Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"that's an ambiguous question .... there's a few ways for the stand off to end ... which of the many ways it could end are you asking people to comment on?" Asking if it really is in the public interest to uphold an arrest warrant for skipping bail on charges that have been dropped, given the tax payers have so far paid out nearly 4 million to date. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Absolutely inappropriate that he has not had the UK drop their arrest warrant against him. The Swedish charge against him was dropped years ago, so the taxpayer has been forced by the government to spend £millions that were not needed, for years longer than were needed. The police resources could have been allocated to more important things - especially when the Prime Ministers of the UK have cut £billions from police budgets. Former Home Secretary Theresa May holds much of the blame. It's become vindictive and it's likely that there is secret pressure from the USA that the UK public aren't being informed of. As it's costing the UK citizens so much, this should be made public. Let him out without arrest from the embassy and leave for Ecuador. " Another trying to twist the facts to suit their political agenda! The 24/7 police presence outside the Ecuadorian embassy was withdrawn in October 2015. Sweden withdrew their interest in Assange in May 2017 (not years ago as you claim) but would arrest him if he entered Sweden before 2020, when the case time limitations apply. Assange only faces one charge now. That of breaking bail conditions in the UK. He could easily surrender and go to court, then go to Ecuador should a non-custodial sentence be handed down. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Absolutely inappropriate that he has not had the UK drop their arrest warrant against him. The Swedish charge against him was dropped years ago, so the taxpayer has been forced by the government to spend £millions that were not needed, for years longer than were needed. The police resources could have been allocated to more important things - especially when the Prime Ministers of the UK have cut £billions from police budgets. Former Home Secretary Theresa May holds much of the blame. It's become vindictive and it's likely that there is secret pressure from the USA that the UK public aren't being informed of. As it's costing the UK citizens so much, this should be made public. Let him out without arrest from the embassy and leave for Ecuador. Another trying to twist the facts to suit their political agenda! The 24/7 police presence outside the Ecuadorian embassy was withdrawn in October 2015. Sweden withdrew their interest in Assange in May 2017 (not years ago as you claim) but would arrest him if he entered Sweden before 2020, when the case time limitations apply. Assange only faces one charge now. That of breaking bail conditions in the UK. He could easily surrender and go to court, then go to Ecuador should a non-custodial sentence be handed down." Minor offence the worst he could get is what? Detention? How long it can't be - year surely. More likely a large fine? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Absolutely inappropriate that he has not had the UK drop their arrest warrant against him. The Swedish charge against him was dropped years ago, so the taxpayer has been forced by the government to spend £millions that were not needed, for years longer than were needed. The police resources could have been allocated to more important things - especially when the Prime Ministers of the UK have cut £billions from police budgets. Former Home Secretary Theresa May holds much of the blame. It's become vindictive and it's likely that there is secret pressure from the USA that the UK public aren't being informed of. As it's costing the UK citizens so much, this should be made public. Let him out without arrest from the embassy and leave for Ecuador. Another trying to twist the facts to suit their political agenda! The 24/7 police presence outside the Ecuadorian embassy was withdrawn in October 2015. Sweden withdrew their interest in Assange in May 2017 (not years ago as you claim) but would arrest him if he entered Sweden before 2020, when the case time limitations apply. Assange only faces one charge now. That of breaking bail conditions in the UK. He could easily surrender and go to court, then go to Ecuador should a non-custodial sentence be handed down." Will the usa want to wait until he's in police custody for breaking bail then issue an extradition before he gets the chance to go to Ecuador? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Absolutely inappropriate that he has not had the UK drop their arrest warrant against him. The Swedish charge against him was dropped years ago, so the taxpayer has been forced by the government to spend £millions that were not needed, for years longer than were needed. The police resources could have been allocated to more important things - especially when the Prime Ministers of the UK have cut £billions from police budgets. Former Home Secretary Theresa May holds much of the blame. It's become vindictive and it's likely that there is secret pressure from the USA that the UK public aren't being informed of. As it's costing the UK citizens so much, this should be made public. Let him out without arrest from the embassy and leave for Ecuador. Another trying to twist the facts to suit their political agenda! The 24/7 police presence outside the Ecuadorian embassy was withdrawn in October 2015. Sweden withdrew their interest in Assange in May 2017 (not years ago as you claim) but would arrest him if he entered Sweden before 2020, when the case time limitations apply. Assange only faces one charge now. That of breaking bail conditions in the UK. He could easily surrender and go to court, then go to Ecuador should a non-custodial sentence be handed down. Will the usa want to wait until he's in police custody for breaking bail then issue an extradition before he gets the chance to go to Ecuador? " And thats what Julian Assange is afraid of. The USA has no outstanding charges against him, but he will undoubtedly have the USA chasing him. I think that he was hoping for a Hilary Clinton win but now there is a hard line Republican President in charge, then he is most certainly a marked man now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A point of law, for an arrest warrant to be valid there has to be a charge laid and you should be a suspect in that crime, for an arrest warrant to be invalid there are many reasons but if there is no charge (such as if the Swedes withdrew the charge) then any warrant of arrest is invalid, that is the law but as usual British law ducks and dives to suit a particular interest." As above, the only charge that JA faces, is a UK one for breach of bail conditions. The Swedes aren't seeking to extradite him, nor (at the moment) are the Americans. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Absolutely inappropriate that he has not had the UK drop their arrest warrant against him. The Swedish charge against him was dropped years ago, so the taxpayer has been forced by the government to spend £millions that were not needed, for years longer than were needed. The police resources could have been allocated to more important things - especially when the Prime Ministers of the UK have cut £billions from police budgets. Former Home Secretary Theresa May holds much of the blame. It's become vindictive and it's likely that there is secret pressure from the USA that the UK public aren't being informed of. As it's costing the UK citizens so much, this should be made public. Let him out without arrest from the embassy and leave for Ecuador. Another trying to twist the facts to suit their political agenda! The 24/7 police presence outside the Ecuadorian embassy was withdrawn in October 2015. Sweden withdrew their interest in Assange in May 2017 (not years ago as you claim) but would arrest him if he entered Sweden before 2020, when the case time limitations apply. Assange only faces one charge now. That of breaking bail conditions in the UK. He could easily surrender and go to court, then go to Ecuador should a non-custodial sentence be handed down. Will the usa want to wait until he's in police custody for breaking bail then issue an extradition before he gets the chance to go to Ecuador? And thats what Julian Assange is afraid of. The USA has no outstanding charges against him, but he will undoubtedly have the USA chasing him. I think that he was hoping for a Hilary Clinton win but now there is a hard line Republican President in charge, then he is most certainly a marked man now." Actually it is believed that the Russian hackers provided him with the emails 11days before the election to harm her. They succeeded but as it transpired there was nothing in them which broke the law. So he was for Trump. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Absolutely inappropriate that he has not had the UK drop their arrest warrant against him. The Swedish charge against him was dropped years ago, so the taxpayer has been forced by the government to spend £millions that were not needed, for years longer than were needed. The police resources could have been allocated to more important things - especially when the Prime Ministers of the UK have cut £billions from police budgets. Former Home Secretary Theresa May holds much of the blame. It's become vindictive and it's likely that there is secret pressure from the USA that the UK public aren't being informed of. As it's costing the UK citizens so much, this should be made public. Let him out without arrest from the embassy and leave for Ecuador. Another trying to twist the facts to suit their political agenda! The 24/7 police presence outside the Ecuadorian embassy was withdrawn in October 2015. Sweden withdrew their interest in Assange in May 2017 (not years ago as you claim) but would arrest him if he entered Sweden before 2020, when the case time limitations apply. Assange only faces one charge now. That of breaking bail conditions in the UK. He could easily surrender and go to court, then go to Ecuador should a non-custodial sentence be handed down. Will the usa want to wait until he's in police custody for breaking bail then issue an extradition before he gets the chance to go to Ecuador? And thats what Julian Assange is afraid of. The USA has no outstanding charges against him, but he will undoubtedly have the USA chasing him. I think that he was hoping for a Hilary Clinton win but now there is a hard line Republican President in charge, then he is most certainly a marked man now. Actually it is believed that the Russian hackers provided him with the emails 11days before the election to harm her. They succeeded but as it transpired there was nothing in them which broke the law. So he was for Trump." Assange is a Democrat | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A point of law, for an arrest warrant to be valid there has to be a charge laid and you should be a suspect in that crime, for an arrest warrant to be invalid there are many reasons but if there is no charge (such as if the Swedes withdrew the charge) then any warrant of arrest is invalid, that is the law but as usual British law ducks and dives to suit a particular interest. As above, the only charge that JA faces, is a UK one for breach of bail conditions. The Swedes aren't seeking to extradite him, nor (at the moment) are the Americans." What bail conditions? Under the Bail act 1976 you can be released on bail at the police station after you've been charged - in this case there is no charge at the moment so no British institution can set bail conditions - no charge - no bail = freedom! Well in most countries in the world! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Absolutely inappropriate that he has not had the UK drop their arrest warrant against him. The Swedish charge against him was dropped years ago, so the taxpayer has been forced by the government to spend £millions that were not needed, for years longer than were needed. The police resources could have been allocated to more important things - especially when the Prime Ministers of the UK have cut £billions from police budgets. Former Home Secretary Theresa May holds much of the blame. It's become vindictive and it's likely that there is secret pressure from the USA that the UK public aren't being informed of. As it's costing the UK citizens so much, this should be made public. Let him out without arrest from the embassy and leave for Ecuador. Another trying to twist the facts to suit their political agenda! The 24/7 police presence outside the Ecuadorian embassy was withdrawn in October 2015. Sweden withdrew their interest in Assange in May 2017 (not years ago as you claim) but would arrest him if he entered Sweden before 2020, when the case time limitations apply. Assange only faces one charge now. That of breaking bail conditions in the UK. He could easily surrender and go to court, then go to Ecuador should a non-custodial sentence be handed down." Swedish prosecutors attempted to drop extradition proceedings against Julian Assange as early as 2013, according to emails with the Crown Prosecution Service | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Absolutely inappropriate that he has not had the UK drop their arrest warrant against him. The Swedish charge against him was dropped years ago, so the taxpayer has been forced by the government to spend £millions that were not needed, for years longer than were needed. The police resources could have been allocated to more important things - especially when the Prime Ministers of the UK have cut £billions from police budgets. Former Home Secretary Theresa May holds much of the blame. It's become vindictive and it's likely that there is secret pressure from the USA that the UK public aren't being informed of. As it's costing the UK citizens so much, this should be made public. Let him out without arrest from the embassy and leave for Ecuador. Another trying to twist the facts to suit their political agenda! The 24/7 police presence outside the Ecuadorian embassy was withdrawn in October 2015. Sweden withdrew their interest in Assange in May 2017 (not years ago as you claim) but would arrest him if he entered Sweden before 2020, when the case time limitations apply. Assange only faces one charge now. That of breaking bail conditions in the UK. He could easily surrender and go to court, then go to Ecuador should a non-custodial sentence be handed down. Swedish prosecutors attempted to drop extradition proceedings against Julian Assange as early as 2013, according to emails with the Crown Prosecution Service" The Swedish director of public prosecutions, Marianne Ny, wrote to the CPS on 18 October 2013: We have found us to be obliged to lift the detention order ... and to withdraw the European arrest warrant. If so this should be done in a couple of weeks. As such, there hasn't been a demand from Sweden for many years against Julian Assange. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just been following this saga and think he's right regarding a conspiracy to get him to the usa. Seeong as its cost nearly 4 million to police the Ecuadorian embassy, isn't it time to end this? I would say yes" I have no concerns either way | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Absolutely inappropriate that he has not had the UK drop their arrest warrant against him. The Swedish charge against him was dropped years ago, so the taxpayer has been forced by the government to spend £millions that were not needed, for years longer than were needed. The police resources could have been allocated to more important things - especially when the Prime Ministers of the UK have cut £billions from police budgets. Former Home Secretary Theresa May holds much of the blame. It's become vindictive and it's likely that there is secret pressure from the USA that the UK public aren't being informed of. As it's costing the UK citizens so much, this should be made public. Let him out without arrest from the embassy and leave for Ecuador. Another trying to twist the facts to suit their political agenda! The 24/7 police presence outside the Ecuadorian embassy was withdrawn in October 2015. Sweden withdrew their interest in Assange in May 2017 (not years ago as you claim) but would arrest him if he entered Sweden before 2020, when the case time limitations apply. Assange only faces one charge now. That of breaking bail conditions in the UK. He could easily surrender and go to court, then go to Ecuador should a non-custodial sentence be handed down. Swedish prosecutors attempted to drop extradition proceedings against Julian Assange as early as 2013, according to emails with the Crown Prosecution Service The Swedish director of public prosecutions, Marianne Ny, wrote to the CPS on 18 October 2013: We have found us to be obliged to lift the detention order ... and to withdraw the European arrest warrant. If so this should be done in a couple of weeks. As such, there hasn't been a demand from Sweden for many years against Julian Assange. " Again, a twisting of the facts. Sweden did want to drop the EAW against Assange at an early stage for a variety of reasons. However, they formally did't do so until May last year and as such, Assange was still bound to be extradiated by the UK to Sweden. As stated, Assange will be arrested if he steps outside of his political asylum in the Ecuaradorian Embassy. He skipped bail and must answer in a UK court. As Judge Emma Arbuthnot said, when uphelding the arrest warrant against him, "he only wants justice only when its in his favour" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Absolutely inappropriate that he has not had the UK drop their arrest warrant against him. The Swedish charge against him was dropped years ago, so the taxpayer has been forced by the government to spend £millions that were not needed, for years longer than were needed. The police resources could have been allocated to more important things - especially when the Prime Ministers of the UK have cut £billions from police budgets. Former Home Secretary Theresa May holds much of the blame. It's become vindictive and it's likely that there is secret pressure from the USA that the UK public aren't being informed of. As it's costing the UK citizens so much, this should be made public. Let him out without arrest from the embassy and leave for Ecuador. Another trying to twist the facts to suit their political agenda! The 24/7 police presence outside the Ecuadorian embassy was withdrawn in October 2015. Sweden withdrew their interest in Assange in May 2017 (not years ago as you claim) but would arrest him if he entered Sweden before 2020, when the case time limitations apply. Assange only faces one charge now. That of breaking bail conditions in the UK. He could easily surrender and go to court, then go to Ecuador should a non-custodial sentence be handed down. Swedish prosecutors attempted to drop extradition proceedings against Julian Assange as early as 2013, according to emails with the Crown Prosecution Service The Swedish director of public prosecutions, Marianne Ny, wrote to the CPS on 18 October 2013: We have found us to be obliged to lift the detention order ... and to withdraw the European arrest warrant. If so this should be done in a couple of weeks. As such, there hasn't been a demand from Sweden for many years against Julian Assange. Again, a twisting of the facts. Sweden did want to drop the EAW against Assange at an early stage for a variety of reasons. However, they formally did't do so until May last year and as such, Assange was still bound to be extradiated by the UK to Sweden. As stated, Assange will be arrested if he steps outside of his political asylum in the Ecuaradorian Embassy. He skipped bail and must answer in a UK court. As Judge Emma Arbuthnot said, when uphelding the arrest warrant against him, "he only wants justice only when its in his favour" " I think most people would be focused on justice for themselves when they've been held captive within a building for several years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Absolutely inappropriate that he has not had the UK drop their arrest warrant against him. The Swedish charge against him was dropped years ago, so the taxpayer has been forced by the government to spend £millions that were not needed, for years longer than were needed. The police resources could have been allocated to more important things - especially when the Prime Ministers of the UK have cut £billions from police budgets. Former Home Secretary Theresa May holds much of the blame. It's become vindictive and it's likely that there is secret pressure from the USA that the UK public aren't being informed of. As it's costing the UK citizens so much, this should be made public. Let him out without arrest from the embassy and leave for Ecuador. Another trying to twist the facts to suit their political agenda! The 24/7 police presence outside the Ecuadorian embassy was withdrawn in October 2015. Sweden withdrew their interest in Assange in May 2017 (not years ago as you claim) but would arrest him if he entered Sweden before 2020, when the case time limitations apply. Assange only faces one charge now. That of breaking bail conditions in the UK. He could easily surrender and go to court, then go to Ecuador should a non-custodial sentence be handed down. Swedish prosecutors attempted to drop extradition proceedings against Julian Assange as early as 2013, according to emails with the Crown Prosecution Service The Swedish director of public prosecutions, Marianne Ny, wrote to the CPS on 18 October 2013: We have found us to be obliged to lift the detention order ... and to withdraw the European arrest warrant. If so this should be done in a couple of weeks. As such, there hasn't been a demand from Sweden for many years against Julian Assange. Again, a twisting of the facts. Sweden did want to drop the EAW against Assange at an early stage for a variety of reasons. However, they formally did't do so until May last year and as such, Assange was still bound to be extradiated by the UK to Sweden. As stated, Assange will be arrested if he steps outside of his political asylum in the Ecuaradorian Embassy. He skipped bail and must answer in a UK court. As Judge Emma Arbuthnot said, when uphelding the arrest warrant against him, "he only wants justice only when its in his favour" I think most people would be focused on justice for themselves when they've been held captive within a building for several years. " How is he a captive? He chose to go in there, despite promising a judge during his bail hearing, that he would adhere to the conditions (which weren't all that strict) He can walk out of there anytime he chooses. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's ridiculous that we have had police stationed outside the embassy for years. He knows he is wanted, so the police should just pick him up if they are him" Well if they get fed up of him they could refuse him further asylum | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A point of law, for an arrest warrant to be valid there has to be a charge laid and you should be a suspect in that crime, for an arrest warrant to be invalid there are many reasons but if there is no charge (such as if the Swedes withdrew the charge) then any warrant of arrest is invalid, that is the law but as usual British law ducks and dives to suit a particular interest." Problem with that is that, whilst the original arrest warrant may no longer be valid, he was arrested on that warrant, brought before a court of law and released on bail. He then broke his bail conditions and another warrant, which is still outstanding, was issued for the crime of breaking his bail conditions. Regardless of the original warrant or whether he was guilty or not of anything relating to it, it's not acceptable to break bail conditions and not be held accountable for the breach. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"if a judge sets bail and you abscond, then afterwards the charges are dropped then skipping bail is still contempt of court .... and if there's one thing that pisses judges off the most, it's being taken the piss out of, and contempt is basically legal jargen for 'taking the piss out of a judge'" Sometimes we have to look beyond someone being pissed off, in order to take commonsense, value judgements, where aspects such as humanity are considered, as well as common sense. The huge costs that have accrued, during a period of so-called austerity, defies good reasoning, especially when the Swedish prosecutors have wanted to end all pursuit of him and cases for many years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"if a judge sets bail and you abscond, then afterwards the charges are dropped then skipping bail is still contempt of court .... and if there's one thing that pisses judges off the most, it's being taken the piss out of, and contempt is basically legal jargen for 'taking the piss out of a judge' Sometimes we have to look beyond someone being pissed off, in order to take commonsense, value judgements, where aspects such as humanity are considered, as well as common sense. The huge costs that have accrued, during a period of so-called austerity, defies good reasoning, especially when the Swedish prosecutors have wanted to end all pursuit of him and cases for many years." Yep, fully agree with this. It's not in the public interest to persue it. There's far more serious crimes 5hat occur for 4 million to be spent on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
