I didn't.

But in most judicial systems there is an increase in severity of the penalty imposed the farther it's taken by the defendant.

He might still be fined your £5k figure, but I very much doubt it after his grandstanding.

Assange has manipulated this entire situation to construct a narrative that he is being targeted because he is a crusader of truth, when the reality is he is a Putin sock puppet who has pitted himself against the West. He is a complete fraud and needs to face the music. His suggestion that he isn't going to get a fair go in the British legal system is complete nonsense.

The bloke you rescued did.


What's wrong with grandstanding?

The question is, who will protect you if corrupt people in power decides to take away your freedom? The Asaange example has shown that no one can. Even in a modern democracy with mass media, there's no protection.

Really?

It's too late to go into that particular potentially circular argument.

Night

He'll be arrested again, and will probably not get bail this time, for obvious reasons. He'll the face a trial and will be sentenced if found guilty.



He also promised to hand himself over if Chelsea Manning had her sentence commuted. Obama commuted her sentence but Assange reneged.

Nah, it's good knowing that wikileaks leaks.

Keep it going. I say.

Why would you believe a word Assange says? He's a self aggrandising con artist.

There was never an accusation in the first place.

The Swedish State made the accusations “on behalf of” the alleged victims, the two women who slept with him consensually but wanted him to be compelled to take a STD test after they realised that he’d shagged both of them.

There's the thing though - you can't know that since Assange refuses to be submit to the UK Judiciary - like we all have to. If the US don't have a justifiable case, the UK courts won't extradite him - but he doesn't want to put it to the test - maybe because he feels they do have a good case.

Ahh thanks

Like so few other journalists, what he publishes is important and thus governments hunt him to silence him

It's not a crime to renege a tweet


When?

He's not exactly a man of his word though - and he seems to want guarantees that he'll face no charges, regardless of what he has done - no sane country should give him that.

There's no law against grandstanding.

M'lord.

One of them claimed she woke up to find him having sex with her without a condom, FFS.

As i said earlier, i hink Assange is a bit of a twat... but the arguments presented in this thread for his prosecution highlight the problems within the case mounted against him in my view...

there's a hearsay reaction to him that isn't based in any concrete case based in fact. He rocked the boat and he is being punished for that and that seems fine by many in here... because, why? Why shouldn't someone rock the boat? Why shouldn't someone expose government lies and malpractise and why should that person attract the wrath of the common man for doing so?

I think some of the Wikileaks stuff is poorly judged and since the build up to the US election the organisation seems to have done itself no favours with regard to non partisan activities but if we look back to when Assange was free all he and they were doing was exposing dirty secrets.

the 'rape' case never was rape. That's a massive furphy and if that's all you can level at him then you've got nothing.

Nothing 'hearsay' about him failing to turn up to court when on bail. That's what he'd be arrested for.

Agreed... but it's a little disingenuous to try and suggest that is all that's going on here. Refer tothe article I quoted on the previous page where the CPS lawyer refers to the industrial scale of this one case.

Except an English High Court ruled that the allegations against him, if true, would be equivalent to a charge of rape under English law.

So, are you suggesting he shouldn't be subject to our laws and justice system ?

Fascinating, but irrelevant. Both 'complainants' under Swedish law... you know, where the so called offense is supposed to have taken place, wanted charges withdrawn after local police pressed them 'on their behalf'. Whatever a British High Court thinks of those charges is of mild interest but has no bearing in fact.



No... I'm sugesting there is an inordinate amount of weight placed on aminor charge to prove... what?

Jumping bail is a side issue. It carries a fairly minor retribution, even at its worst.

I think even you know that UK and Sweden are background players in this. The Swedes dropped their warrant over which the UK extradition case to Sweden was based.

It has always been about the US, where there are (potentially) very heavy penalties that might be imposed. Whether the charges would be justified or not is another discussion, but the potential US claim on Assange has always been the main game.

Rapist. Send him to ruSSia for the rest of his life. He can ask Snowden how that is working out for him.

Assange being done for not complying with the paperwork\appearing in court is how they will keep him tied up

It is what western governments do, the bureaucracy controls us all

Surely we need to trust in the legal system?
Assange would be given a fair trial and if he has committed a crime he should be punished accordingly. And if he meets the criteria to be extradited, so be it. The UK is a developed country with low corruption.
If we are going to question the impartiality of the legal system then we are giving up on our civilisation basically.

You hoary old Tory. The impartiality of the legal system should be questioned every day. That's what civilization is about.

Perhaps Assange supporters should be questioning their unquestioning acceptance that the legal system is not impartial?

That's why it's questioned.

Which legal system, anyway - the US?

He's never faced the US legal system at any point, so I wouldn't think so. But there's a general acceptance that the Swedish system is acting in an underhanded manner on behalf of the US and that the British one would also.

Here's the thing that the conspiracy theorists don't seem to address - why were the rape charges necessary? If Sweden wanted to extradite him on behalf of the US, they could have done so when he was in Sweden, he only fled Sweden cause of the rape charges.

Well OK. We question it every day. Its needed to keep it honest.
But we cant start on assumption that the system is corrupt, and hence he shouldnt have to argue his case in front of a judge if deemed necessary.

Hurumph.

Laughs are on the British taxpayer. What's the police bill to date? 20m 50m?

just so we're sort of clear here...

I don't necessarily believe there's an actual like, conspiracy man...

but there is a whiff of due process / carriage of justice being trashed in this case and that is something we should all be concerned about, absolutely. The fact or otherwise that Assange is a sort of twat has everything and nothing to do with what he deserves under law, and the misreprentation of the initial case against him is a matter for concern. Those of us who like to watch movies like the Bourne series know and understand that governments do stuff man. We're just not used to having it paraded in front of us and supported so willingly by the sheeple, y'all.

Guilford four??

And the rest.

This isn't the first time you've implied this - what misreprentation is there? He may not be the Parnell Panther but two different British courts have ruled that the allegations against him would be sufficient for a charge of rape under British law.

Seems to me the mispresentation tends to go the other way - the narrative that this is some quirky Scandi law that wouldn't apply anywhere else is routinely accepted despite having no real basis.

Like I said before... what does it have to do with a British court? How can they determine a case when it is a matter for a different country's laws (under which there is definitely a wider definition of what constitutes rape, by the way) and the case hasn't been heard under their jurisdiction?

What does a British court have to do with it?

Assange's lawyers argued the point when seeking to prevent possible extradition to Sweden - submitting that the charges wouldn't be equivalent.

Sweden's wider definition of rape is irrelevant and the fact you've mentioned it backs up what I said in my previous post, but the reality is that he's alleged to have done would be rape in most other countries.

Have you got a link to this British court ruling? I don't see it included here

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11949341

and I'm intrigued. I disagree with your assertion re. the classification of the charge too... the Swedish law was described at the time as including a range of activiities that would not be considered rape under a number of other jurisdictions so what you're suggesting now is counter to everything I read at the time.