 Well, I think it's a very bad decision, a bad decision for Julian, but also it's a bad decision for democracy because it's a nod to unquestionable autocratic state power. It implies a trust that hasn't been borne out. We know that the US has reneged several times, once to the UK, once to Spain, for example, on these assurances, so they really mean very little. And it's quite surprising that the highest court in the land, given that is the case is prepared to remove the only grounds on which extradition was barred on the US's say so. It also of course that's precedent for extradition cases so they are formulating extradition law in this case. It's bad for Julian, because it circumvents the only grounds on which is extradition was barred by the district court judge, and this by the highest court in the UK. Now of course goes to pretty pastel and I don't think anyone really believes that she's going to stop the extradition, I think she will approve extradition and then it will be for Julian's defense team to counter appeal and start the appeals process from the beginning So they will then appeal on all the grounds that they argued the other grounds that they argued during the extradition hearing, such as press freedom and fair trial. Now, you have to wonder how inclined the High Court will be when they hear this appeal to rule in favor of Julian. And I think, given what we've heard in the US appeal to the High Court, there's really very little hope there. The judges are inclined to want to rule in the United States favor. The only thing that stood between Julian and the High Court knocking back the assurances, the acceptance of assurances was eczema. Now that's an indication of their predisposition, I think. So really, while this is going on, it's all about keeping him in jail, it's all about wearing him down, affecting his health and wearing down his defense team, wearing down his supporters, emptying their pockets. And in the meantime, he's held in a high security prison in the UK. He should of course be released on bail. He shouldn't be in prison anyway. The problem, though, is this the prosecution has stated that if the assurances aren't accepted, they'll simply issue another indictment. What that says to me is they're not prepared to give up. And should this be barred at any stage, if they have a High Court stage or Supreme Court stage, they will simply issue another extradition. So we have to go to the source of this tenacity and who has control here? Who has the power to stop it? The United States government, the UK government. The UK government can bar extradition. The United States government can do better. It can stop seeking it. So then there's, you know, there's no fear that it will all happen again at some point in the future. I don't know that there is much political appetite in Australia or in the United States or in the UK to seek and bring about a political solution. This is a huge problem. And at present, I think one of the problems would be for politicians who might be inclined to otherwise argue in his favor when they had the medical grounds. It provides some safety for them to be arguing when there are medical grounds. When that's taken away, when the UK court has said no, the US prison system can deal with that, then they have to deal with the hard facts of what this case is all about. And that would take some courage, particularly in the current climate, because we know, well, I know, talking to politicians, despite the fact that this indictment is about 2010. They all bring up Russia. They all bring up Hillary. And at present, with the war on in Ukraine, it would be extremely difficult for a politician to argue the case when he or she knows and their colleagues know that there is a feeling among them that somehow he is responsible for Donald Trump. The one thing they don't get is that a journalist's responsibility is to reveal the truth and not to favor any particular candidate. So it would have been the opposite of what he should have done had he not revealed that information before an election. The American electorate were entitled to know that Bernie Sanders had been cheated out of the nomination. But by doing the right thing, he has lost political support. You know, this is what's required at the moment, political support. And that, I think, is the biggest obstacle. How likely is it that the High Court will refuse a counter appeal as well, and then further down the track, perhaps, ignore the European Court of Human Rights if they try to put a bar on extradition. Well, I think I touched on that earlier when I didn't think the High Court are going to be very inclined to ruin his favor. Because as we saw from the hearing of the US appeal to the High Court, the only thing that stood between him and a bar to extradition in the view of the Chief Justice of the High Court was eczema. I think they will find they will look for any excuse to rule in the United States favor. That's what I was making earlier. So I assume that you mean that they would even refuse to hear it. I'm not a legal expert, but of course, they're the two options. Either they refuse to hear it, which would speed things up somewhat, or they hear it. They go through the motions, which will take, you know, many, many months again and knock it back. So I don't think the options are great. I'd like to say that I have faith in the UK's High Court, but after what we saw in the US appeal case, I don't. I think what we saw was a very, very strong desire on the part of the judges to rule in the United States favor. And I don't know that they want to set this precedent by ruling in Julian's favor on press freedom and fair trial grounds. Yeah, even on the breach of attorney client privilege, the spying on the defense. That's so generic, isn't it? Yeah, look, the problem is we don't, we don't know how it's all going to play out in the courtroom. What I'm trying to say is I think they will find any excuse and give something that we would regard as very small. A lot of weight, if it's going to get them over the line. You know, it might be better if one of the lawyers answered that question. I mean, I can say to you what I think, I think, of course, you know, that's exactly what should happen, particularly after all the evidence that the CIA was plotting to kill him. I just don't feel that it feels to me as if it appears as if irrespective of what the evidence is going to be, they will find a way to knocking back. They will find a way to keep him in jail. I'm afraid I'm pretty pessimistic about it. I agree. And I think that it would be very embarrassing for the UK and the US to have this counter appeal heard, in fact, the evidence that will come out. Yes, which is why they may very well refuse. Supposing that the defence make an application to the European Court of Human Rights, Britain isn't obliged to abide by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. So do you think it's likely that they would just ignore them? Well, we'll just have to see. We'll have to see. I think one of the lawyers might be able to answer that question more in a fuller way because you've really got to look at previous cases and what can happen. I mean, the United States doesn't pay any attention to human rights courts. So I don't know whether in this case Britain would be inclined to take a leaf out of their book. So the poodle wouldn't do it either. The second question is, possibly on the 11th of May, according to Anthony Albanese, we may have a new government in Australia. Do you think that Labour will make more of an effort given how many Labour politicians are in the Assange support group and Anthony Albanese himself has said enough is enough? I hope so, Kathy. I hope that that's going to be the case. But I think Anthony Albanese had a little bit of Dutch courage because of the decision to bar extradition on medical grounds. It's just that, you know, it's safe. It's not it doesn't offend anyone politically to say someone can't be extradited shouldn't be extradited because they're unwell and they're not going to cope and they're going to end up killing themselves. It's a little different to say, well, okay, so the United States are going to have offered assurances that they will ensure that that doesn't happen. So then what's left, what's left are the cold, hard facts, evidence of the CIA trying to kill him, of the fact that he won't get a fair trial in the United States because of the state in which the trial is going to be heard, that he'll be sent to a high security prison and held in solitary anyway. He may not be held in SAMS or they're saying he won't be held in SAMS, but then they can change their minds and depending on something he might say or do in the meantime. So, no, I think unless the politician is prepared to offend the United States. And let's face it, you know, the offences given we do so much for and with the United States. I don't think it would be such a big deal for the Australian Prime Minister and Australian Labour Prime Minister to say to them, what we would like is for you to drop the charges here because it's sending the wrong signal about who you are and who we are. We are not repressive autocratic regimes. Moving back to that issue of health and eczema. So of course that's Chief Justice Burnett, who rejected a comparison with the case of Laurie Love, who was not extradited for health reasons. Since then, well actually on that very day, Julian was having a stroke, a minor stroke, which is often a warning that a major one is on the way. So don't you think that a stroke is much more severe than eczema and couldn't Albanese intervene again on the basis of health, which is terribly degenerated. Yes, well of course you're right. He has had this stroke and that has happened, or that happened while the hearing was was being conducted. So it is something that can and should be raised and that may indeed provide the key to having that conversation, being able to have that conversation with the United States and say, look, you know, we've been through all this. You've offered assurance that he's now had a stroke. You know, if he dies over there, it's going to be a bad thing for the Australian government because we haven't brought him home and it's not going to look good for you either. And this is the sort of thing that we accuse the Russians of, we accuse the Chinese of. Why are we doing this? I hope so.