Craig Murray's reaction is worth reading [1]. I realize he does not respond to the bail breach directly, but rather to what precipitated this chain of events.<p>> <i>If the Swedish allegations against Julian Assange were genuine and not simply a ruse to arrest him for extradition to the United States, where is the arrest warrant now from Sweden and what are the charges?</i><p>> <i>Only the more minor allegation has passed the statute of limitations deadline. The major allegation, equivalent to rape, is still well within limits. Sweden has had seven years to complete the investigation and prepare the case. It is over two years since they interviewed Julian Assange in the Ecuadorean Embassy. They have had years and years to collect all the evidence and prepare the charges.</i><p>> <i>So where, Swedish prosecutors, are your charges? Where is your arrest warrant?</i><p>> <i>Julian Assange has never been charged with anything in Sweden. He was merely “wanted for questioning”, a fact the MSM repeatedly failed to make clear. It is now undeniably plain that there was never the slightest intention of charging him with anything in Sweden. All those Blairite MPs who seek to dodge the glaring issue of freedom of the media to publish whistleblower material revealing government crimes, by hiding behind trumped-up sexual allegations, are left looking pretty stupid.</i><p>> <i>[...]</i><p>[1] <a href="https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/04/so-where-is-the-swedish-warrant/" rel="nofollow">https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/04/so-where-is-...</a>
What a disgraceful episode for our governments, the media, and the public who seem to have fallen hook, line and sinker for a blatantly orchestrated smear campaign. I don’t understand what the hell goes through people’s minds when they see such blatantly trumped up and unprovable charges levied against a big-time <i>persona non grata</i> of the CIA/Pentagon and decide to take them at face value. No matter that the US sprung their secret extradition request the second he left asylum. No matter that of course Sweden has no genuine interest in pursuing the original ‘case’. No matter that the US will cynically prepare more charges to apply once he’s on their soil. Apparently these sorts of dirty tricks are absolutely fine. Every step of the way we’ll have useful idiots lecturing us on the technicalities of the Swedish legal code.
While I am saddened by this decision I hope he now is able to get proper medical care and fight the case against extradition. As long as he is not on London streets the US can't just snatch him up. [1] [2]<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri</a><p>[2] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case</a>
Senator Joe Manchin explaining Assange's arrest, and some interesting ideas on property;<p>>"I understand they, I understand they intervened on our behalf.<p>>So we're going to extradite him and we're going to get him back, it'll be really good to get him back on United States soil.<p>>He's our property. So we can get the facts and the truth from him."<p><a href="https://twitter.com/NewDay/status/1116322371781058561/video/1" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/NewDay/status/1116322371781058561/video/...</a>
> <i>Two other charges of molestation and unlawful coercion had to be dropped in 2015 because time had run out.</i><p>I expect better from the BBC. He was never charged with anything related to that investigation. There were no such charges to drop; this statement is factually inaccurate.
I suspect that the USA isn't keen to make him a martyr, and that key players recognize the minimal value in prosecuting him now. It will be interesting to see how they utilize this nearly year-long reprieve from Assange's political posturing.
> His continued residence at the embassy and bringing him to justice had cost taxpayers £16m, she [Judge Deborah Taylor] added.<p>Disgracefully dishonest in multiple ways. Not to mention, the police force's continued incompetence should have no bearing (maybe it didn't).
Reminder:<p>(the following in quote marks are direct quotes from the alleged victims.)<p>On 17 August, SW wrote "JA did not want to use a condom".<p>On 20 August, while at the police station, SW wrote that she "did not want to put any charges on Julian Assange" but that "the police were keen on getting their hands on him".<p>According to the statement she was "chocked (sic shocked) when they arrested him" because she "only wanted him to take [an STD test]".<p>On 21 August, SW wrote that she "did not want to accuse" Julian Assange "for anything" and that it was the "police who made up the charges (sic)"<p>On 23 August, SW wrote that it was the police, not herself, who started the whole thing.<p>On 26 August, AA wrote that they ought to sell their stories for money to a newspaper.<p>On 28 August, AA wrote that they had a contact on the biggest Swedish tabloid and SW wrote that their lawyer negotiated with the tabloid.<p><a href="https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-07/julian-assange-goes-public-on-rape-allegations/8099276" rel="nofollow">https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-07/julian-assange-goe...</a>