Group hugs with slackalice and kimbers!

Re. the russian election hack, in fairness even Obama changed tack recently.

Teh Prez: –
“There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America’s elections, in part because they’re so decentralised and the number of votes involved”

I’ve no idea what happened between early October – when everyone was insisting on blaming Putin – and mid-late October when it all went very quiet after Obamas beat-down. Maybe he realised people weren’t buying it anymore. Maybe he didn’t want to admit the election could be hacked? *shrug*

Even the Russian ‘fake news’ hysteria from last week died down after 3-4 days, presumably most people didn’t buy that either.

A quick google finds that Flynn appeared on RT several times in his capacity as a security analyst, between his military and political jobs. People don’t get paid to be interviewed on TV but are on a list to get invited on if they’re considered relevant to a certain topic, like train disaster investigator people getting interviewed when there’s a train disaster, etc

Picture of a barrel bomb (well, 5)

Just 4 quick examples of US-weapons used in Syria: –

http://www.ibtimes.com/us-air-force-drops-record-amount-bombs-against-islamic-state-iraq-syria-1777616
http://time.com/3422702/isil-isis-syria-obama/
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/06/americas/u-s-military-isis-mediterranean/index.html
http://www.cnbc.com/2013/08/29/Syria-conflict:-The-hardware-the-military-will-use-to-strike.html

A list of deaths linked to barrel bombs. A rough questimate would be 12 per attack, with say 4 bombs per hit, a VERY rough guess would be 3 per barrel bomb. Compare this to ~400, 000 ?? dead in the conflict.

[edit]

An interesting article[/url] on the western-supply of arms to various terrorist groups. I’d have added it to my first post but was too late.

Oops, I didn’t notice the few earlier posts.

Re. the telegraph link, the Russian DoD said predominantly the missiles are ‘defensive’, similar to the NATO ‘defensive’ missiles all lining up pointing at Russia.

But I completely accept your point; now isn’t the time to be ratcheting up the missiles – ‘defensive’ or otherwise – even if they are within Russia’s borders (or rather its exclave). I certainly think Putin is getting ahead of himself in anticipation of, and thinking he can get away with things, before Trumps inauguration in the assumption Trump will support him.

Re. Budapest (I’m not an FT member so can’t see the full link). Looking into this further it looks like[/url] the oldest source of this story is classic heresay, citing the famous and oft-present “anonymous security sources”, then repeated word for word on some Ukrainian websites, then the FT. I think fake news is for another thread though ;)

Anyway, if true playing around with airsoft guns with far-right freaks is bad, but no more unacceptable than the CIA training and supplying Syrian rebels Al-Qaeda affiliates.

Or the CIA supplying Libyan ’Rebels’. Someone once said words to the effect of “Libya is the cork from which ISIS will erupt out of Africa”. Thanks Hillary :|

Or funding neo-nazi’s in Ukraine[/url].

And I could list a whole more list of US-funded screw-ups, which as I mentioned above are orders of magnitude worse than anything Russia does, but you get the idea :)

[edit] oops – exclave, not enclave.

Yes there are two fairly long tunnels near Chirk (a few miles south of Llangollen) but the really long one is easy to divert around. As jekkyl said the surface isn’t particularly good, particularly from the south of Chirk to east of St. Martins (and IIRC parts east of Ellesmere) if you’re on a road bike, but on a MTB you’ll be fine.

I got a bit lost at Roving Bridge near Whixhall (I followed the wrong canal because I didn’t have a map :roll: ).

You aren’t supposed to ride across the aqueduct but if noone else is on it (i.e. fairly late or early) I do.

Seeing as some of you still aren’t getting my point (deliberately or not, I don’t know) I will put it simply.

I am calling out hypocrisy and selective outrage – both here and examples in the corporate media. Let’s summarise the thread as I see it: –

Poster. Accusation are made connecting Putin to the possible invasion of Ukraine
Me. Corrects errors in the OP, asks poster to clarify accusation.
Poster. Ignores my points and makes slight variant on original accusation (the possible invasion of somewhere else)
Me. Corrects errors in second post, points out the hypocrisy and provides counter examples (the US being responsible for half a million dead iraqi children)
Poster 2. Ignores my points and makes smart arse trite comment
Me. Calls poster 2 out on trite comment and makes additional points
Poster 3. Ignores my points and calls me a Putin-bot (and a Mugabe-bot too :roll: )

If pointing out that the US has carried out atrocities and wars of aggression which are by an order of magnitude worse than Russia makes me a Putin-bot then so be it.

Why aren’t people taking about the US spreading death and disaster wherever they go? Why the obsession with Putin? Or do some people genuinely not see this hypocrisy?

The flip side to this is if some people get butt-hurt when I call them out on their comments, BS or selective outrage then that’s too bad.

Now, that being said popstar made very well a good point about my tone, so I’ll do my best to take it down a notch or ten; the last thing I want is to put people off from posting on the thread.

Ok, so nothing besides smart arse comments.

Besides, it’s the American bombs which are the nicest and it’s the Syrian and Russians bombs which are the worse-est. I’m not joking either (will need translating too): –

The most popular and successful sentence of state-run propaganda is “There are no good or evil bombs.”

What that means is that the bombs of the US-led coalition … are no better than the Russian bombs …

This … sentence is dumb, wrong, cynical and dangerous.

And this is effectively repeated whenever the media reports on any bombing. US = Good, Syria / Russia = Bad.

I happen to think all bombs are bad.

No, I’m talking about the illegal attempts to remove the democratically elected leader of Syria, with those calling for that gradually having been removed from power democratically and legally.

Have some irony cheesecake, it’s **** delicious.

And ah yes, barrel bombs. Those crude improvised devices supposedly dropped from helicopters are far worse than the rocket-propelled bombs delivered from afar by jet planes or drones as done by the U.S. government and its “allies.”

Or the hundreds of thousands of tons of bombs on Iraq alone in the last ten years.

Or the U.S. bombs that involve depleted uranium, napalm, phosphorous and cluster munitions.

Or the U.S. assisted and directed slaughter of civilians in Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia and Libya.

Maybe too the half million dead children in Iraq due to US sanctions? Well, *shrug* it’s worth it.

Such is the power of propaganda. Use a phrase like “barrel bomb” over and over again as if it is a uniquely evil weapon when, in fact, it is far less lethal and destructive than the ordnance that the United States routinely deploys or hands out to its “allies” like candy on Halloween.

Nah, lets all talk about the Syrian government’s use of “barrel bombs”.

Indeed, and exactly like the German Defense Minister, who recently (The forum didn’t like the link to a translation) wanted Trump to stay away from Russia, it looks like UK officials are following a similar tactic to convince him that Russia and Syria are the bad guys.

Except I don’t think that will work, and for one reason; these people – unlike Putin or Assad – have consistently and publicly considered Trump to be a joke, showed him no respect, and never thought that he would become the next president. They are simply in a panic now, and that their anti-Putin and “Assad must go!” narrative will soon unravel.

Speaking of which (and yes it’s a little OT): –

I wonder who is next?

That’s a strange way to describe shooting down a Dutch airliner

Please read this[/url]. Properly read it, not skim it.

Meanwhile…

I’d forgotten the newest smear. “Russian fingerprints”; very evocative and Machiavellian :)

So lets examine – in the Guardians own words – what fingerprints were found: –

Serbia deports Russians suspected of plotting Montenegro coup

Wow, the headline sounds like it’s a slam dunk! But I wonder what’s hiding at the bottom (where hardly anyone will read up to): –

A security analyst from the region, who did not want to be named, said his understanding from intelligence sources was that the incidents in the Balkans were probably linked to Russia

So most of the article is based on an ‘unnamed source’, who got it second hand from another unnamed ‘source’, that something is ‘probable’. Clearly Putin himself was involved, personally.

Meanwhile ‘Diplomatic sources’ (far more believable than ‘unnamed sources’, but not ‘intelligence sources’) also say: –

A group of 20 Serbians and Montenegrins, some of whom had fought with Moscow-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine, were arrested in Podgorica, the Montenegrin capital.

Some? Is that a number now? Some? 1 is ‘some’. So possibly 1 not-even-Russian who were associated with someone else who was ‘backed by Moscow’. This Putin fella gets around.

In Serbia, meanwhile, several Russian nationals suspected of coordinating the plot were caught with €120,000 and special forces uniforms.

Serbia? Isn’t the story about Montenegro? How do they link the two other than being ‘suspected’ of something? Suspected how? So we’ve got ‘several’ (2 or 3 then) Russians suspected of something, being caught with cash and special forces uniforms. Whose uniforms? Is having cash (yes a large amount) indicative of some sort of assassination attempt?

I could be linked to the Hindenburg disaster less tenuously.

OK, I’ve used up my 30 mins for lunch on this. For starters Russia didn’t ‘annex’ Crimea. Crimea voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia after a western-backed putsch[/url] – with even stratfor calling it “the most blatant coup in history” – which saw the (admittedly) unpopular but democratically elected President being ousted.

Ukraine had applied to join NATO but Russian stooge yanyukovich ditched the plans, they’ve since requested again

No. Ukraine only wanted to join NATO after the putsch. The vote[/url] back in 2013 related to Ukraine wanting economic ties to Europe (as opposed to keeping ties to Russia). Ukraine haven’t even voted to join NATO yet.

They voted no, which was apparently the wrong answer. Remember Victoria Nuland? ‘*** the EU’, ‘yats is the guy’ and the Freedom cookies? Look at the dates; 04/02/14 – the putsch was on 22/02.

Re. criticisms of the .gif. How about this instead?

And why would so many countries want to join NATO? Could it be to do with the billions of dollars of military assistance? Indeed, historically, Poland has always disliked Russia so any chance for a thumb in the Russians eye would be popular.

Anyway, is there any evidence Putin wants to invade Europe? Why would he want Latvia? What’s in Latvia he wants so much?

jambalaya – Member
As @muppet says Putin is already in Ukraine, he is controlling half (?) of the country

Whut? Personally?! Look at the map of Donetsk + Lughansk. And you haven’t provided evidence that it’s Russian controlled. Speaking of which it’s been 2 years and i’ve still not seen any evidence of Russian troops in Ukraine (other than the ‘little green men’ who were already stationed in Crimea in the naval base).

Incidentally, and it’s a subtle point, the so-called ‘rebels’ aren’t pro-russian. They’re pro-independence. If they wanted to join Russia they would have voted to do so (like Crimea). Would some people here say the people of Donetsk + Lughansk have no right to self-determination? As ninfan rightly points out.

I couldn’t watch video but does it mention neo-nazi’s, or the 10,000 dead civilians in Donetsk and Luhansk (and don’t even think about blaming Russia for them), or the dozens burned to death or shot by snipers in Kiev? How about NATO’s promise not to expand “not as much as a thumb’s width further to the East”?

jambalaya – Member
[it] was a direct result of intereference by the EU/European countries and overtones to have them join EU + NATO

Exactly. Think for a second if Russia overthrew the Canadian government, started pointing missiles at the US, and started killing Americans living in Canada (amongst MANY other things). Would you expect the US to take it lying down? Why are people surprised with Russia has said ‘enough’?

Russian aggression indeed :roll:

[edit]

Jeez I can’t half go on can’t I? 8O

No worries jamj1974 :)

alpin raises a very interesting point; US / UK forces can support Ukrainian forces and everything is peachy, but when Russia supports pro-independence forces (essentially native Russians) in Donetsk / Lugansk it’s “Russian aggression”.

Meanwhile Kiev still hasn’t implemented any parts of the Minsk agreement but bizarrely Russia always gets the blame for ‘violating’ it. Please everyone, read it, the points are quite clear – and it doesn’t even mention Russia once!

Finally, ninfan also brings up an excellent point. Ukraine isn’t a member of NATO, it’s still after all these years never been explained to me why NATO are building up troops there.

It’s nuts.

Only racism, mysogyny and expressing attraction to own offspring to go!

Please, don’t stop on my behalf. But thank you for being offended on behalf of someone else; its very STW (and insulting me whilst objecting to an insult, plus a Trump dig = STW cubed!).

Well it wouldn’t be the first time that Russia has attacked the west from Ukraine and tried to blame them

You’re quite right. Russian operatives could very well have used a Ukrainian proxy to hack Podesta’s account and gone “Look, the IP is from Ukraine, not us”. My point being is that the ‘Russian Hacker’ narrative is nowhere near as simple as “The Russians did it”, because there is no proof Russia did it. They might have done, but there is no proof.

Re. MH17. Again, you’re right, Russian forces could have ‘done it’. I’ll keep it brief. Where is the proof? John Kerry (US Sec of State) said repeatedly in the days after the tragedy that U.S. intelligence had detected the launch and knew exactly where the missile came from.

So, why did the Dutch Safety Board after a lengthy investigation still not come up with anything more exact than a 320km square area? If the Obama administration had solid evidence showing that the launch came from rebel territory, which was Kerry’s insinuation, U.S. officials would have been only too happy to provide the data. They didn’t. Why not? And ask yourself why was Putin being blamed personally, literally minutes after the crash.

Again, my point (eventually) is that nothing is as clear cut as it being ”Putin’s Missile”.[/url] (a nod to the Sun’s infamous headline).

BTW, sorry for my grumpy first reply – nothing personal.

What a load of crap: –

Brexit was a brilliant gift for him, he just needs LePenn to do his work in France and the EU will be right where he wants it

Lolz. Clearly you can read his fiendish mind.

Bearing in mind that Clinton’s email hack came from Russia.

No. Ukraine. After Podesta lost his phone in a cab. Ukraine, Russia. Close enough though, eh comrade?

Trump has claimed that he wouldn’t necessarily honour the NATO pact?

Why is this Putin’s fault? I spilled my coffee this morning, do I blame Putin?

Putin has already got his troops in place, NATO are concerned enough to put 300,000 troops on stand by

Have a look at a .gif of NATO’s encroachment of Russia. And you criticize Putin for the perfectly reasonable step of moving troops within his own border? How about everyone chills the **** out instead? Starting with NATO. Then Russia. Hopefully Trump can get NATO to chill the **** out, then everyone can get around a table as equals. Is that so bad?

Why would Putin want to be in Ukraine by Xmas? I suppose you think Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. If Russia wanted to take Ukraine they could be in Kiev in 3 days. You really think Putin (or Obama / Trump) would risk WW3[/url]? I suppose over a million Ukrainian refugees were forced at gun-point (all led by Putin personally) to ‘flee’ to Russia too?

Instead of ‘speed reads’, perhaps you read something other than the news equivalent of a cartoon book with chewable pages; enlighten[/url] yourself[/url].

where in the article does it say that?

Umm, the title? “FBI’s Comey opposed naming Russians” in a weak attempt to link Comeys’ decision to Russia. Hence the word “Russians”.

The article mentions Russia five times, so I think it’s about Russia. If the article is about Comey favouring Trump in some way (if so why did you post the link? I wasn’t even talking about that), they’d actually say something about Trump. Which it only does once in the last paragraph.

Comey refused to disclose whether the FBI were even investigating Trumps links with Russia a month ago

No. The very first sentence states: –

Comey would not confirm whether the bureau is investigating any [links]

Or do you think a ‘refusal to disclose’ means the same as a ‘would not confirm’? And even if he did ‘refuse to disclose’ the investigation a month ago, it’s a non-story as the investigation has now been disclosed.

Anyway, I have no idea if Comey (and / or his decisions) and Trump are in any way connected; my brief foray on this thread was in relation to a slightly different issue

*wanders off confused*

So its an article based entirely on quotes from one unnamed source. OK.

“Source:”, “The official said”, “According to the official”, “a former bureau official claims”.

In other words; an unnamed person, who apparently used to work in ‘the bureau’, presents as a proven fact the extreme claim that the FBI Director is essentially a stooge of the Russian government.

But of course claims from anonymous sources are almost always true, and as the election approaches, their reliability actually increases. We’re at the point where so many people will believe literally anything, from any ‘source’, if it’s helpful to believe.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; that no-one has actually come forward with evidence (yet) or anything beyond “but my mate down the pub says…”, forgive me for not believing a word written in that article.

Blocked? Not according to the NYT article I posted: –

“The F.B.I.’s inquiries into Russia’s possible role continue” (5th para)

So are the NYT wrong? What’s your source?

F.B.I. officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank. Computer logs obtained by The New York Times show that two servers at Alfa Bank sent more than 2,700 “look-up” messages — a first step for one system’s computers to talk to another — to a Trump-connected server beginning in the spring. But the F.B.I. ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts.

Sauce = Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia

I suppose someone will find a way to blame Russia for Anthony Weiner (allegedly) sending photos of his junk to a 15 year old kid, and his then wife Huma Abedin (Chairwoman of the Clinton 4 Prez effort) using their laptop – which was seized by the FBI investigating the photos – to store 650,000 emails, of which “Thousands may be tied to Clinton’s server.” (WSJ tweet, can’t link to for some reason). Cocktober surprise indeed.

Or that it’s Russia’s fault that Podesta lost his phone in the back of a cab last year (then emailing him on the *same* account resetting his password to p@ssw0rd). He then fell victim to a phishing attach from Ukraine.

I’ve got no dog, um, horse in this race however :P

wobbliscott – Member

So Russian jets do not enter UK airspace, but flying long range bombers directly towards UK airspace without submitting flight plans or responding to ATC is not exactly the actions of a nation with overly friendly intentions.

Do you have a source for this? The only thing I can recently find makes no reference to not responding to ATC.

But it’s only bad when the Russians do it, not the other way around? “U.S. aircraft approaching its border over the Black Sea because the American planes had turned off their transponders”.

Those links to so called ‘evidence’ are no more or less credible than the BBC or any other news organisation.

You’re dead right. Perhaps look into the credentials of the journalists who contribute towards the intercept, consortium news, neo-journal, and counterpunch; maybe you’ll be surprised? You too, shermer75, maybe you could learn something?

I completely agree it’s very difficult to get a balanced viewpoint, and both ‘sides’ seem to be getting even more polarised.

Putin has form. Poisoning Litvinenko for example

What? Putin personally poisoned Litvinenko? A classic example of what I’m getting at is the NYT; the headline boldly states “Putin ‘Probably Approved’ Litvinenko Poisoning”, but if you read only the 6th paragraph down: –

Though Sir Robert’s 328-page report, more than nine years after the poisoning, cited no hard evidence that Mr. Putin or Mr. Patrushev had been aware of the plot to kill Mr. Litvinenko or had sanctioned it

Do you see what I’m getting at? People skim the headlines and say “ah, Putin’s at it again” but when you drill down into the details it’s simply not the case.

BTW, you misrepresent me when you suggest I think Putin is a “hard-done by angel”, I didn’t say that at all. Compared to Obama (who’s war crimes are well-documented) he’s in the minor-leagues. FWIW I agree with your penultimate paragraph; he’s a shit-stirrer, and shit-stirring in very dangerous places and with very dangerous people.

Finally, MH17 (which wobbliscott and jambalaya allude to) I’d strongly urge everyone to read this[/url] and this[/url] with an open mind. Then come back to this thread and say “Putin did it”.

BTW I’ve no particular dog in the fight re. Putin, it’s the hypocrisy I find objectionable

[edit]

It doesn’t **** out shit? :o

A nicely argued point, and if I may say so, a particularly nuanced comment, thank you for the input.

Time to put some myths to bed (not picking on you in particular wilburt): –

Crimea

After an American backed coup in Ukraine, citizens of Crimea voted overwhelmingly to reunify with Russia. See here[/url] for an analysis of the reunification, and indeed here[/url] for what really happened in Ukraine, before the West got fed up with the neo-nazi’s.

Alleppo

I don’t doubt for one second there are zero civilian casualties arising from the Russian campaign, the coverage is so hysterical most are lies, lies[/url], and more lies.

Nor is there any evidence Russia bombed the UN aid convoy. The only ‘evidence’ seems to suggest otherwise.

Please read ”Everything You Hear About Aleppo Is Wrong”

US elections

Once more there is absolutely no evidence of this, just smears and insinuations. Even the boss of the DNI says[/url] he doesn’t know who who hacked the DNC.

Jets in Western airspace

You mean Russian jets in international airspace? Or the submarine which wasn’t a sub .. or russian

Alarmist BBC headlines

Ok, so Russia is deploying military hardware within her own borders. How is this any worse than NATO / US missiles being placed along Russia’s border, despite the 1989 “not one inch further” promise?

Russia is now the international boogy-man, with everything being blamed on them (and Putin) in particular. MH17, Trump, ‘Putin poisoned clinton at 911 ceremony’ (ffs!), everything is blamed on Russia / Putin – and whilst not perfect, compared to what the US and Obama does – and I won’t get into that here – he is a saint.

There is no mainstream independent media anymore, just a collection of stenographers mindlessly parroting everything coming from the US state department, it’s pathetic, and now quite boring actually.

[edit]

And here we are, in the time it took me to type that out – more hypocrisy. ffs.

And Hillary Clinton says “Kremlin has weaponized WikiLeaks”[/url]

Sounds like a path that’s had an ‘alley-gating’ order on it (random link). There should have been notices at the start and end of the gated bit before the order was confirmed (and IIRC two weeks after confirmation date), no notices means the order is defective (but sometimes they’re hidden behind overgrowth).

Your RoW team will confirm if there is an order on the path (and ask them for copies of the photos of notices as they have to check them and take photos)

Yes, sounds like it’s Common land (as opposed to land designated as heather, moor, heath and downland). It’s common for farmers to introduce cattle to rough land as they graze it down and eventually improve it.

No money is given to the landowner for owning / managing CROW land. It’s not guaranteed that you can actually walk on every square meter of CROW land, although since 2005 your Rights of Way department should by now have surveyed it all and have an idea of its condition, and by them adding an ‘access to access land’ path they’ve more than likely classified it as, words to the effect of, “you can’t walk everywhere on it but you can at least walk across it to get somewhere interesting”

Depends on the individual really. One Muslim friend is quite strict and is completely against consuming alcohol or anything with the possibility of alcohol in (plus a lot more other food issues as she’s vegan, and got the non wheat thing too :| ), but another mate is OK with a glass of wine / beer but generally stops when tipsy (he says “Allah is forgiving!” when he starts on his second / third drink).

So yes (or no) :)

Your whataboutery misses my point.

Assad might very well have used barrel bombs – undoubtedly against the myriad of foreign-funded and supported ‘rebels’ – killing innocent civilians in the process, but my point is the utter hypocrisy of this obsession with these crude bombs as being demonstrably worse (and if used in any significant numbers there would be by now some verifiable and independent evidence, see the sarin link for convenient evidence-free blaming) than the thousands who HAVE been killed by US-supplied ordnance, with people continuing to be killed every day across the entire region.

But of course, it doesn’t count when the US does it; they’re the good guys.

Speaking of which, in the last few hours alone we have the ex head of the CIA openly suggesting the US “covertly” kill Russians and Iranians through armed proxies (a sexier way of saying ‘rebels’), and how the US government perverted the course of justice to avoid war crimes prosecutions.

But I’m veering strongly OT, and it’s late.

Two thoughts on this: –

1) Have the UK forces been sanctioned by Syria’s government to operate within its borders? No. These UK forces activities breach international law[/url] (as too are all western aerial campaigns / interventions, BTW, with the exception of the Russian campaign).

I’m not against UK intervention / military presence, but any action must be done in accordance with international law and at the very least with the authorisation of the legitimately elected government of Syria.

2) Which flavour ‘moderates’ are UK forces assisting? The moderates that ‘only’ chop[/url] the head of sick kids, or the other moderates who commit[/url] war crimes? There is no such thing as a ’moderate’[/url] rebel.

BTW: –

jambalaya – Member

Yeah right. We should just leave Assad to barrell [sic] bomb and gas Syrians as he sees fit ?

Yes, because barrel bombs (the go-to buzzword for Syria) – even if there is evidence they were ever used BTW – are a far worse way to die than the sophisticated U.S.-made bombs which arrive with little or no warning, killing thousands.

Also, the sarin attack is not a ”slam dunk”[/url].

jambalaya – Member

Yes they [UK presence in Syria, presumably] make a big difference

Indeed, it’s nearly made as big a difference as recent US efforts

(BTW, not picking on you here jamby).

I’m just utterly staggered at the hypocrisy of it, and this is happening all across the region where the west (and everyones favourite sponsor of terror, Saudi Arabia[/url]) has become involved (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Yemen, Sudan – where next?. And don’t get me started on Ukraine.

Why aren’t we (not STW, but the royal we) talking about this more? :( Bread and circuses, innit?

Try a dog repeller / alarm thing. Or try this?

I’ve got nothing more to add to ninfan’s post other than adding that authorisation for gates isn’t applicable for Restricted Byways – the purple arrow – even if one was genuinely needed (the ingress and egress of animals / etc).

I wouldn’t start cutting anything (certainly not new lengths of tight wire fence which *might* be lawful, but personally and professionally bits of loose old barbed wire are fair game TBH) until your PRoW team have looked into it.

Yep, going from the slippery ford, up, along to Offas Dyke Path (2ft high slate waymarker), along the boardwalk / moorland, cross the llandegla MTB main route and down through the forest, then where it meets the black route (just past a double switchback), join it and finish it to the cafe.

Or on roads (well, for what passes for them), don’t join ODP and carry on along the mountain road, down to a junction, sharp left, narrow bridge (if in a car), left, immediately left then keep left at all the main junctions then right at a small council estate, join the A525 (it’s only 5 mins downhill), then left at Dirty Farm TM and along a straight potholed track to the main Llandegla gates. Then cake / nomz :)

Brill, glad you liked it :) maybe try next time the old pass (next right past the Britannia, pendredwr, ponderosa), shorter and steeper but a rougher surface.

http://tinyurl.com/h2vvr7x

3 hrs 49 mins / 31.6 miles. This OK?

The routes a bit wrong at the end, instead of going on the A539 keep going along the canal past Jones the Boats and you eventually end up on a small road which then leads up to Tower Hill

[edit] forgot to add the Tea Rooms are now only open Thurs -> Sun (and bank hol mondays)

Pen-y-Gaer Road, Panorama, Dinas Bran Castle, Llangollen, Horseshoe Pass, left just past the Ponderosa, left then left again to Bryneglwys, Carrog, Horseshoe Falls, Llangollen, then the canal all the way to where it ends near the Duke of Wellington, then back up via Tower Hill :)

3 and a bit – 4 and a bit hours? and not too much climbing (other than Horseshoe Pass and Tower Hill, but TBH you can’t ride much around the area without some climb or another!)

All fairly quiet roads too (except HSP, but you could try the ‘old’ pass for a laugh, Pentredwr to the Ponderosa).

Will try and go a google map thing now.

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? :)

The corrective legislation also barred extradition where no decision to bring a person to trial had been made (s. 156).

(a) The OHCHR clearly interprets S156 differently to you ninfan (see below),
(b) There’s more to the refusal of the EAW than just an interpretation of S156, and
(c) UK government lawyers at the time should have corrected this point.

(3) In a case where the Part 1 warrant (within the meaning of the Extradition Act 2003) has been issued before the time when the amendments made by this section come into force *, those amendments apply to the extradition concerned only if, at that time, the judge has not yet decided all of the questions in section 11(1) of that Act.

* This could easily be interpreted as entirely retrospective (e.g. if someone’s been sitting on an EAW for months, tough, or reapply for one). Or it could just as easily be interpreted as applicable only if the law was enacted between the time a warrant was issued and it appearing before a judge.

However, I agree it should have gone to the ECHR first.

markgraylish. This must be the first case (am happy to be proven wrong) – I think it’s particularly unusual as Assange specifically chose political asylum which can only be done, AFAIK, in person in an Embassy. I can’t imagine many people running into an Embassy chased by the police * and not be thrown out / shot within 10 seconds (other than in films / etc)

* probably didn’t happen

Onto the matter of a breach of bail conditions: –

64. Mr. Assange continues to face arrest and detention for breaching his house arrest conditions (“bail conditions”) as a result of successfully exercising his right to seek asylum. However the conditions of his house arrest arise directly out of Sweden’s issuance of the EAW.

Now, would a flawed warrant negate any consequences of breaching his bail conditions? At the very least if it doesn’t, it must be counted against ‘time served’ whilst under house arrest for some 550 days (point 87).

I think the panel thinks so, otherwise it would surely have been mentioned in their findings with a finishing caveat along the lines of “freedom of movement must be reinstated notwithstanding the issue of his breach of bail conditions”.

Anyone got anything better?

In fairness, there was a legal obligation for the UK to extradite him to Sweden. However, re. Point 78 [.doc]: –

The corrective UK legislation addressed the court’s inability to conduct a proportionality assessment of the Swedish prosecutor’s international arrest warrant (corrected by s. 157 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, in force since July this year). The corrective legislation also barred extradition where no decision to bring a person to trial had been made (s. 156). The prosecutor in Sweden does not dispute that she had not yet made a decision to bring the case to trial, let alone charge Mr. Assange.

Ouch. It appears therefore the extradition warrant is fatally flawed insofar that he can’t be extradited until Sweden say he’ll be prosecuted. Which they themselves admit hasn’t been decided yet. Which then is why the panel said in it’s concluding point 100: –

… the Working Group requests … the exercise of his right to freedom of movement in an expedient manner

Clearly it’s beyond the panels remit to say “release him” but words to the effect of “in accordance with laws X, Y and Z his right to a freedom of movement must be reinstated”.

The group express an opinion not pass a judgement.

Fine. If you want to split hairs the OCHCR’s conclusions aren’t themselves enforceable, but their findings are based on international and local laws, with all the parties having agreed to adhere to the panels findings. How’s that?

It’s analogous to an employment tribunal telling an unfairly sacked worker that “We find Company X terminated your employment illegally, and that under laws Y and Z you should be reinstated immediately”. Yes, the employment tribunal themselves have no legal powers under laws Y and Z to compel Company X to reinstate the worker, but they tell Company Y “these laws here say you have to”.

That’s the whole point of the UN working group and the basic underlying concept of tribunals. I’m really struggling to see why some people aren’t getting this :?

Fair point and I really don’t know the answer. I can only presume the only way (or more successful, perhaps) is, for some reason, for him to challenge the UKSC finding in the ECHR having first gained the support – for want of a better word – of the UN panel, rather than the other way around.

Sorry in advance for all the quotes / links :)

(the ruling) is not legally binding, according to BBC

You have fallen into the trap of believing what Assange says, rather than the truth. The UN report is NOT legally binding. This was clearly reported on the news yesterday.

Not so ‘clear’ I’m afraid as the BBC later generously concedes later on: –

a UN official said the decision was based on international law.

So you’re both suggesting something based on international law, of which the UK is a signatory, isn’t legally binding? How does that work then?

Don’t take my word for it, see what the OHCHR has to say (see ‘NOTE TO EDITORS:’ part)

The Opinions of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention are legally-binding

This refers to the ICCPR, which the UK goverment signed up to in 1976. The UK government
also confirms this.

If the decision WAS legally binding, then why wouldn’t Assange do what a human rights lawyer suggested yesterday – come out of the door and show us just how binding the decision is?

Until the UK government confirm that it is legally binding (I feel like I’m going around in circles here) and that the arrest warrant is quashed, he is quite sensible in sitting tight until they do.

BTW, I’ve yet to hear anything from the UK government along the lines of “we refuse to abide by the ruling” / “we will appeal” / etc, all they are saying are “we reject the findings”. Fine, reject the findings until the cows come home but they had their chance and lost.

I really think a dead horse is being flogged here; unless someone comes up with something solid (I see only ninfan has provided links to support his position) that’s the matter closed as far as I’m concerned.

So which has higher precedent – this UN ruling, or international extradition treaties?

Given that the OCHCR (link above) says: –

The Opinions of the WGAD are also considered as authoritative by prominent international and regional judicial institutions, including the European Court of Human Rights

My belief is that the ruling must have precedence over the warrant, although the ruling having words to the effect of ‘assange must be released’ isn’t necessarily synonymous with ‘the warrant is quashed’, the warrant would surely be contested on this basis if it isn’t quashed.

Do you really believe them when they say they’re not interested in him?

No, because the United States Department of Justice has issued a sealed indictment against Julian Assange. Oh, and Sky news being told that “extradition [to the US] is more and more likely”.

Assenge has constantly claimed that he will be extradited from Sweden by the USA, but has produce no evidence.

No, he asked for guarantees that he won’t be extradited, which were never given. Have a look here for more info.

Anyway, we’ve seen how the far the American administration[/url] will go in the war on whistleblowers; which incidentally is the prism under which I view this entire case (and my particular area of interest), a war on a whistleblower.

As an aside, you may think I’m obsessed with Assange, but I’m actually very disappointed in how much mileage he has been given, when there are far[/url] more pressing human rights issues which we should all be worried about.

[edit]

Glad to see Chelsea Manning mentioned above, I’d love the chance to bore you all rigid with my opinions of her, but that’s for another topic :)

Ninfans’ second link “Philip Hammond is right: this working group opinion is ridiculous”

Carl Gardner is more than welcome to disagree with the UN’s very own group who specialise in arbitrary detention. Philip Hammond also considers it a “ridiculous finding”, but the simple fact is the UN ruling is legally binding. It’s not up to him to pick and chose which rulings the UK government complies with.

In fairness, as he knows it’s legally binding (I won’t over-egg that pudding, BTW) he’s not stupid enough to say (AFAIK) something like ‘we won’t abide by it’.

Anyway, Britain and Sweden participated in the 16-month long UN investigation and submitted evidence and defended their position before the tribunal. They lost and they’re not happy … *shrug*

[edit]

spelling … sorry guys, gotta flounce, night night

The UN panel on arbitrary detention ruled that Assange is being arbitrarily detained and that he should be allowed to walk free. The panel comprises leading experts in international human rights law from around the world who have been studying his case since 2014.

Assange was interviewed in Sweden when the allegations were initially made. And he was allowed to leave the country after the first prosecutor, Eva Finne, dismissed the case, saying: “I don’t believe there is any reason to suspect that he has committed rape.”[/url] because investigators have admitted that no DNA[/url] from Assange was found on the condom.

According to documents released by Ed Snowden, Assange is on a
”Manhunt target list”. In Alexandria, Virginia, a secret grand jury[/url] attempted to concoct a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted in a court.

In 2010, the Independent revealed that the two governments had discussed Assange’s potential extradition (sorry, can’t find link), and in 2012 Ecuadorean officials invited Swedish authorities to London to interview Julian Assange

A neat summary[/url] is: –

The Assange case has never been primarily about allegations of sexual misconduct in Sweden – where the Stockholm Chief Prosecutor, Eva Finne, dismissed the case … (with) one of the women involved accused the police of fabricating evidence and “railroading” her, protesting she “did not want to accuse JA of anything” – and a second prosecutor mysteriously re-opened the case after political intervention, then stalled it.

So we turn to him being granted bail in the UK while he fought extradition to Sweden whereupon he broke his bail conditions. Fair enough. However, he sought asylum in a foreign embassy from political persecution, as the UN panel’s ruling shows.

BTW, he has never refused to go to Sweden, he merely – reasonably – asks for a guarantee that he won’t be extradited to America. Sweden hasn’t done this. AIUI the case of his going up to the High Court revolved around the (highly technical) grounds relating to how much of a guarantee Sweden is obliged to give. Link.

Would STW (well, half of you) argue that he should still have handed himself over to the authorities so as not to break his bail conditions? Not a chance.

Given the interest in him by the American administration[/url], it does not appear to me to be unreasonable for him to seek an assurance from the Government of Sweden that it will exercise its discretion not to extradite him.

Regardless, the UN finding is legally binding and the UK / Swedish governments have effectively said “tough shit”. Where are the STW howls of indignance over that?

This is, IMO, a far bigger story than a very suspect rape allegation (BTW I’ll say that slowly, allegation) or someone breaking his bail conditions.

[edit]

Oops, norty word alert :o