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.

I have no proof he raped anyone, 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’ ™ 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’ ™ 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:

“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.”

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.

careful ernie, what if someone changes their mind somewhere between getting in bed and actually doing the deed? I don’t know the details of the incident and yes lying to get someone into bed being classed as rape seems way OTT to me but other countrys/societys seemingly disagree, but you’re on thin ice with comments like that ^

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

I might be wrong but I’m guessing your stance, which seems to be “you’re not allowed to change your mind beyond a certain point” in this case getting into bed, is gonna piss off quite a few. It’s emotive subject. There’s been a lot of work being done to remind society at large that no means no at whatever point in proceedings it’s said (role play hijinx aside) I don’t think that’s ultra liberal feminist.

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 : “Don’t get naked into bed with a man if you don’t want sex, simple really”

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

I don’t think anyone disagrees with your advice, if you don’t intend to have sex don’t get into bed with someone naked, it sounds fair enough on it’s own, what I (and probably others) have issue with is your implication that once a person has done that they have no right to change their mind.

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.

finally! sorry if it’s getting tedious ernie but this

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

does sound very much like you didn’t think they were allowed to change their mind.

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 pakistan, 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?