It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
When he said "arrested" we can infer he meant 'arrested, charged and imprisoned'. There's still a chance he could be free very soon.
If he releases the Insurance file now he has nothing else to bargain with, and will never see daylight again.
You have to consider that it's his call. He isn't a stupid person. He knows better than to just release it as soon as he goes in. He said arrested but meant imprisoned.
Originally posted by theability
reply to post by Majestic RNA
Sorry about that I didn't see your post. But did he really had himself in? I mean he couldn't go anywhere could he? Interpol had Europe on watch for him, he wouldn't get far despite how tied in people think Assange might be.
They arranged a meeting where they placed him in custody, that isn't going down to the station and saying here I am, is it?
Mr Assange is expected to voluntarily attend a police station within the next 24 hours, and will then appear in a magistrates’ court. He is wanted over allegations of sexual assault in Sweden. He is currently in hiding in the south-east of England but police are understood to have the necessary paperwork to arrest him.
Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are
I think he was given bail so that he can be assassinated on the outside. Too many questions will arise if he's whacked while in custody. I'm sure someone else has already thought of this.edit on 12/14/2010 by this_is_who_we_are because: typo
Originally posted by theability
reply to post by Disconnected Sociopath
The point is this, he said arrested and that is what happened. Nothing further to asses, he didn't hold to his word it was a bluff and he got called!
He believes the file is his 'insurance' in case he is killed, arrested or the whistleblowing website is removed permanently from the internet.
He said: 'They [WikiLeaks] have been subject to cyber-attacks and censorship around the world and they need to protect themselves.
I don't see any quote of an interview or a source for their statement in your linked article
Really? Are you so sure of that? Then why is he in Jail?
He still is not charged for anything.
Julian Assange has surrendered to London authorities, who have arrested him on a Swedish warrant for suspicion of sex crimes.
A Swedish appeals court upheld an arrest warrant on rape charges for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
Originally posted by theability
reply to post by Siddharta
Who said that was in the article, not I! You did! if you read my post again what I stated i would be in the article is, read it again.
He still is not charged for anything. Really? Are you so sure of that? Then why is he in Jail?
“Apart from the arrest, nothing new has happened in the investigation, but the arrest is a prerequisite for continuing the investigation. I cannot give information on the next step, as the matter at the moment is handled by British authorities.”
Robertson: p/p The old principle that you can't arrest someone for questionning applies
No charges? Ok, whatever.
Usually a warrent requires charges right? If they are unfounded why isn't he free to go?
An Interpol Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant.
A distinction is drawn between two types of red notice: the first type is based on an arrest warrant and is issued for a person wanted for prosecution; the second type is based on a court decision for a person wanted to serve a sentence.
Late note: I agree with you, this is a circus, and nothing more.
You used that link as kind of proof. So what was it good for?
Originally posted by spikey
Similar to obscure English laws that no one knows or bothers about.
Here are a few nutty laws that are *STILL* valid (believe it or not!)
No cows may be driven down the roadway between 10 AM and 7 PM unless there is prior approval from the Chief Constable.
True as far as I can see, though I've not checked Halsbury's. It's from the Metropolitan Streets Act 1867. Do you not think people should be prevented from driving a herd of cattle through your local city centre on a busy Saturday afternoon? How is that nutty? It's also far from "obscure". The relevant section (s 7) was amended to alter its scope as recently as 1993. If the law works and fulfils a needed role, why change it? A law might date back a few centuries or use archaic language. Sometimes it just works well enough for the job that it doesn't need changing.
All land must be left to the eldest son.
Not true for many years. In fact currently an eldest son is automatically disinherited in some circumstances ie joint tenancies.
Since 1313, MPs are not allowed to don armor in Parliament.
True. And? Actually the Coming Armed to Parliament Act 1313 states "that every Man shall come without all Force and Armour, well and peaceably" to Parliament and other assemblies. The subtitle for the act uses the term "every Man shall come without Force and Arms". How is this strange or obscure? How many jurisdictions allow the members of their Legislature to sit in chambers with ballistic bodyarmour and rifles? That's effectively what this law means; someone is getting confused with older (but still valid) terms.
Those wishing to purchase a television must also buy a license...unfortunately the government and the BBC don't think this is a strange, out-dated law at all.
Not true. You do not need a licence to buy or own a TV set. You need one to receive transmissions. You do not need one if you only plan to watch DVDs/play games etc. A retailer is usually required by law to report the sale of certain items that may be put to a use that requires a licence (which is why the shop should ask for your address) but that does not mean a licence is necessarily required.
With the exception of carrots, most goods may not be sold on Sunday.
Certainly not true now through implied repeal - ie Shop act 1950 and probably plenty more before that date, that's just the furthest back I looked. Whether or not it was ever true I couldn't say, though where exemptions have been found historically (ships needing to be resupplied in port for example) it seems pointless to restrict it to such a specific item, so I suspect this is an urban myth or taken completely out of context.
All English males over the age 14 are to carry out 2 or so hours of longbow practice a week supervised by the local clergy.
Never exactly true, no longer true at all. Under the Unlawful Games Act 1541, males between 17 and 69 were required to keep, and practice with, a longbow. There is a reference to cutting "Butts and shoot at them" but no indication of 2 hours? Parts of this Act were repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1863 including (I believe but don't quote me) the relevant sections for our purposes. Regardless, the 1541 Act was repealed in full by the Betting and Gambling Act 1960.
London Hackney Carriages (taxis/cabs) must carry a bale of hay and a sack of oats.
Not true, never true. It was an offence under s 51 London Hackney Carriage Act 1831 to feed a carriage horse on the streets unless it was using hay/oats from your own hands. In other words, if you wanted to feed your horse on the job, you had to make sure you carried your own supply. You could always choose not to do this though it may constitute evidence of maltreating the horse - which was probably an offence as well, but I've not checked because a current taxi/cab driver is unlikely to face charges for maltreating horses. Also the offence in question was repealed by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1976.
It is illegal to be drunk on Licensed Premises (in a pub or bar).
True to an extent. Again, someone is being selective with their wording. You currently commit the offence of being drunk and disorderly in licensed premises if you are drunk and (i) have been asked to leave but refuse, or (ii) enter or attempt to enter after being refused. It is also an offence to sell alcohol to, or obtain alcohol for, someone who is drunk. Far from being obscure, this is from the Licensing Act 2003 which every licensee needs to know inside and out. This doesn't mean someone who is tipsy, it's about someone who has clearly had enough to drink.
It is illegal for two adult men to have sex in the same house as a third person.
Not exactly or entirely true. The Sexual Offences Act 1967 allowed for homosexual acts between consenting adults (or a minor in some circumstances) in private, defined as meaning that no more than two people take part or are present, and not being in a lavatory to which the public have access. To what extent someone is considered "present" - same room? same house? - is not set out in the Act. It may be that it was decided as a matter of case law (that is, a judge was asked to consider the question and decided that being in the same house consituted being present) but I've not checked. Regardless, this has been repealed by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 so this law is no longer on valid.
Any person found breaking a boiled egg at the sharp end will be sentenced to 24 hours in the village stocks (enacted by Edward VI).
Being quite sad, I've just read through as many of the Statutes passed under Edward VI as I can lay my hands on and I've not found anything close to this - though there aren't many still in traceable form. Admittedly it may be an Act that I've not found or was passed under someone else. There's a few things that might enable it to happen - statutes were passed under Edward VI that enforced certain periods of fasting so eating an egg could conceivably lead to punishment in certain circumstances - but otherwise I consider this to be an urban myth. Being a blatantly stupid idea even by medieval standards also suggests this. As one source noted, the "correct end of the egg" argument was the cause of the war between the two countries in Gulliver's Travels, which suggests a basis for this myth.
Chelsea Pensioners may not be impersonated.
"Chelsea Pensioners" refers to a very specific group - former members of the Army who qualified for free board, lodgings and treatment at the Royal Hospital Chelsea for the remainder of their life. That was (and still is) a fairly significant thing to be able to claim. How is this any different from current legislation in many countries that prevents people trying to pass themselves off as decorated veterans? Especially in order to receive preferential treatment? Regardless, although there were provisions under s 13 Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals Act 1826 dealing with fraudulent claims against a Chelsea pension, that was repealed by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 2008. Depending on why someone is impersonating a Chelsea Pensioner, it can still be an offence under existing fraud legislation.
A bed may not be hung out of a window.
Nothing immediately springs up on searches but there is potential for something to exist in this form. It certainly exists in a number of other forms depending on how you look at it - depending on the circumstances you may have a breach of Occupiers Liability, etc. How is this strange or obscure? The actual quote is conceivably taken out of context from case law.
It is illegal for a lady to eat chocolates on a public conveyance.
As with the bed, I've not come across a specific Act that sets this out, though lots of repetition of the same old urban myths/misunderstandings. As it currently stands, a lot of bus companies prohibit consuming food or drink onboard so a lady eating chocolate would certainly be in breach of the conditions of carriage. If there is an Act then, unless the context changes things, it definately sounds rather silly. I doubt that an Act of this nature exists or existed.
And so on..
Originally posted by bluemirage5
Sweds allege Julian has no links to Britain? Australia's head of state Queen Elizabeth and Australia is also part of the Commonwealth therefore, Julian as an Australian born, DOES has strong links to Britain.
The Sweds are going to have to come up with something alot more tenable in 48 hours if they don't want Julian out on bail...under what they already have this is going to be practically impossible.