3 ms·

I wonder if it would be possible to prevent the staff entering the embassy? We can't enter it legally, but we surly could prevent people entering? I understand

I wonder if it would be possible to prevent the staff entering the embassy? We can't enter it legally, but we surly could prevent people entering? I understand it would create a stink, but starving the man out must be something they have thought about.

madaxe_again 12y ago
Interfering with diplomatic staff is also illegal. I understand that everybody apparently wants to see Assange burn at the stake for being a sexual predator (not that the evidence is terribly substantive...), but that's not a justification for an act of war.
- alex_hitchins 12y ago
  > (not that the evidence is terribly substantive...) What evidence do you want/expect to see? Genuinely intrigued as so what burden of proof is deemed necessary in this situation.
  - madaxe_again 12y ago
    The burden of proof is always on the prosecutor - they have to prove you guilty, not the other way around.
    - alex_hitchins 12y ago
      Sorry, my point wasn't clear. What evidence would be needed for 'social consensus' to see this as a 'valid' trial and not some made up charge? Part of me thinks that if this was a made up charge to get him to the USA, they would want to ensure they had solid evidence to prosecute.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      For a criminal prosecution to be successful the prosecutor needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did it. But to bring a prosecution the English prosecutors use a "balance of probabilities" test. As a random member of the public I want to know that the evidence they have is at least balance of probabilities before they bring a prosecution. The higher burden of proof is for the people at court to test. It's not for me to test the evidence against that higher burden of proof.
Mvandenbergh 12y ago
They could simply declare the diplomatic staff persona non-grata and revoke their diplomatic status. They'd have to leave the country. They could even cancel the diplomatic status of the embassy. That wouldn't have immediate effect and the Ecuadorians would have treaty guaranteed rights to clear out their effects but it would eventually lead to a moment where Assange is inside a building emptied of diplomats which ceases to be an embassy at some defined hour.
ropiku 12y ago
I remember the press saying the UK can always revoke the diplomatic status of the embassy but that would create a diplomatic precedence and put UK embassies everywhere in danger.

madaxe_again 12y ago

Interfering with diplomatic staff is also illegal. I understand that everybody apparently wants to see Assange burn at the stake for being a sexual predator (not that the evidence is terribly substantive...), but that's not a justification for an act of war.

alex_hitchins 12y ago
> (not that the evidence is terribly substantive...) What evidence do you want/expect to see? Genuinely intrigued as so what burden of proof is deemed necessary in this situation.
- madaxe_again 12y ago
  The burden of proof is always on the prosecutor - they have to prove you guilty, not the other way around.
  - alex_hitchins 12y ago
    Sorry, my point wasn't clear. What evidence would be needed for 'social consensus' to see this as a 'valid' trial and not some made up charge? Part of me thinks that if this was a made up charge to get him to the USA, they would want to ensure they had solid evidence to prosecute.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    For a criminal prosecution to be successful the prosecutor needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did it. But to bring a prosecution the English prosecutors use a "balance of probabilities" test. As a random member of the public I want to know that the evidence they have is at least balance of probabilities before they bring a prosecution. The higher burden of proof is for the people at court to test. It's not for me to test the evidence against that higher burden of proof.

Mvandenbergh 12y ago

They could simply declare the diplomatic staff persona non-grata and revoke their diplomatic status. They'd have to leave the country. They could even cancel the diplomatic status of the embassy. That wouldn't have immediate effect and the Ecuadorians would have treaty guaranteed rights to clear out their effects but it would eventually lead to a moment where Assange is inside a building emptied of diplomats which ceases to be an embassy at some defined hour.

ropiku 12y ago

I remember the press saying the UK can always revoke the diplomatic status of the embassy but that would create a diplomatic precedence and put UK embassies everywhere in danger.