MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Not very low profile though.
No he hasn't. He's still a ****ty rapist* hiding from his responsibilities in a stuffy room in London.
* if he feels he doesn't like me saying that, I'm more than happy to meet him in court to discuss...
Rachel
Pah...who the **** is Assange?
All I could see was the giant of Eurovision that is Johnny Logan. Royalty I tell you. 😀
No he hasn't. He's still a ****ty rapist* hiding from his responsibilities in a stuffy room in London.
Innocent until proven guilty?
Good point. He's a incredibly unpleasent person on the run from the Law, suspected and accused of rape.
Rachel
allthegear - Member
He's still a ****ty rapist*
That's a bold statement, considering you have absolutely no idea whether he's guilty of the crime he's been accused of.
To be fair I don't think he has ever said he wont talk to the police, just that he wont return to a country where he will most likely get extradited to the states and locked up in a dark hole for the rest of his life.
Bit of a combination there, that defies a straight answer.
No doubt he should be brought to answer the rape charges, but by the same token he shouldn't be locked up based on political motivation in another country
you don't feel the allegation is even slightly suspicious?allthegear - Member
Good point. He's a incredibly unpleasent person on the run from the Law, suspected and accused of rape.Rachel
allthegear
but no idea, to complete the phrase.
Judge, jury, executioner. If it was just the rape charges he's hiding away from you might have a point.
IIRC "rape" in this case is defined as "sex without a condom".
Escaped or extraodinary renditioned?
IIRC "rape" in this case is defined as "sex without a condom".
The same as in both Swedish and English law then?
[quote=scrumfled ]IIRC
You don't - not according to the most recent stories I've read.
IIRC "rape" in this case is defined as "sex without a condom".
The same as in both Swedish and English law then?
Eh??? That's an offence?
It seems allthegear has some information everyone else doesn't.
After all, there can't really be a justification for saying those things otherwise.
1) Someone starts thread on some sort of news(?) event*
2) A poster expresses a vociferous opinion related to said event
3) Other respondees dismiss and attack earlier poster's opinion even more vociferously
4) Others, with a range of opinions, read thread but decide not to add an opinion that could be similar to the poster being attacked, for fear of being attacked themselves
5) They wait from the sidelines until...
6) A critical mass is reached when the thread changes tack - as some eventually chime by supporting the original vociferous poster's viewpoint
And there runneth the typical life of a STW my-opinion-is-right thread.
* I still have no idea whether the OP is mentioning a real event, or if this is a joke or... what. 😐
Nominative determinism in full affect.
Did the rape allegation not surface sometime after he became a 'problem'? He may or may not be an actual rapist but it does smell a little convenient...
I was under the impression that the charges in Sweden did not equate to the same as rape over here.
Sauce for this story? I've looked on the BBC Word and RT.com websites but seen nothing as yet
My understanding is that he had sex with one woman, and was a bit creepy thereafter. Although he was welcome to stay at her flat. She has not said he was a rapist but there were accusations of a torn condom. There was a statement from the her to the effect that Assange refused to wear a condom, and physically restrained her when she tried to reach for one while they were having sex, eventually Assange relented, and it tore, they apparently joked about it afterwards.
The second woman was distressed to find Assange having unprotected sex with her while she was half asleep. She then tried to persuade him to get an STD test which Assange only reluctantly agreed to eventually after much 'threatening' (I've put that in commas as Assange felt he was being blackmailed)
The police were involved because the second woman said she would involve them if Assange did not have an STD test (hence the blackmail accusations).
It's not clear whether they (the two women)discussed money from tabloids via text, it's unclear whether the first woman got involved only after she found out that Assange had slept with the second woman.
(EDIT: I don't want to suggest that the two woman colluded to frame him or that they were acting out of spite or whatever, the Swedish wiki leaks organiser has said that the women were distressed, and upset solely about the STD issue)
Creepy...make up your own mind, Rapist...neither girl has said he raped them.
Sauce for this story?
Johnny Logan's appearance last night at the Eurovision party. I assume the OP was just having a laugh at the similarity.
[img] 
:large[/img]
Is that not Gordon Ramsey though?
Better Pics.
Assange:
[img] 
[/img]
Logan:
[img] 
[/img]
second woman was distressed to find Assange having unprotected sex with her while she was half asleep.
So she woke up and he was having unwanted (by her) unprotected sex with her, that had started when she was asleep?
That does sound a little bit rapey....
[quote=ohnohesback said]Sauce for this story? I've looked on the BBC Word and RT.com websites but seen nothing as yet
😆
Hi all.
Sorry about this, I was just having a bit of a laugh at Johnny Logan's resemblence to Mr assange.
Or is the other way round..
"second woman was distressed to find Assange having unprotected sex with her while she was half asleep."
That description is a classic rape at first sight.
The condom one depends more on circumstances but it is rape to go ahead without a condom if the other party consents only to sex with a condom.
The cup of tea analogy is always useful no one would decide a sleeping friend needed a cup of tea and just pour it down their throat while they slept . if your friend asked for tea with sugar you would not just give them it without unless you checked first.
To be fair to Assange, they continued on to have sex. Her distress was due to the fact that it was unprotected. (as I perhaps didn't make clear above, apologies)
[img] [/img]
br />
[img] 
[/img]
Very dubious accusations classified as rape, he had consensual sex with a woman and then allegedly raped her by having sex a second time when she was asleep / without a condom. The Swedish authorities have only a very short time to formally press charges or they are automatically dropped under Swedish law.
This is all about WikiLeaks.
[i]The Swedish authorities have only a very short time to formally press charges or they are automatically dropped under Swedish law.[/i]
It depends how they treat it (I understand) It could remain outstanding for up to 30 years.
crankboy - Member
"That description is a classic rape at first sight.
The whole sex with someone while they're sleeping seems very very odd to me. The only difference between that and necrophilia being that they are warm and you don't need a spade to get started?
I was under the impression that the charges in Sweden did not equate to the same as rape over here.
The appeal court found very clearly that the allegations did amount to rape under both Swedish and UK law
Point 1 seems very clear
He should face the charges back in Sweden
However the fact that the USA want to extradite him and they set up an entire prison camp in another country just so they could overtly torture people outside of international law....
However the fact that the USA want to extradite him
Do they?
I know it's a 'claim' by Assange that that's what is behind all this, but there doesn't seen to be much supporting it as a 'fact' - USA have certianly made no formal request to either Sweden or the UK for extradition...
Personally I suspect it's a smokescreen, which Assange has been very effective in utilising, just look at how people are still repeating the 'different definitions of rape' line even though the courts clearly ruled it was false.
The critical point, as you well know, is it the US has not said
" please go to sweden and face charges we pinky promise to not try and extradite you"
Its true we dont know for sure but only one lot can remove this doubt.
We are all free to draw an inference on their refusal to do this
As for making smokescreen arguments that are almost plausible but you dont really believe I defer to your vast expertise in this area 😉
He's a criminal on the run, simple really
He has been charged and the technical term is the accused
A copper should know the difference.
A copper should know the difference
The rozztafarians aren't widely known for their soaring IQs though innit
The critical point, as you well know, is it the US has not said" please go to sweden and face charges we pinky promise to not try and extradite you"
Its true we dont know for sure but only one lot can remove this doubt.
We are all free to draw an inference on their refusal to do this
so, your proof that they want to extradite him is the fact that they have not said they don't want to? That's fairly ironic given the allegations against him! Maybe the USA was asleep at the time?
What exactly do you think has stopped them them applying for extradition from either Sweden or the UK?
He's not in the uk though is he.
Or Sweden.
Yunki
All coppers are fik
Junkyard,
I'm so bored with him, I don't even read about it anymore, don't even know if he's charged accused, defendant,appellant, just taking the piss really, hiding from justice
The rozztafarians aren't widely known for their soaring IQs though innit
I think you are harking back to a pre-Thatcher era when police officers were overwhelming working class, often seen scratching their heads in low budget English movies, and whose mythical stupidity was regularly the butt of standup comedian jokes.
In the 1980s Tory governments recognised that their divisive policies which would destroy communities and spread misery through unprecedented levels of unemployment would require a huge dependency on the police and consequently police pay went through the roof.
This made the police a very attractive profession for graduates and today a copper is far more likely to come from an affluent middle-class background and have a university degree than a copper 35 years ago was.
Of course today the Tories don't need the police like they did in the 1980s and 90s, which explains why they now expect them to do more policing with smaller budgets and resources.
Seriously though,
I've been in policing for 30 years, and I have a reasonable IQ, BUT, I have seen scores of excellent officers who have solved major crimes and carried out fantastic police work without any formal qualifications or having high IQ.
It's hard for non police officers to understand, but a lot of police work is done by a feeling , it's hard for me to explain as an officer.
I have Sen some highly intelligent graduate entry officers struggle getting to grips with street policing, they are fantastic at writing crime reduction plans etc, but when it comes to formulating a plan to catch a thief, some of them just don't have "IT", not even sure what IT is , but when I came across officers with that quality it is immediately obvious.
A motivated switched on police officer working on a busy beat is a joy to watch for me.
Sen is highly intelligent. He scored a Nobel prize and wrote some very good books. First Asian master of a Cambridge college.
Oh and it could be argued that Assange has effectively served his sentence.
Point taken.. Although Ernie, you have to admit that affluent middle class background graduate doesn't necessarily give any indication of brightness
Well you were referring to IQs, I think whether an individual is a graduate certainly gives an indication of their IQ. As I've always understood it the grammar selection, and therefore those most likely to attend university, represent the top third highest IQ in education.
Having said that I very strongly believe that the perceived advantages of higher IQs are grossly exaggerated. Or that it's even a reliable measure of 'intelligence'. But you brought it up.
The same as in both Swedish and English law then?
I've done loads of shagging without a rubber and haven't been extradited once
affluent middle class background graduate doesn't necessarily give any indication of brightness
It's doesn't give any guarantees, but I reckon it gives a fairly reasonable indication.
If that was the only information available, I'd guess higher rather than lower end IQ fairly happily.
Don't see the problem - it all worked out perfectly for Bradley Manning.
And Edward Snowdon must be so content with his lot. The US has, after all, a long a glorious tradition of shooting messengers.
The Guy's a knob who lives off double-standards and arrogance, but the rape charges stink, the details are vague - I've never heard them at clearly on anything like a respected news agency as they're thrown around online. He's told them he's happy to discuss it in the embassy or via telephone or Skype but they want him in Sweden for an interview and I'd bet my hat that he'd find himself 'lost' en route and In an orange jumpsuit 30 seconds later.
[quote=P-Jay ]the details are vague - I've never heard them at clearly on anything like a respected news agency as they're thrown around online.
Try out ninfan's link> http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html&query=Assange&method=boolean
I've done loads of shagging without a rubber and haven't been extradited once
One would hope, that the decision to not use a rubber was mutual.
Junkyard - lazarus
He has been charged and the technical term is the accused
I Don't think he has been charged?
Would you trust the US ?
would you trust the US?
maybe not, but I would trust Sweden. And in any case, it would be a whole lot easier for the US to extradite him from the UK than it would from Sweden. The UK is not known for refusing extradition requests from the US (Gary McKinnon and others) and for Sweden to extradite Assange to the US they would anyway need to get the written permission of the British Home Secretary...
[i]but I would trust Sweden.[/i]
I wouldn't. There has been much made in Sweden recently of revelations of secret co-operation with the US and NATO, for instance the policy of armed neutrality was largely underpinned with secret assistance from the USA (the JA37 Viggen was developed with US assistance and technology). There are elements within the secret services in Sweden who are virulently anti-Russian and very Pro US co-operation.
Assange is rightly cautious. If the US asked for their help, the Swedes would probably give it.
And in any case, it would be a whole lot easier for the US to extradite him from the UK than it would from Sweden.
As discussed, he's not in the UK.
There has been much made in Sweden recently of revelations of secret co-operation with the US and NATO, for instance the policy of armed neutrality was largely underpinned with secret assistance from the USA
...during the Cold War? As in 30 years ago? It wasn't just the CIA that provided secret support; it was MI6 too.
(the JA37 Viggen was developed with US assistance and technology).
...in the 1970's
Assange is rightly cautious. If the US asked for their help, the Swedes would probably give it.
Maybe, maybe not. But the point is, to extradite Assange from the UK requires the approval of the British Home Secretary; to extradite him from Sweden requires the approval of Sweden and... the British Home Secretary. So if the US wants to extradite him why go to the trouble of asking two people when you could ask one?
UK government has spend over 10 million pounds on police surveillance outside the Ecuadorian embassy.
Money well spent?
Do we spend that on tracking other potential rapists?
This is all about Wikileaks and the US govt wanting him put in jail/dead. Sex allegations are not the main issue here.
tiggs hits the nail on the head ^^^
This is a purely politically motivated exercise, it has nothing to do with solving a rape case.
There is absolutely no way that millions of pounds and precious resources would be spent on attempting to apprehend someone who it is alleged, is suspected of, not wearing a condom.
UK government has spend over 10 million pounds on police surveillance outside the Ecuadorian embassy.Money well spent?
absolutely not.
Do we spend that on tracking other potential rapists?
other alleged rapists (a) aren't global news stories which put a unique spotlight on the Met, and (b) don't seek asylum from the Ecuadorian government.
...
There is absolutely no way that millions of pounds and precious resources would be spent on attempting to apprehend someone who it is alleged, is suspected of, not wearing a condom.
To believe this you need to believe that the British government aren't willing to send Assange direct to the US for whatever the US wants to do with him but they are willing to spend millions of pounds and precious resources to keep him holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy. And if you believe that the British Government aren't willing to send Assange direct to the US then someone needs to explain why they would be willing to allow Sweden to send him to the US.
Or, an alternative explanation: having agreed to extradite Assange, when he ran off to the Ecuadorian embassy, the British Government had to be seen to be keeping a check on him to avoid any negligence being reciprocated the next time we need to repatriate a suspected criminal.
The whole reasoning of the conspiracy doesn't make sense. Why would Sweden - who had to keep their relations with the US secret - be a softer touch than a combination of Sweden and the UK...
other alleged rapists (a) aren't global news stories which put a unique spotlight on the Met, and (b) don't seek asylum from the Ecuadorian government.
I hadn't really given the Met's role in this much thought, I just assumed they were doing the bidding of the Home Secretary. Why do you think it puts 'a unique spotlight on the Met' ?
And you need to ask yourself [i]why don't[/i] other alleged rapists seek asylum from the Ecuadorian government ? Solve that riddle and you might uncover what this is really about.
Maybe, maybe not. But the point is, to extradite Assange from the UK requires the approval of the British Home Secretary; to extradite him from Sweden requires the approval of Sweden and... the British Home Secretary. So if the US wants to extradite him why go to the trouble of asking two people when you could ask one?
The approval of any British official for something the US wants would be easier to obtain than a first class stamp. The UK saw the easier option to be kicking him back to Sweden and let the Swedes take the heat for extraditing him back to Guantanamo Bay. Unfortunately the little plan was upset by the Ecuadorian embassy.
I hadn't really given the Met's role in this much thought, I just assumed they were doing the bidding of the Home Secretary. Why do you think it puts 'a unique spotlight on the Met' ?
Because they are the ones doing the surveilling. Although you're right, of course, the Home Secretary would also get heat.
The approval of any British official for something the US wants would be easier to obtain than a first class stamp. The UK saw the easier option to be kicking him back to Sweden and let the Swedes take the heat for extraditing him back to Guantanamo Bay.
You're missing the point. Under section 58 of the Extradition Act (2003), if Sweden wants to extradite Assange to another country for a different crime, the British Home secretary has to consider whether this second crime is worthy of extradition under British law. In fact, s/he has to go through exactly the same decision-making process as if the US had requested extradition directly from the UK in the first place. So kicking him back to Sweden doesn't take any heat off the UK, it just complicates life enormously for the US.
No, you're the one missing the point. The acquiescence of the UK can be assumed under all circumstances. The public relations aspect was better served by letting the Swedes be the ones to do the actual bundling onto an unmarked plane.
No, you're the one missing the point. The acquiescence of the UK can be assumed under all circumstances. The public relations aspect was better served by letting the Swedes be the ones to do the actual bundling onto an unmarked plane.
They would have to follow some semblance of due process. Extraordinary rendition is all well and good for unknown iraqis / afghans who - with their beards an all - can in the worst case be pointed at as terrorists... but an internationally famous figure like Assange can't just be "disappeared" without creating an almighty sh*tstorm.
Time to place your bets I reckon. Do you think
a) he'll die in the Ecuador embassy
b) Sweden will question him, investigate and drop the investigation
c) it will time out
d) he ends up getting extradited to the US
Extraordinary rendition is all well and good for unknown iraqis / afghans who - with their beards an all - can in the worst case be pointed at as terrorists... but an internationally famous figure like Assange can't just be "disappeared" without creating an almighty sh*tstorm.
Yeah right, like the US government gives a toss about [i]"an almighty sh*tstorm"[/i].
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-manning-cruel-inhuman-treatment-un ]Bradley Manning's treatment was cruel and inhuman, UN torture chief rules[/url]
[b][i]The UN special rapporteur on torture has formally accused the US government of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment towards Bradley Manning, the US soldier who was held in solitary confinement for almost a year on suspicion of being the WikiLeaks source.
Juan Mendez has completed a 14-month investigation into the treatment of Manning since the soldier's arrest at a US military base in May 2010. He concludes that the US military was at least culpable of cruel and inhumane treatment in keeping Manning locked up alone for 23 hours a day over an 11-month period in conditions that he also found might have constituted torture[/i][/b]
The US government does not allow UN rapporteurs on torture to have free access to prisoners they hold :
[b][i]Mendez told the Guardian that he could not reach a definitive conclusion on whether Manning had been tortured because he has consistently been denied permission by the US military to interview the prisoner under acceptable circumstances.
The Pentagon has refused to allow Mendez to see Manning in private, insisting that all conversations must be monitored. "You should have no expectation of privacy in your communications with Private Manning," the Pentagon wrote.
The lack of privacy is a violation of human rights procedures, the UN says, and considered unacceptable by the UN special rapporteur.[/i][/b]
Presumably because the conclusions are likely to be viewed in an unfavourable light.
[quote=DrJ said]No, you're the one missing the point. The acquiescence of the UK can be assumed under all circumstances.
Really ? What about Gary McKinnon ?
Well it was you who brought up the "public relations aspect"
And Bradley Manning is a case in point - he was arrested in Kuwait and given "the semblance" of due process, not bundled into an unmarked plane.
And why do you think the US didn't give Mendez access to Manning? Because they are worried about creating a sh*tstorm.
an internationally famous figure like Assange can't just be "disappeared" without creating an almighty sh*tstorm.
I dont think the US GAS about the protest. Their objective is to jail him till he dies.
And why do you think the US didn't give Mendez access to Manning? Because they are worried about creating a sh*tstorm.
😆
I dont think the US GAS about the protest. Their objective is to jail him till he dies.
Well yes, the Elite-Level conspiracist would presume that Ecuador was in on the game. After all, what better, plausibly-deniable way to keep him out of trouble than to hole him up in the Ecuadorian Embassy - extraordinarily extradited in plain sight - with a steady supply of Cantonas, Gagas, and Chomskys to keep his ego fed and watered. One could call it a win-win.