Rapey Aussie to face brutality of Swedish justice

[Repat Van]

Feb 5, 2016 20:30:16 GMT auldhippy said:

Perhaps the panel had information that confirms Assange's fears of extradition to the US. Sweden could at any time in the last 3 years have interviewed Assange in situ.

The U.K. has also shown itself more than willing to extradite people. Why fear the Swedes but not the Brits.

And why on earth does he think he above people should be immune to extradition?

[Repat Van]

Anyway as I've said it's the UN. It's not like they were going to come to a different conclusion.

[lala]

This one involved a colonial white bloke, allegedly molesting first world white women, and being 'arbitrarily detained' by former imperial powers. All bets were off.

[auldhippy]

Feb 5, 2016 22:35:50 GMT Repat Van said:

Feb 5, 2016 20:30:16 GMT auldhippy said:

Perhaps the panel had information that confirms Assange's fears of extradition to the US. Sweden could at any time in the last 3 years have interviewed Assange in situ.

The U.K. has also shown itself more than willing to extradite people. Why fear the Swedes but not the Brits.

And why on earth does he think he above people should be immune to extradition?

There's no British arrest warrant for him, there's a European arrest warrant as a result of Sweden's need to question him again. Since he has already been questioned over the incidents before seeking and obtaining permission to leave Sweden without charge it would not be unreasonable to question him in situ thus avoiding £12m of expenses to us. The only allegation he still faces is that he attempted condom free penetration of a sleeping woman he had spent the night penetrating and who acqiesced. An allegation that the first prosecutor found no reason to prosecute. After he left Sweden a second prosecutor, whose partner has a record for CIA naughty stuff, issued the EAW, a process normally used only when charges have been pressed, for all the allegations now dropped to just one. Neither the woman subject to the final allegation nor a second alleged rape. Both only went to the police to force a HIV test on Assange, a reasonable course of action when a condom breaks as was alleged during the previous evening of rutting. It seems women in Sweden cannot tell whether they have been raped.

It is not "above the law" to seek refuge through political asylum. He fears extradition to the US because of a Grand Jury trial in the US for treason (?) www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/assange-not-under-sealed-indictment-us-officials-say/2013/11/18/8a3cb2da-506c-11e3-a7f0-b790929232e1_story.html Assange may be a cad but both women voluntarily entered into a sexual relationship on the days they met him and only went to the police when they learnt of each other and then only to force an HIV test. Neither woman alleged they were raped. It's hard to think of a suitable punishment for his caddary towards compliant women but it is unlikely to be a custodial sentence which suggests his fears of extradition are very real to him if he is willing to undergo quasi imprisonment for 3 years & then exile in Ecuador to avoid it. Fears reinforced by the need for a second questioning, unreasonable demands that the questioning be done in custody in Sweden and a refusal of US authorities to guarantee there is no secret indictment from a secret grand jury trial.

Assange is not evading questioning he is evading custody.

[lala]

Feb 6, 2016 14:31:56 GMT auldhippy said:

There's no British arrest warrant for him

He is subject to arrest for breaching bail conditions.

Since he has already been questioned over the incidents before seeking and obtaining permission to leave Sweden without charge it would not be unreasonable to question him in situ thus avoiding £12m of expenses to us.

The expenses could also have been avoided if he had gone to Sweden for questioning, instead of cowering in the Ecuadorian embassy for three years.

The Swedes want to question him in Sweden because of the way their legal system works. He is subject to arrest but is not formally charged as they can not charge him until the final interview is conducted.

The only allegation he still faces is that he attempted condom free penetration of a sleeping woman he had spent the night penetrating and who acqiesced.

Someone can have consensual sex with a person for years and then rape that person. They had consensual sex with protection. He had no reason to think she would consent to having unprotected sex. Hence, potentially rape. He doesn't get to decide if it was okay.

... issued the EAW, a process normally used only when charges have been pressed, for all the allegations now dropped to just one.

This is legal smoke and mirrors, relying on the differences between the Swedish and English systems to make it sound like there is something irregular afoot.

Under Swedish law, the investigation can move into the prosecution stage until he has been formally interviewed by prosecutors. If the video interrogation went ahead, and he was told the proescution would not proceed, he would choose to remain in the embassy. That's not how the system works, nor should it. People under investigation for serious crimes should not be allowed to decide whether or not they will face prosecution.

It's hard to think of a suitable punishment for his caddary towards compliant women but it is unlikely to be a custodial sentence ...

Sexually penetrating a woman when no reasonable belief in consent to is not 'caddery.'

[auldhippy]

The two "victims" didn't think it was rape, the initial prosecutor didn't think it was rape. The morning non condom sex followed the previous evening condom breaking sex which likely influenced her acquiescence since unsafe sex had already occurred meaning an HIV test for both would have been the order of the day in any event, in the throws of passion underestimating the increased risk of contagion.

Just to reiterate, neither woman claimed "rape", neither wanted him charged with "rape". The female prosecutor didn't think it was rape. it took a male prosecutor to tell the women they were raped. Only after they found out about each other did they involve the police to compel an HIV test or perhaps inflict some menace on a cad. It's all farcical, I wouldn't enter a Volvo now without written permission in triplicate.

[eit]

Fcuk shitt.

[nobody]

Well, I suppose as a homosexual, you do that.

[lala]

Feb 6, 2016 20:48:10 GMT auldhippy said:

The morning non condom sex followed the previous evening condom breaking sex which likely influenced her acquiescence since unsafe sex had already occurred ....

You have confused the two women.

Miss A was the breakage.

Miss W was unprotected-while-dozing.

[Repat Van]

Feb 6, 2016 14:31:56 GMT auldhippy said:

Feb 5, 2016 22:35:50 GMT Repat Van said:

The U.K. has also shown itself more than willing to extradite people. Why fear the Swedes but not the Brits.

And why on earth does he think he above people should be immune to extradition?

There's no British arrest warrant for him, there's a European arrest warrant as a result of Sweden's need to question him again. Since he has already been questioned over the incidents before seeking and obtaining permission to leave Sweden without charge it would not be unreasonable to question him in situ thus avoiding £12m of expenses to us. The only allegation he still faces is that he attempted condom free penetration of a sleeping woman he had spent the night penetrating and who acqiesced. An allegation that the first prosecutor found no reason to prosecute. After he left Sweden a second prosecutor, whose partner has a record for CIA naughty stuff, issued the EAW, a process normally used only when charges have been pressed, for all the allegations now dropped to just one. Neither the woman subject to the final allegation nor a second alleged rape. Both only went to the police to force a HIV test on Assange, a reasonable course of action when a condom breaks as was alleged during the previous evening of rutting. It seems women in Sweden cannot tell whether they have been raped.

It is not "above the law" to seek refuge through political asylum. He fears extradition to the US because of a Grand Jury trial in the US for treason (?) www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/assange-not-under-sealed-indictment-us-officials-say/2013/11/18/8a3cb2da-506c-11e3-a7f0-b790929232e1_story.html Assange may be a cad but both women voluntarily entered into a sexual relationship on the days they met him and only went to the police when they learnt of each other and then only to force an HIV test. Neither woman alleged they were raped. It's hard to think of a suitable punishment for his caddary towards compliant women but it is unlikely to be a custodial sentence which suggests his fears of extradition are very real to him if he is willing to undergo quasi imprisonment for 3 years & then exile in Ecuador to avoid it. Fears reinforced by the need for a second questioning, unreasonable demands that the questioning be done in custody in Sweden and a refusal of US authorities to guarantee there is no secret indictment from a secret grand jury trial.

Assange is not evading questioning he is evading custody.

The point is his reasoning makes no sense. He is worried the Swedes may extradite him to the US, but the Brits have been more than willing to extradite people to the US in the past. If that was really his fear he wouldn't be in the UK.

As for evading questioning...that's a crock of sh*t. Generally you are extradited to face questioning in the country where you are suspected of a crime. They don't come to you.

[Repat Van]

And what is th about 12m in expenses? That could be readily avoided if he flew to Sweden to face the allegations against him. He seems afraid to do so for no logical reason.

Oh and your point on knowing whether you were raped is really moronic and shows how little you understand laws on consent. A crime can still have occurred even if the victim doesn't realise a crime has been committed against him/her.

[Deleted]

If you shag someone while in your astral body and they know nothing about it and nobody else knows about it, is it rape? If yes, which legal system would we be adhering to? I've been reading a few books about astral projection and may take it up, so watch out (please send photograph).

[bertruss2]

Generally you are extradited to face questioning in the country where you are suspected of a crime. They don't come to you.

Assange has been granted political asylum in Ecuador. He has been prevented from going to Ecuador by Britain. But there is nothing to prevent the Swedish government from asking to interview Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Only one allegation remains under investigation. The investigation into the other allegations has been dropped. I'm sure Assange is ready to answer questions that could lead to the remaining case being dropped as well. Assange is not on trial. He has not even been charged with any offence.

[Deleted]

Then why doesn't he walk out and go home?

[reverend]

The usual suspects are going to support assange even if he was accused of putting babies through a mincing machine, they will support him purely for politicised reasons!

What I find highly dubious is he won't even contest his accusers in a court of law, this from the guy who is so determined the world should know the truth, if that truth is anti American of course, he however is above the law and his truth is what he says it is!

[auldhippy]

Feb 7, 2016 9:10:01 GMT Repat Van said:

Feb 6, 2016 14:31:56 GMT auldhippy said:

There's no British arrest warrant for him, there's a European arrest warrant as a result of Sweden's need to question him again. Since he has already been questioned over the incidents before seeking and obtaining permission to leave Sweden without charge it would not be unreasonable to question him in situ thus avoiding £12m of expenses to us. The only allegation he still faces is that he attempted condom free penetration of a sleeping woman he had spent the night penetrating and who acqiesced. An allegation that the first prosecutor found no reason to prosecute. After he left Sweden a second prosecutor, whose partner has a record for CIA naughty stuff, issued the EAW, a process normally used only when charges have been pressed, for all the allegations now dropped to just one. Neither the woman subject to the final allegation nor a second alleged rape. Both only went to the police to force a HIV test on Assange, a reasonable course of action when a condom breaks as was alleged during the previous evening of rutting. It seems women in Sweden cannot tell whether they have been raped.

It is not "above the law" to seek refuge through political asylum. He fears extradition to the US because of a Grand Jury trial in the US for treason (?) www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/assange-not-under-sealed-indictment-us-officials-say/2013/11/18/8a3cb2da-506c-11e3-a7f0-b790929232e1_story.html Assange may be a cad but both women voluntarily entered into a sexual relationship on the days they met him and only went to the police when they learnt of each other and then only to force an HIV test. Neither woman alleged they were raped. It's hard to think of a suitable punishment for his caddary towards compliant women but it is unlikely to be a custodial sentence which suggests his fears of extradition are very real to him if he is willing to undergo quasi imprisonment for 3 years & then exile in Ecuador to avoid it. Fears reinforced by the need for a second questioning, unreasonable demands that the questioning be done in custody in Sweden and a refusal of US authorities to guarantee there is no secret indictment from a secret grand jury trial.

Assange is not evading questioning he is evading custody.

The point is his reasoning makes no sense. He is worried the Swedes may extradite him to the US, but the Brits have been more than willing to extradite people to the US in the past. If that was really his fear he wouldn't be in the UK.

As for evading questioning...that's a crock of sh*t. Generally you are extradited to face questioning in the country where you are suspected of a crime. They don't come to you.

Yes the UK have been far too ready to extradite Brits to the US but Assange is wanted for questioning by Sweden. The UK has not received a request from the US and could not do so in respect of allegations arising in Sweden. It is Sweden, not the UK, that he fears extradition to the US from.

Note you start of with "generally" which at least allows for questioning in situ and we know they have done so in the past, Assange had already been cleared by 1 prosecutor and had received permission to leave Sweden. Once granted LEGAL asylum in Ecuador the obvious route to avoiding £12m of costs to us is for Sweden to question him in situ. It is an option open to Sweden, it's something they have done before and their refusal to do it adds to his fears of extradition from Sweden to the US. Questioning in situ could clear him without the need for taking him into custody and thereby closing the avenue of extradition.

[auldhippy]

Feb 7, 2016 13:04:31 GMT @oneofthelessergods said:

Then why doesn't he walk out and go home?

Because he fears extradition to the US by Sweden.

[auldhippy]

Feb 7, 2016 13:20:09 GMT reverend said:

The usual suspects are going to support assange even if he was accused of putting babies through a mincing machine, they will support him purely for politicised reasons!

What I find highly dubious is he won't even contest his accusers in a court of law, this from the guy who is so determined the world should know the truth, if that truth is anti American of course, he however is above the law and his truth is what he says it is!

He is not yet facing court! He was questioned and faced his accusers, he was cleared, he received permission to leave.

[Deleted]

Without a warrant?

[Repat Van]

Feb 7, 2016 13:37:05 GMT auldhippy said:

Feb 7, 2016 13:04:31 GMT @oneofthelessergods said:

Then why doesn't he walk out and go home?

Because he fears extradition to the US by Sweden.

Why does he not fear it from Britain?