Bbc1 now. Julian Asange has escaped the embassy!

Not very low profile though.

No he hasn’t. He’s still a twatty 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 twatty 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 twatty 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

allthegear – Member
Good point. He’s a incredibly unpleasent person on the run from the Law, suspected and accused of rape.

Rachelyou don’t feel the allegation is even slightly suspicious?

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?

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?[/quote]
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.

Is that not Gordon Ramsey though?

Better Pics.
Assange:

Logan:

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….

😆

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)

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.

The Swedish authorities have only a very short time to formally press charges or they are automatically dropped under Swedish law.

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

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html&query=Assange&method=boolean

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