auldhippy
New Member
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." Orwell
Posts: 27,830
|
Post by auldhippy on Feb 8, 2016 20:31:49 GMT
Bert is doing his normal silly routine of just quoting things over and over ignoring the facts presented to him. Ignore him. Censor |
|
voice
New Member
Goals are a form of self inflicted slavery
Posts: 41,274
|
Post by voice on Feb 8, 2016 21:16:49 GMT
The sex pest is only the darling of the hard of thinking cos he's as anti American as they are, The same tired arguments have been tripped again out as why he should be above the law and not face the consiquences of his potentially illegal behaviour.
He could have ended this years ago, but his running and hiding robbed him of any credibilty long ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Feb 8, 2016 22:33:46 GMT
Bert is doing his normal silly routine of just quoting things over and over ignoring the facts presented to him. Ignore him. Censor Dictionary. |
|
auldhippy
New Member
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." Orwell
Posts: 27,830
|
Post by auldhippy on Feb 8, 2016 22:56:59 GMT
The sex pest is only the darling of the hard of thinking cos he's as anti American as they are, The same tired arguments have been tripped again out as why he should be above the law and not face the consiquences of his potentially illegal behaviour. He could have ended this years ago, but his running and hiding robbed him of any credibilty long ago. Still not got it have you? Nor they him! He's below the law or more properly within it. Asylum is law, a sovereign state believes the allegations political and now so too do experts mandated by the UNGA. Sweden too could have ended this years ago and he's not running or hiding, more people know of his current stationary location than any celebrity on the planet. The man is forensic on the law, he's practised in keeping whistle blowers safe, keeping Wikileaks safe and being one step ahead of the entire resources of the Swedish, UK & US judiciary, no one expected the political asylum strategy and now he's found fairly obscure but very precise protection of the UNGA. OK he may have lost some liberty but legally and digitally he's toying with y'all. Sex pest? Apparently he can sweet talk women into bed (or cinemas) within hours of meeting them, cheap sod too doesn't even swing for a hotel. I'm guessing after this is all done & dusted this "sex pest" will still have groupies chasing him. His "technique" is now up there with Jagger's confectionery and Clinton's cigar fetishes in notoriety terms. He's just as much a sex pest as the women were. They were all up for cheap, meaningless sex. Still at least the women have their anonymity to protect them from your double standards. Anti American? I suppose supporters of the most nefarious secret keeper would think that of whistleblowers but they have gone after banks, corporations and the BNP. |
|
auldhippy
New Member
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." Orwell
Posts: 27,830
|
Post by auldhippy on Feb 8, 2016 23:05:27 GMT
A tad perverse to come to a debating forum to ignore folk. |
|
flatandy
New Member
Posts: 44,475
Member is Online
|
Post by flatandy on Feb 8, 2016 23:16:24 GMT
It's baffling that this is still a thing, isn't it? Years on.
Two things are clear, though
(1) Assange could have ended it all very easily by cooperating with the Swedish police rather than claiming that this was all a terrible rotten plot by the famously pro-American Swedish government
(2) Assange was never detained by anyone and was always free to leave the embassy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Feb 8, 2016 23:17:12 GMT
A tad perverse to come to a debating forum to ignore folk. It's neither perverse nor censorship. |
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Feb 8, 2016 23:18:07 GMT
The sex pest is only the darling of the hard of thinking cos he's as anti American as they are, The same tired arguments have been tripped again out as why he should be above the law and not face the consiquences of his potentially illegal behaviour. He could have ended this years ago, but his running and hiding robbed him of any credibilty long ago. Still not got it have you? Nor they him! He's below the law or more properly within it. Asylum is law, a sovereign state believes the allegations political and now so too do experts mandated by the UNGA. Sweden too could have ended this years ago and he's not running or hiding, more people know of his current stationary location than any celebrity on the planet. The man is forensic on the law, he's practised in keeping whistle blowers safe, keeping Wikileaks safe and being one step ahead of the entire resources of the Swedish, UK & US judiciary, no one expected the political asylum strategy and now he's found fairly obscure but very precise protection of the UNGA. OK he may have lost some liberty but legally and digitally he's toying with y'all. Sex pest? Apparently he can sweet talk women into bed (or cinemas) within hours of meeting them, cheap sod too doesn't even swing for a hotel. I'm guessing after this is all done & dusted this "sex pest" will still have groupies chasing him. His "technique" is now up there with Jagger's confectionery and Clinton's cigar fetishes in notoriety terms. He's just as much a sex pest as the women were. They were all up for cheap, meaningless sex. Still at least the women have their anonymity to protect them from your double standards. Anti American? I suppose supporters of the most nefarious secret keeper would think that of whistleblowers but they have gone after banks, corporations and the BNP. Asylum is a thing but I am not sure you can claim Asylum for not wanting to face allegations of sexual misconduct/assault. |
|
bertruss2
New Member
https://wallpapercave.com/w/wp3765741
Posts: 5,596
|
Post by bertruss2 on Feb 9, 2016 0:22:18 GMT
It's baffling that this is still a thing, isn't it? Years on. Two things are clear, though (1) Assange could have ended it all very easily by cooperating with the Swedish police rather than claiming that this was all a terrible rotten plot by the famously pro-American Swedish government (2) Assange was never detained by anyone and was always free to leave the embassy. Assange is free to leave the embassy and you are free to jump off a cliff. Assange was interviewed by the police in Sweden and the case was not proceeded with. Another prosecutor re-opened the case after Assange was back in England. Assange has always been ready to be interviewed but not to go back to Sweden because of the fear of extradition to the USA and torture, imprisonment for life and, possibly, death. This is a well-founded fear because a Grand Jury has been preparing a case against him. He has been given political asylum in Ecuador but he is prevented from going there by the UK. It's obvious that the Swedish prosecutor is only interested in getting him back to Sweden and not in proceeding with the complaints. |
|
auldhippy
New Member
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." Orwell
Posts: 27,830
|
Post by auldhippy on Feb 9, 2016 0:37:01 GMT
Still not got it have you? Nor they him! He's below the law or more properly within it. Asylum is law, a sovereign state believes the allegations political and now so too do experts mandated by the UNGA. Sweden too could have ended this years ago and he's not running or hiding, more people know of his current stationary location than any celebrity on the planet. The man is forensic on the law, he's practised in keeping whistle blowers safe, keeping Wikileaks safe and being one step ahead of the entire resources of the Swedish, UK & US judiciary, no one expected the political asylum strategy and now he's found fairly obscure but very precise protection of the UNGA. OK he may have lost some liberty but legally and digitally he's toying with y'all. Sex pest? Apparently he can sweet talk women into bed (or cinemas) within hours of meeting them, cheap sod too doesn't even swing for a hotel. I'm guessing after this is all done & dusted this "sex pest" will still have groupies chasing him. His "technique" is now up there with Jagger's confectionery and Clinton's cigar fetishes in notoriety terms. He's just as much a sex pest as the women were. They were all up for cheap, meaningless sex. Still at least the women have their anonymity to protect them from your double standards. Anti American? I suppose supporters of the most nefarious secret keeper would think that of whistleblowers but they have gone after banks, corporations and the BNP. Asylum is a thing but I am not sure you can claim Asylum for not wanting to face allegations of sexual misconduct/assault. UN says he can |
|
lala
New Member
Arrgh!! Urrgh!! No!!
Posts: 27,277
|
Post by lala on Feb 9, 2016 3:19:16 GMT
Assange is free to leave the embassy and you are free to jump off a cliff. Assange was interviewed by the police in Sweden and the case was not proceeded with. Another prosecutor re-opened the case after Assange was back in England. Untrue. Ny, the second prosecutor was actually seeking to set up an interrogation with Assange when he rather conveniently left the country: But the lawyer admitted that Swedish prosecutors had tried to interview his client before he left the country, contradicting earlier claims by Assange's legal team and his own witness statement.
Hurtig told the extradition hearing that he had been wrong to assert that the prosecutor Marianne Ny had made no active attempt to interview Assange between her appointment to the case, on 1 September last year, and 27 September, when Assange left the country with her permission.
Under cross-examination by Clare Montgomery QC for the Swedish government, Hurtig admitted the prosecutor's office had contacted him on 22 September requesting an interview. Montgomery asked him to take out his mobile and read two text messages received on that date. One, in Swedish, he translated as: "Hello, is it clear if it's going to be good to have interrogation on Tuesday, 1700h?"
Hurtig said he could not recall calling Assange after receiving the request, but was sure he would have done. "You should bear in mind that it was very difficult to get hold of him during this time," he said.
The omission was "embarrassing and shouldn't have happened", he said. "It's true that that gave an impression that was to Julian's advantage."
link Assange left Sweden on the 27th of September, presumably when he realised he was wouldn't be able to elude Ny indefinitely. |
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Feb 9, 2016 8:40:39 GMT
Assange is free to leave the embassy and you are free to jump off a cliff. Assange was interviewed by the police in Sweden and the case was not proceeded with. Another prosecutor re-opened the case after Assange was back in England. Assange has always been ready to be interviewed but not to go back to Sweden because of the fear of extradition to the USA and torture, imprisonment for life and, possibly, death. This is a well-founded fear because a Grand Jury has been preparing a case against him. He has been given political asylum in Ecuador but he is prevented from going there by the UK. It's obvious that the Swedish prosecutor is only interested in getting him back to Sweden and not in proceeding with the complaints. You really are the font of mis-information: Assange came to Sweden in August 2010. Between 13 and 18 August there was a sequence of alleged incidents of sexual abuse against AA. There was also an allegation of rape in respect of SW. On 20 August 2010 both AA and SW went to a police station. As a result of what the police were told, a criminal investigation was commenced into sexual molestation. On 31 August 2010, Assange was questioned about the allegations, which he denied. This interview is important, as it meant that from this stage he knew of the allegations against him. Following this interview, the Swedish prosecutor decided to proceed with the investigation. On 22 September 2010, messages were left with Assange’s lawyer saying that Assange was now required for “interrogation”, the second stage interview before a prosecution. (Assange’s Swedish lawyer was later to falsely maintain that the prosecutor had not tried to contact him. When this was exposed as incorrect, he then claimed that he was not able to pass the messages on to his client.) On or about 27 September 2010, Assange left Sweden for England. It is not clear whether Assange was aware of the request for interrogation. However, his Swedish lawyer confirmed that Assange could return in October 2010. This offer is declined by the prosecutor, as Assange was then required sooner. n cross-examination the Swedish lawyer confirmed that paragraph 13 of his proof of evidence is wrong… [it reads] “in the following days [after 15th September] I telephoned [Ms Ny] a number of times to ask whether we could arrange a time for Mr Assange’s interview but was never given an answer, leaving me with the impression that they may close the rape case without even bothering to interview him. He agreed that this was wrong. Ms Ny did contact him… He then confirmed that on 22nd September 2010 at 16.46 he has a message [still on his phone] from Ms Ny saying: “Hello – it is possible to have an interview Tuesday”. Next there was a message saying: “Thanks for letting me know. We will pursue Tuesday 28th at 1700”… He conceded that it is possible that Ms Ny told him on the 21st that she wanted to interview his client. She requested a date as soon as possible. He agrees that the following day, 22nd, she contacted him at least twice. Then he was then cross-examined about his attempts to contact his client. To have the full flavour it may be necessary to consider the transcript in full. In summary the lawyer was unable to tell me what attempts he made to contact his client, and whether he definitely left a message… He said “I don’t think I left a message warning him” (about the possibility of arrest). He referred to receiving a text from Ms Ny at 09.11 on 27th September, the day his client left Sweden… Mr Hurtig was asked why he told Brita Sundberg-Wietman that Ms Ny had made no effort to interview his client. He denied saying that and said he has never met her. He agrees that he gave information to Mr Alhem. He agrees that where he had said in his statement (paragraph 51) that “I found it astonishing that Ms Ny, having allowed five weeks to elapse before she sought out interview”, then that is wrong. He had forgotten the messages referred to above. They must have slipped his mind. The witness had to leave to catch a flight… The witness was clearly uncomfortable and anxious to leave. — Assange's lawyer made "a deliberate attempt to mislead the court" by stating that the Swedish prosecutor had not previously tried to interview Assange. "In fact this is untrue. He says he realised the mistake the night before giving evidence. He did correct the statement in his evidence in chief (transcript p.83 and p.97). However, this was very low key and not done in a way that I, at least, immediately grasped as significant. It was only in cross-examination that the extent of the mistake became clear. Mr Hurtig must have realised the significance of paragraph 13 of his proof when he submitted it. I do not accept that this was a genuine mistake." The Swedish prosecutor proceeded to obtain a warrant for Assange’s arrest on 20 November 2010. Assange instructed his Swedish lawyer to challenge the warrant and it is appealed to the Court of Appeal of Svea. On 24 November 2010 the appeal court upheld the warrant. The significance of this is that the allegations giving rise to the warrant have already been tested in the Swedish legal system. |
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Feb 9, 2016 8:51:15 GMT
Still not got it have you? Nor they him! He's below the law or more properly within it. Asylum is law, a sovereign state believes the allegations political and now so too do experts mandated by the UNGA. Sweden too could have ended this years ago and he's not running or hiding, more people know of his current stationary location than any celebrity on the planet. The man is forensic on the law, he's practised in keeping whistle blowers safe, keeping Wikileaks safe and being one step ahead of the entire resources of the Swedish, UK & US judiciary, no one expected the political asylum strategy and now he's found fairly obscure but very precise protection of the UNGA. OK he may have lost some liberty but legally and digitally he's toying with y'all. . I think there's only one thing he's toying with in his little cupboard. |
|
lala
New Member
Arrgh!! Urrgh!! No!!
Posts: 27,277
|
Post by lala on Feb 9, 2016 9:04:59 GMT
Learn how to use the quote function, buffoon. Or go back to icing your hob-nobs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Feb 9, 2016 9:14:15 GMT
Learn how to use the quote function, buffoon. Or go back to icing your hob-nobs. It's all gone a bit awry. I'm sure it's the immigrants or Mossad or Donald Trump out to get me because I have a lustrous head of hair. |
|
|
|
Post by reverend on Feb 9, 2016 9:17:20 GMT
Getoutofit, your bald as a coot!
|
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Feb 9, 2016 9:23:33 GMT
If I only had two macaroons left in the world I'd sooner hide them in my head of hair than Donald's.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2016 12:03:09 GMT
So basically he's afraid of US law indicting him for certain revelations and the consequences. Wouldn't US law have to examine these revelations and be subject to public scrutiny? As he's not a US citizen this holds very little water. I really don't see the problem.
|
|
bertruss2
New Member
https://wallpapercave.com/w/wp3765741
Posts: 5,596
|
Post by bertruss2 on Feb 9, 2016 15:55:24 GMT
He was not 'eluding Ny' since she had given him permission to leave Sweden. Can't you read, not even your own quote?
Hurtig told the extradition hearing that he had been wrong to assert that the prosecutor Marianne Ny had made no active attempt to interview Assange between her appointment to the case, on 1 September last year, and 27 September, when Assange left the country with her permission.
Assange was a visitor to Sweden and not a resident. As the head of an international organization, he wouldn't want to be hanging around indefinitely in Sweden.
|
|
bertruss2
New Member
https://wallpapercave.com/w/wp3765741
Posts: 5,596
|
Post by bertruss2 on Feb 9, 2016 16:27:10 GMT
Assange gave an interview to the BBC Today programme in 2010, in which he put his side of the case. John Humphrys: Why won't you go back to Sweden?
Julian Assange : I was there for some five weeks after these initial allegations were made. They were dropped within 24 hours of them first being made. The most senior prosecutor in Stockholm reviewed them and they were dropped. Then politician Claes Borgstrom became involved, other forces became involved and the case, the investigative part of the case, was taken up again. We waited some four/five weeks to be interviewed, so I could put my side of this case forward, and that did not happen.
I asked: "OK, I have things to do, I had only planned to be in Sweden for one week, it's time to leave. Is there any problem with that?" For the first three weeks, the Swedish prosecution refused to answer whether it was ok to leave or not. So caught there in limbo. Finally, they grudgingly admitted that there was no reason to keep me there. And at that stage I went about my normal course of work. (from the transcript) news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9309000/9309320.stm |
|
