Assange's Ecuador asylum bid has violated £200k UK bail, say cops
Celeb chums rinsed of cash by diplomatic sofa stay
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange™ – who is currently holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London - has breached his UK bail conditions, Scotland Yard confirmed this morning.
As we reported yesterday, the 40-year-old Australian is seeking political asylum in Ecuador, after his attempts to appeal against extradition to Sweden to face allegations of rape, coercion and sexual molestation failed in the Supreme Court last week.
Assange was cuffed by Met police on a European Arrest Warrant in December 2010. He was later granted conditional bail by London's High Court with a bond of £200,000, collected from Assange's celebrity supporters.
One of those conditions was that Assange had to adhere to an overnight curfew at his bail address between 22.00 and 08.00.
Scotland Yard said in a statement to The Register that Assange had breached one of the conditions after seeking political asylum at the Ecuadorian Embassy – which is a flat in Knightsbridge, London – on Tuesday night.
"He is now subject to arrest under the Bail Act for breach of these conditions," the Met said. "Officers are aware of his location at The Ecuador Embassy in Hans Crescent, London."
The UK's Foreign Office confirmed this morning that the government of Ecuador was currently mulling over Assange's request. ®
Re: breach of bail conditions?
"But helping someone try and avoid these allegation of rape and molestation makes you almost complicit in the acts he's accused of. And judging from his concerted efforts to avoid the allegations, seems likely he believes himself guilty of them."
That's right, anyone who fights allegations must be guilty so why not just jail/extradite them without legal process. Just look at Salman Rushdie, he's no better, he and everyone who helped him avoid the allegations of blasphemy should be shipped off to Iran to face summary judgement.
Re: Petty, petty, petty
Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations:
Inviolability of the consular premises
1.Consular premises shall be inviolable to the extent provided in this article.
2.The authorities of the receiving State shall not enter that part of the consular premises which is used exclusively for the purpose of the work of the consular post except with the consent of the head of the consular post or of his designee or of the head of the diplomatic mission of the sending State. The consent of the head of the consular post may, however, be assumed in case of fire or other disaster requiring prompt protective action.
3.Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 of this article, the receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the consular premises against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the consular post or impairment of its dignity.
4.The consular premises, their furnishings, the property of the consular post and its means of transport shall be immune from any form of requisition for purposes of national defence or public utility. If expropriation is necessary for such purposes, all possible steps shall be taken to avoid impeding the performance of consular functions, and prompt, adequate and effective compensation shall be paid to the sending State.
Homework version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Consular_Relations
Mrs Thatcher was not "happy" to let the Libyans go. She was incandescant with rage. The government of the day took very detailed and exact legal guidance on the matter, and were advised that since the occupants of the embassy had been accepted as diplomats by the UK, then it would require the Libyan government to remove that status, if anything could be done. Any attempt to arrest or bring them to trial would have been frustrated by the courts, as the UK is a signatory of the Vienna convention.
Libya chose not to revoke the diplomatic status, so the UK was left with no alternative to expel them.
I was in the presence of a senior met officer at the time of the shooting. His radio went off, and he excused himself (he was part of the armed response team). Chatting to him sometime after, he said that the Met would never forget, and if the situation ever changed they would seek to get those responsible before a UK court. The fact that (with him since retired) some met officers went out to Libya last year, with the sole purpose of advancing the investigation - 25 years on.