Quito a turn-up for the books

Assange granted asylum in Ecuador. The CIA won't have to fly as far to get him now.

Glad they whisked him out before the Cameron Government sparked off a full international row by wading in for a possible sex offender as if he were an Al Qaida commander (the point of the legislation they invoked earlier this morning).

I hope Assange doesn't start feeling up his diplomatic escort on the way to the airport.

Seems unlikely - I don't think they've been pursuing him for weeks have they? Unlike the CIA ...

acc to the Guardian ....

At a press conference on Wednesday, [Ecuadorian Foreign Minister] Patiño released details of a letter he said was delivered through a British embassy official in Quito, the capital of the South American country.

The letter said: "You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy."

It added: "We need to reiterate that we consider the continued use of the diplomatic premises in this way incompatible with the Vienna convention [which is a heap of horseshit - PS] and unsustainable and we have made clear the serious implications that this has for our diplomatic relations."

[...]

Patiño said he was "deeply shocked" by the diplomatic letter. Speaking to reporters later, he said: "The government of Ecuador is considering a request for asylum and has carried out diplomatic talks with the governments of the United Kingdom and Sweden. However, today we received from the United Kingdom a written threat that they could attack our embassy in London if Ecuador does not give up Julian Assange.

"Ecuador, as a state that respects rights and justice and is a democratic and peaceful nation state, rejects in the strongest possible terms the explicit threat of the British official communication."


So I got it wrong, I thought this apparent threat was issued early this morning, not yesterday.

I thought I had better apologise, in case zat "catches me out" for "talking shit" again ......

I don't think he's actually out yet, is he? He's just been offered asylum. He has to get out of the UK yet, somehow staying 'in Ecuadorean territory' throughout.

lardbucket wrote:I don't think he's actually out yet, is he? He's just been offered asylum. He has to get out of the UK yet, somehow staying 'in Ecuadorean territory' throughout.

Unless he gets out in a crate although the Ecuadoreans have also to make sure it's properly marked to get past the Customs unlike the Nigerians did in 1984:

Abduction of Umaru Dikko

Have the Ecs got a helipad?

he could probably get a desk job at the embassy. not much to do after work mind, except looking out for those black helicopters

lardbucket wrote:I don't think he's actually out yet, is he? He's just been offered asylum. He has to get out of the UK yet, somehow staying 'in Ecuadorean territory' throughout.

Aye, a Mercedes did show up at the Ecuadorian Embassy but there was no chance Assange could run the gauntlet of Brit Bobbies.

Interesting history to the change to the laws in UK via the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987. A Brit police lass was shot by a Libyan during the 1984 Libyan Embassy incident. Says Wiki...

"Yvonne Joyce Fletcher (15 June 1958 – 17 April 1984) was a British police officer fatally shot during a protest outside the Libyan embassy at St. James's Square, London, in 1984. Fletcher, who had been on duty and deployed to police the protest, died shortly afterwards at Westminster Hospital. Her death resulted in the Metropolitan Police Service laying siege to the embassy for the next eleven days, and the United Kingdom severing all diplomatic relations with Libya. Two years later it became a major factor in Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's decision to allow U.S. President Ronald Reagan to launch the U.S. bombing of Libya in 1986 from American bases in the United Kingdom."

The incident lead to the above mentioned Act, which allows British Police to legally nab wanted folk outside the Embassies. So unless there is a tunnel from the Ecudorian Embassy to some quite little airport, Assange could still be farked.

Wasn't Ecuador one of the countries that Wikileaks criticised for lack of free speech/human rights abuses?

Hard to see how Assange gets out of London from here.

Also, is it true that the acts that Assange is alleged to have done aren't even an offence in the UK? If so (and in any case) who does the UK government think it is kidding with this OTT posturing in the name of ensuring it adheres to its extradition obligations to Sweden.

From what I read, the charge is a miniscule one and if enforced properly, half of the males in Sweden would be international criminals.

It's to do with the fact that he either didn't wear a condom or it split during the act and he didn't replace it. Consensual sex by the way.

i am sure the brits would have had the same posture if some pickpocket was holed up in the US embassy. always fair

tricycle wrote:From what I read, the charge is a miniscule one and if enforced properly, half of the males in Sweden would be international criminals.

It's to do with the fact that he either didn't wear a condom or it split during the act and he didn't replace it. Consensual sex by the way.

Not true:

Assange: Would the Rape Allegation Be Rape Under English Law?

krikri wrote:Wasn't Ecuador one of the countries that Wikileaks criticised for lack of free speech/human rights abuses?

Wikileaks released some diplomatic cables to embarrass the US and managed to get the US Ambassador expelled although they inadvertently revealed Correa's (Ecuador's President) involvement in the appointment of a corrupt police chief. Wikileaks has called Correa "transformative" although he is in the same mould as Chavez of Venezuela and follows the same modus operandi of buying out opposition media, dismissing Supreme Court justices and imprisoning opposition editors and publishers. Under the Ecuador constitution it is an offence to insult or abuse the President, punishable by two years' imprisonment. Assange held a softball interview with Correa last year on Russia Today the English-language state-owned TV mouthpiece of the Putin Administration (again another strange choice for an advocate of freedom of information) and the two could well have broached an informal agreement off-air:

Wikileaks Founder Seeking Asylum

This is how Human Rights Watch describes the situation in Ecuador, a country Assange considers to be superior to both the UK and Sweden in safeguarding his liberties:

HRW Report 2012: Ecuador

Allan D wrote:

tricycle wrote:From what I read, the charge is a miniscule one and if enforced properly, half of the males in Sweden would be international criminals.

It's to do with the fact that he either didn't wear a condom or it split during the act and he didn't replace it. Consensual sex by the way.

Not true:

Assange: Would the Rape Allegation Be Rape Under English Law?

... quoting shit off a shitty right wing website is an authoritative debunking of trike's comment? I don't think so.

Idiotic comment: David Allen Green is a prominent left-wing lawyer who contributes to both the New Statesman and The Guardian. He successfully defended Paul Chambers in the recent Twitter Joke Trial. Here he is writing in The New Statesman - a distinctly left-wing publication:

Legal Myths About Assange Extradition

Not everybody falls into the neat categories of the world-view demonstrated by your moronic knee-jerk reaction.

GFY

George Galloway is further discredited (if that were possible) by his intervention in the Assange Affair:

not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion

Ahh, but would you say that if it were you on the receiving end, George?

Assange is only accused of "bad sexual etiquette"

At least some good has come out of the affair then.

lardbucket wrote:GFY

Wildean riposte

It's succinct and appropriate.

For you maybe.

No, from me, for you. Perfectly adequate.

That's what I said. For you - adequate.

You can always delete these responses later Allan, when you realise how much you embarrass yourself.

The world is in fact much wider than Disney and Wikipedia, and for you to imagine even for a millisecond that anyone has a narrower world view than your own is scarcely credible.

I await your next wikipedia link with unconcealed contempt.