He has been charged and the technical term is the accused

A copper should know the difference.

A copper should know the difference

The rozztafarians aren’t widely known for their soaring IQs though innit

The critical point, as you well know, is it the US has not said

” please go to sweden and face charges we pinky promise to not try and extradite you”
Its true we dont know for sure but only one lot can remove this doubt.
We are all free to draw an inference on their refusal to do this

so, your proof that they want to extradite him is the fact that they have not said they don’t want to? That’s fairly ironic given the allegations against him! Maybe the USA was asleep at the time?

What exactly do you think has stopped them them applying for extradition from either Sweden or the UK?

He’s not in the uk though is he.

Or Sweden.

Yunki
All coppers are fik
Junkyard,
I’m so bored with him, I don’t even read about it anymore, don’t even know if he’s charged accused, defendant,appellant, just taking the piss really, hiding from justice

The rozztafarians aren’t widely known for their soaring IQs though innit

I think you are harking back to a pre-Thatcher era when police officers were overwhelming working class, often seen scratching their heads in low budget English movies, and whose mythical stupidity was regularly the butt of standup comedian jokes.

In the 1980s Tory governments recognised that their divisive policies which would destroy communities and spread misery through unprecedented levels of unemployment would require a huge dependency on the police and consequently police pay went through the roof.

This made the police a very attractive profession for graduates and today a copper is far more likely to come from an affluent middle-class background and have a university degree than a copper 35 years ago was.

Of course today the Tories don’t need the police like they did in the 1980s and 90s, which explains why they now expect them to do more policing with smaller budgets and resources.

Seriously though,
I’ve been in policing for 30 years, and I have a reasonable IQ, BUT, I have seen scores of excellent officers who have solved major crimes and carried out fantastic police work without any formal qualifications or having high IQ.
It’s hard for non police officers to understand, but a lot of police work is done by a feeling , it’s hard for me to explain as an officer.
I have Sen some highly intelligent graduate entry officers struggle getting to grips with street policing, they are fantastic at writing crime reduction plans etc, but when it comes to formulating a plan to catch a thief, some of them just don’t have “IT”, not even sure what IT is , but when I came across officers with that quality it is immediately obvious.
A motivated switched on police officer working on a busy beat is a joy to watch for me.

Sen is highly intelligent. He scored a Nobel prize and wrote some very good books. First Asian master of a Cambridge college.

Oh and it could be argued that Assange has effectively served his sentence.

Point taken.. Although Ernie, you have to admit that affluent middle class background graduate doesn’t necessarily give any indication of brightness

Well you were referring to IQs, I think whether an individual is a graduate certainly gives an indication of their IQ. As I’ve always understood it the grammar selection, and therefore those most likely to attend university, represent the top third highest IQ in education.

Having said that I very strongly believe that the perceived advantages of higher IQs are grossly exaggerated. Or that it’s even a reliable measure of ‘intelligence’. But you brought it up.

The same as in both Swedish and English law then?

I’ve done loads of shagging without a rubber and haven’t been extradited once

affluent middle class background graduate doesn’t necessarily give any indication of brightness

It’s doesn’t give any guarantees, but I reckon it gives a fairly reasonable indication.

If that was the only information available, I’d guess higher rather than lower end IQ fairly happily.

Don’t see the problem – it all worked out perfectly for Bradley Manning.

And Edward Snowdon must be so content with his lot. The US has, after all, a long a glorious tradition of shooting messengers.

The Guy’s a knob who lives off double-standards and arrogance, but the rape charges stink, the details are vague – I’ve never heard them at clearly on anything like a respected news agency as they’re thrown around online. He’s told them he’s happy to discuss it in the embassy or via telephone or Skype but they want him in Sweden for an interview and I’d bet my hat that he’d find himself ‘lost’ en route and In an orange jumpsuit 30 seconds later.

Try out ninfan’s link http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html&query=Assange&method=boolean

I’ve done loads of shagging without a rubber and haven’t been extradited once

One would hope, that the decision to not use a rubber was mutual.

Junkyard – lazarus
He has been charged and the technical term is the accused

I Don’t think he has been charged?

Would you trust the US ?

would you trust the US?

maybe not, but I would trust Sweden. And in any case, it would be a whole lot easier for the US to extradite him from the UK than it would from Sweden. The UK is not known for refusing extradition requests from the US (Gary McKinnon and others) and for Sweden to extradite Assange to the US they would anyway need to get the written permission of the British Home Secretary…

but I would trust Sweden.

I wouldn’t. There has been much made in Sweden recently of revelations of secret co-operation with the US and NATO, for instance the policy of armed neutrality was largely underpinned with secret assistance from the USA (the JA37 Viggen was developed with US assistance and technology). There are elements within the secret services in Sweden who are virulently anti-Russian and very Pro US co-operation.

Assange is rightly cautious. If the US asked for their help, the Swedes would probably give it.

And in any case, it would be a whole lot easier for the US to extradite him from the UK than it would from Sweden.

As discussed, he’s not in the UK.

There has been much made in Sweden recently of revelations of secret co-operation with the US and NATO, for instance the policy of armed neutrality was largely underpinned with secret assistance from the USA

…during the Cold War? As in 30 years ago? It wasn’t just the CIA that provided secret support; it was MI6 too.

(the JA37 Viggen was developed with US assistance and technology).

…in the 1970’s

Assange is rightly cautious. If the US asked for their help, the Swedes would probably give it.

Maybe, maybe not. But the point is, to extradite Assange from the UK requires the approval of the British Home Secretary; to extradite him from Sweden requires the approval of Sweden and… the British Home Secretary. So if the US wants to extradite him why go to the trouble of asking two people when you could ask one?

UK government has spend over 10 million pounds on police surveillance outside the Ecuadorian embassy.

Money well spent?

Do we spend that on tracking other potential rapists?

This is all about Wikileaks and the US govt wanting him put in jail/dead. Sex allegations are not the main issue here.

tiggs hits the nail on the head ^^^

This is a purely politically motivated exercise, it has nothing to do with solving a rape case.

There is absolutely no way that millions of pounds and precious resources would be spent on attempting to apprehend someone who it is alleged, is suspected of, not wearing a condom.

UK government has spend over 10 million pounds on police surveillance outside the Ecuadorian embassy.

Money well spent?

absolutely not.

Do we spend that on tracking other potential rapists?

other alleged rapists (a) aren’t global news stories which put a unique spotlight on the Met, and (b) don’t seek asylum from the Ecuadorian government.

…

There is absolutely no way that millions of pounds and precious resources would be spent on attempting to apprehend someone who it is alleged, is suspected of, not wearing a condom.

To believe this you need to believe that the British government aren’t willing to send Assange direct to the US for whatever the US wants to do with him but they are willing to spend millions of pounds and precious resources to keep him holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy. And if you believe that the British Government aren’t willing to send Assange direct to the US then someone needs to explain why they would be willing to allow Sweden to send him to the US.

Or, an alternative explanation: having agreed to extradite Assange, when he ran off to the Ecuadorian embassy, the British Government had to be seen to be keeping a check on him to avoid any negligence being reciprocated the next time we need to repatriate a suspected criminal.

The whole reasoning of the conspiracy doesn’t make sense. Why would Sweden – who had to keep their relations with the US secret – be a softer touch than a combination of Sweden and the UK…

other alleged rapists (a) aren’t global news stories which put a unique spotlight on the Met, and (b) don’t seek asylum from the Ecuadorian government.

I hadn’t really given the Met’s role in this much thought, I just assumed they were doing the bidding of the Home Secretary. Why do you think it puts ‘a unique spotlight on the Met’ ?

And you need to ask yourself why don’t other alleged rapists seek asylum from the Ecuadorian government ? Solve that riddle and you might uncover what this is really about.

Maybe, maybe not. But the point is, to extradite Assange from the UK requires the approval of the British Home Secretary; to extradite him from Sweden requires the approval of Sweden and… the British Home Secretary. So if the US wants to extradite him why go to the trouble of asking two people when you could ask one?

The approval of any British official for something the US wants would be easier to obtain than a first class stamp. The UK saw the easier option to be kicking him back to Sweden and let the Swedes take the heat for extraditing him back to Guantanamo Bay. Unfortunately the little plan was upset by the Ecuadorian embassy.

I hadn’t really given the Met’s role in this much thought, I just assumed they were doing the bidding of the Home Secretary. Why do you think it puts ‘a unique spotlight on the Met’ ?

Because they are the ones doing the surveilling. Although you’re right, of course, the Home Secretary would also get heat.

The approval of any British official for something the US wants would be easier to obtain than a first class stamp. The UK saw the easier option to be kicking him back to Sweden and let the Swedes take the heat for extraditing him back to Guantanamo Bay.

You’re missing the point. Under section 58 of the Extradition Act (2003), if Sweden wants to extradite Assange to another country for a different crime, the British Home secretary has to consider whether this second crime is worthy of extradition under British law. In fact, s/he has to go through exactly the same decision-making process as if the US had requested extradition directly from the UK in the first place. So kicking him back to Sweden doesn’t take any heat off the UK, it just complicates life enormously for the US.

No, you’re the one missing the point. The acquiescence of the UK can be assumed under all circumstances. The public relations aspect was better served by letting the Swedes be the ones to do the actual bundling onto an unmarked plane.

No, you’re the one missing the point. The acquiescence of the UK can be assumed under all circumstances. The public relations aspect was better served by letting the Swedes be the ones to do the actual bundling onto an unmarked plane.

They would have to follow some semblance of due process. Extraordinary rendition is all well and good for unknown iraqis / afghans who – with their beards an all – can in the worst case be pointed at as terrorists… but an internationally famous figure like Assange can’t just be “disappeared” without creating an almighty sh*tstorm.

Time to place your bets I reckon. Do you think

a) he’ll die in the Ecuador embassy
b) Sweden will question him, investigate and drop the investigation
c) it will time out
d) he ends up getting extradited to the US

Extraordinary rendition is all well and good for unknown iraqis / afghans who – with their beards an all – can in the worst case be pointed at as terrorists… but an internationally famous figure like Assange can’t just be “disappeared” without creating an almighty sh*tstorm.

Yeah right, like the US government gives a toss about “an almighty sh*tstorm”.

Bradley Manning’s treatment was cruel and inhuman, UN torture chief rules

The UN special rapporteur on torture has formally accused the US government of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment towards Bradley Manning, the US soldier who was held in solitary confinement for almost a year on suspicion of being the WikiLeaks source.

Juan Mendez has completed a 14-month investigation into the treatment of Manning since the soldier’s arrest at a US military base in May 2010. He concludes that the US military was at least culpable of cruel and inhumane treatment in keeping Manning locked up alone for 23 hours a day over an 11-month period in conditions that he also found might have constituted torture

The US government does not allow UN rapporteurs on torture to have free access to prisoners they hold :

Mendez told the Guardian that he could not reach a definitive conclusion on whether Manning had been tortured because he has consistently been denied permission by the US military to interview the prisoner under acceptable circumstances.

The Pentagon has refused to allow Mendez to see Manning in private, insisting that all conversations must be monitored. “You should have no expectation of privacy in your communications with Private Manning,” the Pentagon wrote.

The lack of privacy is a violation of human rights procedures, the UN says, and considered unacceptable by the UN special rapporteur.

Presumably because the conclusions are likely to be viewed in an unfavourable light.

Really ? What about Gary McKinnon ?

Well it was you who brought up the “public relations aspect”

And Bradley Manning is a case in point – he was arrested in Kuwait and given “the semblance” of due process, not bundled into an unmarked plane.

And why do you think the US didn’t give Mendez access to Manning? Because they are worried about creating a sh*tstorm.

an internationally famous figure like Assange can’t just be “disappeared” without creating an almighty sh*tstorm.

I dont think the US GAS about the protest. Their objective is to jail him till he dies.

And why do you think the US didn’t give Mendez access to Manning? Because they are worried about creating a sh*tstorm.

😆

I dont think the US GAS about the protest. Their objective is to jail him till he dies.

Well yes, the Elite-Level conspiracist would presume that Ecuador was in on the game. After all, what better, plausibly-deniable way to keep him out of trouble than to hole him up in the Ecuadorian Embassy – extraordinarily extradited in plain sight – with a steady supply of Cantonas, Gagas, and Chomskys to keep his ego fed and watered. One could call it a win-win.