[Closed] Assange.

It doesnt seem to be going USADAs way at the moment....why doesnt the gutter cycling press report the upsides for him?

Totally different thread there hora but I think you are misreading the situation.

[b]I have no proof he raped anyone, [/b]but given two girls claim he has, and he's spent two years doing everything he can to avoid the Swedish judicial process, it seems a reasonable deduction

No, and the Swedish Authorities didn't either, which is why the case was dropped and he was told he was free to leave.

Well, can we maybe look at examples of cases being dropped and then taken up again as 'evidence of innocence' perhaps?

How about Ian Tomlinson as an example, when they dropped assault charges against PC Harwood http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10725027

But they later decided to prosecute him for manslaughter, didn't they... I'm sure you can draw your own conclusions as to whether the fact they initially dropped charges supports or undermines his 'guilt'...

I think there's a very interesting development in this case - normally, if any of the 'right wing loons' (tm) even dared to suggest that a woman 'made up' rape allegations then they'd be getting hauled over the coals, the castigation that Ken Clarke received for suggesting that some rapes were more serious than others being a good example of the type of opprobrium that would be unleashed,

However, for some reason, since Assange is a 'darling of the progressives' (tm) we seem to think that its OK to assume that the victims can have their character assassinated in a way that would be unthinkable in any other situation (even naming them would be a criminal offence if this was a UK case!)

I thought that the women involved had asked about assange agreeing to STD tests and then after that point it had been blown all out of proportion.

What exactly are the facts in the matter?

The exact allegation set out in the European arrest warrant is that he is wanted for questioning in accordance with the allegations that:

[i]
"1. Unlawful coercion
On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm. Assange, by using violence. forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party's arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
2. Sexual molestation
On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consomethinged unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
3. Sexual molestation
On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
4. Rape
On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consomethinged sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange. who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used. still consomethinged unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's sexual integrity."[/i]

No other description of the conduct was given elsewhere in the EAW.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

Is it true, none of us know - but there's clearly allegations to answer, and I think it puts pretty firmly to bed the claims that 'what he did isn't even an offence in the UK' 😐

I think it puts pretty firmly to bed the claims that 'what he did isn't even an offence in the UK'

I doesn't firmly put them to bed for me at all.

Whilst rape is clearly illegal in the UK I am not entirely convinced that a woman who willingly goes to bed with a man for the specific purpose of having sex, can then much later claim that she was raped. Unless she was unable to give consent, due for example, to intoxication. Sweden clearly has some rather different legal interpretations of what constitutes consensual sex compared to the UK, and indeed many other countries.

So bearing in mind those points, plus the fact that at this stage Sweden isn't even interested in arresting Assange and merely wants to question him, I find it absolutely astonishing that the Met police feels this case warrants 24 hours surveillance of the Ecuadorean embassy with all the associated costs to the taxpayer and the diversion of scarce resources.

It's almost as if there is another more serious and undeclared reason for pursuing Assange which they don't want to tell us about, that would justify the time, money, and manpower, being spent.

Is this possible ? Or would there really be the same level of commitment and police officers involved in a single, vaguely similar case, in the UK ?

ernie - That's quite a repulsive thing to say even by some STW standards. So a woman who is asleep who had consenting sex with someone therefore consents to having sex by default?

ernie - That's quite a repulsive thing to say even by some STW standards.

You think that pointing out that what constitutes consensual sex in Sweden is different to what constitutes consensual sex in many other countries, including the UK, is "quite repulsive" ? Get a grip ffs.

I think you'll find having sex with someone who didn't consent because they were asleep isnt acceptable, or legal, in either country

Part one of the UK High Court decision clearly states that Assange is alleged to have forcibly restrained the victim and then had sex with her whilst she was clearly unwilling to consent to the act, that is a pretty clear-cut definition of rape in pretty much any Western Nation.

Personally, having seen the accusations against him i can't see why he shouldn't be made to stand trial in Sweden.

Also, under Swedish Law, an interview can only take place in person, and in Sweden.

Sorry Ernie, but you really look like you are trying to blame the victim here.

Sorry Ernie, but you really look like you are trying to blame the victim here.

I'm not blaming anyone as I wasn't there on the night, so hardly in a position to point an accusing finger.

But if a woman jumps into to bed for the purpose of sex, unless they drugged/intoxicated/etc, then they can't really start complaining later that they had sex. Don't get naked into bed with a man if you don't want sex, simple really.

And I'm not impressed with allegations that they were "tricked" such as this :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10717186

Yes, a man might tell you that he is very wealthy and has a Ferrari just so he can get into your knickers, but if it turns out that he hasn't got a pot to piss in and only a clapped out Ford, no, sorry, you can't cry "rape".

Don't get naked into bed with a man if you don't want sex, simple really.

you're on thin ice with comments like that

I'm only on thin ice because I'm likely to upset those who want to prove their ultra-liberal feminist friendly credentials, and are scared of having their views described as "repulsive" if they apply commonsense.

Luckily I don't give a monkeys, so the thickness of the ice doesn't really bother me.

Pretty inflammatory post, if you wanted get the thread closed down you could have just insulted the mods or something.

Pretty inflammatory post

😯 Inflammatory post ???

Inflammatory post

that said it's pretty quiet on here at the moment, the thread may just slip off the front page anyway.

I might be wrong but I'm guessing your stance........

I've made clear what my stance is. I consider rape to be an extremely serious allegation, I know from experience how damaging and life changing it is. I don't think trivialisation of the offence helps the victims of rape.

You might not agree with me but please don't tell me that I'm on "thin ice".

EDIT : BTW in case it's not clear by trivialisation I mean stuff like this :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10717186

^ That particular case might involve fraud, deception, whatever, I don't know, but it's certainly not "rape".

But if a woman jumps into to bed for the purpose of sex, unless they drugged/intoxicated/etc, then they can't really start complaining later that they had sex. Don't get naked into bed with a man if you don't want sex, simple really

Next you'll be telling us that they were obviously asking for it because they wore short skirts...

Well those who plotted to put Assange out of action have won and we've all lost because in the brief period Wikileaks was running as intended I learned a lot. Thank you M. Assange, I'm sorry your fight for free speech cost you your freedom.

Next you'll be telling us that they were obviously asking for it because they wore short skirts...

You think jumping into bed for the purpose of sex is the same as wearing a short skirt ? Only you Z-11, only you.

jumping into bed for the purpose of sex

So, you 'jump into bed' and have sex wearing a condom, then wake up in the morning with him having his way without one

hardly sounds consensual to me (indeed, UK law is quite clear, a sleeping person cannot consent to sex)

Shifting the ground already Z-11 ?

I said : [i]"Don't get naked into bed with a man if you don't want sex, simple really"[/i]

Yep, it's that simple. And the shocking thing is that I'm not even scared to say it ! 🙂

No mention of "short skirts".

"Don't get naked into bed with a man if you don't want sex, simple really"

Blimey, are you implying that if she changes her mind, because she went to bed and got naked with the intention of having sex it negates her right to change her mind and the man has reason to carry on regardless?

I really don't think you are as you seem a reasonably bright bloke, but that's the way it reads to me and seemingly to others.

Blimey, are you implying .......

It's pretty clear what I'm saying, never mind implying. Yes that's right, my advice is that if a woman strongly wishes not to have sex with a man, and "rape" is an extremely serious allegation, then the commonsense solution is not to get into bed naked with them. It's not exactly rocket science and I can't see why anyone would want to argue against that advice.

But the right of either party to stop proceedings at any point remains and if the man uses some measure of force to continue the act (as seems to the allegation with Mr Assange) then it is rape.

Your statement is tantamount to saying she was asking for it!

Your statement is tantamount to ......

I can see that you don't agree with my advice that if a woman strongly wishes not to have sex with a man, and "rape" is an extremely serious allegation, then the commonsense solution is not to get into bed naked with them.

Well I'm actually concerned with the consequences of a woman finding herself naked in bed with a man she doesn't want sex with. So yep, I'll stick to that advice. And no you can't compare it with getting on a bus, walking down the street, or like Z-11 wanted to do, 'wearing a short skirt'.

I can see that you don't agree with my advice

Ernie, I think you are deliberately trying to shift the axis of the conversation.

You make a fairly inflammatory statement, which is read by many to mean that "she was asking for it" and now you realise that you have, perhaps, not written exactly what you meant say.

Rather than say so, you choose to try and turn the statement into a piece of sage advice that women should not go bed with a man naked and that I do not agree with this.

I would suggest that men take the advice that no means no under any circumstances and that ignoring this, I believe, is rape and has been demonstrated as such in past rape cases.

EDIT: Typo!!

Of course they have the right to change their mind. They can change their mind one second before sexual peak. But my advice still sticks - if you strongly do not wish to have sex with someone, then don't get naked in bed with them. This is getting a tad boring btw.

EDIT : that was aimed at D0NK

Of course they have the right to change their mind.

But if a woman jumps into to bed for the purpose of sex, unless they drugged/intoxicated/etc, then they can't really start complaining later that they had sex

Yes of course they can change their mind, but don't waste the judicial system's time by getting into bed naked with someone you don't want to have sex with or might change your mind.

Back on topic - statement from Assange tomorrow at 1300 hrs GMT, precise location not disclosed, should be interesting to see how UK Govt handle this one.

What if you had sex with someone, regretted it, then later claimed you didn't want to have sex before the act either?

What then?

From The Times:

Outside the embassy, there is a ragtag group of protesters from what must be a new organisation called something like the Radical Pro-Rape Alliance. They hold the extremist view that men shouldn’t be charged with rape, or indeed any sexual offences, if they are acquainted with John Pilger. They are wearing those smug Guy Fawkes masks, the most irritating contribution to leftwing politics since John and Yoko got their kit off.

Notable by their absence are the affluent metro-liberal monkeys who stumped up the cash for Assange’s bail — the likes of film-maker Ken Loach and Jemima Khan, the socialite. Rather hilariously, their money might have gone down the Swanee and Khan now says that Assange should return to Sweden to face charges.

...

It is remarkable, given this carnival of lunatics — the exhibitionist, the terminally deluded, the conspiracy theorists and so on — that Britain has contrived to make itself look stupid, perhaps even more stupid than the Ecuadoreans. Apparently some idiot from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office told the ambassador we might revoke their diplomatic status if Assange was not delivered up.

As this fell into Ecuador’s lap, it began to howl about colonialist oppression. You can also imagine how welcome that threat was to our own ambassadors in friendly satrapies around the world, such as Iran or North Korea. It was a fantastically stupid bit of impotent sabre-rattling.

Storm the Foreign Office – Assange has sent it loopy
Rod Liddle

google has no hits for the radical pro rape alliance the gent who left his honeymoon early to sleep with his mistress refers to. He will always be my moral compass for how to treat women 🙄

If i wanted to discredit the protesters what i would do is send a group arguing that rape was ok and try and make it look like those who support Assange support a rapist...of course they would have to wear mask so no one knew who they were.

Ernie - quick question and then I'll leave it. You never really said whether you thought that the sleeping woman had consented because she had consented the night before?

Estimated numbers of US drone strikes in ****stan, a soveriegn country not at war with the US, and strangely, a topic of the wikileaks diplomatic leaks. the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that between 391 – 780 civilians were killed out of a total of between 1,658 and 2,597 and that 160 children are reported among the deaths. The Bureau also revealed that since President Obama took office at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims and more than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. who's the terrorist here?

I tried the discretely shagging a sleeping lady thing with Madame this morning. She woke up before I could do anything, played dead for a bit, then got interested... . I suggest that those that believe the claim of rape should try it before they accuse M.Assange of rape.

Nice of you to offer but shouldn't you check with Mrs Edukator first?

Why check? Madame is quite capable of looking after herself when she chooses to, which is pretty much my point, if she hadn't got interested and I'd persisted I would now be in no state to type this.

The changes against Assange are just a pretext to get him to Sweden where he'll be promptly extradited to the US. I won't be buying anything from Ikea for the foreseeable future.

Rapist or not, he could at least tuck his shirt in and close his top button before appearing before the world's press!

Rhetoric, little substance. Just a little bit disappointed.

Plenty substance in that lot. Governments are bad M'Kay.

I suggest that those that believe the claim of rape should try it before they accuse M.Assange of rape

So because your missus didn't call the police Assasnge didn't rape that woman? That's an awesome leap to make.

The women originally just wanted him HIV tested and it was a long time before there was any mention of rape - trawl back through the reports from when it first made the press.

The whole thing has blown up from the fact he didn't use a condom the second time although the woman had insisted he use one the first time. IMO sex does not become rape just because you don't use a condom. You can call it poisoning or something if it turns out he's HIV positive. If sex become rape if you don't use a condom when asked then perhaps sex should also become rape when women lie about being on the pill.

One way or another I'm convinced Assange will wind up silenced in an American jail because a Swedish journalist claimed to be asleep when having sex with the guy.

So because your missus didn't call the police Assasnge didn't rape that woman? That's an awesome leap to make.

The changes against Assange are just a pretext to get him to Sweden where he'll be promptly extradited to the US. I won't be buying anything from Ikea for the foreseeable future.

Assange applied 2 years ago for Sweedish residency because he admired the fact the country had laws that protected whistle blowers. I haven't seen anything that mentions that the laws and protection that existed then have changed in the meantime. Have they changed?

Are you claiming Sweden, like say Ecuador, have sated on record they will protect him as a whistleblower?
Perhaps their refusal to grant permission for him to remain their, their refusal to assure they wont send him to the USA and the charges have made him reconsider his views of them and their justice system?

Quite possibly. But they do still host the wikileaks website there, and I'd imagine that would have gone if they were really a poodle of the US.

Am now of the conclusion that he is trying to avoid the charges back in Sweden. He is not making himself look good.

Did you see today's statements on TV, mt? He's made it clear he's happy to face justice in Sweden if they promise not to hand him over to the US. All of the issues he raised today (or those selected by France 3) concerned US attempts to silence Wikileaks by any means, not about some rather bizarre accusations by a couple of Swedish journos.

A good summary with links to stuff:

[url= http://www.septicisle.info/?q=/2012/08/ecuador.html ]Ecuador![/url]

For this to have all been a set-up or ruse by two women serving US interests, as some of the more ridiculous Assange defenders have claimed, is absurd. Like the claims from Mohamed Fayed and others about the "plot" to kill Princess Diana, which would have been foiled had Di deigned to wear her seat belt, this nefarious scheme would have failed completely had Assange decided to keep Mr Happy in his trousers.
...
The expert opinion written by Stockholm's former chief district prosecutor outlines some of the anomalies: the naming of Assange to begin with; the failure to interview Assange while he was still in Sweden, despite the prosecutor taking over the case nearly a month before he left; and the police interviewing the complainants together rather than separately.

I think, though could be wrong on this, that on the whole countries don't take kindly to have taking terms dictated to them by individuals. So although Sweden might be able to resolve this by making such a promise, I doubt they will. Much in the same way that we as a country generally won't pay money to hostage takers to resolve a situation even if such a compromise might save the life of someone.
And Sweden as a state, still appears to completely support wikileaks.

[url= http://www.scribd.com/doc/48396086/Assange-Case-Opionion-Sven-Erik-Alhem ]Opinion on Assange case - Stockholm's former prosecutor[/url]

16.To use the European Arrest Warrant without first having tried to arrange an interrogation in England at the earliest possible time via a request for Mutual Legal Assistance seems to me to be against the principle of proportionality.

...

Since I understand that he has been willing to be interviewed by these means since leaving Sweden, I regard the Prosecutor's refusal to at least try to interview as being unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and disproportionate.

...

18. I understand that Ms Ny has said that Swedish law prevents her from taking this course. There is, however, nothing in Swedish law that I know of to prevent a prosecutor from seeking mutual legal assistance to have a suspect interviewed.

BTW Anyone know what the names of the Sweedish newspapers that are say the equivalent of the Telegraph and Guardian?

Interesting links Lifer - the ex prosecutor does list a number of inconsistencies and the blog is, well, a blog but interesting nonetheless. Links are also worth following and reading.

All getting very intriguing.

Ian - Svenska Dagbladet is the main newspaper that I am aware of and the one that seems to be particularly read in Stockholm. Not sure of the others or of the political persuasions. Guessing a bit between the two papers you mention for the UK, but that is more of a hunch.

Ironically enough at the moment Assange has broken UK law and when he is arrested he will be shipped off to Sweden. The warrant from Sweden is legal, Assange has been through our entire legal system to get that confirmed. Sweden does have a legal system that is no worse than the so the ECHR will not step in.

The rest of this - i.e. what will the Americans do, what will Ecuador do is just a guessing game. Any whistle blower who releases information does so on the understanding that they have put themselves at risk. They hope that the greater powers choose to ignore what they have done. I am not saying that what Assange did was right or wrong ( we don't have time for that) but he must have know that the US would come after him.

But this is not relevant. He is a criminal (i.e. he has broken UK laws) and will be arrested when he leaves the embassy. Eventually the Ecuadorians will kick him out and he will end up in Sweden. What happens to him after that is (at the moment) just a guess.

I am pissed off that he says that he will only go to Sweden if they will not extradite him to another country. No one has the right to demand that and he knows it, he is just trying to show that Sweden is being unreasonable.

What I am hoping is that the UK will send him to Sweden and the refuse to have him back ever!

"I am pissed off that he says that he will only go to Sweden if they will not extradite him to another country. No one has the right to demand that and he knows it, he is just trying to show that Sweden is being unreasonable.

What I am hoping is that the UK will send him to Sweden and the refuse to have him back ever!"

Agree with this.

Ironically enough at the moment Assange has broken UK law

But this is not relevant. He is a criminal (i.e. he has broken UK laws)

Which UK laws?

Never mind this - Has anyone ever seen Assange and David Gower in the same room?

No? Thought not.

he is just trying to show that Sweden is being unreasonable.

And a former Swedish District Prosecutor agrees with him.

Since I understand that he has been willing to be interviewed by these means since leaving Sweden, I regard the Prosecutor's refusal to at least try to interview as being unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and disproportionate.

But what does he know? Except the ins and outs of Swedish law, unlike the vast majority of people commenting here (myself included).

Which UK laws?

I think there was a man convicted of GBH or similar after infecting a woman with HIV after knowing he was +ve and not telling her? Tenuous, but like most people in this thread I CBA to check the facts properly.

AFAIK the only thing he's done over here is break his bail conditions.

thisisnotaspoon - Member

I think there was a man convicted of GBH or similar after infecting a woman with HIV after knowing he was +ve and not telling her? Tenuous, but like most people in this thread I CBA to check the facts properly.

Assange has HIV?

AFAIK the only thing he's done over here is break his bail conditions.

I think that's what he'll be arrested for. Once in custody he'll be shipped off to Sweden. Once in Sweden he will either:

a) be interviewed, found there is no case to answer and left to his own devices
b) be interviewed, found there is no case to answer then shipped to the US in shackles for rum, sodomy and the lash (without the rum)
c) be interviewed, found there is a case to answer and end up in jail awaiting trial (I'd imagine no Swedish judge would bail him unless legally obligated)

atlaz - Member

c) be interviewed, found there is a case to answer and end up in jail awaiting trial (I'd imagine no Swedish judge would bail him unless legally obligated)

🙄

[url] http://www.scribd.com/doc/48396086/Assange-Case-Opionion-Sven-Erik-Alhem [/url]

9. Rape suspects are kept in custody awaiting trial and, in my experience, this can take, in extreme cases, many months while matters are further investigated. Sweden has no system of providing security for pre-release detention.

The whole story is highly unusual and will no doubt be made into a good book/film in the future.

It is difficult to know whats happended here, but as someone who works with sensitive material, governments are technically within thier rights to come down hard on people who make public information of a senstive nature because it threatens the safety of individuals and property, no matter how morally wrong the content may be.

The timing of the Swedish case appears very suspect.

He is a bit weird though. And Australian. And good at maths. He apparently invented a complex maths puzzle which he was very good at. Never trust someone who invents their own maths puzzle and is then very good at it.

at last someone has it just right.

"He is a bit weird though. And Australian. And good at maths. He apparently invented a complex maths puzzle which he was very good at. Never trust someone who invents their own maths puzzle and is then very good at it."

Not sure if inventing your own puzzle is a problem but being weird most certainly is. Back to Sweden with him.

Having watched him give his speech from that balcony, can imagine he is just a tad disapointed that it was not higher up over looking a vast square filled with adoreing supporters. Perhaps he feels he was under dressed and would have looked better in a smart tailored uniform. Similar to a few of those in his vast imaginary audience but his uniform would be a little better. Oh why he will be thinking did they not salute and cheer after my every sentence.

I am pissed off that he says that he will only go to Sweden if they will not extradite him to another country. No one has the right to demand that and he knows it, he is just trying to show that Sweden is being unreasonable.

Why is this unreasonable?

Ian - Svenska Dagbladet is the main newspaper that I am aware of and the one that seems to be particularly read in Stockholm. Not sure of the others or of the political persuasions. Guessing a bit between the two papers you mention for the UK, but that is more of a hunch.

Thanks for that thm, I've just been looking at it via google translate. Interestingly there appears to be no coverage of US extradition from Sweden angle, but an awful lot on why isn't he facing the Sweedish justice system.

[img] [/img]

Perhaps that croissant and presumably French beverage is an attempt to butter up the Swedish royal family (descended from Bernadotte).

The legal correspondent of the New Statesman nails this. "zombie facts" indeed.

http://t.co/pus48YNR

For Lifer and friends on the far left fringes the world will however always be flat.

For Lifer and friends on the far left fringes the world will however always be flat.

Why on earth would it be a left verses right issue mcboo ?

Surely this is just simply a case of whether someone should be extradited so that they can be questioned concerning an alleged sexual offence, and whether you are left-wing or right-wing really doesn't come into it at all.

Or do you see this as a political issue mcboo ?

Do you in fact agree with the Ecuadorean government that this whole case is politically motivated ?

Are you at odds with the official UK government position ?

Why on earth would it be a left verses right issue mcboo ?

Oh please. It's only diehard anti American dogmatists like you Ernie that have any remaining respect for the guy. This isn't at all a political question, it is one of respect for due process of the law. Laws that have to apply to everyone despite your nauseating attempt to rewrite the rape laws.

Respect for the guy ?...... he isn't even left-wing ! But you appear to think that he is "far left" !

But one thing you are absolutely right about mcboo, is to see this case as a highly politically motivated, everyone knows it is - I'm just surprised that you should let the cat out of the bag and actually admit !

your nauseating attempt to rewrite the rape laws.

You really do come out with some nonsense mate - what's that suppose to mean ? 😀

And tell me mcboo, are all the Latin American countries which have very strongly come out in support of Ecuador's granting of political asylum to Assange also involved in a nauseating attempt to rewrite the rape laws ? Is this a huge global conspiracy by governments to help a rapist evade justice? 🙂

Newsnight now - Gorgeous George about to pronounce on sexual etiquette - should be a little light relief at the very least.

It's only diehard anti American dogmatists like you Ernie that have any remaining respect for the guy.

Perhaps we just support a whistle blower, think he should face trial in Sweden FREE FROM THE THREAT OF ENDING UP IN THE US - where his chance of getting a fair trial is nil as we all know if he went there he will go to jail.
Your weak caricature shows more about your own views than those you attempt to discredit with poor ad hominems