Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Am I the only person left who thinks that he really should be answering the charges of sexual assault and rape brought against him, rather than trying to blackmail governments in order to avoid being sent back to face those charges?
  • Thanks 4
Posted
Tbh it looks like the Swedish charges are fabricated if what you read on various sites is to be believed.

 

One of the victim's has apparently thrown these accusations around before. From what I've read (pinch of salt) these woman had no intention of making complaints against Assange until the media/governments got involved.

Posted
Tbh it looks like the Swedish charges are fabricated if what you read on various sites is to be believed.

 

I tend to be skeptical of such things when the 'victim' of the supposedly fabricated charges has gone to such lengths to avoid facing those charges, including threatening to release information if he is made to face them. If he'd simply claimed that they were fabricated, I'd be less distrustful, it's the fact that he tried blackmail that concerns me.

Posted

I think he should be extradited, personally.

 

If he has nothing to fear from the charges, then all this talk of conspiracy theory is just bull.

 

However, he should be able to afford the best lawyers, to pick apart the prosecution case.....If there is no truth.

 

If there IS truth in the allegations, then I think he deserves to do time, just like any other convicted person.

  • Thanks 1
Posted

I see someone scared of the allegations against him, and trying to dress it all up as conspiracy for sympathy.

 

It's interesting that he made a comment about being 'the founder of a not-for-profit', yet managed to meet the £200 000 bail which he claimed was excessive.

 

It's also worth noting that, with an extradition to Sweden, it means any extradition to the States would require not just Sweden, but also the UK to give permission, meaning that it makes it harder for them to try anything (in theory).

Posted

There was a good article on this on Radios 4 legal prog the other day.

 

As long as the Swedish application meets the standards, which it seems to have done, then he goes. In this case, from what I recall, he has to face going on trial, it's not enough to want him for questioning.

 

There is no US extradition request out there for him. Whether there will be I do not know, but there is not one out there now.

Posted
It's interesting that he made a comment about being 'the founder of a not-for-profit', yet managed to meet the £200 000 bail which he claimed was excessive.

 

I believe, but am far from certain, that the bail was posted by a mixture of friends, journos and actors. He was then whisked away to Bungay or Beccles, or somewhere in Norfolk. That is almost a fate worse than death!!!

Posted
I believe, but am far from certain, that the bail was posted by a mixture of friends, journos and actors. He was then whisked away to Bungay or Beccles, or somewhere in Norfolk. That is almost a fate worse than death!!!

 

Yep the bail money was indeed posted by friends etc.

 

As part of his bail conditions he's been staying at Ellingham Hall, Ellingham (Nr Bungay) and is having to visit Beccles police station daily.

 

Ellingham Hall is about 4 miles, as the crow flies, from where I live.

Posted
I believe, but am far from certain, that the bail was posted by a mixture of friends, journos and actors. He was then whisked away to Bungay or Beccles, or somewhere in Norfolk. That is almost a fate worse than death!!!

 

I could do with friends like that...

Posted
I see someone scared of the allegations against him, and trying to dress it all up as conspiracy for sympathy.

 

It's interesting that he made a comment about being 'the founder of a not-for-profit', yet managed to meet the £200 000 bail which he claimed was excessive.

 

It's also worth noting that, with an extradition to Sweden, it means any extradition to the States would require not just Sweden, but also the UK to give permission, meaning that it makes it harder for them to try anything (in theory).

 

Would you not be scared if people were bending the law to bring you to court?

 

Other people posted the bail for him, like the legendary John Pilger.

Posted
It's interesting that he made a comment about being 'the founder of a not-for-profit', yet managed to meet the £200 000 bail which he claimed was excessive.

 

It's also worth pointing out that just because it's "Not-for-Profit" doesn't mean he cannot take a wage.

 

How else do charities exist???

 

I would be surprised if his wages HAD allowed him to pay that much bail....but that's where actors, friends and journos come into it.

Posted
The entire case is a mess of fabrications, exaggerations and politicking. The irregularities in how it is being handled by the Swedish legal system, and the interference of their government with its comments, indicates to me that he has no chance of getting a fair trial.
Posted
Would you not be scared if people were bending the law to bring you to court?

 

Other people posted the bail for him, like the legendary John Pilger.

 

Probably not to the point of trying to blackmail a government, no. Nor would I be busy seeking out publicity when keeping below the radar would be a more sensible option.

 

The problem is that if he's found guilty, people will call foul on the trial without a second's thought - as they're already doing. There's no consideration that there might actually be some charges to answer here, just reactionary nonsense defending him and claiming conspiracy and corruption.

 

Honestly, if they wanted to get him, they would have by now and I doubt it would've made any headlines.

Posted
Fit up or no, it seems that one of implications is that being in Sweden makes his extradition to the US more likely. What I haven't really understood is, why?
Posted
Fit up or no, it seems that one of implications is that being in Sweden makes his extradition to the US more likely. What I haven't really understood is, why?

 

Good question - it doesn't. The extradition would now require the approval of both Sweden and Britain, not just of Britain.

Posted (edited)
Probably not to the point of trying to blackmail a government, no. Nor would I be busy seeking out publicity when keeping below the radar would be a more sensible option.

 

The problem is that if he's found guilty, people will call foul on the trial without a second's thought - as they're already doing. There's no consideration that there might actually be some charges to answer here, just reactionary nonsense defending him and claiming conspiracy and corruption.

 

Honestly, if they wanted to get him, they would have by now and I doubt it would've made any headlines.

 

Has he ever blackmailed a government?

 

Theres also little consideration thats he's innocent until proven guilty, especially as the police have already dropped the charges before. Seems to be reactionary group baying for his blood regardless.

 

 

 

 

To prevent double posting, considering we're giving him to sweden and considering we were happy to rewrite our extradition laws to create a one way stream for the US (mckinnon), the papers are printed and waiting to be signed.

Edited by Theblacksheep
Posted
Honestly, if they wanted to get him, they would have by now and I doubt it would've made any headlines.

 

That's the thing - in the current age of information being so freely available, it would've made headlines. There'd be nothing any government could do about it, just like there was nothing they could do about the leaks.

Posted
Has he ever blackmailed a government?

 

WikiLeaks: Julian Assange 'will release damaging secrets if killed or arrested' | Mail Online - first result from Google, among plenty of others.

 

Theres also little consideration thats he's innocent until proven guilty, especially as the police have already dropped the charges before. Seems to be reactionary group baying for his blood regardless.

 

I'm not baying for his blood. I simply think that he should answer the charges brought against him, and shouldn't be let off, defended and seen as a hero simply because he happens to have founded a high-profile organisation.

 

To prevent double posting, considering we're giving him to sweden and considering we were happy to rewrite our extradition laws to create a one way stream for the US (mckinnon), the papers are printed and waiting to be signed.

 

Which would surely mean that, since Sweden are now involved, it's now harder to get an extradition by the US.

 

That's the thing - in the current age of information being so freely available, it would've made headlines. There'd be nothing any government could do about it, just like there was nothing they could do about the leaks.

 

So you're saying that now all information is freely available? Then why do we need wikileaks?

Posted
I'm not baying for his blood. I simply think that he should answer the charges brought against him, and shouldn't be let off, defended and seen as a hero simply because he happens to have founded a high-profile organisation.

 

The original European Arrest Warrant wanted him for questioning, and questioning alone. It was only after his defence pointed this out that the Swedish authorities have changed their tune and are now saying it is so he can be tried (in a secret court session).

 

So you're saying that now all information is freely available? Then why do we need wikileaks?

 

No, it means that once information is in the hands of the public, it is pretty much impossible to stop it now. So, if they had tried something, it still would've been everywhere due to this.

Posted
The original European Arrest Warrant wanted him for questioning, and questioning alone. It was only after his defence pointed this out that the Swedish authorities have changed their tune and are now saying it is so he can be tried (in a secret court session).

 

From what I understand, a secret court session is fairly standard in these sorts of cases in Sweden. It may also be that they wanted him for questioning to build a stronger case, or dismiss the case as unworkable, but now their hand has been forced and they've decided that the evidence they have is enough to press charges.

 

No, it means that once information is in the hands of the public, it is pretty much impossible to stop it now. So, if they had tried something, it still would've been everywhere due to this.

 

Which requires it to get into the hands of the public in the first place.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...