> It is absolute nonsense to describe being in the healthcare unit as solitary confinement and it absolutely does NOT qualify as solitary isolation under British law, or EU law or UN law.
The article I linked makes a very strong argument that the location and/or reason for solitary confinement does not change its nature. Indeed when the British prison system uses "segregation" to curtail contact with other prisoners there is an official approval and review process that is designed to asses impacts on the prisoner's mental health. The "healthcare" isolation didn't involve any such process.
The article also lays out exactly how Assange's isolation for 22 hours a day qualifies as "solitary confinement" under both UN and EU laws. Are you disputing the facts of Assanges isolation or the interpretation of these laws?
> There is absolutely nothing to suggest HMPPS have anything other than his interests in mind.
I think it is pretty damning that a nonviolent prisoner was placed in a maximum security prison for a parole violation and then placed in isolation in a manner that bypassed the standard processes that would have protected Assange's mental health during that isolation.
If the HMPPS had really had Assange's interests in mind, he would have been placed at a medium or low security psychiatric facility.
> All of this is covered in the judgment if you could be bothered to read it rather than accusing me incorrectly of not knowing the facts.
Please indicate where this is all covered in that judgement as I can't address the entire document in a hope that I cover the sections you are referencing.
It's difficult to engage constructively with you because it is obvious you have come to your conclusions based on reading extremely biased sources and you refuse to read primary sources. You also Gish gallop around which is enervating to deal with.
You haven't addressed my question so I am going to assume that you now realise you were wrong in what you said, but don't want to admit it.
Your argument has now evolved from a factual one that can be disproved (9 months in solitary confinement), to a conspiracy theory; Assange was put in the healthcare unit against his interests, as a political punishment. This has no factual basis. It is for you to prove this claim.
> It is absolute nonsense to describe being in the healthcare unit as solitary confinement and it absolutely does NOT qualify as solitary isolation under British law, or EU law or UN law.
The article I linked makes a very strong argument that the location and/or reason for solitary confinement does not change its nature. Indeed when the British prison system uses "segregation" to curtail contact with other prisoners there is an official approval and review process that is designed to asses impacts on the prisoner's mental health. The "healthcare" isolation didn't involve any such process.
The article also lays out exactly how Assange's isolation for 22 hours a day qualifies as "solitary confinement" under both UN and EU laws. Are you disputing the facts of Assanges isolation or the interpretation of these laws?
> There is absolutely nothing to suggest HMPPS have anything other than his interests in mind.
I think it is pretty damning that a nonviolent prisoner was placed in a maximum security prison for a parole violation and then placed in isolation in a manner that bypassed the standard processes that would have protected Assange's mental health during that isolation.
If the HMPPS had really had Assange's interests in mind, he would have been placed at a medium or low security psychiatric facility.
> All of this is covered in the judgment if you could be bothered to read it rather than accusing me incorrectly of not knowing the facts.
Please indicate where this is all covered in that judgement as I can't address the entire document in a hope that I cover the sections you are referencing.