There are some interesting details here I don't quite understand, help?
If the Judge refused bail before Assange's lawyer asked for it, why didn't they protest in court that this was not an accurate presentation of the facts?
Why don't they ask the Judge to justify why Assange is being treated differently to other prisoners found guilty of 'skipping bail', how many are held for the maximum sentence in the UK? If most are realeased after half the time has elapsed, why is this Judge treating Assange different and so harshly, your honour?
To me, his lawyers seem rather passive, but maybe they don't want to 'antagonise' the Judge, but is that even possible in this case? How much more can they do to him? Why aren't they pointing out in open, for the record, that Assange is not being treated as a 'normal' prisoner, but as a political one?
What grounds or possibilities do they have to appeal the Judge's rulings. Couldn't they tell the Judge they are preparing to complain about her or appeal to the European Court of Human Rights?
They don't seem very proactive or willing to challenge the legitimacy of what's happening in these hearings.