|Home » Industry Watch
A Fish Called Emma
When peerage isn't enough (if it ever is).
LONDON/BERKSHIRE (Rixstep) — Meet Emma Louise née Broadbent Arbuthnot, peer of the realm. Through marriage. To a peer of the realm. Emma Louise handed down a ruling today in the matter of one Julian Paul Assange, who'd like to get out of his embassy in Knightsbridge and onward to a sunny beach in Ecuador.
Emma Louise's ruling is going to go into history. One hopes she's proud of it.
The chances are, however, very slim. One hears sayings about landed gentry and their, for commoners, rather peculiar customs, and, regardless if one is 'pro' or 'con' the plight of the WikiLeaks founder, there are other, let's say somewhat 'technical', aspects to Emma Arbuthnot's egregious document.
Once again, the link to the document is here. Do take the plunge and follow along, and, should someone in your household be capable of making some popcorn, get them to make you a big batch. Here we go.
'Mr Assange had reasonable grounds for taking the course he did because he feared being sent to the United States.'
That's what Fozzie Bear would call a 'DUH'.
'The second was that the UN Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Detention ruled that Mr Assange's situation in the Ecuadorian Embassy was disproportionate and unreasonable.'
That's something even Kermit and Miss Piggy would note. The United Nations! Whoah! But they're located in New York City, one of the old colonies. They don't have much pull in Berkshire.
Anyway. Moving right along.
'I accept that Mr Assange had expressed fears of being returned to the United States from a very early stage in the Swedish extradition proceedings but, absent any evidence from Mr Assange on oath, I do not find that Mr Assange's fears were reasonable.'
WUT! That's a beauty, you gotta admit.
'I do not accept that Sweden would have rendered Mr Assange to the United States.'
You don't have to, Emma Louise. All you have to do is admit there's a possibility - even a strong possibility, given that Sweden signed not one but two agreements on temporary surrender which supersede all other such agreements.
Now here comes a gem. You got the popcorn?
'If that had happened there would have been a diplomatic crisis between the United Kingdom, Sweden and the United States which would have affected international relationships and extradition proceedings between the states.'
They got big rocks in Berkshire? Big enough people like Emma can live under? What the F does she think the current embassy standoff is? Someone fetch a map of Berkshire. Someone gotta go there stat and check out the ROCKS.
'The position now is that the Swedish proceedings are at an end.'
Another 'DUH'. But only because Marianne Ny chickened out, as we know today from yesterday's revelations, for your good people (were they peers as well?) tried to hold up that silly preliminary investigation for no good reason for years.
Now before moving on, Emma's going to rule on the United Nations (yes).
'I have read the Opinion. The group appears to have based its conclusions on some misunderstandings of what occurred after Mr Assange's arrest.'
How long did they take on that ruling, Emma? Didn't your government even appeal that ruling? Didn't they lose again?
A fish called Emma indeed.
Let's skip a bit. Emma can easily get repetitive, redundant, and tedious. Here's a few absolute gems. Tip: don't be munching popcorn when you read these.
1. 'He can leave the embassy whenever he wishes'
2. 'He can sit on the balcony'
3. 'He is free to use multimedia'
She's a smart one, our Emma! Emmy has this greeting for her:
'Here's the balcony Emma refers to. I suggest she come and have a look.'
'I suspect if one were to ask one of the men incarcerated in Wandsworth Prison whether conditions in the Ecuadorean Embassy were akin to a remand in custody...'
It's got nothing to do with that, you fish, and you know it. It's about deprivation of liberty. OK, that's probably rocket science for you, which is why they have a dedicated group at the UN.
'Finally, the Working Group defines arbitrary...'
You read that right. Emma's now going to argue that the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention don't even understand their own word.
'As soon as Mr Assange was interviewed the Swedish prosecutor dropped the case.'
Which we know as of yesterday, no thanks to your fellow peers. For they did everything in their power to make Marianne Ny persist! Gee, Emma, you guys even tried to storm the embassy and kidnap him! Give it a rest!
'It was Mr Samuelson's view that the prosecutor's refusal to interview him earlier or give them copies of the texts disadvantaged Mr Assange.'
More like Paul Close laying down the law for Marianne.
'Mr Assange's failure to return has already led to three of the accusations becoming time barred in August 2015.'
No, Emma, you stupid goof. Now you can't hide behind your imbecility anymore. It's known how Marianne Ny did everything in her power to sabotage that meet.
Let's look at it with logic, OK, Emma? You know - logic?
√ The case in question that time was only about a misdemeanour anyway.
√ When Sweden was finally - after years and years and years - forced to 'interview' Assange, and still and all managed to keep his own attorney out on the street, they had no choice but to close the case.
√ You make the spurious insinuation that Assange would have conspired to avoid questioning on a misdemeanour offence when we all know by now it was Marianne Ny, at the behest of your own Crown Prosecution Service, against her own apprehensions in the matter, who sabotaged that meet, not with Assange but with the Republic of Ecuador?
√ That you elsewhere in your ruling claim that Ecuador had a hand in that meeting not taking place when they'd been clamouring for it for years... Fishie, you really take the cake.
So we don't buy your revisionist malarkey, Emma. Sorry.
'I have read the medical reports. Mr Assange is fortunately in relatively good physical health.'
So you admit you can in fact read? Small steps.
'He has a serious tooth problem and is in need of dental treatment and needs an MRI scan on a shoulder which has been described as frozen.'
And you reconcile this with the fact that he risks nothing whatsoever by going out for medical care? How, for that matter, do you reconcile that The Republic of Ecuador granted him asylum? Is this yet another case of wayward jurisprudence like that stinking United Nations Working Group?
'I accept he has depression and suffers respiratory infections.'
You accept it, Emma Louise? You accept it?
OK get ready for a good one. A bit of a repeat.
'I do not accept there is no sunlight; there are a number of photographs of him on a balcony connected to the premises he inhabits.'
Let's show Emmy's photo again.
'Mr Assange would now not be returned to Sweden because of section 12A of the Extradition Act 2003.'
Hold on, Fishie. You were saying earlier that there was no danger in returning to Sweden. Are you deliberately playing thick here? This has never been about Sweden, or the UK, for that matter. You surely must know this. Even a peer can't be that dumb!
'Mr Summers says Mr Assange fears being rendered to the United States by Sweden. There is no evidence that that was going to happen.'
Have your husband ring your friends in Washington.
'He would not have been rendered by this country to the United States nor by Sweden.'
Crappy grammar, Baroness. But OK. Nor would William Hague try to storm the Ecuador embassy. Nor would Paul Close beg Marianne Ny to keep her silly investigation open. You really don't get it? Or are you just playing dumb? (You're convincing in that role, BTW.)
'On occasions Mr Assange says he fears being extradited to the United States.'
On occasions? You bastards trapped him, you kept him embroiled in a fabricated dumbfish case about a bloody condom, corresponded with witnit Ny to the tune of at least 7,000 pages of documents, and you say he felt like that 'on occasions'? You know who Edward Snowden is - right, Fishie? Remember what happened to Evo Morales when the frat boys in the swamps got tricked into thinking Snowden might be on the Morales presidential jet? And you want to talk about 'on occasions'?
No one's that thick. Not even you, Fishie.
'The drain on resources that policing Mr Assange's choice has caused...'
Why, Fishie? He didn't run for it in Norfolk. He's always abided by the law. Asylum law supersedes all other law, as you know. Your government - not Assange - decided to spend that money. Assange isn't trying to stay buttered up with Uncle Sam. You are.
And why did they decide to move their operations undercover? Why, for that matter, did they make such a big show of things in the first place? You know the answer to that one, Fishie. You know the answers to a lot of those questions.
'I must look at the impact on public confidence in the criminal justice system...'
Not good enough, Fishie. Not nearly good enough! If you were really worried about that, you'd not have come out with this ruling as you have. (That remark's going to get you spitting out your cucumber sandwich, wait and see.)
'Defendants on bail up and down the country, and requested persons facing extradition, come to court to face the consequences of their own choices. He should have the courage to do so too.'
How many of them have so incurred the wrath of the US that your FCO tried to storm an embassy, that your CPS deliberately kept the case bogged down for nearly eight years? That your own people shredded at least 7,000 pages of documents? That they could get to someone like you, Fishie, to issue this ridiculous ruling? A ruling that makes you look even dumber than before?
Offensively Ad Hominem
According to Professor Marcello Ferrada, Emma's ruling was 'offensively ad hominem'. 'He thinks HE is above the law', 'no courage to leave embassy', etc. Indeed. Dear Emma Louise seems to have been seething throughout. Who is this upstart who dares challenge our status quo? Can't you do something about this, James?
It's a long road to Eden, a mountain to climb, but they'll get there. Read Stefania Maurizi's incredible tale here.
Last But Certainly Not Least
Last but certainly not least: try to grab onto these gems.
As I hope is clear from the above, the 'house arrest' and 'harsh restrictions' referred to by the Working Group which went on for 550 days were proposed by Mr Assange himself... I do not find those restrictions harsh...
Now try these.
Mr Assange's offer to make himself available to be interviewed by the Swedish prosecutor from an early stage is confirmed by his Swedish lawyer, Mr Samuelson.
From the earliest stage the prosecution were told that Mr Assange was willing to engage with the investigation by being interviewed. As soon as Mr Assange was interviewed the Swedish prosecutor dropped the case.
Mr Samuelson spoke about seeing but not being able to copy certain texts which he said undermined the case against Mr Assange. It was Mr Samuelson's view that the prosecutor's refusal to interview him earlier or give them copies of the texts disadvantaged Mr Assange.
For peers of the realm, coins have a splendid difficulty dropping down slots. Or at least they have to pretend they do. After all, their world and lifestyle are at stake, so who could blame them?