Rapey Aussie to face brutality of Swedish justice

[lala]

Feb 12, 2016 13:31:59 GMT bertruss2 said:

Feb 12, 2016 2:55:19 GMT lala said:

initiating unprotected sex

You saw it all then? Were you peeping through the keyhole or was your face pressed to the window? And you were wearing night-vision goggles at the time?

Assange has not disputed the course of events. He initiated unprotected sex without seeking permission. Whether the woman was sound asleep or just dozing when he did so (the main point of dispute) isn't really relevant. He started to have sex with her when she was not fully alert and in a way he knew she would not consent to if she was given a choice. Assange relies on the fact that she permitted him to continue, but it is not his call; rape victims are not required to object to what is happening. It's up to the courts to decide if what he did constituted rape or not.

[auldhippy]

Feb 12, 2016 20:04:25 GMT voice said:

Feb 12, 2016 19:35:51 GMT auldhippy said:

It really doesn't matter, it matters that he stays out of custody as confirmed by human rights experts on detention mandated by the UNGA.

and remind me again who these shining lights in the world of Human Rights who sit on the UNGA human rights panel are again, oh yes Saudi Arabia, we can sure there example is one to follw.

Keep on making a fool of yourself en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Group_on_Arbitrary_Detention

[auldhippy]

Feb 12, 2016 20:41:17 GMT lala said:

Feb 12, 2016 13:31:59 GMT bertruss2 said:

You saw it all then? Were you peeping through the keyhole or was your face pressed to the window? And you were wearing night-vision goggles at the time?

Assange has not disputed the course of events. He initiated unprotected sex without seeking permission. Whether the woman was sound asleep or just dozing when he did so (the main point of dispute) isn't really relevant. He started to have sex with her when she was not fully alert and in a way he knew she would not consent to if she was given a choice. Assange relies on the fact that she permitted him to continue, but it is not his call; rape victims are not required to object to what is happening. It's up to the courts to decide if what he did constituted rape or not.

He absolutely has disputed the events. Link already provided.

& which version of Wilen's account of the event are you refering to, the original or the version a "superior" ordered Ardin's police friend to make some days later?

[Minge är en jävla besserwisser]

Feb 12, 2016 19:35:51 GMT auldhippy said:

Feb 12, 2016 10:50:18 GMT Minge är en jävla besserwisser said:

It's like the f*cking mole in caddyshack. They can't guarantee it because the guarantee wouldn't be worth a pile of beans. International law would take precedence if the US came up with a viable extradition warrant. Assange knows that. But to extradite him from Sweden would need the approval of the Swedish Courts and, because he was extradited from the UK it would also have to be signed off from the UK.
So why the extraditon to Sweden to put in two barriers.
Why not simply apply to the UK, especially when Sweden don't extradite for espionage. He'd be far safer in Sweden.
And if your going the rendition route how does a guarantee they won't extradite help? It's farcical nonsense.

It really doesn't matter, it matters that he stays out of custody as confirmed by human rights experts on detention mandated by the UNGA.

Which pretty much sums up your case.
Say any old sh*t as long as it keeps him out of court.
And no that's not what the UNGA opinions.
I suspect you know that but it is possible your arse is as blue as Bertie boy's

[lala]

Feb 12, 2016 21:25:37 GMT auldhippy said:

He absolutely has disputed the events. Link already provided

*sigh*

The sexual encounters between Julian Assange and the two women involved were entirely consensual.

Miss W consented to sex with protection. Assange initiated sex without protection without seeking her consent before. She appeared to give consent to him continuing, but that can not be taken at face value as rape victims are not required to protest their rapes. The courts may rule in his favour, but he can not dismiss the matter out of hand.

A lot of rapists say it was not rape, and that she consented and now she's hanged her story.

Someone taking advantage of a one night stand to have sex with a woman in a way she did not want to and without her consent to it. Prima facie, a rape occured.

At no time did either woman tell Assange to stop or otherwise express disapproval of the sexual acts in which they participated.

I refer you to the answer I gave some moments ago. A rape victim does not have to protest their rape. They can even co-operate in the interests of survival. Assange knew Miss W would not want to have sex without a condom and did it anyway. He did not seek her consent before. Her consent during the act is questionable due to possible coercion or threat. I'm not saying that happened, just that's how the prosecutors are looking at it.

Both women told friends that their purpose in visiting the police was not to accuse Assange of any crime, but to seek assistance in compelling him to be tested for HIV.

Already addressed. The women do not need to say they have been raped. They just needed to describe it to the police, who would then categorise it as rape.

Upon hearing that a warrant had been issued for the arrest of Assange, the woman who was being interviewed by the police became so distraught that was unable to continue and departed without endorsing the written account. She later told a friend that she felt ”run over by the police and others”

Again, not really relevant. Rape cases often proceed in spite of the victim's objection or refusal to co-operate, due to the number of occasions where the rapist is a family member. The CPS in Britain has guidelines for just this sort of situation. Imagine the situation is the same in Sweden.

The other woman involved has given contradictory accounts of her relationship with Assange.

Irrelevant, as we are focussing on Miss W.

The police officer who conducted the initial interview was ordered by a superior to alter the written record and was taken off the case.

Not relevant, given Assange is not disputing that he initiated sex with her as she dozed, without a condom.

[Repat Van]

Feb 12, 2016 18:36:13 GMT Muz said:

Feb 12, 2016 1:38:25 GMT Repat Van said:

It depends on the circumstances. Does she have reason to believe she has his consent or not.

What if, while she was asleep, she backed up onto him. Would he have grounds to believe consent then?

"It depends on the circumstances. Does he have reason to believe he has her consent or not."

[bertruss2]

Assange is not disputing that he initiated sex

What statement by Assange are you referring to? Assange has not been interviewed by the prosecutor, has he? Is this your imagination at work again?

[auldhippy]

Feb 12, 2016 21:42:02 GMT Minge är en jävla besserwisser said:

Feb 12, 2016 19:35:51 GMT auldhippy said:

It really doesn't matter, it matters that he stays out of custody as confirmed by human rights experts on detention mandated by the UNGA.

Which pretty much sums up your case.
Say any old sh*t as long as it keeps him out of court.
And no that's not what the UNGA opinions.
I suspect you know that but it is possible your arse is as blue as Bertie boy's

Not out of court, yet to be determined, but out of custody. They've now accepted I've been right all along and are going to interview him in the embassy.

I'm thinking he should call everybody's bluff and negotiate travel to New York and set up in Trump Tower, let's see if Sweden still wants him.

[Repat Van]

That's actually a brilliant idea.

[lala]

Feb 12, 2016 22:06:28 GMT bertruss2 said:

Assange is not disputing that he initiated sex

What statement by Assange are you referring to? Assange has not been interviewed by the prosecutor, has he? Is this your imagination at work again?

Assange has been interviewed by police and prosecutors. I'm not aware what he said in those statements. I am, however, aware of statements made by Assange's legal team that confirm the events:

They fell asleep and she woke up by his penetrating her. She immediately asked if he was wearing anything. He answered: "You." She said: "You better not have HIV." He said: "Of course not." She may have been upset, but she clearly consented to its [the sexual encounter's] continuation and that is a central consideration.

That's Ben Emmerson QC, representing Assange speaking in court on the 12th of June. So they accept he initiated the disputed sex act and that he was not wearing protection.

Or do you contend Assange is such a believer in freedom of speech that he is willing to defend invented accusations as if they were real?

[bertruss2]

Or do you contend Assange is such a believer in freedom of speech that he is willing to defend invented accusations as if they were real?

The line that Assange's lawyer was taking was that, even if the description of events was accurate, they wouldn't be a crime under English law. Remember, Assange was not on trial for the alleged assaults. He was fighting an extradition order. For that to be granted the principle of dual criminality had to be upheld. That is to say, it had to be a crime in English law as well as Swedish law.

The lawyer explained his strategy.

The case does not hinge on whether Assange accepts this version of events and others relating to other incidents because there are no charges against him, but whether the arrest warrant in connection with them is valid on "strict and narrow" legal grounds, Emmerson said.(from your link)

You don't have to take the view that the accusations were 'invented'. Two people can have a different recollection or interpretation of events. But that wasn't the issue at the extradition hearing.

[Deleted]

Anyway, what sort of person gets shagged in their sleep without being aware? Sounds like bollocks of the first order. Unless drugs were involved. Now there's a thing.

[auldhippy]

In her unsigned statement to the police, prompted by Ardin, Wilen said she was asleep, she texted a friend however that she was half asleep.

[Minge är en jävla besserwisser]

Feb 13, 2016 17:55:28 GMT auldhippy said:

In her unsigned statement to the police, prompted by Ardin, Wilen said she was asleep, she texted a friend however that she was half asleep.

There is something weird and obsessional going on here.

[lala]

Feb 13, 2016 0:38:29 GMT bertruss2 said:

The line that Assange's lawyer was taking was that, even if the description of events was accurate, they wouldn't be a crime under English law. Remember, Assange was not on trial for the alleged assaults. He was fighting an extradition order. For that to be granted the principle of dual criminality had to be upheld. That is to say, it had to be a crime in English law as well as Swedish law.

The lawyer explained his strategy.

The case does not hinge on whether Assange accepts this version of events and others relating to other incidents because there are no charges against him, but whether the arrest warrant in connection with them is valid on "strict and narrow" legal grounds, Emmerson said.(from your link)

You don't have to take the view that the accusations were 'invented'. Two people can have a different recollection or interpretation of events. But that wasn't the issue at the extradition hearing.

That's a surprisingly good point. Perhaps the nly one I've encountered from a Assangist in all the years of arguing about this case.

[voice]

OH has had years of wierd and obsessional ming, he's been doing this with Avi as long as i can remember, I've always assumed he (they) had this idea the one who posts last wins, no matter if nothing new been has been said for 97 pages, as is the case here.

[auldhippy]

Feb 13, 2016 20:34:19 GMT voice said:

OH has had years of wierd and obsessional ming, he's been doing this with Avi as long as i can remember, I've always assumed he (they) had this idea the one who posts last wins, no matter if nothing new been has been said for 97 pages, as is the case here.

Say's something when you resort to replying with absolutely nothing thread related.

You've been stupid in nearly every post, he is within the law, he is not running, everybody knows where he "hiding" and the only connection with Saudi is that we now join them in the list of countries not being bound by the binding decisions of international law mandated by the UNGA. Until the last page no one had mentioned the statement was unsigned so contrary to your latest post we have something new. To add insult to injury they're doing what you said should not be done and will interview him at the embassy. There is nothing unstupid or more wrong in anything you've posted on the thread.

So subtle point for ya, threads with disagreements are longer than threads where everyone agrees. If you want to be interesting on page 28 of a thread try not being constantly wrong in the previous 27.

[voice]

Everything had been said in the first page or so, you offer nothing of note and certainly nothing new, just displying your blind worship of a man hiding in a cupboard by repeating the same tired old crap as you always do in an attempt to just say it longer than anyone can be botherd to. You're fool and an embaresment, had you anything new to say I might have fainted with the unlikelyness of it.
fact is you just lack the critical thinking to even consider a doubt in the ones who 'give it the the man' (usa) and it blinds you.

[auldhippy]

The UN decision is new, that the statement wasn't signed is new, even after it's pointed out to you you say there;s nothing new, you can't help yourself, it's like being wrong is your oxygen,

I have no worship for the man but admiration for his work. the more I learn of his personal life the more odious I find him but he's guilty of no more than the women were, mindless meaningless sex with comparative strangers, groupies serving a celebrity, a celebrity dallying with groupies, mooching board & lodgings, computer cables & train fares. There is nothing much to admire the man for but his work is important. Wikileaks is important, whistleblowing is important.

Look to the "man" you're defending, those who want Assange silenced & Wikileaks wikiplugged, Thw "man" who give you illegal wars, abu Ghraib, collateral damage. yes I like them "given to", even better when it's with the truth. I'm even hoping Assange's freedom is important to the possibility of Manning ever being free.

[lala]

Even mindless meaningless sex has to be done within the rules. The Swedes have reason to think he may not have done that.