The definitive rugby union forum. Talk to fans from around the world about your favourite team
https://forum.planetrugby.com/
The bloke you rescued did.happyhooker wrote:I didn't.
What's wrong with grandstanding?happyhooker wrote: He might still be fined your £5k figure, but I very much doubt it after his grandstanding.
Really?kiap wrote:The bloke you rescued did.happyhooker wrote:I didn't.
What's wrong with grandstanding?happyhooker wrote: He might still be fined your £5k figure, but I very much doubt it after his grandstanding.
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.kiap wrote:Everyone, eh? By all means.ovalball wrote:But, he should still be arrested and charged with jumping bail. The law has to apply to everyone - he's no exception.
They don't really bother imprisoning everyone for that on its own. Jail space is in short supply so it's probably a fine of up to five grand.
Unless they're looking to make an example out of it.
He also promised to hand himself over if Chelsea Manning had her sentence commuted. Obama commuted her sentence but Assange reneged.Maximum when tried summarily: Level 5 fine and/or 3 months (some of which would be time served, so he'd be unlikely to spend any further time in prison)
Maximum when tried on indictment: 12 months
In certain circumstances, a magistrates’ court may commit to the Crown Court for sentence.
Nah, it's good knowing that wikileaks leaks.freewheelan wrote:He is a complete fraud and needs to face the music.
Why would you believe a word Assange says? He's a self aggrandising con artist.CrazyIslander wrote: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.
There was never an accusation in the first place.jambanja wrote:Why were the rape charges dropped? was the accusation withdrawn
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.CrazyIslander wrote: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.
Ahh thankszt1903 wrote:There was never an accusation in the first place.jambanja wrote:Why were the rape charges dropped? was the accusation withdrawn
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.
Like so few other journalists, what he publishes is important and thus governments hunt him to silence himfreewheelan wrote:Why would you believe a word Assange says? He's a self aggrandising con artist.CrazyIslander wrote: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.
It's not a crime to renege a tweetovalball wrote:He also promised to hand himself over if Chelsea Manning had her sentence commuted. Obama commuted her sentence but Assange reneged.
When?ovalball wrote: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'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._fatprop wrote:Like so few other journalists, what he publishes is important and thus governments hunt him to silence himfreewheelan wrote:Why would you believe a word Assange says? He's a self aggrandising con artist.CrazyIslander wrote: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.
There's no law against grandstanding.happyhooker wrote:Really?kiap wrote:What's wrong with grandstanding?
One of them claimed she woke up to find him having sex with her without a condom, FFS.zt1903 wrote:There was never an accusation in the first place.jambanja wrote:Why were the rape charges dropped? was the accusation withdrawn
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.
Nothing 'hearsay' about him failing to turn up to court when on bail. That's what he'd be arrested for.guy smiley wrote: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.
Except an English High Court ruled that the allegations against him, if true, would be equivalent to a charge of rape under English law.guy smiley wrote: 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.
So, are you suggesting he shouldn't be subject to our laws and justice system ?guy smiley wrote: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.ovalball wrote:
Nothing 'hearsay' about him failing to turn up to court when on bail. That's what he'd be arrested for.
Jumping bail is a side issue. It carries a fairly minor retribution, even at its worst.ovalball wrote:Nothing 'hearsay' about him failing to turn up to court when on bail. That's what he'd be arrested for.
You hoary old Tory.Farva wrote:If we are going to question the impartiality of the legal system then we are giving up on our civilisation basically.
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?kiap wrote:You hoary old Tory.Farva wrote:If we are going to question the impartiality of the legal system then we are giving up on our civilisation basically.
That's why it's questioned.Jay Cee Gee wrote:acceptance that the legal system is not impartial?
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.kiap wrote:That's why it's questioned.Jay Cee Gee wrote:acceptance that the legal system is not impartial?
Which legal system, anyway - the US?
Well OK. We question it every day. Its needed to keep it honest.kiap wrote:You hoary old Tory.Farva wrote:If we are going to question the impartiality of the legal system then we are giving up on our civilisation basically.
Guilford four??Farva wrote: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.
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.guy smiley wrote:misreprentation of the initial case against him is a matter for concern.
Assange's lawyers argued the point when seeking to prevent possible extradition to Sweden - submitting that the charges wouldn't be equivalent.guy smiley wrote: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?Jay Cee Gee wrote: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.guy smiley wrote:misreprentation of the initial case against him is a matter for concern.
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.
What does a British court have to do with it?
Here's a summary.guy smiley wrote: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.
High CourtHowever, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape.
It is clear that the allegation is that he had sexual intercourse with her when she was not in a position to consent and so he could not have had any reasonable belief that she did.
Elisabeth says:
22nd August 2012 at 21:57
The reports are out there. Reading through them; I can only read that there was concent.
The women only went to the police because they wanted a std test done. I have trouble understanding why in fact everyone argue about sleeping and concent. The reports are dealing more with the condoms issue, implying that JA had tampered with them. That he had cut them rather than a natural tear which do happen frequently.
Reading on the net, I know at least one of the women refused to sign the statement at the station once she understood what was happening. And why the dealted tweets done later. There was no DNA on one condom, sent for retesting. Test that they will not release why because it is damning or because there is nothing there. And why not question JA while he waited around in Sweden for some twenty + days.
Surely everyone abhors violence, sexual againts women as well as children and men, but this seems to have moved beyond bizarre. But read through the report. How can anyone read anything but concent. I know in the past Swdish courts have very strongly demanded a definite no to convict which is why men have been freeed even in cases of gangrape when women have been too drunk or drugged up to protest even verbally.
Elisabeth
emirjame says:
20th August 2012 at 21:46
I was in court when this was discussed in detail. It was clear that woman 2 never objected to sex with Assange . She was not happy though when she discovered he did not wear a condom but (in her own words) decided “to let it continue”.
As she never objected to the sex itself & gave consent when he told her he did not use a condom…. this does not constitute rape in the UK. She also did not consider it rape as she gave her interview in the evening, saw that Assange was accused of rape & decided not to sign her interview in the morning.
No, he isn't charged under British law but many - including you on this thread - have mentioned Sweden's wide definition of rape and implied (or outright stated) that what he's accused of isn't 'rape'. Well, you've got two British courts saying that it is. Of course that doesn't mean he's guilty, but the narrative that it's he's only accused of 'rape' in inverted commas is bullshit.guy smiley wrote:So, we're arguing a delicate technical pointhere and there is definitely a case to be made for non consensual unprotected sex being rape, I've no argument with that.
However, towards the bottom of the blog you provided is this...He hasn't been found guilty of rape under British Law. We are discussing a definition and there is a suggestion he would be found guilty, but the court itself notes that examining evidence may reveal that not to be the case...Some may say, as a matter of opinion, that the allegation should not be regarded as rape.
And it is certainly the case that the allegation, if Assange is ever charged and prosecuted, may not be proved when the evidence is properly examined.
But there is no doubt that, as a statement of positive law, English courts have held – twice – that the relevant allegation would also be an allegation of the offence of rape in English law.
(Post script – this post by the experienced sexual offences lawyer Felicity Gerry explains in general terms why “sleep rape” would be rape under English law.)
so we're jumping the gun here. He isn't charged under British Law. The charges under Swedish law were withdrawn due to time expiry, but note that is some years after the complainaints themselves asked to have the charges withdrawn and were over ruled by Swedish police and prosecutors...
all of which does nothing to refute my assertion regarding the flimsy nature of the original charges and the subsequent case being mounted to 'prove' something about Assange that is nothing more than innuendo.
Guilty until proven innocent, basically.
Oh well, who to believe? Two British judges or emirjame?CrazyIslander wrote:From JGCs link
http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-w ... glish-law/
emirjame says:
20th August 2012 at 21:46
I was in court when this was discussed in detail. It was clear that woman 2 never objected to sex with Assange . She was not happy though when she discovered he did not wear a condom but (in her own words) decided “to let it continue”.
As she never objected to the sex itself & gave consent when he told her he did not use a condom…. this does not constitute rape in the UK. She also did not consider it rape as she gave her interview in the evening, saw that Assange was accused of rape & decided not to sign her interview in the morning.
guy smiley wrote:Yeah, that BBC article I linked to earlier.Jay Cee Gee wrote: Source?
Consent constitutes rape does it? If you read properly the women did not accuse him of rape. He was interviewed and was not charged with rape. What we have now is the Swedish government being coerced into making up rape allegations with no evidence.Jay Cee Gee wrote:Oh well, who to believe? Two British judges or emirjame?CrazyIslander wrote:From JGCs link
http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-w ... glish-law/
emirjame says:
20th August 2012 at 21:46
I was in court when this was discussed in detail. It was clear that woman 2 never objected to sex with Assange . She was not happy though when she discovered he did not wear a condom but (in her own words) decided “to let it continue”.
As she never objected to the sex itself & gave consent when he told her he did not use a condom…. this does not constitute rape in the UK. She also did not consider it rape as she gave her interview in the evening, saw that Assange was accused of rape & decided not to sign her interview in the morning.
... face meet palm. You're a f*cking idiot.CrazyIslander wrote:Consent constitutes rape does it? If you read properly the women did not accuse him of rape. He was interviewed and was not charged with rape. What we have now is the Swedish government being coerced into making up rape allegations with no evidence.Jay Cee Gee wrote:Oh well, who to believe? Two British judges or emirjame?CrazyIslander wrote:From JGCs link
http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-w ... glish-law/
emirjame says:
20th August 2012 at 21:46
I was in court when this was discussed in detail. It was clear that woman 2 never objected to sex with Assange . She was not happy though when she discovered he did not wear a condom but (in her own words) decided “to let it continue”.
As she never objected to the sex itself & gave consent when he told her he did not use a condom…. this does not constitute rape in the UK. She also did not consider it rape as she gave her interview in the evening, saw that Assange was accused of rape & decided not to sign her interview in the morning.
Eh?Jay Cee Gee wrote:... face meet palm. You're a f*cking idiot.CrazyIslander wrote:Consent constitutes rape does it? If you read properly the women did not accuse him of rape. He was interviewed and was not charged with rape. What we have now is the Swedish government being coerced into making up rape allegations with no evidence.Jay Cee Gee wrote:Oh well, who to believe? Two British judges or emirjame?CrazyIslander wrote:From JGCs link
http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-w ... glish-law/
emirjame says:
20th August 2012 at 21:46
I was in court when this was discussed in detail. It was clear that woman 2 never objected to sex with Assange . She was not happy though when she discovered he did not wear a condom but (in her own words) decided “to let it continue”.
As she never objected to the sex itself & gave consent when he told her he did not use a condom…. this does not constitute rape in the UK. She also did not consider it rape as she gave her interview in the evening, saw that Assange was accused of rape & decided not to sign her interview in the morning.
CrazyIslander wrote:
Consent constitutes rape does it? If you read properly the women did not accuse him of rape. He was interviewed and was not charged with rape. What we have now is the Swedish government being coerced into making up rape allegations with no evidence.