Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Swedish Prosecutors Drop Sexual Assault Investigations Against Julian Assange

posted by janrinok on Thursday August 13 2015, @09:06PM   Printer-friendly
from the just-another-5-years dept.

c0lo writes:

ABC (Australia) reports

Swedish prosecutors said they had dropped investigations into allegations of sexual assault made in 2010 against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange because they had run out of time to bring charges.

"Now that the statute of limitations has expired on certain offences, I am obliged to drop part of the investigation," prosecutor Marianne Ny said.

But prosecutors said they would continue with investigations over a further allegation of rape against Assange, also made in 2010.
...
They have a further five years to bring any charges over an allegation of rape.

In other news, Sweden and Ecuador have agreed to hold talks aimed at paving the way for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to be questioned over allegations of sexual assault, with 9news reporting that

Assange has challenged Swedish prosecutors to come to his refuge at the Ecuadorian embassy in London to take his statement on sex attack claims.
...
The 44-year-old Australian, who has been living at the embassy for more than three years, said in a statement on Thursday that he was an innocent man and hadn't been charged.

"Come to the embassy to take my statement or promise not to send me to the United States," he said, saying the actions of Swedish prosecutors were "beyond incompetence".

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Swedish Prosecutors Drop Sexual Assault Investigations Against Julian Assange | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 34 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by zocalo on Thursday August 13 2015, @09:40PM

    by zocalo (302) on Thursday August 13 2015, @09:40PM (#222533)
    On the subject of the "million$ of bobbies" UK.gov was actually complaining about how much it was costing the UK taxpayer to police the Ecuadorean embassy as part of their response to this change in status. Yes, he's clearly a flight risk and breached the terms of his UK bail, but the only people responsible for that bill are UK.gov. No one is forcing them to keep those police standing outside the embassy 24/7, regardless of what obligations they have towards the Swedish government they could simply rely on regular border controls and if that fails (which is likely, given how many people suspected of being prospective IS recruits seem to be able to make it to Syria/Iraq), then that would be just too bad.
    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   3  

  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday August 13 2015, @09:48PM

    by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Thursday August 13 2015, @09:48PM (#222540) Journal

    I see you've adopted the "UK.gov" moniker ;)

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 2) by zocalo on Thursday August 13 2015, @10:21PM

      by zocalo (302) on Thursday August 13 2015, @10:21PM (#222558)
      It's not a bad shorthand form in places where people are going to recognise the ISO 3166 codes and TLDs, so why not? "UK.gov" might be the most commonly seen one (thanks mostly to The Register), but there's no reason why you couldn't have "US.gov", "CN.mil", etc. as well; might not work to well for Canada/California though unless there was a defacto standard.

      There's also lots of potential for geek humour, of course.
      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!

      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday August 13 2015, @11:51PM

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday August 13 2015, @11:51PM (#222589)

        Yeah, they screwed up with those 2-letter country codes. It would have been better if they were all three letters instead; much less ambiguity that way, for only one extra character. Then you're have "usa", "can", "mex", "deu" (Germany), "bel", "fra", "ita", "rus", "irq", etc. I'm not sure what UK would be under that scheme though, maybe "uki"? (for United Kingdom and Northern Ireland)

        • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @12:06AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @12:06AM (#222596)

          ISO 3166-1 define 3 unique identifiers: alpha-2, alpha-3 and numeric. The United Kingdom is GB, GBR, and 826, respectively.

          • (Score: 2) by zocalo on Friday August 14 2015, @06:40AM

            by zocalo (302) on Friday August 14 2015, @06:40AM (#222712)
            True, the UK/GB is a bit of an anomaly since there are various groupings depending on which parts of the UK are being referred to; individual countries, Great Britain or The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland. When referring to the central Government in London however, GB.gov would be incorrect since central government *does* cover the entirety of the UK - devolution and hopes of separatist parties preferences not withstanding, hence the use of the unofficial ccTLD "version" of ISO-3166. Another likely variant would be the European Union since "EU" is not included as a grouping in ISO-3166 either, yet EU.gov and the .EU ccTLD are both all too real.
            --
            UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!

      • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday August 14 2015, @08:53AM

        by TheRaven (270) on Friday August 14 2015, @08:53AM (#222740) Journal
        The UK government's domain is gov.uk. A uk.gov domain would be the part of the US government that is responsible for the UK. There's also a good administrative reason for having it this way around: everything under the .uk domain is under the control of a UK-based registrar. The delegation of {cc}.* to the correct registrars would be painful and would lead to situations where the registrar for the TLD could exert undue influence over the country code portion.
        --
        sudo mod me up

        • (Score: 2) by zocalo on Friday August 14 2015, @10:36AM

          by zocalo (302) on Friday August 14 2015, @10:36AM (#222770)
          The usage has nothing to do with internet domain delegation other than using the same ISO defined list of country codes. It's merely a shorthand for a given country's government, military or whatever: "UK.gov" = "The UK's government", "UK.biz" = "UK based companies", and so on - the TLD part doesn't necessarily even have to exist in DNS for that matter, just be clear the context. If used consistently, as is generally the case on The Register, it's also potentially useful for searching and sematic tagging, kind of how stories on Slashdot are often tagged with the applicable state/country codes to aid searching.
          --
          UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by MrNemesis on Friday August 14 2015, @01:51PM

          by MrNemesis (1582) on Friday August 14 2015, @01:51PM (#222817)

          The .uk versus the .gb ISO 3166 debate is an interesting quirk and a side-effect of the fact that the Joint Academic NETwork [wikipedia.org] pre-dates the domain name system and most of the internet. JANET mail addresses [soylentnews.org] were basically backwards as we understand them today - username@uk.ac.someuniversity so when DNS and the internet came along it essentially became a backwards compatibility/interop hack to reverse the direction. Hence the use of .uk instead of .gb (especially since Ukraine didn't really have much say in the discussion at the time). Incidentally as well as being responsible for the .ac.uk domains Janet also manages .gov.uk.

          Source: buying one of the salty old CS bods a pint in the student union.

          --
          "To paraphrase Nietzsche, I have looked into the abyss and been sick in it."

  • (Score: 1) by purple_cobra on Friday August 14 2015, @05:46PM

    by purple_cobra (1435) on Friday August 14 2015, @05:46PM (#222917)

    I agree. I would much prefer my tax money spent on something more worthwhile, perhaps glitter on every dog turd in every street in the UK.
    Or to put it another way, stop wasting my money on this shit. If Sweden (and by extension the USA) insist on continuing with this stupidity, the UK should be billing them for it.