Wednesday 20th of June 2018

Recent Comments

by Gus Leonisky on Wed, 2018-06-20 20:44

The United States has withdrawn from the United Nations Human Rights Council accusing it of a "chronic bias against Israel", a move that activists warned would make advancing human rights globally even more difficult.

Key points:

  • Haley says there is "unending hostility towards Israel"
  • US was half way through its term on the council
  • Rights groups say Trump administration is not prioritising human rights


Standing with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley slammed Russia, China, Cuba and Egypt for thwarting American efforts to reform the council.

"For too long the Human Rights Council has been a protector of human rights abusers and a cesspool of political bias," she said.

"Regrettably, it is now clear that our call for reform was not heeded. 

"Human rights abusers continue to serve on and be elected to the council. 

"The world's most inhumane regimes continue to escape scrutiny and the council continues politicising and scape-goating of countries with positive human rights records in an attempt to distract from the abusers and their ranks."

She also criticised countries which shared US values and encouraged Washington to remain but "were unwilling to seriously challenge the status quo".

The United States is half way through a three-year term on the main UN rights body and the Trump administration had long threatened to quit if the 47-member Geneva-based body was not overhauled.


Read more:




by Gus Leonisky on Wed, 2018-06-20 20:06

For years, the Murdoch family has been able to maintain a separation between its Fox News network and its sprawling entertainment empire.

But that corporate buffer seems to be disintegrating, with several prominent creators of hit TV shows expressing disgust in recent days with the 24-hour news channel’s coverage of the Trump administration’s border security policy.

Steve Levitan, the creator of “Modern Family,” which airs on ABC but is produced by Fox’s television studio, wrote on Twitter on Tuesday that he was “disgusted to work at a company that has anything whatsoever to do with @FoxNews.” The film director Paul Feig echoed those sentiments, writing that he had made two films for the 20th Century Fox movie studio but “cannot condone the support their news division promotes toward the immoral and abusive policies and actions taken by this current administration toward immigrant children.”

Those tweets came several days after Seth MacFarlane, the creator of “Family Guy,” said he was “embarrassed” to work at 21st Century Fox after the Fox News host Tucker Carlson told viewers not to trust other news networks.


Read more:


Read from top and above comment...

by Gus Leonisky on Wed, 2018-06-20 19:16
Saudi Arabia will reportedly hold bidding among foreign engineering firms in order to dig a huge canal that will separate it from Qatar and basically turn the neighboring state into an island, a local paper reports.

Five companies have expressed a desire to participate in the tender, which is scheduled to take place on June 25, sources told Saudi Makkah newspaper. The winner of the bidding, which will be announced within three months, will start construction of the canal immediately, the paper wrote.


Read more:

by Gus Leonisky on Wed, 2018-06-20 19:11

Next week, the leaders of EU nations will assemble in Brussels for a European Council summit, and one of the meeting points will be to come up with a joint conclusion on Brexit, according to media reports.

The leaders of 27 EU nations are expected to issue a joint statement blaming UK Prime Minister Theresa May for a “lack of progress” on UK-EU Brexit negotiations, despite the looming deadline.

However, according to the draft of the document, the leaders plan to express their "concern that no substantial progress has yet been achieved on agreeing to a backstop solution for Ireland/Northern Ireland."

READ MORE: May 'Got Another Card Up Her Sleeve': UK MPs Plan to Block Brexit — Politician

The motion also urges "member-states and all stakeholders to step up their work on preparedness at all levels for all outcomes," the Independent cited the leaked document. What is meant by the last sentence is the probability of Britain not coming up with a UK-EU deal in time, usually referred to as a "no deal" scenario. If this were to happen, EU countries must have contingency plans at hand, and work on them must be accelerated as soon as possible, according to the paper.

READ MORE: UK PM Theresa May Under Threat if Government Defeated in Brexit Vote

EU leaders want "further clarity from the UK with regard to its position on the future relationship," the document reads.

While the document is written in an appropriately diplomatic manner, this is actually an escalation of language to the point of a direct warning to the UK's PM Theresa May, the newspaper notes.


Read more:


Read from top. Meanwile:

by Gus Leonisky on Wed, 2018-06-20 16:47

Everyone hates government waste. President Trump believes it is “our moral duty to the taxpayer” to “make our government leaner and more accountable,” and his political opponents seem to agree.

And yet, when called to vote on an extra $80 billion a year for the most profligate public agency in the country, the overwhelming majority of U.S. senators asked no questions. The Pentagon not only escaped serious budget cuts while everything from national parks to Meals on Wheels has been squeezed, but it actually almost got more than it asked for in the spending bill the Senate approved on September 18.

The Pentagon’s latest increase alone — never mind its base budget, which runs hundreds of billions higher — is a sum large enough to make public colleges free across the country, and by itself is worth well over 80 percent of Russia’s entire military budget.

It’s worth asking: Where does the money go?

“We’re the largest bureaucracy in the world”

Consider the reaction if the Environmental Protection Agency buried evidence of $125 billion in bureaucratic waste. At the very least, we would see congressional inquiries with Republicans foaming at the mouth and Democrats solemnly stating their commitment to safeguarding your tax dollars. At most, we would hear calls for some kind of criminal investigation.

Read more:

by Gus Leonisky on Wed, 2018-06-20 15:04

ABC Managing Director, Michelle Guthrie
Melbourne Press Club, 19 June 2018

Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. The work of the Melbourne Press Club, the platform and support you provide for the discussion of ideas, issues and the craft of journalism are invaluable.

Last year, I attended the opening of the NSW Chapter of the Australian Media Hall of Fame, a fantastic initiative by this forum to bring to a broader stage the great traditions of journalism and the women and men who, as journalists and storytellers, have left their mark on the fabric of Australia.

I'll demonstrate just a touch of ABC bias here. I was thrilled at the roll call of our journalists who were among those honoured that night: MarkColvin, Ian Carroll, Caroline Jones, Alan McGilvray, Chris Masters, and Kerry O’Brien.

These are hallowed names, as recognisable as ABC brands as our famous lissajous logo. They, and others acknowledged by the Club, have made an indelible contribution to our collective understanding of Australia and the world.

We know and applaud their attributes and achievements: their deep knowledge of audiences and the issues that are relevant to the lives of the community; their relentless drive to ensure that the institutions and processes which are the foundations of our democratic system work to the benefit of that community; their determination to provide a voice for the powerless, the weak and the intimidated; their ability to shine the light on malfeasance and corruption.

What I also admire about them is their ability to get to the nub of an issue, to focus on its true implications and to frame it in terms that are easily understood by all Australians.

In a complex world it is too easy for the powerful to do their work in dark corners: to cynically use so-called narrowcasting messages that have a direct appeal to certain targeted audiences, while conveying an entirely different message to others; to rely on rhetoric that doesn’t match actions.

Good journalists call that out. Today, I want to channel some of that skill and emphasise some real facts in what has become an increasingly febrile debate over the value and future of the ABC.

This is a debate that affects real people. I talk here of my very valuable colleagues, who have displayed enormous resolve, dedication and commitment over the past few years in the face of continued criticism. But I refer also to the people of Australia, who regard the ABC as one of the great national institutions and who deeply resent it being used as a punching bag by narrow political, commercial or ideological interests.

I am proud of the ABC. I am proud of the work we do, the privileged position we hold in Australian history and our way of life; and of the value we bring, not only to audiences, but to the wider citizenry.

My aim in this speech is to demonstrate that value and to dismantle some of the arguments that are being used by critics to attack the national public broadcaster.

The anti-ABC case has been crystallised in two recent developments - the launch of a tome by two people associated with the IPA calling for the sale of the national broadcaster, and last weekend’s policy motion at the Liberal Party federal council meeting in Sydney demanding the “privatisation” of the ABC.  

The premise behind the policy motion, as stated by its advocates is that there is no redeemable value in the public investment in the ABC; that the commercial media sector would benefit from a so-called level playing field and that the nation as a whole would be better off; that the market, in the end, will provide.

Those very same arguments are being used to propel the competitive neutrality and efficiency reviews that have been imposed on the public broadcasters. So, it would be negligent of me to ignore the policy motion, even if others are keen to downplay it.

The argument seems to carry a misplaced notion of both privatisation and conservatism. But, more importantly it completely ignores the public value of the ABC, both in direct dollar terms but also as far as the wider public good remit.

What price do you put on public trust in an independent, commercial-free news organisation at a time of fragmentation and disruption? As the Prime Minister himself noted at the Liberal Party council meeting, it is difficult to establish the facts in a disputed media landscape full of echo chambers and “fake news” outlets.

What price do you put on an ABC devoted to serving the nation - across its vast expanse and through a myriad of services, with quality and distinctiveness as a hallmark?  This, at a time when the pressures of the new landscape are forcing our commercial colleagues into a relentless focus on their profitability.

What price do you put on an almost 86-year history of service that has the ABC as one of the most respected and trusted institutions in the country? An institution that provides valuable diversity to the media sector and, through its innovation, one that has driven many of the platforms and services that we know and take for granted?

Just last week, we marked iview’s 10th birthday. For years, the ABC stood alone in committing to a catch-up service, acknowledging that online presented a new way, free of schedules, for audiences to watch programs. The ABC has pioneered the use of websites to complement broadcasting, in its commitment to podcasting and its use of apps and social media.

I think the public regards the ABC as a priceless asset, more valuable now than ever in its history. I can appreciate that the ABC would fetch a high price in a commercial market. But does the public want a new media organisation that compromises quality and innovation for profit? Does the commercial sector want a new advertising behemoth in its midst? I think not.

For those who prefer an abacus-type approach to this debate, I have some fresh information. How do you put a price on the value of the ABC? In pursuit of that answer, the ABC has commissioned Deloitte Access Economics to do some research. Their report is still being compiled and will be released next month. The early findings are interesting. They show that the ABC contributed more than $1 billion to the Australian economy in the last financial year - on a par with the public investment in the organisation.  Far from being a drain on the public purse, the audience, community and economic value stemming from ABC activity is a real and tangible benefit.

Of that $1 billion, more than a third is economic support for the broader media ecosystem. Far from being Ultimo-centric, the ABC is boosting activity across the country. Recent examples include the filming of Mystery Road in the remote Kimberley region of Western Australia, and the production of Rosehaven outside Hobart.

Deloitte calculates that the ABC is helping to sustain more than 6000 full-time equivalent jobs across the economy. It means that for every 3 full-time equivalent jobs created by the ABC, there are another 2 supported in our supply chain – local artists, writers, technicians, transport workers and many more. In hard figures, the research shows that the ABC helps to sustain 2,500 full-time equivalent jobs in addition to the 4000 women and men who are directly employed by the public broadcaster.

When broken down this equates to more than 500 additional jobs in production companies, over 400 jobs elsewhere in the broadcast sector, and close to 300 full-time equivalent jobs in the professional services.

Amidst the debate over the ABC’s purpose and its funding we should all remember that there are 2,500 jobs outside public broadcasting at risk in any move to curtail our remit and activities.

The related argument is that the $1 billion is not well spent, that the ABC must be forced to “live with its means”. Again, let’s go to the facts. Transmission costs to deliver the benefits of public broadcasting to all Australians are fixed and expensive. The actual amount that we have to spend on content is well below that $1 billion figure. The ABC’s per capita funding has halved in real terms in 30 years. And technological change is demanding ongoing investment to meet rapidly changing audience needs.

This financial year, 92% of the ABC’s budget will be spent on making content, supporting content makers and distribution. This is a result that we are very proud of and I suspect many of our commercial counterparts would aspire to.

It is the direct result of strategic management and the paring back of non-content related support costs. Thirty years ago, the ABC had five platforms and 6,000 people working around the country. Today, Your ABC has two-thirds the number of people operating six times the number of platforms and services with half the real per capita funding.

ABC News Channel, iview, triple j Unearthed and Double J are just some of the services created from an ongoing drive to identify production and back office efficiencies and to pour that money back into content, rewarding our audiences. It was the strategy we employed so effectively last year, generating efficiencies that financed our content innovation fund and regional investment.

I am concerned by the accusation that this latest 1 per cent efficiency dividend can easily be accommodated by the ABC. It ignores the accumulation of efficiency takes by Canberra over the past four years and the fact that these efficiencies rob the ABC of its ability to finance new content and innovation. This whittling away of our funding represents a real opportunity cost and, in the end, serves only to punish those audiences.

There are two other fallacies that need to be addressed. The first is that the ABC should be stripped back to servicing gaps in the media market, basically becoming a market failure operator. The second is that the ABC serves only sectional interests.

Every day I’m reminded how important the ABC is to all Australians. Some commentators and politicians like to pigeonhole our audience as being of a particular political bent or social strata.

In the two years since I’ve been in this role, I have been constantly reminded how wrong that is. Of course, there are the undisputed figures: the 12 million Australians who will watch ABC TV this week; the nearly 5 million who will listen to ABC Radio; the 13 million ABC podcast downloads that now happen every month.

If all those listeners and viewers were on the one side of politics, there wouldn’t be much politicking left to do.

I note also the findings of the recent Reuters Digital News Report. Australia may have an increasingly polarised media sector, but ABC Television attracts viewers from across the political spectrum for its news coverage.

This is buttressed by my own experiences. Last week, as I was collecting lost luggage at the airport, the very helpful man behind the counter began by telling me how much he loves the ABC. “I watch ABC News all the time,” he said.

And there is June, in her mid-70s, who lives on the NSW mid-north coast. She recently wrote to tell us that our gripping Mystery Road mini-series has seen her do an iview binge-watch for the very first time. The first of many binges I hope, June.

It confirms for me what an important role the ABC plays for Australians no matter their age, where they live or what they do. It’s a strong ongoing endorsement of the quality and diversity of the programs that we create. And it shows that we are fulfilling our purpose, which is definitely not to play the role of a market failure operator.

There really is no excuse for getting that wrong. If you take the time to read our Charter – and it’s not long - it’s there in black and white. As the independent national public broadcaster, our purpose is to provide a balance between broadcasting programs of wide appeal as well as specialised interest. 

It means we are here to broadcast the New Year’s Eve fireworks as we do every year, bringing together nearly 4 million Australian viewers. But we are also here to deliver award-winning children’s content, as well as ABC Jazz, Classic FM and much more.

It’s a balance between the two that we navigate with care and always with the needs of our audiences in mind.

This is what public broadcasting is all about. It’s not about profits, or even ratings necessarily, but about providing the distinctive programs that Australians young and old, left and right, rich and poor, in Bourke and in Brisbane, both want and need.

Given what is happening on the global stage, that commitment is now more important than ever. In the US last week, the courts approved what’s been called the mega-merger between Time-Warner and AT&T. The new company will be worth an estimated 143 billion dollars and will have a vast content library that it will own and distribute.  In fact, every one of the 5 largest global media organisations are pursuing mergers in order to build scale for survival.

In the face of such consolidation, in all likelihood over a short space of time there may be just a handful of international media giants– yes, I'm including FAANGS (being Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google) in that group - that will be based in the US and will create and distribute the vast majority of the world’s content, both news and entertainment.

What does this mean in Australia? It means original Australian content and Australian voices will be more valuable than ever. It also means that the pressure on our domestic commercial media counterparts is only going to increase.

Two years ago, Facebook and Google were already collecting 40 per cent of Australian advertising dollars. Those dollars would previously have gone to the traditional television, radio and print media operators. The figure will only have increased since then.

This and the increasing competition for content from the global players, each with a production budget in the billions, is driving the free-to-airs to adopt play-safe strategies - trying to secure big audiences around tentpole events in news, reality and sports.

Amid all of this upheaval, Australia has a strong, independent public broadcaster driven by women and men who create original, distinctive and high quality Australian content every day, all over the country.

It’s an organisation that contributes as much as $1 billion annually to Australia’s creative and broader industries; that directly employs 4000 Australians and helps to sustain jobs for 2,500 more; that provides the only Australia-wide platform for our national conversations, culture and stories.

It isn’t by luck that this exists. It is thanks to the collective vision of Australians nearly 86 years ago. They decided to create a public broadcast service to operate alongside the commercial media, increasing the diversity available for everyone. So much has changed about our world since then, but the basic premise for the ABC remains the same.

And the facts show Australians overwhelmingly value the outcome of this foresight: 82% of Australians look to the ABC as their trusted source of information; 78% cite the ABC as an important contributor to our national identity; and critically, 77% of Australians think a healthy ABC is essential for Australia’s future.

That regard is a precious commodity at a time when trust in our institutions is so rare.

Next week we will make our submission to the Government’s competitive neutrality inquiry looking at the role of the ABC and the SBS and how we operate alongside our commercial counterparts. I’m confident we are operating in accordance with our Charter and the principles of competitive neutrality as they apply to public service broadcasting. We are a distinct and important part of Australia’s modern media ecosystem. I'm proud of our contribution and of the women and men who create it.

As the charter requires, we take into account the services commercial broadcasters provide. We invest in material that is distinctive and original and which is of both wide appeal and specialised interest. And, alongside Nine, Ten, Seven and Foxtel, we provide an independent alternative.

I was one of the 800,000 viewers who chose to watch Mystery Road a few Sunday nights ago instead of an interview with Barnaby Joyce. Who knew Australians would choose a well-scripted and produced drama over the kitchen-sink exploits of a politician? Well-told local drama remains a priority for the ABC and clearly provided a welcome option for many Australians that evening.

Before finishing, I’d like to describe another recent program that I think epitomises the value of what the ABC provides. Over three nights last month, the second series of Stargazing Live brought together 2.6 million viewers and 46,000 amateur astronomers. In the process, we broke a Guinness World Record and discovered a new supernova that may help to recalibrate the age of the universe.

All over the country, Australians gathered in their backyards, school playgrounds and local parks to gaze together at the moon for 10 minutes. In Wudinna, South Australia, more than half the town’s population took part. 

Tens of thousands of Australians were introduced to new astronomical knowledge. For many, it has changed the way they look at the stars forever. And with the recent launch of the new Australian space agency, there’s a possibility that perhaps, more than one of our future homegrown astronauts were taking part somewhere.

Who else but the ABC would even attempt such a broadcast?

As a nation, we could choose not to have the ABC; or we could hobble it so that it becomes the market failure organisation it was never intended to be. Inherent in the drive against the independent public broadcaster, is a belief that it can be pushed and prodded into different shapes to suit the prevailing climate. It can’t. Nor should it be.

The ABC’s great value is its ability to call on its composite strengths to service the nation. History elsewhere has shown that if you start tampering with the formula, you risk destroying it. And, as I hope I've demonstrated today, the nation would suffer as a consequence.

Each of the ABC journalists celebrated by the MPC’s Media Hall of Fame at last year’s ceremony, had made important contributions to our national conversations. It would be a step back, especially in these turbulent times, if future journalists found it more difficult to make such important contributions.   

Thank you.

by Gus Leonisky on Tue, 2018-06-19 20:50

IN SEPTEMBER THIS YEAR, National Geographic will launch the documentary series, Wild Edens. It's all about wilderness areas and is also a soft sell for the nuclear industry. And there's a proud Australian connection, with the Global Ecology Lab of Flinders University, South Australia. Their energy researcher, Ben Heard, was master of ceremonies at the premiere in Spain in April.

Gone are the days of "nuclear power too cheap to meter" and "Atoms for Peace”. These were the 20th Century catch calls to promote the nuclear industry to business and to the public. Even late in the 20th Century, when things had come a bit unstuck with WindscaleThree Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents, the propaganda was still straightforward and often simplistic.

By 2018, things have changed. The argument that nuclear power is cheap has fallen apart. As for the "peaceful atom" and "no connection with nuclear weapons", that one has fallen through, too. Recent research in UK and the USA make it clear that nuclear energy and developing new reactors are necessary for the continued development of nuclear weapons.

Hans-Josef Fell, president of the global Energy Watch Group, states in the brief titled 'The disaster of the European nuclear industry':

‘The driving force behind the UK government's affinity to nuclear technology is the cross-subsidization of the military nuclear program.’

In the 20th Century, the industry was slow to come up with the new selling arguments — the need for boundless energy, nuclear being "clean", combating climate change, the need for nuclear for space travel. Another factor was the type of nuclear reactor being developed. By the turn of the century, the "conventional" large nuclear reactors were looking expensive to build, fraught with safety problems (and hence, strict regulations) and lumbered with issues of radioactive waste disposal.


Read more:,11577


Read from top.

by Gus Leonisky on Tue, 2018-06-19 20:43

The Australian Financial Review has a peculiar view of bank malpractice: that it doesn’t exist. All this kerfuffle is really the result of bank customers’ complaining about the tragic consequences of their own failings.

The Sydney Morning Herald has devoted months to reproducing fake news on world affairs. Its stablemate has maintained comparable standards regarding coverage of Banking Royal Commission hearings.

On 5 December 2017, the Fin deferred to David Murray, the former Commonwealth Bank CEO, for whom the impending Banking Royal Commission was a threat to the system’s stability. This blowhard drove the CBA’s concerted thrust into an ethics-free culture, yet he is still sought after as expert commentator.

In Part 1 (8 December) of my Clayton’s Banking Royal Commission series, I noted that Tony Boyd, the AFR’s decades-long financial columnist, pooh-poohed the necessity of a Royal Commission. Boyd’s opinion set the scene for much ensuing commentary.

On 13 December, fellow AFR writer Aaron Patrick declaims, with respect to a story involving Westpac:

'But the self-styled whistleblowers and bank victims may find that disillusionment awaits, and possibly come to wish the government had immediately gone ahead with its plan for an independent tribunal to hear their complaints and order compensation.'

The disgruntled borrowers are the source of the conflict. Patrick assumes that the bank’s belatedly constructed “customer advocate” centres are independent. These centres merely dig victims further into the mire, as is their intention.

The editorial of 12 February is representative. It claims:

'The financial sector royal commission … is fundamentally a political response to the core problem of dysfunctional politics, rather than of fundamental problems in Australia's banks. … there is no evidence of systemic corruption, criminality or even widespread unethical behaviour in Australia's big banks.'

The author of this garbage finds no evidence because s/he hasn’t been looking. If s/he had cared to contact me, I could have given them a long earful.


Read more:,11612


Read from top...

by Gus Leonisky on Tue, 2018-06-19 20:30

Earlier this month, Alan Austin lodged a complaint with the Australian Press Council against The Australian, as reported by Independent Australia here. He has just received an emailed reply, declining to investigate the article in question.

Here is his response to the declining:

19 June 2018

Dear Ms Beasley,

Thank you for your response to this complaint.

I am most disappointed you have decided not to pursue this, as Ms Gillard has been the victim of this campaign for more than ten years now, has been comprehensively cleared by all inquiries, including a full royal commission, and yet The Australian [a Murdoch rag]’s attacks continue.

Regarding the specific complaints, your five dot points are correct:

  1. Ms Gillard did not set up or assist in any way to set up any bank account. This has been one of the key falsehoods in The Australian’s campaign from the outset.
  2. Mr Blewitt did not admit to any crime in his 2GB interview. The Australian falsely claims that he did.
  3. Ms Gillard signalled her intention to leave the law firm well before any concerns regarding Messrs Wilson and Blewitt arose.
  4. The recorded interview was not an exit interview. This is another concoction now widely believed.
  5. There is no evidence whatsoever of any “misgivings” by any minister.

There was a sixth falsehood also: that Ms Gillard “had a damaging stain on her record.” Quite false.

Yes, I understand the article in question was an opinion piece, rather than a news story. This is why the complaint specified that your principle 3 was breached, namely:

      “3. Ensure ... that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts.”

The article in question is about as clear an example as can be imagined of opinions “based on significantly inaccurate factual material”.

That I disagree with “the views expressed in the article” is not material. The complaint was not about his opinions. Only about his assertions of fact, which are clearly false.

It is not correct to assert that “statements of fact in the article would (not) be considered so significantly inaccurate or unfair that it is likely that a breach of the Council’s Standards of Practice has occurred.”

The claim that Ms Gillard “left her employment (with Slater & Gordon) in 1995 over her work for Wilson” is false and damaging. As is any claim she was sacked for whatever reason.

So is the allegation that “senior ministers in the Gillard government at the time had grave misgivings about her history”. None had.

Your decision is particularly disappointing as the Council has already upheld a complaint against two Fairfax articles in this matter, adjudication 1566, despite the falsehoods in those articles being far less damaging to reputations.

Ms Gillard has served Australia and the international community well, and continues to do so. She does not deserve this ongoing campaign of demonstrable multiple falsehoods.

For your interest, further substantiation of the complaint was incorporated into this article at Independent Australia, published shortly after the complaint was lodged.,11578

Yours faithfully,

Alan Austin
Nîmes, France


by Gus Leonisky on Tue, 2018-06-19 16:12

June 19 marks six years since the founder of WikiLeaks entered the building of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. He hasn't stepped foot outside it since.

Julian Assange has been residing at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since 2012, where he sought refuge while facing sexual assault allegations in Sweden.

981 days have passed since the Metropolitan police removed dedicated 24/7 guards from outside the Ecuadorian Embassy on October 12, 2015.


Read more:


Julian Assange makes an old Gus proud to be Australian.

All the other monkeys in charge of governing something in Kanbra are pitifully useless and are as empty as a bunch of leaky cardboard buckets... A NOBEL PRIZE FOR JULIAN HAS TO BE.


Read from top.