Well equally where's your data? you've produce a shopping list of maintenence issues most of which are thngs that need to be done as part of routine servicing. I've accepted from the start that servicing costs are likely to be cheaper with EVs and have even been impressed that Nissan at least is not stiffing their customers completely.
Looking at the AA top 10 breakdown list, top of the list is a flat battery, then lost keys, there are three "mechanical" items in that list, the alternator, the starter motor and the clutch cable.
Misfuelling I'll accept as a ICE only fault (unless there are different incompatible charging systems for EVs) but that's not a mechanical issue. spark plugs...again is not mech. HT cables...again not mechanical, The equivalent RAC list is more of the same although they explicitly list electric cars running out of power.
Based on those lists I'd say the biggest factor in the reliability of any vehicle is the owner either doing dumb things or not servicing the vehicle properly.
Over time I've seen the electronics, sorry the electrical bits move from the bottom of the dash towards the centre console and be replaced with electronics. the current cars issues were with the CD/SATNAV/Media unit, which also did things like run the parking sensors, store country settings (everything that still worked reverted to French) This did make the replacement fairly easy (it only took me about 15 minutes to get it out), but the unit cost £1300 to replace new and you needed to go to someone who had the dealer software to encode the VIN into the unit otherwise you were driving round with it going BEEEEP every 30 seconds or so. Yes, less labour charges but having all that electronics in one unit that had to be replaced was eyewateringly expensive. The previous ticktock problem was a previous generation of the same unit but the mechanics of the cd player and the electronics were in different places. I'd expected it to be a solenoid (that's what it was in my dads old astra) and for it to take 10 muinutes and cost ~£10, not two days.
googling, nissan list service charges PETROL FROM £199 / DIESEL FROM £219 / ELECTRIC VEHICLE FROM £149 so cheaper than a petrol, assuming they're all getting serviced at the same interval.
I meant to say tyres, brakes, wheel alignment are normally wear and tear and I can't imagine they're significantly different on EVs. Brakes in particular seem to be an issue in Scotland because of the buildup of crud from the winter weather. with the bike I used to have a second set of calipers because it was easier to service them off the bike and just swap the caliper when the pads started sticking, I don't ride in winter these days.
I didn't skip engine tune up, in 30 years of driving/riding I've never had one. Never asked for one, never had one suggested, never been charged for one. My first car got scrapped at 400,000 miles, mainly because sorting out the suspension was going to cost more than it was worth. The only work I've ever had done on engines is timing belt changes on cars and valve clearance checks on bikes, Both of which are again scheduled maintenance. Most cars have either been sold on at 200,000 miles plus or more than 6 years old and I've also run near scrappers as second cars at times,
all of the above are scheduled maintenence. tyres, brakes, wheel alignment I've never had a car or biked tuned, they've all had ECUs and I've been driving 30 odd years. The claim was about about reliability, i.e. break downs not maintenence costs(*) My bet would be that the breakdown services get called out to far more electrical issues these days than they do mechanical.
(*) I'll concede that, ignoring the battery, service costs should be lower for EVs equally I'm willing to bet that the servicing costs for EV's will miraculously work out to be about the same as ICE cars, at the main dealers at least)
The last time I had a car actually break down on me was over 10 years ago (timing belt broke on a fiat panda, took about an hour to repair, cost about £20). My motorbike has had 4 recalls in the last 6 years all for electrical items, the throttle sensor position indicator has failed twice (notionally £800 a time) and the ECU has failed twice (notionally another £600 a time). The last two cars we've had have had major electronics items fail. In one case the car stopped making the "ticktock" sound when the indicators were in use and something major had to be replaced which took two days and involved removing the whole dashboard (dunno how much it cost thankfully it was still 1 week inside the warranty). The DVD/media player/satnav/convert to miles box went on the current one and it cost £120 to diagnose and we were quoted £1500 to replace it. Not having moving parts doesn't guarantee greater reliability and you know what happens when you assume.
Did they use the ususal ruse of having the First officer affecting a Peter Sellers Indian voice on the radio and pretending to be a cruise ship or did they come up with something new?
Can you give an example of this? all through the Russo-Japanese War, WWI, WWII, the cold war and the Falklands ship sizes for classes have generally gone up during or as a result of lessons learned during the war ( e.g. batch 2 and 3 type 42s vs HMS Sheffield) and then gone down again because of cost issues during the peace, or at least perceived cost, generally steel and air is much cheaper than people and systems on modern vessels so there is an argument for building them bigger than you actually need so you have space to expand into.
What tends to happen is that having built a ship, if you take it to war people hang all kinds of new stuff on it all of which need consubambles, spares and new bodies to work the kit. You end up with a ship that's crowded and if you're not careful top heavy. The classic example being your 1930 RN destroyer which in the course of WWII was likely to get RADAR, more AA guns, SONAR, more AA guns, degaussing equipment, more AA guns, HDFD, more AA guns, hedgehog, you can never have enough AA guns, squid...generally post WWII ships got bigger. The largest ships in most fleets today are bigger than their predecessors.
I doubt that they'd have any objections as such (well I suspect Spain will be cagey) but there will have to be negotiations over the UK's opt-outs (the Euro, Schengen, etc) and the UK's rebate. I can't see the EU countries pushing the Euro issue that much but the rebate is currently an issue and I suspect the Schengen opt-out will require some quid pro quos.
It depends on the leader. In N.I. the british army had a policy of leaving one IRA leader alone because his signals security was so bad. if they're have arrested or killed him they'd have lost a huge intelligence lead as whoever replaced him would probably be more competent. At one point this got to the stage that one of them was shagging his wife to keep her quiet as she was threatening to leave him and this was affecting his "work". This isn't new, the OSS produced a manual on sabotage in WWII which included advice for agents in french industries to try and get incompetent managers promoted in order to reduce efficiency.
No I mean the RAF pilots flying the Sea Harriers with 800 and 801 Squadron. specifically Flt Lts Barton, Leeming and Morgan who were mentioned in the post I replied to.
The 21s were never meant to be much more than a short term buy for the RN and had little space for additional equipment, that said they lasted from 1974 up to 1994 and were regarded quite favourably by the crew, though the very basic missile fit was always an issue after the 1980s
The batch 1 type 42 were very much built down to a cost and Sheffields commissioning Captain (one Sandy Woodward) had a list of complaints which were almost the main points of difference between the batch 1s and later ships.
Thankfully the lunatic idea of having them coal fired didn't get much further than a D.K.Brown sketch of a 4 funneled type 42
The missile hit right in the ships main control room putting it out of action and the fire caused by the remaining fuel from the missile burned nicely on the aluminium ship.
And you were doing so well up to this point... Sheffield wasn't an Aluminium ship, not even aluminium superstructure http://www.hazegray.org/faq/smn6.htm#F7 As the link above states none of the RN ships sunk in the Falklands were sunk because of burning aluminium.
In Sheffields case they lost the firefighting ring main more or less immediately and they abandoned when the heat conducted by the steel hull was causing secondary fires in other parts of the ship
At one point in 100 days Woodward describes how he has to find out if the entrance to Falkland sound has been mined or not. Not having minesweepers his only choice is to choose one of the cheap and cheerful type 21's and see if it gets blown up or not. The ships Captain, Christopher Craig, knowing exactly what was (specifically not) being asked of him pointedly asked Woodward if he wanted him "to zigzag about a bit" to make sure the channel was clear. It was and Alacrity survived. I think Woodward described this action as being very brave and worthy of the highest awards for gallantry, but strangely only if it all had gone wrong.
HMS Sheffield was sunk by an Exocet from a Dassault Mirage two days later, most likely as revenge
Not really, firstly it was launched from a Super Etendard not a Mirage, secondly the Sheffield attack was the second or third attempt by the Argentinian Navy to attack the carriers using exocet, the Argentinian navy went to a lot of effort to get the Etandarts exocet capable and were intending on using them against the Royal Navy carriers long before the belgrano was sunk. If the exocet attacks were reveng then as advocated by most combat instructors they were trying to get their revenge in first.
. Critics are of the opinion that if UK hadn't been the first to sink an enemy vessel then none would have been lost on either side.
Critics are like arseholes....sorry no Opinons are like arseholes every critic is one. Sorry nope I'll get it right eventually... Opinions are like arseholes everyone has one, ignore the opinions be guided by the facts. Given that the argentinian Navy was actively seeking out the royal navy carrier battle goup with three task forces and two air attacks on the day the Belgrano was sunk it was obvious that someone was going to come off badly. Unfortunately for those onborad the belgrano she was it. Perhaps ironically as of all the Argentinian navy ships she was best suited to survive a torpedo hit, as some of her sisters did in big mistake II.
Yeah, but the Belgrano was running because word leaked out that she was a primary target and when she was engaged she was at full speed towards home
No, she was meandering along at cruising speed to a holding area whilst the Argentinian navy decided what to do next since their ari strike on the Carrier battle group couldn't get airborne because of low winds.
Conqueror had destroy orders even though Belgrano had left the field.
Field...? what field, she was at sea and she was a combatant...to paraphrase Shankly "if she wasn't interfering with play what the fuck was she doing on the pitch"
Some say she was in Argentine waters when she was sunk, but this has not been verified either way.
She was sunk at 5524S 6132W that's more than 12 miles away from anything.
21 kills for no losses in the air to air role despite being outnumbered by aircraft with superior performance and viewed by the Argentinian Air forces and a difficult and challenging opponent ("La Muerte Negra") not bad going for an aircraft designed to shoot down recon aircraft.
No, The Fleet Air Arm tactics (calling navy pilots RAF will result in mild joking/ verbal abuse at best) varied throughout the war, before the landings they were part of a standard layered defence and were usually deployed up threat of the radar pickets which in turn were up threat of the carrier battle group. After the landings the Navy effectively defined a large rectangular box around the landing site and declared this a free fire zone for ships missile/gun systems and a no-go zone for aircraft. again Harriers were employed up threat but the lack of AEW meant that they often had to fly round the "box" to catch incoming raids. Also there was a significant difference in experience and performance in the use of the blue fox radar in the SHAR between 800 (Hermes) and 801 (Invincible) squadrons that meant that the 801 pilots could be more effective in the air defense role (see Sea Harrier Over The Falklands: A Maverick at War by Cmrd Sharkey Ward)
The fact that ships carried LDS is not news, it's mentioned in Woodwards book and various other Falklands war literature and when I went aboard HMS Plymouth in Glasgow in the 1990's they had some details about it on dispay boards. AFAICR it was mounted in the bridge wing and was on the "wrong side" of the ship when she was attacked. Most publications I've seen LDS mentioned state that it was never actually used.
I knocked on the pearly gates Neatly side-stepping the long queue Waved hi to St. Peter Who checked my card and let me through I smiled, threw my hands in the air Laughed and got arrested They said hey man, you're in the wrong place Your behaviour is a disgrace Here we pray every hour, on the hour Read extracts from the Bible and look solemn' What, says I, no party? No party? Let me out
it would appear the OP is pointing out the unusual tenacity with which they're pursuing someone for a rape charge,
Perhaps you noticed that the "unusual tenacity" came to be when Assange became a fugitive from justice? Think about it.... What did Assange do? Broke his bond and fled the police.
No bond was broken, no fleeing occurred.
As part of the extradition process Assange was released on bail, part of his conditions of bail were that he should remain overnight in the residence of one of his supporters who (from memory) guaranteed the majority of the bail. His residence in the Ecuadorian embassy means that a bunch of people are likely to be out of pocket.
Assange left Sweden weeks after the incident in question, with the express permission of the prosecutor's office. For that matter, he isn't even wanted on a rape charge, he's wanted for questioning in relation to a possible charge. He has offered numerous times to talk with the Swedish prosecutor or a representative while in the UK. None of this is terribly consistent with the actions of someone purportedly on the lam.
Worth noting, from a transcript of a Democracy Now discussion, emphasis mine:
"...Sweden and the United Kingdom both refused to provide assurances that once matters were dealt with in Sweden, that Julian would be permitted to leave the country and would not be extradited to the United States. They refused to provide those assurances."
This is probably the more salient point regarding Assange's reluctance to step again on Swedish soil.
Cheers,
The UK can't give any such assurances if he were to be transferred to Swedish custody, we don't have any control over Sweden. If the US wanted to extradite him from the UK they've had months to make a case.
Slashdot Mirror
Well equally where's your data? you've produce a shopping list of maintenence issues most of which are thngs that need to be done as part of routine servicing. I've accepted from the start that servicing costs are likely to be cheaper with EVs and have even been impressed that Nissan at least is not stiffing their customers completely.
Looking at the AA top 10 breakdown list, top of the list is a flat battery, then lost keys, there are three "mechanical" items in that list, the alternator, the starter motor and the clutch cable.
Misfuelling I'll accept as a ICE only fault (unless there are different incompatible charging systems for EVs) but that's not a mechanical issue. spark plugs...again is not mech. HT cables...again not mechanical, The equivalent RAC list is more of the same although they explicitly list electric cars running out of power.
Based on those lists I'd say the biggest factor in the reliability of any vehicle is the owner either doing dumb things or not servicing the vehicle properly.
Over time I've seen the electronics, sorry the electrical bits move from the bottom of the dash towards the centre console and be replaced with electronics. the current cars issues were with the CD/SATNAV/Media unit, which also did things like run the parking sensors, store country settings (everything that still worked reverted to French) This did make the replacement fairly easy (it only took me about 15 minutes to get it out), but the unit cost £1300 to replace new and you needed to go to someone who had the dealer software to encode the VIN into the unit otherwise you were driving round with it going BEEEEP every 30 seconds or so. Yes, less labour charges but having all that electronics in one unit that had to be replaced was eyewateringly expensive. The previous ticktock problem was a previous generation of the same unit but the mechanics of the cd player and the electronics were in different places. I'd expected it to be a solenoid (that's what it was in my dads old astra) and for it to take 10 muinutes and cost ~£10, not two days.
googling, nissan list service charges PETROL FROM £199 / DIESEL FROM £219 / ELECTRIC VEHICLE FROM £149 so cheaper than a petrol, assuming they're all getting serviced at the same interval.
I meant to say tyres, brakes, wheel alignment are normally wear and tear and I can't imagine they're significantly different on EVs. Brakes in particular seem to be an issue in Scotland because of the buildup of crud from the winter weather. with the bike I used to have a second set of calipers because it was easier to service them off the bike and just swap the caliper when the pads started sticking, I don't ride in winter these days.
I didn't skip engine tune up, in 30 years of driving/riding I've never had one. Never asked for one, never had one suggested, never been charged for one.
My first car got scrapped at 400,000 miles, mainly because sorting out the suspension was going to cost more than it was worth. The only work I've ever had done on engines is timing belt changes on cars and valve clearance checks on bikes, Both of which are again scheduled maintenance. Most cars have either been sold on at 200,000 miles plus or more than 6 years old and I've also run near scrappers as second cars at times,
Oil/oil filter changed
Wiper blades replacement
Replace air filter
Antifreeze added
all of the above are scheduled maintenence.
tyres, brakes, wheel alignment
I've never had a car or biked tuned, they've all had ECUs and I've been driving 30 odd years.
The claim was about about reliability, i.e. break downs not maintenence costs(*) My bet would be that the breakdown services get called out to far more electrical issues these days than they do mechanical.
(*) I'll concede that, ignoring the battery, service costs should be lower for EVs equally I'm willing to bet that the servicing costs for EV's will miraculously work out to be about the same as ICE cars, at the main dealers at least)
The last time I had a car actually break down on me was over 10 years ago (timing belt broke on a fiat panda, took about an hour to repair, cost about £20). My motorbike has had 4 recalls in the last 6 years all for electrical items, the throttle sensor position indicator has failed twice (notionally £800 a time) and the ECU has failed twice (notionally another £600 a time). The last two cars we've had have had major electronics items fail. In one case the car stopped making the "ticktock" sound when the indicators were in use and something major had to be replaced which took two days and involved removing the whole dashboard (dunno how much it cost thankfully it was still 1 week inside the warranty). The DVD/media player/satnav/convert to miles box went on the current one and it cost £120 to diagnose and we were quoted £1500 to replace it. Not having moving parts doesn't guarantee greater reliability and you know what happens when you assume.
Did they use the ususal ruse of having the First officer affecting a Peter Sellers Indian voice on the radio and pretending to be a cruise ship or did they come up with something new?
Can you give an example of this? all through the Russo-Japanese War, WWI, WWII, the cold war and the Falklands ship sizes for classes have generally gone up during or as a result of lessons learned during the war ( e.g. batch 2 and 3 type 42s vs HMS Sheffield) and then gone down again because of cost issues during the peace, or at least perceived cost, generally steel and air is much cheaper than people and systems on modern vessels so there is an argument for building them bigger than you actually need so you have space to expand into.
What tends to happen is that having built a ship, if you take it to war people hang all kinds of new stuff on it all of which need consubambles, spares and new bodies to work the kit. You end up with a ship that's crowded and if you're not careful top heavy. The classic example being your 1930 RN destroyer which in the course of WWII was likely to get RADAR, more AA guns, SONAR, more AA guns, degaussing equipment, more AA guns, HDFD, more AA guns, hedgehog, you can never have enough AA guns, squid...generally post WWII ships got bigger.
The largest ships in most fleets today are bigger than their predecessors.
I doubt that they'd have any objections as such (well I suspect Spain will be cagey) but there will have to be negotiations over the UK's opt-outs (the Euro, Schengen, etc) and the UK's rebate. I can't see the EU countries pushing the Euro issue that much but the rebate is currently an issue and I suspect the Schengen opt-out will require some quid pro quos.
It depends on the leader. In N.I. the british army had a policy of leaving one IRA leader alone because his signals security was so bad. if they're have arrested or killed him they'd have lost a huge intelligence lead as whoever replaced him would probably be more competent. At one point this got to the stage that one of them was shagging his wife to keep her quiet as she was threatening to leave him and this was affecting his "work". This isn't new, the OSS produced a manual on sabotage in WWII which included advice for agents in french industries to try and get incompetent managers promoted in order to reduce efficiency.
You will damage your eyesight...don't do, it opticians make enough as it is.
No I mean the RAF pilots flying the Sea Harriers with 800 and 801 Squadron. specifically Flt Lts Barton, Leeming and Morgan who were mentioned in the post I replied to.
The 21s were never meant to be much more than a short term buy for the RN and had little space for additional equipment, that said they lasted from 1974 up to 1994 and were regarded quite favourably by the crew, though the very basic missile fit was always an issue after the 1980s
The batch 1 type 42 were very much built down to a cost and Sheffields commissioning Captain (one Sandy Woodward) had a list of complaints which were almost the main points of difference between the batch 1s and later ships.
Thankfully the lunatic idea of having them coal fired didn't get much further than a D.K.Brown sketch of a 4 funneled type 42
I meant the RAF pilots not the GR3s
The missile hit right in the ships main control room putting it out of action and the fire caused by the remaining fuel from the missile burned nicely on the aluminium ship.
And you were doing so well up to this point... Sheffield wasn't an Aluminium ship, not even aluminium superstructure http://www.hazegray.org/faq/smn6.htm#F7
As the link above states none of the RN ships sunk in the Falklands were sunk because of burning aluminium.
In Sheffields case they lost the firefighting ring main more or less immediately and they abandoned when the heat conducted by the steel hull was causing secondary fires in other parts of the ship
At one point in 100 days Woodward describes how he has to find out if the entrance to Falkland sound has been mined or not. Not having minesweepers his only choice is to choose one of the cheap and cheerful type 21's and see if it gets blown up or not. The ships Captain, Christopher Craig, knowing exactly what was (specifically not) being asked of him pointedly asked Woodward if he wanted him "to zigzag about a bit" to make sure the channel was clear. It was and Alacrity survived. I think Woodward described this action as being very brave and worthy of the highest awards for gallantry, but strangely only if it all had gone wrong.
5 air launched, another 6 or so ship mounted. 2 lorry mounted (no really.. they took two off a ship and put them on the back of an artic).
HMS Sheffield was sunk by an Exocet from a Dassault Mirage two days later, most likely as revenge
Not really, firstly it was launched from a Super Etendard not a Mirage, secondly the Sheffield attack was the second or third attempt by the Argentinian Navy to attack the carriers using exocet, the Argentinian navy went to a lot of effort to get the Etandarts exocet capable and were intending on using them against the Royal Navy carriers long before the belgrano was sunk. If the exocet attacks were reveng then as advocated by most combat instructors they were trying to get their revenge in first.
. Critics are of the opinion that if UK hadn't been the first to sink an enemy vessel then none would have been lost on either side.
Critics are like arseholes....sorry no Opinons are like arseholes every critic is one. Sorry nope I'll get it right eventually ... Opinions are like arseholes everyone has one, ignore the opinions be guided by the facts. Given that the argentinian Navy was actively seeking out the royal navy carrier battle goup with three task forces and two air attacks on the day the Belgrano was sunk it was obvious that someone was going to come off badly. Unfortunately for those onborad the belgrano she was it. Perhaps ironically as of all the Argentinian navy ships she was best suited to survive a torpedo hit, as some of her sisters did in big mistake II.
Yeah, but the Belgrano was running because word leaked out that she was a primary target and when she was engaged she was at full speed towards home
No, she was meandering along at cruising speed to a holding area whilst the Argentinian navy decided what to do next since their ari strike on the Carrier battle group couldn't get airborne because of low winds.
Conqueror had destroy orders even though Belgrano had left the field.
Field...? what field, she was at sea and she was a combatant...to paraphrase Shankly "if she wasn't interfering with play what the fuck was she doing on the pitch"
Some say she was in Argentine waters when she was sunk, but this has not been verified either way.
She was sunk at 5524S 6132W that's more than 12 miles away from anything.
yes, but they had been "Navalised" prior to the war :)
21 kills for no losses in the air to air role despite being outnumbered by aircraft with superior performance and viewed by the Argentinian Air forces and a difficult and challenging opponent ("La Muerte Negra") not bad going for an aircraft designed to shoot down recon aircraft.
No, The Fleet Air Arm tactics (calling navy pilots RAF will result in mild joking/ verbal abuse at best) varied throughout the war, before the landings they were part of a standard layered defence and were usually deployed up threat of the radar pickets which in turn were up threat of the carrier battle group. After the landings the Navy effectively defined a large rectangular box around the landing site and declared this a free fire zone for ships missile/gun systems and a no-go zone for aircraft. again Harriers were employed up threat but the lack of AEW meant that they often had to fly round the "box" to catch incoming raids. Also there was a significant difference in experience and performance in the use of the blue fox radar in the SHAR between 800 (Hermes) and 801 (Invincible) squadrons that meant that the 801 pilots could be more effective in the air defense role (see Sea Harrier Over The Falklands: A Maverick at War by Cmrd Sharkey Ward)
The fact that ships carried LDS is not news, it's mentioned in Woodwards book and various other Falklands war literature and when I went aboard HMS Plymouth in Glasgow in the 1990's they had some details about it on dispay boards. AFAICR it was mounted in the bridge wing and was on the "wrong side" of the ship when she was attacked. Most publications I've seen LDS mentioned state that it was never actually used.
given that he could be directly extradited from the UK to the US fairly easily, why bother messing with Sweden.
No no, I can suggest some really great roads for reading/posting whilst driving...some of the ones round Lashkar Gah are ideal for that kind of thing.
I knocked on the pearly gates
Neatly side-stepping the long queue
Waved hi to St. Peter
Who checked my card and let me through
I smiled, threw my hands in the air
Laughed and got arrested
They said hey man, you're in the wrong place
Your behaviour is a disgrace
Here we pray every hour, on the hour
Read extracts from the Bible and look solemn'
What, says I, no party?
No party?
Let me out
(Gillan,McCoy, Torme, Towns, Underwood) No Laughing in heaven
I guess Heaven or Hell is in the eye of the beholder
it would appear the OP is pointing out the unusual tenacity with which they're pursuing someone for a rape charge,
Perhaps you noticed that the "unusual tenacity" came to be when Assange became a fugitive from justice? Think about it. ... What did Assange do? Broke his bond and fled the police.
No bond was broken, no fleeing occurred.
As part of the extradition process Assange was released on bail, part of his conditions of bail were that he should remain overnight in the residence of one of his supporters who (from memory) guaranteed the majority of the bail. His residence in the Ecuadorian embassy means that a bunch of people are likely to be out of pocket.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/9343739/Julian-Assange-celebrities-could-lose-thousands-from-WikiLeaks-founders-bail-breach.html
Assange left Sweden weeks after the incident in question, with the express permission of the prosecutor's office. For that matter, he isn't even wanted on a rape charge, he's wanted for questioning in relation to a possible charge. He has offered numerous times to talk with the Swedish prosecutor or a representative while in the UK. None of this is terribly consistent with the actions of someone purportedly on the lam.
Worth noting, from a transcript of a Democracy Now discussion, emphasis mine:
"...Sweden and the United Kingdom both refused to provide assurances that once matters were dealt with in Sweden, that Julian would be permitted to leave the country and would not be extradited to the United States. They refused to provide those assurances."
This is probably the more salient point regarding Assange's reluctance to step again on Swedish soil.
Cheers,
The UK can't give any such assurances if he were to be transferred to Swedish custody, we don't have any control over Sweden. If the US wanted to extradite him from the UK they've had months to make a case.