Updated Saturday 9.30am (as marked below): Too little has been made of the Daily Telegraph's revelation about the government's surveillance of Julian Assange during his current house arrest.
Whether or not you like him, whether or not you agree with him, whether or not you support WikiLeaks, whether or not you believe the allegations made against him, the conditions under which he is being forced to live are disproportionately harsh.
Updated par: The above video shows that there are cameras outside Vaughan Smith's house in Norfolk, the place where Assange is required to live. It transpires that these are neither CCTV cameras nor automatic number-plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. An "embarrassed" Smith says he now believes them to be radar-operated speed signs.
It is true that jail would be worse for Assange. It is also true that the alleged leaker of much of the material released by WikiLeaks, Bradley Manning, is having a much tougher time in a US prison.
But think for a moment about the reason Assange has been bailed. He is fighting extradition to Sweden where he is alleged to have committed sexual offences, which he denies.
Has anyone ever in Britain facing such charges been held in similar circumstances? His passport has been confiscated, he is tagged, he must sign in at a police station once a day, and all his movements are monitored.
Is all this really necessary, or even fair? Isn't this more about WikiLeaks than about an extradition case? And how much is it costing?
One truly hilarious moment comes when two staff from Serco - a "government services company" (aka security monitoring outfit) - arrive to check the boxes linked to Assange's tag.
They demand that filming is stopped and refuse to carry out their work because the camera remains on. Why?
Sources: Daily Telegraph/WikiLeaks/YouTube/BBC
Comments (…)
Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion