@swedenvsassange @fleetstreetfox Suspected criminals don’t get to dictate to investigating officers where and when they’re questioned.
-
-
Replying to @EmmaKennedy
@EmmaKennedy@fleetstreetfox You are clearly positionally opposed to#Assange. Your prejudice is all based on falsehoods, u give no sources1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AssangeLegal
@swedenvsassange@fleetstreetfox My sources are called WHAT THE ACTUAL LAW IS. The end.3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @EmmaKennedy
.
@EmmaKennedy@fleetstreetfox I am also a fan of the black-letter-law. Here's the "Assange clause" enacted last year http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/section/156/enacted …2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Loinsalot
.
@Loinsalot s. 156 of the Act says court should not have extradited#Assange in the fist place. He'd have won UK case if he'd taken it today3 replies 3 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Loinsalot
@Loinsalot By agreeing to question in UK, prosecutor demonstrated (ii) doesn't apply. Swedish court of appeal found prosecutor breached duty1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
.@Loinsalot No. What's extraordinary is EAW was issued with no charge. It wasn't trial ready. Such abuse is banned in s. 156. See Troitino
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.