Rapey Aussie to face brutality of Swedish justice

[lala]

Funny how Bert scoffs at my ability see into the bedrooms of Swedish women and give your impartial report on what goes on there, even if it's in the dark and under the sheets, but seems possessed of deep and mysterious understanding of the machinations of Grand Juries in Virginia.

[Minge är en jävla besserwisser]

Feb 10, 2016 17:07:04 GMT bertruss2 said:

The prosecution in this case have decided there is a case to answer. This has been tested extensively in 2 English courts of law, where the merits or not of the case were extensively tested by Assange's legal team. On both occasions it was deemed there was a case to answer. On both occasions it was deemed that the allegations would constitute an offence under English law.

You are confusing the validity of the European Arrest Warrant with any further action in relation to the reasons for the warrant. English courts ruled that the Swedish prosecutor was entitled to question Assange about allegations of sexual offences. They didn't say, obviously, that there would be a court case.

Incidentally, it would be helpful if you gave a link to the stuff you're quoting.

F*ck me how many more times?


Again from the judge:

1. The proceedings in Sweden are at the preliminary investigation stage. The preliminary
investigation does not come to an end until evidence is served on Mr Assange or his lawyer and
there is an interrogation of Mr Assange with the opportunity for further enquiries. Thereafter
there is a decision as to charge. If charged the trial is likely to take place shortly thereafter.

So they can't charge him until he's interviewed but he's to busy playing with something in his cupboard.

[bertruss2]

He has not been charged with an offence yet because the Swedish system does not permit a charge to be laid until after the final interrogation by the prosecutor.

This 'final' interrogation is a complete sham in your learned opinion, it seems. That may be so, but a reasonable person would assume that there was some reason for questioning the subject of the complaint. Could it possibly be that it was in the interests of justice that he should be heard. Then, it might be possible that the prosecutor would decide to reduce the charge or even not to proceed at all.

You've misled yourself with the 'final interrogation' as though it were the culmination of a whole series of sessions. The prosecutor hasn't found a way to question Assange in London -although that would be nothing unusual. She's been so ineffectual that other potential charges have run out of time because of the statute of limitations.

[bertruss2]

Again from the judge:

Which judge? There have been a few of them?

[lala]

Feb 10, 2016 17:49:45 GMT bertruss2 said:

This 'final' interrogation is a complete sham in your learned opinion, it seems. That may be so, but a reasonable person would assume that there was some reason for questioning the subject of the complaint. Could it possibly be that it was in the interests of justice that he should be heard. Then, it might be possible that the prosecutor would decide not to reduce the charge or even not to proceed at all.

You've misled yourself with the 'final interrogation' as though it were the culmination of a whole series of sessions. The prosecutor hasn't found a way to question Assange in London -although that would be nothing unusual. She's been so ineffectual that other potential charges have run out of time because of the statute of limitations.

When in doubt, resort to highfalutin gibberish.

[Minge är en jävla besserwisser]

Feb 10, 2016 17:52:38 GMT bertruss2 said:

Again from the judge:

Which judge? There have been a few of them?

Howard Riddle

[voice]

if he wasn't perceived as being as anti-american as he is no one, least of all Bert or OH, would care and its shocking how easily allegations of rape and sexual assault are dismissed by them, the women belittled and the judicial system of a fellow member of the EU and signatory of the Human Rights act called into question. Lets face it nothing he could have done will stop the hero worship from Bert and OH, as he 'gave it to the man' as I recall OH saying about him one, and that's enough to lift him above the law we ordinary types have to live under.

As ming said, its embarrassing to watch em twist themselves in knots to justify why he should be above the law.

[auldhippy]

Repeating rubbish doesn't help your case. The women say they weren't raped, if they can dismiss it so can everyone else.

He is within the law and human rights experts mandated by the UNGA agree.

[voice]

why not, you've been repeating the same old tired crap for 23 pages now, and numerous threads on your hero, hasn't stopped you.

[Minge är en jävla besserwisser]

Feb 10, 2016 19:23:31 GMT auldhippy said:

Repeating rubbish doesn't help your case. The women say they weren't raped, if they can dismiss it so can everyone else.

He is within the law and human rights experts mandated by the UNGA agree.

This is false trail no1 that keeps popping up like the mole in caddyshack.

The swedes feel there is enough to press ahead on to make a case. It has twice been examined by English courts and on both occasions it was deemed
a) there was a case to answer
b) the offences would have been prosecutable in the UK, which is an EAW hurdle test.


Whatever you feel about the merits of it is irrelevant. If the case is that flimsy 5 minutes should do it and he'll be on the next plane out. However the correct place for all this to be aired is a Swedish Court room.

[clarity]

The women say they weren't raped, if they can dismiss it so can everyone else. <AH>

I can't make up my mind with this case. It's not unusual for women to drop charges though. Anyway, I need to do more research on it before I come to any conclusion.

[Repat Van]

Feb 10, 2016 16:42:32 GMT @oneofthelessergods said:

I understand all the verbage in most of the posts above but, for me anyway, if the accusations of rape are coming from a third party after the alleged victims have denied rape, it all seems very peculiar to me; and that there is an alternative agenda from those making the accusations. This would explain why Assange is reluctant to go to Sweden to address these accusations.

It's not peculiar at all. A crime can have been committed even if the victim does not view it as a crime.

Not sure what people are struggling with here.

[Repat Van]

Feb 10, 2016 19:23:31 GMT auldhippy said:

Repeating rubbish doesn't help your case. The women say they weren't raped, if they can dismiss it so can everyone else.

He is within the law and human rights experts mandated by the UNGA agree.

Jesus wept you're repeating this nonsense! For the umpteenth time - a crime can still have been committed even if the victim does not see it as a crime. Why are you struggling with this concept? If the facts as they are laid out are in breach of Swedish law then a crime has been committed.

[bertruss2]

its embarrassing to watch em twist themselves in knots to justify why he should be above the law.

If you're going to rely on personal abuse, you could at least not lump two posters together as if they were one person.It makes it difficult to reply.

Assange has been given political asylum in Ecuador and the UN Working Group has rejected the arguments of Britain and Sweden to detain him. The legal situation is complex but it's clear that it's really a political matter. The £13 million spent on keeping Assange in confinement and the statements of British ministers are the proof of that.

[voice]

and a crime may have bee committed and due to way sex crimes are often prosecuted, many women chose not to go through with a trail that is often as bad as being raped again. This is why the state can prosecute an offender even if the victim of the crime is reluctant for one of many many reasons. These women have been denigrated by JA's supporters, though doubting the victims of sexual assault is nothing new or unusual, its why of all crims to go before a judge rape has one of the lowest conviction rates.

[voice]

well allowing Ecuador to grandstand against the Americans is hardly a thing to be proud of, its an appallingly repressive country, though in many ways the perfect place for some one like JA.

www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-chapters/ecuador

[auldhippy]

Feb 10, 2016 20:14:06 GMT Repat Van said:

Feb 10, 2016 16:42:32 GMT @oneofthelessergods said:

I understand all the verbage in most of the posts above but, for me anyway, if the accusations of rape are coming from a third party after the alleged victims have denied rape, it all seems very peculiar to me; and that there is an alternative agenda from those making the accusations. This would explain why Assange is reluctant to go to Sweden to address these accusations.

It's not peculiar at all. A crime can have been committed even if the victim does not view it as a crime.

Not sure what people are struggling with here.

The allegation is rape, neither woman claimed rape, they weren't drugged, they weren't physically harmed, they texted how great a time they were having. Nobody present in those rooms when the events happened are claiming rape!

The people who are alleging rape were not in the rooms. The people who were in the rooms are not alleging rape! The first prosecutor found "no evidence of rape" and allowed Assange to leave the country.

[Repat Van]

Feb 10, 2016 22:55:16 GMT auldhippy said:

Feb 10, 2016 20:14:06 GMT Repat Van said:

It's not peculiar at all. A crime can have been committed even if the victim does not view it as a crime.

Not sure what people are struggling with here.

The allegation is rape, neither woman claimed rape, they weren't drugged, they weren't physically harmed, they texted how great a time they were having. Nobody present in those rooms when the events happened are claiming rape!

The people who are alleging rape were not in the rooms. The people who were in the rooms are not alleging rape! The first prosecutor found "no evidence of rape" and allowed Assange to leave the country.

OH are you living in the 50s?

You don't have to have been drugged for a rape to have occurred.
You don't have to have been physically harmed (although one might argue rape is physical harm) for rape to have been occurred.

And lastly try to comprehend IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE WOMEN ARE NOT ALLEGING A RAPE OCCURRED! A crime can occur without the victim thinking a crime occurred. Can you grasp that? It's why frequently crime figures from surveys don't match police statistics.

When the women relayed the facts of the event when trying to compel Assange to have an HIV test, it came to light that the facts as spelled out may indicate an offence occurred and so that is being investigated. Whether the victim personally thinks this meets their personal criteria for rape is neither here nor there.

It's not that hard, you shouldn't be struggling with this.

[voice]

its easier to try and discredit the women than it is for OH to ever have doubts about his hero.

[Repat Van]

I think this is just OH's opinion of women coming through full stop (as we see in his idolisation of the ME's treatment of women.)

I don't understand why somebody would struggle to understand that a crime can have occurred even if the victim doesn't think it's a crime. I wonder if it's just rape or other crimes OH applies this to.

If an individual is mugged but doesn't see it as a mugging, they just report their phone as having been lost - would OH contend that irrespective of what happened, it's not a mugging if the victim (or alleged victim rather) doesn't think it is?

You know Assange could have avoided all of this by just heading off to Sweden for questioning. If the claims are as unfounded as he asserts it would be over in 5 minutes and he could be living in Sweden, or Britain or even back in his native Oz.