Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Ecuador would like Julian Assange out of their embassy by the sounds of it.

On the subject or whether the US would put in an extradition request I suspect that he'd have stood a better chance of avoiding it under Obama. We'll never know but I think its a real possibility under Trump, its the sort of grandstanding that he is so fond of. Obama pardoned Manning after all, admittedly as a passing gesture.
 
News here is claiming that Assange has been granted citizenship by Ecuador. Link here in Portuguese, it translates claiming, he has a passport (granted in December) and also has a tax number 1729926483 refers to citizen Julian Paul Assange (obligatory for citizens of Ecuador). Ecuador want to grant him diplomatic status but the UK government have said they would not recognize his diplomatic status, not sure they can as I think there is an international agreement covering diplomats, I guess it will end up in Court.

Yeah, that's been all over the news today.

IIRC a host country has a veto over other countries bringing in staff with diplomatic status, would seem sensible, otherwise a state could slowly import a complete army!
 
Yeah, that's been all over the news today.

IIRC a host country has a veto over other countries bringing in staff with diplomatic status, would seem sensible, otherwise a state could slowly import a complete army!
Google news seems to have only picked up the story an hour ago (according to my search), I wonder how they missed it. There was speculation in the NYT this morning by no confirmation from Ecuador
 
Last edited:
Was it speculation or stated as fact? Looking at the news from Ecuador, it says they only confirmed it at lunchtime :hmm::confused:

It was reported as fact that diplomatic status had been declined, but, here's where the confusion could be, that refusal was based on 'reports' concerning his citizenship, which seems to have been confirmed somewhat later.

Here's a report from late yesterday - Julian Assange’s bid for diplomatic status rejected by Britain

The Foreign Office has turned down a request from the Ecuadorian government to grant the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, diplomatic status as a means of breaking the stalemate over his continued presence in the UK.

The development comes amid reports that Assange – an Australian who has been holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy for more than five years – has recently become a citizen of the South American state.
 
It was reported as fact that diplomatic status had been declined, but, here's where the confusion could be, that refusal was based on 'reports' concerning his citizenship, which seems to have been confirmed somewhat later.

Here's a report from late yesterday - Julian Assange’s bid for diplomatic status rejected by Britain
Reports of sounds of crockery smashing prompted the dispatch of armed police to the Ecuadorian ambassador's residence this afternoon, where they found the envoy apoplectic that he had to put up with Assange for some time yet.
 
Anyone that doesn't trust the cia should probably avoid central America, particularly Ecuador.
Running from sexual assault allegations in Europe though...

The SA`s have adapted around the CIA. One deathsquad/coup too many. Yes means yes.

This was done to death years ago.

Funny, all I can see on this board is a lot of astute reports about the Russia - Trump lies. Mind you I do tend to filter out absolute crap.
 
It was reported as fact that diplomatic status had been declined, but, here's where the confusion could be, that refusal was based on 'reports' concerning his citizenship, which seems to have been confirmed somewhat later.

Here's a report from late yesterday - Julian Assange’s bid for diplomatic status rejected by Britain
Yes I think that is the confusion, there was talk of making Assange a diplomat to break the deadlock, surprisingly, one does not have to be a citizen of a country to be a diplomat for that country, for example, if a country breaks off diplomatic relations with another country they can have a third party (usually a country but can be a person) to act as their "diplomatic representative", so that there is some form of contact if necessary. In Assange's case I can see why the UK would reject him acting as a "third party" diplomat, now he is a citizen maybe there is some form of appeal to the UKs rejection to the UN.

iirc a UN panel declared him to be under "arbitrary detention" and said it was a breach of his rights under international humanitarian law, the UK appealed but lost their appeal. I think Sweden has dropped the cases against him so now he just faces charges regarding breaching bail in the UK, I'm sure some solution will be found soon, even if it is packing him off as diplomatic mail :)
 
I think Sweden has dropped the cases against him so now he just faces charges regarding breaching bail in the UK, I'm sure some solution will be found soon, even if it is packing him off as diplomatic mail :)

I think Sweden have done so on the basis that there is no realistic prospect of getting an interview with him for the forseeable future. I believe they have said they will reopen the case if he pops up in Sweden (which doesn't seem likely), or if they can get an interview.

Presumably, if he does come out of the embassy they can - if they want to - resubmit their extradition request and we can go through all this again?

(I am very much not a lawyer or an expert on law!)
 
Oh my! Now your having ago at Savile ! Its the C IA`s i tells yers blbla your the peado bla
 
Yes I think that is the confusion, there was talk of making Assange a diplomat to break the deadlock, surprisingly, one does not have to be a citizen of a country to be a diplomat for that country, for example, if a country breaks off diplomatic relations with another country they can have a third party (usually a country but can be a person) to act as their "diplomatic representative", so that there is some form of contact if necessary. In Assange's case I can see why the UK would reject him acting as a "third party" diplomat, now he is a citizen maybe there is some form of appeal to the UKs rejection to the UN.

iirc a UN panel declared him to be under "arbitrary detention" and said it was a breach of his rights under international humanitarian law, the UK appealed but lost their appeal. I think Sweden has dropped the cases against him so now he just faces charges regarding breaching bail in the UK, I'm sure some solution will be found soon, even if it is packing him off as diplomatic mail :)

In many ways its a shame that Assange / Ecuador don't push the diplomat idea a bit - not that it wouldn't be a completely fraudulent application deliberately designed to avoid justice, but rather that it would highlight that senior British ministers have seen nothing wrong in people being named diplomats via an entirely fraudulent application deliberately designed to avoid justice in the past.
 
Ecuador is in South America (I'm sorry I couldn't help myself).

Bollocks, I thought I'd checked that when I checked my recollection of Ecuador being at the centre of the cia's abuse.
Thanks for the correction :)
(this comment deliberately vague to avoid further embarrassment)

Sweden is still in Europe though? Assange is still accused of sexual assault there (although on hold)? The US hasn't made any known attempt to extradite? Or even bring any charges relating to Assange? Assange is still on record as claiming Sweden to be one of the most free countries in the world (considering a change of citizenship?) before the sexual assault allegations? He only noticed their extraordinary rendition scandal after his behaviour was questioned?
I'm sure some of that is wrong too
:-/
 
Well in this postmodern world nothing is real and you are entitled to believe anything you want apparently. Quite who it is that allows or denies entitlement I`m not really sure LOL -THE THOUGHT POLICE :eek: Your in no way being stupid to question the independent establishment on this one, which is what Jaclyn Friedman was doing here:

 
Well in this postmodern world nothing is real and you are entitled to believe anything you want apparently. Quite who it is that allows or denies entitlement I`m not really sure LOL -THE THOUGHT POLICE :eek: Your in no way being stupid to question the independent establishment on this one, which is what Jaclyn Friedman was doing here:



What part of what she said prevents you from questioning whatever you want?
She's making a very valid point that if the woman is already afraid of a violent reaction to rejection of the man's sexual advances then her "consent" can be could be seen as having been obtained under coercion. It's not that difficult to imagine that. Would you be surprised to know that, for example, women in abusive relationships routinely consent to sex, not because they want sex, but because they are afraid to say no to a man they already know to behave violently or because they feel the need (for their own survival or for fear or him taking it out on the kids) to appease their partner as soon as they get through the door from work or the pub?

Why is it so difficult to imagine that if a guy has already gone as far as initiate sex while she was sleeping that she's entitled to think he may go further than that?

Whatever you may think of the political circumstances of the whole debacle, the women were the only losers. Neither Assange, nor Sweden, nor the US, nor the UK and nor Ecuador once thought they had a responsibility to bring the judicial inquiry into the alleged rapes to a meaningful conclusion that should have come before whatever else they may have against Assange. That says a whole lot about all of them.
 
Thats why I just linked to that you fool.

We can agree that the legal response to what Assange allegedly did reeks of politically-motivated prosecution without passing judgment on the merits of the allegations against him.

You think he`s a peado as well?
 
Last edited:
In many ways its a shame that Assange / Ecuador don't push the diplomat idea a bit - not that it wouldn't be a completely fraudulent application deliberately designed to avoid justice, but rather that it would highlight that senior British ministers have seen nothing wrong in people being named diplomats via an entirely fraudulent application deliberately designed to avoid justice in the past.
It seems to me that it is time to re-look at diplomatic immunity, the world has moved on a great deal since 1961 and the reasons for introducing this measure could easily be dealt with in a better manor. Across the globe there are many examples of diplomatic immunity being misused, from the example you linked to above to diplomats causing death and getting away without facing justice.
 
If embassies were subject to normal health and safety the Ecuadorian one would have been shut long ago due to Assange's unsavoury and unhygienic habits

He's only washed at a basin for years, and even that they've had to force him to do once a month - he won't countenance more frequent ablutions

That is the reason according to this :D
Staff at the Ecuador Embassy in London grew tired of the whiffing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who reportedly does not attend to his own personal hygiene.

It’s that lack of cleanliness, among other things, that fueled Ecuador’s recent attempts to end his five-year stand-off at the Knightsbridge embassy, the International Business Times reported.

Julian Assange’s poor hygiene sparks complaints at embassy

Never knew he was a crust punk: thumbs: He is `down with the kids ` :cool: ( and no I did not mean it in that sense you filthy so and so)
 
Back
Top Bottom