back to article Assange™ is 'upset' that he WON'T be prosecuted for rape, giggles lawyer

The Swedish director of public prosecutions, Marianne Ny, has announced that she will end the investigation into Julian Assange's alleged sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. According to an update on her official website, Ny has now "discontinued the investigation of Julian Assange with respect to suspected sexual …

Page:

  1. Rabster

    And again ....

    David Allen Green in the New Statesman on the legal facts

    http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange

  2. LucreLout Silver badge

    Dear Mr Assange

    Talking to the Telegraph, Per Samuelson, Assange's lawyer, said: "He was quite worried when I spoke to him today. It's not a moment of happiness for him."

    It is a moment of your own doing. You will now always be an alleged sex offender, absent persuading the women, who you've denied their day in court, to withdraw their allegations.

    Samuelson added: "He will be very unhappy if the conclusion is that he is the winning party here, he doesn’t see it like that at all: he wants to clear his name."

    No you don't. You could have cleared your name at any time in the past 5 years. You could even have served any jail time required should you have been found guilty. And you could have been back home with your family, on your own couch years ago.

    Guilty people run Julian... guilty people run.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'm not a huge Assange fan, but given US behaviour on both this issue with Snowden and Manning and their continued refusal to either release or charge people from Guantanamo 14 years on his behaviour definitely isn't proof of guilt on the Swedish issue.

    I think a reasonable man would fear possible extradition and I believe there's a 100% chance that if he'd ended up in the US he'd still be indefinitely detained.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I'm not a huge Assange fan, but given US behaviour on both this issue with Snowden and Manning and their continued refusal to either release or charge people from Guantanamo 14 years on his behaviour definitely isn't proof of guilt on the Swedish issue.

      I think a reasonable man would fear possible extradition and I believe there's a 100% chance that if he'd ended up in the US he'd still be indefinitely detained.

      BS. That would require first a US decision that he's got something to answer for (which has no happened in all that time), next an extradition request which should be sufficient under UK law to warrant extradition (and offer certain guarantees) and even that could be problematic because it could lead to politically charged debates - that is, if he was CLEARED from all the other charges. Otherwise he'll first have to answer those.

      A "reasonable man" would have allowed the law to follow its normal cause as the whole process would be under intense scrutiny from the press which doesn't give much leeway in creative abuse of legal process. Unless, of course, he does indeed have something to hide, which is a suspicion I'm more inclined to lean towards.

  4. RonWheeler

    Guilt all round

    Sweden for having idiotic sex crime laws that shouldn't be a crime in the first place.

    USA for being arrogant international bullies with a shady record in treatment of foreign prisoners ( G. Bay)

    Assange for being an arrogant annoying twit, and jumping bail.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Guilt all round

      The alleged sexual event involved Assange having non-consensual unprotected sex with someone who had expressly said that they didn't want unprotected sex.

      And you think the interpretation of that as potentially being a crime is "idiotic"?

    2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: Guilt all round

      From the High Court hearing into the Assange case it was shown that the accusations of rape met with the UK defnition of rape. At the time there were two accusations:

      1. That he'd been told no sex without condom. After a bit of sulking they went ahead. So it was made fully clear what the rules were But when she was asleep he allegedly had another go and didn't put on a condom. That's clearly sex without consent, as her consent was conditional. The definition of which is rape. Obviously it's not rape with violence, but it's still rape. And the UK judges confirmed this would also be so under UK law. I could equally imagine it getting prosecuted as a less serious charge though.

      2. In the other case he also had been told no condom, no sex. But in this case he's accused of not just complaining but trying to carry on regardless. She claims to have closed her legs, while he was lying on top of her trying to force himself on her. No violence is alleged, just superior size, weight and leverage. Eventually he realised it wasn't working, put on his condom like a good boy, and got some sex as a reward.

      Not the most serious accusations ever for sure. But not minor either. As Ken Clark got into trouble for saying, there are degrees of rape, and some are more serious than others.

      But if using your superior size and weight to force yourself on an unwilling partner isn't being counted as rape - then the people trying to make that claim in Assange's support need to take a long, hard look at their idea of morality. Because they're doing it wrong.

      1. RonWheeler

        Re: Guilt all round

        No lie like a half-truth.

        http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Annoying

    Just ignore the *ugger, remove the Police presence as in these austere times its plainly money for old rope (for the coppers) and if he comes out deport him to France where he can join all those Job Seekers.

  6. deconstructionist

    eh the rape charge still stands the assault charge is dropped because the limitations on charging him has passed and they must interview him before charging him. so he is not off the hook as their is no limitations on an Rape case.

    He is a moron who thinks he is above everyone else and the rules don't apply to him , he'd make a fine politician

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Apparently there is a statute of limitations in Sweden on rape. And that's 10 years. So if they don't drop it, he may have to hole up for another 5 years in the Ecuadorian embassy. Then it's just the UK bail-jumping sentence to face.

      I hope Ecuador are charging him rent. Knightsbridge is an expensive area...

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019