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.
"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."
Er, Assange is accused of (and has confessed to) being a serial rapist. He faces multiple charges of aggravated rape, each of which carries a ten year sentence. And having not only claimed innocence beyond all reasonable bounds, but actually fled from justice repeatedly, he's hardly going to get a soft sentence. Assange is facing a bare minimum of ten years actually served, and that's if he voluntarily leaves the embassy, surrenders to Sweden, and then pleads guilty. If they really throw the book at him, he'll die in jail.
"There seems to have been no violence involved, which might make a conviction in Sweden hard"
It wouldn't have made any difference to the difficulty of obtaining a conviction, it just uprates the charge from rape to aggravated rape. And in any case, force was used on multiple occasions in the course of Assange's rape spree.
"And the victim seems to have agreed to sex, just not unprotected sex, which would help his case."
Why would that help his case in any way? That's rape you're talking about there.
"- Then as he stands around waiting for Obama to scoop him up he finds that Obama does not want him."
Just as the statute of limitation runs out on the Swedish allegations a new danger becomes more prominent - there is a very real chance of a Republican president soon, and whichever of the candidates may prevail, they're unlikely to be as quiet as Obama in tracking down "commie terrorist traitors"
YeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeHaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There's no chance he'd be extradited to the US because the US isn't after him. If they were, they could have extradited him from the UK far more easily than Sweden, when he was on bail here. Assange's story is about as plausible as that of a chocolate-covered toddler claiming the cat ate the cake.
Assange is afraid of the US.
During Manning's hearing and trial, Assange hired a lawyer to shadow the case. In the Article 32 hearing there was an allegation that Assange assisted Manning during the theft. This never came up during the actual trial.
Now the US hasn't done anything towards charging or extraditing Assange, and can wait...
Assange can't. Had he stayed in Sweden rather than fleeing... this would have all been over back in 2012.
Assange hasn't been charged yet.
The statute of limitations start from when the crime was committed. So when Manning did the deed, that's when the clock started.
Assange did have some potential cover for posting the data dump. The '70's case that was ruled on by SCOTUS helped there.
Again what seems to have him scared is that he may have been involved directly in the theft w Manning. IMHO that's the only way the US would want to go after him...
Oh look, Julian himself has graced us with his presence.
"Assange can't. Had he stayed in Sweden rather than fleeing... this would have all been over back in 2012."
It's still a totally ludicrous claim you're making there, Julian. No-one in their right mind believes that you were so scared of the US that you fled from Sweden to a country with a far more liberal extradition treaty with the US and far more history of bending over backwards to do the US's bidding.
How on earth can you think that after you publicly confessed to being a serial rapist, anyone could possibly entertain for a moment the notion that you didn't flee from justice because you're facing spending the rest of your life in jail?
I don't know where you get the idea that Julian was posting.
The simple fact is that had he done the right thing... gotten tested, apologized to the women, etc ... this could have all gone away. The initial prosecutor didn't want to go through the whole mess and that's why initially the charges weren't pursued.
Even if he had jail time... how much would he realistically gotten?
They would have more than likely tossed him from the country and banned him from ever coming back, although Assange was/is politically connected to some chick in government.
So the reality is... Julian made this mess himself.
As to being a self confessed serial rapist... you call him a rapist, he considers himself a 'Ladies Man'. (Seriously I read the interview, he's pathetic.) Besides the comments weren't made under oath and he can claim that he misspoke or that his comments were taken out of context.
Personally I'd love to see Julian back in Australia. There they could take away his passport so he wouldn't be allowed to travel. And then wait for the US to actually come forward with a charge.
Personally I'd love to see Julian back in Australia. There they could take away his passport so he wouldn't be allowed to travel. And then wait for the US to actually come forward with a charge.
It depends a bit on what preceeds this eventual departure to Australia but I suspect the US will leave Assange alone and so deny him the publicity of semi-martyrdom. As you and I have been repeatedly saying, this mess is 100% of his own making. I has been clear fairly early on that Assange is doing a fine job rendering himself irrelevant all on his own - he really doesn't need any help.
If Assange goes to Sweden, when they are done with him, he goes back to the UK.
When they are done with him, he's tossed from the country back to his home country Australia.
Assange won't have a choice and if you go back to the ABC news reports... some of the politicians talked about pulling his passport so he could no longer be a traveling embarrassment to them.
WRT the US... who knows what they will do.
As I've posted... something was said during the Article 32 hearing that wasn't covered in the trial. (Manning plead guilty to those charges. )
So what has Assange scared? Only Assange and Manning know for sure.
"The simple fact is that had he done the right thing... gotten tested, apologized to the women, etc ... this could have all gone away. The initial prosecutor didn't want to go through the whole mess and that's why initially the charges weren't pursued."
More rubbish. Assange's original story was 'I never had n/c sex' and there was no evidence otherwise. Then they reinterviewed Assange and it turned out that what he meant was that he didn't regard the sex as n/c. That's when the charges were reinstated, based on Assange's own statements to the Swedish police.
"Even if he had jail time... how much would he realistically gotten?"
Decades. He is, by his own admission, a serial rapist. He's been raping his way around the world since Wikileaks made him famous. The two victims in Sweden are just the tip of the iceberg.
"you call him a rapist, he considers himself a 'Ladies Man'"
He _is_ a rapist. The reason for all this mess is that he genuinely believed that he'd found a legal loophole allowing him to rape - basically, that he was so saintly that 'no' obviously didn't really mean 'no', a woman struggling to throw him off was roleplaying, and so-on.
"Personally I'd love to see Julian back in Australia. There they could take away his passport so he wouldn't be allowed to travel. And then wait for the US to actually come forward with a charge."
The US has been very clear about it: there is nothing they can charge Assange with, nothing they want to charge him with. They have no interest in him whatsoever, it's purely an excuse he concocted after fleeing the rape charges.
"The US has been very clear about it: there is nothing they can charge Assange with, nothing they want to charge him with. They have no interest in him whatsoever, it's purely an excuse he concocted after fleeing the rape charges."
Actually that's not what they said.
You have to parse what they said carefully. All that they have said is that they have not charged Assnage with anything so there's no extradition request.
"You have to parse what they said carefully. All that they have said is that they have not charged Assnage with anything so there's no extradition request."
Again, I don't know where you get this stuff - maybe Assangeists' lies that slipped past you?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julian-assange-unlikely-to-face-us-charges-over-publishing-classified-documents/2013/11/25/dd27decc-55f1-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html
"“The problem the department has always had in investigating Julian Assange is there is no way to prosecute him for publishing information without the same theory being applied to journalists,” said former Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller. “And if you are not going to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information, which the department is not, then there is no way to prosecute Assange.”
"Justice officials said they looked hard at Assange but realized that they have what they described as a “New York Times problem.” If the Justice Department indicted Assange, it would also have to prosecute the New York Times and other news organizations and writers who published classified material, including The Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper, "
"He is, by his own admission, a serial rapist. He's been raping his way around the world since Wikileaks made him famous. The two victims in Sweden are just the tip of the iceberg."
Not a troll. I am curiously interested to know where is there a statement of public record where Assange admits to being a "serial rapist". A link please.
"Not a troll. I am curiously interested to know where is there a statement of public record where Assange admits to being a "serial rapist". A link please."
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
Not just a matter of public record, but under oath.
"He just needs to face those alleged charges and get them cleared. "
Clearly that would be a great option, if it was in fact possible. Why do you think he's fled from justice, though? It's because he's not going to get the charges cleared, he's going to spend most of the rest of his life in jail.
"He just needs to face those alleged charges and get them cleared. "
Clearly that would be a great option, if it was in fact possible. Why do you think he's fled from justice, though? It's because he's not going to get the charges cleared, he's going to spend most of the rest of his life in jail.
-=-
Why did he flee? Because he thought that if he fled, the Swedish Government / Prosecutor would just drop it and he could one day return back to Sweden since no charges were filed. At the same time... depending on the charges, a guilty sentence could get you bounced from other countries. Take Japan for example. Several famous musicians/entertainers are barred from entering the country due to drug convictions elsewhere.
Why does he blame America? Because its how he branded himself an outlaw. Amerika is the evil empire and all that carp.
Now here's the funny part.
He will eventually end up in Sweden, or if the statute of limitations runs out... he faces the jumping bail charge in the UK. (He technically hasn't been charged and there is a statute of limitations on the sex related charges) So... he end up getting the boot from the UK back to his mother country Australia. And no he really doesn't get the say as to where he goes when he gets the boot from the UK.
Back in Australia... that's when things get interesting... depending on who's in power at the time.
In terms of the US... he can be looking over his shoulder for the next 18 years... if they want him.
I think you and the rest of the comentards completely fail to realise that Sweden has specifically allowed "rendition" at US request. This is well documented.
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2004/may/12sweden.htm
5 years ago, there were US politicians calling for Assange's execution, so this "lynch him" attitude in the US political classes along with the clear historical precedent for the Swedish government acceding to US wishes for rendition put Assange in a very risky situation.
Greece?
Perhaps he could get asylum there. With the way the story changes from moment to moment, he'd be a shoe-in for the current Greek cabinet.
True, and he too owes quite a bit of money. Bail refund, Manning, fumigating the Ecuadorian embassy, possible Swedish fine, it soon adds up to real money. In addition, here too, past performance is unlikely to result in a bailout ..
Thanks, nice hook :)
But there's no chance he'd be found not guilty, given that he admits to rape and simply claims to have found a legal loophole allowing him to rape without being guilty of a criminal offence. It's odd that his actual defence hasn't got more attention, except that he managed to distract from that with the bonkers conspiracy theories until everyone got bored.
Did A$$nut seriously think that;
(a) the French would just forget about the EWA?
(b) the coppers would just stand idly bye when A$$nut came trotting out of his Ecuadorean hideyhole?
I've long held that A$$nut is deluded as to his own importance and/or receiving really bad advice, but this could be a sign that Correa is getting tired of his guest.
Not that I do disagree with your post...
But did you ever stop to consider that the UK government might turn a blind eye if he wanted to attempt to sneak out... just to be rid of him?
To your point... yeah the French couldn't grant him asylum because of the EAW, and to be honest, its the only country close enough where if he did attempt to do a runner, he'd have the best chance of making it.
"....did you ever stop to consider that the UK government might turn a blind eye if he wanted to attempt to sneak out... just to be rid of him?...." I think, especially after the "cost of additional policing" media storm, no-one in authority would want to risk turning a blind eye now. Much better for the Met top cops and politicians that the coppers collar him if he tries to escape and stick him on a jet to Sweden. Even the London whacktivists are probably praying A$$nut eventually goes to Sweden as he's just an embarrassment to them and "The Cause" now (I hear that even Jemima Goldsmith has turned on A$$nut after the money she put up for his bail was forfeited by his flight to Correa's London Hotel For The Politically Dodgy).
It's odd that his actual defence hasn't got more attention, except that he managed to distract from that with the bonkers conspiracy theories until everyone got bored.
His actual defence has gone quiet after realising that the girls' story has been left untold. Their solicitor is far too quiet - to me this suggest there is something untold (I originally wanted to call it a smoking gun, but the combination of that expression and the actual issue has me now blindly grabbing for the mind bleach).
Of course, without actual facts this is as much conjecture as Assange's conspiracy claims, but what if something has indeed not been said yet, and Assange knows full well what that is? It could offer a far more plausible explanation for why Assange skipped the country rather rapidly and why he is making such a fuss about being extradited to a country that has a far less cosy relationship with the evil US than the UK. I don't believe for a moment he believes his own US claims, and this would make more sense.
I wonder how long it will take before we really find out.
"His actual defence has gone quiet after realising that the girls' story has been left untold. "
Huh? I didn't mean his defence team, which has 'gone quiet' because it no longer exists. I was talking about the line of argument he's making in his defence. That line of argument involved stipulating to the alleged facts under oath, and then arguing that they didn't constitute rape: that was of course dismissed as ludicrous by the English courts, leaving Assange in the position of being a self-confessed serial rapist.
There really isn't any mystery here, no hidden explanation to look for. Everything is very simply explained by Assange being a rapist on the run.
I didn't express myself clearly here - serves me right for doing this before coffee. What I meant to say was that the lawyer for the girls has been vewwy, vewwy quiet other than letting on that there is a story to be told. I am not so sure Assange hasn't got a defence team - he knows full well that all his shenanigans will only postpone the inevitable. I have a suspicion that his activities may even be inspired by an defence team that has told him there isn't a way out of this one..
BTW, legally he's still an alleged rapist on the run. The "on the run" part is definitely correct, though, jumping bail made that fact :).
Its a common mistake that some people make.
During the hearings, Assange's defence wasn't one of admission, but of saying "... assume that the accusation is true, that I did commit the acts. It still wouldn't amount to rape in any other country... "
That is to say for the sake of argument, if true he would still be found innocent.
And yes, he's a rapist in the sense that he had non-consensual sex with women. Too bad the women didn't have better taste or sense of character. Then they would never had gone to bed with him in the first place.
"During the hearings, Assange's defence wasn't one of admission, but of saying "... assume that the accusation is true, that I did commit the acts. It still wouldn't amount to rape in any other country... ""
Rubbish. He said, under oath, that the alleged facts are not disputed. His defence is solely based on a point of law. End of story.
With his many resources and tons of contacts I'm shocked that he didn't plan and execute a convincing getaway years ago by slipping out in disguise amongst a team of collaborators posing as a group of embassy visitors. Certainly it shouldn't have been that difficult to fool the embassy watchers, especially if planned during a high traffic period. That in itself leads me to believe he's not as bright as he thinks he is.
She didn't miss it. By Assange's own evidence she begged him to stop, but because she didn't physically resist strongly enough, he went ahead anyway. His defence was that he didn't think that was rape because she'd earlier agreed to have protected sex with him. That ended with him fleeing justice, so...
Errm...
if the girls says stop, and you don't stop, that's rape. Even if she had said 'yes' earlier. If after the girl said 'stop' he not only didn't stop but used superior force to continue, that's forcible rape. And if he had some STD (anything at all...) and the girl caught it, that's forcible rape and aggravated assault. If the STD is incurable, that's assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
I had not thought that my opinion of St. Julie the Ass™ (and of those who support him) could go any lower. I was wrong.
US jails for people they do not like are a living hell. So, it might be unlikely that the US would try to pull such a stunt, but I have not heard anybody say that they would bet their own life on their unfounded certainty that there will be no rendition.
Obviously nobody cares about the "rape" charges themselves. Not even the women involved -- they had dinner with him the next day.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
