Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United Kingdom Government The Courts The Media Your Rights Online

Assange Talk Spurs UK Judges To Boycott Legal Conference 191

An anonymous reader writes The Commonwealth Law Conference in Glasgow was subjected to walk outs and boycott once it became known that Julian Assange was to appear by video link from the Ecuadorian embassy to give a talk at the conference. The Guardian reports that, "Judges from Scotland, England and Wales and the UK supreme court had agreed to speak at or chair other sessions but withdrew – in some cases after arriving at the conference centre– when they found out about Assange's appearance. Among those to boycott the conference were the most senior judge in Scotland, Lord Gill, and two judges on the supreme court, Lord Neuberger and Lord Hodge. A spokesperson for the Judicial Office for Scotland said: "The conference programme was changed to include Mr Assange's participation at short notice and without consultation. Mr Assange is, as a matter of law, currently a fugitive from justice, and it would therefore not be appropriate for judges to be addressed by him. "Under these circumstances, the lord president, Lord Gill, and the other Scottish judicial officeholders in attendance have withdrawn from the conference." A spokesman for the UK supreme court added: "Lord Neuberger and Lord Hodge share the concerns expressed by Lord Gill and his fellow senior Scottish judges ... "As a result of this unfortunate development, they trust that delegates will understand their decision to withdraw from the conference. ..." A spokesman for judiciary of England and Wales said: "The lord chief justice shares the concerns expressed by Lord Gill and Lord Neuberger ... He agreed with the position taken by both, and the judges of England and Wales also withdrew from the conference. ...""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Assange Talk Spurs UK Judges To Boycott Legal Conference

Comments Filter:
  • Judicial rules? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 20, 2015 @05:36AM (#49509197)

    Maybe not so much a boycott as the judges being careful not to break the rules. IANAL, but there a lots of rules that prohibit the communication between defendants and judges, at least in US law, and I presume it's similar in GB.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Exactly. He's on the run (for whatever reason) so any contact with a future judge could be seen as affecting his future trial.

      They're not criticising him, they're just following the rules.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by peragrin ( 659227 )

      Shh. you might make sense. Where Assange is concerned common sense, and legal standing aren't allowed.

      on Slashdot if you assume anything other than men in black are out to get assange you will be modded into oblivion and trolled hard.

      The simple fact is Assange destroyed wikileaks all by himself. notice how they aren't publishing leaks of any kind of quality for the last several years. His ego got to big, and he burned himself. now he doesn't have any credibility with anyone but conspiracy theorists.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by tomhath ( 637240 )

        And the fact that his appearance was arranged "at short notice and without consultation" makes it appear that someone wants him to plead his case in front of the judges without going to trial.

        • Perhaps. I don't see their bailing out as the big thing, like it's a protest.

          It's unseemly for jurists working for tue government to appear at a conference where a featured speaker is on the lam.

          It says nothing about the issues being debated -- some may even privately support him, or at least Wikileaks.

          It's like US supreme Court justices applauding at political statements by the president during the state of the union.

      • Re:Judicial rules? (Score:5, Informative)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <mojo&world3,net> on Monday April 20, 2015 @07:13AM (#49509513) Homepage Journal

        notice how they aren't publishing leaks of any kind of quality for the last several years.

        They helped Snowden get out of the US and then from Hong Kong to Russia, and then helped him to stay there with his girlfriend. That was only June 2013, so clearly they have been doing some very useful work in the "last several years".

        Wikileaks can only leak what people give to them. You can't really blame them for not releasing more stuff, since it's not like they write it themselves.

        • No one in their right mind would release information to them. First, it's a long prison term under the best circumstances, and then you have all of that blood on your conscience.

  • He's a victim (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 20, 2015 @05:44AM (#49509215)

    Given what we know about groups like JTRIG, spook groups that make false victim claims, fake evidence, use 'honeypots' (i.e. women offering sex),
    The whole legal system is on trial. Several UK judges have permitted evidence in secret from the spooks, which denies the right of the defendant to challenge it, so they're not exactly an innocent group here of perfect people defending the basis of law.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/edward-snowden-interview/exclusive-snowden-docs-show-british-spies-used-sex-dirty-tricks-n23091

    "British spies have developed "dirty tricks" for use against nations, hackers, terror groups, suspected criminals and arms dealers that include releasing computer viruses, spying on journalists and diplomats, jamming phones and computers, and using sex to lure targets into "honey traps.""

    "Documents taken from the National Security Agency by Edward Snowden and exclusively obtained by NBC News describe techniques developed by a secret British spy unit called the Joint Threat Research and Intelligence Group (JTRIG) as part of a growing mission to go on offense and attack adversaries ranging from Iran to the hacktivists of Anonymous. According to the documents, which come from presentations prepped in 2010 and 2012 for NSA cyber spy conferences, the agency's goal was to "destroy, deny, degrade [and] disrupt" enemies by "discrediting" them, planting misinformation and shutting down their communications. "

    • Given what we know about groups like JTRIG, spook groups that make false victim claims, fake evidence, use 'honeypots' (i.e. women offering sex),

      and...

      as part of a growing mission to go on offense and attack adversaries ranging from Iran to the hacktivists of Anonymous.

      seem to suggest that Anonymous has been shut down. Or is Anonymous acting for some other reason than "can't get laid, so might as well..."?

  • by cloud.pt ( 3412475 ) on Monday April 20, 2015 @07:19AM (#49509537)
    Anyone with the least grasp of what a conflict of interest is, should know that, whatever the opinion of those judges, they did the professional thing to do: left a colloquial event in order to prevent influence of informal statements from a very likely candidate to be heard in their courts. Simple as that
  • Until they get rid of those stupid, girly wigs, I have no interest in what UK judges say. Tossers.
    • by Cederic ( 9623 )

      At last an anti-judge comment on this article with which I can agree. The wigs are indeed a bit bloody stupid.

      Worse still, they can decline to 'see' any barrister that isn't wearing one.

      • Worse still, they can decline to 'see' any barrister that isn't wearing one.

        Does that mean you can't represent yourself in UK court without renting a wig?

        • by Cederic ( 9623 )

          Depends on the court. Judges tend to be more understanding towards a (well prepared) individual that can't afford legal help.

  • ... because I have better things to do than listen to that pasty son of a bitch rattle on as if he's actually a productive individual.

    Assange talks about things Wikileaks has done AFTER they have done it. He's the SPOKSEPERSON. He's said numerous times the HE, HIMSELF, has not released any documents.

    Assange is useless as tits on a boar hog.

  • Assange discovers corruption in politics, police, and judiciary, etc.
    He then makes some evidence of this public.
    Then they attack him, in corrupt ways.
    And then he flees into an embassy.

    And top commenters here argue he should just bow to corrupt systems,
    follow some "laws", as if they were not corrupt.

    These commenters are stupid or corrupt, obviously.

  • Not the text, "just the amount of "nested" quote marks"! It's hard to keep count, but I think we're left with two un-closed quote contexts at the end.

It was pity stayed his hand. "Pity I don't have any more bullets," thought Frito. -- _Bored_of_the_Rings_, a Harvard Lampoon parody of Tolkein

Working...