Posts by I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

Re: Not illegal

And they are no committing a small crime to stop a larger one. They are committingf a couple of whoppers to stop... nope, they are just committing major crime.

If they can't work out who is actually doing what the best they can hope to do it drve a coach and horses over the two biggies and muddy up everything else; perhaps with the help of New Zealand's finest?

So how come Tony Blair is free to persue a life of crime?

Pity.

BTW, which branch of the servile service do you work for?

Not that I am being nosey, it's just that I am interested.

In all fairness...

The Swedes are neighbours of Finland and percieved Russia to be more dangerous than Nazi Germany. It was only the Germans who were willing to help Finland. Even so they tried to maintian neutrality. (Fat lot of good it did Holland.) And were they so different from France?

Re: Security checks and diplomatic bags

> Assange would have effectively exiled himself from Europe, North America, Australia..

Australia?

Have you ever followed The Register or are you seagulling from the MET?

Re: @ Adam 52

Let me try to put this in monetary value:

There are five of you running an expensive Windows helpdesk for 200,000 users.

You are getting around 200 calls per hour from Sweden and Ecuador.

One user's copy of Word has crashed but they won't use the document recovery feature, they insist on you coming down in person to clone their hard drive (Police Scene Of Death.)

The METnet was installed by thieves.

IncompetenceRus have a backup overloaded and thousands of users are getting partial network access.

Do you come in on your day off to help the first user or go to watch Milwall at home?

To address the points raised:

1. You don't know the priorities. It only takes one vulnerable Australian to go missing to divert an entirepolice farce.

Vulnerable people go missng a lot (think about Paisley Airport) and if out at night they almost invariably disappear. That's just standard.

Your friend was probably brown. He is no longer a priority. Catching criminals is lower priority than wasting police time.

2. Assault is not a particularly serious crime. It usually isn't even prosecuted outside of Sweden and the Ecuador Embassy.

3. CCTV, other than very expensive town centre style operator controlled CCTV is usually next to useless at identifying criminals. And it *has* to be backed up with a statement or it is useless in court. If you want to prosecute you need to look at the feeckal evidence.

4. Unfortunately social workers work 10 to 4, and don't do potentially violent situations or confrontation; taking a child into care is confrontational outside Sunderland. Putting a bunch of Quakers on remand in Scotland is doable though.

5. Society doesn't accept closed roads for long periods of time. It also doesn't like decomposing body parts scattered around. So the sooner they deal with police road/pedestrian kill and kettling, the better?

Re: @ Adam 52

There are but in this case it's just the one. The one who knows about bots.

Police, computer, Action!

OOH!

IT angle.

Sadly no icon until we get a Thatcher "get out of Britain Free Card for Pinochet" cheesy grin icon.

Re: so10

What the Ecuador ambassador needs to do is arrange for Cardiff to play Stoke at Milwall one dark night.

Sorted.

Re: Agreed

And USAniis think our policemen are wonderful?

Feeck!

Re: Remand

No you didn't. You know someone who died in suspicious circumstances.

They used to let you out of prison if you shared a cell with a suicide. Lot's of people started killing themselves to assist this. (Not sure how that would work in a prison that you were sent to until proven innocent.)

Talking of douches

If you ar an unelected fat drunk who gave half of Europe to Stalin you get honoured -even offered a Dukedom (Duchy.)

Said fat drunk killed more British troops than Georing, Rommel and Donitz until the US stopped him, then he promoted Harris and Montgomery over better men. (Threw Dowding out on his ear.) **** the lot of them.

Not exactly stymied

My down vote for this clearly professional and remarkably knowledgeable insight was stymied.

I downvoted it because it is obviously the work of the ruling class or the minions of the elite.

Assange is in trouble in Sweden despite his efforts to do the right thing there. No court in any civilised country would be able to find him guilty if charged as his word is as good as each one of his accusers in any fair hearing. In other wqords, all he has to say is that he didn't do what they said they did.

Rumour has it they were on friendly terms after the fact in both cases, that the women wanted to tertact their statements and that Assange was expressly given freedom to leave Sweden by the relevent authorities.

And now the above letter of the law is making him look bad for jumping to the conclusion he is being set up. Which he bloody obviously is. So Sweden may or may not try him, he most probably will get off scot free if tried.

The USA may or may not try him. But on what evidence based on what happened to Bradely manning?

Also the USA has a recent history of being criminal politically. V#can a civilised country expell him to that place wheere he can be disappeared, quasi legally?

I don't think so.

So no matter what sensible arguments the letter of the law publish in its defence of the hounding going on in this case, this poster would vote no bloody way if I was on any jury -no matter how well the prosecution stated their argument.

I for one couldn't co-operate with the doing of wrong.

Which is after all what Wikileaks is all about:

Shouting from the mountaintops what is whispered in secrets.

So **** you and **** the authority you came in on.

Hell no

> I'm sure you'd be surprised if I thought otherwise.

I'd be happy if I could believe you thought.

Just exactly what are you chaps doing in GITMO, Iraq, Afghanistan and various other places when you are not shooting each other, us and them?

Re: Getting him online

What are the internet facilities like in there?

Just not Krikkit

Your reference to camp walleye has nothing to do with sailors or Brylcream boys does it?

Double Ignorance

Smells twice as bad when put like that.

But who'se going to stop the USA?

Nobody kept them out of Vietnam, nobody kept them out of Iraq, nobody kept them out of Afgahnistan and they are up to their tesiricles in South America, always have been.

So when they get the arses handed back to them in a sling it should be nody telling them we told you so.

Evewn though it is bloody obvious that the people who are going to get hit worst by this sort of thing has to be the USA.

Looks like we are all in for a very interesting decade.

I don't think the USA are going to win this one. Anyone want to bet?

Re: And in an international court

If the idea of inadmissable evidence is to stand it needs to be verified that the case is compromised by the "other" client not knowing in time to prepare for the court appearance.

That some evidence was barred from court on the grounds it was too late to be accepted, it aught to be shown that both parties were in ignorance of the evidence at the time of going to court or its sell by date.

That the evidence was a well known product most likely studied by the opposition is fairly obvious to all, even those not concerned. Therefore having the evidence thrown out on a point of law was injustice.

So yes, you are right.

I'd bet even Kim.com would lose in a US court of [s]illegal[/s] lawless.

Arresting is not OTT at all.

> Have you never had a rant at the telly over something a politician / z-list celebrity has said or done?

Yes but. Everyone has the right to shoot politicians. Society as an whole appears to be against it though. And it is illegal. Even so merely shouting at them is the absolute minimum and it just isn't enough to get their attention.

As for celebrities. If they are like that whore Dianna, or superannuated unreality TV oiks -just in it for the kudos then they are fair game too.

But when it comes to those who aspire to be the best then they have the shelter of us lesser mortals. And fully deserve it. If you do the crime, you do the time, unless you shoot, stab or in other ways not specified, maim or kill a politician.

Manning is accused of serious security breaches.

> All the alleged "cruelty" happened after he had been arrested after the alleged theft

Actually all the alleged cruelty was (atrocities included) committed by the US military.

In October 2007, he decided to enlist in the army. His father had spent weeks persuading him to consider it because he was concerned about his future, and Manning hoped to gain a college education and saw no other way to get it .

Six weeks after enlisting was sent to the discharge unit after doubts arose about his stability. He was allegedly being bullied, and in the opinion of a soldier who spent time with him there, he was having a breakdown.

The soldier told The Guardian: "The kid was barely five foot ... He was a runt, so pick on him.

He's crazy, pick on him.

He's a faggot, pick on him.

The guy took it from every side. He couldn't please anyone."

Manning was used to being bullied and fought back:

If the drill sergeants screamed at him, he would scream at them – to the point where they started calling him "General Manning."

Sounds like the bull dyke he thumped was riding him, doesn't it?

Anyone know anything about her?

The decision to discharge him was revoked, and he was "recycled," because the army needed his IT skills.

He trained as an intelligence analyst, receiving a Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information". This gave Manning access to an unprecedented amount of classified material.

Source: Wikipedia.

Sounds like this is a classic case of Top Brass looking for a natural born scapegoat.

I would bet real money that he was kept in those cruel conditions precisely so that he could not be assassinated without "someone noticing".

Bradley Manning, Credit [to the] US Army

> he broke the laws of his country and his oath of service.

I voted you down for that, you ****.

You mean the laws and oaths that require him to witness treason and say nothing?

Required him to support unconditional genocide, incompetence and cruelty and say nothing?

Material seen as a catalyst for the Arab Spring?

Off with his head.