Assange free. Granted bail

reply to post by woogleuk


Yep.. but I can't do anything about it unless the mods help out and at the time I posted it was the story. Originally they weren't going to appeal. This thread has been as close to live as it gets. First time I've seen twitter as useful.

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?

reply to post by Dr Cosma


it was the 8th december, not even a week ago, and yeah, he handed himself in.

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.

This is what I'm assuming as well - being arrested and held on alleged rape charges is totally different than being found guilty for them and sentenced to a lenghty prison term - there is a very calculated game being played here.

And it would be very irrational for Assange/WL to release the contents of the insurance file if it truly will change the history of the world as we know it or destroy the US government's credibility.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

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.

You could have a point here... But still I don't think there is anything there, in the game of house of mirrors you need to make the other side think you can break them at anytime no matter the circumstances.

My point being that, he had he poker face on, they called him and he hasn't got nothing to show for it.

Just my 2 cents, he won't be released anytime soon.

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?

Ok I get what your saying regarding him having nowhere to go, BUT he did voluntarily attend a police station knowing full well he was going to be arrested, so all I'm saying in reply to your previous post is: no he didn't release the assurance policy because he knew it was going to happen (get arrested), not because he doesn't have anything, come on, if he had nothing then he would be no threat to the US gov and they would let him get on with it....

check this it kinda clears things up a bit...

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.

The Telegraph

This was a premeditated move by Julian....

reply to post by Majestic RNA


I wouldn't mind, but the guy handed himself in!

If he was tracked down, after leading the police a merry dance chasing him half way around the country, i would understand a bail of £240,000...but for someone who presents himself to the police?

People who present themselves, and are recognisable world wide (difficult to sneak through customs if you're Assange!), are not normally considered to be a flight risk...more sauce for the goose.

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

Exactly what I was about to post, but you beat me to it.

I personally think he's temporarily safer in custody, unless he has some sort of plan when he gets (knowing him, probably). Right now, it's the spotlight that's protecting him, if he loses that.. I seriously fear for his life.

I wonder what bit of Julian Assange voluntarily walking into the Metropolitan Police Extradition Unit to be arrested on charges of alleged sexual offences abroad that he has denied, could possibly indicate a flight risk?

The Swedish 'prosecutors' have only 48 hours to come up with something plausible and they've pretty much got their work cut for them as just this week, a millionairre accused of being complicit in the murder of his wife abroad, was granted bail in an English Court.

Assange had to provide a bail address. Without an address to be bailed to, he would be classed no fixed abode (NFA) a legal status that means any infringement, even driving offences, results in incarceration until the hearing.

As a prisoner awaiting possible extradition on offences alleged to have been committed abroad, Assange would enjoy the extra privileges afforded remand prisoners awaiting trial in this country. Remand prisoners are generally kept away from the main prison population, especially if they are remanded on their first charge/offence. They do not have to wear any form of prison uniform, can spend their own money and have less restrictions placed on their movements within the wing they are incarcerated. I don't know if the food is any better.

Wandsworth was built in 1851, so 'Victorian conditions' makes sense but I tend to think the prison service installed electrics and other new-fangled building standard requirements. Now all they got to do is prove conditions did not cause the recent outbreak of salmonella that some of Assange's cohort in the main prison population have complained about.

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!

I don't see any quote of an interview or a source for their statement in your linked article:

He believes the file is his 'insurance' in case he is killed, arrested or the whistleblowing website is removed permanently from the internet.

But since they know, what he THINKS, it must be right.

They talked to his lawyer and HE said:

He said: 'They [WikiLeaks] have been subject to cyber-attacks and censorship around the world and they need to protect themselves.

Why should they fire away their insurance, if there is no real threat at the organization? He still is not charged for anything. They are just playing weird games.
And even IF the worst conpiracy ideas should become true... Would it not be stupid to give up the insurance? There are other "Wikileakers", who may also need protection.

As a boy I once had a fight with another guy, I really disliked. The other boys were standing around us, shouting and cheering, even pushing us at each other, because they wanted to see blood. In this case we suddenly lost our hate for each other, because we realized, we would be tools/fools for those, who just wanted to see us hitting and kicking each other and we stopped the nosense.

So don't you cheer and shout for blood. Reason is needed in this crazy circus.

reply to post by spikey


Hi Spikey, yeah agreed... he has a rather large target on his back and that's been there for some time, he's done (to my mind) the only credible thing he could, he has nothing to hide, otherwise he would still be running, if you think about it, if you were Assange and you had done these 'oh so bad' things to innocent women then you'd try to hide.... he didn't.... it's a set up and it's blatant.....

reply to post by Siddharta

I don't see any quote of an interview or a source for their statement in your linked article

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?

Ohh yeah here is why:

Julian Assange has surrendered to London authorities, who have arrested him on a Swedish warrant for suspicion of sex crimes.

Brits Arrest Julian Assange on Sex Charges

A Swedish appeals court upheld an arrest warrant on rape charges for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Assange Arrest Warrant on Rape Charges Upheld by Appeals Court in Sweden


No charges? Ok, whatever.
Usually a warrent requires charges right? If they are unfounded why isn't he free to go?

Late note: I agree with you, this is a circus, and nothing more.

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.

You used that link as kind of proof. So what was it good for?

He still is not charged for anything. Really? Are you so sure of that? Then why is he in Jail?

Yes, I am sure of this. I copied this text from the prosecutor's site the day before yesterday:

“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.”

Meanwhile she only write, that she cannot tell any news, since of what happened today. But also Assange's lawyer talked about it today in court, as Time reporter Mostrous twittered in the afternoon:

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?

Obviously not, since it was a Red Note and Interpol says:

An Interpol Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant.

But then explain:

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.

Interpol Red Note

Late note: I agree with you, this is a circus, and nothing more.

I think we agree in more than that. I just think it would be a foolish draw of Wikileaks to throw away the best card right now.

reply to post by Siddharta

You used that link as kind of proof. So what was it good for?

See this is the part where I said go back and read my post since you didn't follow what I was saying!

post by theability

The part at the end has nothing to do with the link provided DUH!!

It is called personal commentary. :shk:

Pay attention or don't comment.

reply to post by Siddharta

I think we agree in more than that. I just think it would be a foolish draw of Wikileaks to throw away the best card right now.

Finally some common ground!

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was granted bail Tuesday after a hearing at Westminster Magistrate's Court in London, but a lawyer representing Swedish prosecutors immediately filed an appeal.

That means Assange will remain in jail until the next hearing, which should be within 48 hours, lawyers said.

The 39-year-old Australian handed himself over to London police last week to answer a European arrest warrant over alleged sex crimes in Sweden.

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..

One issue may be interpretation - the law quoted may be a snippet of a decision by a judge who is interpreting how the law applies to a specific set of facts. This would explain some of the rather erratic a single-purpose quotes; a judge has simply said that the particular action (ie bed out a window) falls under a certain statute in the specific circumstances of that case.

Don't forget the magic of implied repeal. The Human Rights Act 1998, for example, will automatically repeal any part of an Act that would be in contravention of the HRA - death penalty, degrading treatment or punishment ie a day in the stocks, and so on and so forth.

The vast majority of these lists are silly, invented or poorly researched at best.

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.

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.

The issue in relation to the Bail Act 1976 is that someone without strong links to a country is more likely to leave that country. It's not a matter of whether or not he goes to another Commonwealth country, just the fact that he might leave in the first place.

While I'm not sure of the impact of this being a cross-borders case, generally the prosecution cannot appeal against the grant of bail unless the offence is one that can lead to a term of imprisonment. I seem to recall hearing that the charges against him would only attract a fine. If that is the case, Assange just needs to fight off the risk of flight arguments and he should be fine - at this stage at least.

reply to post by Bunken Drum


I can tell you for nothing the encryption on the wiki insurance file is tough.
Two years ago the FBI were called in to try and crack similar encryption, they coudn't crack it after a year of trying