3 ms·
Seems a false dichotomy. I wouldn't suggest we "let him go free", but when any public service has resource limits, you have assign them reasonably to the public
by sago 12y ago
Seems a false dichotomy. I wouldn't suggest we "let him go free", but when any public service has resource limits, you have assign them reasonably to the public benefit.
As for whether this would happen for another person in the same situation who wasn't a major political bogeyman figure? I suspect not. I suspect they'd wait until intelligence suggested he had left, and apprehend him then. Or he'd just be on general no-travel lists at ports and airports. It strains my belief to think that this kind of theatre isn't in large part because he's Julian Assange, source of significant political embarrassment for the UK and its ally across the pond.
- matthewmacleod 12y agoI don't think that follows – surely if the target was a source of 'significant political embarrassment', the last thing you'd want to do is draw attention to the matter! Honestly, I don't know what would happen if he weren't a political hot potato. Much like Abu Hamza, I imagine the British establishment would rather he was just none of their problem. Unfortunately, that's not something they can do in this case.