UKH

Why do the world's governments fear Assange - that he needs locking up for 175 years ? 

Did Assange do us all a favour in exposing the government's dark dealings ? - and if so shouldn't we be shouting for his liberty right now ?

4mins from DDN commentator McDonnell:

https://www.doubledown.news/watch/2020/2/march/john-mcdonnell-on-the-trial-...

Lengthy article from Counterpunch with spotlight on Guardian complicity:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/09/24/the-us-is-using-the-guardian-to-jus...

Assange is just the owner / chief editor of a media organisation. I can’t see how you can lock him up without locking up every news media owner / staff member for all the whistleblowing and leaks that they break in their papers. 
 

There’s definitely more to it. 

That's just the American way. Lump the maximum for each crime together. Either plea bargain it down to 5 or 10 years or go to court, fight your case and get off or go to jail for 20+. Obviously there is a financial saving for the state in avoiding the costs of a trial. For the defendant, well, 'do you feel lucky, punk?'

As for Assange, I've mixed feelings. On one hand he's an old skool hacker. He wrote strobe.c one of the original port scanners. Wiki leaks did a lot of good. There is an lot of info about illegal state sponsored activities now out in the public domain. He is educated and eloquent and can put his case across well. He gave hope to a lot of people with ethical concerns, on the periphery of bad things. 

One the other hand, he's a bit of a tool. He may or may not have been played by the Russians in the Trump saga. He may or may not have redacted info that could have got people killed. His response to the rape allegations wasn't great. (You could perhaps see why, as he wanted to avoid being extradited.)

Isn't it better to stand up, clear your name and then be wrongfully jailed by the US? I don't suppose any of us have ever been in a similar position; politicised show trial, then lots of jail time or the electric chair. (Remember some senators wanted him executed.) It is easy to make judgements on what he should have done. The US don't have a great history when it comes to justice, executions or even general prison life.

His life has been destroyed, what with a decade of self imposed hide and seek. He'll face another decade of legal fun and games, (the process is part of the punishment). Plus, whatever jail time he gets.

I wish him well; though I fear I'm defending a scoundrel, in order to support free speech and transparency.

He's being made an example of. Fair enough in my opinion, he's a loose unit with adolescent ideals, not the revolutionary he once could have been.

I can't tell - but he certainly has the cheek of the devil !. It's clear that, having made so many waves, there have been plots fabricated against him.

What's interesting from the counterpunch article - is that they're not sure how to pin him down. If they say he's a journalist then many others are implicated. So they try to say he's a spy, but this is far from evident :/

I’ve mixed feelings about Assange, yes he helped uncover some dodgy dealing, however to see him as a media owner is a big stretch.

He made no attempt to protect innocent parties named in document dumps despite warnings that lives were at risk, he did no journalistic work with the material or follow basic journalistic principles.

He also in the later stages seemed to be dumping or withholding material to suit his own agenda.

If you want to see how to do this properly look at how the Panama papers were dealt with. 

He is a divisive  character with more than a few flaws Who is also being hounded and made an example of for embarrassing the US government. The Swedish rape allegations just add to the chaos.

Lots of support on here for a creepy arsed, dough faced narcissist who's managed to fall out with virtually every person who's ever supported, worked with or been friends with him. Perhaps the US wants to nail him because his favourite hobby is hacking top secret data bases and then publishing the results unread, unreacted and with zero consideration for the lives he's endangering. His need to rifle through the underwear drawers of others is so pressing that he even hacked the computers of the Ecuadorian officials providing him with protection and then publishing personal pictures he'd stolen with the sole aim of demonstrating that they'd best treat him like a king 'or else'.

And Counterpunch, really? The same Counterpunch that published several pieces during the 2016 US election by "Alice Donovan" who turned not to be "Alice Donovan" but was in fact an employee of the Russian government? The same Counterpunch that's vigorously pushing the "Bill Gates is the Antichrist" line? The same Counterpunch that has slipped from publishing alternate media to alternate reality?

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/09/24/bill-gates-global-agenda-and-how-we...

Cheers, but I'd rather have my World view informed by Viz.

You want an echo chamber ?!

Spreading disinformation isn't widening anyone's viewpoint, it's widening distrust.

As you have brought this up - Id be interested to know what applicatons you imagine it would be put to - Patent WO 060606 is real

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2020060606&ta...

I have no idea, no interest and can’t say I really care. 

Much as I dislike Bill, he is at least spending some of his billions doing some good. He's spent a couple of hundred million reinventing toilets for the third world, for example. That doesn't appear to be a get rich quick scheme.

As for the patent, companies patent all sorts of spurious stuff, on the off chance. See patent trolls, for more info on why this might be a good idea. The fact that it came to light during the pandemic, is neither here not there, as it takes many months for the patent process to run through.

As to use cases, it seems that you can task a user to perform a service and then generate a micro payment, via crypto currency. So maybe you can empower impoverished people to plant trees / kill others (delete as applicable). The person doing the work, would generate a crypto token directly. It would cut out the middlemen and avoid layers of corruption when distributing payment to the workers.

Could it also imply that - if someone doesn't do as instructed - then (and if the crypto-currency became the prime token of trade) - then they become further impoverished ?

Why do you dislike him?

I just see a nerd who got lucky then through ability and hard work made loads of money which he's now using to help others.

We must hope for a true character change - because he is now in a position of power - through influence and wealth; is he really a good guy ?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/29/lets-not-forget-bill-...

Tend to agree.

Just a pity everyone is also ignoring his hiding in a cupboard antics to avoid the rape allegations.

Feel sorry for the complainants who are unlikely to see any sort of justice now.

You missed out exposing war crimes (for which no one has been charged, disciplined or admonished), but I don't suppose that fits your narrative.

Yes, and if he is going to be charged then let's charge the US war criminals he exposed at the same time.

 Yep, I was pointing out why the guy’s a shit. Wasn’t that obvious?

So, you posted an article you never read and have no interest in - and added your own spin - thats what I would call disinformation !

No, I have no interest in your link. You’ve got considerable form on here for bollocks links

So pointing out crimes of others is worse than the crimes themselves?

The guys is a manipulative slime ball, he uses other people often the more vulnerable to do his dirty work, but happily takes the credit. Despite knowing he'd likely face jail he's still fathered kids hoping they'll be useful as leverage or a bargaining chip. 

In the UK, yes.  In the US, no.  No no no.

I think Bill Gates does truly good work for people now, of that I have no doubt.  His early business practices before, during and after the foundation of Microsoft were ruthless, opportunistic, often of questionable ethical and legal character, monopolistic and arguably stifled an awful lot of innovation and better security practices in the field that are causing problems to this day.  

I don't think I would have liked Young Bill Gates very much, but then judging people by that test is quite dangerous lest it be applied to oneself...

It doesn't imply anything.   Microsoft employ a bunch of researchers and they are expected to file patents on crazy sh*t that might just happen some day.   It doesn't mean that Microsoft currently has any intention of putting significant engineering resources into building these crazy ideas, maybe a couple of guys in the labs will get to play about.  The patents are low cost speculations to stick in the portfolio in case five or ten years out someone does something similar and it becomes commercially interesting.  

Why do I dislike microsoft? Hmmm... How long do you have?

So back in the day (90s) when Unix was the only game in town, it could do lots more than Dos and also Windows or NT when they came along years later. For example: run a job on machine A and display the output on machine B. Multi user systems. Networking. Single sign on. Job priority and scheduling. Email, file permissions, file sharing, a rich number of languages from shell (sh,ksh,bash), tcl, c++, etc, etc. Microsoft had a road map to copy, as well as the source code in some cases and it took them ~30 years to implement. Along the way they stole technology from people and made their technology inoperable with other products. And it crashed a lot. Apple had stable networking long before they brought in (unstable) networking with win 3.11.

Now, you may say that Sparc or Apollo or DEC workstations were better that x86, but not by much. Novell was doing a lot of what m$ couldn't do, but on the same hardware. And then along came linux and did everything m$ should have done, but they did it for free, in their spare time. (Similar story with BSD.)

An egregious example is defrag. I can run a server with 500+ people logged on with shell access, all reading and writing to disk, creating and deleting files and it doesn't ever need defraging. I can have a windows box and defrag the disk. Then reboot the box a dozen times, doing no other work on it. It will require a defrag. Which has to be done manually. Because they can't automate it, when the box is idle. 

And they let your word processor talk directly to the network. Ushering in a bold new era of viruses. And because there was no concept of privilege, everything ran as the privileged user. Your machine could be trashed by a macro. Not like today, oh, wait...

Did I mention clippy?

Quitting all tangents. 

Possibly of greater concern than the fate of one man, is the outcome which will set precedent for citizens - the future of journalism. The licence for government to proceed with all and any skullduggery, will not finally be favourable to the common good.

The question left for journalism will be - What (or who) will define lawful exposure of / access to - nefarious activity ? 

It's further interesting that Assange & Snowden have, in their whistle-blowing acts not only exposed government corruption - but have also increased security (direct technical input in the case of Assange) and helped plug weaknesses in IT and personnel management. All of which will confer greater immunity on government dark dealings. 

Just like if you have a job and you don't do as instructed?

Well I suppose you could infer that from what I've written, if you squint really, really hard and then ignore what I've written.

His lawyers reluctantly scratch another name from the list of possible character references after being forced to resort to trawling random forums after finding all his friends have an ex in front of them.

Has he ever ben seen in the same room as Boris Johnson?

I'm pretty certain if I found out my neighbour was falsely claiming disability benefits and I decided to point out his crimes by releasing the bank account details, confidential medical and DHSS benefit records of a couple of million people, most people would regard that as a worse crime.

Is your neighbour Cummings, Johnson or Assange? It might affect my decision.

except your example is topsy turvy - the colonialist-supremacist crimes committed messing up the Arab bloc have repercussions for the whole planet;  the downward spiral of intervention-arms supply-terrorism is leading us no place good

Always surprises me when a conspiracy theorist can connect so many unrelated and disparate dots to produce the most outlandish and Machiavellian inter-related conspiracy, and yet when it comes to complex geo-politics over numerous countries and decades of moving alliances, governments and conflicts, they can only put forward a view as simplistic as an idealistic child = "West = bad".

But never as surprising as those who have neither the patience nor the facility to distinguish ? - who instantly blanket-dismiss all who criticise as conspiracy supporters. No - this has rather become completely predictable.

We would all prefer to judge in black and white.

LOL. You are literally trying to portray Assange as "hero" and the West as "bad".

Talk to me about black and white 😂

That's great until you realise that the 'Arab Bloc' is an entirely ephemeral invention that only fleetingly gains any substance in occasional opposition to Israel or in attempts to stall a falling oil price.

Many of these conspiracies require complex coordination and absolute secrecy. The plots are, generally, very ambitious and unstoppable. There are usually only a handful of players and they are rich or hold positions of power.

However, when we have thousands of people trying to plan and execute something simple, like checking lorries going to and from France, it turns into a fsck up. When we have a cabal of rich, powerful and influential people telling us what to do, they cant even get the message straight. 'You have to stay at home if you can, but you should eat out to help out.'

So whilst there may be small groups that exert unseen influence over large areas of society, the likelihood is that none of them are British. Unless, of course, the aim is to spread chaos and mayhem. We're quite good at that.

It has never been proven that any of the leaks by Snowden or Assange have caused any danger or harm to anybody.

It was just the easiest thing to throw out there to discredit him, and it seems to have worked as plenty of replies on here drew that card. 

Including your judgement of a physical characteristic “dough faced”? 

Congratulations, that's probably one of the most asinine posts it's ever been my good fortune to read on here. Assange released 700,000 secret files, unread and unredacted and involving current assets and actions in active war zones and you whinge that it was never proven that it did anyone any harm? 

I shouldn't be surprised that Assange supporters are made up of the credulous and naive, I mean, just ask Chelsea Manning, the Ecuadorian government or all those people that put up his bail money.

You dislike "dough faced" but make no comment on "creepy arsed narcissist"? How very peculiar.

Narcissism is not a physical characteristic, it’s arguably a personality “choice”. Nothing peculiar about my not commenting on that (I took “creepy arsed” to be some sort of figure of speech rather than a description of his bottom). 

If he had a wooden leg would you used that as a criticism of the man? I think you wood. “Peg legged” probably. Or if he had lost an eye in the past. “Pirate patch Assange” etc 

Who said what now? 

Do you spend much time writing letters to newspaper cartoonists? the producers of spitting image? comedians and caricaturists of every stripe? Is it perhaps a hobby?

I would have thought you'd have a wider view of this sort of stuff from way up there on your high horse

Edit: In all seriousness, I just thought creepy arsed, dough faced narcissist had something of a ring to it. The man has come across as despicable in almost all his personal dealings and for the life of me I can't understand why you'd leap to the defence of a fugitive from rape charges over the words "dough faced" (entirely accurate and not particularly harsh) but have taken no issue with all the rest of the odure I've heaped on him. 

I have not leapt to anyone’s defence (of anything, I was trying to defend the English language) and I am not on a “high horse” 

OK it seems there are a few definitions of “dough faced” and not all of them are in any way a physical description. Which meaning were you intending though? 

Assange is the equivalent of the garbage-sifting and holiday-snapping papparazzi bottom feeders who simply throw everything out there hoping something will stick. He relies on a 1980's myth of hacker-as-hero, now long surpassed by more potent hackers and agitators.

Whilst i believe due credit for being unaligned, he is no Libertarian or Anarchist with any reason behind the flea market data he leaks, aside from the vanity of exposing a weakness. As someone said, he's found the lower colon of the deep state, not the aorta.

Just trying to get to the bottom of your dislike of me referring to Assange as dough faced. Sorry to repeat myself but you've thus far avoided answering. Do you spend much time writing letters to newspaper cartoonists? the producers of spitting image? comedians and caricaturists of every stripe?  How about other famous figures? Hatchet faced Thatcher? Ferret faced Farrage? Tango Trump? Gove undoubtedly resembles Pob and has been referred to as such many times on here but have you taken anyone to task over it?

I'm simply trying to work out why you regard Assange as special.

Exactly what it says on the tin. Assange (unsurprisingly) has a bone white complexion, combined with a somewhat soft and flaccid featured phizog, doughy is purely descriptive. You disagree? Find it uniquely offensive? Why?

Who are these latter ?

Snowden, QAnon, Chelsea, Pussy Riot, 4chan, Weiwei, Antifa, Joshua Wong etc. Plenty of agitators having more of an effect in their chosen worlds than Assange. 

OK so you are indeed literally criticising him for a physical characteristic. I was actually starting to concede that you may have been using the “politically pliable” meaning of the term (which would not have made sense anyway)

This means that I have already answered your repeated question quite clearly and at least once. See my post from 00:38 for example. In  no way have I “avoided answering” and in no way have I leapt to his defence. You are the one being repetitive. 

No, you haven't answered my question. I've repeatedly asked you if you find my characterisation offensive and if so why. You still haven't answered.

Give it a rest. 

Fair enough, just stop misrepresenting the exchange and if you have a point, make it.

Assange is a hero to anti-imperialists the world over and will be seen so in history. Its obviously despicable to see the UK complicity in the frame up that were the rape allegations to imprison him in the first place but that is what this country is when it comes to state terrorism by NATO countries and their allies.

The media are run by them so you will see nothing but attacks by them on Assange and on ukc you will get the subservient bootlickers tell you how he is not very nice, lol. Par for the course. 

What’s your thoughts on #metoo ?

it is possible to take a balanced view like the majority of posters on here, which don’t condemn him for exposing government dirty dealings and are supportive of that element. He didn’t do it as well as he should  he handled badly what was a great responsibility. Again refer to the Panama papers.

Im sorry but dismissing the rape allegation  like you did is Poor, most people have tried to keep the two subjects at arms length as speculating on rape charges before a trial is just s&£t. And the debate on his alleged crimes and character can be done without going down conspiracy rabbit holes.

I'm not sure how you stretch UK complicity to Swedish rape claims. 

As for US bootlicking - he had the benefit of a number of extradition hearings relating to Sweden, whilst on bail for the Swedish rape allegations and he's now having a fairly protracted US extradition hearing which by all accounts isn't going particularly well for the US governmentm

LOL. The inability to believe that Saint Assange could possibly have feet of clay seems a bizarre blindspot of certain of those on the left. 

Obviously by "feet of clay" I mean he's a bit of a rapey weirdo. Allegedly.

My point was made in my first post here. You are using a person’s physical characteristics as a means of criticising them. I was checking whether that was what you were doing, and you’ve confirmed it. That’s all. 

It didn't criticise Assange for having a doughy face, merely noted he had one. Would you have spent 13 hours pursuing this line if I'd described him as hawk faced or snub nosed?

You then asked me questions seeking that I clarify my position, which I answered. I asked that you clarify your own position and you have so far declined.

It's very simple. I don't know why you're making such a big deal of it.

I am not making a big deal of anything, I intended to make one post, as a rhetorical question. You keep accusing me of not addressing your question back to me, which was clearly answered early on. 

Definitely time to move on from this. 

1. Do you find me calling Assange dough faced offensive?

2. If so do you find all descriptive prose offensive?

And yet you keep posting without adding any clarification.

'Assange is a hero to anti-imperialists the world over and will be seen so in history.'

Tell you what, no one could ever accuse you of being unpredictable.

Do you consider yourself to be an imperialist ? or do you have stocks and shares vested in imperialist activities ?

Whilst I'm in general agreement with the main thrust of your anti-microshaft rant, I do take exception to this.  I pretty sure the x86 AT box I had  (and which at the time represented the pinnacle of x86/D(R)OS capability) was a fair bit slower than the Sparc, micro Vax, and Dec workstations I programmed on.  If memory serves correct, x86 didn't even support paging at the time.  Motorola 68000 good, Intel 8086 bad!

What’s an imperial activity?

Drinking Hungarian dessert wine. 50cl bottles are called imperials. I like being an imperialist as Royal Tokaji is bloody gorgeous with a lemon drizzle cake or similar.

 I remember we had some Vax users for a particular application, and they didn't like the UNIX version.  How they laughed when we scrapped them over the weekend..

Mixed tbh. Most well known actors knew Weinstein and Hollywood was a cesspit to get leading roles then it breaks and they make out like they never knew, bollocks, like all those employed by the bbc during the massive Saville era, it's BS lies. 

What? 

No rabbits necessary just common intelligence frame up, obvious to any idiot that follows the deeds of intelligence mobs, don't you? 

Easy use that thing between your ears. 

When the devil plays you dance. How do you escape a frame by the entire establishment? 

Suggestive word choice is your main weapon when you have nothing else it appears. Or perhaps you are in a hurry so u want to get your entire point across quickly and succinctly. 

What we did to Assange was criminal and you know it. 

Go on spell it out. Assange fled to the UK on learning of the allegation, we allowed him to enter when this plot presumably started, we gave him bail when the Swedish started extradition proceedings, we gave him a number of hearings whilst in the Ecuadorian cupboard after he successfully "waited out" the first rape allegation, we allowed him a number of opportunities to challenge his incarceration when Ecuador finally evicted him, and we are now holding a lengthy extradition hearing for him.

How "exactly" are we complicit in two allegations, made for his activity in Sweden, by Swedish citizens, and pursued by Swedish authorities?

LOL. Impressive conspiracy. I take it you can point to the exact legal areas in the published judgements that demonstrate how the law has been twisted to frame him up.

Interestingly the Assange rape case and his failure to use condoms having promised and initiated sex on that basis has become a stated case, used to protect women from rapists.

No, all accounts of his behaviour, from numerous people tend to suggest that he's a bit of a rapey weirdo, allegedly.

I make no comment on his wikileaks activity, other than to say on one occasion chat logs demonstrated that he appeared to have been explaining how to crack a password - which goes a wee bit beyond "journalistic privilege", or being simply a mouthpiece for whistleblowers.

I don't recall telling him to have sex with multiple women in Sweden, or to go and hide in a cupboard. But I am getting old, so maybe I've forgotten.

How did you learn to read minds?

(tongue in cheek)

Classic 'repeat the lies'. You admit 'allegedly' but still do it.

I watched this docu lastnight 'Julian Assange: A Wanted Man I ARTE Documentary'

youtube.com/watch?v=CE866OGIJE4&

In which the Swedish nonsense was discussed. Was it rape ? No it was unprotected sex. Would JA stand in court ? yes if Sweden agreed to no extradition. They would not agree. Thats what it was all for.

All smears and fabrication lead back to the US claim on JA. As for the weirdo bit - he is interviewed in person several times - comes across quite lucid and considered. He has taken great satisfaction in meddling - in shameful atrocities, and while knowing the potential consequences. Bravo!

If you aren't prepared to face the Swedish legal system then you really have something to hide! Even if he was found guilty Swedish prisons would have offered better living conditions than his embassy hideaway and a shorter sentence. 

The guy thinks he's better than any countries legal system and above the law, I wouldn't loose a seconds sleep if he spent the rest of his years rotting in a US jail. 

I feel sorry for the kids but maybe social services can remove them and find a couple of responsible parents to adopt them. 

And how should we punish the perpetrators of war-crimes that he exposed ?

Unprotected sex without consent. Now whats another word for nonconsexual sex?

Because logically they couldnt agree to it. How can you agree to an open ended thing like that?

Also what the apologists never manage to answer is why wouldnt the USA just do what they did now and seek extradition from the UK. If he had been extradited from the UK to Sweden then it would have needed the UKs consent to extradite him to the USA. So two countries agreeing to it as opposed to just the one.

Yes his heroic intervention in the US elections was worthy of a bravo. I suspect he was hoping that would get Trump to pat him on the back.

I cut my teeth on vax. (The plural of vax is vaxen!). I also both owned and admin'd sparc's. The sparc hardware was a beauty to behold, compared with the x86 and the joy of setting irq and dma, using jumpers. I was pointing out, in my bile filled rant, that x86 wasn't so far behind, in the general scheme of things. Novell had stable networking, file and print sharing back in netware 3, running on x86. It took m$ a few years to bring out win 3.11. By that time Novel had netware 4, which was very polished compared to the windows offering.

Novell wasn't as sophisticated as a dedicated unix server or using X windows workstations. It was stable and fit for purpose. I think we had to wait until NT4 for something similar from m$.

Just to bring things back on track for the thread. That was a global conspiracy by m$, for world domination through mediocrity.

Using a valid legal process, there are specific courts? Rather than just throwing any information out in the public field without a care about the consequences. If he doesn't care about any repercussions of putting classified data out openly, then he has to accept the consequences too, that's the adult world, he's not 5 years old and can't say I didn't realise or understand. 

Due process at the ICC in the Hague.

Actually, this is an early stage application which, given the search opinion and the third party observations already filed, seems unlikely to get far.  And nothing to do with Bill Gates anyway.

However, I am a bit boggled by the prior art being cited against it, which suggests that this is all being done already.  Not sure I even understand the implications or advantages of paying people in cryptocurrency automatically depending on what they are doing as detected by some sort of remote monitoring but it does sound slightly sinister. 

Perhaps they should be allowed to issue a list of conditions for turning up at court, and if the court doesn't agree they don't have to turn up?

According to your defence of Assange not wanting to be tried in Sweden that would be perfectly acceptable?

In fairness that is pretty much the US approach to the ICC plus the bonus approach of using sanctions against members of the court.

And if governments are withholding evidence?

No, you're right we should always believe governments, like watergate, bombing Laos, the Iran Contra, etc. blah blah blah.

They are much more reliable sources of information, and NEVER put civilians in harms way.

Are you really so far away from knowing why? It was widely published and an easily solvable reason why he never went to Sweden, all they needed to do was to promise not to extradite him to the US, but they wouldn't.

Do you really think he'd get a fair trial in the US?

So much energy and money to cover up crime they committed, they killed innocent people, and yet no charges have even been made, we know this, we've seen the video!

Having to resort to misrepresentation is a good indication that the poster has trouble putting together any sort of valid argument.

...as does presenting incoherent, unfathomable statements.

It wasnt solvable. No government/court could give an open ended promise like that.

Also, again, if he had been extradited to Sweden then it would have required the British governments permission to extradite him to the US anyway. So would have had two bites at the apple rather than just the one in the UK.

Was it rape?

Yes it was. There are published judgements where this was unpicked to establish that the rape offence in Swedish Law was in fact also a rape offence in UK law.

As I previously mentioned the Assange case helped clarify issues around consenting to sex with a condom and then failing to use a condom.

I might not have watched some pro-Assange "documentary" but I have read the judgements and actually used the sexual offences legislation practically on at least a weekly basis.

The suggestion it wasn't rape is categorically false.

When interviewed in a process where he has full editorial control, maybe.

Minimising rape allegations that Assange didn't even have the bottle to face, is shameful.

Being a rapey weirdo and also having exposed some US secrets/cover-ups are not mutually exclusive positions.

It utterly baffles me how a conspiracy theorist like you is unable to see nuance and demands everything is black and white.  Assange can't have done some good things and some bad things - he must be an untarnished saint. His support is cult-like.

He's only just left the board this year and still holds 20M shares. But yes, I thought it was incorrect to connect him without explanation.

I didn't get this - I read 'intention'

The potential for misuse and abuse is significant. Gates has certainly backed cashless transfer systems since decades - even among african countries. ATMs in the dessert ?!

At least one of the women in the Swedish rape case admitted that she was setting Assange up. Of course he was a prime target for smear campaigns, and had every right to suspect that the trial was simply a pretence to eventually get him extradited to the US, where there was already a secret indictment under way.

The latter fact alone should prove that he won't stand a chance of getting anything else but a show trial should he be extradited.

Also, Assange initially released only a redacted version, the leaking of the password was done by a journalist. The unredacted version only appeared later at wikileaks, after it was widely in circulation anyway.

In any case, uncovering the identity of war criminals and their local accomplices is very much be in the public interest, especially if the government ordering these crimes refuses scrutiny by the ICC.

That, from all one can glean second hand from the press, Assange also seems to be a narcissistic, unpleasant person is beside the point.

CB

Literally not solvable. "Get out of jail free" cards only exist in Monopoly.  Even more so when there was no outstanding warrant for his arrest.

He wanted a "just in case anything I've ever done ends up with the US wanting me..." escape clause.

Cashless banking using mobile apps is common in many African countries, as is peer to peer lending, but that's nothing to do with this patent application.  This is about paying people in cryptocurrency when some remote monitoring (presumably usually their phone, but possibly implantable technology) confirms they've done whatever they were supposed to do - which does sound decidedly dodgy to me.

No she didn't. Although she was misreported as making that comment. 

Yep. Prime candidate for smear campaign doesn't make it necessarily so. And a large part of that was due to Assange trying to make wikileaks more of a self-publicity tool for himself than about the content of the variety of leaks. 

The idiot could have been dealt with and acquitted/served his sentence before any US indictment came out. Obama didn't appear to have a large appetite for him, Trump however did, even if it also looks like he is most likely to pardon him. Thanks to wikileaks publicising the Russian hacks.

Obviously if he doesn't get extradited then this whole complex multi-national conspiracy involving corruption of independent judiciary in 3 countries starts to look a bit weaker...

I don't know about your first claim. I find this brushing aside of serious allegations from Assange's supporters very distasteful.

"every right to suspect that the trial was simply a pretence to eventually get him extradited to the US"..... alleged rape victims have every right to justice!

Lee Wood's dismissal of non-consensual unprotected sex as a serious allegation is fairly typical of Assange supporters.... but there's not been one of these threads for a while so I still had to read it twice to check he'd actually written that.

This point was made by the journalist who was supposed to be ghost-writing Assange's autobiography some years ago. After conducting a number of interviews with Assange, he was clearly of the view that while Assange's Wikileaks work had considerable merits, he (Assange) was a deeply unpleasant and difficult person. It does seem that in the popular eye, he is either hero or villain, whereas the truth is, as is often the case, rather more complicated. 

He did do some useful stuff along with others. The problem is he then undermined that by turning wikileaks into a personality cult and using it to carry out some rather questionable actions. So even his good work is somewhat tainted leaving, primarily, his rather unpleasant personality to take the lead.

Yes she did... No she didn't...

Let's not let the discussion descend into playgound level, though. I agree that what Assange did (if proven) constitutes rape, but I also think that he likely was entrapped.

He therefore had excellent reason to try and avoid trial in Sweden for rape as long as he had to assume that the true purpose of any arrest was extradition to the US. Indeed, he offered to return to Sweden if guaranteed safety from extradition.

The US since a long time, not only under Trump, does not offer a fair trial in anything associated with what they consider national security issues.

CB

Please see my reply to off duty, it adresses pretty much the same points.

CB

Why bother with the Sweden thing and not just  extradite direct from the UK? Why did he hang around in dangerous Sweden right up until the moment he found out they were going to prosecute?

Which he knew they couldnt provide since no government/courts could seriously provide an unconditional offer like that.

What would you do to avoid a show trial following a secret indictment in the US? I guess he evaluated his options from day to day, and assumed there would be no trial in Sweden.

Edit: promises of safety from extradition are rare, but not unheard of. Embarassingly, Germany allowed a Lybian warlord to be treated at Bonn hospital under such a safe conduct deal.

CB

Respectfully you started it.

"Likely" based on what?  And being "entrapped" in to committing rape isn't really a defence.

If you mean "it wasn't true", "they were spies" or some other conspiracy - then state it clearly. Evidence to support it would be good.

That's a big (and extremely self serving) assumption. And an utterly ridiculous guarantee to demand. As both he and his lawyers must have known. But to the Assangeists it's spun as "reasonable" - literally gobsmacking.

All of which is being discussed in this fairly protracted extradition case. 

And perhaps something he should have considered when trying to establish whether he was a journalist, a publisher, an active hacker, or just inciting others.  And maybe something he could have thought about when deciding if he wanted to disclose secrets just because they are secret, or because they are hiding a specific wrongdoing.

Fair point!

Where did implants come from? One presumes they are implants with an explosive charge in them? The old carrot and semtex incentive method?

On my watch I can say I'm in the pool. I set the pool length to 25 m and it knows if I'm doing crawl or breast stroke. It can count lengths, calories etc.

A software update for the device might see it perform other functions. If I say I'm in a field where they are planting trees, GPS confirms that. The action of digging a hole every few meters, putting in a sapling, and filling the hole in, would produce a unique movement signature. The work could be verified from afar via satellite pics.

The worker get paid for the exact number of trees they plant. There is no need to pay for an observer to check the work. Money goes directly to the worker. There is little room for corruption. It's not a million miles from having to clock in and out at a workplace. The only curious thing is the use of crypto. Some tokens, such as etherium, have smart contracts. So you might be able to say that if 90% of the trees live a year, you get +x% bonus. That way you could ensure that the trees were watered and looked after.

You can, of course, come up with dystopian uses for the technology. Just as I could use a hammer to bang in a nail, I could also break peoples fingers with it.

Ah yes so up until the point he was going to be charged he wasnt worried about extradition but suddenly it became a priority. I guess thats one explanation but then why did he flee to the UK and not a country which would be more likely to refuse extradition?

So a short visit as opposed to permanent protection?

You're right, it doesn't explicitly mention implantables (but they aren't excluded).  It's even more bonkers than that:

[0036] ...The body activity may include, for example, but not limited to, radiation emitted from human body, brain activities, body fluid flow (e.g. blood flow), organ activity or movement, body movement, and any other activities that can be sensed and represented by images, waves, signals, texts, numbers, degrees, or any other form of information or data. Examples of body radiation emitted from human body may include radiant heat of the body, pulse rate, or brain wave. Brain waves may comprise, for example, but not limited to, (i) gamma waves, involved in learning or memory tasks, (ii) beta waves, involved in logical thinking and/or conscious thought, (iii) alpha waves, which may be related to subconscious thoughts, (iv) theta waves, which may be related to thoughts involving deep and raw emotions, (v) delta waves, which may be involved in sleep or deep relaxation, or (vi) electroencephalogram (EEG), which may be measurement used to evaluate the electrical activity in the brain, such as deep concentration. Examples of the body movement may include eye movement, facial movement or any other muscular movements. Furthermore, brain activity can be sensed using the fMRI. The fMRI measures brain activity by detecting changes associated with blood flow. This technique relies on the fact that cerebral blood flow and neuronal activation are coupled. When an area of the brain is in use, blood flow to that region also increases...

Not sure how you would detect some of that remotely, even with implanted technology.  Is this about having individuals being employed to mine bitcoins using their own brains!?   

Back to Lybia, to continue the war against the recognized government, rather than straight to the ICC. Embarassing, as I said.

As for how to run from the US judiciary, I have no idea. I assume, neither do you.

CB

Looks more like a standard pisspoor US patent with the "well it might be possible one day and so if we patent it we can troll the poor sod who did the hardwork of actually inventing a working product".

Yes but not directly relevant. I am not sure giving temporary protection for someone to have medical treatment is the same as offering it to someone they want to prosecute.

Actually I have a pretty good idea. Find a country with no extradition treaty with the US and, preferably, one which considers them a hostile power and problem solved. Indeed Assange tried a variant on this theme when the UK didnt bow to his whims.

I agree.  Not my technical area, but in addition to the examiner's current novelty and obviousness objections I'd be objecting on grounds of lack of enablement and technical problem not solved-type lack of inventive step as well as thinking about ordre publique issues.

where's the misrepresentation? You said his supporters where naive, but who are they supposed to believe? The US government?

Are you saying Sweden couldn't have promised not to send him to the US? If they had he wouldn't have been able to refuse to face the charges in Sweden would he?

It's seems perfectly OK for an American woman to mow down an English lad in her car, and not be extradited back to the UK, funny how there are different rules for different people init?

Yes. They couldn't have offered that sort of carte blanche protection that he seems to believe he deserved.

Refusal to comply with extradition proceedings(or arguing about eligibility for extradition based on diplomatic status) is entirely different from issuing  a "get out of jail free" card.

I cant answer your post, as I cant be ar*ed review the original patent. However, patents are often overly broad, so that people dont do a copycat patent with a slightly different twist. E.g you've only patented brainwaves when a person is awake. We've patented brainwaves when a person is asleep. The cost of the patent is the same if it includes one condition or 50.

I did have a play on here https://patents.google.com/ to find similar overly broad patents.

Then I got distracted by the puerile.

I believe that CH127981A might be of some amusement.

You wrote- "No, you're right we should always believe governments,". Since this is something I don't believe, have never said and have never written, It's a straight forward misrepresentation.

Have you recently bumped your head or have you simply decided to give logic a miss for this thread and just randomly jump from conclusion to conclusion?

You do have a very strange view of the World. The British government has demanded Sacoolas's extradition, the US refused, Downing Street called this a denial of justice and there's now an Interpol international red notice issued for her arrest and the UK and US are at diplomatic stalemate over the case. This state of affairs you categorise as being "perfectly OK for an American woman to mow down an English lad in her car, and not be extradited back to the UK"... completely ignoring the facts.

You then indicate that the Sacoolas case demonstrates double standards because Assange didn't get the law bent in his favour, presumably because he thinks he's 'special'.  Just to reiterate, Assange isn't a state and there are no grounds (however spurious) to claim he has diplomatic immunity

Members of PIRA might beg to differ.

Edit: (Not that I disagee with your general argument)

Has she been extradited back?

Yes that's exactly what I've done, well done for spotting that. Once again, you seem to think what you write is obvious and true,and isn't to be questioned.

So bravo, we're all naive, idiots.

If that's your criteria for assessing Assange Vs Sacoolas, neither have been extradited. So by your own f*cked up logic they've both been treated the same and you've just disproved your own point.

Question away. But if you keep posting bollocks I'll keep pointing out it's bollocks.

Well, not "all" idiots but to paraphrase Forrest Gump; stupid is, as stupid posts.

And given the huge controversy around the "on the run" / "comfort" letters, including the unintended consequences that appeared to have allowed terrorists to escape subsequent prosecutions, I'm not sure anyone would consider their use again (certainly in the UK, and Assange wanted them from Sweden)

 Not to mention they were used as a means (ill-thought through though it might have been) of ending a decades long terrorist campaign with lots of deaths - rather than as a "just in case" free ticket for a narcissist to avoid prosecution for offences committed in an entirely un-related country to the UK.

Has she been detained in the UK prior to leaving for the US she would have been prosecuted for crimes committed in the UK ( though doubtless with many legal arguments about diplomatic immunity)

Now she's in the US, the UK are most certainly not issuing a "get out of jail free" card as you seem to want then to issue for Assange.

There are really so many differences between that case and Assange it's difficult to find any common ground to compare them.

Except the commonality of the US, they won't allow Sacoolas's extradition, but expect Sweden to allow him to be extradited from there, if he showed up for the rape trial.

It's not very difficult to understand, we want yours (Sweden's at least) but were not giving up ours.

Slight double standard, maybe?

They would submit to the extradition process. A bit like the trial that Assange is currently undergoing in the UK. The assumption is yours rather than the US government.

If you equate the murky world of diplomatic immunity for alleged spooks and/or their families with Assange who to be fair does resemble a ghost. Then there might be some argument. But there are numerous examples of both the UK and the US allowing extradition or denying it - in both directions.

The similarities really only demonstrate the most cursory knowledge of the two cases.

You seem to be all in on the 'he wouldn't got to Sweden because the US would extradite him from there' line, rather than the 'he wouldn't go to Sweden because he didn't want to face the rape charges' - so maybe you can explain the following to me. Why did Assange think he was more likely to get extradited from Sweden than from the UK? I know Swedish international relations reasonably well and that just doesn't make sense to me. It's not like he was in Moscow or Beijing, he was in the UK at the time - the US's closest international partner with a history of handing people over to the US on extradition warrants even when the US is pretty bad at handing people over to the UK, particularly when its on a warrant relating to Northern Ireland.

Why was he hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy?

Once he left there, wherever he was he was going to be a target of the US.

Quite: if I was worried about being extradited to the US, I'd much rather start off in Sweden than the UK

He hid in the Ecuadorian embassy when he lost his case in the British courts resisting the Swedish extradition warrant.  He was living freely in the UK before and for a couple of years while he contested the Swedish extradition request. 

So why was he not worried that the Met wouldn't pick him up and render him to Guantanamo or whatever, but was so convinced that the whole Swedish case was a pretext in order to do that?

I think before going all in on Assange, you should maybe familiarise yourself with the basic facts and chronology of what happened.

Come on Toby, who needs facts when opinions are available 24/7 without any of that tedious need to inform yourself? and opinions are so much easier to mould around your pre-existing view of the World so you never have to go to all that bother of changing your mind or maybe admitting you're wrong.

Brexit, Trump, all those maskless muppets clogging up Trafalgar Square, Antifa, Alt-right... absolutley everyone's doing it. Pick a side and whatever you do, don't start thinking about nuance or grey areas cos it'll only make your head hurt.

I'm starting to wonder if we're seeing a new Dark Age creeping up on us and it's not being driven by climate change, pandemics or overpopulation, it's simply that humanity's evolutionary secret weapon, the ability to decipher and quantify reality, is being buried under a tidal wave of social media powered bullshit opinions.

I think that particular dark age arrived several years ago but it's only recently becoming obvious how all embracing it is.

One of the early symptoms was TV "reality" shows like Big Brother and the Kardashians.

Your best commentary of the thread !

It's too easy to focus in on JA and his fate. Remember ! it's not just about JA, but about attitudes to journalism and transparency, about the people and governments who avoid the spotlight and get away scot free. 

Even if JA has mismanaged his life project (and plainly we who comb the web can only pick sides in the search for truth) - I want to know corrective action for his accusers. Let's put away these criminals - then see if there's anyone left standing to accuse JA !

I’d suggest if we are going to pivot the world political system to a better place we might choose a better pivot point than JA 😏

"Focussing on Assange" was the OP. That you wrote.

We had two people who accused Assange. He hid in a cupboard to avoid those accusations.

You are right - but I am learning on the job. This article re-orders and reframes perspective on the whole matter:

'Julian Assange, and Press Freedom, on Trial in London'

https://www.alainet.org/en/articulo/208965

The role of the free press is to hold power accountable, especially those who would wage war. Press freedom itself is currently on trial in London, as Julian Assange, founder and editor-in-chief of the whistleblower website Wikileaks, fights extradition to the United States over an ever-evolving array of espionage and hacking charges. If extradited, Assange faces almost certain conviction followed by up to 175 years in prison. His unjust imprisonment would also shackle journalists worldwide, serving as a stark example to anyone daring to publish leaked information critical of the U.S. government.

His "unjust" imprisonment would be scandalous. Luckily he is having a lengthy extradition hearing in a democratic country with an independent judiciary. If he loses that he will be subject to another lengthy trial in another democratic country with all his legal rights and entitlements.

He's not being accused of "journalism".

The primary offence is conspiracy to hack. The subsequent charges relate to espionage, and those latter charges are the ones that are proving most problematic in the extradition hearing and, in fact, are most likely to lead to extradition being refused.

It's a hyperbolic and pro-Assange article with little attempt to actually dissect the charges against him, preferring instead to run a series of "whataboutery" talking points regarding the content of the leaks wikikeaks published. If this is the kind of sources you are using to inform yourself it's laughable.

This article is more insightful (in terms of analysis of US charges):

https://consortiumnews.com/2020/09/28/letter-from-london-the-surreal-us-cas...

The fact that neither complainant went to the police to report crimes is attested among the witnesses, one of whom is a close friend of SW's (MT) and another of whom is her brother (JW2). In particular, MT claims that SW felt as if she had been railroaded against her will into making a complaint against Julian Assange, "by the police and others around her."

WITNESS REPORT OF [JW1]

Yes, I phoned her [AA] the same day, immediately after talking to Donald. But this call was very short, she was just about to go out to meet [SW] to go and consult with the police. But what emerged from this conversation was, although perhaps I misunderstood it, what came out from this conversation was that it wasn’t what Donald had said previously. It’s actually something I had forgotten, it was quite simply that Sofia wanted to force Julian to take a blood test. Not to report a rape allegation. And that’s what came out of this conversation.

WITNESS REPORT OF [MT]

[MT] wanted to say that when [SW] was at the hospital and went to the police it was not what [SW] wanted to do. She just wanted Julian to be tested. She felt that she had been railroaded by the police and others around her.

WITNESS REPORT OF [JW2]

[SW] had later said that she did not want to report Julian but just wanted him to be tested for diseases. She had gone to the police in order to get advice and the police had then made a report.

WITNESS REPORT OF [DB]

[AA] said that "[SW] has asked me [AA] to go to the police," - to go with her - "and I have decided to go with her and support her in this. But we do not intend to report Julian, we will just go there and explain".

In her own police report, the second of the complainants, AA, claims that the sex with Julian Assange in respect of which two of the allegations are being pursued was "consensual." Only one of these two allegations hinges on the issue of an alleged burst condom. The other of these two allegations alleges that Julian Assange had sex with AA. In her police report AA specifically states that she consented to have sex with Assange. This rules out any criminal element.

[AA] states that she had consented to have sex with Assange, but that she would not have done so if she had known that he was not wearing a condom. [AA] has contacted the health centre and been given a time for testing next week. [AA] consents to the police acquiring medical background.

On the 23rd of August, at 16:40, the police released the casefile for AA's report under Freedom of Information on the Assange case. AA's name was supposed to be redacted throughout the document, and it was, throughout the body of the document. But the police failed to redact her name from the title of the document. The police are therefore the sole and effective reason that AA's privacy as an alleged victim was breached, and that her identity is known publicly.

AA gave an interview to the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet, in which she stated that Assange is not violent, and that neither she nor SW are afraid of him. She gave this interview anonymously, and yet, when the interview was reproduced in The New York Times her full name was given out. The New York Times is therefore the effective reason that AA's name became known all over the world. From Aftonbladet:

It is completely false that we are afraid of Assange and therefore didn’t want to file a complaint. He is not violent and I do not feel threatened by him.

But the original privacy blunder by the police had happened much earlier: a matter of hours after the women visited the police on the 20th of August. Within two hours of the issuance of the arrest warrant, a reporter at the tabloid Expressen had been tipped off by SMS. The duty prosecutor, Maria Kjellstrand, was called, who illegally confirmed that there was an arrest warrant out for Julian Assange. Expressen then ran the story, and Kjellstrand was quoted in it. Within a matter of hours, the news had travelled around the world, was reported by every major English-language news outlet, and had associated Julian Assange's name with the word "rape" in over 3 million Google search results.

The arrest warrant had been issued by Kjellstrand during the interview with SW.  Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm (Eva Finne). Having assessed the evidence, she cancelled the arrest warrant against the Appellant; she having made the assessment that the evidence did not disclose any offence of rape. It has been reported by Aftonbladet that, internally, Finne has been extremely critical of the police conduct in the issuance of the warrant.

Finne continued the investigation into AA's statement, and to see if there was evidence of a lesser charge in SW's statement. After a few days, she closed SW's file completely, having made the assessment that the "conduct alleged by SW disclosed no crime at all." She did not believe that SW had lied about anything. She simply didn't believe the conduct alleged disclosed any crime. This is agreed upon in the English court documents, such as "Agreed Statement of Facts and Issues":

7. A preliminary investigation was commenced and both women were interviewed (SW on 20th August, and AA on 21st August). At the conclusion of those interviews, on 21st August 2010, the case was taken over by the Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm (Eva Finne). Having assessed the evidence, she cancelled the arrest warrant against the Appellant; she having made the assessment that the evidence did not disclose any offence of rape

Which password are you not making a comment about by making a comment about? 

Edit to add link

https://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html

Genuinely gobsmacked. Screw women's rights hey?

If you want me to drop rape cases based on third hand accounts made by acquaintances of victims, I'll do that. Might set rape investigations back about 40 years though.

If you want me to drop rape cases because the offender wasn't "violent" and the complainants weren't "frightened" I'll do that as well. Again, we'll be setting rape investigations back 40 years.

Edit 2 to add - Actually set rape investigations back 60 years. At least.

You are obviously aware that one rape allegation in one instance was based, exactly as per the account, on consent given - provided that a condom was used. Which it wasn't.

Edit to add: Interesting as that undigested cut and paste was it doesn't a actually address the questions: (reproduced below)

How "exactly" are we complicit in two allegations, made for his activity in Sweden, by Swedish citizens, and pursued by Swedish authorities?

 I take it you can point to the exact legal areas in the published judgements that demonstrate how the law has been twisted to frame him up.

Not sure what you mean there. I'm not commenting on the content or detail of wikileaks or even whether there was a public interest argument in their publication. I am commenting on the actual primary allegation against him - that he appeared to be conspiring to hack a password. Which oversteps journalistic privilege. As any journalist knows.

Nice link though. Balanced, unbiased and not in any way trying to present a particular case....

Oh definitely! To hell with women's rights after all why would I support them eh? 

You do realize you are also saying that Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm Eva Finne who dropped the police made charges against JA because there was no crime must also think " Screw women's rights hey?" 

Or does that just apply to me because of my situation? 

Pretty triggered by some facts I see, so much so that you spit the dummy

But no one went to make a rape allegation, it was the police that decided to do that not the women- see above- all they wanted was for JA to be tested for hiv. 

I just did which shows how Swedish police created an allegation when the women didn't ask for one. 

Which password was my original question. 

Considering all the media are against him and all the western governments and all the intelligence communities and military of all western governments and everyone with power, it is hilarious for you to suggest one little group who are on his side yet all they show are verifiable facts are biased. 

Who do you think would be unbiased? The BBC? Cnn? Itv? You? You have nothing but shit to put on him, nothing unbiased there. 

You are literally denying the accounts of two complainants of rape.

LOL. If you think that explaining that rape investigations have moved on 60 years since the days when we blamed victims is "spitting the dummy' then maybe you need to sit with a few more rape victims.

Crikey. Someone walks on to a nick and says - this happened to me, can we make him get an HIV test, and the cops say "You realise what's happened is rape?".

Yep. Never pursue that. I mean if they are too dumb to understand when a criminal offence has been committed, they probably deserve it right? Obviously St. Assange has no responsibility to understand the law either. He should be able to do what "he" wants, regardless. Anything else would be imperialist or something.

LOL. See above. Or alternatively I could probably direct you to around one or two cases a month that I directly know of. "Well, I didn't want him to do it, but he kind of did it anyway...." etc...

You do have some knowledge of this case don't you?

It's the original allegation by the US that resulted in him being held for extradition after he came out of the cupboard.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/11/julian-assange-charged-with-c...

Yep. Hilarious. Clearly biased though. As is obvious to anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of law or rape investigation.

Yep. Total shit. Bearing in mind all this Assangeist nonsense was dredged up, in public court and addressed by proper lawyers and judges at various extradition hearings.

It stills beggars belief that people are so unprepared to accept even the allegation that a hero may have feet of clay. It's not mutually exclusive to be a rapey weirdo but also expose some US wrongdoing.

However what isn't mutually exclusive is claiming to be a supporter of women's rights and then victim blaming and minimising the allegations made, based on tittle tattle and bias. Two complainants. Two accounts. Both supportive of prosecution. As has been their position throughout this, relayed via their lawyers and despite the vitriol that has been heaped on them.

He's an idiot, an egotist and a dead man. I like what he did but he clearly didn't think it was worth his life, in which case he shouldn't have got caught. Hopefully his death will teach young hackers that the joy is in revealing the truth, not taking credit for it.

Where did I do that? 

If saying I think" to hell with women's rights" isn't spitting the dummy then I don't know what is.

And who is suggesting the victims are to blame? No one so why the strawman? 

Out of interest do all similar situations of all crimes result in an arrest If the victim says they don't want an arrest but want the aggressor spoken to or just don't want to charge the person ? 

Is there anyone alive who would think such a despicable thought? Yet you ask if I do or more accurately this is just another attempt by you to make this about me. 

" Imperialist or something". Imperialism is a very grave matter not just an or something so perhaps treat it as such and not be so dismissive although that fits right into your ideology. Your last comment was quite a silly one you must agree as no one is above the law (other than imperialists, the powerful and their servants)

Why do you wrongly assume I don't know that? You make many wrong assumptions. Why the need rather than stick to the facts? 

" Claiming", "victim blaming", "tittle tattle" and "bias". So you now stoop so low as to suggest I lie about supporting women's rights.You want to paint me as a liar to further your cause which isn't how debates are supposed to work now is it on debating forums? In case you don't know I'll help you : you put your argument and I put mine, sticking to the argument and not attacking the other poster. Getting back to your wee tantrum you follow that up by saying I blame victims and all on spurious gossip. 

Where did that happen? Victim blaming and gossip? 

Oh and if what I said means I want to turn back the clock 60 years when it comes to rape as well as me being anti-women's rights (lol) and guilty of a terrible crime of "victim blaming" by your good self then what does that make - 

Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm Eva Finne? 

Remember her? Another women who kicked it out when she heard some Swedish police charged him. 

Bearing in mind she deals with prosecution at a much higher level than your good self. 

Is she anti- women's rights? Was she victim blaming? 

Edit--what if I played your game ; "imperialism or something". 

Don't you realize that 60,000 US army veterans have committed suicide since 2003? That's more than died in 25 years fighting in Vietnam, in just 17 years, killed by imperialism. Are you anti-forces? "imperialism or something" don't be so flippant about 60,000 suicides. (Just a tiny icecube of the imperialist iceberg of suffering) 

But that would be silly. 

Sex without consent.  Or as I call it, rape.  

A set-up, a fabrication, a honey-pot trap ! I wonder if he saw it in the making ?

How much s%it does a man have to stir to merit a honey-pot trap ? Think I'm safe but I'll carry on dreaming

What's your view on Assange's influence on the American election, helping Putin to help Trump. Obviously Trump has never done anythng wrong in his life and Wikileaks couldn't possibly have anything on Trump.

I know nothing about this - got a reference ? Is it an allegation that JA is a fascist / supporter ? Was the action intended,  incidental or is this just another fabrication ?

Both consented to sex. 

What's your view on Hitlery Clintons lies to destroy socialist Libya and create the coup in Honduras or her view that " we must destroy Syria to help Israel"?

Happy with that are you?

How about Obama bombing 7 countries?And no one saying a word, OK with that to? How about his gov putting an actual openly nazi mob into government in Europe for the first time since 1945 and creating the largest refugee crisis since then because of his actions in UA, Libya and Syria? 

I'll happily withdraw that comment, if you do agree that the claims should be fully investigated. Which obviously includes Assange answering his accusers in a court of law if the evidence supports it.

Victim led. If the complainant says they don't want a prosecution, we would be unlikely to prosecute. Obviously we'd want that to come from the complainant not "their mate".

I'm pleased to hear you don't think like that.

Hopefully it's clear now that the allegations and insinuations in that article are all aimed at minimising the offence, indicating that "nothing really happened". 

The victims have maintained all through this process that they support this prosecution. 

So is rape. 

Cool. So if you agree Assange can have erred, why so keen to roll out this nonsense and misrepresentations of law and process to defend him.

The article you cut and pasted comes from Assanges defence website. What in earth makes you think it would be in any way balanced?

All these "facts" could have been raised at extradition hearings. Those that weren't irrelevant were. The judgements are available online.

Assange lost. Repeatedly. The rationale of the judges are literally in black and white.

It makes her wrong. She was overruled by a more senior prosecutor, as is allowed for in Swedish Law. And, coincidentally as allowed for in UK law. You'll be pleased to know that I have personally had a number of CPS charging decisions overuled despite them being "at a much higher level than my good self" apparently.

You do know that this point was specifically raised at his first extradition hearing don't you? 

Shocking. Not sure of its relevance to Assange cupboard hiding rape dodging antics, but there you go.

Bit like trying to argue you are pro-womens rights, just not "those" women.

Apart from the bit when one didn't consent.

And the other bit where he started "having sex" with another whilst she was asleep, and without wearing a condom.

I'm not quite sure why you've made the comment in the first place, to be fair.

I can only see two options - you don't believe rape occurred and "somebody" is making it up, or you have some kind of, let's be polite and call it 'old fashioned', view that once you consent once - it's open season, and you have to accept whatever happens after that....

Genuinely? You were unaware of Wikileaks involvement in the Trump campaign and the DNC leaks? 

You've got to be trolling.

I mean that's a real live conspiracy, with investigations, and evidence and everything...

What, you don't know that Trump asked Russia to release the Clinton emails and then wikileaks released them. Wow, you live in a very special bubble.

So you *do* believe in conspiracies ? wowwww !

I *investigate* conspiracies...

Wowwww!

It's just bollocks I don't believe in.

Remind me what this thread is about.

It is not about whether Clinton or Obama were bad people, it is about whether Assange was a bad person.

Waking up to find someone having sex with you is rape.  Consent at one time does not imply consent at another.  

Consent with a condom doesn't make it not rape if he then decides to not use the condom. 

Normally I'd say he hasn't been proven guilty but as he wouldn't cooperate and avoided charges that way it doesn't help.  

Conspiracies are a normal part of human interaction. People conspire with friends, business partners and family on a daily basis. Conspiracy theorists, on the other hand, commonly believe in the sort of whacked out crap that can only be taken seriously with the total suspension of reason, insight and common sense.

One man's bread is another man's cake 😉

In the case of Subway, yes.

Who can get to the bottom of this ? Again - we all rely on available information. here's another perspective - the double-crossing and bluffing knows no bounds :

https://off-guardian.org/2020/02/21/pardoning-julian-assange-donald-trump-w...

https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/01/to-all-long-term-covid-sceptics/

"The pandemic is a scam aimed at initiating a new and terrifying degree of global control over the human body, mind and society.

You can’t meet an agenda like that half way – or find common cause with those promoting it.

All you can do is use the weapons of truth to defeat it."

I'm glad you found this - but do be careful promoting it - you could find a heavy weight bearing down your R shoulder

Trump asked for help from the Russians live on the telly. The emails were leaked. Two facts, no alternate perspectives needed.

Yet the government didn't want us wearing masks as it stops their facial recognition software from tracking us.  

We can hear - literally what trump says, but we know by now - to not always take him literally. He is noted as a performer, with the aim to shock and entertain.

'Editorial: Why Trump Lies'

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-trump-truth-20170403-story...

That is the thing which does amuse me about the anti mask freedom rebels. The fact they miss that the first thing any vaguely authoritarian regime bans first is the ability to hide your face since that makes things so much harder (there are ways round it eg the way some Chinese cities were ready with fever detection was they had flir cameras to try and get round disguises plus gait recognition etc but those are computer driven and not the cops eyeballs).