WikiLeaks Julian Assange finally nicked by the Met Police

Original post by PQ

It's disappointing how many famouses like to defend this cupboard dwelling sex pest.

You missed out 'smelly'.

Reply 21

HucktheForde

Original post by Good bloke

You don't think much of the rule of law or of Britain's treaty obligations then? Presumably you also have no sympathy for the peoiple whose lives he has blighted and whose deaths he has caused.

whos life?

Reply 22

username2950448

the intellectualism of the vassal-mentality-infected mind: "smelly rapist !!"

Reply 23

ChrisChristian

13

Original post by Notoriety

I can't help but imagine the place musta stunk after 7 years of him. I imagine he's the sort of fella to walk around on carpets without socks or slippers on, just because he knows it annoys people.

They can’t raid the embassy without ambassador permission

Reply 24

Original post by gjd800

Hard to feel sorry for the rapey wee shite.

I doubt he actually raped anyone.I don't think its a coincidence that he exposed US state secrets and then suddenly Sweden are pressing rape charges.Was probably a pretext to get him to the USA.

Reply 25

Original post by ChrisChristian

They can’t raid the embassy without ambassador permission

Ecuador can't exactly fight back, they wouldn't even have the US backing them.

Reply 26

gjd800

Original post by AJ126

I doubt he actually raped anyone.I don't think its a coincidence that he exposed US state secrets and then suddenly Sweden are pressing rape charges.Was probably a pretext to get him to the USA.

Hmm. Except his own lawyer described the following in court:

https://studentactivism.net/2011/07/12/assange-lawyer-concedes/

Original post by Decahedron

Ecuador can't exactly fight back, they wouldn't even have the US backing them.

The embassy invited the po-po of their own accord, by all accounts.

Reply 27

Original post by gjd800

The embassy invited the po-po of their own accord, by all accounts.

7 years too late, we should have just walked in and grabbed him.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 28

Original post by gjd800

Hmm. Except his own lawyer described the following in court:

https://studentactivism.net/2011/07/12/assange-lawyer-concedes/

The embassy invited the po-po of their own accord, by all accounts.

Well one woman described it as rape because he started having sex but then she appears to have continued willingly? Seems like an odd form of rape.The other seems to mainly dispute that he should have used a condom but otherwise had sex willingly.Again hardly the classical interpretation of rape.Indeed it's stretching the term to the point where it loses meaning if you call it rape.He even says in England it wouldn't be called rape.

I suspect this will be like the alleged Russian hacking in the US election.No evidence was provided.The Mueller report found no evidence of collusion with Russians.Yet everybody accepted it as fact.Nope there is scant evidence for it.Tbh I doubt he would have stayed in the embassy for 7 years if it was just the Swedes he was worried about.Hes not worried about them.Hes worried he'll get extradited to the USA and spend the next 500 years in an American jail.As he should be.

Reply 29

gjd800

Original post by AJ126

Well one woman described it as rape because he started having sex but then she appears to have continued willingly? Seems like an odd form of rape.The other seems to mainly dispute that he should have used a condom but otherwise had sex willingly.Again hardly the classical interpretation of rape.Indeed it's stretching the term to the point where it loses meaning if you call it rape.He even says in England it wouldn't be called rape.

I suspect this will be like the alleged Russian hacking in the US election.No evidence was provided.The Mueller report found no evidence of collusion with Russians.Yet everybody accepted it as fact.Nope there is scant evidence for it.Tbh I doubt he would have stayed in the embassy for 7 years if it was just the Swedes he was worried about.Hes not worried about them.Hes worried he'll get extradited to the USA and spend the next 500 years in an American jail.As he should be.

There was no consent in the initial instance and he did it a anyway. That's the salient point, really. In any case, I did not say he feared the Swedes, the US or whatever else, so I care not about that.

Reply 30

Original post by AJ126

Well one woman described it as rape because he started having sex but then she appears to have continued willingly? Seems like an odd form of rape.The other seems to mainly dispute that he should have used a condom but otherwise had sex willingly.Again hardly the classical interpretation of rape.Indeed it's stretching the term to the point where it loses meaning if you call it rape.He even says in England it wouldn't be called rape.

Three points: (a) That is what he is willing to admit. It may not be true, and (b) if she wanterd a condom and he attempted intercourse without one, then that is attempted rape, undoubtedly, in England. Intercourse without the woman's desired condom is clear rape. (c) What he claims may or may not be a crime in Britain is neither here nor there.

Reply 31

Original post by Good bloke

Three points: (a) That is what he is willing to admit. It may not be true, and (b) if she wanterd a condom and he attempted intercourse without one, then that is attempted rape, undoubtedly, in England. Intercourse without the woman's desired condom is clear rape. (c) What he claims may or may not be a crime in Britain is neither here nor there.

But that's why they were contesting the extradition process.In the article it says his actions were not criminal under English law.And it is relevant because the Swedes seemingly have a much looser definition of rape than we do.Its certainly reported much more in Scandinavia.Why? Is it because it happens more or are they so hyper- aware that they interpret everything as rape?

The main reason he is being arrested anyway is not because of the rape charges whether or not they are true.Its because he embarrassed the US government.

Reply 32

Original post by AJ126

In the article it says his actions were not criminal under English law.

No. It says his lawyers claimed on his behalf that his actions were not crimnal in Britain. The court did not get to make a ruling as he absconded, clearly not confident that the judge was as stupid as his lawyer had thought.

Reply 33

Original post by AJ126

But that's why they were contesting the extradition process.In the article it says his actions were not criminal under English law.And it is relevant because the Swedes seemingly have a much looser definition of rape than we do.Its certainly reported much more in Scandinavia.Why? Is it because it happens more or are they so hyper- aware that they interpret everything as rape?

The main reason he is being arrested anyway is not because of the rape charges whether or not they are true.Its because he embarrassed the US government.

Whether something is a crime in England is besides the point he was wanted in Sweden for a crime committed there.

If he didn't commit the crime he should have gone to court to prove as much.

Reply 34

Original post by Decahedron

Whether something is a crime in England is besides the point he was wanted in Sweden for a crime committed there.

It is inasmuch as he could not be extradicted if it were not a crime here. However, it seems, in his case, a fairly specious argument, given what he has admitted to. He appears tio be someone that all women should give a wide berth to.

Reply 35

Original post by Good bloke

No. It says his lawyers claimed on his behalf that his actions were not crimnal in Britain. The court did not get to make a ruling as he absconded, clearly not confident that the judge was as stupid as his lawyer had thought.

Maybe.But there have been a lot of dodgy rape cases recently.Ched Evans recently had his rape conviction overturned.Liam Allen was going to go on trial for rape until his layer found thousands of text messages at the last minute that the police failed to disclose.One woman recently even claimed she was raped by 15 different men and one of them went to prison for 2 years.How did nobody think that one through? As a result the government recently ordered a review into all rape cases and the director of public prosecutions has stood down.It seems to me that dodgy consensual sex is too often being termed rape nowadays.Very often it's not rape.Its just sex which one of both parties later regretted.

Even if the rape claims are true it doesn't detract from my point that this is about him leaking state secrets from the USA.I wouldn't put it past them to make stuff up or to offer bribes.This is the government remember that was illegally spying on millions of people around the world.Not allegedly.They were.Its proven fact.Thats what the Assange case is about not whether he raped anyone.You watch.Its America he is going to not Sweden.Although I'm sure they do in fact have an extradition treaty with America.

Reply 36

Original post by Decahedron

Whether something is a crime in England is besides the point he was wanted in Sweden for a crime committed there.

If he didn't commit the crime he should have gone to court to prove as much.

No because they would have extradited him wouldn't they even if found not guilty.

Reply 37

Original post by Good bloke

It is inasmuch as he could not be extradicted if it were not a crime here. However, it seems, in his case, a fairly specious argument, given what he has admitted to. He appears tio be someone that all women should give a wide berth to.

Innocent until proven guilty? He hasn't been convicted of anything yet you are saying women should give him a wide berth.

Reply 38

Original post by AJ126

No because they would have extradited him wouldn't they even if found not guilty.

And what has he managed to achieve in the last 7 years? Now he will be tried under Trump.

Reply 39