embassy if it is considered to be misusing its premises. This came about after the 1984 Libyan shooting. If the government considers that protecting Assange from arrest is a misuse of their embassy premises, they can remove inviolability status and argue that they can enter and arrest Assange. That's how they will justify their actions. 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. However, am I the only person to question the contradiction here? Assange is accused of crimes of a sexual nature in a sovereign country. He and his supporters have bleated about his other activities (which are of questionable probity in my opinion) and a different sovereign country appears to have offered him asylum as a result. In his header the author claims that he is a Human Rights Activist. The tone of this article suggests that he is a supporter of Assange whose human rights, on any evidence I have seen, do not appear to be under immediate threat. However, his accusers' rights are, if things go the way that Assange and his flock wish, to be denied. On another tack. I would like to see proof that any pressure has been brought by the US administration on the British government. Likewise I would like to see the proof that the Swedish Administration would extradite Assange to the USA. Why hasn't the