The definitive rugby union forum. Talk to fans from around the world about your favourite team
https://forum.planetrugby.com/
Instructed to do so by the US Govt in order to extradite Assange.Jay Cee Gee wrote: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.
Ok, I'm gonna leave aside the 'it wasn't rape' bit, cause...well...facepalm.
Why do you think the Swedish govt charged him with rape? Why do you think they NEEDED to?
They did not accuse him of rape. They went to the Police to get a STD test.harvey wilson wrote:Its interesting in todays climate with #metoo and the antics of Weinstein that people are prepared to make excuses for a guy who screws women when they are asleep and either takes off or cuts off the end of a condom.
I don't see how he's different to this grub https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/978009 ... d-for-rape
They don't need to charge him with anything in Sweden to extradite him to the US. The US could simply apply to have him extradited.CrazyIslander wrote:Instructed to do so by the US Govt in order to extradite Assange.Jay Cee Gee wrote: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.
Ok, I'm gonna leave aside the 'it wasn't rape' bit, cause...well...facepalm.
Why do you think the Swedish govt charged him with rape? Why do you think they NEEDED to?
Did I say they did?CrazyIslander wrote:They did not accuse him of rape. They went to the Police to get a STD test.harvey wilson wrote:Its interesting in todays climate with #metoo and the antics of Weinstein that people are prepared to make excuses for a guy who screws women when they are asleep and either takes off or cuts off the end of a condom.
I don't see how he's different to this grub https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/978009 ... d-for-rape
The whole point is to get him extradited from Britain to Sweden. What Assange fears is that before he can defend himself in court he'll be whisked off to the US who have a hustory to detaining people without charge indefinitely.Jay Cee Gee wrote:They don't need to charge him with anything in Sweden to extradite him to the US. The US could simply apply to have him extradited.CrazyIslander wrote:Instructed to do so by the US Govt in order to extradite Assange.Jay Cee Gee wrote: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.
Ok, I'm gonna leave aside the 'it wasn't rape' bit, cause...well...facepalm.
Why do you think the Swedish govt charged him with rape? Why do you think they NEEDED to?
The only risk would have been him skipping the country during proceedings, but seeing as he did that anyway.....
You haven't screwed a woman who was asleep?harvey wilson wrote:Did I say they did?CrazyIslander wrote:They did not accuse him of rape. They went to the Police to get a STD test.harvey wilson wrote:Its interesting in todays climate with #metoo and the antics of Weinstein that people are prepared to make excuses for a guy who screws women when they are asleep and either takes off or cuts off the end of a condom.
I don't see how he's different to this grub https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/978009 ... d-for-rape
He was IN SWEDEN at the time of the charges being laid. He left BECAUSE of the charges.CrazyIslander wrote:The whole point is to get him extradited from Britain to Sweden. What Assange fears is that before he can defend himself in court he'll be whisked off to the US who have a hustory to detaining people without charge indefinitely.Jay Cee Gee wrote:They don't need to charge him with anything in Sweden to extradite him to the US. The US could simply apply to have him extradited.CrazyIslander wrote:Instructed to do so by the US Govt in order to extradite Assange.Jay Cee Gee wrote: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.
Ok, I'm gonna leave aside the 'it wasn't rape' bit, cause...well...facepalm.
Why do you think the Swedish govt charged him with rape? Why do you think they NEEDED to?
The only risk would have been him skipping the country during proceedings, but seeing as he did that anyway.....
No. Does it not bother you whether or not your sexual partners actually consent?CrazyIslander wrote:You haven't screwed a woman who was asleep?harvey wilson wrote:Did I say they did?CrazyIslander wrote:They did not accuse him of rape. They went to the Police to get a STD test.harvey wilson wrote:Its interesting in todays climate with #metoo and the antics of Weinstein that people are prepared to make excuses for a guy who screws women when they are asleep and either takes off or cuts off the end of a condom.
I don't see how he's different to this grub https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/978009 ... d-for-rape
Does it bother you whether his sexual partners actually consent ?harvey wilson wrote:No. Does it not bother you whether or not your sexual partners actually consent?CrazyIslander wrote: You haven't screwed a woman who was asleep?
The line between consent and non-consent is more or less the definition. Probably more than less.CrazyIslander wrote: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.
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.
Incorrect.Jay Cee Gee wrote:He left BECAUSE of the charges.
That is factually incorrect on multiple points.ScarfaceClaw wrote:He was arrested and charged with what is a criminal offence in Sweden. He was granted bail and chose to flee the country, skip bail and hole up in an embassy in London. Whatever the views are on the crimes, as per Swedish law, his actions in deciding that his view of the case overrides the due legal process are not something that should be ignored. The “I believe I am innocent and being stitched up means that I am above the law and I can ignore the legal process” is pure hypocracy given what he believed he was doing with his Wikileaks.
zt1903 wrote:That is factually incorrect on multiple points.ScarfaceClaw wrote:He was arrested and charged with what is a criminal offence in Sweden. He was granted bail and chose to flee the country, skip bail and hole up in an embassy in London. Whatever the views are on the crimes, as per Swedish law, his actions in deciding that his view of the case overrides the due legal process are not something that should be ignored. The “I believe I am innocent and being stitched up means that I am above the law and I can ignore the legal process” is pure hypocracy given what he believed he was doing with his Wikileaks.
zt1903 wrote:That is factually incorrect on multiple points.ScarfaceClaw wrote:He was arrested and charged with what is a criminal offence in Sweden. He was granted bail and chose to flee the country, skip bail and hole up in an embassy in London. Whatever the views are on the crimes, as per Swedish law, his actions in deciding that his view of the case overrides the due legal process are not something that should be ignored. The “I believe I am innocent and being stitched up means that I am above the law and I can ignore the legal process” is pure hypocracy given what he believed he was doing with his Wikileaks.
A crime, with a sentence of up to 1 year imprisonment, is not exactly a minor offence - either way, it's not going to be ignored by the courts and there will be an arrest warrant out for him, until he faces up to it.kiap wrote: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.
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.
Utter bollox - pure speculations and conspiracy theory. How many cases of bail jumping are you aware of, that have been dropped in such circumstances ?TheDocForgotHisLogon wrote:Strikes me the Assange thing is quite like the Dotcom thing. They both come across as people who you'd never, ever, ever want at a dinner party; deeply unsympathetic and so good targets. Neither are Americans, and both have been singled out for special and completely outrageous treatment pour encourager les outres. The governments of NZ and England don't give a fcuk about their rights or due process or anything else vs. their security services' need to do the Americans a favour, and on the back of that the police, the prosecuting authorities, Minsters, etc. have behaved corruptly.
It's a disgrace, but it is what it is and I doubt it'll end well for either of them. That said, if Dotcom can prove errors and malice by the NZ government he's up for a MASSIVE payout, and Assange seems to have a reasonable case re disproportionate action - anyone else skipping bail on a now-dropped charge would quietly be allowed to leave the country.
How is that any different from the rest of the topics and posts on the bored?zt1903 wrote:That is factually incorrect on multiple points.ScarfaceClaw wrote:He was arrested and charged with what is a criminal offence in Sweden. He was granted bail and chose to flee the country, skip bail and hole up in an embassy in London. Whatever the views are on the crimes, as per Swedish law, his actions in deciding that his view of the case overrides the due legal process are not something that should be ignored. The “I believe I am innocent and being stitched up means that I am above the law and I can ignore the legal process” is pure hypocracy given what he believed he was doing with his Wikileaks.
Very different circumstances - for starters, one is a democracy, the other was a regime based on apartheid - with whom we wouldn't have an extradition agreement. In each case we would follow our judicial process. If the extradition case is 'unjust' the UK court will not extradite - as was shown in the recent Hacker case.Wilson's Toffee wrote:I remember the British Government shielding, aiding and even protecting several ANC irregular "fighters" (most bomb planters) in teh UK for many decades, because of the "just" struggle against and "unjust" SA government. Morality.
Does the UK perceive the USA to be just, moral, in their dealings as exposed by Assange ? Do they not have the same obligation to protect Assange against the unwelcome attentions of an unjust government ?
ovalball wrote:Very different circumstances - for starters, one is a democracy, the other was a regime based on apartheid - with whom we wouldn't have an extradition agreement. In each case we would follow our judicial process. If the extradition case is 'unjust' the UK court will not extradite - as was shown in the recent Hacker case.Wilson's Toffee wrote:I remember the British Government shielding, aiding and even protecting several ANC irregular "fighters" (most bomb planters) in teh UK for many decades, because of the "just" struggle against and "unjust" SA government. Morality.
Does the UK perceive the USA to be just, moral, in their dealings as exposed by Assange ? Do they not have the same obligation to protect Assange against the unwelcome attentions of an unjust government ?
FFS - you're comparing a country with whom we have normal relations with, to one with whom had sanctions against. Of course we would have treated requests from them differently.Wilson's Toffee wrote:ovalball wrote:Very different circumstances - for starters, one is a democracy, the other was a regime based on apartheid - with whom we wouldn't have an extradition agreement. In each case we would follow our judicial process. If the extradition case is 'unjust' the UK court will not extradite - as was shown in the recent Hacker case.Wilson's Toffee wrote:I remember the British Government shielding, aiding and even protecting several ANC irregular "fighters" (most bomb planters) in teh UK for many decades, because of the "just" struggle against and "unjust" SA government. Morality.
Does the UK perceive the USA to be just, moral, in their dealings as exposed by Assange ? Do they not have the same obligation to protect Assange against the unwelcome attentions of an unjust government ?
You had an extradition agreement with your former colony. And please do not tell me UK courts will not support an "unjust" case.
Very true. But I just can't understand what they think the UK legal system should do - the guy has committed a reasonably serious crime in the UK and could be subject an extradition request from the US - there seems to be a suggestion that we just abandon our legal process and give him safe passage out of the country - and I just don't think that is possible in the UK.tc27 wrote:Generally - there is little point arguing with conspiracy theorists.
On the other hand, why should he be allowed to rape people?CrazyIslander wrote:So all he's going to face is a charge of skipping bail? Are you interested in buy a bridge by any chance?
If you read the Guardian article quoted earlier you would know that the Crown Prosecution Service had tried to interfere with the case by coercing the Swedes not to drop the charges and telling them not interview him in the UK. Why should Assange feel safe if this is the level of corruption he's facing.
Nope - atm he only faces that charge - but no one can guarantee that other charges will not be brought. The Swedes could re-instate their extradition request - the US may put in such a request. What is absolutely clear is that the UK can't give him a free pass - he will be subject to our legal process, just like everyone else.CrazyIslander wrote:So all he's going to face is a charge of skipping bail? Are you interested in buy a bridge by any chance?
If you read the Guardian article quoted earlier you would know that the Crown Prosecution Service had tried to interfere with the case by coercing the Swedes not to drop the charges and telling them not interview him in the UK. Why should Assange feel safe if this is the level of corruption he's facing.
ovalball wrote:FFS - you're comparing a country with whom we have normal relations with, to one with whom had sanctions against. Of course we would have treated requests from them differently.Wilson's Toffee wrote:ovalball wrote:Very different circumstances - for starters, one is a democracy, the other was a regime based on apartheid - with whom we wouldn't have an extradition agreement. In each case we would follow our judicial process. If the extradition case is 'unjust' the UK court will not extradite - as was shown in the recent Hacker case.Wilson's Toffee wrote:I remember the British Government shielding, aiding and even protecting several ANC irregular "fighters" (most bomb planters) in teh UK for many decades, because of the "just" struggle against and "unjust" SA government. Morality.
Does the UK perceive the USA to be just, moral, in their dealings as exposed by Assange ? Do they not have the same obligation to protect Assange against the unwelcome attentions of an unjust government ?
You had an extradition agreement with your former colony. And please do not tell me UK courts will not support an "unjust" case.
The UK Judiciary is independent of Government - it will decide cases according to the law and has, on many previous occasions, shown it doesn't like 'big brother' types.
Even if it wasn't, are you suggesting that we just suspend our legal system for Assange ?
Originally, they didn't. The police filed an investigation and the Stockholm prosecutor, after the women were interviewed, dropped the rape charge the next day as without evidence.Jay Cee Gee wrote:Fair enough Kiap - question though....
Why do you think the Swedish authorities originally sought to charge him with rape and other offences?
Well, they didn't include a rape allegation from the alleged "rape victim". Quite the contrary.Jay Cee Gee wrote:I don't doubt there's been pressure placed on Sweden and I don't doubt that Assange strongly suspected he'd be extradited. But I also suspect the allegations against him are true, so the martyr stuff is kind of on the nose.
We can't be held responsible for what Sweden do - they have a far different system to us.kiap wrote:Originally, they didn't. The police filed an investigation and the Stockholm prosecutor, after the women were interviewed, dropped the rape charge the next day as without evidence.Jay Cee Gee wrote:Fair enough Kiap - question though....
Why do you think the Swedish authorities originally sought to charge him with rape and other offences?
The woman never alleged she was raped.
But then the case becomes a tangled web involving the legal system, politicians, media and international pressure ...
Here is some documentation on the AGREED STATEMENTS OF FACTS in the case from the UK Supreme Court:
1. The women [AA and SW] went to the police wanting to make Assange get a medical test for STDs.
2. The prosecutor then cancelled the arrest warrant, assessing the evidence did not support a rape offence.
- She did “not want to accuse him of anything”
- “It was the police who made up the charges”, and
- She told her friend she “felt railroaded by police”.
3. Assange cooperates with the investigation, and is interviewed by police.
4. The politician Claes Borgstrom, who was running under a Social Democrat ticket for Justice Minister position becomes the legal representative for the two women. The older of the two women [AA] is also a politician and staffer for the Social Democrats.
After his arrest warrant had been dropped, Assange waits a further two weeks in Sweden, after requesting to be re-interviewed. The request is deferred by the prosecuter and Assange obtains written permission from the prosecution to leave the country. After another two weeks he leaves the country.
- Borgstrom does dozens of media interviews about the case in the run up to the elections.
- He presses the case which is resurrected under another prosecutor (the 3rd), reopening the investigation into the "lesser rape" of the younger woman [SW].
- Borgstrom was later fired by the younger woman [SW] because, she claims, he pays more attention to the media than to his client. She also later publicly stated “I have not been raped”.
Well, they didn't include a rape allegation from the alleged "rape victim". Quite the contrary.Jay Cee Gee wrote:I don't doubt there's been pressure placed on Sweden and I don't doubt that Assange strongly suspected he'd be extradited. But I also suspect the allegations against him are true, so the martyr stuff is kind of on the nose.
That's great 'n' all, dude.ovalball wrote:We can't be held responsible for what Sweden do - they have a far different system to us.
But, he came to the UK, hence he became subject to our legal system - no one asked him to come here.
