Home | About | Donate

After Nearly $20 Million Spent Watching Assange, Scotland Yard Ends 24-Hour Guard Outside Embassy


After Nearly $20 Million Spent Watching Assange, Scotland Yard Ends 24-Hour Guard Outside Embassy

Nadia Prupis, staff writer

UK police have withdrawn from their round-the-clock cordon outside of the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has lived under asylum for the past three years.

Metropolitan police said the stakeout project had cost a total of £12.6 million ($19.4 million) and was "no longer proportionate," but said they would still try to arrest Assange, who is wanted in Sweden for questioning over sexual assault allegations.




Waste of scarce funds. Just let him go to Ecuador. . Quite frankly
IMHO he's no danger to anyone anymore. Maybe Putin would take him and he could bunk with Snowden? Do they want him in OZ? Excessive arrogance can be dangerous. After all this time does Correa or did he ever really want him? Does he still serve a purpose for Correa?

For an old Atlantic article:

"It's possible, of course, that Correa really does just like Assange, or that the Ecuadorian government is earnestly concerned that he will be mistreated by the Western governments. This would be an odd turn for a country that is otherwise quite harsh with journalists and political dissidents like Assange, but it's possible. Still, it would seem more consistent with Correa's use of flamboyantly confrontational, but ultimately low-risk, foreign policy as a means to bolster the anti-Western nationalism that is such a pillar of his populist legitimacy. If that's the case, then Assange might want to settle in at the London embassy, because the longer this stand-off with U.K. authorities lasts, the better for Correa."



You (and the liberal bourgeois snob "Atlantic") are full of bullshit. Can you provide some examples of Ecuador being "quite harsh" with journalists? Do you mean its laws and executive actions (similar to what was done in Venezuela) that attack corporate media propaganda monopolies in order allow genuine press freedom to flourish?

And I bet you are a Sanders supporter too, right?


Yunzer, was you problem with the source alone or perhaps that I'm no great fan of Julian? The other answer is I'm not out campaigning for Bernie as I'm still waiting to see if Biden is going to run. No doubt a worse choice in your opinion.

I'm not different from all too many who haven't a lot of knowledge about Ecuador or Correa other than what I've read, but did take the time to read a bit, before I quoted the labeled and was old "Atlantic" article. Is the Committee to Protect Journalists any more to your liking? Or also too liberal and bourgeois?

Some interesting information here: https://cpj.org/americas/ecuador/

But also perhaps information you prefer not to bother with or might find agreeable.

Quite realistically I don't give a flying one what "they" do with Assange. He can rot in the Embassy or maybe some of his very affluent friends can get him out. While I had great appreciation for some of his Wickileaks releases, IMHO he's little more than a money grubbing, arrogant a-hole and very possibly a rapist.


All of that money was spent to keep tabs on a man who may have had sex without a condom. That is not all, he had sex with another women who gave her consent but decided that he didn't have permission to go for a second helping. Twenty million is not much money to spend to keep tabs on a dangerous man like this. Julian must be arrested and sent to Sweden so that they can have a serious conversation with him about his getting laid.


After all, sex is very un-British. Serves the chap right, what?


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Pechorin, I followed the history of Assange from his releases from the beginning to include his criminal history in OZ, where he was little more than a hacker. His sexual proclivities may or may not have included the accusations of the women in Sweden, but early on impregnating his "girlfriend" and attempting to deny his fatherhood at age 18, suggests a tendency to avoid the consequences of his choices. Had he not run from Sweden when the women came forward with the accusations and instead just stayed I suspect those issues might have been resolved many years ago. Whether or not his motivations were the fame he achieved while enjoying a lifestyle far different than his past in OZ are unknown. In addition his behavior toward Bradley/Chelsea Manning who provided him the information that made him famous has IMHO been past repugnant.

I was amused by the earlier comment about Britain and sex. Though it's been decades since I was a resident there, I never noted a lack of sexual
activity often more open than the "puritan" attitudes in the US.

Though I have no doubt the US would gladly prosecute him, for the relevant exposure of information those involved would have preferred to have kept
secret, other governments involved no doubt would be waiting in line for the
ability to have him available for prosecution.

From the beginning of Assange's fame or infamy, take your pick, the opinion has been very divided. My preference would be to send him along to Correa
and let him discover if he would become an Ecuadorian "hero" or just languish in a different form of "prison."


I love your choice of disposition of a new residence and possible change in diet for Mr. Assange. As noted we only differ in whether or not he committed a crime in Sweden. At the time he chose to run, quite likely to simply be able to make his scheduled meetings elsewhere. I considered, though time and testing may have proven me wrong, I don't believe the woman's test results
have ever become public.

Assange's choice to have sex with any and all available was apparent. Unprotected sex, if he was HIV infected, could have proven at best a very serious problem for the woman requiring life long treatment. Or at worst a death sentence. By running he also avoided being tested. By not bothering to use a condom, seems to me was worse than poor manners or being impolite. Definitely a factor in his narcissism on which many appear to be
in agreement.