Hmm….

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, consummated 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 consummated 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 consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.

If they were going to make up a rape allegation to discredit Assange, don’t you think that they could have come up with something less complex and convoluted that would, without any shadow of a doubt, leave prosecution an absolute certainty?

#ConspiracyTheoryFail

A plot. Hmmm. Sceptical. The women should be listened to. Think we’ve had enough examples of ignoring such claims.

They should be listened to yes.

Then he should be charged.

The more I read the less I understand why he Eva Finne hasn’t simply telephoned Sweden the Ecuadorian Embassy to follow up on Assange’s agreement to conduct a telephone interview – enough to qualify for the purposes of the Preliminary Investigation and getting the ball rolling (or not).

Which I genuinely hope they do as he might very well be guilty, but the way they’ve gone about it is just absurd. “Not only must justice be done, it must be seen to be done”. As Shakespear / Churchill / Mark Twain or the other guy said.

Plus, I really don’t buy into the conspiratorial side of things. Would the US use a rape allegation to their advantage to nefariously get their mitts on him? Absolutely. Did they somehow engineer the whole thing? Nah, I don’t buy it. As ninfan said there are far easier / believable / less screw-up-able ways to do it.

My rant, you were all asking? But of course: –

So the UK continues to blatantly refuse to abide by the decision because they don’t agree with its content; in essence they are essentially saying they are willing to tear up the ICCPR – a major international treaty – to get their way. That’s a repercussion of serious legal significance. Buy hey, lets not worry about that, we’ve got enough Bread and circuses for everyone!

To top it off, Hammond lied about the panels members stating that they’re ‘lay people’ and the media, as usual, eagerly nodded their heads in agreement. Yeah, what do these chumps know, eh? 🙂

don’t you think that they could have come up with something less complex and convoluted that would, without any shadow of a doubt, leave prosecution an absolute certainty?.

Dont be daft what you want is a heinous charge that will revulse the masses so that there will be compelling public opinion and legal will to get him there to stand charge for said offence. I reckon rape ticks this box personally but YMMV.

You then need the charges to be so flimsy they fall apart in court so there is no sentence – remember you dont want them to to jail him- so that you can then extradite him when he is set free.

I have to say you will make a shit black ops operative
#makesyouthink

Though clearly if that was the case (even though the US gave not applied for extradition) his extradition to the US from Sweden would be prohibited by ECHR (either in Sweden OR in the UK, despite the notoriously lax agreement on extradition between Uk and US, Eg. Long battle to keep autistic hacker from being sent there) .

It was ever thus with you Zulu.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK–US_extradition_treaty_of_2003

Feel free to link either the part of this that suggests the process is fair to the detainee,or doesn’t favour any US effort to extradite a foreign national for anything they want.

In an attempt to understand why Sweden is more likely to extrodite to the US than the UK I took a look at Assanges version (below).

https://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html#UKEASIER

Plus, I really don’t buy into the conspiratorial side of things. Would the US use a rape allegation to their advantage to nefariously get their mitts on him? Absolutely. Did they somehow engineer the whole thing? Nah, I don’t buy it. As ninfan said there are far easier / believable / less screw-up-able ways to do it.

To be clear, and repeat myself. I don’t actually “buy” any of the versions I’ve seen.

The US is certainly capable, as is Assange, and a bunch of other possibilities. But if he’s guilty, charge him.

Pie is correct

None of use really know whether he has or has not done it and all views have degrees of credibility and plausibilty

1) He is a rapist avoiding justice
2) he was set up with a wea and nefarious charge
3) Its all a ruse to discredit him – no longer the hero now a justice avoiding sex pest
4) its all part of a trick to get him to the US

The fact remains that the only way to end this is for the US /Sweden To categorically state they wont extradite him. Even then you would need to believe them

The other point that seems to have been overlooked is that it’s quite a convenient place that the US is currently in. They know where Assange is, he can’t cause trouble and the best bit is they never had to try him or spend a dollar getting him to the US.

Trying him would be messy, on one hand they have people wanting him brought to book for spilling the beans and on the other they have people saying he has really done nothing wrong in the grand scheme of things besides the small matter of him not being a US citizen and therefore not really liable for a treason charge. Extraordinary rendition? No chance, not on such a high profile target, would be political suicide.

So yeah, right now the US is in a good place, being seen to be doing something without actually having to do anything, you have to wonder just how much the UK and Swedish governments are being encouraged to make sure he just stays in that embassy.

Of course that doesn’t take away from the fact that I think he’s being deliberately evasive and should face his accusers.

The bit that I don’t get is the US don’t want Assenge. What are they going to do with him. He did not steal the information – he published it. In the same way that the New York Times and the Boston Globe published it. To send Assenge to prison would require the US to do the same to the editor/publisher of those papers. Perhaps they would have to extradite the Graunids publisher/editor.

Bradley/Chelsea Manning stole data (having signed their official secrets act) and is serving time for that.

Ironically Assenge has committed a crime in the UK, he has skipped bail, which is a crime. If he comes out he should be shipped of to Sweden immediately (he has had four sessions in court to prove that this should not happen). If he waits until the statue of limitations runs out in Sweden, then she should be shipped back to Oz and banned from the UK.

The bit that I don’t get is the US don’t want Assenge. What are they going to do with him. He did not steal the information – he published it. In the same way that the New York Times and the Boston Globe published it. To send Assenge to prison would require the US to do the same to the editor/publisher of those papers. Perhaps they would have to extradite the Graunids publisher/editor.

Exactly what I was getting at.

https://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html#UKEASIER

One can add that there is no evidence whatsoever that the United Kingdom would not swiftly comply with any extradition request from the United States;

This is false, since Julian Assange is in the protective custody of the government of Ecuador, and is therefore safer from extradition to the United States than he would be if he were in Sweden or the United Kingdom. It is false to suggest that Julian Assange, without guarantees, would be safer in Swedish custody than he is in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

This seems a little evasive, but if we take it at face value then Assange’s fear is extradition to the US from either the UK *or* Sweden and he’s only safe because he’s technically in Ecuador and therefore cannot leave until the USA promise not to request his extradition – which they will never have any reason to do.

If we take him at his word – Sweden is a red-herring – which begs questions about his timing in taking flight.

which they will never have any reason to do

They have many reasons and few not to

The main reason to do this it means that the views being discussed here can be tested. if they say go we wont do anything and he does not then the view of all would have to be justice avoiding probable rapist

Secondly, if they wont try to do this anyway[extradite him], then what is stopping them saying this? I can see no reason why they wont say this if they wont do it not least because it means a potential rapist will face trial – assuming they ever charge him.

If we take him at his word – Sweden is a red-herring – which begs questions about his timing in taking flight.

WHat?
Can you rephrase as I have no idea what you mean.