allegations to. Why? Because if one did scrutinize them their patent absurdity would become apparent and questions would be raised about the quality of the Swedish case and Swedish justice, that can allow such a feeble case to grow out of all proportion on political grounds, sexual political grounds. @ David Mills, You said "I actually view the possibility that the suggested action by the UK is being considered as at the least unwise and at the worst dangerous. As for legality, I leave that to lawyers." Myself a lawyer, I am appalled at this decision. The decision has discernible aspects:- 1. The international political dimension; and 2. The legal dimension; and 3. The domestic political level. Craig Murray has indicated that political pressure has caused Cameron to come to a decision. Given the wider implications of this decision, and with due regard for Executive authority, in a democratic society, should one not be questioning whether first Parliament, and then the Cabinet should have a say? Surely, since the authorities know where Assange is, then there need not be a rush to ignorant behaviour and international embarrassment and disgrace. If done, this will reflect extremely poorly on Britain, especially the fact of HMG consistently reminding other countries of their duties under human rights and international law. Consider this:- "A statement has been issued by the Foreign Secretary. "The UK does not accept the principle of diplomatic asylum. It is far from a universally accepted concept: the United Kingdom is not