Julian Assange loses extradition appeal at Supreme Court
Discussion
Marf said:
Well with the greatest respect, perhaps before commenting on something you're not interested in you should perhaps not rely on third hand whispers from an internet forum
I don't think your response shows any respect at all. I merely commented on what had been written a couple of posts above, and prefaced it with an 'if', IOW, 'if it is true'. As I doubt there were any independent witnesses at the events in question, then I don't know how we are going to know for certain what took place, so everything that has been said about it can be given the same credence as "third hand whispers".singlecoil said:
I don't think your response shows any respect at all.
Fair enough, I think I showed respect. If I'd called you a "f-cking idiot for not reading up on the case before commenting" then I think that would have been a response lacking respect. In the grand scheme of the discourse that passes for "discussion" on PH what I said to you was incredibly tame.singlecoil said:
As I doubt there were any independent witnesses at the events in question, then I don't know how we are going to know for certain what took place, so everything that has been said about it can be given the same credence as "third hand whispers".
Great, well if thats how it is I guess the case will get thrown out for lack of evidence as it'll basically boil down to he says she says, no ?Edited by Marf on Thursday 21st June 11:26
Marf said:
singlecoil said:
I don't think your response shows any respect at all.
Fair enough, I think I showed respect. If I'd called you a "f-cking idiot for not reading up on the case before commenting" then I think that would have been a response lacking respect. In the grand scheme of PH what I said to you was incredibly tame.Marf said:
Settle petal. Get out of bed on the wrong side this morning did we??
So, you're not content to leave it at that then. It's obvious that you are greatly interested in this subject, and feel that you 'own' it. But you don't. It's also obvious that you are a conspiracy theorist. You are the one that most needs to stick to the 'facts' of the matter, such as they are, rather than constructing elaborate behind-the-scenes scenarios of political malfeasance.
Wow, what an angry man
I don't feel I own the subject, nor am I a conspiracy theorist. It is however your prerogative to believe what you want about me, so feel free to keep on keeping on.
I just prefer to know something about a subject before attempting to discuss it, and knowing something about it certainly isn't using PH to find out the facts.
I don't feel I own the subject, nor am I a conspiracy theorist. It is however your prerogative to believe what you want about me, so feel free to keep on keeping on.
I just prefer to know something about a subject before attempting to discuss it, and knowing something about it certainly isn't using PH to find out the facts.
Marf said:
samwilliams said:
Marf said:
samwilliams said:
Colonial said:
It is not rape as recognised under any laws except for Sweden.
You mean that, in the UK, you can fk someone while they're asleep and everything's fine?Are you sure?
(you shouldn't be, because then you'd be wrong)
European Arrest Warrant said:
4. On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange
deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to
sleep, was in a helpless state.
deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to
sleep, was in a helpless state.
Again, this thing stinks to high heaven. I don't blame him in the slightest for his actions, stand by my assertion its a ploy to get him to the US and hope the Ecuadorians give him asylum.
Marf said:
Great, well if thats how it is I guess the case will get thrown out for lack of evidence as it'll basically boil down to he says she says, no ?
Is that not the case, with the majority of rape cases where there are no witnesses?In which case, are you seriously advocating that the slimy dhead is treated differently than anybody else accused of the same crime? . . . . Or do you know what forensic evidence there is to back up the decision to prosecute?
Guybrush said:
Also odd (not?), that the media did not show anything of what he said at the Leveson enquiry.
As far as I'm aware, he didn't appear at the Leveson Enquiry, so it would have been more concerning had the media fabricated something to suggest he did! He submitted a statement, which was reported in the media and is available for anyone to read on the Leveson website.If you're going to have conspiracy theories, at least make them harder to refute.
samwilliams said:
Marf said:
I was being facetious, and I believe that the charges are false. So take from that what you will.
He has not yet been charged.(And you were having a go at other people for not reading up on the case!)
So to reiterate I believe the accusations are false.
Carfolio said:
So the question is - is extradition usually considered without formal charges?
Yes. He would be extradited on the basis of the European Arrest Warrant.(Assange's legal team tried to argue that the EAW was invalid for one of a number of reasons, however a judge ruled against them.)
In many ways, I think it would be a good thing for the USA to get their hands on him (not from his point of view perhaps), as it would be intriguing to see what 'the land of the free' would charge him with.
It would be hard for them to maintain their 'world police' stance, if they were essentially trying a non-national for a capital offence, just because he revealed some 'truths'. Because surely that would be the action of a despotic regime?
It would be hard for them to maintain their 'world police' stance, if they were essentially trying a non-national for a capital offence, just because he revealed some 'truths'. Because surely that would be the action of a despotic regime?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff