No DNA On Assange's Alleged Torn Condom

[Waratah]

Ah OK Waratah you wish to see my proof of the need for the UK to approve any further extradition. Well instead of claiming that it was in 'some thing I read and failing to establish it ill happily demonstrate it.

It is contained in article 17 of the Framework of the European arrest warrant

A state wishing to prosecute a surrendered person for offences committed before his or her surrender, or extradite a surrendered person to a third state, must, subject to certain exception, obtain the permission of the executing judicial authority. Such a request is made in the same form as a European Arrest Warrant, and granted or refused using the same rules which determine whether surrender would be granted or refused

You can read more in full Here

I understand you have not directly said that I was " claiming that it was in 'some thing I read and failing to establish it", but your use of my name in the same paragraph could infer I had done that, especially since no other name was associated. Could you please in future make it clear who said what so as not to accidently mislead people.

I could not find in your link, Article 17, but I did finally find the "Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States - Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision."
LINKY

Article 17
Time limits and procedures for the decision to execute the European arrest warrant
1. A European arrest warrant shall be dealt with and executed as a matter of urgency.
2. In cases where the requested person consents to his surrender, the final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant should be taken within a period of 10 days after consent has been given.
3. In other cases, the final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant should be taken within a period of 60 days after the arrest of the requested person.
4. Where in specific cases the European arrest warrant cannot be executed within the time limits laid down in paragraphs 2 or 3, the executing judicial authority shall immediately inform the issuing judicial authority thereof, giving the reasons for the delay. In such case, the time limits may be extended by a further 30 days.
5. As long as the executing judicial authority has not taken a final decision on the European arrest warrant, it shall ensure that the material conditions necessary for effective surrender of the person remain fulfilled.
6. Reasons must be given for any refusal to execute a European arrest warrant.
7. Where in exceptional circumstances a Member State cannot observe the time limits provided for in this Article, it shall inform Eurojust, giving the reasons for the delay. In addition, a Member State which has experienced repeated delays on the part of another Member State in the execution of European arrest warrants shall inform the Council with a view to evaluating the implementation of this Framework Decision at Member State level.

The Article 17 I found is different to yours. Myn could be out of date or you may have written the incorrect article number

Could you please provide a link to where you got the "Article 17 statement".

In your European Arrest Warrant link I found this:

An EAW can only be issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution (not merely an investigation), or enforcing a custodial sentence.[1] It can only be issued for offences carrying a maximum penalty of 12 months or more. Where sentence has already been passed an EAW can only be issued if the prison term to be enforced is at least four months long.

My Bold.
If the above is true why has the UK granted extradition?
I think we all have to remember that wikileaks has pissed off a lot of governments.
I found a link within your link titled Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority

Assange has not yet been formally charged with any offence. [36] The prosecutor said that, in accordance with the Swedish legal system, formal charges will be laid only after extradition and a second round of questioning. Observers note however that Assange has not yet been interviewed about several of the allegations[37], including the most serious, and that Swedish law allows interviews to be conducted abroad under Mutual Legal Assistance provisions[38]

If the above is true why hasn't the Swedish authorities done this(question abroad) and why are they so keen to get Assange to Sweden?
IMO Assange has every right to be paranoid that governments are out to get him.