Covert plan at Ecuadorian Embassy strengthened after removing dedicated guards (Assange)

Metropolitan Police Service strengthens covert plan at Ecuadorian Embassy after removing dedicated 24/7 guards.

Since Julian Assange entered the Ecuadorian Embassy in June 2012, the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has maintained a police presence at the Embassy.

Julian Assange was arrested on a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) in December 2010 and his extradition ordered him to answer serious criminal allegations in Sweden. He is subject to arrest under Section 7 of the Bail Act, for failing to surrender to custody on 29 June 2012 for removal to Sweden.

The operation to arrest Julian Assange does continue and should he leave the Embassy the MPS will make every effort to arrest him. However it is no longer proportionate to commit 2/7.

Covert plan at Ecuadorian Embassy strengthened after removing dedicated guards (Assange)

So, it looks like even the police are sick of wasting so much resources on catching Assange, if/when he leaves the embassy.
I wonder if they are more making a statement to the government regarding recent slashing of police budgets, than to Assange. Just imagine how embarrassing it would be for Cameron if he managed to slip out and escape out of the country.

I imagine there is CCTV all over that embassy as it is, but with no continual police presence it certainly appears to make Assange's options slightly easier if he makes a break for it.

Just throwing this out there for info, the source is from the horses mouth, the Met Police.

a reply to: grainofsand

Oooh...

If I was a bookie, or a betting man, I would lay odds on this whole thing being a trap of some sort. Backing the visible presence off, and putting some plain clothes and, or deep cover people on the monitoring and capture detail would be an obvious, but solid play.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Similar thoughts crossed my mind as well.
I was also wondering what the deal is with diplomatic cars these days, does Assange just need to get his arse into one of Ecuador's parked at the front door, then a jet at a private airfield or something?

Getting out of the embassy is one thing, but getting out of the UK quite another

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: TrueBrit

Similar thoughts crossed my mind as well.
I was also wondering what the deal is with diplomatic cars these days, does Assange just need to get his arse into one of Ecuador's parked at the front door, then a jet at a private airfield or something?

Getting out of the embassy is one thing, but getting out of the UK quite another

Diplomatic baggage.?

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: grainofsand

Oooh...

If I was a bookie, or a betting man, I would lay odds on this whole thing being a trap of some sort. Backing the visible presence off, and putting some plain clothes and, or deep cover people on the monitoring and capture detail would be an obvious, but solid play.

Yep. No more marked cars and uniforms. Bet there will be unmarked civilian model cars and plainclothes officers aplenty though.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

I've just had a read up, and it appears that the police could technically stop the diplomatic car, but have no powers to enter or search it.
He would still then have the problem of getting from the car to a plane, and I would imagine that every Ecuadorian embassy car is being watched like a hawk right now.

I'm quite sure there have been editorial statements in the British media to end this silly affair. It's costing the Brits a fair amount of money to continue this charade.

If the Swedes want him on legitimate grounds, send the prosecutor over to interview the man. There is no case in actuality. The Swedes are merely doing the bidding of the US government who wants Assange put away.

He should've turned himself in long ago while he was heavily in the public eye, he would have probably been treated better. Now he is and his story is slipping into obscurity who knows what will happen to him. The way I see it they will get him eventually. I dont think the embassy is going to be a permanent thing, what kind of life is that anyway?

a reply to: Salander
Yep, I understand the Swedish prosecutor has refused to interview him at the embassy. That seems strange in any genuine quest for justice.

a reply to: Brotherman
I'ts easy for us to say he should have handed himself in earlier from the safety of our keyboards.
I imagine I'd have done the same as Assange if I had the US government all over my arse though

a reply to: grainofsand
Why use the "its easy to be a keyboard warrior" type thing? I'm speaking from thinking critically about the future. Being locked in the embassy doesn't sound like much of a life. The US will more then likely apprehend him, but when they do that is future tense. As time goes on Assange slips farther into obscurity and when he does more then likely get pinched no one will give a hoot. If he was thinking long term he should have went in and did what he had to when he was heavily in the public eye. If he is so convinced in his assertions of not wrongdoings he could have plead his case in front of the world. Instead he IS hiding in his own prison. I'm not a keyboard warrior when I say this, if it was me that's what I would have done, so much for being sound in my moral compass and expressing this notion here.

Diplomatic Immunity and Diplomatic Premises (UK Gov)

Assange was/is wanted in Sweden for the alleged sexual assault of two women in 2010 and also rape, charges he denies. I haven't followed the case, but if I'm not mistaken, time has "run out" for the Prosecutors on the sexual assault charges, but they still wanna "chat" with him on the rape charge..... (still "oogling" and trying to find official documents)

Incase someone wants to read more - The Swedish Prosecution Authority website

Sorry for it being in, what we call, Swenglish (mix of Swedish and English)

a reply to: Brotherman

Hey no need to take it personal dude, it was an innocent comment expressing my opinion that from the comfort of our homes it is easy to say we'd face the might of the US government than seek sanctuary in an embassy.

I definitely would have run if I thought I was being stitched up. No chance I'd be trusting due process if it already appeared that there were bigger forces out to get me and I knew the charges in Sweden were trumped up.

...note, I'm not saying he is innocent, just that if I knew I was and it was a stitch up, I would seek that sanctuary from Ecuador over facing charges in Sweden only to be handed over to the US government, any day.

a reply to: grainofsand
Its not that I took it personally, its I see that all to often so I chose to take a stand on it I would genuinely turn myself in back when, I know it doesn't help now and only degrades as time moves forward. There are people out to get him and I belief they will, only when they do no one will be looking much less care anymore. I'm not sure what I believe about him being right or wrong, I just think if he believes he was just in his cause he wouldn't have hid that's all. With the removal of police from the embassy does two things not only does it set it up for a trap it also further takes him off the eyes and ears of the people surrounding him further pushing him into obscurity.

YA know Sweden can hire soem hit men and execute justice by the end of a sniper rifle instead. Its so much cheaper.

a reply to: Brotherman

Of course there is much more to todays announcement than meets the eye. I don't buy for a minute that in reality it's going to be any easier for him to get out of the embassy, just curious about the intent of the police releasing this now.
As far as obscurity goes though, the Met Police have just made Assange's name back into MSM, with all networks in the UK now reporting it.

If Ecuador really wanted to they could probably get him out in a James Bond style dramatic mission which would be an international diplomacy disaster.
I note Ecuador has a C-130 Hercules in it's air force, so here's a plan, just for the chuckle:

Somehow get permission for a 'delivery' from Ecuador in the C-130 to London Biggin Hill private airport, which can take 737's/Airbus', and let it sit there with the tail open and a flight window arranged.
Drive a car with a large sunroof window underneath the balcony Assange speaks from, he drops in, they hoof it to the Hercules, drive straight in, and commence take-off.

Fuel up at Algeria (no extradition treaty with the US) then on to Guinea (same), cross the Atlantic to S.America and job done.

It'll never happen of course, but what an excellent break-out story that would be

a reply to: Soloprotocol

The inside of a diplomatic car is as inviolable as the Embassy itself even though Assange does not have any type of diplomatic status.. They could try to put him inside a box with diplomatic markings on it but I don't see that working to well.

The moment they go to transition from the car to an aircraft exposes Assange allowing an arrest.

If I had to guess I could see them trying to sneak out and at some point trying to lose their chase car tails to get assange into a position to try and sneak out of the country via a private aircraft from a private airfield.

a reply to: yuppa

Haha! That's not something I reckon the Met Police would be happy about, jurisdictions and all that...in any case, they've got their own snipers.

From June 2012 until now it has cost around £12 million.

£12 Million spent on one man over a period of 40 months, equates to £300,000 per month. That's a fair old wedge being spent by a country that can no longer afford £1,200 per year for families on a low wage.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

It's probably no 'extra' cost though of £300,000 per month, just how it is allocated from the existing budget.
At worst it means other officers are working harder elsewhere due to the deployments at the embassy.

That said, my police area (Devon & Cornwall) has just lost £50 Million from this budget so I imagine The Met could do with those resources of £300,000 per month catching Assange elsewhere.

a reply to: grainofsand

At this time of Austere measures, £300,000 per month spent on waiting for this guy to leave the embassy is totally absurd and just goes to show the Governments priorities over the last few years. Unless of course the U.S has been footing the bill?