|
On August 18 2012 22:39 Dundron2000 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 22:19 Scheme wrote:On August 18 2012 21:10 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 20:56 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 20:50 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 20:38 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 20:19 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2012 14:55 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 14:05 LaNague wrote:
so uhm, how does it go in sweden when a woman tells the police that someone slept with her without a condom.
i mean, you cant exactly prove it in any way, unlike real rape. It goes the way that it does in most Western countries: In any he-said, she-said situation, the man is assumed guilty until prove innocent. Female "victims" of sex crimes are extremely compelling to the average jury, and there are a multitude of cases where men have been convicted of sex crimes on verbal testimony alone. There's a reason why the Innocence Project's overturned convictions are primarily composed of men who were unjustly found guilty of rape. This simply isn't true. 6.5 per cent of all reported rapists are convicted. An estimated that 95 per cent of rapes aren’t even reported. http://www.nus.org.uk/en/campaigns/womens/britain-has-worst-rape-conviction-rate-/The conviction rate in cases of rape is appalling. Most cases get dropped out of lack of evidence before reaching trial when it's just her testimony. Those that make it that far don't win. Why do you assume the conviction rate is appaling? More likely, a lot of unfounded accusations are made and that's why they are dropped due to lack of evidence. If a lot of murder investigations were dropped due to lack of evidence, you wouldn't assume it's because a lot of murderers were getting away free. The fact that your white-knighting instincts automatically assumes the rape accusations are true pretty much exemplify the problematic attitude I'm talking about. On August 18 2012 20:25 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 20:09 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 19:49 leveller wrote:On August 18 2012 14:55 sunprince wrote:[quote] It goes the way that it does in most Western countries: In any he-said, she-said situation, the man is assumed guilty until prove innocent. Female "victims" of sex crimes are extremely compelling to the average jury, and there are a multitude of cases where men have been convicted of sex crimes on verbal testimony alone. There's a reason why the Innocence Project's overturned convictions are primarily composed of men who were unjustly found guilty of rape. Yes and there are millions of cases where women got sexually mistreated or raped and who didn't dare to go to the police, or who did and got no case, or who got a case and had the court rule against her because she was dressed provocatively... Citation? This is one of those classic feminist myths which was substantiated only by biased evidence relying on expansive definitions of rape. It's like that "1 in 4 women is raped" factoid thrown around by the media. On August 18 2012 19:49 leveller wrote:
Men who think women make up rape charges all the time and that they are always blowing it out of proportion and who are always lying... would be funny if a guy raped you right and all the justice you got was to be called a slut? It's not common, but there is significant evidence which suggests that they are substantially more common (8%) than false criminal accusations in general (2%). This makes sense considering that false accusers are virtually never punished, thanks to feminist lobbying under the bullshit premise that "it would make women afraid to come forward" (of course, this logic is not applied to any other crimes). As for your "funny example", there's your rape culture right there: male-on-male rape is considered "funny" (while female-on-male rape is heinous). And the term used there would be "gay" rather than "slut". The statistics you link to is US statistics. How does that apply to Sweden? Funny how you Americans just assume that all things probably work in ways very similar to in the US. One of you guys was even talking about the problem with the jury in rape trials. We don't even have fucking juries in our court as our legal system is very different from Common Law. Then the very same page you link to contains the following paragraph: "FBI reports consistently put the number of "unfounded" rape accusations around 8%. The average rate of unfounded reports for Index crimes is 2%.[2] However, "unfounded" is not synonymous with false allegation.[3] Bruce Gross of the Forensic Examiner's says that: This statistic is almost meaningless, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, "unfounded." That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false.[4]" So you say that 8% of the allegations are false and refer to a source that explicitly states that 8% of allegations are _unfounded_ which it also explains is not the same thing as false. It also cites a forensic examiner saying that the statistics is "almost meaningless". I'm sorry , but LOL. You're quibbling over semantics. A report with "no physical evidence" or" too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist" pretty much means that the accusation was not justified. No, it is obviously not semantics as the text contains a quote by a guy saying that the statistics is meaningless. Also, I only commented on that because it was blatantly obvious that you just went "herp-de-derp gotta find some quick statistics" without even reading what you linked too. It is blatantly semantics because the quote was deliberately cherry-picked out of context by feminist editors on Wikipedia. If you examine the actual source article, you can see that the guy in question considers false allegations to be a very real problem. Still care what one guy thinks about the statistics, or can we use critical thinking skills and logic to understand what they actually mean? On August 18 2012 20:50 one-one-one wrote:
The real question I asked is how in the hell this is related to Sweden? Semantics or not.
The point being made is that rape accusations are held to an unusually low standard of evidence, which is why it's perfect as a political weapon. For example, see how a false accusation (and one proven to be a complete and deliberate falsehood, at that) was so effective at ruining Dominque Strauss-Khanh's career. Tinfoil hats all day... The legal process hasn't proceeded to a state where all the accusations have been made public. The reason for this is that they haven't been able to question Mr Assange due to his strange way of behaving. He is wanted to questioning. For all you know, that might actually be it. There is still a real chance that charges wont be pressed or that an out of court settlement is made. I wont argue with you anymore. Just like idrA. No trying to argue or sound like I have a tinfoil here, just something that has been mentioned before. If all they want is to question him, why no interview him in the Ecuadorian embassy? This way they can decide whether to charge him or not and the case for extradition is a lot stronger. It seems to me to be the simplest solution, which would not draw any criticism. Then if they decide to charge him, they can present their evidence,etc... my opinion.. beside the fact that it would undermine the integrity of the Swedish judicial system to make exceptions for a rape suspect who was set to be legally extradited from the UK, questioning him in the Ecuadorian embassy would be pointless because if he was interviewed and it was decided that charges would be pressed it would still have no impact on the possibility of bringing JA to justice in Sweden since he would still be in the Ecuadorian embassy, out of reach.
It seems your supreme court disagrees with you:
"There is also a legal precedent from the Swedish Supreme Court from 2007, which acknowledges questioning via video link as proportionate when the subject is abroad."
Source:http://justice4assange.com/Prosecution.html
The website might be bias but the ruling certainly is not. So how would it undermine the justice system? If someone is charged of a crime in a different country, then they might have a case for extradition, otherwise, its a bit silly in my opinion that for example the UK government could make the Swedish government force you to come to the UK for questioning without any charges.
|
On August 18 2012 22:32 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 22:19 cristo1122 wrote:
the irony of all this discussion about society and culture (with focus on the area of sex relations) is that the we dont have all the facts to correctly judge whether or not that this individual julian assange is guilty or not as he is yet to appear before the court (which as i understand it is composed of a panel of proffesional judges)
the post above mine though is correct it is the non-reporting or delay in the reporting (as evidence becomes harder to gather) of rape and or other sexual behaviour which represents the biggest factor when using statistics as how do you take into account the non-reporting indivduals as well as the reporting individuals while adjusting for specific circumstances of those individuals e.g. behavioural or habitual traits (e.g. individuals that walk home through the park have an x% chance)
alot people use the term victim blaming in defense of people who make poor choices be that as it may but if i go to the ghetto with a white power t-shirt then i wouldnt be suprised if i got shot. It would still be illegal to shoot you. Great argument you have there.
the point i was trying to make is that one has to take into account all factors including ones that could be controlled by the victim leading up to the event thus reducing the likelyhood of them becoming a victim too often people have the idea that this sort of conversation is wrong or some sort of inference that they deserved it rather than as it is intended which is that one could reduce the statistically likelyhood of becoming a victim by taking certain measures. In a perfect world people shouldnt have to not do things because of the likelyhood of a negative outcome but last time i checked it wasnt a perfect world.
|
On August 18 2012 22:49 Scheme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 22:39 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 18 2012 22:19 Scheme wrote:On August 18 2012 21:10 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 20:56 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 20:50 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 20:38 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 20:19 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2012 14:55 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 14:05 LaNague wrote:
so uhm, how does it go in sweden when a woman tells the police that someone slept with her without a condom.
i mean, you cant exactly prove it in any way, unlike real rape. It goes the way that it does in most Western countries: In any he-said, she-said situation, the man is assumed guilty until prove innocent. Female "victims" of sex crimes are extremely compelling to the average jury, and there are a multitude of cases where men have been convicted of sex crimes on verbal testimony alone. There's a reason why the Innocence Project's overturned convictions are primarily composed of men who were unjustly found guilty of rape. This simply isn't true. 6.5 per cent of all reported rapists are convicted. An estimated that 95 per cent of rapes aren’t even reported. http://www.nus.org.uk/en/campaigns/womens/britain-has-worst-rape-conviction-rate-/The conviction rate in cases of rape is appalling. Most cases get dropped out of lack of evidence before reaching trial when it's just her testimony. Those that make it that far don't win. Why do you assume the conviction rate is appaling? More likely, a lot of unfounded accusations are made and that's why they are dropped due to lack of evidence. If a lot of murder investigations were dropped due to lack of evidence, you wouldn't assume it's because a lot of murderers were getting away free. The fact that your white-knighting instincts automatically assumes the rape accusations are true pretty much exemplify the problematic attitude I'm talking about. On August 18 2012 20:25 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 20:09 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 19:49 leveller wrote:
[quote]
Yes and there are millions of cases where women got sexually mistreated or raped and who didn't dare to go to the police, or who did and got no case, or who got a case and had the court rule against her because she was dressed provocatively... Citation? This is one of those classic feminist myths which was substantiated only by biased evidence relying on expansive definitions of rape. It's like that "1 in 4 women is raped" factoid thrown around by the media. On August 18 2012 19:49 leveller wrote:
Men who think women make up rape charges all the time and that they are always blowing it out of proportion and who are always lying... would be funny if a guy raped you right and all the justice you got was to be called a slut? It's not common, but there is significant evidence which suggests that they are substantially more common (8%) than false criminal accusations in general (2%). This makes sense considering that false accusers are virtually never punished, thanks to feminist lobbying under the bullshit premise that "it would make women afraid to come forward" (of course, this logic is not applied to any other crimes). As for your "funny example", there's your rape culture right there: male-on-male rape is considered "funny" (while female-on-male rape is heinous). And the term used there would be "gay" rather than "slut". The statistics you link to is US statistics. How does that apply to Sweden? Funny how you Americans just assume that all things probably work in ways very similar to in the US. One of you guys was even talking about the problem with the jury in rape trials. We don't even have fucking juries in our court as our legal system is very different from Common Law. Then the very same page you link to contains the following paragraph: "FBI reports consistently put the number of "unfounded" rape accusations around 8%. The average rate of unfounded reports for Index crimes is 2%.[2] However, "unfounded" is not synonymous with false allegation.[3] Bruce Gross of the Forensic Examiner's says that: This statistic is almost meaningless, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, "unfounded." That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false.[4]" So you say that 8% of the allegations are false and refer to a source that explicitly states that 8% of allegations are _unfounded_ which it also explains is not the same thing as false. It also cites a forensic examiner saying that the statistics is "almost meaningless". I'm sorry , but LOL. You're quibbling over semantics. A report with "no physical evidence" or" too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist" pretty much means that the accusation was not justified. No, it is obviously not semantics as the text contains a quote by a guy saying that the statistics is meaningless. Also, I only commented on that because it was blatantly obvious that you just went "herp-de-derp gotta find some quick statistics" without even reading what you linked too. It is blatantly semantics because the quote was deliberately cherry-picked out of context by feminist editors on Wikipedia. If you examine the actual source article, you can see that the guy in question considers false allegations to be a very real problem. Still care what one guy thinks about the statistics, or can we use critical thinking skills and logic to understand what they actually mean? On August 18 2012 20:50 one-one-one wrote:
The real question I asked is how in the hell this is related to Sweden? Semantics or not.
The point being made is that rape accusations are held to an unusually low standard of evidence, which is why it's perfect as a political weapon. For example, see how a false accusation (and one proven to be a complete and deliberate falsehood, at that) was so effective at ruining Dominque Strauss-Khanh's career. Tinfoil hats all day... The legal process hasn't proceeded to a state where all the accusations have been made public. The reason for this is that they haven't been able to question Mr Assange due to his strange way of behaving. He is wanted to questioning. For all you know, that might actually be it. There is still a real chance that charges wont be pressed or that an out of court settlement is made. I wont argue with you anymore. Just like idrA. No trying to argue or sound like I have a tinfoil here, just something that has been mentioned before. If all they want is to question him, why no interview him in the Ecuadorian embassy? This way they can decide whether to charge him or not and the case for extradition is a lot stronger. It seems to me to be the simplest solution, which would not draw any criticism. Then if they decide to charge him, they can present their evidence,etc... my opinion.. beside the fact that it would undermine the integrity of the Swedish judicial system to make exceptions for a rape suspect who was set to be legally extradited from the UK, questioning him in the Ecuadorian embassy would be pointless because if he was interviewed and it was decided that charges would be pressed it would still have no impact on the possibility of bringing JA to justice in Sweden since he would still be in the Ecuadorian embassy, out of reach. It seems your supreme court disagrees with you: "There is also a legal precedent from the Swedish Supreme Court from 2007, which acknowledges questioning via video link as proportionate when the subject is abroad." Source:http://justice4assange.com/Prosecution.html The website might be bias but the ruling certainly is not. So how would it undermine the justice system? If someone is charged of a crime in a different country, then they might have a case for extradition, otherwise, its a bit silly in my opinion that for example the UK government could make the Swedish government force you to come to the UK for questioning without any charges.
oh is that the case of the murder suspect who was already in jail in another country? because that makes it kind of hard to question someone
|
On August 18 2012 22:49 Scheme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 22:39 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 18 2012 22:19 Scheme wrote:On August 18 2012 21:10 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 20:56 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 20:50 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 20:38 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 20:19 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2012 14:55 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 14:05 LaNague wrote:
so uhm, how does it go in sweden when a woman tells the police that someone slept with her without a condom.
i mean, you cant exactly prove it in any way, unlike real rape. It goes the way that it does in most Western countries: In any he-said, she-said situation, the man is assumed guilty until prove innocent. Female "victims" of sex crimes are extremely compelling to the average jury, and there are a multitude of cases where men have been convicted of sex crimes on verbal testimony alone. There's a reason why the Innocence Project's overturned convictions are primarily composed of men who were unjustly found guilty of rape. This simply isn't true. 6.5 per cent of all reported rapists are convicted. An estimated that 95 per cent of rapes aren’t even reported. http://www.nus.org.uk/en/campaigns/womens/britain-has-worst-rape-conviction-rate-/The conviction rate in cases of rape is appalling. Most cases get dropped out of lack of evidence before reaching trial when it's just her testimony. Those that make it that far don't win. Why do you assume the conviction rate is appaling? More likely, a lot of unfounded accusations are made and that's why they are dropped due to lack of evidence. If a lot of murder investigations were dropped due to lack of evidence, you wouldn't assume it's because a lot of murderers were getting away free. The fact that your white-knighting instincts automatically assumes the rape accusations are true pretty much exemplify the problematic attitude I'm talking about. On August 18 2012 20:25 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 20:09 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 19:49 leveller wrote:
[quote]
Yes and there are millions of cases where women got sexually mistreated or raped and who didn't dare to go to the police, or who did and got no case, or who got a case and had the court rule against her because she was dressed provocatively... Citation? This is one of those classic feminist myths which was substantiated only by biased evidence relying on expansive definitions of rape. It's like that "1 in 4 women is raped" factoid thrown around by the media. On August 18 2012 19:49 leveller wrote:
Men who think women make up rape charges all the time and that they are always blowing it out of proportion and who are always lying... would be funny if a guy raped you right and all the justice you got was to be called a slut? It's not common, but there is significant evidence which suggests that they are substantially more common (8%) than false criminal accusations in general (2%). This makes sense considering that false accusers are virtually never punished, thanks to feminist lobbying under the bullshit premise that "it would make women afraid to come forward" (of course, this logic is not applied to any other crimes). As for your "funny example", there's your rape culture right there: male-on-male rape is considered "funny" (while female-on-male rape is heinous). And the term used there would be "gay" rather than "slut". The statistics you link to is US statistics. How does that apply to Sweden? Funny how you Americans just assume that all things probably work in ways very similar to in the US. One of you guys was even talking about the problem with the jury in rape trials. We don't even have fucking juries in our court as our legal system is very different from Common Law. Then the very same page you link to contains the following paragraph: "FBI reports consistently put the number of "unfounded" rape accusations around 8%. The average rate of unfounded reports for Index crimes is 2%.[2] However, "unfounded" is not synonymous with false allegation.[3] Bruce Gross of the Forensic Examiner's says that: This statistic is almost meaningless, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, "unfounded." That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false.[4]" So you say that 8% of the allegations are false and refer to a source that explicitly states that 8% of allegations are _unfounded_ which it also explains is not the same thing as false. It also cites a forensic examiner saying that the statistics is "almost meaningless". I'm sorry , but LOL. You're quibbling over semantics. A report with "no physical evidence" or" too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist" pretty much means that the accusation was not justified. No, it is obviously not semantics as the text contains a quote by a guy saying that the statistics is meaningless. Also, I only commented on that because it was blatantly obvious that you just went "herp-de-derp gotta find some quick statistics" without even reading what you linked too. It is blatantly semantics because the quote was deliberately cherry-picked out of context by feminist editors on Wikipedia. If you examine the actual source article, you can see that the guy in question considers false allegations to be a very real problem. Still care what one guy thinks about the statistics, or can we use critical thinking skills and logic to understand what they actually mean? On August 18 2012 20:50 one-one-one wrote:
The real question I asked is how in the hell this is related to Sweden? Semantics or not.
The point being made is that rape accusations are held to an unusually low standard of evidence, which is why it's perfect as a political weapon. For example, see how a false accusation (and one proven to be a complete and deliberate falsehood, at that) was so effective at ruining Dominque Strauss-Khanh's career. Tinfoil hats all day... The legal process hasn't proceeded to a state where all the accusations have been made public. The reason for this is that they haven't been able to question Mr Assange due to his strange way of behaving. He is wanted to questioning. For all you know, that might actually be it. There is still a real chance that charges wont be pressed or that an out of court settlement is made. I wont argue with you anymore. Just like idrA. No trying to argue or sound like I have a tinfoil here, just something that has been mentioned before. If all they want is to question him, why no interview him in the Ecuadorian embassy? This way they can decide whether to charge him or not and the case for extradition is a lot stronger. It seems to me to be the simplest solution, which would not draw any criticism. Then if they decide to charge him, they can present their evidence,etc... my opinion.. beside the fact that it would undermine the integrity of the Swedish judicial system to make exceptions for a rape suspect who was set to be legally extradited from the UK, questioning him in the Ecuadorian embassy would be pointless because if he was interviewed and it was decided that charges would be pressed it would still have no impact on the possibility of bringing JA to justice in Sweden since he would still be in the Ecuadorian embassy, out of reach. It seems your supreme court disagrees with you: "There is also a legal precedent from the Swedish Supreme Court from 2007, which acknowledges questioning via video link as proportionate when the subject is abroad." Source:http://justice4assange.com/Prosecution.html The website might be bias but the ruling certainly is not. So how would it undermine the justice system? If someone is charged of a crime in a different country, then they might have a case for extradition, otherwise, its a bit silly in my opinion that for example the UK government could make the Swedish government force you to come to the UK for questioning without any charges.
most likely that would require his cooperation and it is difficult to say whether that he would consent to such a questioning occuring at all
|
On August 18 2012 23:04 Dundron2000 wrote:
oh is that the case of the murder suspect who was already in jail in another country? because that makes it kind of hard to question someone
If I'm honest, I don't know. I tried reading the ruling but its in Swedish. =P
I guess it would depend whether a judge fells like the case could be applied to asange's situation. I guess by the ruling like it would, but I haven't look at all the details( or am a lawyer). I just think it would be the simplest solution.
On August 18 2012 23:05 cristo1122 wrote:
most likely that would require his cooperation and it is difficult to say whether that he would consent to such a questioning occuring at all
Asange offered to be interviewed in the embassy from what I heard.
|
Man great things that man is doing but in the other hand, he is screwed for life.
If he leaves the embassy he gonna be arrested, i garrantee you :|
Sad day when that happens.
|
On August 18 2012 23:26 TirramirooO wrote:
Man great things that man is doing but in the other hand, he is screwed for life.
If he leaves the embassy he gonna be arrested, i garrantee you :|
Sad day when that happens.
Explain to me why it is sad that European law is allowed to work the way it is supposed to work?
|
On August 19 2012 02:07 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 23:26 TirramirooO wrote:
Man great things that man is doing but in the other hand, he is screwed for life.
If he leaves the embassy he gonna be arrested, i garrantee you :|
Sad day when that happens.
Explain to me why it is sad that European law is allowed to work the way it is supposed to work?
Im going to help you understand it in a rather unconventional way: I want you to go stand in front of your IKEA mirror and repeatedly say "Something more is going on here, something more is going on here, ..."
Do NOT STOP till you are convinced of that fact.
|
On August 18 2012 20:38 sekritzzz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 08:50 sekritzzz wrote:On August 18 2012 08:36 Zahir wrote:
I am certainly impressed by how articulate and mostly reasonable the Swedish dudes have been in defending their country. Having considered all the facts, I am ready to believe assange could receive fair treatment if he did in fact go to Sweden. No country is perfect; their previous handing over of people to the us to be tortured is worrying but honestly, there is no nation with a completely blemish free record. I also believe that this being a considerably higher profile case, the Swedish government would be likely to handle it fairly, or else risk pissing off a good number of swedes (If this thread is any indication)
If anything, the ones whore worrying me are the British. The way they are handling this embassy/asylum situation is simply not normal (threatening to go against vienna convention over one alleged sex offender), and the only motivation I can see for that is US pressure. Wonder if anyone from the uk can shine some light on that, given that other criminals have received asylum easily within British shores. The british court system is likely the least influenced by politics (which is probably the main reason assange chose the UK rather than other places despite their close alliance with the US). As several people have said, the British can't and won't extradite him to the USA due to the massive legal complication, but Sweden obviously doesn't considering they've sent several people abroad for torture/etc. So how can Julian Assange trust the Swedish authorities if they've done it in the past? especially considering how badly the USA wants him in comparison to other people. Can you please confirm the source that says that USA badly wants to get a hold on Assange? I just can't believe this. You guys are supposed to be the followers of wikileaks, and yet when your hero is involved you seem to have forgotten what wikileaks is all about, to spread facts, total, uncensored and unbiased facts. From reading all of you guys's ramblings here, I wonder if you actually believe in what the site stands for, or if you just enjoy looking up other ppl's dirt. You have this idea that everybody is corrupt, and yet Mr Assange seems to be the exception. Why? This doesn't seem like truth-seeking to me, more like a personality cult. If you look at the facts, it's obvious that he should be sent to Sweden. Let's say that Assange instead would have been a random australian, and that he was being accused for murder? Then noone would question that UK sent him over. How come this case is different? This case is not as severe, but the law operates the same way. You can't circumvent the law because of some perceived threat. He entered our soil, and is suspected to have broken the law, and you're expecting us to just forget about it, just because it makes the accused sleep better at night? I'm sorry, but that's not how things work here. The EU law is right now forcing UK to make action. I'm sorry but the only grey area in this case is the question of how far the UK is willing to go to apprehend him, but there's no doubt under the current conditions that he will be sent to Sweden and he will stand trial. Assange's only chance is if he manages to escape somehow, but then he will not be able to travel inside EU anymore, or if he's lucky the case will be dropped, and he will be free to go. That's most likely what he's hoping for, but I think it can be a long wait. Are you seriously asking me for a source proving the USA wants him? What exactly do you want? a letter from Obama? Its blatantly obvious assange is hurting them in terms of their diplomacy hence the terrorist name-calling by the vice president of the USA, not to mention the kill threats by several politicians. A simple wikipedia search does the job because thats such a ridiculous question to ask.
Yes, you need proof. You can't just throw accusations around like that. Ofc ppl are annoyed by him, but that doesn't mean they're after him. Ppl who don't share your agenda have a really hard time taking thoughts like that seriously. You're assuming that USA is out to get him, and started all this, but there is not a single known fact that points in that direction, just theories that seems to fit your world view.
Anyway, obstructing his work and catching him to punish him is widely different. If they take out Assange, it will not be a popular move, and someone else will just take his place. Why would Sweden and USA risk ruining their reputation on a move that wouldn't even be effective?
|
|
|
On August 19 2012 02:41 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 20:38 sekritzzz wrote:On August 18 2012 08:50 sekritzzz wrote:On August 18 2012 08:36 Zahir wrote:
I am certainly impressed by how articulate and mostly reasonable the Swedish dudes have been in defending their country. Having considered all the facts, I am ready to believe assange could receive fair treatment if he did in fact go to Sweden. No country is perfect; their previous handing over of people to the us to be tortured is worrying but honestly, there is no nation with a completely blemish free record. I also believe that this being a considerably higher profile case, the Swedish government would be likely to handle it fairly, or else risk pissing off a good number of swedes (If this thread is any indication)
If anything, the ones whore worrying me are the British. The way they are handling this embassy/asylum situation is simply not normal (threatening to go against vienna convention over one alleged sex offender), and the only motivation I can see for that is US pressure. Wonder if anyone from the uk can shine some light on that, given that other criminals have received asylum easily within British shores. The british court system is likely the least influenced by politics (which is probably the main reason assange chose the UK rather than other places despite their close alliance with the US). As several people have said, the British can't and won't extradite him to the USA due to the massive legal complication, but Sweden obviously doesn't considering they've sent several people abroad for torture/etc. So how can Julian Assange trust the Swedish authorities if they've done it in the past? especially considering how badly the USA wants him in comparison to other people. Can you please confirm the source that says that USA badly wants to get a hold on Assange? I just can't believe this. You guys are supposed to be the followers of wikileaks, and yet when your hero is involved you seem to have forgotten what wikileaks is all about, to spread facts, total, uncensored and unbiased facts. From reading all of you guys's ramblings here, I wonder if you actually believe in what the site stands for, or if you just enjoy looking up other ppl's dirt. You have this idea that everybody is corrupt, and yet Mr Assange seems to be the exception. Why? This doesn't seem like truth-seeking to me, more like a personality cult. If you look at the facts, it's obvious that he should be sent to Sweden. Let's say that Assange instead would have been a random australian, and that he was being accused for murder? Then noone would question that UK sent him over. How come this case is different? This case is not as severe, but the law operates the same way. You can't circumvent the law because of some perceived threat. He entered our soil, and is suspected to have broken the law, and you're expecting us to just forget about it, just because it makes the accused sleep better at night? I'm sorry, but that's not how things work here. The EU law is right now forcing UK to make action. I'm sorry but the only grey area in this case is the question of how far the UK is willing to go to apprehend him, but there's no doubt under the current conditions that he will be sent to Sweden and he will stand trial. Assange's only chance is if he manages to escape somehow, but then he will not be able to travel inside EU anymore, or if he's lucky the case will be dropped, and he will be free to go. That's most likely what he's hoping for, but I think it can be a long wait. Are you seriously asking me for a source proving the USA wants him? What exactly do you want? a letter from Obama? Its blatantly obvious assange is hurting them in terms of their diplomacy hence the terrorist name-calling by the vice president of the USA, not to mention the kill threats by several politicians. A simple wikipedia search does the job because thats such a ridiculous question to ask. Yes, you need proof. You can't just throw accusations around like that. Ofc ppl are annoyed by him, but that doesn't mean they're after him. Ppl who don't share your agenda have a really hard time taking thoughts like that seriously. You're assuming that USA is out to get him, and started all this, but there is not a single known fact that points in that direction, just theories that seems to fit your world view. Anyway, obstructing his work and catching him to punish him is widely different. If they take out Assange, it will not be a popular move, and someone else will just take his place. Why would Sweden and USA risk ruining their reputation on a move that wouldn't even be effective?
Ruining their reputation? Do you think a nation that put people in guantanamo bay for 10+ years without a trial has a hard time spinning a tale about why they are going to inprison Assange, someone who is portrayed by US media as a traitor to the country?
Countries have been inprisoning / executing people without trials for a long time. Being naive about this doesn't change the fact that it happens all the time.
|
On August 19 2012 02:41 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 20:38 sekritzzz wrote:On August 18 2012 08:50 sekritzzz wrote:On August 18 2012 08:36 Zahir wrote:
I am certainly impressed by how articulate and mostly reasonable the Swedish dudes have been in defending their country. Having considered all the facts, I am ready to believe assange could receive fair treatment if he did in fact go to Sweden. No country is perfect; their previous handing over of people to the us to be tortured is worrying but honestly, there is no nation with a completely blemish free record. I also believe that this being a considerably higher profile case, the Swedish government would be likely to handle it fairly, or else risk pissing off a good number of swedes (If this thread is any indication)
If anything, the ones whore worrying me are the British. The way they are handling this embassy/asylum situation is simply not normal (threatening to go against vienna convention over one alleged sex offender), and the only motivation I can see for that is US pressure. Wonder if anyone from the uk can shine some light on that, given that other criminals have received asylum easily within British shores. The british court system is likely the least influenced by politics (which is probably the main reason assange chose the UK rather than other places despite their close alliance with the US). As several people have said, the British can't and won't extradite him to the USA due to the massive legal complication, but Sweden obviously doesn't considering they've sent several people abroad for torture/etc. So how can Julian Assange trust the Swedish authorities if they've done it in the past? especially considering how badly the USA wants him in comparison to other people. Can you please confirm the source that says that USA badly wants to get a hold on Assange? I just can't believe this. You guys are supposed to be the followers of wikileaks, and yet when your hero is involved you seem to have forgotten what wikileaks is all about, to spread facts, total, uncensored and unbiased facts. From reading all of you guys's ramblings here, I wonder if you actually believe in what the site stands for, or if you just enjoy looking up other ppl's dirt. You have this idea that everybody is corrupt, and yet Mr Assange seems to be the exception. Why? This doesn't seem like truth-seeking to me, more like a personality cult. If you look at the facts, it's obvious that he should be sent to Sweden. Let's say that Assange instead would have been a random australian, and that he was being accused for murder? Then noone would question that UK sent him over. How come this case is different? This case is not as severe, but the law operates the same way. You can't circumvent the law because of some perceived threat. He entered our soil, and is suspected to have broken the law, and you're expecting us to just forget about it, just because it makes the accused sleep better at night? I'm sorry, but that's not how things work here. The EU law is right now forcing UK to make action. I'm sorry but the only grey area in this case is the question of how far the UK is willing to go to apprehend him, but there's no doubt under the current conditions that he will be sent to Sweden and he will stand trial. Assange's only chance is if he manages to escape somehow, but then he will not be able to travel inside EU anymore, or if he's lucky the case will be dropped, and he will be free to go. That's most likely what he's hoping for, but I think it can be a long wait. Are you seriously asking me for a source proving the USA wants him? What exactly do you want? a letter from Obama? Its blatantly obvious assange is hurting them in terms of their diplomacy hence the terrorist name-calling by the vice president of the USA, not to mention the kill threats by several politicians. A simple wikipedia search does the job because thats such a ridiculous question to ask. Yes, you need proof. You can't just throw accusations around like that. Ofc ppl are annoyed by him, but that doesn't mean they're after him. Ppl who don't share your agenda have a really hard time taking thoughts like that seriously. You're assuming that USA is out to get him, and started all this, but there is not a single known fact that points in that direction, just theories that seems to fit your world view. Anyway, obstructing his work and catching him to punish him is widely different. If they take out Assange, it will not be a popular move, and someone else will just take his place. Why would Sweden and USA risk ruining their reputation on a move that wouldn't even be effective?
http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html
"29 February 2012: Stratfor e-mails have revealed that a sealed indictment has been issued by a secret grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, for Julian Assange. The email is dated 26 January 2011. This means that there has likely been a sealed extradition order for over a year, which will be activated (unsealed) against Assange in Sweden, Australia and the UK when the US Government gives the order."
To be honest you need to be pretty naive to think the US does not want him arrested and charged. They did say that he assisted someone to commit a crime.
EDIT: "but there is not a single known fact that points in that direction" this made me LOL so hard.
|
On August 18 2012 17:55 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On Aug 18 2012 14:49 wrote:
I don't care for the excuses made by people about not guaranteeing extradition.
Those weren't excuses, but facts. Ask a Swedish lawyer if you want. ... What I'm saying is that both of you should read this again.
I read that post. US is ranked 19. Do the ranks really mean that much? Are we to point that the Democracy index and deny events like Abu Ghraib, CIA detention facilities, Guantanamo (to mention recent events) to CIA aiding in toppling democratically elected governments? Democracy index is a wonderful tool to compare the progress made towards democracy and compare against other nations. But by no means does the index define Democracy.
The arguments for Sweden, and against Assange that I've noticed in your posts. Please let me know if I missed any.
a) It is against law for Sweden to extradite Julian Assange. UK has to approve it.
Okay what, UK is probably one of US' closest ally. Also, approve =/= initiate. Sweden initiates the extradition process with a request from the US. So the Sweden government cannot make a basic promise to follow its laws.
b) Sweden is a great country that would not extradite Julian Assange.
Another ally to the US. Sweden has handed people over to US custody in the recent past. Again, democracy index is a wonderful tool to compare the progress made towards democracy and compare against other nations. But by no means does the index define Democracy. The US is a wonderful and democratic nation (rank 19), but still has committed many undemocratic mistakes.
c) People charged with crimes are in no position to negotiate.
People charged with crimes are still presumed innocent here in Canada until proven guilty. Is it not the same in Sweden? I believe it is. An innocent person is within his right to raise concerns about personal safety when the threat to safety comes from a third party, ie. extradition to US.
Again, why not separate the two issues in the interest of justice for the women?
Try him for the rape, sentence if guilty, then send him to the Ecuador embassy and wash hands of Julian Assange.
I would like to hear what your thoughts are on this issue. You seem to feel strongly about Julian Assange's guilt, but seem ambivalent about getting justice for the women - if it means that Sweden has to promise to follows its laws and not to hand Assange over to the US?
|
On August 19 2012 02:07 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 23:26 TirramirooO wrote:
Man great things that man is doing but in the other hand, he is screwed for life.
If he leaves the embassy he gonna be arrested, i garrantee you :|
Sad day when that happens.
Explain to me why it is sad that European law is allowed to work the way it is supposed to work?
Why cant sweden quetion him on ecuadors embassy?
|
Try him for the rape, sentence if guilty, then send him to the Ecuador embassy and wash hands of Julian Assange.
[/u]
That is the funny thing, we don't even know if there will be a trial. Extradition without charge is what they are pursuing.
|
On August 19 2012 02:41 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 20:38 sekritzzz wrote:On August 18 2012 08:50 sekritzzz wrote:On August 18 2012 08:36 Zahir wrote:
I am certainly impressed by how articulate and mostly reasonable the Swedish dudes have been in defending their country. Having considered all the facts, I am ready to believe assange could receive fair treatment if he did in fact go to Sweden. No country is perfect; their previous handing over of people to the us to be tortured is worrying but honestly, there is no nation with a completely blemish free record. I also believe that this being a considerably higher profile case, the Swedish government would be likely to handle it fairly, or else risk pissing off a good number of swedes (If this thread is any indication)
If anything, the ones whore worrying me are the British. The way they are handling this embassy/asylum situation is simply not normal (threatening to go against vienna convention over one alleged sex offender), and the only motivation I can see for that is US pressure. Wonder if anyone from the uk can shine some light on that, given that other criminals have received asylum easily within British shores. The british court system is likely the least influenced by politics (which is probably the main reason assange chose the UK rather than other places despite their close alliance with the US). As several people have said, the British can't and won't extradite him to the USA due to the massive legal complication, but Sweden obviously doesn't considering they've sent several people abroad for torture/etc. So how can Julian Assange trust the Swedish authorities if they've done it in the past? especially considering how badly the USA wants him in comparison to other people. Can you please confirm the source that says that USA badly wants to get a hold on Assange? I just can't believe this. You guys are supposed to be the followers of wikileaks, and yet when your hero is involved you seem to have forgotten what wikileaks is all about, to spread facts, total, uncensored and unbiased facts. From reading all of you guys's ramblings here, I wonder if you actually believe in what the site stands for, or if you just enjoy looking up other ppl's dirt. You have this idea that everybody is corrupt, and yet Mr Assange seems to be the exception. Why? This doesn't seem like truth-seeking to me, more like a personality cult. If you look at the facts, it's obvious that he should be sent to Sweden. Let's say that Assange instead would have been a random australian, and that he was being accused for murder? Then noone would question that UK sent him over. How come this case is different? This case is not as severe, but the law operates the same way. You can't circumvent the law because of some perceived threat. He entered our soil, and is suspected to have broken the law, and you're expecting us to just forget about it, just because it makes the accused sleep better at night? I'm sorry, but that's not how things work here. The EU law is right now forcing UK to make action. I'm sorry but the only grey area in this case is the question of how far the UK is willing to go to apprehend him, but there's no doubt under the current conditions that he will be sent to Sweden and he will stand trial. Assange's only chance is if he manages to escape somehow, but then he will not be able to travel inside EU anymore, or if he's lucky the case will be dropped, and he will be free to go. That's most likely what he's hoping for, but I think it can be a long wait. Are you seriously asking me for a source proving the USA wants him? What exactly do you want? a letter from Obama? Its blatantly obvious assange is hurting them in terms of their diplomacy hence the terrorist name-calling by the vice president of the USA, not to mention the kill threats by several politicians. A simple wikipedia search does the job because thats such a ridiculous question to ask. Yes, you need proof. You can't just throw accusations around like that. Ofc ppl are annoyed by him, but that doesn't mean they're after him. Ppl who don't share your agenda have a really hard time taking thoughts like that seriously. You're assuming that USA is out to get him, and started all this, but there is not a single known fact that points in that direction, just theories that seems to fit your world view. Anyway, obstructing his work and catching him to punish him is widely different. If they take out Assange, it will not be a popular move, and someone else will just take his place. Why would Sweden and USA risk ruining their reputation on a move that wouldn't even be effective?
You realize the majority of the world believes the USA/sweden are setting him up right? I'm not sure what "people" you're refering to because coincidently most of the people in this thread who believe he is an actual rapist are swedish. That should be ringing alarm bells to you.
|
On August 19 2012 03:31 sekritzzz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 02:41 ninini wrote:On August 18 2012 20:38 sekritzzz wrote:On August 18 2012 08:50 sekritzzz wrote:On August 18 2012 08:36 Zahir wrote:
I am certainly impressed by how articulate and mostly reasonable the Swedish dudes have been in defending their country. Having considered all the facts, I am ready to believe assange could receive fair treatment if he did in fact go to Sweden. No country is perfect; their previous handing over of people to the us to be tortured is worrying but honestly, there is no nation with a completely blemish free record. I also believe that this being a considerably higher profile case, the Swedish government would be likely to handle it fairly, or else risk pissing off a good number of swedes (If this thread is any indication)
If anything, the ones whore worrying me are the British. The way they are handling this embassy/asylum situation is simply not normal (threatening to go against vienna convention over one alleged sex offender), and the only motivation I can see for that is US pressure. Wonder if anyone from the uk can shine some light on that, given that other criminals have received asylum easily within British shores. The british court system is likely the least influenced by politics (which is probably the main reason assange chose the UK rather than other places despite their close alliance with the US). As several people have said, the British can't and won't extradite him to the USA due to the massive legal complication, but Sweden obviously doesn't considering they've sent several people abroad for torture/etc. So how can Julian Assange trust the Swedish authorities if they've done it in the past? especially considering how badly the USA wants him in comparison to other people. Can you please confirm the source that says that USA badly wants to get a hold on Assange? I just can't believe this. You guys are supposed to be the followers of wikileaks, and yet when your hero is involved you seem to have forgotten what wikileaks is all about, to spread facts, total, uncensored and unbiased facts. From reading all of you guys's ramblings here, I wonder if you actually believe in what the site stands for, or if you just enjoy looking up other ppl's dirt. You have this idea that everybody is corrupt, and yet Mr Assange seems to be the exception. Why? This doesn't seem like truth-seeking to me, more like a personality cult. If you look at the facts, it's obvious that he should be sent to Sweden. Let's say that Assange instead would have been a random australian, and that he was being accused for murder? Then noone would question that UK sent him over. How come this case is different? This case is not as severe, but the law operates the same way. You can't circumvent the law because of some perceived threat. He entered our soil, and is suspected to have broken the law, and you're expecting us to just forget about it, just because it makes the accused sleep better at night? I'm sorry, but that's not how things work here. The EU law is right now forcing UK to make action. I'm sorry but the only grey area in this case is the question of how far the UK is willing to go to apprehend him, but there's no doubt under the current conditions that he will be sent to Sweden and he will stand trial. Assange's only chance is if he manages to escape somehow, but then he will not be able to travel inside EU anymore, or if he's lucky the case will be dropped, and he will be free to go. That's most likely what he's hoping for, but I think it can be a long wait. Are you seriously asking me for a source proving the USA wants him? What exactly do you want? a letter from Obama? Its blatantly obvious assange is hurting them in terms of their diplomacy hence the terrorist name-calling by the vice president of the USA, not to mention the kill threats by several politicians. A simple wikipedia search does the job because thats such a ridiculous question to ask. Yes, you need proof. You can't just throw accusations around like that. Ofc ppl are annoyed by him, but that doesn't mean they're after him. Ppl who don't share your agenda have a really hard time taking thoughts like that seriously. You're assuming that USA is out to get him, and started all this, but there is not a single known fact that points in that direction, just theories that seems to fit your world view. Anyway, obstructing his work and catching him to punish him is widely different. If they take out Assange, it will not be a popular move, and someone else will just take his place. Why would Sweden and USA risk ruining their reputation on a move that wouldn't even be effective? You realize the majority of the world believes the USA/sweden are setting him up right? I'm not sure what "people" you're refering to because coincidently most of the people in this thread who believe he is an actual rapist are swedish. That should be ringing alarm bells to you.
So more than 3,5 billion people belives it's a setup?
|
On August 19 2012 03:02 Rixi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 02:07 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 23:26 TirramirooO wrote:
Man great things that man is doing but in the other hand, he is screwed for life.
If he leaves the embassy he gonna be arrested, i garrantee you :|
Sad day when that happens.
Explain to me why it is sad that European law is allowed to work the way it is supposed to work? Why cant sweden quetion him on ecuadors embassy?
Because after questioning, if the cops think he is guilty, he can flip them off and tell them to go fuck themselves, after which the police has no other option than to walk away because he is on foreign territory.
|
These rape accusations have even less credibility then those on IMF former director. They are obviously politically motivated which MOST people realize. http://radsoft.net/news/20101202,00.shtml
Total bullshit.
|
On August 19 2012 04:04 Klowney wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 03:31 sekritzzz wrote:On August 19 2012 02:41 ninini wrote:On August 18 2012 20:38 sekritzzz wrote:On August 18 2012 08:50 sekritzzz wrote:On August 18 2012 08:36 Zahir wrote:
I am certainly impressed by how articulate and mostly reasonable the Swedish dudes have been in defending their country. Having considered all the facts, I am ready to believe assange could receive fair treatment if he did in fact go to Sweden. No country is perfect; their previous handing over of people to the us to be tortured is worrying but honestly, there is no nation with a completely blemish free record. I also believe that this being a considerably higher profile case, the Swedish government would be likely to handle it fairly, or else risk pissing off a good number of swedes (If this thread is any indication)
If anything, the ones whore worrying me are the British. The way they are handling this embassy/asylum situation is simply not normal (threatening to go against vienna convention over one alleged sex offender), and the only motivation I can see for that is US pressure. Wonder if anyone from the uk can shine some light on that, given that other criminals have received asylum easily within British shores. The british court system is likely the least influenced by politics (which is probably the main reason assange chose the UK rather than other places despite their close alliance with the US). As several people have said, the British can't and won't extradite him to the USA due to the massive legal complication, but Sweden obviously doesn't considering they've sent several people abroad for torture/etc. So how can Julian Assange trust the Swedish authorities if they've done it in the past? especially considering how badly the USA wants him in comparison to other people. Can you please confirm the source that says that USA badly wants to get a hold on Assange? I just can't believe this. You guys are supposed to be the followers of wikileaks, and yet when your hero is involved you seem to have forgotten what wikileaks is all about, to spread facts, total, uncensored and unbiased facts. From reading all of you guys's ramblings here, I wonder if you actually believe in what the site stands for, or if you just enjoy looking up other ppl's dirt. You have this idea that everybody is corrupt, and yet Mr Assange seems to be the exception. Why? This doesn't seem like truth-seeking to me, more like a personality cult. If you look at the facts, it's obvious that he should be sent to Sweden. Let's say that Assange instead would have been a random australian, and that he was being accused for murder? Then noone would question that UK sent him over. How come this case is different? This case is not as severe, but the law operates the same way. You can't circumvent the law because of some perceived threat. He entered our soil, and is suspected to have broken the law, and you're expecting us to just forget about it, just because it makes the accused sleep better at night? I'm sorry, but that's not how things work here. The EU law is right now forcing UK to make action. I'm sorry but the only grey area in this case is the question of how far the UK is willing to go to apprehend him, but there's no doubt under the current conditions that he will be sent to Sweden and he will stand trial. Assange's only chance is if he manages to escape somehow, but then he will not be able to travel inside EU anymore, or if he's lucky the case will be dropped, and he will be free to go. That's most likely what he's hoping for, but I think it can be a long wait. Are you seriously asking me for a source proving the USA wants him? What exactly do you want? a letter from Obama? Its blatantly obvious assange is hurting them in terms of their diplomacy hence the terrorist name-calling by the vice president of the USA, not to mention the kill threats by several politicians. A simple wikipedia search does the job because thats such a ridiculous question to ask. Yes, you need proof. You can't just throw accusations around like that. Ofc ppl are annoyed by him, but that doesn't mean they're after him. Ppl who don't share your agenda have a really hard time taking thoughts like that seriously. You're assuming that USA is out to get him, and started all this, but there is not a single known fact that points in that direction, just theories that seems to fit your world view. Anyway, obstructing his work and catching him to punish him is widely different. If they take out Assange, it will not be a popular move, and someone else will just take his place. Why would Sweden and USA risk ruining their reputation on a move that wouldn't even be effective? You realize the majority of the world believes the USA/sweden are setting him up right? I'm not sure what "people" you're refering to because coincidently most of the people in this thread who believe he is an actual rapist are swedish. That should be ringing alarm bells to you. So more than 3,5 billion people belives it's a setup?
Pedantry, he clearly meant over half of the people who are aware of the issue, which is almost certainly true.
Last time i checked, what he is charged with is usually a fine of £700, no more, hardly worth an extradition no?
On top of that, last time i was reading this thread, it was the case that they had texts from the two women in question (his partner at the time and the person accusing him) talking about setting him up for rape.
Ignoring all that, there is un-usual pressure to extradite rather than do questioning from an embassy for seemingly no reason.
I cant link to where i go that information, but it was from this thread or the BBC when this first hit, it shouldn't be hard to find.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
