the Ecuadorian embassy. This is irrespective of any support for wikileaks.

 

Stick him in a crate and post it to Calais. Make it someone else's problem.

[herbalharry]

This man is dodging an eu warrant for assault and rape at the cost of the British public, 12 million.

 

I think its about time he faced the music. And if he's innocent should have nothing to worry about should he?

 

---------- Post added 05-02-2016 at 15:26 ----------

 

The UK would be in dereliction of it's duties to the EU if we ignored a European arrest warrant issued against a man charged with rape ans allowed him to walk free.

 

True. And what about the victims.

 

---------- Post added 05-02-2016 at 15:27 ----------

 

What an absurd decision. I am not anti UN by any means but this decision is clearly wrong because they have overlooked the point he has detained himself by hiding in the embassy to prevent a lawful warrant being carried out. The man is a tool the way he keeps going on about him being vindicated and it being binding, which it is not.

 

All it will serve to do is increase public opinion that he should be arrested and he can stay in the Ecuadorian embassy. This is irrespective of any support for wikileaks.

 

All correct, and foreign office have come out and said it changes nothing...time is up.

[Hots on]

I find it amazing that in the modern world he can be untouchable and evade justice in a particular embassy building; its like medieval times when you could seek sanctuary from persecution in a church!

Edited February 5, 2016 by Hots on

[herbalharry]

I find it amazing that in the modern world he can be untouchable and evade ustice in a particular embassy building; its like medieval times when you could seek sanctuary from persecution in a church!

 

Ecuador have questions to answer surely? They can easily turn him out but seem to be complicit in this farce.

[999tigger]

I find it amazing that in the modern world he can be untouchable and evade justice in a particular embassy building; its like medieval times when you could seek sanctuary from persecution in a church!

 

The right of jurisidiction over any countrys embassy is fundamental to the way diplomacy works and has done for centuries. It's a far more important principle than any particular incident.

[esme]

Points to consider

 

1. The UN panel is not a court & they have no legal jurisdiction, they did not give a ruling or a judgement they gave an opinion.
    
    
   
2. UK law only applies on UK soil, EU law only applies in the EU, currently the UK is part of the EU so EU arrest warrants are binding in the UK.
    
    
   
3. Sweden issued an EU arrest warrant that legally binds the UK to arrest Mr Assange & hand him over to Sweden.
    
    
   
4. Mr Assange has evaded arrest by seeking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy, he is staying there voluntarily.
    
    
   
5. The Ecuadorian embassy is foreign soil, it is not part of the UK nor is it part of the EU & it does not recognise an EU arrest warrant.
    
    
   
6. In order for Sweden or the UK to detain Mr Assange he would have to be subject to either countries laws or the laws of the EU, as long as he remains on foreign soil he cannot be detained by the UK, Sweden or any other member state of the EU.
   

The only person detaining Mr Assange is Mr Assange, he's free to go wherever he likes, whenever he likes.

 

'Evading arrest' is not 'being detained'.

Edited February 5, 2016 by esme

[sgtkate]

What an absurd decision. I am not anti UN by any means but this decision is clearly wrong because they have overlooked the point he has detained himself by hiding in the embassy to prevent a lawful warrant being carried out. The man is a tool the way he keeps going on about him being vindicated and it being binding, which it is not.

 

All it will serve to do is increase public opinion that he should be arrested and he can stay in the Ecuadorian embassy. This is irrespective of any support for wikileaks.

 

Absolutely agree. Whilst I can understand why he hid in the embassy, and there is at least a smidgeon of a chance that the claims are being investigated so strongly so he can get extradited to the US, the fact remains that he has clearly detained himself. At no point were the doors barricaded or Assange forcibly kept inside. Totally bizarre ruling. Where does it leave other people? Can someone holding people hostage who refuses to come out now make a claim that they were kept in detention because if they'd come out they would have been arrested?

 

Rare and nice to have a thread where all sides appear to agree! Long may it continue!