7.30pm: We're wrapping up this live blog now.

Recap

But first, here's a summary of Wednesday's main developments in Assange's asylum bid.

• Julian Assange remains inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London after seeking asylum in the country on Tuesday, in the latest twist in his legal battle aginst extradition to Sweden to face accusations of sex assaults made by two women in August 2010. It is not at all clear what his next move can be, even if Ecuador does grant his request.

• Anna Alban, the Ecuadorian ambassador issued a statement regarding Assange's asylum claim, in which she stresses Ecuador's "long and well-established tradition of supporting human rights". But she added that it is not the country's "intention ...to interfere with the processes of either the UK or Swedish governments."

• The Foreign Office has confirmed the embassy is diplomatic territory, and that while Assange remains there he is "beyond the reach of police". But the Metropolitan Police says he will be subject to immediate arrest if he attempts to leave the building because he has breached his bail conditions.

• Some of Assange's most prominent supporters stand to lose up to £240,000 in bail money, provided to secure his freedom when he first faced extradition proceedings. A leading criminal lawyer said that following Assange's asylum bid, which breaches the terms of his bail, the supporters would have to persuade the courts why they should not forfeit their money and prove they had done all they could to prevent him breaking the court order.

• Assange's asylum bid is "a tragedy" for the two women who have accused him of sexual assault in Sweden, their lawyer has said. Claes Borgström, who represents the two unnamed women with whom the WikiLeaks founder had sexual relations in Stockholm in August 2010, said the women were frustrated and disappointed by Assange's decision to seek asylum rather than face investigation in Sweden over claims of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.

Thanks for following the blog and for your comments below.

7.25pm: My colleague James Ball, a former member of staff at Wikileaks, says it is unclear how the drama surrounding Assange's extradition battle will unfold from here on.

7.24pm: An online petition supporting Assnage's asylum bid has been set up, you can sign it here.

5.49pm: My colleague Owen Bowcott has been examining the legal issues involved in Assange's asylum bid.

Among the questions he addresses is whether there any way the Ecuadoreans can spirit Assange out of Britain to the safety of their capital Quito; whether there have been similar cases; how long the diplomatic standoff can last; and whether the Swedish authorities can bring any legal challenge against the Ecuadorean government, forcing them to hand over Assange.

Similar cases are rare but some have gone on for years, Owen writes:

In 1956, the US granted the Catholic Cardinal József Mindszenty refuge in their Budapest embassy; he stayed for 15 years.

Seven Pentecostalists who burst into the US embassy in Moscow in 1978 seeking asylum remained in its basement until 1983.

5.39pm: Hi, this is David Batty and I'm taking over the live blog for the rest of the day. You can follow me on Twitter @David_Batty.

Julian Assange's lawyer says his client sought political asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy in London because he believed he would not "see the light of day for 40 years" if he was extradited to Sweden, writes my colleague Esther Addley.

Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents the WikiLeaks founder in the US, said Assange and his legal team considered it highly likely that he would face an onward extradition to the US if he were sent to Sweden.

"The concrete reality [is] that he was facing a political prosecution in the US, he was facing the death penalty or certainly life in jail. Faced with that, he had extremely limited choices."

4.53pm: Glenn Greenwald, a former constitutional lawyer and a contributing writer at Salon has written this comment piece on Comment is Free, which argues that "the evidence that the US seeks to prosecute and extradite Assange is substantial".

There is no question that the Obama justice department has convened an active grand jury to investigate whether WikiLeaks violated the draconian Espionage Act of 1917. Key senators from President Obama's party, including Senate intelligence committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, have publicly called for his prosecution under that statute. A leaked email from the security firm Stratfor – hardly a dispositive source, but still probative – indicated that a sealed indictment has already been obtained against him. Prominent American figures in both parties have demanded Assange's lifelong imprisonment, called him a terrorist, and even advocated his assassination.

It concludes:

If he's guilty of any crimes in Sweden, he should be held to account. But until then, he has every right to invoke the legal protections available to everyone else. Even more so, as a foreign national accused of harming US national security, he has every reason to want to avoid ending up in the travesty known as the American judicial system.

4.34pm: Anna Alban, the Ecuadorian ambassador has issued a statement regarding Assange's asylum claim, in which she stresses Ecuador's "long and well-established tradition of supporting human rights", but adds that it is not the government "intention ...to interfere with the processes of either the UK or Swedish governments."

Here is the statement in full:

This morning I had a meeting with representatives of the British Government at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to discuss the application of Mr Julian Assange for diplomatic sanctuary and political asylum. The discussions were cordial and constructive.

I welcome the statement from the UK Government last night in which they stated that they (the UK Government) would work with the Ecuadorian government to find a resolution.

I also took the opportunity to explain that the decision on Mr Assange's application would be assessed by the department of foreign affairs in Quito and would take into account Ecuador's long and well-established tradition in supporting human rights.

I also emphasised to the UK Government that it was not the intention of the Ecuadorian government to interfere with the processes of either the UK or Swedish governments.

I have made clear that I will make myself available to meet with the UK Government's representatives at any time so that we can find a just and fair solution to this situation.

4.25pm: The Australian Foreign Minister Senator Bob Carr has commented on Assange. The transcript on ABC news can be found here.

Here are a few excerpts:

On whether the Australian government has discussed Assange's possible extradition to the US with US officials:

I've raised it with a US official. There has been no hint of an American interest in doing this. In theory it could not be ruled out, but it just strikes me as curious that if the Americans wanted to extradite him, they'd have every opportunity to extradite him from the United Kingdom, where he's been for some years.

There's an extradition treaty, I understand, between the United States and the United Kingdom and indeed there's some legal advice that it would be easier for America to do it with the United Kingdom than with the government of Sweden.

I repeat: this is the Swedes pursuing extradition to question Julian Assange about a sexual assault allegation. It's not about WikiLeaks, it's not about the release of classified information. And if the United States were interested in an agenda that involves extradition of Julian Assange, they could do it quite possibly more easily from the United Kingdom than from Sweden.

[...]

Julian Assange's argument here is with one government. That is the government of Sweden which wants to extradite him, which has pursued him in the UK courts to extradite him to ask him questions about a sexual assault allegation. It's not WikiLeaks, it's not about secrets, it's not about political persecution. The Assange argument is with the government of Sweden.

4.06pm: Stephan Küffner, writing for the Guardian in Ecuador, has elaborated on Assange's history with Ecuador and "that" interview.

While in 2011, President Rafael Correa balked at the idea of offering Assange residency – which Kintto Lucas, the deputy foreign minister at the time, had recommended – his interview with Assange reflected a change of heart. Irrespective of the Swedish accusations, Correa told Assange "welcome to the club of the persecuted."

Given Assange's world media exposure, it was understandable that Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño would make a public announcement of the kind he did on Tuesday, in which he was sympathetic for Assange's plight but stopped short of saying that Ecuador would grant him asylum, says Michel Levi, professor of international relations at Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar in Quito.

Assange's request could not have been a surprise for Ecuador's government after the interview, he added. "First contact was probably established when Lucas was still in office, and Assange off-camera likely asked whether asylum was an option," without necessarily having been given the green light at that time, Levi says.

Asylum wouldn't indicate that Correa believes that Wikileaks legally obtained and published the US diplomatic cables, he added. For Assange to travel to Ecuador, the Correa administration would have to approve his request for asylum and issue a letter of safe conduct.

3.58pm: But even if asylum is granted, Assange may struggle to get to Ecuador. My colleague Owen Bowcott, the Guardian's legal affairs correspondent has sent this useful Q&A.

Q: Is there any way the Ecuadoreans can spirit Assange out of Britain and ensure he reaches the safety of Quito, their capital?

A: If Assange steps out of the embassy, he is liable to be arrested. Were he to be given a diplomatic passport, that would not alter the situation: immunity from arrest is only conferred on diplomats accredited to the Court of St James's by the Foreign Office.

Any attempt by the Ecuadoreans to have him accredited would be rebuffed by UK authorities. Were Assange to accept an Ecuadorean diplomatic pasport, some suggest, he would become an Ecuadorean national - and therefore be unable to seek asylum in what would now be his own country's embassy. It's a cunning profession diplomacy - dangerously double-edged.

Owen tells me that he has confirmed with the Foreign Office that if Assange exited the building directly into a car with diplomatic number plates, it would not give him diplomatic immunity. If he leaves the building he can be arrested.

3.45pm: One of key questions still to be answered is how likely is the Ecuadorean government to offer Assange sanctuary?

My colleague Esther Addley suggests that although it has already been noted, it is worth pointing out again that Assange has been making overtures to Ecuador for some time. The drama being played out before us may be sticking to a well-rehearsed script, with asylum perhaps offered months ago during an interview between Assange and the Ecuadorean president.

Ecuadorean Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino confirmed at a news conference in Quito that Assange had personally written to President Rafael Correa to ask for asylum.

As the Associated Press reported:

On Assange's newly-launched television talk show which interviewed Correa via videolink earlier this year the pair swapped jokes and messages of encouragement.

It was during the interview that Assange received an offer of asylum, according to a woman who was present during the shows and familiar with the offer. She spoke on condition of anonymity because she was not authorized to speak to the media.

It was not immediately clear if the offer came directly from the president himself, although at one point Correa saluted WikiLeaks and told Assange to take courage.

"Welcome to the club of those who are persecuted!" said Correa, whose government has been assailed by human rights and press freedom activists for using Ecuador's criminal libel law in sympathetic courts against journalists from the country's biggest newspaper, El Universo.

Assange and his allies had been in discussions over a possible attempt to seek sanctuary in Ecuador since last weekend, according to a person familiar with the matter.

"His concern was that once he arrived in Sweden he would be held in custody and would not have a chance to seek sanctuary again," the person said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.

3.15pm: Reader FhnuZoag below the line has some reflections on the same point.

It's a definitional point, coming down to how you translate the
swedish word 'lagforing' into English. In Sweden, formal 'charging' is
a process that happens after questioning. This came up in the
Extradition Ruling. As part of the EAW application, the applicant has
to commit that they intend to go to prosecution, and state the charges
that may be brought. As the extradition ruling establishes:

In our jurisdiction prosecution will normally be started by the laying of an information, or a decision to charge. In many, perhaps most, other European countries the position is different. It is necessary to adopt a cosmopolitan approach to the question of whether as a matter of substance rather than form Mr Assange is wanted for prosecution. The fact that Sweden requires a person to be interrogated, before a formal decision to charge is made, is not determinative. Each country has its own procedures for prosecuting offences. The fact that the defendant would be interviewed upon his return is no clear indication that this is a criminal investigation rather than a criminal prosecution. This point was made recently in Asztaslov v Szekszard City Court, Hungary [2011] 1 WLR at para 46.

I advise that everyone read the extradition ruling. It cuts through a lot of the lies and misinformation around.

3.06pm: Hello, Lexy Topping here taking over from Shiv on the liveblog.

Several readers are asking if Assange actually faces "charges". Answering this question is not as clear cut as you might expect.

This is from Dan Lucas who used to be the UK correspondent for Dagens Nyheter, the leading morning paper in Sweden. He covered the Assange extradition drama, but notes that he is NOT a lawyer or legal expert.

Time and again the question of Assange "not being charged" is raised. Well, that all depends on how you translate the term. If you mean that being charged is the same as being prosecuted, then the answer is that Mr Assange is NOT charged.

If, on the other hand, the term is meant as a mandatory prelude to being prosecuted, then yes, Mr Assange is charged. This does not mean that he WILL be prosecuted.

There is no such thing as being charged in Swedish law. There is however a formal step that must be taken before a prosecutor can _ as in the case of Mr Assange _ reguest a court to remand a person. This is the notification of a suspicion of crime. There are two levels of suspicion, reasonable and probable, the latter being the more serious level.

Mr Assange is "on probable grounds" a suspect of a crime that carries at least one year in prison (four years is usual for "standard rape" in Sweden) That is why the District Court of Stockholm remanded him (in absentia) and why the Svea Court of Appeal upheld that ruling.

2.30pm: Rob Booth reports:

Julian Assange's decision to seek asylum in Ecuador is "a tragedy" for the two women who have accused him of sexual assault in Sweden, their lawyer has said.

A link to the full story is here.

2.19pm: Our reporter Esther Addley has filed this update on the Australian political brouhaha that has been kicked up as a consequence. (Note: Assange is an Australian citizen).

The background is that Assange has accused the Australian government of making an "effective declaration of abandonment", refusing to protect him or make interventions on his behalf to the Swedish or US authorities.

Speaking at a press conference in Los Cabos, Mexico, where she is attending the G20 summit, the Australian PM Julia Gillard said: "Mr Assange's decisions and choices are a matter for Mr Assange. We, our officials, our consular officials, will be in contact with him and also with Ecuador in London about this, but his decisions in relation to this matter are for him to make."

"He's received the benefit of full consular support and of course Australia will continue to support Mr Assange, just as we do support any Australian overseas who faces legal difficulties or dilemmas."

Pressed on whether Australia would intervene were the US to request his onward extradition on espionage charges, which carry the death penalty, she said: "You're dealing with hypotheticals here and I'm not prepared to hypothesise about an individual, but I am going to be very clear with you.
"For any Australian citizen, at any time, in any circumstances, we oppose extradition for death penalty cases."

But the Australian Green party attacked its govenrment's response as "feeble" and accused it of "malign indifference". "Apart from recklessly and incorrectly declaring the work of WikiLeaks illegal, the Government's contribution has amounted to malign indifference," said Scott Ludlam, Senator for Western Australian.

"It is highly significant that the Ecuadorian authorities said they have contacted the British, Swedish and US governments on this matter but not Canberra.

"The Australian Government might want to reconsider on which side of history it is choosing to stand."

1.58pm: On the subject of staying at embassies, the Guardian's Maya Wolfe-Robinson writes:

Although legal experts doubt that Assange will have much luck avoiding arrest if he leaves the Ecuadorian embassy, perhaps he had another plan in mind.

Comparisons to Chen Guangcheng have been made, the Chinese dissident who took sancutary in the US embassy in Beijing.

But Assange may also have been thinking of József Mindszenty. Mindszenty, a Hungarian Catholic cardinal, spent 15 years in the American embassy in Budapest from 1956 to 1971.

Mindszenty, politically active since ordination, was arrested several times as an enemy of the state before being convicted of treason in a show trial in 1949.

It seems that Mindszenty somewhat overstayed his welcome and eventually became troublesome for the US government due to overcrowding in the embassy and the floor space his quarters took up. If Assange is planning on staying, let's hope the Ecuadorians have room.

(See post previous post regrading space at the embassy)

1.34pm: A reader, Christopher Fitzsimons, writes in with some details of the inside of Ecuador's London embassy.

Fitzsimons says he interned at the Embassy in 2003 - so a while back - and even has a letter of recommendation as proof of this which he sent us. The embassy's address is flat 3b, Hans Crescent in Knightsbridge. Here's what it looks like from the outside:

So what did it look like on the inside? According to Fitzsimons's 2003 recollection:

The embassy itself is quite small. There is a small reception area with one or two staff members dealing with visitors which is the first thing you see, to your right, when you walk in.

The ambassador's office is located directly across from the reception and is the largest room in the embassy. It is lined with several cabinets with certificates, awards and so on and has a large wooden desk, large desk chair and if I am not mistaken a small sofa along with a meeting table. I would assume this is where Assange would be.

There are three to four other small rooms (a fax/printer room, a room with two-three desks used for processing visas, passports, other admin tasks and so on, a kitchen/dining area with a television and some filing cabinets and one more small office, where I worked).
 
There were about 6 staff members working there when I was there.... In general the furnishings are nice; relatively plush and comfortable but the embassy itself is really very small and even the ambassador's office, although pleasant, is not all that roomy.

1.19pm: The Guardian's data journalist and former staffer at WikiLeaks James Ball sends me a clarification and some of his thoughts on the matter.

The clarification is that the previous 2010 offer to Assange to live in Ecuador (cited here) was in fact withdrawn a day later by president Correa himself.

Given the continuing saga, James also muses on exactly what kind of drama we are dealing with here...

With its stand-off at the tiny Ecuadorian embassy in London, the Assange melodrama has entered its third act. But despite the drama, we don't yet know for sure what kind of story it is.

The first possibility is political thriller: Assange is right, his critics wrong. The US is indeed trying to extradite Assange via Sweden, using a method which avoids due process and involves political interference.

There's been no evidence to support this theory, despite it being the basis of Assange's bid for asylum, but it would be a problematic one for the US: a backdoor extradition would bring a lot of disillusioned WikiLeaks supporters back into the fold, likely prompt a (grudging) defence of Assange from the New York Times and others, and give Obama serious first amendment and human rights challenges in an election year.

Tactically, it would be the worst possible way for the US to seek extradition.

The second option is greek tragedy: a world in which Assange has spent so long conflating allegations centred around his private life on a few days in Sweden with WikiLeaks' wider battles he's come to believe his own spin.

Instead of seeing a Swedish prosecution, Assange's belief it comes wider has led him to breach his bail, lose his supporters their bail money, and cause an diplomatic ruckus.

The third is soap opera: time and again during his Swedish sex case, Assange has escalated the situation – refusing to take an STD test, leading to the prosecution. Leaving the country and refusing. to attend a face-to-face interview (offering only Skype or through the embassy), leading to extradition.

Fighting the extradition through every court to the highest in the UK. And now, prompting a stand-off outside an embassy – always moving in the direction of increasing drama and public attention.

To those supporters still fanatically loyal to Assange, which of the three is happening matters a great deal.

To others, it's already a tragedy. WikiLeaks' alleged source Bradley Manning faces trial – and a possible death sentence – in the US. Sixteen supporters who allegedly took part in attacks on PayPal, Mastercard and Visa, the online equivalent of sit-in protests, for their boycott of WikiLeaks each face up to fifteen years in prison, and await their day in court.

A group of alleged UK hackers belonging to the Lulzsec group will each face their trials next week. And the WikiLeaks submission system remains down, as it has for nearly two years.

But we're not looking at any of that. We're looking at the Ecuadorian embassy - the aftermath of a few days in Sweden.

1.03pm: Haroon Siddique who is currently at the embassy sends this update:

There are seven Assange suppporters outside the embassy. Each is holding a small placard saying, "Free Assange, no extradition".

They are also holding a banner saying, "Free Assange, Free [Bradley] Manning, end the wars".

They say they are from various orginsations: Veterans for Peace, Friends of Bradley Manning, and London Catholic Workers.

Protestor Ben Griffin, from Veterans for Peace, said: All of us have been supporting Julian throughout the legal process. We see him as a peaceful war resister. Julian has taken the decision to seek asylum at this embassy and we are showing our solidarity for him.

Asked about the police he said, "the police have got to do what the police have got to do".

Gavin MacFayden, an Assange supporter from the Centre for Investigative Journalism at City University said after meeting the WikiLeaks founder: "He's is very good humour and the generosity of the embassy is impressive and moving."

He added that Assange was in a "small room".

12.54pm: Bianca Jagger who has supported Assange wants to set the record straight on posting/not posting for his bail:

I would like to set the record straight. I didn't post bail for Julian Assange. You should know by now that the media can be very inaccurate

— Bianca Jagger (@BiancaJagger) June 19, 2012

12.32pm: There are lots of people asking why Assange chose Ecuador to claim asylum?

One answer is that Assange and Ecuador's president have a good relationship (see here).

Digging deeper, Correa previously invited Assange to live and work in the country back in 2010. According to the contemporaneous Reuters' report:

Deputy Foreign Minister Kintto Lucas told local media that Ecuador was attempting to get in touch with WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange to invite him to the country, praising his work as an investigator.

But asks @ConorFarrington:

@shivmalik1 but an interesting choice nonetheless given Correa's vexed relationship with the media and press freedom...

— Dr Conor Farrington (@ConorFarrington) June 20, 2012

This is a good point as only last week the Guardian's Roy Greenslade wrote of the rising tensions between opposition press and politicians in the country.

The president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, has said he is "seriously considering" ordering government ministers to give interviews only to public media and not to media run for profit.

Added to this we also have @OliverBullough who tweets

Here's irony: the owner of an Ecuador newspaper sought asylum in an embassy this year after government persecution on.wsj.com/Kk818A

— Oliver Bullough (@OliverBullough) June 20, 2012

And links to the Wall Street Journal who write:

Earlier this year, a part owner of Ecuador's leading newspaper took refuge in the Panamanian Embassy in Quito after Ecuador's top court ordered the paper to pay a $40 million fine and upheld three-year prison sentences for the part owner and three others for defaming Mr. Correa.

After a world-wide outcry, Mr. Correa forgave the fine as well as the prison terms, and the newspaper's owner left the embassy.

12.10pm: More legal opinion from Joshua Rozenberg, the Guardian's Law blogger who may help to answer some of those questions from readers..

Julian Assange's decision to seek political asylum in Ecuador shows how desperate he must feel.

We may infer from it that he sees little chance that the European court of human rights would even ask the UK to delay sending him to Sweden, let alone declare that he would face a breach of his human rights in a state bound by the human rights convention. 

That should come as little surprise. The Strasbourg court has regularly made it clear that it will issue what are called interim measures under rule 39 only if "the applicant faces a real risk of serious, irreversible harm".

Assange apparently fears that Sweden would send him to the United States. He is said to believe he might face a trial there for espionage, although the US has made no announcement to this effect.

Sweden is seeking Assange's extradition from the UK in connection with alleged offences of sexual molestation and rape.

If it turned out that this was simply a pretext for handing him over to the Americans, Sweden would risk breaching article 28 of the EU framework decision that forms the basis of the European Arrest Warrant.

The Home Secretary's consent would be required under section 58 of the Extradition Act 2003 before Sweden could order Assange's extradition to a third state.

That said, Assange can be less sure about what would happen to him after all legal proceedings in Sweden are concluded. But even if the Americans ask for his extradition at that stage, Sweden would not agree to extradite him unless the US undertook that he would not face the death penalty on conviction....

It is for the Ecuadorians to decide whether they want to annoy the UK, the EU and, no doubt, the US by offering Assange asylum.

But to do so might be something of an empty gesture. The police will not enter a foreign embassy to make an arrest. But short of giving Assange Ecuadorian diplomatic status or hiding him in a rather large diplomatic bag, there seems no way in which he can get to Heathrow, let alone Ecuador, without being arrested for breach of his bail conditions.

12.03pm: We have a number of readers' questions which we are attempting to answer as soon as we can. Here is a selection of them:

thecantonlighthouse asks: "I thought Sweden only wanted to question him and that no charges had been brought to date."

zerocrash adds: "Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't the UK have a far more US friendly extradition treaty than Sweden. If the US wanted to extradite him why don't they just do it from the UK?"

This is from andbaconstrips: "If his bid for asylum is successful does that mean he's going to spend the rest of his life cowering from justice in Ecuador? I've been to Ecuador. It's an impoverished corrupt mess; not somewhere I'd care to be stuck for the rest of my days."

BoredomisPoower wonders if there any consequences for making frivolous asylum claims?

And finally trondandresen asks: "Will Assange get free passage out of UK if he is given asylum by Ecuador?"

All pressing questions and we will get back with answers as soon as possible.

11.39am: The Guardian's data editor, Simon Rogers has posted a fascinating analysis of Assange's chances of obtaining asylum based on new statistics taken from the UN. He writes:

Ecuador has a total population "of concern" to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees of 144,494 people - according to the latest data out this week. That is the second highest number in Latin America after Venezuela.

And, compared to its population of 14m people, it has a proportionately high number of refugees - 8.5 for every 1,000 people. That compares to 7 for Venezuela and only 3.1 for the UK. 

The majority of Ecuador's refugees - 122,587 people - come from neighbouring Colombia.

It's not a certainty Julian Assange will join them either. Ecuador rejected  9,584 applications for asylum in 2011 - that's 78% of all the decisions it made that year and 68% of all applications.

The country still has 21,558 pending asylum cases where it hasn't decided yet.

But Ecuador also produces refugees too, something which may not have occurred to Assange. 909 people at the end of 2011. 

11.29am: Matthew Happold, a barrister and professor of international law has sent us a short history of asylum in South America.

Diplomatic asylum has a long history in Latin America, although not an uncontroversial one.

Two cases between Colombia and Peru concerning the former's granting of diplomatic asylum to the Peruvian rebel Haya de la Torre came before the International Court of Justice in the Hague in the 1950s, thus setting out some rules on the practice.

In Europe, however, incidents have been less common, and when they have occurred States have been unwilling to grant safe passage out of their territory. Cardinal Mindszenty remained in the US emabssy in Budapest for 15 years before being permitted to leave Hungary.

Consequently, it cannot be said that the UK government is obliged to respect a grant of asylum by Ecuador and allow Assange to leave the country. A rule to that effect, if such exists, only applies between Latin American States He may, however, given that diplomatic premises are inviolable, remain in the Ecuadorian embassy as long as the ambassador permits him to. And his welcome will most probably soon wear out.

10.57am: Comments are now on.

10.38am: It is worth noting that Assange is actually quite friendly with Ecuador's president, Rafael Correa. In fact, Assange invited Correa on to his Russia Today show to be interviewed, just last month.
Here's the interview:

_

10.36am: Our reporter Haroon Siddique, who is down at the embassy now, has just filed the latest update from the scene:

When I arrived there were about eight police officers. Police vehicles have been coming and going all morning. I asked one officer what whether he was there to arrest Assange and he said, "We've just been told to stay here until we're told otherwise".

About 10:20, all of the police suddenly left. And apart from the odd bewildered tourist there's no official presence nor any sign of supporters.

The embassy staff are not taking any questions.

10.09am: Here is a statement from the Foreign Office which came to us late last night. They have confirmed that the Ecuadorian embassy enjoyed diplomatic immunity and therefore Assange is "beyond the reach of the police".

The Ecuadorean authorities have informed us that Mr Assange had today [Tuesday] requested political asylum in their embassy in London.

The government of Ecuador is considering the request.

As Mr Assange is in the Ecuadorean embassy he is in diplomatic territory and beyond the reach of the police. We will seek to work with the Ecuadorean authorities to resolve this situation as soon as possible.

10.04am: Here's the full statement from the police:

On 7 December 2010, officers from the Metropolitan Police Service's Extradition Unit arrested Julian Assange on behalf of the Swedish authorities.

Julian Assange, now 40 (d/ob 3/7/71), was arrested on a European Arrest Warrant by appointment at a London police station.

He is accused by the Swedish authorities of one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of rape, all alleged to have been committed in August 2010.

Assange appeared at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on 7 December 2010.

He was later granted bail by the High Court, subject to a number of bail conditions. One condition was to remain at his bail address between 22.00hrs and 08.00hrs.

At around 22.20hrs on Tuesday, 19 June, the MPS was notified that Assange had breached one of those bail conditions.

He is now subject to arrest under the Bail Act for breach of these conditions.

Officers are aware of his location at The Ecuador Embassy in Hans Crescent, London.

9.55am: Good morning and welcome to our live blog charting the events surrounding the somewhat surprising move by Julian Assange to claim asylum at Ecuador's embassy in the UK.

To recap, yesterday afternoon the WikiLeaks founder walked into the Ecuadorian embassy and claimed asylum under the UN's human rights declaration. This followed an unsuccessful attempt to appeal against his deportation to Sweden to face allegations of rape. A summary of those events is here.

Our US team also ran a blog overnight, covering reaction following Assange's flight to the embassy. This can be found here.

The latest update is that as of this morning, the Metropolitan police have told us that Assange, who is still under bail conditions following his unsuccesful appeal to extradition, has now breached those conditions – one of which was to remain at his registered address between the hours of 22.00hrs and 08.00hrs.

They police say they will arrest him and are aware of his current location at the embassy in Knightsbridge, west London. Our reporter at the embassy Haroon Siddique, reports that there are police at the embassy. What we have in effect, is a stand-off.

We also have some questions which we will attempt to answer in the following hours which are

• Why has Assange chosen Ecuador?

• How long can Assange stay at the embassy?

• Can he make it to Ecuador?

• What's the Ecuadorian embassy like?

• What happens to the bail money that was put up for Assange by his celebrity backers? Will they lose it?

NOTE: If you have information you'd like us to share privately please do get in touch on my email shiv dot malik @guardian.co.uk. I am also on Twitter - @shivmalik1.