Assange™'s emotional plea for asylum in France rejected Assange: Can I come and live in you, pretty please? France: No, you can’t come and live here! Assange: Never wanted to anyway! Le Monde newspaper has published an open letter from Wikileaker-in-Chief Julian Assange™ beseeching France to grant him asylum. The 2500-word missive, also published on the Justice4Assange website, …
"Imagine Assange in Paris
I just sort of skipped a word and greatly improved that sentence. The rest of the comment still flows....
Imagine Assange living in Paris"
I've been catching up, having spent a while on the road and took a double take. Then I remembered the alleged exchange between St Jules and one of the females; She; "Are you wearing anything" He "Yes, you". From the perspective of this alleged exchange I can see people asking where Julie lives, to which he might respond 'In Paris'. She is after all wealthy and, oh, lived in. In addition Julie is looking for a way out, and tunnelling was mentioned by some Reg correspondents.
Again, the remarks are those alleged by a feminine acquaintance of St Jules to have taken place between her and he, in what might ordinarily have been a tender moment of reproductive behaviour.
Simples.
1. Come out of the embassy backwards and start walking (backwards) towards Kent.
2. Try to get noticed by the Plod.
3. Mutter something about being confused after falling off the back of a lorry and wanting to claim political asylum.
4. Enjoy a good meal at the ststion and a luxury trip to Calais.
"France did grant him asylum, how does he think he will be able to travel to France without stepping onto British soil, and therefore get nabbed by Dixon of Dock Green waiting outside?"
(Gordon Kaye/Allo Allo accent)Well, ee would 'ave to use ze Paris tunnel of lurve(/Gordon Kaye/Allo Allo accent)
...How nice of him to want that...
"He is wanted for questioning in Sweden in relation to alleged sexual assaults."
He just needs to face those alleged charges and get them cleared. He's that public that if he was nabbed by other parties on the way/extradited then enough people would know about it and make a fuss. If the evidence/charges are bogus then it would be picked out in court anyway by jury.
I did think that Sweden had offered to come to the embassy to interview him?
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/13/julian-assange-wikileaks-swedish-prosecutors-london-interview
This. Assange just needs to stop hiding and face the allegations. There is a chance he'd get extradited to the US, but I doubt the US would want to lend any credence to his self proclaimed "status" as being anyone imporant. (also, does anyone actually care about this asswipe? The more of these articles I read the less I care about him.)
There is a chance he'd get extradited to the US, but I doubt the US would want to lend any credence to his self proclaimed "status" as being anyone important.
You know, you're right.
This is the absolute worst thing that could happen to AssangeTM. Imagine this:
- AssangeTM is extradited to Sweden.
- Found "Not Guilty".
- Then as he stands around waiting for Obama to scoop him up he finds that Obama does not want him.
I doubt his ego could handle the disinterest and obvious irrelevance. It would show his resistance to be an obvious waste of time.
There is a chance he'd get extradited to the US, but I doubt the US would want to lend any credence to his self proclaimed "status" as being anyone important.
You know, you're right.
This is the absolute worst thing that could happen to AssangeTM
Yup, I agree - I've been saying that pretty much from when he jumped bail. It would expose Assange for the self-aggrandising twit he is if, after all the wild claims of persecution, he's dragged in front of the Swedish court and in 5 minutes gets handed a token fine, and then NOTHING happens afterwards.
If you strip all the BS off it you end up with a couple of confirmed facts: the Swedish want to talk to him, when he found out he promptly ran away, he skipped bail in the UK, and he is not held captive in the Ecuadorian embassy, that was his own choice. Ah, and he wrote a book that nobody wants :).
"It would expose Assange for the self-aggrandising twit he is if, after all the wild claims of persecution, he's dragged in front of the Swedish court and in 5 minutes gets handed a token fine,"
That bit won't ever happen. The reason he's on the lam is that he'll be facing a decade or two in jail if he ever stands trial - although if he ever gets in a position where he is set to stand trial he'll of course plead guilty for the lower sentence, because he has zero chance of being found not guilty.
Don't forget, Assange's 'defence', such as it is, is not that he didn't rape anyone, but that his rapes were somehow legal. Of course that's a defence entirely lacking in merit, which is why he's fled each time that's been pointed out.
You are right, under Swedish law he is not guilty of rape, and the charges were dropped which led to his leaving Sweden in the first place. Therefore legally there should now not be a case against him (ignoring his breach of bale in the UK). However to claim it was resurrected by so called feminazis just shows you up for the sort of person you are. The statements that are in the public domain are that the woman agreed to sex on the basis that a condom was used. It is stated he did not use one, therefore the terms of the consent were breached. With that breach there was no consent, hence rape was committed, from an ethical standpoint, if not legal on a bass of Swedish law. The charge being brought against him, from a legal perspective, is purely political motivated.
You are right, under Swedish law he is not guilty of rape, and the charges were dropped which led to his leaving Sweden in the first place. Therefore legally there should now not be a case against him (ignoring his breach of bale in the UK).
There are facilities in any legal system to re-open a case when new evidence has come to light, and I suspect this is the mechanism that woke up the original case (also because facts surrounding rape tend to take their time coming to light). I don't know Swedish law, but it could also be that this is a new, separate case because Assange refused to have himself tested - such a request may have legal statue in Sweden. All I know for sure is that the whole ball started rolling again because the girls asked the police to help them locate Assange to ask him to get himself tested, and his refusal to do so (which IMHO tells you enough about what kind of person you're dealing with, but let's leave that aside) is what escalated this matter straight into rape territory (I repeat that I'm no expert in Swedish law, but this seems to make sense in the light of events so far).
"The "feminazi" comment referred to a specific police officer involved in the reinstatement of the case, noted for her very strong positions on radical feminist matters. This is not a contentious statement" So why not call her a "femistalinist" or femimaoist"? Actually much more likely given the political musings of most "radical" feminists. Besides which, I suspect Marianne Ny has only been labelled a "feminazi" by the lefties since she "turned on" their "hero" A$$nut, just as how the lefties went from adoring support of Anna Ardin to shrieking smears about her "being a CIA agent". Prior to Dickileaks/Condomgate the lefties probably thought Marianne Ny was "progressive".
"Assange is not sccused of rape under any definition you or I might reasonably understand as rape."
Ah, I see the sex offenders union has turned out to defend rape again. The English courts have been abundantly clear on this: The crime Assange committed is rape by any reasonable definition.
NO. In fact the exact opposite.
Rape is a particularly vile, perhaps the most vile assult a person can commit.
By all accounts the alledged act in question was completely consensual. The argument is over the use of a condom. If the law makes that rape then the law belittles a vile crime and the law is an ASS. Not to mention those who wrote the law.
I'm not saying what is claimed to have happened was ok - there are probabably a whole raft of laws on the statute book to deal with that.
What I am saying is that calling the alledged act in question rape, together with the kind of sentence envisioned (which marks it a a minor misdemenor) is totally inappropriate.
You are lying. You claim "By all accounts the alledge (sic) act was completely consensual". That is absolutely not the case. Sex with condome would have been consensual. Sex without condome, which is the alledged act, was not consensual. And considering the increased risk of unwanted pregnancy, the massively increased risk of getting an STD from a person of unknown sexual health (which is what this case is really about), and the general mess involved, surely a woman is entitled to not consent with unprotected sex.
You do realize that if the women say no raincoat, no sex, then the sex is no longer consensual so it is rape, right?
Rape is one of the 32 crimes to which there is no need for reciprocity in terms of testing the standard. That is to say... the EU country charging the person and issued the warrant is the sole arbiter of what constitutes rape. That is to say... what Sweden calls rape is all that counts. Regardless, the UK courts did determine that what the Swedes charged Assange with would still constitute rape within the UK so that becomes a moot point.
The charges are more of a felony in nature with a maxium of 4 years ... (if memory serves...)
The bottom line. Had he faced the charges, gotten tested... he would have been home back in Australia by now.
Not by "any reasonable" definition, but by the Swedish definition. Which is enough. Within the EU, you will be extradited if you are accused of something that is a crime according to the laws of the requesting country (and the usual things, it has to be something serious, and there has to be reasonable evidence). The UK court didn't look at, didn't need to look at, and wasn't allowed to look at the question if it was a crime according to UK law.
For a non-EU country requesting extradition, it would have to be a crime according to UK law as well.
"The UK court didn't look at, didn't need to look at, and wasn't allowed to look at the question if it was a crime according to UK law."
Incorrect, as it happens. That was one of the lines of defence Assange tried - 'OK, maybe it's rape in Sweden because they have crazy laws, but it's not _rape_ rape, so no other country would have such laws'. It was the rejection of that line of horseshit that saw Assange flee to the Ecuadorian embassy.
I agree with most of your post, but just a nit.
There are 32 odd crimes where the crime in the country that posted the EAW is enough and all other crimes face a duopoly where the person is judged by both countries and if its not a crime in the country where they are trying to extradite him from... then the EAW fails.
In this case, I believe rape is #23 on the list of 32 so it wouldn't matter. Note that regardless of this, the appeals court went out of its way to state that what Assange is accused of is indeed a crime in the UK so he would have been extradited regardless of the specific charges.
Too bad you know f* all about Swedish law. The charges have no merit whatsoever, having previously been dropped and then resurrected by a feminazi cop. Assange is not sccused of rape under any definition you or I might reasonably understand as rape.
The charges have been validated at great cost to the British taxpayers by subsequent levels of UK courts. This is what YOU don't seem to get: if there is nothing to those charges, then there would not have been a reason for Assange to flee Sweden, because the political motivation would soon show up in the investigation and would then be dealt with (as a matter of fact, it would have been of great interest to Assange's ego to shout that from the roof). The fact that Assange goes to such, frankly extreme measures to avoid facing his accusers seems to suggest there *is* something to those accusations.
As far as I can recall, Assange also originally had some time to shut this matter down by simply having himself tested (the original reason why the girls went to the police) - the matter simple escalated into a rape charge because Assange was unwilling to do the right thing. If he had any sort of decency he'd done that just to allay the girl's worry that he'd polluted them with more than just his, umm, "output".
If I were to speculate on what may happen in Sweden (so pay attention, this is as much as assumption as your vague conspiracy theory, but with a more factual underpinning), it could well be that the reason the lawyer for the girls has been quiet is because they had to seek treatment. Now just imagine wha's going to happen to Assange and the rest of his life if that is the case - if Assange knows any of this (or knows he's not STD free) it certainly would explain his extreme reluctance to return to Sweden. It seems to make more sense than any other theory so far (but I'm naturally biased here :) ).
I'm sorry that those dastardly facts seem to be unwilling to support your illusions, like knowing about Swedish law...
Too bad you also don't know f* all about Swedish law either.
It doesn't matter what you or I might consider rape, but what the Swedes consider rape since that's where the alleged crime occurred. That's all that matters. Had the stupid prat stayed and gotten charged, he would have faced a trial, gotten sentenced or found innocent and then given the polite boot out of the country. End of story.
But instead, the jackhole pulls a rabbit and creates an international incident. All in the name of self promotion. Loses the appeal hearings (3 of them) and then like a scared little boy, bolts again to the Ecuadorian Broom closet. (Do you want to call this pulling a Harry Potter?)
He made his bed, let him sleep in it.
Now if he surrenders before the statute of limitations runs out, he will face the full term if found guilty. (4 years)
(The odds were he'd face a much lighter sentence had he just faced the music up front. But where's the adventure in that. ) After all, just add Courvoisier and you've got yourself the 'Ladies Man' he purports to be. (You need to rent the video to understand that joke.)
"Now if he surrenders before the statute of limitations runs out... "
I have no idea why you think the clock is running on that one. It only applies if someone is available to be charged. You can't escape charges by fleeing the country and staying away until they are time-barred. The time starts counting down again when Assange returns to Sweden.
I also don't know where on earth you get the idea that Assange would only get a four year sentence for multiple counts of aggravated rape. He'd get ten years _per count_, and there are at least three or four counts which have already emerged. Even if Assange hadn't fled, had pled guilty, with the max discounts for pleading guilty early and so-on, time off for good behaviour, etc, he was still facing a minimum of 10+ years actually behind bars.
Assange is not sccused of rape under any definition you or I might reasonably understand as rape.
Speak for yourself buddy. If the lady of the evening consents on the condition that precautions are taken, then those are the predicates of her consent. Waiting until she's asleep and diving in without your wetsuit most certainly does not meet the terms of her consent, and sex without consent IS rape. Always. If you don't understand that then you have a very serious problem.
"he'll be facing a decade or two in jail if he ever stands trial"
No he won't! There is NO custodial sentence relating to sex by surprise, only a fine if the complaints are proven.
Assange is going to have a hard time avoiding jail time for skipping bail, but he doesn't risk any custodial sentence in Sweden.
Jesus, sometimes it feels like shouting down a wee and waiting for the bloody splash.
There is NO custodial sentence relating to sex by surprise, only a fine if the complaints are proven.
It's not "sex by surprise", it's rape. Sex without consent. What would you call murder? "Enhanced sleep assistance"?
Given the almost frantic efforts of Assange to stay out of Sweden and let this progress I suspect that rape may not be the only charge, but none of this will come out until the inevitable finally happens. It cannot age because the process has not started (otherwise evasion would become THE tactic for avoiding rape charges), but it cannot start until Assange has to leave the embassy. Given his super healthy lifestyle that will eventually happen. Until then this merely serves to display advertising to people without AdBlock..
"It's not "sex by surprise", it's rape. "
Actually, "sex by surprise" is the literal translation (from Swedish) of the act for which the police had intended to charge him. And while the offence is one of a truly vast number of sexual misdemenours, it is just that.
In Sweden it is illegal to have sex with a female if she has recently split up with her boyfriend and can claim emotional fragility. So, no rebound-sex in Sweden!
There are far to many self righteous wankers in here yelling "Assange is a rapist" very loudly, without actually having a clue.
"There are far to many self righteous wankers in here yelling "Assange is a rapist" very loudly, without actually having a clue."
No, Julian. It was rape, every time you did it. You're a serial rapist, as confirmed by the English High Court (among others). Just turn yourself in already.
Actually Assange does face a custodial sentence for the offences if charged and found guilty of them. You can go back to the first appeal hearing to hear from the prosecutor's own lips or rather read her statement.
He would have faced at a maximum 4 years, however many pundits pointed out he would more than likely gotten a much shorter sentence and time in a Swedish jail isn't like serving time in an US prison or worse.
But no, he did a rabbit.
<quote>The reason he's on the lam is that he'll be facing a decade or two in jail if he ever stands trial - although if he ever gets in a position where he is set to stand trial he'll of course plead guilty for the lower sentence, because he has zero chance of being found not guilty.</quote>
Maximum punishment for rape in Sweden is 10 years. Average is 27 months, with usually 2/3rds served. There seems to have been no violence involved, which might make a conviction in Sweden hard. And the victim seems to have agreed to sex, just not unprotected sex, which would help his case.
On the other hand, avoiding to face court by going to another country, then jumping bail to avoid extradition, might be held against him. Quite rightfully and totally self inflicted.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
