Julian Assange ?

[Websitehandyman]

Why are the UK government in such a fuss to get this bloke ? are we not acting, yet again, as the yanks private security company ?

 

[Simon-M]

He is wanted in Sweden not the USA (although they prob want him too) for a serious sexual offence. He has a case to answer. So he should man up and go answer the case. If he is innocent, the world will be watching ...so it will be proven. If he is guilty then he will face justice. That's the way we do it in Europe.

 

[Websitehandyman]

He is wanted in Sweden not the USA (although they prob want him too) for a serious sexual offence. He has a case to answer. So he should man up and go answer the case. If he is innocent, the world will be watching ...so it will be proven. If he is guilty then he will face justice. That's the way we do it in Europe.

Well on the face of it that seems the case.

"the way we do it in Europe" yep like the UK never put the wrong bloke away do they ? the Police have never trumped up charges either and all the politicians are honest folk.

The other side is the USA have paid some prostitute to make claims. I just don't see why we are trying so hard for Sweden or USA. On the radio yesterday they said the foreign office had threatened to go into the Equidor embassy and get him. I can't recall that happening before even when the Iranians when they shot one of our police women.

I don't really give a fig what happens to Assange, he sounds like a slimy type but no worse them most of the current government.

 

[Simon-M]

I don't really give a fig what happens to Assange, he sounds like a slimy type but no worse them most of the current government.

Agreed, but the Swedes seem like a decent lot. I doubt they are anywhere near as bad as our lot. In fact their people actually like their politicians.

Who knows what goes on behind closed doors. All we really know is there is a warrant for the guy to answer a case of sexual assault in Sweden and to be honest, he needs to go and answer that case.

 

[Websitehandyman]

Agreed, but the Swedes seem like a decent lot.

ABBA !!

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Actually he is a witness in the case, he has never been charged, he has only ever been interviewed as a witness. Suddenly after he posted the pentagon stuff, he is now wanted on the charge. Reality is the Yanks have done a deal and as soon as he hits Sweded, he will be questioned, released with no case to answer (as there is no evidence) and then grabbed bny the Yanks, who will lock him away for 100years for telling the world what the American government and security agencies have been doing.

 

[Simon-M]

Actually he is a witness in the case, he has never been charged, he has only ever been interviewed as a witness. Suddenly after he posted the pentagon stuff, he is now wanted on the charge. Reality is the Yanks have done a deal and as soon as he hits Sweded, he will be questioned, released with no case to answer (as there is no evidence) and then grabbed bny the Yanks, who will lock him away for 100years for telling the world what the American government and security agencies have been doing.

I love a good conspiracy. He's bang to rights if you pardon the pun

 

[Websitehandyman]

I love a good conspiracy. He's bang to rights if you pardon the pun

Bang to rights or not, he's still just a bloke wanted by Sweden so why has it even got to the point where our government is threatening other countries ?

I mean for god's sake we can't deport a bloke who condones blowing up our citizens but we can move heaven and earth to get hold of this bloke.

 

[Simon-M]

Bang to rights or not, he's still just a bloke wanted by Sweden so why has it even got to the point where our government is threatening other countries ?

I mean for god's sake we can't deport a bloke who condones blowing up our citizens but we can move heaven and earth to get hold of this bloke.

Good point but he has kind of made us look like complete plonkers on the world stage (not like we need much help in that dept) so he's got to go.

Why has Ecuador decided he is worth making a scene about? I think that is just as interesting as us making a stand. There is a lot of anti British thing going on in South and Central America. Are we really the bad guys? Are there really any good guys?

I don't think us mere mortals will ever get to know the truth, we are just fed what they want us to believe.

I still think the Swedes are a decent bunch and would not be party to such conspiracies. But then again, who knows.

 

[terryuk]

I don't think us mere mortals will ever get to know the truth, we are just fed what they want us to believe.

Good film

 

[Steve Sellers]

Regardless of what he is accused of in the media, the bigger issue is more important - US interference with the sovereignty of the UK and EU countries.

The fact that we would even consider going onto Ecuadorian territory to arrest this guy is shocking. It is an action that you would expect from some crackpot dictatorship............oh what a minute.

 

[Nuno]

Regardless of what he is accused of in the media, the bigger issue is more important - US interference with the sovereignty of the UK and EU countries.

The fact that we would even consider going onto Ecuadorian territory to arrest this guy is shocking. It is an action that you would expect from some crackpot dictatorship............oh what a minute.

Is the US interfering with the sovereignty of the UK and EU countries? Can you point out where and when, with reference to Assange if possible?

Also I don't think we are considering going into Ecuadorian territory as South America is a long way away, and Assange isn't there anyway. The Ecuadorian Embassy is in British territory: embassies and diplomatic missions are not on foreign territory as commonly thought. The Ecuadorian diplomatic mission has extraterritorial privileges, (not being subject to most English law in this case), under the Vienna Convention. We have an untried law to get around this which would be subject to judicial review anyway, and it is the inept mention of this which is, I think, leading to the misinterpretation.

The UK has been scrupulous in it's adherence to the law with regard to Assange, as have the Swedes as far as I know. If you have proof to the contrary please let me know as it would be illuminating.

 

I suspect the whole thing is about the US being caught out in many lies.

Not good losers and certainly not the types to apologise to anyone.

As for the British governments involvement.

A contradiction in terms lead character being a twit who has never had a job and makes a perfect running mate for Boris the Boor.

A loud little twit at 16 and now one with less hair.

 

[Nuno]

I suspect the whole thing is about the US being caught out in many lies.

Not good losers and certainly not the types to apologise to anyone.

As for the British governments involvement.

A contradiction in terms lead character being a twit who has never had a job and makes a perfect running mate for Boris the Boor.

A loud little twit at 16 and now one with less hair.

Interesting reply Comrade Earl. Perhaps I could sum it up?
US = bad
UK = bad Foreign secretary and mayor of London.

That adds wonderfully to the discussion about Assange, the Swedish and Ecuadorian connections, and today's developments.

Well done maintaining your usual standards.

 

[Websitehandyman]

Interesting reply Comrade Earl. Perhaps I could sum it up?
US = bad
UK = bad Foreign secretary and mayor of London.

That adds wonderfully to the discussion about Assange, the Swedish and Ecuadorian connections, and today's developments.

Well done maintaining your usual standards.

US - Bullies

I don't like bullies, particularly in my threads.

 

[Nuno]

US - Bullies

I don't like bullies, particularly in my threads.

They probably are bullies.
However if you have evidence that they have bullied the UK or Swedish governments about Assange please do put it forward.
If however you are happy with unsupported assertions about US, UK and Swedish behaviour then say so.
I was trying to stop Earl do his usual bit and drag the thread off topic. Again if you are happy with that, on "your thread" fine.
But it doesn't add to the discussion does it? So do you have evidence or just a feeling? Have any of the governments involved acted outside the law? Or is it just general Yank bashing?
Oh, and a question nobody seems to have asked: what about the rights of those women not to be assaulted and raped? Or is that less important than Assange fighting America, a David vs Goliath thing?

 

Interesting reply Comrade Earl. Perhaps I could sum it up?
US = bad
UK = bad Foreign secretary and mayor of London.

Nah more like posterior licking little tow rags.

Or as me great-great uncle Albert would say.

A good education is no excuse for not having common sense.

Now bugger off and stalk someone else.

 

So do you have evidence or just a feeling? Have any of the governments involved acted outside the law?

Are you serious?

Lets see Iraq,Cuba,Suez,Vietnam,Most of Africa.

For more info ,look it up on Wikileaks.

The law is changed to suit the circumstances on a regular basis.

Either by Parliament or directly as instructions to Judges e.t.c.

All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts.

 

[Nuno]

Are you serious?

Lets see Iraq,Cuba,Suez,Vietnam,Most of Africa.

For more info ,look it up on Wikileaks.

The law is changed to suit the circumstances on a regular basis.

Either by Parliament or directly as instructions to Judges e.t.c.

All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts.

Firstly, as the thread is about Assange I'd expect answers about American illegality (and 'bullying') to have some connection to his case.

Secondly, are you really suggesting that the law should not be "changed to suit the circumstances on a regular basis"? Really? We should not change law when needs arise? (This would argue that laws allowing women to vote, decriminalizing homosexuality, ending the death penalty amongst others would never have been passed.)

Thirdly, are you suggesting that changes in the law should not be made by Parliament? Who then? Are you advocating a dictatorship? And directions to judges shouldn''t exist, so no sentencing guidelines: back to the days of 'hanging' judges on one hand and liberal softies on the other with no consistency?

I presume you would only be satisfied by laws set by yourself, according to how you see the world. Many people play the 'If I were King" game, most grow out of it.

Until shown otherwise I don't think there is proof of illegal behavior regarding Assange by the UK or Sweden, and await any about American actions.

(As for stalking you: dream on. Another little fantasy in your strange world. Are there any unicorns following you too?)

PS Your Shakespearean quote, (all the world's a stage..etc) is about the 7 ages of man and ends:
The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slippered pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank, and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

To which I need add nothing.

 

[Websitehandyman]

They probably are bullies.
However if you have evidence that they have bullied the UK or Swedish governments about Assange please do put it forward.
If however you are happy with unsupported assertions about US, UK and Swedish behaviour then say so.
I was trying to stop Earl do his usual bit and drag the thread off topic. Again if you are happy with that, on "your thread" fine.
But it doesn't add to the discussion does it? So do you have evidence or just a feeling? Have any of the governments involved acted outside the law? Or is it just general Yank bashing?
Oh, and a question nobody seems to have asked: what about the rights of those women not to be assaulted and raped? Or is that less important than Assange fighting America, a David vs Goliath thing?

You are the only person (now me too sorry) dragging the thread off topic by making personal attack on other members. It's pretty clear from the post count that the person takes no notice so why not just ignore the people you don't like. Better still as it's a forum and any old bozo can comment, you might do as I do and don't look at the names just read the comment and apply common sense.

Back to the thread, it's not about the person it's about the strengh of desire by the UK government to hand over the person and why in this case and not others.

 

[Nuno]

Back to the thread, it's not about the person it's about the strengh of desire by the UK government to hand over the person and why in this case and not others.

OK. How are you measuring this "strength of desire"? How is it possible to say it is stronger in this case than in other, (similar) cases? Or perhaps it is your interpretation, maybe influenced by extensive media coverage?
Has this "strength of desire" fallen outside of the law at any stage?
If there is a discrepancy in this "strength of desire" between this and other, (similar) cases is this a judgement call, and should no judgements be allowed whatever the circumstances?
Should allegations by Assange's former supporters of serious sexual offences against them influence this case? Are their rights worth bothering about when deciding if the accused should answer questions according to the laws of a mature democracy, Sweden, as well as EU treaties and UK adherence to those legal treaty requirements?
Or is it another set of excuses to not follow the law?

 

[Steve Sellers]

Is the US interfering with the sovereignty of the UK and EU countries? Can you point out where and when, with reference to Assange if possible?

Extradition Act 2003.

Also I don't think we are considering going into Ecuadorian territory as South America is a long way away, and Assange isn't there anyway. The Ecuadorian Embassy is in British territory: embassies and diplomatic missions are not on foreign territory as commonly thought. The Ecuadorian diplomatic mission has extraterritorial privileges, (not being subject to most English law in this case), under the Vienna Convention. We have an untried law to get around this which would be subject to judicial review anyway, and it is the inept mention of this which is, I think, leading to the misinterpretation.

Yes well done for quoting wikipedia. The effect is the same - sovereignty. By the way there is no misinterpretation, only you getting carried away with the pro forma, rather than the reality.

The UK has been scrupulous in it's adherence to the law with regard to Assange, as have the Swedes as far as I know. If you have proof to the contrary please let me know as it would be illuminating.

Perhaps you could point out how this is so, with reference to Assange if possible.

 

[vvaannmmaann]

IIRC he has jumped bail in the UK.
The maximum penalty for skipping bail is 12 months in prison, or three months for those sentenced by magistrates, on top of punishments for the original offence.

 

[mobyme]

OK. How are you measuring this "strength of desire"

I would suspect that threatening to flout international law which could end up with no Briton being safe anywhere in the world except in the western democracies suggest an inordinate strength of desire to kow-tow to the USA.
Hague is a political midget who turned the Conservatives into a joke in the 2001 election and now he is doing the same thing to Britain on the world stage as our Foreign Secretary.

 

[Nuno]

I fail to see how the Extradition Act of 2003 is proof of American interference with UK sovereignty. It is a legal act of parliament in which the UK has agreed to certain provisions, and adherence to that can't be seen as interference by a foreign state.

I didn't quote Wikipedia, (which you can check quite easily), as I knew this anyway, if for no other reason that it came up on QI last year. I'm sure the point will be proven in Wiki and other sources.

The fact is you are wrong about the Ecuador embassy being Ecuadorian territory. You refuse to admit this. What else are you wrong about?

 

[Steve Sellers]

I fail to see how the Extradition Act of 2003 is proof of American interference with UK sovereignty.

You fail to see a lot. Whether or not it is a "legal" act of parliament is irrelevant as to whether or not it interferes with our sovereignty. The fact remains you don't know how sovereignty works, I suggest you get the QI boxset out and do some studying.

Like I say, you are overly obsessed with fine details that are not relevant, now there is a word for that?

 

[vvaannmmaann]

Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign territory of the represented state.[5][6] Rather, the premises of diplomatic missions remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws) by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Diplomats themselves still retain full diplomatic immunity, and (as an adherent to the Vienna Convention) the host country may not enter the premises of the mission without permission of the represented country. The term "extraterritoriality," therefore, is often used in this broader sense when applied to diplomatic missions.

Wikipedia.

 

[Nuno]

You fail to see a lot. Whether or not it is a "legal" act of parliament is irrelevant as to whether or not it interferes with our sovereignty. The fact remains you don't know how sovereignty works, I suggest you get the QI boxset out and do some studying.

Like I say, you are overly obsessed with fine details that are not relevant, now there is a word for that?

Thank you for your intemperate comments. I'm not surprised you don't know the word you want to use.

 

Firstly, as the thread is about Assange I'd expect answers about American illegality (and 'bullying') to have some connection to his case.

Secondly, are you really suggesting that the law should not be "changed to suit the circumstances on a regular basis"? Really? We should not change law when needs arise? (This would argue that laws allowing women to vote, decriminalizing homosexuality, ending the death penalty amongst others would never have been passed.)

Thirdly, are you suggesting that changes in the law should not be made by Parliament? Who then? Are you advocating a dictatorship? And directions to judges shouldn''t exist, so no sentencing guidelines: back to the days of 'hanging' judges on one hand and liberal softies on the other with no consistency?

I presume you would only be satisfied by laws set by yourself, according to how you see the world. Many people play the 'If I were King" game, most grow out of it.

Until shown otherwise I don't think there is proof of illegal behavior regarding Assange by the UK or Sweden, and await any about American actions.

(As for stalking you: dream on. Another little fantasy in your strange world. Are there any unicorns following you too?)

PS Your Shakespearean quote, (all the world's a stage..etc) is about the 7 ages of man and ends:
The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slippered pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank, and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

To which I need add nothing.

Whatever?

10 out of 10 for trying.

 

[Steve Sellers]

Thank you for your intemperate comments. I'm not surprised you don't know the word you want to use.

I think you are confusing intemperance with indifference.

 

[Websitehandyman]

For those who what to discuss the issues and NOT EACH OTHER here's the BBC's timeline on events. You can draw your on conclusions but in general I tend to think something is odd about the man and the officials dealing with him. My concern is it's not doing our country's reputation any good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341

 

[Nuno]

I think it entirely possible that the Swedish prosecutor decided, quite legally, to 'throw the book' at Assange because of his perceived arrogance in reponding casually to charges of sexual assault, something no prosecutor takes lightly, especially a woman prosecutor from a liberal western state.

Much as a motorist's attitude when stopped for speeding will determine which of a range of possible legal reactions a policeman will take, I think Assange may have in effect have said " Do you know who I am? If you prosecute me it is a global conspiracy..." In return the Swedish prosecutor has said "No Mr Assange, we want you to answer questions down at the station about serious allegations made against you by Swedish citizens".

It has escalated from there. The Swedes want to see him acknowledge that when in Sweden he is subject to their laws, and are proceeding to this end, legally and correctly. The UK is bound by treaty to extradite him, but have accelerated the appeals procedure so he isn't in effect a prisoner here for too long.

As to the medium and long term importance o9f this, I liked the Reg's sub headline: "UK Govt rolls it's eyes".
Moonbat knickers in a twist time mostly, with a few tinfoilers getting itchy as well..no biggie as Assange's countrymen say.

 

I think it entirely possible that the Swedish prosecutor decided, quite legally, to 'throw the book' at Assange because of his perceived arrogance in reponding casually to charges of sexual assault, something no prosecutor takes lightly, especially a woman prosecutor from a liberal western state.

Well one would do if one was not guilty of any crime.

Its only when one is illegally banged up one takes it seriously.


One does wonder why the UK were not quite so dilegent over the 100's of millions of bribes paid to certain eastern warlords.?

As said before the US puffing its chest out in righteous indignation as usual.

A land of 300 million children may not be the best place to get justice.

Let alone a bunch of Vikings who were allies of the Nazi's.

 

[FreelanceSoftwareDeveloper]

Why do people think as soon as he is Sweden the US will get him, what power do they have in Sweden that they couldn't use here.

I'm not really following it but it seems to have reached a stalemate to some extent from what I can gather, whilst in the embassy he can't really be touched but step outside and he will be arrested? I guess he will be allowed to stay there for as long as he can afford to, surely all they are getting out of it is a payment.

 

[Simon-M]

Let alone a bunch of Vikings who were allies of the Nazi's.

You mean by helping 700 Jews escape from Denmark and supplying the Norwegian Resistance with arms and training they were allies of the Nazi's.

I thought you were old enough to remember

 

You mean by helping 700 Jews escape from Denmark and supplying the Norwegian Resistance with arms and training they were allies of the Nazi's.

I thought you were old enough to remember

Yup I am.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2788240/posts

Plus all that nice iron ore they flogged em to make their Panzers with.

 

[Simon-M]

Yup I am.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2788240/posts

Plus all that nice iron ore they flogged em to make their Panzers with.

They played both sides which suited both sides. True neutrality in a war of that magnitude is impossible. Look at Irelands role. History tells us they did more good than bad and if there is a country out there that comes out squeaky clean in any global war, you let me know who it is.

WWII was a very long time ago and like the UK, Sweden has changed. They no longer sail longboats around the world pillaging and raping and to suggest their motive is unlawful or unjust because of what happened in WWII is ridiculous.

 

WWII was a very long time ago and like the UK, Sweden has changed. They no longer sail longboats around the world pillaging and raping and to suggest their motive is unlawful or unjust because of what happened in WWII is ridiculous.

Is it?

Does WW2 have no effect on your thinking ?

We are all products of the previous generations.

I.E my parents and family were very much involved in WW2.

http://swedenisrael.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/sweden-cited-for-failing-to-pursue-nazi.html

 

[Cobby]

As said before the US puffing its chest out in righteous indignation as usual.
A land of 300 million children may not be the best place to get justice.
Let alone a bunch of Vikings who were allies of the Nazi's.

jesus christ shut up

 

[Cobby]

He is wanted in Sweden not the USA (although they prob want him too) for a serious sexual offence. He has a case to answer. So he should man up and go answer the case. If he is innocent, the world will be watching ...so it will be proven. If he is guilty then he will face justice. That's the way we do it in Europe.

The media (America especially) say he is wanted for sexual assault crimes, and his own defence has described his part in the events, relying largely on the argument that "subsequent consent renders the whole encounter consensual". Creepy.

However if he is genuinely sought after and Sweden wished to charge him, they could have done so already, they don't need him present. Sweden could also accede to his request for a diplomatic guarantee against extradition or illegal rendition to the US, which they have declined to do.