Re: Presumed guilty then
" "Why the thumbs down for this? It seems to me to be an accurate assessment." -- Spooks also read this website"
Your evidence for this is? They are hardly likely to leave an audit trail, but amuse me nonetheless, with independent, verifiable evidence.
As to use of the the thumbs down mechanism itself, because it seems to you to be an accurate assessment (because "Spooks also [...]"), this is about as non sequitur and unreasoned as the whole debate, and thus seems to me symptomatic of the whole Julie-Bradley-Edsie luvvie circle.
Hell, the pro Assange luvvie-lobby close their eyes to the damage he has done (remember his callous attitude, in front of journalists, toward the Afghan informants who'd informed on the locations of mines; as informers, they knew, they took the risk), never mind his money grabbing nature for which there is much citable evidence which I have put it up frequently) and previously denied (by Julie supporters) evidence of his conviction on 17 counts (including a count for hacking the computers of the police force that was investigating his illegal activity), and the - at best - mistaken arguments that Julie didn't flee Sweden, that the Big Bad Wolf wants him to go to Sweden so that he can be extradited therefrom (when we unlike Sweden bend over for the US, thank you ToniBliar), and vast hash of other nonsense, including the wildly amusing tendency of pro Julie happy clappers to thumbs down posts indicating clearly that Julie's Swedish attorney had lied in a British court about contact by the Swedish police, it being that they wished to interview Julie prior to charging and arresting him; that it was embarrassingly confirmed by Julie's Scandinavian lawyer, in a British court, that he had indeed been contacted by the Swedish police merely seems to excite the thumbs down activities of some, who are prepared to believe anything that the white haired one says , as has happened in the case of demagogues and the charismatic throughout history.
The amazing thing is that Julie support camp were claiming all those months ago that he was not at risk of absconding, and that there was no need for him to be in Brixton prison; ugh, how nathteeee, how Victorian darleeenk. The minute he had a chance he buggered off like a fucking coward into the Ecuadoran embassy, thereby confirming for the second time that he is an absconder, and thus also confirming that the knack of forensic assessments is to anticipate and thus prevent absconding, never mind what the good fairies outside the castle wall are screeching about, like some demented chorus or claque, intent on influence the juridical process.
He also confirmed, in my mind at least, that he was running from something other than that which he publicly claimed. Thus far the signs are that Julie is unlikely to leave the UK unless he is on a flight to Sweden. After being prosecuted for breaking his bail bond.
 Indeed it is only recently that people have been speaking discussing the effects of injudicious debates on matters that are sub judice; where the alleged victims of Julie's alleged wrongful sexual behaviour were concerned, anything goes, including making them out to be CIA agents, tarts, scrubbers, sluts [...]. Selective views on the matter of sub judice, never mind mixing up jurisdictions.