Chelsea and Julian are in Jail. History Trembles. 1010

Tonight both Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange are in jail, both over offences related to the publication of materials specifying US war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, and both charged with nothing else at all. No matter what bullshit political and MSM liars try to feed you, that is the simple truth. Manning and Assange are true heroes of our time, and are suffering for it.

If a Russian opposition politician were dragged out by armed police, and within three hours had been convicted on a political charge by a patently biased judge with no jury, with a lengthy jail sentence to follow, can you imagine the Western media reaction to that kind of kangaroo court? Yet that is exactly what just happened in London.

District Judge Michael Snow is a disgrace to the bench who deserves to be infamous well beyond his death. He displayed the most plain and open prejudice against Assange in the 15 minutes it took for him to hear the case and declare Assange guilty, in a fashion which makes the dictators’ courts I had witnessed, in Babangida’s Nigeria or Karimov’s Uzbekistan, look fair and reasonable, in comparison to the gross charade of justice conducted by Michael Snow.

One key fact gave away Snow’s enormous prejudice. Julian Assange said nothing during the whole brief proceedings, other than to say “Not guilty” twice, and to ask a one sentence question about why the charges were changed midway through this sham “trial”. Yet Judge Michael Snow condemned Assange as “narcissistic”. There was nothing that happened in Snow’s brief court hearing that could conceivably have given rise to that opinion. It was plainly something he brought with him into the courtroom, and had read or heard in the mainstream media or picked up in his club. It was in short the very definition of prejudice, and “Judge” Michael Snow and his summary judgement is a total disgrace.

We wrapped up the final Wikileaks and legal team meeting at 21.45 tonight and thereafter Kristian Hrafnsson and I had dinner together. The whole team, including Julian, is energised rather than downhearted. At last there is no more hiding for the pretend liberals behind ludicrous Swedish allegations or bail jumping allegations, and the true motive – revenge for the Chelsea Manning revelations – is now completely in the open.

To support the persecution of Assange in these circumstances is to support absolute state censorship of the internet. It is to support the claim that any journalist who receives and publishes official material which indicates US government wrongdoing, can be punished for its publication. Furthermore this US claim involves an astonishing boost to universal jurisdiction. Assange was nowhere near the USA when he published the documents, but nonetheless US courts are willing to claim jurisdiction. This is a threat to press and internet freedom everywhere.

These are scary times. But those may also be the most inspiring of times.


We are reassembling Wikileaks/Julian legal and media team from 10am Friday in Doughty Street Chambers. I and others will be available for further media interviews from then. I can be reached on 07979 691085.


Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the articles, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations


Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

1,010 thoughts on “Chelsea and Julian are in Jail. History Trembles.

1 2 3 4 11
  • Isa

    I am irked and very worried . Yesterday I joined the protest here but only 5 people came out . One delightful man from Australia who flew from the U.K. and while talking about how difficult it is to bring people out he said that there is more solidarity and personal interaction between the homeless community . And he is right . People please come out if you can , find an event next to you . protesting on social media or online is simply not going to do it . It’s a government’s wet dream if we all only protest online .

    I can’t take the image of asssnge being taken from the embassy and I can’t find the words to express my anger at journalists who have been mocking him . There are a lot of abject people around us . It’s Devastating . We let this happen and we are all doomed .

    • J

      It is Devastating. We will not let this happen. We are not doomed. I know this from losing everything several times and sleeping rough for a year or two. Your aquaintance is not only right, he’s pointing you toward the solution. Community.

  • Andyoldlabour

    Thanks Craig for all your articles, particularly this one.
    This is an unprecedented moment in the judicial history of the UK, because I think we are about to witness an unashamed travesty of “justice”.
    This is not “justice”, this is a warning to any other well intentioned, honest people who wish to reveal the truth, because the state will not let thim and they are convinced of their invincibility.
    This may be from a film/fiction, but this is how the state/military view the rest of us.

  • HoBoJo

    It’s shocking that mainstream journalists and newspapers have failed to stand up for journalism. Editors should be roaring in support of Assange, free speech and transparency, but instead they look meek, cowed and fearful. The Guardian hasn’t even allowed open comments yet.

    It’s even more terrible the way readers in major liberal newspapers like the NYT and Washington Post have responded in their comment sections. The data Wikileaks released was accurate. It showed malfeasance in government and political parties, but instead of demanding better from their government, they cheer the arrest of a man who has shown the corruption at the heart of their system.

    It is frankly frightening the way that laws are allowing governments to intrude into the private lives of citizens, but clamp down on any commentary or disclosure about those government or that the government sees as unacceptable. And terrifying that this is being supported by supposedly educated people, somehow blind to the dangers of the policies they have been conditioned to support.

    • Rhys Jaggar

      It is not shocking at all. I can tell you that fifteen years ago, the Press were exactly the same. They identified the winning side and backed them or if in the private sector they read billionaire’s diktat and followed the owner’s line.

      Miscarriages of justice are no longer news, unless they involve gender/identity politics.

      A millionaire black footballer being called a c**t whilst earning £15m a year is an outrage.

      Julian Assange is getting what he deserves.

      And as for the US destroying Venezuelan democracy: good for them!

      Those are press values nowadays.

      Do you look up to them? I don’t….

      • Goose

        Interference in the media by self-serving elites is so dangerous to freedom. Just one individual connected to the security establishment at a newspaper or broadcaster(BBC) would have a chilling effect on all investigative reporting there. Especially if investigating anything with potential political ramifications.

        These self-serving elites are by protecting themselves, destroying everything and the values they claim they hold dear.

      • Tom

        Absolutely. The obsession with black footballers being called names is perfect for our dysfunctional media as it fits in with at least three strands of their narrative: a) We should feel sorry for/empathise with the very rich b) The media are liberal and rooting out injustice (In fact, this usually only happens when the victims are wealthy) and c) The media are trying to bring races together (in fact the obsession with racism is a divide-and-rule tactic aiming to do the opposite).
        In a similar vein, I was listening incredulously to a snippet on Five Live earlier (with regard to footballers at Bolton not being paid) where the financial correspondent was suggesting that earning £5,000 A WEEK was not that much.

    • J

      I fully expect large sections of the media to smash themselves over this while losing the argument.

    • Old Mark


      As you’ve raised the conduct of legacy media in this case, Landale of the Beeb’s latest comment, issued in response to Corbyn’s tweeted support of Assange, really takes some beating-

      Mr Corbyn’s intervention “means the battle over Assange’s future will now be as much political as it is legal”….as if the treatment of Assange since 2010 and right up to Hunt’s statement yesterday, has been hitherto unconnected from its political context!

      Full report here, for those who can stomach it-

      • Jo1

        I can barely stomach the BBC on any level but risked Politics Live today. On Assange the BBC is just vile as the panel. The inclusion of David Starkey is bonkers and all he has done is insult Ash Sarkar, without any intervention by the (new) presenter.

  • Yonatan

    “He is our property and we can get the facts and the truth from him.”

    US Senator Manchin oin the arrest of Julian Assange.

    At least it confirms the long suspected view that journalists are bought and owned.

    • Michael McNulty

      Sounds like laying the groundwork for water-boarding. All countries that torture need to be brought down. It’s medieval, but I think what we see now with the behaviour of the US across the world is what we’d have seen had the Nazis won WWII. Just a few years behind is all.

  • Clive p

    The US charges are old hat, investigated under Obama and not proceeded with. It seems obvious that the U.K. government agreed with the US that the extradition request should be on a relatively light charge so that there was not the outrage that an espionage charge would generate causing problems for the government. Once the extradition is completed the US will find ‘new’ evidence for much worse charges. This would require UK consent but I would assume that all this was worked out beforehand and the US told consent will be given.

    • craig Post author

      Thanks Clive. Yes, that is exactly the analysis of the legal team too. Are you up for media interviews? We are shortly going to enter the stage where journos are looking for new faces/angles.

      • David Macilwain

        In tonight’s news on SBS, PM Morrison observed that “we won’t be opposing Assange’s extradition to the US” – while saying he would be offered the same consular services as any other Australian abroad. As Morrison looks set to go, it’s what now Opposition Labor leader Bill Shorten said that is more relevant for Assange’s future – “we take the same position as the government”. Only the Greens’ Richard Di Natale expressed some opposition to this Kangaroo court process.
        Presumably “other Australians abroad facing criminal charges” includes Australian citizen Brenton Tarrant. One might observe, perhaps controversially, that our Parliamentary leaders offer more effective support to their White Terrorist than they do to someone dedicated to exposing their support for terrorists around the world. Who needs “peace”?

        • Hieroglyph

          They’d probably help more if he used to fight for ISIS. Sadly, I’m serious.

          I’m afraid I can’t, for the life of me, force myself to vote for Bill. The way the MSM is swinging behind him and his relentless virtue signalling is at odds with what we know of his character. He’s bent, and I have already confidently predicted he’ll get found out, sooner or later.

          Australia has the same problems as the US, albeit in slightly nascent form. Rampant corruption, odd decisions by judges (particularly in pedo cases), and Rupert Murdoch (worse here). I can’t think of a single Oz politician that has defended Assange. Perhaps Rudd, in a limited fashion, and look what happened to him. The cross-party feminist wing won’t say a word, due to fake rape charges, and their addiction to virtue signalling, white coat wearing, Nancy Pelosi style bullshit. The men, probably know their careers are swiftly over, the minute they defend Assange. A sorry state indeed.

          I’m reading more hopeful takes.I’m not convinced, but some argue that he’s been taken by US white hats, in preparation for the upcoming treason trials. A lovely tale, full of optimism. I doubt Assange gets that kind of ending, but hopefully I’m wrong.

    • Rhys Jaggar

      The really interesting question is whether he will get a trial by ‘twelve good (wo)men and true’ or whether US justice equates to some supine judge dishing out what US Establishment demands.

      One suspects that twelve jurors in Fairfax County, VA (home of the CIA) might respond differently to twelve in somewhat radical districts of Massachusetts or California.

      Your trial back in the 1980s showed that UK juries were more than happy to tell a bent judge to get stuffed.

      One can only hope that US juries are similarly full of backbone in 2019/20.

      If of course ‘land of the Free’ US law still allows a journalist to be tried by a jury of his peers….

      • Martinned

        OTOH, UK juries don’t have to be unanimous, while US juries do. (Except in Oregon, for reasons that I can explain another day.)

  • kk

    It did happen with Sergei Udaltsov (except for a much shorter sentence in comparison: 4.5 years which then turned into 3). But since he is a left-wing politician, for the West, that hardly made any newspapers here.

    • Artem J

      Udaltsov was accused in organization of protests which ended in violence between the police and demonstrators. There’s very weak connection with Assange’s case.

      • kk

        Yes. But I am not comparing the cases overall. Rather , it was in connection to the original author’s statement of:

        “if a Russian opposition politician were dragged out by armed
        police, and within three hours had been convicted on a political
        charge by a patently biased judge with no jury, with a lengthy jail
        sentence to follow, can you imagine the Western media reaction”

        There have been some, somewhat (vaguely) comparable cases, yet because their victim is not advocating the regime-change agenda (or advocating one that’s not “friendly”) it is all almost entirely ignored.

        Not that it’s a surprise of any sort of course. Just a minor inaccuracy in the original text at this point. (Sigh)

  • Ewan

    My MP, Ian Murray, thinks police and judicial actions have to do with a Swedish investigation into possible sexual misconduct and that the due process of the law should be allowed to take its course…

  • Andyoldlabour

    Grouse Beater

    I really think that your moral compass (if you even have one) needs a serious overhaul.

    • Grouse Beater

      Hi Andy

      I’d certainly would have lost my moral compass, even one borrowed from the bag man to the banks, Gordon Brown, if the person you’ve answered using my name was actually me. Here’s the real Grouse Beater’s thoughts on Assange:

      PS: I have alerted Craig!

  • John Macadam

    I have no qualification in the Law of England, but is being a narcissist a crime down there?

  • writeon

    I think one of the most telling aspects of this whole Assange Affair, is the dreadful collapse of liberal/left opinion and views within the carefully guarded confines of the corporate media, exemplified by the Guardian, which has sunk to journalistic depths of depravity that only a few short years ago would have been thought unthinkable and bizarre, a nightmare vision, where the Guardian and the rest of the media are taken over by the state and become uncritical mouthpieces for the security services in the UK and the US.

    Yesterday the Guardian was attempting to link Assange and Wikileaks to Trump and Russia, a low form of smear, based on no evidence at all. The Guardian even dregged up the fake news article written by Luke Harding about a ‘secret’ meeting between Trump’s henchman Paul Manfort with Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy, a scandalous fabrication that doesn’t stand up to a moments scrutiny! How absolutely shameful of them. I don’t, apart from the money, understand how any decent and honourable journalist can stomach working for the Guardian. Have none of them the guts to stand up to the ghastly regime that’s occupied the Guardian these days?

    • Squeeth

      It turned into Volkischer Beobachter and is evolving into Der Sturmer. Dump this rag.

    • joel

      After two years not one of them has called out the Guardian’s Putindunnitism or its antisemitism smear on Corbyn, so I would say the answer is no.

    • Jimmeh

      I am very curious to know what happened at The Grauniad around the time those GCHQ agents came by to smash up a laptop. Why did The Grauniad allow that?

      Rusbridger was editor at that time; within a year he was gone, Viner had been installed, and The Graun launched a protracted assault on both Assange and Corbyn. Rusbridger had overseen a collaboration between The Graun and Assange, WashPo and NYT. In 2014 he “unexpectedly” resigned as a director of Scott Trust Limited, in 2015 as editor-in-chief. Wikipedia says (based on a Times article that is paywalled) that Rusbridger was facing a revolt among Guardian journalists, against both his editorship and his impending appointment as chair of the Scott Limited board, the revolt apparently led by Polly Toynbee, Nils Pratley and Katherine Viner.

      I’m aware of no dirt on Rusbridger; I assume his hands are clean. But it seems clear that something happened at The Guardian around that time, because the paper was rapidly transformed from a mostly left-leaning paper of record into a neo-liberal propaganda rag that publishes a mixture of vacuous clickbait and blatant lies (see Luke Harding, for example – a “journalist” who writes what MI5 tells him to write). One day, perhaps Rusbridger will publish a full account of these events; I can think of noone else whose account I would be inclined to believe.

      • Node

        I’m aware of no dirt on Rusbridger [….] But it seems clear that something happened at The Guardian around [2015] ….

        In 2015, David Pemsel was appointed chief executive of Guardian Media Group.
        In 2015, Katharine Viner was appointed editor-in-chief of the Guardian.
        In 2016 Viner and Pemsel successfully opposed Rusbridger becoming Chair of the Scott Trust Ltd, whose responsibility it is to ensure that the Guardian’s editorial policy continues on “the same lines and in the same spirit as heretofore”

      • J

        From Jonathan Cook, here:

        “In autumn 2002 the Observer newspaper’s correspondent Ed Vulliamy found confirmation of a terrible truth many of us already suspected. In a world-exclusive, he persuaded Mel Goodman, a former senior CIA official who still had security clearance at the Agency, to go on record that the CIA knew there were no WMD in Iraq. Everything the US and British governments were telling us to justify the coming attack on Iraq were lies.

        Then something even more extraordinary happened. The Observer failed to print the story. In his book Flat Earth News, Nick Davies recounts that Vulliamy, one of the Observer’s most trusted reporters, submitted the piece another six times in different guises over the next half year. Each time the Observer spiked the story.

        Vulliamy never went public with this monumental crime against real journalism (should there not be a media trials section at the Hague?). And the supposedly liberal-left Observer was never held accountable for its grave betrayal of its readership and the world community.”

        Rather suggests the rot began earlier.

        • Michael McNulty

          I too refer to The Hague but perhaps in light of US and UK atrocities began by Bush and Blair, reconvening Nuremberg may be a more appropriate venue. At least from the comments supporting Julian it is clear “the authorities” haven’t cowed the people, and so long as we’re not broken future trials for these criminals, their spooks and their turn-keys is always an option.

    • John2o2o

      I have for some time believed that the UK state security services took overall control of the Guardian after they raided their offices and ordered them to destroy their copies of Edward Snowden’s NSA files in 2014.

  • Raskolnikov

    Trump and Moreno are washing their hands of this. The Pontius Pilatus of our age.

  • Casual Observer

    Already the story has blown out beyond the control of the mainstream with Jezza and others committing fulsome support. Even the BBC seem to be giving the story a factual basis. Its of note that the BBC, and no doubt others are sticking to the terms ‘Sexual Assault’ and ‘Rape’ in connection with the Swedish complaints that precipitated this whole business some years ago, clearly it must be the hope that the 50% or more of the public who rely on the MSM for their opinion forming will be swayed by the illusion of rather nasty sexual misconduct ?

    From memory, the original 2 charges in Sweden arose after Mr Assange made a speaking trip there, during the course of which he enjoyed congress with 2 ladies. The 2 ladies shortly after discovered via each other that neither was in a unique situation, and decided jointly (?) to make complaints that were made possible by Sweden’s labyrinthine laws on sexual conduct, and certainly at that time here, would have been hard to fit to existing statutes ? Of the 2 complaints, the complainant in the more serious one of rape, withdrew her complaint when things became very public indeed, and went to, or all places, Israel. Just leaving the charge of not using a prophylactic without the partners consent.

    Let me reiterate, the above scenario is entire from memory, and may be defective in minor ways. And its likely that years after the event, researching the subject matter on the Internet may be the work of many hours. Although in view of the fact that the term ‘Sexual Assault’ is likely to be the last arrow in the quiver of those who wish to paint Mr Assange as a blackguard, its maybe a part of the story that deserves to be examined in the hope that the whole issue can be determined in the public mind on the real issues rather than the somewhat bizzare notion that not using a rather easily observed bit of kit is somehow a grave sexual assault ?

    It will be interesting to see if the Swedish authorities do actually revive the complaint, One would have thought that complainant will realise that it has the potential to go well beyond 15 minutes of fame potentially leaving marks that last a life time. We’ll see.

    As for the District Judge and his remarks, maybe best not to get too worked up about them as District Judges are in the first rank of big legal battles that attract public attention, and are expected to become casualties from the first salvo 🙂

    Things will get more balanced as the case comes before the bigger dogs in the pack, those who will wish to be leaving pleasing pictures for posterity.

  • Tatyana

    from Russian news today:
    “…Assange had a cat named James, who was given to him in 2016. However, after tightening the rules of stay in the Embassy, Assange had to part with him. According to some reports, the pet was placed in a shelter…”

    It is cruelty.
    What danger was a cat?

      • John2o2o

        I challenge that facetious assertion Goodwin.

        There are a number of people on the net theorising that it may be possible, but I have yet to find a report of anyone actually having died as the result of having a cat allergy.

        Not that it is of any relevance in this case.

    • Robyn

      I read that Julian voluntarily gave the cat away because he believed it would be cruel to keep a cat in conditions that precluded any access to the outdoors.

      • Tatyana

        Robyn, don’t you find it weird that the cat have been probably not allowed outdoors? There must be a lot of people in the Embassy to easily let the cat in or out, I see no problem with it. If only someone wants to make the prisoner’s life as dull as possible…

        A pet! it’s so natural to have an animal-friend by your side, to make you feel happy, anytime. Me myself have a cat, she is beauty and adds to the pleasures of the life

  • Jones

    True colours are on display for all to see, corruption being openly protected against those who expose it. Puppet judge Michael Snow showed his true colours with his blatant biased remarks it is not Assange’s personality on trial but his alleged ‘crime’ of exposing a war crime, yes it seems it’s now a crime to expose a war crime. Theresa May showed her true deceitful colours when she gleefully announced Assange’s arrest in the house of commons claiming no-one is above the law while not pursuing the war crimes of Tony Blair. Those vile MP’s who loudly cheered in the house of commons when Theresa May made her announcement showed their true dishonourable colours. Moreno showed his true Judas colours in expelling Assange from the embassy. The freedom to expose the lies and crimes of corrupt power is on trial.

    • Sharp Ears

      I will repeat her words –

      ‘Theresa May has given a statement on Assange. Speaking to the Commons before updating MPs on the Brexit delay, she said:

      I am sure that the whole House will welcome the news this morning that the Metropolitan Police have arrested Julian Assange. Arrested for breach of bail after nearly seven years in the Ecuadorian embassy. He has also been arrested in relation to an extradition request from the United States authorities. This is now a legal matter before the courts. The home secretary will make a statement on this later, but I would like to thank the Metropolitan Police for carrying out their duties with great professionalism and to welcome the cooperation of the Ecuadorian government in bringing this matter to a resolution. This goes to show that in the United Kingdom no one is above the law.’

      • Rhys Jaggar

        Why on earth did an MP not stand up and say:

        ‘ Mr Speaker, I would like to inform the lady, who etiquette dictates must be referred to as the Rt Hon Member for Maidenhead, that I neither welcome this news nor consider it demonstrating anything but supine British kowtowing to American power.

        It marks a dangerous change in attitudes to justice, rendering justice inferior to power.

        It displays a distinct lack of UK sovereignty in judicial procedure; creates a two-tier justice system which protects murdering Prime Ministers but targets journalists exposing state crime; and shows obvious collusion by British authorities in trying to engineer a mechanism to deport Mr Assange without creating strong adverse publicity for the Government.

        As I do not welcome this news, her hopes that the whole House will welcome it are unfortunately dashed…’

        It might suggest there were one MP with strong principles….

        • John2o2o

          Indeed Rhys.

          How often does the Prime Minister see it as her place to comment on cases subject to ongoing legal procedure?

          I think her commenting upon this at all was out of order. It is a legal matter. She can have her own private opinion, but it is absolutely none of her business in her capacity as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

          I think in the light of her comments and those of senior ministers such as Javid, Hunt and Duncan that Julian is a political prisoner of a very hostile UK government regime.

      • Antonym

        This goes to show that in the United Kingdom no one is above the law.’ First time I hear that Theresa May does humor. She won’t pass an O level in it though.

    • fonso

      “Steal the presidency”
      And you’re calling other people conspiracy theorists..

    • Casual Observer

      Clearly Madame Hillary does not know when to STFU, but then we knew that already. Be interesting to see if her opining on the possibility of ‘Droning’ Assange becomes part of the extradition proceedings.

  • Charles Bostock

    Why this hatred of the district judge and the criticisms that the trial took place with lightening speed? After all, it was an open and shut case, wasn’t it? The man jumped bail (what else was he doing in the embassy for seven years – learning Spanish? ) and has been convicted and sentenced. Nothing mysterious or reprehensible about that, surely? Was the judge supposed to find that Assange hadn’t jumped bail?

    • Isa

      Because Charles judges are supposed to be neutral and impartial rather than making personal sarcastic remarks that go against any judicial ethics . If you can’t sbide by that you should never be allowed in the profession . It’s a simple , clear cut premise .

      • Charles Bostock

        Ah, OK, it’s the remark you’re exercised about and not the fact that the judge found him guilty. I must have misunderstood 🙂

        • Clark

          It is about far more than that remark, as Charles should recognise in his own question:

          “The man jumped bail – what else was he doing in the embassy for seven years – learning Spanish?”

          He was afforded asylum from the US – as recognised by the highest authority, the United Nations.

          He did not jump bail. His location was known to all the authorities, he could not move from it, and he made himself available to the Swedish investigators. The UK CPS persuaded Sweden to stall those investigations; the UK and Sweden therefore conspired to obstruct justice.

          Yes, an open and shut case it should have been. If there were justice in the UK, Assange would now be free.

          • Martinned

            Euh, no. Diplomatic asylum as granted by Ecuador is not a recognised thing outside of South America, and in no way recognised by the United Nations.

            As for the absconding, you seem to misunderstand the elements of the crime:

            If a person who—
            (a )has been released on bail in criminal proceedings, and
            (b) having reasonable cause therefor, has failed to surrender to custody,fails to surrender to custody at the appointed place as soon after the appointed time as is reasonably practicable he shall be guilty of [absconding].

            The fact that his location was known to the authorities is neither here nor there.

        • Isa

          The remarks Charles are a manifestation of lack of impartiality which is fundamental for a judge . Guilty of skipping bail on a case with no charges that was dropped years ago and with an equally questionable behaviour of the CPS. When jurisprudence is not there , equity is the next source of law . The judge clearly hasn’t studied much of it , it seems .

      • John2o2o

        In the UK is is common practice for judges to make unpleasant comments about people who have been found guilty of crimes.

        Julian was I believe found guilty (in absentia) of skipping bail. Hence the judge felt free to comment.

        I don’t like the practice, but Julian not alone in being subjected to this form of verbal abuse.

    • Herbie

      What about his use of the term “narcissist” in relation to Julian.

      How did the judge come to conclude that.

      Upon what evidence did he conclude that.

      Was he influenced by media’s use of that same smear.

      And if so, isn’t that rather worrying.

    • Sharp Ears

      I hadn’t realized that District Judge Snow had conducted a trial and sentence all in one day. Remarkable. Indeed ‘lightning’ speed. I think ‘lightening’ refers to dyeing one’s hair. etc.

    • giyane


      If narcissism is a crime, the first person who needs arresting is Donald Trump.
      Perverting the course of justice on the other hand is a crime, and Mrs May implying that the Swedish case is relevant to Assange is a perversion of the course of justice, as is the extradition of a whistleblower for revealing State crimes. You recently commented on Chris Huhne who was sent to prison for perverting the course of justice. Would you care to call for the arrest of the Prime Minister and the impeachment of the POTUS for similar ( in your view ) crimes?

    • Ken Kenn

      It sounded a bit like General Melchett prior to ” The Flanders Pigeon Murderer ………!! ” trial of Captain Blackadder.

      ” Plump – speckled Jim ” if I recall?

      You’re not related by any chance are you?

      The MSM are hovering above all this resting on a cloud.

      They disowned Assange a long time ago to keep in step with the US.

      Bunch of snivelling weedling cowards.

      Some of them might end up in the Dock themselves giving evidence.

      Funny how history can catch up with people.

      It wasn’t me guv – it was nast Julian.

      I only passed on what he said.

      By the way – if the entirety of the US Security Services rely on one password then my advice to the Generals is to just write that password in a book and keep it safe somewhere.

      Perhaps under your 5 Star Hats?

      I mean blimey – a password?

  • John Goss

    Excellent summary. Thank you for the work you have done in exposing our onward goose-stepping march towards fascism.We have become a disgrace to the word democracy. All our journalists (bar a few stalwarts) take their payslips and ask no questions. My fear is for the young – those who are too removed from the horrors of war and wartime concentration camps – who are unlikely without help to piece together what has happened since the turn of the century. Bagram was a concentration camp. Guantanamo Bay is a concentration camp.

    Good people who are speaking out against this ongoing march away from common decency towards a police state are one by one losing their freedom. It is a very sad state of affairs. I want to cry for the world.

    • Rhys Jaggar

      Msybe that most Unbritish thing of needing others to liberate us is before us?

      Maybe we need trade sanctions like apartheid South Africa had to force us to mend our broken political system?

      Nothing to do with skin colour, to do with contempt for the law, legal due process snd basic standards of human decency.

      • John Goss

        I would welcome liberation from any quarter Rhys but hope it might come with the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. I am sure they (Tories) are trying to get this dirty business done before there is a spark of hope.

        • Jo1

          They’re also going to use this dirty business against Corbyn in the approaching Council elections in England and, should they be held, the EU elections.

    • Michael McNulty

      I suspect the real purpose of Guantanamo was somewhere the resistance to US empire would face show trials and a sham appeals system followed by swift execution, with none of this twenty years on death row cruelty. An extermination camp selling itself to the world as a place of legal process. Not only fighters would face the death penalty but financial backers and spokespersons. People like Julian, really.

      I’d say the US wasn’t able to use it as intended was because the resistance to the US has been so strong, and politicians and generals in DC knew if they simply murdered people they faced being targeted at home themselves. In the unlikely event the US becomes unassailable (it is good at mass-murder but piss-poor at war), Guantanamo will start liquidating the countless enemies the US has created for itself.

  • Yarkob

    your comment about “if this had been a Russian” is particularly germane, Craig, as only a day before this the FakeGuardian carried a story about Navalny’s conditions of detention in Moscow. it seems to have disappeared now. funny that…

  • Martinned

    Wait, hang on, is the suggestion here that Assange is not guilty of absconding? Because that’s not exactly a difficult charge to prove. The bailee is required to be somewhere at a certain time and day, and then he isn’t there. That doesn’t exactly require long days of witnesses being cross-examined.

      • Martinned

        Sorry, but I’m just trying to parse the original post to see what it is exactly that we’re outraged about today. Because I can see being outraged about judicial bias. But outrage about a guilty verdict – if indeed such was handed down* – seems less convincing.

        * I don’t seem to be able to work out whether the absconding charge was already tried. Craig’s post seems to suggest as much, but it isn’t very clear, and that would be very fast. If anyone can shed light on this, I’d be grateful.

    • Clark

      Are there no exceptions Martined? For instance, getting run over and thus being in hospital wouldn’t count as ‘absconding’, would it? How about sheltering from gunmen and thus being unable to surrender?

        • Ken Kenn

          Why bother with the charade of jumping bail then – just hand him over to the Yanks in front of the media?

          The idea appears to be to get him into a prison and then sneak him out without any one knowing it’s happened eventually after pretending that he has been fairly tried in the UK for bail jumping ( six months?).

          As I said previously they had best hope there isn’t A GE and a Corbyn government.

          The PTB have to move fast – just in case.

          • Martinned

            The idea appears to be

            Well, someone’s idea anyway. Conspiracy theories abound. But if that actually happened, it would be the biggest offence by the executive against the rule of law since the time of Charles I, so I’m gonna go ahead and be skeptical.

    • giyane


      We have a mentally challenged young man on our street who often says ” Wait, hang on ” talking to voices maybe in his head. He does respond politely to actual voices, so I will try it with you.

      Mrs May is lying when she says that Assange is wanted in relation to a case in Sweden.
      In your opinion, which is worse , lying or telling the truth as Assange did about USUKIS war crimes?

      • Martinned

        I’m not quite sure if I understand your comment, since (with respect) it’s a bit incoherent, but I’ll try to respond:

        Last I heard, the Swedish authorities were considering whether to “revive” their investigation, so accusing Mrs. May of lying seems harsh. In any event, Mr Assange’s actions with respect to (alleged) war crimes have my full support. I don’t think he should be extradited to the US, not even on the hacking charges that are the subject of his extradition request. But I also think that he’s in no immediate risk of being extradited, and that all of this should be sorted out in a court of law.

        P.S. In case people hadn’t seen, the US arrest warrant is here.

        • giyane


          ” the Swedish authorities were considering whether to “revive” their investigation, ”

          That’s because the charges have been withdrawn. Derr.

          I realise it must be hard for you to concentrate with all those voices going on in the background but everything you’ve posted today is total drivel, Why go on and on ?

          • Robyn

            There were no charges. Julian was never charged. He was wanted for questioning re allegations. I read about Julian being charged in almost every comment section under an article about Julian. It just goes to show how a lie (that Julian was charged with rape) travels and sticks (as we say in Australia) like shit to a blanket.

  • pete

    Thanks Craig for your report on the latest in the case of Julian Assange. For the judge to utter those words is unfortunate, it is a second hand opinion that he parroted and betrays his bias.
    Like other contributors to the comments I have written to my MP expressing my concern about his possible extradition. Apparently exposing war crimes is a very serious offence, the saying goes that the truth will set you free, it need updating.

    • John Goss

      Is there no way (The Law Society perhaps?) that Michael Fox can be brought to task for sitting in court with obvious bigotry in his heart?

      • Martinned

        If you mean Michael Snow, then no. The Law Society has no authority over judges, not even if they are also solicitors.

        (I tried to google whether he is in fact a solicitor, but didn’t find anything. I did come across this story though, which suggests he may not be a raging reactionary.)

      • Casual Observer

        You need to get a realistic picture of District Judges ? Their primary function will be dealing with low level offences tried in courts of summary jurisdiction, so generally less serious offences ? In this instance the District Judge has fulfilled the purpose of making the further detention of Mr Assange legal pending his further appearance before a ‘Proper’ Judge on the circuit ? But as this is in London, it may even be a Judge further up the scale than what Rumpole use to refer to as Circus Judges ?

        To paraphrase Winston and his comment on Clement Atlee, one might say that District Judges are immodest men with plenty to be modest about.

  • Ros Thorpe

    Yes it does. My husband has a Ukrainian surname and has been directly informed that this is why he is censored.

  • ken

    James O’Brian of LBC said the Swedish lawyer has reopened the charges as limitation lasts until next year so could now face extradition to Sweden, if true would that get the UK gov’t off the hook re extradition to the USA ?

    • Jack


      No not likely – and would that really help him vs going to the US?
      This is wholly a US operation, the request was from the US, not Sweden that seems to be unaware of the arrest/operation.

    • Martinned

      The UK authorities have to decide whether to send him to Sweden or to the US. If Assange is smart, he simply asks to be sent to Sweden, if for no other reason than that that doubles the amount of litigating he can do before anyone can send him to the US.

      • John Goss

        I’m sorry Martinned but from your various comments on various other posts and this one I find it hard to believe you have Julian Assange’s best interests at heart. Others may disagree.

        • Martinned

          Why should I? I don’t know the man and have no particular sympathy for him.

          My interest in this matter is on the one hand that it raises interesting legal issues, for example about the extraterritorial effect of art. 10 ECHR, and on the other hand that it casts a window on today’s politics, with certain groups within the electorate losing their sh*t about this guy out of all proportion to the objective importance of the case.

          • J

            At least you’ve stopped claiming “Julian isn’t being detained because he’s free to leave the embassy at any time.”

          • Martinned

            @J: Yes, because now he is being detained. You will note the difference with the position of, say, last week, in that now he isn’t free to walk out the front door any time he likes, because now he’s in a building with bars in front of the windows and (armed) police guarding the place.

          • Grhm

            By Martined’s logic, the Grenfell victims were making a fuss about nothing.
            They weren’t really trapped – they were free at any time to leave their homes and walk into the flames.

          • Grhm

            If only the Grenfell victims had had the benefit of Martinned’s wisdom!
            How stupid of them to believe they were trapped in their homes when they were free at any time to leave and walk into the flames.

      • N_

        The UK authorities have to decide whether to send him to Sweden or to the US.

        No they don’t. You’re trying to frame the issue for the war criminals.

        The English judiciary and British officials should let Julian Assange go right now, and pay compensation too. The US is a war criminal state which is trying to persecute those who have exposed its war crimes, and trying to claim a universal jurisdiction over every action by every person anywhere in the world that helps expose their war crimes or in which people have breathed together (“conspired”) about exposing said crimes. If you want it in silly wiggy terms, Britain does not officially recognise such US jurisdiction. They’re acting like the bunch of crooks that they are when they allow it to be understood otherwise. It’s lawful to help to bring war criminals to justice who are committing crimes to evade it. It’s a defence when charged with a relatively insignificant crime that you were trying to stop a much greater crime. Doesn’t matter whether the said war criminals are looking at obelisks or pentagons in Washington DC or Virginia, piles of money on Wall Street, or piles of skulls in Rwanda.

        As for the Bail Act, that’s just an excuse too. The US-pressured US-helpers in Sweden discontinued the case of the alleged offence (alleged by a CIA asset) for which they were claiming to be pursuing Assange. Don’t tell me the English judiciary are “just applying the rules”. Julian Assange is completely innocent of the fabricated allegations made in Sweden.

        Both the skipping bail case and the US extradition request should be laughed out of court.

    • Isa

      Well how convenient is the Swedish decision now to precisely stop public support for him .

      It’s my understanding the woman in question disagrees with the Swedish prosecutors . Let’s see what happens there .

  • JB

    This happened(s) because the capitalist/neo-colonialist, system of constant violence in various forms has destroyed pretty much everything, society in particular. The ruthless plunder, policy of starvation (prevention of food sufficiency), destruction of entire countries on various false pretences, the never-ending impoverishment of the majority of populations, the constant psychological warfare against own and all citizens amounting to daily terrorisation of the whole world, the ever growing state secrecy and increase in surveillance of everyone and everything, the now totally open, but unimpeded attacks on Venezuela, and this equally blatant, unimpeded attack on Assange: when is it all going to end, and who is going to end it? If not us – who, if not now – when?
    This colossal abuse of the little that is left of the law and the principle of legality is not a threat to journalism and free speech – it is a threat to liberty and life of each single person living on this planet, journalists included. That is at stake. Seeing and putting it any other way is not only wrong, it is ineffectual. Who cares, in this world, about the freedom of speech or the right of publishers? The elected leaders of the ‘great democracies’ in the West and their clones elsewhere are having great fun and laughs at how easily and nakedly they can do whatever they please, whenever they want and wherever they choose, to great admiration and cheer of many – the product of the system that is claimed, and widely held, to be the one and only, The Good and the Right, beyond reproach, immaculate, because it’s always the Russians, stupid, hence the blissful end of history. But what it in reality is – is the end of us, in every relevant human sense. The entire Assange crime is just another epitaph to – us.

  • George K

    Similar court proceedings were described in Dickens’ Oliver Twist. History might remember yesterday’s ones too.

    • NotARobot

      As read in Jack London’s “The People of the Abyss”:

      “For instance, Mr. R. Sykes, chairman of Stalybridge magistrates, in the case the other day of Ann Wood, who tried to make away with herself in the canal: `If you wanted to do it, why didn’t you do it and get it done with?’ demanded the indignant Mr. Sykes. `Why did you not get under the water and make an end of it, instead of giving us all this trouble and bother?'”

      Out of narcissism for sure.

  • Dennisa

    With the failure of the Mueller case on Trump, the placing of Mr Assange back into the limelight has already been used by the media to attack Trump, re the Wikileaks DNC e-mails. Co-incidence?

    • Jack

      Indeed, since Mueller didnt find any evidence on Trump/Assange, this next move of arresting him was what DNC/americans/CIA plotted.
      You can be sure that Russia/Putin will be blamed in this one too, these people are insane and will stop at nothing.
      The fact that it is the Trump admin(?) that have requested the arrest of Assange doesnt seems to crush the DNC conspiracy theories.

  • Formerly T-Bear

    The only bench that example of kangaroo justice, the much less than honourable Michael Snow, should ever be given access to is the park bench he is allowed to pernoctate upon. What passes as British Justice is at best a farce, most likely though a national disgrace, offering precious little justice topped by a total disregard for law. The spawn of Wiggery are well, served and protected in the walls of the Law Courts. Maybe it is becoming time to remove the courts of law from the prerogatives of the crown and place those powers in a more worthwhile public institution more responsive to law and justice than is now being shown by the crown. Might as well get rid of the royal family as well whilst cleaning house, their silence should have a high price indeed. Scotland would indeed be well quit of their southern neighbours.

      • giyane


        What about ‘pernarcissate’ the act of taking selfies in front of images of war?

      • Formerly T-Bear

        The English speakers’ dictionary is filled with over a million words, mostly purloined from elsewhere. It would be an unforgivable crime not to use those words when one can.

        • mouwophouders

          Not to mention the minor misdemeanour of gratuitously inventing new words when there are so many perfectly good options already to hand, Formerly T-Bear.

          Pernarcissate, giyane? I’ll not be playing you at Scrabble!

          How about “enarcissate”, meaning “to show off one’s imagined
          erudition on weblogs by making a large number of embarrassingly vacuous and trite comments, often betraying an absence of self-awareness”.

          Oops, paradox alert. I’ll get my coat.

1 2 3 4 11

Comments are closed.