Quote Kosh="Kosh"Still haven't read those links then?'" I don't need to read them to know the legal definition of having a case to answer and at what point it happens. That's why there is a formal charging process followed by a committal hearing. But if you are so obsessed with reading links then may I suggest you read this one, particularly paragraphs 167 to 169.... www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /15604.htm

Quote Kosh="Kosh"Still haven't read those links then?'" I don't need to read them to know the legal definition of having a case to answer and at what point it happens. That's why there is a formal charging process followed by a committal hearing. But if you are so obsessed with reading links then may I suggest you read this one, particularly paragraphs 167 to 169.... www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /15604.htm

I can't be bothered going point for point with you Smokey, it simply never ends, especially you are being silly enough to suggest I want religious police - that's a great example of Godwin's Law, so I'm just going to say this -

Do you have any reason to think the Swedish prosecutors are any more corrupt or "worse" than our prosecutors or Police force? If not, why is it acceptable for a someone in Britain to be arrested and detained by British authorities but not on behalf of the Swedish?

We are not prosecuting anyone, we are merely detaining someone to be tried in a free, democratic country with an independent legal system.

The kind and amount of evidence you wish to be shown to a British court cannot happen without either prejudicing a Swedish trial or having a defacto trial in Britain.

I have no problem with us arresting and detaining someone on behalf of Sweden, as long as British protections and checks and balances put into British law to protect innocent people from wrongful and vexatious prosecution are available. The first and most obvious of those is the presumption of innocence, the second is that a standard of evidence needs to be met for a person can be punished, detained, or extradited. That is simply nonsense. We know it is nonsense because it is what happens in every trial which goes before a British court. Every single one, we don’t have a de facto trial and then a real trial, we don’t prejudice our own trials. It is ridiculous to pretend that doing that in this case would mean we prejudiced a trial or had a de facto trial when we do it every single time.



If the Swedish government can’t provide the evidence which the DPP and CPS believe would justify a trial in this country, then we should detain and forcibly extradite someone. If it wouldn’t justify detaining and trying someone here, it certainly doesn’t justify detaining and forcibly extraditing someone.

Not even sure what the argument is about now. Smokey you seem to agree that the EAW is valid and has been considered and upheld through the English courts, but you would like the law to be different than what it is. If that's a fair summary then nothing else to add?

Pretty much.



Though I would add that having a 3rd party, an independent sovereign nation able to offer asylum when our laws fail, is a good thing, and the reason we have a global recognition of asylum. It would be arrogant to think we are only a country that offers asylum and no other nation should even contemplate offering asylum from us.

"Laws fail"? Assange knew he was wanted for questioning in Sweden in relation to sexual offence allegations, and chose to do a runner. I'm not seeing any "failure" there, just someone who didn't want to participate in the Swedish legal process. It can hardly be said to have "failed".

It is our extradition laws and the EAW which I would argue has failed. There is no protection, no checks or balances, that would protect Mr Assange (or anyone else) from being extradited and detained for a crime for which there is no evidence

He isn't I saw him in Bubba Ho-Tep with a blacked out JFK.

Sorry, but what utter rot. Firstly, the evidence on which the Swedish authorities wanted to question Assange relates to 4 counts, set out in alleged victims' statements, including having unprotected sex with a woman who he knew would only consent to sex with a condom and having sex with a woman who was asleep. On no reasonable view can statements by alleged victims not be evidence.



Second, some of the best legal brains in the land have devoted countless hours to Mr. Assange and his problem, and you thus have no excuse for making such an absurd claim, especially as the full judgments at each stage of the process are freely available. They are exhaustive, and include several law lords (two of whom incidentally took a minority view in favour of Assange) considering every conceivable angle over very many pages of analysis.



While you may disagree with the decision, to extrapolate from that, in the face of the meticulous and exhaustive legal processes that have taken place, that "there is no protection, no checks or balances" is about as much the opposite of the case as it is possible to be. What more do you want? 10 televised debates and a national referendum?

But none of that was to actually judge the merit of the case for the charges he faces in Sweden, simply that the EAW was valid and served in a valid manner.



If Sweden's charges here are to boil it down 'a fit up' then we have done nothing to protect Mr Assange from that. There is no checks, no balances, no protection from Sweden lodging a valid EAW, served in a valid manner, which is based on evidence which wouldnt even justify an arrest, never mind charge, and never mind trial in this country.



What i am arguing against is this country being complicit in the forcible extradition and detention of someone, anyone, based on evidence that wouldnt even justify a charge.



Now it may be that the Swedish authorities have loads of evidence, they have it coming out their ears, they have an open and shut case, cast iron witnesses, dna evidence, a video recording which leaves no doubt, or it may be the case that they have nothing other than a witness statement which looks a little bit dodgy, doesnt really tally up with the events afterwards, statements taken in an illegal manner, which arent admissable. It may be that the swedish prosecutor interviewed both victims at the same time, in the same interview and their statements lack credibility for that, it may not. We should know what we are basing the extradition on before we extradite and that it is of a standard we would need it to be before moving to trial, the word of a Swedish prosecutor isnt enough imo.

The point is whether the evidence justifies an arrest and/or charge in Sweden, not the UK. Or are you suggesting that the UK should set itself up as the sole arbiter of legal validity across the EU?

And why do you think that is? Perhaps it is because Assange does not face any charges in Sweden!! The proceedings in Sweden are at the preliminary investigation stage. That does not come to an end until evidence is served on Assange or his lawyer and there is an interrogation of Assange with the opportunity for further enquiries. Only after all that would there be a decision as to charge.



So your point seems to be based on a total misconception.





Again, [ithey only want to question him[/i. Had he turned up to be questioned, who knows whether or not charges would have followed? You are very confused on this. All we have are complaints of sexual offences, which are being investigated. The only reason the investigation is still pending is because Assange did a runner.





You seem to be arguing that doing a runner when the police want to question you about serious allegations should be the ultimate get out of jail free card. They only need to extradite him in the first place because he was in Sweden, and said he would remain there, but had it away on his toes. They do not want to detain him but to question him. After that they would make a decision.





Well, yes, and as I keep saying, that is precisely what all the hearings have been doing, but you're not listening.