I don’t care about your excuses. In fact, self-hate is remarkably uninteresting to me, and you’re blaming the women in this case for taking time to report the crime, for instance – “political”.

And I need merely point to the UK extradition proceedings which dealt with these issues. In detail. Despite the fact they are technically not supposed to consider them for an EAW.

Sorry. Perhaps I should have explained that I’m speaking as a woman who has reported rape to the police. In my case, the CPS didn’t want to proceed further because they felt the fact I’d taken 3 weeks to buck up the courage to report it would count against me, and I had stupidly – out of rage – thrown a letter of apology admitting rape back in the face of (one of) my rapist(s), thus destroying pretty solid evidence…

Now, you were saying? You were about to give me your detailed response to the substantiative points of law I raised above in respect of the Assange investigation.

The state has an interest in prosecuting crime, if you like it or not.

You did say it was invalid because it didn’t work as you like – and the UK is heavily dinged for overuse of Remand as well.

Then you jump right into sex crime apologia. So.

“Moreover, it’s not a private prosecution.”

So, are you saying that it’s not proper for women to themselves decide whether they feel a crime has been committed against them or not? If so, isn’t that a little patronising? I’d say that women are the best judge of it myself. Nothing says emancipation and empowerment more than being allowed to decide for yourself what action you’d like to be taken on your behalf or in your name, to me anyway – speaking personally as a woman.

I’m not saying the Swedish judicial system is invalid (though there are problems – particularly in issues of pre-trial detention. Sweden has been criticised repeatedly in various Council of Europe, UN and US State Dept reports on the matter). However, I do feel this particular case has been very badly handled, both in Sweden and in the UK. That’s what happens when the underlying reasons for a case are more political than legal.

What was it Ed M said about the (New) Labour Party and becoming the establishment…?

So basically, you don’t feel the Swedish judicial system is valid. Well.

Moreover, it’s not a private prosecution.

Second, Assange’s case DID in fact set the precedents that an individual could extradited from the UK without a decision to charge even being reached (and for that extradition to be ordered by someone acting in the role of an investigator, rather than an impartial judicial authority), and it is why the UK had to opt-out and opt back in to the EAW with the new changes, which effectively re-introduce the safeguards removed by the Assange extradition decision. You may be aware that the UK’s Parliamentary Select Committee on Extradition Law reform recently wrote to Assange requesting a submission from him on whether the UK’s extradition system breaches fundamental human rights. The SC wouldn’t be doing that if it was felt that Assange’s case wasn’t relevant on that score.

With regard to David Allen Green’s argument that Assange is safeguarded from onward extradition because it “requires the consent of both Sweden and the United Kingdom”, you need to research Section 58 of the Extradition Act 2003, which gives the UK Home Secretary the authority to waive the Specialty Clause preventing onward extradition for offences not in the original EAW. They can do so without any judicial review in the UK courts. Yes, Theresa May can simply handwave away any protection for Assange in respect of extradition to the US.

Final point: The women’s own words: SW – “I did not want to accuse him [Assange] of anything. It was the police who made up the charges” (21 August 2010), AA – “I have not been raped” (April 2012).