> Oct 21st: London Airport evacuated due to "chemical attack", potentially used as cover to fly Assange out of country.
Cover for who to fly Assange out of the country?
When an airport is evacuated that's going to stop air traffic out of the airport, and it is likely to cause enhanced scrutiny of the people who are at the airport. If the people trying to get him out are not working with the UK government, that would not be the opposite of what they want.
If it was the UK government trying to get him out, they could probably arrange for a special flight to leave the airport while it is ostensibly down. Of course, that would draw attention to that flight because you'd have assorted airport workers see that a flight had received special permission to leave a closed airport, and so it must be something very important.
Why would they do that, when if it is the UK government they could simply take Assange in a windowless van to a UK military base and fly him out on a military flight? That could easily be done in a way that would have virtually no risk whatsoever of calling attention to the operation.
Actually, the same goes for anyone else trying to get him out. The hard part in moving Assange is at the Ecuador embassy end of things, not at the transport out of the UK end. If the Ecuador embassy is cooperating with the move, then the windowless van works no matter who the party is.
Furthermore, in addition to the practical aspects you list, it was actually London City Airport that was evacuated; that's the small, single-runway one in the Docklands.
Because of its steep approach there are only certain specified aircraft types permitted to operate there and anything untoward would be quickly spotted.
It's also 11 miles east of the Ecuadorian embassy, requiring a journey right through the heart of the city. Whereas RAF Northolt is a much quicker and easier trip to the north-west...
I think we see here how 'false news' starts. Unhelpful facts are omitted or made ambiguous, and then mixed with a spoonful of conjecture.
Also jets leaving an airport aren't invisible and anyone living near there could have noticed a plane leaving an airport that was supposed to be closed due to a chemical attack.
It would actually be pretty counterproductive to draw so much attention to the airport and then send a supposedly secret flight out of it.
Cover for who to fly Assange out of the country?
When an airport is evacuated that's going to stop air traffic out of the airport, and it is likely to cause enhanced scrutiny of the people who are at the airport. If the people trying to get him out are not working with the UK government, that would not be the opposite of what they want.
If it was the UK government trying to get him out, they could probably arrange for a special flight to leave the airport while it is ostensibly down. Of course, that would draw attention to that flight because you'd have assorted airport workers see that a flight had received special permission to leave a closed airport, and so it must be something very important.
Why would they do that, when if it is the UK government they could simply take Assange in a windowless van to a UK military base and fly him out on a military flight? That could easily be done in a way that would have virtually no risk whatsoever of calling attention to the operation.
Actually, the same goes for anyone else trying to get him out. The hard part in moving Assange is at the Ecuador embassy end of things, not at the transport out of the UK end. If the Ecuador embassy is cooperating with the move, then the windowless van works no matter who the party is.