That would be David Leigh, journalist and assistant editor of The Guardian; a newspaper who's parent company is making losses of something like £100,000 a day.
It is about 12th in national circulation figures (with 1/10th of the leader) but apparently has the second most visited website of UK newspapers.
Just a few facts which might, or might not be relevant, to his suggestions.
On the other hand, The Guardian does at least try to do journalism, unlike some of its competitors which are more interested in securing readers/page views than actually investigating things; the Daily Mail, 2nd in circulation,and most visited news site (iirc in the world) has a top article at the moment on someone's account of how they were able to make money from a supermarket's voucher scheme, and their top side story is about some celebrity's dress splitting open at the Emmys (with pictures, of course). Still, at least we have the BBC.
BBC is reporting that he was convicted on the 14th. He doesn't seem to have been sentenced yet.
There's still the chance of him appealing, though; as with the Paul Chambers case (eventually acquitted) sometimes crazy things can happen in the lower courts of the UK criminal justice system. But don't worry, the government is fixing this by drastically reducing the legal/financial support provided to defendants.
Just to be really pedantic, she isn't called Kate Middleton any more; since getting married she's a titled member of the Royal Family (a Duchess) so doesn't have a legal surname (although she might be able to use Mountbatten-Windsor).
As for their decision to sue (and, iirc, report the matter to the French police as a crime), I wonder if that is less about stopping the publication and dissemination of the images than it is about sending a clear message to these sorts of photographers (I'm not sure the word "journalist" is really appropriate) that they will get in trouble if they try it again. The lawsuit may be less about suppressing the images as discouraging future publications (something the lack of a reaction to the Prince Harry photographs a few weeks ago obviously didn't do).
Plus, I don't know about the US press, but the UK mainstream media has taken a clear stand against publishing the photographs (even The Sun... and the 'outrage' in the Daily Mail was wonderfully hypocritical, but that's another story).
Freedom of expression may be a great thing, but I have no problem with discouraging people from taking photographs using a telescopic lens, of people who are relaxing, in private, on holiday.
If it helps, the concept of "precedent" is a common law thing. Civil law jurisdictions (including the Netherlands) have a much more flexible system, whereby the cases are based more on the legislation than previous court rulings.
Given this, the courts are perfectly able to come to different conclusions, particularly based on different facts.
This seems similar to the English law in this area as used in the cases against Newzbin and The Pirate Bay. In the latter (which refers to the first), the operators of the site were found jointly liable for copyright infringements of the site users on the grounds that they:
- induced, incited or persuaded the users to infringe, and
- acted with the users "pursuant to a common design to infringe".
That seems to be similar to the first paragraph quoted above. Additionally, the court also found them liable for "authorising" the infringing acts of the site's users (authorisation of infringement is an infringement itself under English law), in which case they looked at:
- The convenience of the means of infringing,
- Inevitability of infringement (not just inevitable, but intended),
- Degree of control (i.e. operators did remove some links),
- Steps to prevent infringement (i.e. none).
Again, similar patterns emerging. As far as "actual knowledge" of specific infringements goes, that is the sort of language used in the E-Commerce Directive - which will also apply in the Dutch case.
Anyway, back to the underlying principle of liability for linking; I think the mistake many people make (including, perhaps, Mike) when it comes to copyright and the Internet is that they think that the precise technology, and the precise location of the data etc. matter. They don't. The law talks about infringements; in EU law that includes "communicating to the public", which is intentionally broad enough to cover all sorts of things.
But again, that is missing the point. This (and stuff about linking) isn't about primary liability, but secondary or joint liability, which are pretty entrenched concepts in common law jurisdictions; if you're sufficiently involved in someone else's tort, you may be liable for it yourself. I haven't read the Dutch court judgment, but the principle seems to be that if you are knowingly and deliberately inciting other people to break the law (especially doing so for personal profit), you should be liable for doing so, whether or not you did the actual primary infringement.
Re: User generated is possible-- if the user actually does the work
Everyone with a digital camera is an artist and I bet almost everyone likes holding the copyright.
I would hazard a guess that in the case of the vast majority (and I mean vast; >99%) of works covered by copyright the copyright owner is probably not even aware that the work is covered by copyright. Works such as everyday emails, doodles, tweets, Facebook posts, TechDirt comments etc.
So, let's use digital cameras as an example. Someone takes a picture with their digital camera (or more likely, their camera phone) and uploads it to a picture-sharing site. Are they aware that they own the copyright in the photo? Probably. Do they consider the intricate systems of licences in place when they upload it? Maybe not. Do they consider that there might be something in the photograph (such as whatever they are taking a picture of) that might be protected by copyright itself thus making their photo unlawful? Almost certainly not.
What about situations where they've given their camera to a second party so that they are in their own picture, do they realise that they might not own the copyright and thus might be breaking the law by copying that photo onto their own computer or uploading it somewhere? Again, probably not.
So... in the vast majority of cases, what is copyright doing for people? Is it encouraging creativity? No. People would almost certainly be taking photos without copyright. Is it making them money? No. The vast majority of photos (and probably an even greater proportion of works in general) are taken with no hope of financial return. Is it getting in the way? Possibly; there will be some situations where their photograph may be illegal (due to the content, or due to someone else taking it). It may be that it will get taken down from a website due to a false (possibly automated) claim by a third party (as in this case, or many of the ContentID screw-ups).
People may like holding copyrights, but chances are that in the vast majority of cases, they have very little idea what they actually hold, and it probably won't be of any use to them. For most people, copyright is something that gets in their way, not helps them. Don't confuse "professional or semi-professional artists" with "copyright owners".
If a UKNova user tried to sue them, I imagine FACT would react with laughter.
In order to sue FACT, you would have to show FACT did something unlawful (possibly not that hard given some of their actions) and that you were at a loss because of it.
Actually, they'd probably react with laughter, then turn up at your door with a (dubiously legal) arrest/search warrant, on the grounds that, as a user of a known pirate site, you were obviously a serious criminal.
Anyway, as the SurfTheChannel case (and similar cases) shows, FACT are pretty much beyond the reach of mere mortals; if you've suffered a loss because of them (say, they've lied to the police in order to get you arrested, used their pet financial investigation unit to illegally freeze your assets and so on), they've probably done a good enough job that you won't have any money left with which to sue them. Whereas they have full-strength Hollywood backing...
Remember, justice isn't about right and wrong, it is about who has enough money...
"What they did was perfectly legal under UK law."
Maybe, maybe not. It seems they were almost sued at one point, but Vickerman didn't have the money to pull it off. Plus some of what they did looks suspiciously like conspiracy to commit a computer misuse offence. Then there are issues with misuse of private information, data protection and a few other things. Plus accusations of deceiving courts and so on. Hence the "possibly".
I would have thrown the shill story in, but due to being on English time it hadn't been published by the time I had already got most of the post set out.
The BBC are reporting that this is probably legal due to a German law that allows lawyers to name people accused of unlawful activity by their clients.
Actually, this would be even more remote than pointing to a crack den. It would be like...
Hmm, I tried to come up with an analogy involving crack houses, maps, signposts and so on, but I think it's simpler to just go to the facts:
It would be like setting up a platform where people could tell other people how to find stuff in other places, and being locked up because some of those people were telling people how to get to stuff that might be illegal for some of them to view.
Do we really need analogies to show how silly this is?
As far as I know, it's pretty random, and hard to get details on how and when appeals happen.
However, looking at the times between sentencing/conviction and appeal verdict of the last 10 or so reported cases, it seems to be of the order of 12-18 months (with a couple of outliers at 5 months, and one at 4 years).
Actually, it seems that they may be able to recover their legal costs (from the State) for prosecuting the case because they won (thus justifying the prosecution or something)...
Usually when Mike writes pieces attacking the UK legal/political/justice system I tend to find myself coming to its defence, either as an apologist, or to point out the subtleties that may have been missed.
In this case...
Nope, the only thing missing are some of the even worse details alleged by Vickerman (such as alleged attempt by FACT to commit a crime as part of their "seizure" of his website, the repeated lies, the FACT (hah!) that they claimed to various people (his ISP, his utility providers) that he was selling counterfeit DVDs as a way of tricking(?) into handing over private information including nearly getting his ISP to tap his connection for them, that they got their pet trading standards organisation to freeze all his assets illegally (it was quickly overturned, but not before massive financial damage was done), how they refused to hand over the crucial CPS letter and were only made to by the judge after telling him that it helped their case, how they agreed not to present all their numbers on the level of damage done by copyright infringement during the trial (when Vickerman's team were prepared to rip it apart), but instead handed it in after the trial as part of the sentencing process, when it couldn't be challenged...).
Of course, all of these could be lies spread by a convicted criminal desperately trying to justify his actions, but some parts will be in the public record (if only we had a profession paid to investigate and report to the public on possible miscarriages of justice and other happenings in the public interest - but apparently all press reporting of this trial (other than a few specialist places) just parroted a FACT press briefing (in some cases, verbatim)...).
The judge repeatedly called him out in his sentencing remarks for being arrogant and showing no remorse - traits I imagine also exhibited by people who genuinely believe they are innocent and can't believe the treatment they are receiving.
Sadly (or perhaps for the best), Vickerman's full statement has disappeared from his website (along with the supporting documents; they were probably libellous, in breach of confidentiality and infringing copyright anyway), but not before a few people grabbed copies. Not sure whether it was FACT, the court or his lawyers who removed it.
One good thing; the statement revealed he is filing (or has filed?) an appeal, on 24 different grounds. I think that will be worth getting popcorn for.
In terms of the Pinochet case, I skimmed the judgments in that case and it is important to note that that was under a very different legal regime.
Under the 1989 Extradition Act, the court could consider the case (due to the validity of the local arrest warrant) but it was primarily an executive decision (i.e. the Government deciding), and they rejected it partly on health grounds, partly due to the potential precedent of a Head of State in country A potentially being prosecuted in country B for their actions as Head of State (although the House of Lords rejected the second argument).
In contrast, the EAW "surrender" process is very much a judicial one; there is no direct input from the government; country A's appropriate judicial authority sends a request to country B's, if it is valid, the individual is surrendered. The result being that the UK government is legally required to take all steps it can to surrender Assange, when it wasn't to surrender Pinoshet.
[As an aside, since 2000, the UK also has a new extradition procedure, which turns that into much more of a judicial process; while the Government still gets a say, their decisions are subject to judicial review, and they must follow fairly strict guidelines. But that's another issue.]
He is accused of rape. And that's actual rape, not "rape", not Swedish rape, but rape in the sense of sex with someone without a reasonable belief in consent.
He hasn't been charged with rape for the simple reason that (from my limited understanding of the Swedish criminal justice system) you can't really be charged with anything without being there.
He has, however, breached is bail conditions in the UK, and it will probably be rather hard for him to get out of that one (legally).
Um, he hasn't been charged with rape. ANYWHERE. Care to try again?
Slightly misleading as it seems you can't charge someone with something in Sweden unless they're there to respond to it etc. Something the US could learn from, re Dotcom, Assange, O'Dwyer to name a few.
He is, however, accused in Sweden of rape (along with two counts of sexual molestation and one of unlawful coercion - conduct which could amount to two or three counts of rape and one of sexual assault in England), and one assumes will be charged with that if/when the Swedish authorities are in a position to do so.
[Of course "charge" is an English word, not a Swedish word, and given that it is being used in a legally-technical sense, and is a legally-technical word, it might not translate properly; see, for example, Assange's Supreme Court appeal which hinged on different translations and definitions of a "judicial authority".]
First up, is the absolutely astounding and shocking news that the UK literally threatened to enter the embassy in order to get Assange and ship him to Sweden:
... under the Vienna Convention, the UK has agreed that such premises "shall be inviolable" and that its agents "may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission." The UK's very direct threat here s that it would ignore that international agreement just to get Assange.
As usual, the full story is a bit more complex than this. Basically, under the law given, the UK government has the power to revoke the embassy's diplomatic status. This is a rather odd law (and seems to have only been used once, in the 80s, to evict some squatters from a disused Cambodian embassy), but explicitly states that consent for an embassy cannot be withdrawn unless permissible under international law (see s1(4)). If the UK government were to try to do this, they could face a court challenge under the domestic legislation, and that could take a long time to sort out.
It sounds like what they would be doing (potentially legal under international and domestic law) would be to withdraw permission for the embassy on the grounds that it was being (ab)used to harbour a fugitive (Assange having finally broken English law when he broke his bail conditions), and then they could legally go in and arrest him (but not any Ecuadorian diplomats).
Unfortunately, the UK government is in a rather awkward position whereby it *has* to take all legal steps it can to hand over Assange (due to legal obligations under UK and EU law), and that includes both making this threat, and trying to carry it out. It's a real mess.
On a couple of other points, the Swedish authorities have turned down offers to question him in the UK, the Ecuador embassy or via video-link, but there isn't anything improper about this, and it may be because they want to actually arrest, charge and try him for (fairly serious crimes), something it seems that they cannot do without him.
As to refusals to give assurances about not handing him over to the US, this also sounds a lot more damaging than it may be; from a constitutional point of view, while Sweden will have laws (not least via the EU or ECHR) preventing it from extraditing people in certain circumstances (i.e. where they could face the death penalty, inhumane or degrading treatment, or an unfair trial), and so any attempt to extradite Assange to the US could be challenged under those laws, it would be inappropriate, if not unlawful, for them to pre-empt such a decision by offering assurances now.
At least, that's my ... what's the going rate for 2 cents in GBP or SKR?
Interesting; a couple of years after that video conspiracy was significantly diminished, and limited to either statutory conspiracy (an agreement to do another criminal offence) and conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to "corrupt public morals" or "outrage decency" - I'm not sure how often the latter two get used.
It seems that back then the problem was that the establishment (the courts and police) wanted a way to deal with people they didn't particularly like, and abused conspiracy laws, with Parliament unwilling to do anything about it. Now, of course, we have the establishment (in the form of the police, government and Parliament) doing the same, but much more effectively as they can pass legislation to create new offences as needed; whether public order offences, terrorism offences, 'cyber-bullying' or stuff about causing harassment, alarm or distress.
Fortunately, these days we have the courts, armed with the Human Rights Act, able to stand up to the government in a few of these cases. Ah, how things change...
On the post: The Return Of Dumb Ideas: A Broadband Tax To Save Failing Newspapers
Some facts which may or may not be relevant
It is about 12th in national circulation figures (with 1/10th of the leader) but apparently has the second most visited website of UK newspapers.
Just a few facts which might, or might not be relevant, to his suggestions.
On the other hand, The Guardian does at least try to do journalism, unlike some of its competitors which are more interested in securing readers/page views than actually investigating things; the Daily Mail, 2nd in circulation,and most visited news site (iirc in the world) has a top article at the moment on someone's account of how they were able to make money from a supermarket's voucher scheme, and their top side story is about some celebrity's dress splitting open at the Emmys (with pictures, of course). Still, at least we have the BBC.
On the post: UK Student Charged For 'Grossly Offensive' Facebook Post
Re: "The trial continues.."
There's still the chance of him appealing, though; as with the Paul Chambers case (eventually acquitted) sometimes crazy things can happen in the lower courts of the UK criminal justice system. But don't worry, the government is fixing this by drastically reducing the legal/financial support provided to defendants.
*sigh*
On the post: How The Royal Family Got The World To Look At Naked Photos Of Kate Middleton [Updated]
To be really pedantic...
As for their decision to sue (and, iirc, report the matter to the French police as a crime), I wonder if that is less about stopping the publication and dissemination of the images than it is about sending a clear message to these sorts of photographers (I'm not sure the word "journalist" is really appropriate) that they will get in trouble if they try it again. The lawsuit may be less about suppressing the images as discouraging future publications (something the lack of a reaction to the Prince Harry photographs a few weeks ago obviously didn't do).
Plus, I don't know about the US press, but the UK mainstream media has taken a clear stand against publishing the photographs (even The Sun... and the 'outrage' in the Daily Mail was wonderfully hypocritical, but that's another story).
Freedom of expression may be a great thing, but I have no problem with discouraging people from taking photographs using a telescopic lens, of people who are relaxing, in private, on holiday.
On the post: Dutch Court Says Linking Can Be A Form of Copyright Infringement
Re:
Given this, the courts are perfectly able to come to different conclusions, particularly based on different facts.
On the post: Dutch Court Says Linking Can Be A Form of Copyright Infringement
Similar to the English law
- induced, incited or persuaded the users to infringe, and
- acted with the users "pursuant to a common design to infringe".
That seems to be similar to the first paragraph quoted above. Additionally, the court also found them liable for "authorising" the infringing acts of the site's users (authorisation of infringement is an infringement itself under English law), in which case they looked at:
- The convenience of the means of infringing,
- Inevitability of infringement (not just inevitable, but intended),
- Degree of control (i.e. operators did remove some links),
- Steps to prevent infringement (i.e. none).
Again, similar patterns emerging. As far as "actual knowledge" of specific infringements goes, that is the sort of language used in the E-Commerce Directive - which will also apply in the Dutch case.
Anyway, back to the underlying principle of liability for linking; I think the mistake many people make (including, perhaps, Mike) when it comes to copyright and the Internet is that they think that the precise technology, and the precise location of the data etc. matter. They don't. The law talks about infringements; in EU law that includes "communicating to the public", which is intentionally broad enough to cover all sorts of things.
But again, that is missing the point. This (and stuff about linking) isn't about primary liability, but secondary or joint liability, which are pretty entrenched concepts in common law jurisdictions; if you're sufficiently involved in someone else's tort, you may be liable for it yourself. I haven't read the Dutch court judgment, but the principle seems to be that if you are knowingly and deliberately inciting other people to break the law (especially doing so for personal profit), you should be liable for doing so, whether or not you did the actual primary infringement.
On the post: Guilty Until Proven Licensed: FACT Shuts Down Torrent Tracker Despite Cooperation
Re: User generated is possible-- if the user actually does the work
I would hazard a guess that in the case of the vast majority (and I mean vast; >99%) of works covered by copyright the copyright owner is probably not even aware that the work is covered by copyright. Works such as everyday emails, doodles, tweets, Facebook posts, TechDirt comments etc.
So, let's use digital cameras as an example. Someone takes a picture with their digital camera (or more likely, their camera phone) and uploads it to a picture-sharing site. Are they aware that they own the copyright in the photo? Probably. Do they consider the intricate systems of licences in place when they upload it? Maybe not. Do they consider that there might be something in the photograph (such as whatever they are taking a picture of) that might be protected by copyright itself thus making their photo unlawful? Almost certainly not.
What about situations where they've given their camera to a second party so that they are in their own picture, do they realise that they might not own the copyright and thus might be breaking the law by copying that photo onto their own computer or uploading it somewhere? Again, probably not.
So... in the vast majority of cases, what is copyright doing for people? Is it encouraging creativity? No. People would almost certainly be taking photos without copyright. Is it making them money? No. The vast majority of photos (and probably an even greater proportion of works in general) are taken with no hope of financial return. Is it getting in the way? Possibly; there will be some situations where their photograph may be illegal (due to the content, or due to someone else taking it). It may be that it will get taken down from a website due to a false (possibly automated) claim by a third party (as in this case, or many of the ContentID screw-ups).
People may like holding copyrights, but chances are that in the vast majority of cases, they have very little idea what they actually hold, and it probably won't be of any use to them. For most people, copyright is something that gets in their way, not helps them. Don't confuse "professional or semi-professional artists" with "copyright owners".
On the post: Guilty Until Proven Licensed: FACT Shuts Down Torrent Tracker Despite Cooperation
Re:
In order to sue FACT, you would have to show FACT did something unlawful (possibly not that hard given some of their actions) and that you were at a loss because of it.
Actually, they'd probably react with laughter, then turn up at your door with a (dubiously legal) arrest/search warrant, on the grounds that, as a user of a known pirate site, you were obviously a serious criminal.
Anyway, as the SurfTheChannel case (and similar cases) shows, FACT are pretty much beyond the reach of mere mortals; if you've suffered a loss because of them (say, they've lied to the police in order to get you arrested, used their pet financial investigation unit to illegally freeze your assets and so on), they've probably done a good enough job that you won't have any money left with which to sue them. Whereas they have full-strength Hollywood backing...
Remember, justice isn't about right and wrong, it is about who has enough money...
On the post: Duke's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
Maybe, maybe not. It seems they were almost sued at one point, but Vickerman didn't have the money to pull it off. Plus some of what they did looks suspiciously like conspiracy to commit a computer misuse offence. Then there are issues with misuse of private information, data protection and a few other things. Plus accusations of deceiving courts and so on. Hence the "possibly".
We'll see what happens when the appeal is heard.
On the post: Duke's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
It was a fun story, though...
On the post: Porn Copyright Troll's New Tactic: Maybe Public Humiliation Will Magically Make People Pay
Re: What's German libel law like?
On the post: Horrifying: Surfthechannel Criminal Conviction Driven By Hollywood Money -- Not The Government
Re: Re: Re: Crack
On the post: Horrifying: Surfthechannel Criminal Conviction Driven By Hollywood Money -- Not The Government
Re: Crack
Hmm, I tried to come up with an analogy involving crack houses, maps, signposts and so on, but I think it's simpler to just go to the facts:
It would be like setting up a platform where people could tell other people how to find stuff in other places, and being locked up because some of those people were telling people how to get to stuff that might be illegal for some of them to view.
Do we really need analogies to show how silly this is?
On the post: Horrifying: Surfthechannel Criminal Conviction Driven By Hollywood Money -- Not The Government
Re:
However, looking at the times between sentencing/conviction and appeal verdict of the last 10 or so reported cases, it seems to be of the order of 12-18 months (with a couple of outliers at 5 months, and one at 4 years).
On the post: Horrifying: Surfthechannel Criminal Conviction Driven By Hollywood Money -- Not The Government
Re: Re:
On the post: Horrifying: Surfthechannel Criminal Conviction Driven By Hollywood Money -- Not The Government
In this case...
Nope, the only thing missing are some of the even worse details alleged by Vickerman (such as alleged attempt by FACT to commit a crime as part of their "seizure" of his website, the repeated lies, the FACT (hah!) that they claimed to various people (his ISP, his utility providers) that he was selling counterfeit DVDs as a way of tricking(?) into handing over private information including nearly getting his ISP to tap his connection for them, that they got their pet trading standards organisation to freeze all his assets illegally (it was quickly overturned, but not before massive financial damage was done), how they refused to hand over the crucial CPS letter and were only made to by the judge after telling him that it helped their case, how they agreed not to present all their numbers on the level of damage done by copyright infringement during the trial (when Vickerman's team were prepared to rip it apart), but instead handed it in after the trial as part of the sentencing process, when it couldn't be challenged...).
Of course, all of these could be lies spread by a convicted criminal desperately trying to justify his actions, but some parts will be in the public record (if only we had a profession paid to investigate and report to the public on possible miscarriages of justice and other happenings in the public interest - but apparently all press reporting of this trial (other than a few specialist places) just parroted a FACT press briefing (in some cases, verbatim)...).
The judge repeatedly called him out in his sentencing remarks for being arrogant and showing no remorse - traits I imagine also exhibited by people who genuinely believe they are innocent and can't believe the treatment they are receiving.
Sadly (or perhaps for the best), Vickerman's full statement has disappeared from his website (along with the supporting documents; they were probably libellous, in breach of confidentiality and infringing copyright anyway), but not before a few people grabbed copies. Not sure whether it was FACT, the court or his lawyers who removed it.
One good thing; the statement revealed he is filing (or has filed?) an appeal, on 24 different grounds. I think that will be worth getting popcorn for.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Under the 1989 Extradition Act, the court could consider the case (due to the validity of the local arrest warrant) but it was primarily an executive decision (i.e. the Government deciding), and they rejected it partly on health grounds, partly due to the potential precedent of a Head of State in country A potentially being prosecuted in country B for their actions as Head of State (although the House of Lords rejected the second argument).
In contrast, the EAW "surrender" process is very much a judicial one; there is no direct input from the government; country A's appropriate judicial authority sends a request to country B's, if it is valid, the individual is surrendered. The result being that the UK government is legally required to take all steps it can to surrender Assange, when it wasn't to surrender Pinoshet.
[As an aside, since 2000, the UK also has a new extradition procedure, which turns that into much more of a judicial process; while the Government still gets a say, their decisions are subject to judicial review, and they must follow fairly strict guidelines. But that's another issue.]
On the post: US, UK Betray Basic Values To Get Assange At Any Cost
Re: Re: Re: Mr. Dotcom
He hasn't been charged with rape for the simple reason that (from my limited understanding of the Swedish criminal justice system) you can't really be charged with anything without being there.
He has, however, breached is bail conditions in the UK, and it will probably be rather hard for him to get out of that one (legally).
On the post: US, UK Betray Basic Values To Get Assange At Any Cost
Re: Re:
He is, however, accused in Sweden of rape (along with two counts of sexual molestation and one of unlawful coercion - conduct which could amount to two or three counts of rape and one of sexual assault in England), and one assumes will be charged with that if/when the Swedish authorities are in a position to do so.
[Of course "charge" is an English word, not a Swedish word, and given that it is being used in a legally-technical sense, and is a legally-technical word, it might not translate properly; see, for example, Assange's Supreme Court appeal which hinged on different translations and definitions of a "judicial authority".]
On the post: US, UK Betray Basic Values To Get Assange At Any Cost
UK government in a tight spot
It sounds like what they would be doing (potentially legal under international and domestic law) would be to withdraw permission for the embassy on the grounds that it was being (ab)used to harbour a fugitive (Assange having finally broken English law when he broke his bail conditions), and then they could legally go in and arrest him (but not any Ecuadorian diplomats).
Unfortunately, the UK government is in a rather awkward position whereby it *has* to take all legal steps it can to hand over Assange (due to legal obligations under UK and EU law), and that includes both making this threat, and trying to carry it out. It's a real mess.
On a couple of other points, the Swedish authorities have turned down offers to question him in the UK, the Ecuador embassy or via video-link, but there isn't anything improper about this, and it may be because they want to actually arrest, charge and try him for (fairly serious crimes), something it seems that they cannot do without him.
As to refusals to give assurances about not handing him over to the US, this also sounds a lot more damaging than it may be; from a constitutional point of view, while Sweden will have laws (not least via the EU or ECHR) preventing it from extraditing people in certain circumstances (i.e. where they could face the death penalty, inhumane or degrading treatment, or an unfair trial), and so any attempt to extradite Assange to the US could be challenged under those laws, it would be inappropriate, if not unlawful, for them to pre-empt such a decision by offering assurances now.
At least, that's my ... what's the going rate for 2 cents in GBP or SKR?
More details on revoking diplomatic status here: http://www.headoflegal.com/2012/08/15/julian-assange-can-the-uk-withdraw-diplomatic-status-from-the- ecuadorian-embassy/
A good summary of some common myths/background facts to the situation here: http://pme200.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/assange.html
On the post: SurfTheChannel Owner Anton Vickerman Sentenced To Four Years In Jail For 'Conspiracy'
Re: Re:
It seems that back then the problem was that the establishment (the courts and police) wanted a way to deal with people they didn't particularly like, and abused conspiracy laws, with Parliament unwilling to do anything about it. Now, of course, we have the establishment (in the form of the police, government and Parliament) doing the same, but much more effectively as they can pass legislation to create new offences as needed; whether public order offences, terrorism offences, 'cyber-bullying' or stuff about causing harassment, alarm or distress.
Fortunately, these days we have the courts, armed with the Human Rights Act, able to stand up to the government in a few of these cases. Ah, how things change...
Next >>