Our good mate the President of Ecuador has spoken up in support of Jules by telling the world that [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/9500226/Julian-Assange-case-President-of-Ecuador-says-sexual-allegations-would-not-be-a-crime-in-other-countries.html what Assange did "would not be a crime on 90% of the planet"[/url



Asked how allegedly using force to begin intercourse could not be a crime, he reportedly answered:



"A woman he was staying with? Sleeping together in the same bed? "



There you are, ladies. Once in bed, like it or lump it

Actually, I was rather surprised to see that, in one or two countries, I'd be classed as a rapist myself on the basis of 'ask before each episode of actual shagging'. It is remarkably easy to get a man 'interested' even when he is asleep. Thankfully, in the UK, apparently a woman cannot be convicted of rape.



However, this entire discussion is ridiculous since, even if one disagrees with such a definition of rape, it is not the only thing that Assange stands accused of.

Presumably, whoever's tweeting for Wikileaks is a bit bored, as they've tweeted a link to a two-year-old story, about something that happened, err, two years ago, but without mentioning it's a two-year-old story.

[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11049316[/url

Yes.



Date of story? 2010.

Meanwhile in other news, Mafeking has been relieved.

Lucky him

You obviously didn't notice that I was referring not directly to my own argument, but to the 30 September 2011 report to the Home Secretary by a Committee chaired by the Rt Hon Sir Scott Baker which reviewed the United Kingdom's extradition arrangements, and made those findings.



To me, they seem rational and compelling. But if you want to know what kind of nonsense is being argued, why don't you drop a line to Sir Scott Baker? I'm sure he'd be bowled over by your insight.

Curiously Call me Dave seems to have perhaps become exasperated by the EAW, as he indicated during a trade visit to Brazil last week (the perfect forum, obviously) that the government intends to exercise its opt-out powers to opt out of all of the police and criminal justice measures adopted under the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht - including therefore the EAW - "before the end of the year".



The government has until the end of May 2014 to notify the European Commission of any decision to opt out.



But what a mess! For starters, any opt-out can relate only to measures established before the Treaty of Lisbon came into force in 2009, so there's a splendid recipe for confusion.



Did I miss the Consultation which will obviously have been assiduously carried out on such fundamental measures?

If we opt out of EAW, how would we get future naughty teachers back from France? Or is it one of these "one way" opt outs?

I'm assuming we'd be back to old-style extraditions, like we have with many non-EU countries now.