though I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw a Conservative-UKIP coalition.

I would, given that they don’t have any MPs, and never have.

All they succeed in doing is splitting the conservative/anti EU vote between Conservatives and themselves, hindering the ambitions of both. They are very vocal, making them seem like a big force, but don’t forget that UKIP is still very much a minority party – even the Green Party have won more seats than UKIP.

An article from the New Statesman on the legal myths surrounding the subject, points out some interesting points.

Public opinion didn’t save the two examples you quoted, and even then I don’t think they’re good examples.

The first is of highly questionable historical veracity, and the second did not die for his cause per sey, he was killed because of his cause – there is a subtle but important difference.

In any case, I certainly don’t think of Assange as a hero, few deserve that accolade, but I don’t think his work is without merit.

I agree with TonyT and would go further and keep all the TV and Media crews out of earshot. I am sorry but this coward is not news but the BBC and ITV seem to think he should have a platform. So do I with a noose and a trapdoor under it.

If He continues with his speeches from the balcony watch out for the little red dot that appears on his forhead as I am sure our American Cousins are getting mightily p1ssed off with him.

If as I believe people have lost their lives because of his actions he should face the consequences. If he has caused no harm let him go back to the USA and prove it(via Sweden to answer his problems there) That I think is called justice, hiding from it implies guilt in my book.

Limiting freedom of the press and freedom of speech probably isn’t the best way in a ‘free’ society to deal with people who are pointing out the governments shady dealings, is it? Let him have his say, if he is wrong then let it be demonstrated.

The same goes for causing loss of life, where is the evidence that shows this? If there is some then all the US, or other nations have to do is present it and then we can start evaluating the wikileaks scandals properly.

As for hiding from justice, I see what you mean. I don’t like the way he does things all the time, but something about all of this just seems a bit off to me. He hasn’t even been charged in Sweden, or arrested, so why is the UK extraditing him? Why were the charges brought up again after they had already been dropped and the Swedish chief prosecutor dismissed them?

If someone is brought up on legitimate charges then obviously this needs to be processed as one would with any other case, but what if it’s being brought up for political reasons through back-room dealings? It just seems very fishy to me, very fishy indeed – whatever we may think of the man personally.

An interesting comment on the issue from the website Reddit, made by user downandoutinparis, a constitutional law professor:

“This is what happens when the US wants France to extradite someone who eventually could be sentenced to death:

The French courts states that the extradition is impossible because the death penalty could be sought.

The relevant US DA (or their boss at a high enough level) writes down that they will not seek the death penalty, and the French lawyers representing the US in front of the French extradition court produce this paper and enter it in the court’s records.

The French extradition court then validates the extradition.
The US DAs keep their promise, because if they don’t, the French courts won’t ever again extradite anyone towards the US.

What Assange wants is not a decision from Sweden’s government, but a promise from Sweden’s prosecutors. I’m perfectly familiar with ministertyre (as a cynic, I consider it to be just one of the many ways the Swedes use to feel superior to the others; whenever it matters, ministerstyre is conveniently forgotten, see e.g. the Pirate Bay case…) but it doesn’t apply here.
Another interesting tidbit is that Assange is only sought by Sweden for questioning and has not been formally charged. While the British High Court has decided that the current advancement of the Swedish procedure is equivalent to being charged in the UK, I consider this ruling to be an aberration; the common-law steeped High Court failed to understand a finer point of the civil-law influenced Swedish penal procedure.
Being wanted for questioning is the Swedish equivalent of the French penal status of protected witness. This means that someone is sufficiently suspect of a crime that they whould be afforded extra care so that the case against them does not become contaminated by self-incrimination issues, but not sufficiently thought guilty that they would be charged at the moment. The distinction between both cases is simple: charging someone can only be done by a judge; giving someone protected witness status is a decision commonly taken by the senior detective in charge of the case.

The official next step in the Swedish penal procedure would be to question Assange, and, depending on his answers and other elements, then either formally charge him or officially decide not to charge him.
Assange and his lawyers have offered to the Swedish prosecutors to produce Assange for questioning either in person in the UK or through Skype-like videoconference in the Swedish prosecutor’s office. The Swedish prosecutors refused. It has happened that judges and prosecutors would move abroad to be able to question someone, but it is uncommon and inconvenient, so there is not much meaning attached to the Swedish prosecutor refusal to go to the UK.

But the refusal to question Assange through videoconference is much more difficult to accept. Not only does it seem to be petty and obstructive, it is also a clear violation of Article 6 Paragraph 1 of the ECHR.
The French penal procedure used to demand similarly that a suspect should surrender and go to prison on the eve of his criminal trial. The European Court consistently found this a violation of 6§1 in a string of cases (Omar, Guerin, Khalfoui, Goth, Papon, Coste, Morel, Walser, etc.) that eventually managed to have the French law amended.
There is not much wiggle room here: Assange has a fundamental right to be questioned by the prosecutors without having to surrender to Swedish police. This is cristal clear jurisprudence from the ECHR, and the Swedish prosecutors know it.
Let me recap (aka TLDR):

-Assange is not charged (yet) and the High Court is wrong on that point

-Assange has a fundamental right clearly recognized by the ECHR not to surrender to Swedish police before appearing in front of the Swedish prosecutor

-The Swedish Prosecution Service has consistently refused to promise that Assange wouldn’t be extradited to the US once in Swedish custody; this type of promise is common in extradition cases and within the power of the Swedish prosecution service

-The Swedish Prosecution Service has refused the opportunity to question Assange through videoconference, while insisting on Assange’s surrender to Swedish custody; this is a clear and known violation of the ECHR that the Swedish prosecutors can’t ignore.

There’s only one possible conclusion: the Swedish prosecutors are acting in bad faith here. Their penal-fu is bad and they should feel bad.”

Don’t get me wrong, I agree there should be clear limits, I’m just saying that when diplomatic privileges can be given or stripped away at the drop of a hat there doesn’t seem much point in having them in the first place.

As for:
“When he is arrested, and If he is found guilty of these ‘sexual assault’ charges, I would like to see the way his supporters react.”

I don’t know whether he is guilty or not, I think that so long as charges have been brought against him in a valid and proper manner then he should answer those – but even if he is guilty of the charges you mention that had nothing to do with whether wikileaks is a good or a bad thing. His supporters are behind him because of his wikileaks activities, not because they hold him up as a paragon of moral virtue.

Tony, I believe, that the news yesterday, included the fact that if the Embassy didn’t give him up, they would,(The building) lose it’s Diplomatic status, and thus revert to being a British building, whereby he would be “Dead meat” for want of better words.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

In that case, what’s the point of giving anyone diplomatic status if it can be revoked at will?

Anybody here remember WPC Yvonne Fletcher?

I am not really sure how I feel about this one; I don’t really have anything against Julian Assange but I don’t really have anything for him either. It does seem that he only has respect for any law when it is of benefit to him; happy to be protected by UK law until extradition was likely and then breaks his bail conditions. And how much was that bail, who paid, and who has lost their money?

What about the US serviceman who went to jail for giving secrets? Does Assange not feel any responsibility there?

I don’t really have any sympathy for the US case either; yes the US (or the UK) has ‘secrets’ that they’d rather not become common knowledge but if they get out why does the US think they have any rights to punish Assange who is not a US citizen and who is not in the US.

The murder of PC Fletcher is one of the times when I would think it appropriate to go into an embassy and make arrests. Diplomatic immunity is a great idea, but it does not extend so far as to let anyone murder British Citizens with impunity. This crime, Libya shipping weapons to the IRA and the lockerbie bombing all add up to a completely justified casus belli imho, but that’s for another day.

As for Assange, I’m not sure what to make of the man. I do find it an odd state of affairs. The charges originally leveled against him of sexual assault were dropped, but then miraculously re-emerged after he had upset the US and other powers. Another point is that Sweden has never before asked for anyone to be extradited on these charges. Whether he is guilty or not, it seems clear to me that this is being politically motivated.

Bradly Manning, the US serviceman who released documents to Assange, is still being held almost two years after his arrest without receiving a trial, and there have been allegations that the treatment he is receiving is extremely harsh, intended to break his will and demoralise him.

I don’t personally believe that anyone has suffered injury (except to maybe reputation or pride) as a result of the wikileaks documents releases, and I think the US is yet to produce any evidence to substantiate their claims that it has. I understand the security forces need to keep some secrets, but it seems to me that even our democracies are getting too used to keeping things from their citizens, and more openness, not less, is what’s needed. I think that the real reason they are so angry with Assange and Manning is that they don’t want us, the citizens of the West, to know what our governments are really up to.

Just my 2cents