Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Assange Says Harrods Assisting Metro Police in 'Round-the-Clock Vigil'

Posted by timothy on from the now-it-costs-us-infinity-pounds dept.

The Daily Mail reports that Julian Assange seems to have yet another foe (or at least friend of a foe) watching persistently while he stays put in the Ecuadorean embassy in London: Harrod's Department Store. The Metro Police, according to Assange, have developed a relationship with the store, and are using that relationship to facilitate their full-time observation of his roosting place in the embassy. When the founder of Wikileaks says, "We have obtained documents from Harrods [saying that] police have people stationed 24 hours a day in some of the opposing buildings Harrods controls," it seems likely that those documents actually exist.

14 of 275 comments (clear)

  1. Not all that unusual... by jonwil · · Score: 4, Informative

    It may be unusual that its going on for such a long period of time but police (in the UK and elsewhere) regularly work with building owners to get access to vantage points overlooking suspect properties to observe what is going on.

  2. What is UNUSUAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ..is the effort they spend for Jesus Assange. They must be really scared of the truth.

    1. Re:What is UNUSUAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      girls?

      Two grown women who lied. and admitted that they lied.
      If I were one of their fathers, I'd be on Jule's side.

    2. Re:What is UNUSUAL by Calibax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Both the women in question are adults and both have said that they do not wish Assange to be prosecuted. After the original complaint was filed, Assange was told he could leave Sweden, and so he went to the UK.

      Then a Swedish prosecutor decided to reopen the case (exactly why has never been fully explained) and she wants him back in Sweden. For some reason it wasn't sufficient to interview him by phone or Skype, or by traveling to the UK. The prosecutor wants him in Sweden, to the point of issuing a European arrest warrant - not because he's been charged with anything, just because she wants to talk to him.

      The whole thing seems quite strange. Sweden and the UK seem to be treating this as a major incident, even though the complainants have no interest in pursuing the case. In fact, the UK is complaining about the very high cost of watching the Ecuadorean embassy, which they reckon is over 15 million pounds so far.

    3. Re:What is UNUSUAL by Calibax · · Score: 3, Informative

      The two women are identified "Miss A" and "Miss W" in Sweden to protect their identities.

      On 11 August 2010, Assange arrived in Sweden to speak at a seminar partly arranged by "Miss A". He had met her before but he stayed at her apartment. They had sex on 14 August 2010.

      At the seminar, Assange met "Miss W" and they had sex on 17 August 2010.

      On 19 August 2010 the two women (who are friends) discovered that both of them had had sex with Assange. Up to this point neither had suggested that the sex was anything other than consensual, but that day they decided to contact a journalist and complain about their sexual encounters with Assange. The journalist insisted they contact the police and the two women went to the police together. They both say that what started as consensual sex became non-consensual, which is rape in Swedish law. The two women were interviewed together by police and this allowed contamination of their evidence.

      On 20 August 2010 a warrant was issued for Assange's arrest. On 21 August it was withdrawn by Stockholm's Chief Prosecutor. On 30 August, Assange was interviewed by police.

      On 1 September 2010 a different prosecutor announced that she was reopening the investigation. This is not a normal procedure in Sweden. Furthermore, the prosecutor identified Assange to the press, which is against Swedish law. On 2 September she re-interviewed the complainants, but she did did not interview Assange, which is required within a week - she said this was not done because of a police officer being sick.

      On 5 September 2010 a journalist reported that the two women did not want to proceed.

      On 27 September 2010 Assange left Sweden with the agreement of the authorities.

      On 18 November 2010 a court approved a request to detain Assange for questioning. On 20 November an international arrest warrant was issued. It was possible to interview Assange in the UK, as there is a mutual legal assistance agreement, but the prosecutor went for the arrest warrant instead.

      That's where we stand at present. Assange has not been charged with a crime as yet.

      Frankly it looks like a case where two women discovered that they were both having sex with Assange and decided (together) to come up with a way to get back at him - there's no way to prove that sex becomes non-consenual while it is in progress. It's a classic "he said, she said" situation. It's strange that both women claimed the same thing happened, but not until they had discovered they were sharing his favors.

      It appears that the prosector has an agenda, but I have no idea why.

    4. Re:What is UNUSUAL by Theaetetus · · Score: 3, Informative

      They both say that what started as consensual sex became non-consensual

      That's a gross misstatement of the facts. In one case, the woman was asleep at the time sex started. She had previously told Assange no to sex, and then went to sleep. She woke up with him inside her.

      ... which is rape in Swedish law.

      Penetrating someone who is unconscious is rape in most countries.

      Assange has not been charged with a crime as yet.

      That's also grossly misleading - in Swedish law, the charging comes at the very last stage, prior to trial, which has to commence within one week of the charging. The fact that he hasn't been charged yet is simply because he's hiding out.

      Frankly it looks like a case where two women discovered that they were both having sex with Assange and decided (together) to come up with a way to get back at him - there's no way to prove that sex becomes non-consenual while it is in progress. It's a classic "he said, she said" situation.

      Not at all. Assange admitted during his extradition appeal to the UK High Court that he had sex with the sleeping woman, knowing that he didn't have consent. There's no "he said, she said," because everyone agrees on the facts - he penetrated her, knowing that she was unable to give consent and unable to resist. As the court said, "it is difficult to see how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complainant alleges a state of sleep or half-sleep."

    5. Re: What is UNUSUAL by Rei · · Score: 3

      Wrong - all diplomatic passports must be approved by the hosting country before they're granted - the request can be refused at will.

      --
      Stale pastry is hollow succor to one who is bereft of ostrich.
    6. Re:What is UNUSUAL by BardBollocks · · Score: 4, Informative

      .. and have said they didn't want Julian charged with anything. .. and the prosecutor said the accusations brought forward by police were bogus and ended the investigation. .. and a crooked prosecutor with ties to US funded media in Sweden going for re-election in another part of Sweden reopened the case .. and Julian was interviewed and hung around, then asked if he was free to leave to attend another engagement and was told he could leave Sweden .. upon which an illegally issued European Arrest Warrant was placed on him .. which the U.K. courts have now said they will not in future accept because they are illegal, but won't apply it to Assange the government employed disinfo shills (how do you clowns sleep at night) will come and try and spin it - and will believe that the delusions they are suffering from are what the public believes...

    7. Re:What is UNUSUAL by hawkinspeter · · Score: 3, Informative

      I didn't know he'd actually been charged with anything. Can you point me towards some more info on that, as a quick search indicates that he hasn't been charged (e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19426382/).

      If he has been charged, then your comments about the US would make sense, but if he hasn't been charged, then legally the US wouldn't be able to use extradition and thus the whole conspiracy theories about a Sweden/US secret deal regarding him.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
  3. Re:Timothy needs round-the-clock medical help by nickweller · · Score: 3, Informative

    @Anonymous Coward: "Why is this shit even on Slashdot?"

    Maybe because of this .. Collateral Murder - Wikileaks - Iraq

    "Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

  4. Re:What did he expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He's a criminal

    When was he convicted?

  5. No, because he skipped bail by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Informative

    The validity of the charges in Sweden aren't his only problem. They could drop the case, he'd still be in trouble with the UK because he fled bail. Bail is an agreement between you and the court. You agree to appear as ordered, and they let you out of jail. Often there is also a monetary component to try and ensure your compliance. However regardless of the details, you are legally required to present yourself in court when ordered.

    So when Sweden said they wanted him, the UK arrested him. In the EU there's some pretty strong extradition rules so even though the UK had no issue with him, their extradition treaty with Sweden required them to arrest him. He was granted bail, and the monetary component was paid for by supporters. At the point, he had to wait for a court date when the UK courts would determine if the extradition request was valid. At that point if they did, they'd hand him off to Sweden, give back his bail money, and would be all done as far as they were concerned.

    They did find it was a valid request, he challenged that finding, and so on up to the UK's high court. They ruled that yes, it was a valid request. Remember this has nothing to do with guilt, they are not interested in that. Their only interest is if the extradition request is a valid one per the treaty. It was, so they said "Ok, you have to turn yourself in and we'll ship you off to Sweden." He decided not to, and instead fled.

    Well at that point he become a criminal in the UK. They now had a criminal interest in him since he'd broken UK law by skipping bail. Doesn't matter anything about the original charges. This is a separate crime, and it is an ongoing one, so no statute of limitations.

    That's how it works basically everywhere. If the court says you have to how up, and you don't, that by itself is a crime.

  6. Re:Yes? And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Except they aren't trying to get him there for a trial, they are trying to get him there for QUESTIONING, which they very easily could do over the phone, skype or send a person to him to question him, which they have done for others in the past. They just refuse to do it for him and insist he come where he can be arrested and sent elsewhere.

    How your post got modded as insightful when it isn't is pretty insightful in itself as to how misinformed people can be.

    And yes, they can agree not to extradite him to the US should they attempt to do so. Something they refused to do. The main thing Assange is guilty of at this point is pissing off the US leaders by airing their dirty laundry as even the girls he is accused of raping had dropped it and said they didn't want him charged and it seems very likely that they were trumped up charges just to get him there to begin with.

  7. Re:Yes? And? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cold Fjord has attacked me! I declare him an enemy combatant. Can I murder him legally now?

    This is why I made the comment about the uniform. Your view worked very well in conventional wars of the past, when you knew who you were fighting. Modern wars are messy. Insurgent groups do not wear uniforms - they dress as civilians and disappear into the population. Even entire armies can be denied - look at Russia's recent invasion of Crimea, spearheaded by troops who wore uniforms without insignia and which Russia denies even exist.

    It's one thing to declare on the battlefield that anyone pointing a gun at you is probably the enemy and should be immediately shot. There isn't really any other option then. But it's another matter entirely to systematically disappear people into a secret prison and declare that they have no legal rights. If you resort to that, you'll be sure to catch a lot of innocent civilians who just had the misfortune to get caught up events.