Chat Forum
It is currently Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:00 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 157 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 5:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16754
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.


Here's a summary.

http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-w ... glish-law/

Magistrates Court
Quote:
However, 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.


High Court
Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 5:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39140
Location: in transit
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...
Quote:
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.)


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...

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 6:18 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 14468
From JGCs link
http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-w ... glish-law/

Quote:
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

Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 6:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16754
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...
Quote:
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.)


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...

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.


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.

He's not been proven guilty or innocent cause he's successfully evaded being tried for it. As for the 'flimsy nature' of the original charges, they've never been tested in a court of law either have they? And I wasn't aware of the complainants asking to have the charges withdrawn, indeed I recall one of their attorney's speaking out against the charges being dropped last year. Source?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 6:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16754
CrazyIslander wrote:
From JGCs link
http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-w ... glish-law/


Quote:
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.


Oh well, who to believe? Two British judges or emirjame?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 6:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39140
Location: in transit
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Source?


Yeah, that BBC article I linked to earlier.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16754
guy smiley wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Source?


Yeah, that BBC article I linked to earlier.



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

Can't see anything about them asking to have the charges dropped.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:36 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 14468
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
From JGCs link
http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-w ... glish-law/


Quote:
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.


Oh well, who to believe? Two British judges or emirjame?


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:37 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 14468
.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16754
CrazyIslander wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
From JGCs link
http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-w ... glish-law/


Quote:
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.


Oh well, who to believe? Two British judges or emirjame?


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.


... face meet palm. You're a f*cking idiot.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:41 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 14468
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
From JGCs link
http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-w ... glish-law/


Quote:
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.


Oh well, who to believe? Two British judges or emirjame?


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.


... face meet palm. You're a f*cking idiot.

Eh?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16754
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?


Last edited by Jay Cee Gee on Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 8:46 am
Posts: 539
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:47 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 14468
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?

Instructed to do so by the US Govt in order to extradite Assange.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:49 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 14468
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 did not accuse him of rape. They went to the Police to get a STD test.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16754
CrazyIslander wrote:
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?

Instructed to do so by the US Govt in order to extradite Assange.


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.

The only risk would have been him skipping the country during proceedings, but seeing as he did that anyway.....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 8:46 am
Posts: 539
CrazyIslander wrote:
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 did not accuse him of rape. They went to the Police to get a STD test.


Did I say they did?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:53 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 14468
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
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?

Instructed to do so by the US Govt in order to extradite Assange.


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.

The only risk would have been him skipping the country during proceedings, but seeing as he did that anyway.....

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:54 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 14468
harvey wilson wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
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 did not accuse him of rape. They went to the Police to get a STD test.


Did I say they did?

You haven't screwed a woman who was asleep?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16754
CrazyIslander wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
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?

Instructed to do so by the US Govt in order to extradite Assange.


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.

The only risk would have been him skipping the country during proceedings, but seeing as he did that anyway.....

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.


He was IN SWEDEN at the time of the charges being laid. He left BECAUSE of the charges.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 8:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 8:46 am
Posts: 539
CrazyIslander wrote:
harvey wilson wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
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 did not accuse him of rape. They went to the Police to get a STD test.


Did I say they did?

You haven't screwed a woman who was asleep?


No. Does it not bother you whether or not your sexual partners actually consent?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 8:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31271
harvey wilson wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
You haven't screwed a woman who was asleep?


No. Does it not bother you whether or not your sexual partners actually consent?


Does it bother you whether his sexual partners actually consent ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 8:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 6743
CrazyIslander wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
From JGCs link
http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-w ... glish-law/


Quote:
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.


Oh well, who to believe? Two British judges or emirjame?


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.


The line between consent and non-consent is more or less the definition. Probably more than less.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 26453
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
He left BECAUSE of the charges.

Incorrect.

The prosecutor in Sweden gave written permission in September 2010 for Assange to leave the country.

... which he did within a few weeks.

The Swedes got into an impossible situation where the case was opened, dropped and re-opened more than once.

The United States pressured other nations to prosecute Assange and his supporters.

... which the Swedes attempted to do.

The prosecutors couldn't (read "didn't have to") reveal and test their "case" until Assange had been interviewed. But in the end, they couldn't afford to conduct the interrogation, because to do so would end the process and show there was no legal base to the case.

Far better to tie-up the wikileaks rogue in legal limbo while he was under asylum from the Ecuadorians.

... which they managed to do year on year by postponing his interrogation, until eventually charges started dropping off as statute limitations went past.


Last edited by kiap on Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16754
Fair enough Kiap - question though....

Why do you think the Swedish authorities originally sought to charge him with rape and other offences?

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31271
If there was really a case of sexual assault/rape, they would have had him before the courts in Sweden in double time. Not given him a fortnight and permission to bugger off.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31271
Maybe Assange was fleeing from something like this ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqhX9L_fYz0

The right of transgender women/men to be dated by straight men ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11539
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 10:41 am
Posts: 3909
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31271
Self preservation against unjust actions is always a legitimate defense.

Even if those charges are dropped, by now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:12 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9526
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.


That is factually incorrect on multiple points.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31271
zt1903 wrote:
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.


That is factually incorrect on multiple points.



These bots are not noted for their accuracy or truthfulness..


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16754
zt1903 wrote:
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.


That is factually incorrect on multiple points.



Which ones?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11895
kiap wrote:
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.

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.


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.

He seems to think that he shouldn't be subject to the same laws as the rest of us and will only come out of his bolt hole if he gets his own way. That, quite simply, is not going to happen - and nor should it.

The potential claim the US have on him is another matter - but the UK has no power to give him a pass on it. If, when he comes out, the US put in a an extradition claim, he will have to go through the legal process, just like anyone else. It's not as if he hasn't got teams of lawyers to argue his case.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11895
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.


Utter bollox - pure speculations and conspiracy theory. How many cases of bail jumping are you aware of, that have been dropped in such circumstances ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31271
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 ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 812
zt1903 wrote:
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.


That is factually incorrect on multiple points.


How is that any different from the rest of the topics and posts on the bored?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11895
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 ?


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4965
Assange - our rapey savior who hid in a cupboard for our sins.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Julian Assange
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31271
ovalball wrote:
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 ?


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.



You had an extradition agreement with your former colony. And please do not tell me UK courts will not support an "unjust" case.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 157 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bimboman, Chilli, CrazyIslander, Fangle, frillage, Geek, Google [Bot], holbob, inactionman, Jeff the Bear, jolindien, lorcanoworms, Masterji, Morgan14, SaintK, sockwithaticket, TheMantis96, Troll, Yourmother, zt1903, zzzz and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group