No, But, storming an embassy in direct violation of the Geneva Convention is still bad.

Accused rapist. At least in this country we have a presumption of innocence. I don't know about those damn socialists in Europe. :-)

I thought the embassy was considered foreign soil?
It would be very poor form for the Brits to assault the Ecuadorean embassy.... I bet they wouldn't see the funny side of it, if the situation were reversed.

I supposed that's the price of being the Junior Partner

Little known fact: Anyone can enter any nation's embassy during a slim window from 2:34am to 2:37; Doing so is not technically a crime. Indeed, the act is considered by insiders to be the most gracious of gifts. The host will often serve tea to the guest during such an encounter, but the guest must be brief... For if the clock should strike 2:38 and they should remain their presence, in an instant, becomes one of an intruder, and all standard international treaties will swiftly govern the next -- potentially lethal -- course of action.

The tea must be at absolutely the right temperature for consumption though....

@BPT: "Under British law we can give them a week's notice before entering the premises and the embassy will no longer have diplomatic protection," a Foreign Office spokesman said.

"Swedish prosecutors have not yet charged Assange, but they have moved forward with their investigations and they believe they have a case to take to trial."

So there's no actual charge included in the accusation.

@ODaly - I'm not saying you're wrong, but that greatly surprises me!
Though TBH Im not really sure why Ecuador is involved? Can anyone help me out? Could they not afford Lara Bingle to do a promo/tourism campaign, so they got involved with Julian for free exposure?

Ecuador probably doesn't have an extradition treaty with Sweden.

Anyway, this action is a complete disgrace.

@BPT: That's a quote taken directly from the article, so I'm just taking it at face value.

Apparantly British Law overrules the Geneva Convention.

I wonder how this girl must be feeling, knowing she is helping the government by accusing him of rape to get him behind bars for his Wikileaks involvement.

@AverageWhiteBoy - the Swedes won't have charged him because they haven't been able to get to him yet. If they've got a case to take to court, it means that they're fairly happy with the evidence they've got - i.e. they feel they have a high degree of likelihood that any prosecution will be successful.

@BPT, no, an Embassy is not considered foreign soil, the Ecuadorian Embassy in London is not an exclave of Ecuador. As such, I'm not surprised that there is some process in UK law that allows for removal of diplomatic protection. Although for it to be used for this would seem rather foolish - there would have to be something going on behind the scenes that we mere mortals shouldn't have knowledge of!

Also, Ecuador does not have an extradition treaty with Sweden, so Assange must have not pissed them off with Wikileaks if they're happy to take him on board.

I get the feeling that the Swedish are neutral if not mildly supportive of his Wikileaks activities, but somewhat alarmed by his sexual proclivities.
The UK Govt at the moment is being run by a bunch of hooray-henrys, you can't expect them to worry about piffling things like International Law, many of them went to Eton you know.....

I'm not a supporter of the coalition government, but find myself defending them on this occasion.

People may remember that PC Yvonne Fletcher was shot from he window of the UK Lybian embassy and the UK had to grant this murderer free passage back to Lybia? Sometime after this a law was passed in the UK that could prevent murderers hiding behind diplomatic immunity. Other countries are at liberty to do is if they wish without withdrawing from he geneva convention. In any event free passage is only afforded to diplomats no asylum seekers.

Mr Assarge has already been through due process and put is case up to supreme court level that he shouldn't be extradited. The courts decission sould be final. If Mr Assarge is innocent he will be acquitted in Sweden, bu he should face trail.

The thing I disagree with is how heavy handed the government is playing this, a waiting game would have been preferred to reduce tensions.

Also, I worry about repocussions if we take in asylum seekers in our embassies abroad.

Of course the govt should have waited, the mixture of ignorance and arrogance that defines this coalition is staggering, whatever happened to common sense

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19281492

Our coalition govt is a bit of a shambles n'est ce pas?

'this girl doing the governments work'?

She is (or was) a wikileaks supporter, Assange is apparently an ass, not nice personally - which is why wikileaks split into openleaks and crowdleaks

The girl is entirely right to push for her rights, it doesn't matter if you're famous of popular or part of an anti-government group, you shouldn't get away with rape.

However Assange believes the prosecutor in Sweden is acting under US orders, or at least improperly. The case was originally dropped as not worth bringing to court, before someone came back with a vengance - a politically motivated prosecution is not an example of justice being done.

The UK courts decided he should be sent to Sweden; Ecuador may close their embassy (at the request of her majesty's government) and their diplomats will be allowed free passage.

I doubt any geneva convention will be broken... Now if they all had polyjuice potion then they could all pretend to be assange and run in different directions...

Assange has repeatedly said he would return to Sweden if they agreed not to extradite him to the USA. Sweden won't agree, so he won't go.

@ckroberts - Sweden can not agree to treat anyone differently in return for that person complying with a law he should be complying with anyway. That said there is a solution here, there is precedents about people being tried in one country under the las of another. (the Lockerbie bomber for example) a diplomatic solution could be to try Assarge for sex crimes in the uk using Swedish laws. Any sentance to be served in the uk. Ha way justice will be done and Assarge can be assured that he won't be extradited to the US (unless death penalty is off he table).

I need to amend my earlier comments, the UK law that enables entry to a embassy can only be applied in accordance with international treaties and laws, which makes it a bit toothless really. I can't see this ever really being an option.

It is now costing the UK a futune to keep upto fifty police outside the embassy, as soon as the parties reach a solution the better.

I am dismayed how the UK looks to the wider world, we just spent 7bn holding the Olympics and promoting our country and he in 1 incident seem to be o the wrong side of world opinion.

Does the US constitution not protect people like bradley manning from being held without trial for 800 days? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19281492

The UK are entitled to maintain a police force around the ecudorian embassy to prevent a wanted fugitive who is known to be inside, from escaping British law.

Maniac, you can correct me if I am mistaken, but lots of countries don't extradite for crimes they don't recognize, right? Sweden could guarantee that it recognizes Assange's acts as journalism, not espionage, and that it won't therefore would not extradite him to the US.

@ora - The constitution's speedy trial is for civilians. Manning is a soldier in a time of war and the UCMJ has authority over soldiers such that in a time of war it grants the government the right to detain him indefinitely. Don't be a soldier or a spy and fuck up or you just disappear and their ain't squat can be done about it.

Police don't do squat against helicopters landing on the embassy grounds to fly him out and a helicopter could be brought in carrying a legitimate diplomat intially then go ariborne with him on board.

Of course, this is assuming the embassy has the ability to handle a helicopter landing and take off.

@draug the embassy is very small in fact it shares a lobby and main entrance with other tenants. No chance of using a chopper.

@ckroberts - I take your point, but this would mean negotiating with potential wrong doers and ruling on somehin that hasn't even been applied for (a US extradition request)

Someone asked why Ecuador is involved. It's because Assange made an interview with the Ecuadorean president in the past. The president must be a smart and funny guy, since he said this during the interview:

"The only country in the world that can't have a coup d'etat is the US, because only the US don't have an American embassy."

"the embassy is very small in fact it shares a lobby and main entrance with other tenants. No chance of using a chopper."

What, no roof top access? Let me guess ald fucking building from the 16th century with a sloped roof. You brits and your old crap. Get a modern structure with roof top helipads! :-)

Whilst I can never reveal my sources I wanted to let you know something that is being considered by the powers that be. A coded telephone warning will be received by special branch which necessitates the evacuation of the whole street on whic he embassy is located. Whilst out on the street JA is detained.

In the event that JA doesn't evacuate there is a gas leak and a small fire and JA is rescued by the London Fire Brigade, he is then detained.

Would be hillarious if he wasn't there (anymore).

Just like those Weapons of Mass destruction in Iraq;)

The most concerning thing in this thread is the idea that Maniac is in contact with the powers that be.

do I hear music from the twilight zone?

@octavious - they work for me mwahahaha, but don't be afraid.......be VERY afraid