back to article Assange rape claims: Complainant welcomes Swedish investigation's reopening

A woman accusing Julian Assange of sexual assault has welcomed the decision to reopen an investigation into the WikiLeaks founder. But her lawyer, Elisabeth Fritz, warned that the Swedish prosecutor must move quickly to avoid hitting the deadline of August next year, when it will be 10 years since the offence allegedly took …

  1. Stratman

    He said the move compounded the release of recordings of Assange made at the embassy, noting that a complaint has already been filed over that incident.

    said the lawyer of the man who found fame and fortune releasing recordings which others would prefer not to be released.

    1. Evil Auditor Silver badge

      I like to rely on our system of justice and don't believe in "an eye for an eye". But boy, sweet irony!

  2. dew3

    "The statement further noted the original investigation was dropped"

    It is a bit eye-rolling that Assange supporters keep bringing this up. The investigation was dropped because Assange skipped bail and was hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy, and thus unavailable to bring to Sweden. It had nothing to do with the quality of the charges (or lack thereof).

    As for "the embassy let investigators rummage through his stuff" complaints (and ignoring whether there are any serious legal claims) I guess that is more of the same lesson for Assange and others in similar situations : if someone is giving you refuge, don't go out of your way to piss them off. Especially after being warned repeatedly that you are pissing them off...

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      I think his position will be that they were lucky to be honoured with his presence and this is a very ungrateful move.

    2. aberglas

      The rape charges were always bogus

      That is why the Swedish prosecutor refused to interview Assange in London, despite such foreign interviews being quite common. If she did the interview she would either have to put up a detailed charge or shut up.

      Recall that Assange spent some time in Sweden after the "rapes", and that the initial issue was to get him to do an STD test, which he foolishly delayed in doing. Indeed, one of the "raped" woman put on a "lobster dinner" for him the next day -- not the usual behavior of an intelligent rape victim.

      There is no statute of limitations for charges if you are running from the law. The limitations exist from the time of the offense to the time of being charged. Assange was never formally charged, which let the clock run out.

      Now, whether this really was a ruse to get Assange to the USA or just feminist incompetence is unclear, and I suspect the latter.

      Swedish rape trials are held in secret, and there is no jury but there is "lay" judges which are ex politicians. And Assange has upset Sweden politically. So how a case might turn out is hard to say.

      He may be arrogant, but he did do some good work in the early days of Wiki leaks.

      1. DontFeedTheTrolls Silver badge
        Flame

        Re: The rape charges were always bogus

        "but he did do some good work in the early days of Wiki leaks"

        WikiLeaks did do some good work in the early days of Wiki leaks - FIFY

        From what I've read from insiders, all Assange did was damage the credibility of the good work WikiLeaks was doing with whistleblowers to raise his own fame. Something he's continued to do while outside the circle while the anonymous good people have continued to (mostly) do good important leaks.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The rape charges were always bogus

        "The rape charges were always bogus"

        I must admit, I am starting to question why Assange would feel the need to rape anyone when there is a large group of people of both genders clearly willing to bend over and take whatever he would choose to give them.

        Come to that, I'm starting to wonder if there is a smidgen of jealousy in all the rape-denying, victim-blaming vitriol that's still coming forward: "How could you possibly say my dear, sweet JuJu could do that to you? Don't you know how privileged you are to have had that man's cock inside you? I'd never treat JuJu like that, I can tell you! Plus don't you know he is above the law? What about his human rights? What? No, as it happens I don't believe it's a human right to be protected from rape! "

        1. Dave314159ggggdffsdds

          Re: The rape charges were always bogus

          It's quite clear that he didn't think he was raping anyone, even while he was violently restraining a victim who was crying and begging him to stop. His defence - he has admitted the facts are true - was that a concept called 'implied consent', as applied to St Julian, meant it was legally impossible for him to commit the criminal offence of rape.

          The reality is that for all his denials and obfuscations, Assange stipulated under oath in the Crown Court that the facts as alleged are true. He's an MRA as well as racist and antisemitic, and a conspiracy theorist. That is alt-right, not lefty in any way. It does serve as another example of how easily Guardian-reading types are fooled and infiltrated by the more subtle branches of the far right.

      3. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
        Boffin

        @Aberglas Re: The rape charges were always bogus

        They were not bogus.

        They were serious enough that he absconded and created this mess with the help of his then Swedish attorney who admitted so while under cross in the UK. (Timestamp text messages don't lie).

        The reason why you didn't see Sweden going to 'interview' Assange in the UK is that the 'interview' was the step required by Swedish law in order to officially charge him with a crime and arrest him. They can't do that on foreign soil. This too came out in the very first of Assange's appeals of the EAW. He lost btw.

        Oh and its not just STD but also AIDs. (Yes, I know but there's a distinction in that they are separate tests and examinations.)

        Even in the US, in today's climate, sex with an unconscious girl is rape. No way for her to consent. And in Sweden, one of the cases revolves around a girl who consented to sex when he was wearing a condom and she was awake, but was woken by him having sex without a condom which she said no to... (Had he been wearing a condom I guess she would have been fine with it. At least that is what the stories indicated at the time.)

        Assange was/is a prat.

        What I don't get is why Manning is not willing to testify in front of a Grand Jury. During Manning's article 32 hearing (military equivalent of a Grand Jury) evidence came out that Assange helped Manning with the theft. This evidence never came to trial because Manning plead guilty to those charges so there was no reason to raise this issue. Now Manning dodges the GJ. Why? no double jeopardy could be applied so there's no reason not to testify. Manning is protecting Assange which is what I find interesting.

        And also Assange doesn't face the death penalty in any event. He's a co-conspirator and will face less time than Manning was given. He could even end up in a cushy Club Fed and spend his time writing a book.

        1. Stuart Castle

          Re: @Aberglas The rape charges were always bogus

          My own personal view is he did it. I don't believe the spy crap for one second. Why? Because it's public. By going down the trial route, they run the risk that whatever Assange was involved in would be exposed, which risks exposure of various intelligence services. Generally, Intelligence services like to avoid this. They also run the risk that any extradition request would fail, so they would be running the risk of being exposed during an action that failed to achieve the desired result.

          It's far more likely he'd vanish at some point, then either be killed or questioned. Totally illegal, but totally in secret. I normally dismiss conspiracy theories (as, in my experience, most are at best questionable, and at worst, downright wrong), but I do think that most intelligence agencies are perfectly capable of making someone disappear without anyone being aware, and I know that the bulk of what they do is done in total secrecy.

          Assange is a prat. As noted above, Wikileaks have done good work exposing what they did, but from what I have read, Assange has actually worked against that a little, because he insisted on releasing the unredacted paperwork. This likely has got some of the whistleblowers in some countries killed, or at the very least, tortured. It's also likely to silence other whistleblowers (they may be less likely to release documentation to Wikileaks if they think Wikileaks will publish their names). Now, I can see his point, after all, if they are removing the names, what else are they removing, but I don't think he actually thought his position through.

      4. Symon Silver badge
        Big Brother

        Re: The rape charges were always bogus

        "lobster dinner"

        He should be very careful whenever crustaceans are involved. It was a lobster breakfast that got him evicted.

        https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8860603/julian-assange-ecuador-embassy-president-photo/

  3. Carpet Deal 'em

    > Baltasar Garzón, a former crusading judge from Spain who is now Assange's lawyer, told the paper the move was "an absolute violation of the institution of asylum by Ecuador".

    Does Ecuador have that sort of restriction on those granted asylum? It sounds like it's mostly them handing over the personal effects of an unwanted guest they kicked out.

    1. Kabukiwookie Silver badge

      Refugee status is ensconsced in the Universal declaratuon of human rights, to which Ecuador is a signatory.

      Not sure whether handing over one of your own citizens / someone who has been granted refugee status is indeed illegal (TLDR), but it would seem quite logical that handing over people with refugee status would not be in it.

      Would someone who has read the UDHR be able to comment?

      1. anothercynic Silver badge

        See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees

        Article 2 says that an asylum seeker needs to comply with the laws of the state they are seeking asylum in (in this case Ecuador). Article 32 and 33 require the state they seek asylum in (Ecuador) to not return them to the state they are fleeing from (the UK). So yes... Ecuador may be wrong, but at the same time, if the country of Ecuador told Assange to stop antagonising countries while he was resident in the embassy, he should have complied as the convention says he should.

        1. Kabukiwookie Silver badge

          comply with the laws of the state

          This seems fair.

          So which Ecuadorian laws did Assange supposedly break?

          1. Rameses Niblick the Third Kerplunk Kerplunk Whoops Where's My Thribble? Silver badge

            So which Ecuadorian laws did Assange supposedly break?

            Well, Ecuador is a member of the Organisation of American States, which has its own set of cyber-crime laws, which coincidentally match the ones defined by the Council of Europe. So when he was accused of hacking embassy networks and satellite communications, that would more than qualify.

            Source: http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/cyber_legis.htm

            I don't know if this is the actual reason used, but that certainly qualifies as a legitimate answer to your question.

            1. Kabukiwookie Silver badge

              I don't know if this is the actual reason used,

              It wasn't.

              but that certainly qualifies as a legitimate answer to your question.

              So it isn't

              Even if he had been accused of this, as an Ecuadorean citizen, there should have been some due process. Countries should not just hand over their citizens at the first request of another nation, although it does look like international law is only followed when it's convenient by certain parties.

              1. anothercynic Silver badge

                But he was not an Ecuadorian citizen. He was an asylum seeker under law and that didn't automatically confer upon him citizenship. He's still an Australian. He may or may not have broken Ecuadorian law. We don't know under what reason the Ecuadorians decided to terminate his asylum. But what I do recall from press articles, the Ecuadorian authorities asked him to stop interfering with other states' business whilst he was under the roof of the Ecuadorian embassy, and it's a reasonable request to comply with. He was a guest there, and if you want to make sure your host doesn't kick you out, you comply. He didn't.

      2. jgarbo
        Childcatcher

        Listen carefully and write three times on the blackboard, Jimmy: "Human rights, law, and the United States, can never appear in the same sentence." It's bad grammar and impossible. Now sit down and don't be silly.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
          Facepalm

          @jgarbo

          Oh yeah, China is so much better. Russia? North Korea? UAE? Saudi Arabia? Syria?

          So many more countries and I didn't go to Central and South America, not to mention Cuba.

          Of course there is Canada where they have a special torture ... the comfy chair. That's a Monty Python reference.

          1. Kabukiwookie Silver badge

            Re: @jgarbo

            So how many of those countries profess to be the bringers of Freedom and Democracy(tm)?

      3. Dave314159ggggdffsdds

        The whole concept of Assange's expulsion being illegal under international law rather falls down at the first hurdle, which is the question of whether it was ever legal under the same treaties and conventions for Ecuador to grant him asylum in the first place. It obviously wasn't, since he was fleeing criminal charges.

        The UK would have been legally justified in expelling the embassy, but Assange was never that important.

  4. LeahroyNake Bronze badge

    Ummmm

    He skipped ball to try and avoid extradition to the US and everyone was taking the piss about him not being worth the time or money, I agree.

    He gets out and what happens, the US requests extradition. Blame it on Trump or whatever but the main cause of this issue is that Assange may be disappearing into an American detention / torture prison. Few people have been allowed to leave said location.

    I don't believe in torture or the death penalty.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Ummmm

      I don't believe in torture or the death penalty.

      Oh I assure you, both are real. So is rape.

      1. Simon B-52

        Re: Ummmm

        So are helicopter gunships.

        So is collateral damage.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Oh I assure you, both are real. So is rape

        Ha! You thought when they said "I don't believe in this" they meant "I don't think this exists" not "I don't sanction this".

        Oh that is priceless!

        You are so witty I've decided I don't care about human rights!

      3. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
        Boffin

        Re: Ummmm

        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Ummmm

        I don't believe in torture or the death penalty.

        Oh I assure you, both are real. So is rape.

        -=-

        Both are real and rape is real.

        Assange will not face tortutre or the death penalty in the US.

        That's something that many people forget.

        1. sabroni Silver badge

          Re: Assange will not face tortutre or the death penalty in the US.

          Ooh, a clairvoyant!

          Give them a couple more years of the orange headed facist and they'll be well up for killing traitors. It's not like they have a problem with the death penalty (beyond medical companies witholding the drugs they use).

          1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge

            Re: Assange will not face tortutre or the death penalty in the US.

            Its funny but I get censored because I stated some facts that some on the far left find uncomfortable but bashing Trump is so apropos.

            Trump isn't a facist.

            While he may not be the model spit and polish, posh POTUS, he won the election and based on the US economy, he's doing a good job. I suspect that many outside of the US don't realize how biased the media is. Just as many in the US don't see all of the news in the UK and get a distorted image.

            You may not like the death penalty, but if you look at many who are executed, they've done some seriously heinous crimes.

            And what you fail to understand is that Trump has at most 6 years left in office. Assuming he wins 2020. 2 if he doesn't. Your assumption with respect to the death penalty is a bit twisted and unrealistic.

            Even a co-conspirator to the 9/11 attacks didn't get the death penalty. And you have over 3,000 people killed in the attacks.

            Assange will more than likely face 5 years in a Federal Pen. If he's smart, he'd cooperate and he could serve even less. or get a club fed prison.

            1. gyaku_zuki
              Facepalm

              Re: Assange will not face tortutre or the death penalty in the US.

              I'm so glad the economy is the only measure of success...

              oh, wait.

              1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge

                @gyaku_zuki Re: Assange will not face tortutre or the death penalty in the US.

                How many recessions, have you lives through?

                1. Kabukiwookie Silver badge

                  Re: @gyaku_zuki Assange will not face tortutre or the death penalty in the US.

                  How many times have the city you live in been bombed back to its foundations?

                2. gyaku_zuki

                  Re: @gyaku_zuki Assange will not face tortutre or the death penalty in the US.

                  What does my 'number of recessions survived' count have anything to do with it? The point was about whether an increased economy is the only measure of success by which we should judge our leaders, as you implied, which it obviously isn't.

            2. Kabukiwookie Silver badge

              Re: Assange will not face tortutre or the death penalty in the US.

              While he may not be the model spit and polish, posh POTUS

              And the winner for understatement of the year, goes to...

              The two party fake democracy in the US, means that Trump was only slightly less despicable than the opponent he ran against.

    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Ummmm

      When he skipped bail, the US had no interest in requesting extradition. Even if they had been interested, skipping Sweden for the UK was a dumb move due to the UK USA extradition treaty being more amenable to the US than their treaty with Sweden.

      The US extradition warrant was drawn up in secrecy and kept sealed until after Assange was expelled from the embassy. But it was only drawn up a few months ago. So, yes, the USA was pretty much ignoring Assabge while Obama was President and have only become interested while Trump is President. Whether either President was involved in the ignoring or the warrant being drawn up is another matter.

      1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
        Boffin

        @John Brown Re: Ummmm

        Ah... no

        Under Obama, there was a GJ and supposedly a sealed indictment was written.

        And its interesting that the US did it now and not when Assange was back in Australia.

  5. doug_bostrom

    Will the US folks taking possession of the goodies be from the pro-Trump faction within the US system or from more traditional operatives with different and possibly more legitimate motivations?

    1. DougS Silver badge

      I'm no fan of Trump or his corrupted and perverted DOJ leadership, but what difference does it make? Unless you think Assange was hiding proof of Trump colluding with Putin under his mattress, what are they likely to find that would be treated differently depending on who finds it?

      1. smudge Silver badge
        Black Helicopters

        ...what are they likely to find that would be treated differently depending on who finds it?

        For a start, details of other sources and contacts in the US government, US forces, and possibly just the US public. They will be looking for the next Manning or Snowden. Anyone who has sent him just a supportive email will be under investigation. I'd expect some people to be very nervous right now.

        (And I resisted the temptation to answer "pictures of Pamela Anderson" :) )

      2. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
        Boffin

        @DougS

        Perverted DOJ leadership?

        Really?

        I think you're sorely mistaken.

        Look, Trump is Trump. Good, Bad, or Indifferent ... he's done a good job as POTUS. The economy is an example.

        In terms of criminal activity while POTUS, the Obama WH has a history of scandals from weaponizing Government Departments. The IRS scandal? Where Lois Lerner plead the 5th and had her deposition sealed? (Lynch declined to pursue charges) Fast and Furious (Eric Holder) and now what we're learning... a cover up of the Clinton email investigation that got tanked, the ensuing coverup and what is now looking like an illegal spying operation on Trump's campaign.

        Barr is actually doing his job. He's in the process of restoring the people's trust in the FBI and DOJ.

        There's more information about to come out from IG Horowitz who is an Obama appointee.

        To make this relevant... Assange knows who gave him the DNC emails. He said it wasn't the Russians. Some have claimed it was Seth Rich who was gunned down in an apparent botched robbery. That's Assange's bargaining chip. It could be his get out of jail free card if he can prove who his source was. (And it could also stop his future at Wikileaks depending on who and how he exposes him/her. )

        So lets see what happens, but to be clear, Trump hasn't perverted or corrupted anything. That was done during the previous administration. History will not be kind to Obama and his administration.

        1. DougS Silver badge

          Re: @DougS

          "Perverted" in the sense that he's found an AG that thinks he's Trump's personal attorney, or at least acts like it. Look at the lies he told in his "summary" of the Mueller report, that don't jive with the actual report. Now he's withholding the full report from congress, even those with clearance to see all the sensitive stuff, despite the history of previous special counsel reports going to congress in their entirety. What's he hiding for Trump?

          And who knows what will become of the dozen investigations that Mueller referred that were listed (but redacted) in the report, given that Barr thinks that a president should be able to tell the DOJ to halt any investigation he doesn't like if he thinks it is "unfair". If he had been able to do that back in February 2017 when he tried to get Comey to lay off Michael Flynn, we might still have an unregistered/undeclared foreign agent as Trump's national security advisor.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Right to stay in the UK?

    Anyone know how Assange came to be in the UK in the first place? I’m guessing he needed some sort of Visa - he certainly wasn’t a tourist, in which case can’t it just be revoked and get him sent back to the colonies? I’m tired of him constantly being the UK’s problem.

    1. Richard 12 Silver badge

      Re: Right to stay in the UK?

      Yes, and he will be deported right after he serves his sentence.

      The only thing to decide is whether he goes to Sweden, the USA or Australia.

      1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
        Boffin

        Re: Right to stay in the UK?

        He goes to Sweden if they present the UK with an EAW.

        I seriously doubt the courts would grant him a new round of appeals.

        And it will happen probably before he finishes his 50 weeks of jail time in the UK.

        He could be brought over, charged, then returned to the UK to finish his prison sentence then back the Sweden to go on trial... something like that.

        Then he could go to the US.

        Remember he faces the allegations that were brought up during Manning's Article 32 hearing. It never came up in Manning's court martial, so the evidence hasn't been argued at trial.

        Its not the publication, but the theft.

        1. DontFeedTheTrolls Silver badge
          Headmaster

          Re: Right to stay in the UK?

          "And it will happen probably before he finishes his 50 weeks of jail time in the UK"

          22 weeks and reducing. Mandatory 50% reduction for first offenders.

          1. Dave314159ggggdffsdds

            Re: Right to stay in the UK?

            The short sentence means he stays in cat 1 prisons the whole time. It's immaterial really, they slapped him with one charge that could be summarily tried with a low sentence so they could hold him while they decide what to do. They have a whole bunch more, including several of the most serious charges of perverting the course of justice that carry potential life sentences.

            If they really want to be mean, they'll charge him with legally questionable things he's bound to fight, and which will take years to get to the Supreme Court. Because he's not getting bail, and being held on remand for that time is much worse than serving a sentence that long.

      2. Symon Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: Right to stay in the UK?

        Or France...

        https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/julian-assange-asylum-france-macron-extradition-us-wikileaks-a8866971.html

    2. Kabukiwookie Silver badge

      Re: Right to stay in the UK?

      I’m tired of him constantly being the UK’s problem.

      I hope he didn't inconvenience you too much by exposing corruption and war crimes perpetrated by the politicians that also rule over you.

      Now crawl back under your rock and consume some more moronic reality TV.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Right to stay in the UK?

        He didn't expose anything new.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: He didn't expose anything new.

          "We all know the American's are committing war crimes" is not the same as "We have evidence that the American's are committing war crimes".

          The idea that the American's would go after him and Chelsea like they have for publishing stuff that was already common knowledge is laughable.

          1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
            Boffin

            @AC Re: He didn't expose anything new.

            The issue isn't publishing. He could claim to be a journalist and the Ellsberg SCOTUS decision (really New York Times v. United States) gave him some cover to publish this information regardless of content. It gets down to the right of public to know is more important than the secrets.

            But the issue in the US is that Assange allegedly took part in the theft.

            BTW, not all of the material was public knowledge. Most was banal but there was some operational data that did cost American Servicemen their lives.

            1. Kabukiwookie Silver badge

              Re: @AC He didn't expose anything new.

              there was some operational data that did cost American Servicemen their lives.

              This unproven drivel again? Repeating it over and over again does not make this true.

              Please provide some evidence.

  7. ivan5

    The question that no one has asked yet is 'Who has p-aid to get him out of the embassy and how much?'

    Once we have the answer to that we should know how to react. The two contenders are the UK government and its surveillance society or sections of the US government because he embarrassed them.

    1. Richard 12 Silver badge

      It's well known that the Ecuadorian government didn't want him anymore.

      Their previous government offered him asylum to annoy the UK. The current government didn't want to keep such an annoying and frankly quite disgusting houseguest any longer than they had to.

      Assange is definitely a fool and a nasty individual, and quite possibly a rapist. I hope he gets a fair trial in Sweden so we can learn whether or not he is.

      I defend his right to a trial, but nothing else.

      1. Kabukiwookie Silver badge

        It's well known that the Ecuadorian government didn't want him anymore.

        Yes and Lenin Moreno liked the multi billion loans from the IMF much better.

      2. sabroni Silver badge

        re: It's well known that the Ecuadorian government didn't want him anymore.

        Because something becomes true if it's repeated enough?

        1. spodula

          Re: re: It's well known that the Ecuadorian government didn't want him anymore.

          If its repeated by Ecuadorian officials then yes.

          https://nypost.com/2019/04/14/this-photo-got-julian-assange-kicked-out-of-ecuadorian-embassy/

    2. Claverhouse Bronze badge

      The new president of Ecuador is a natural crawler who betrayed asylum and has been rewarded with a $4.2 billion IMF loan. Our own lot are just sedulous servants of America who will wash the White House with their tongues to gain a fleeting nod of approval from their masters.

      The previous president who granted asylum has denounced wretched little Lenin.

      .

      King Negus: “Go your ways, for ye are safe in my land. Not for mountains of gold would I harm a single man of you.”

      1. gnasher729 Silver badge

        You say Ecuador "betrayed asylum". I can't actually see any reason (other than trying to annoy the UK) why they gave him asylum in the first place.

        1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

          gnasher729,

          To annoy the US obviously...

          To be honest, I don't think the previous government in Ecuador did it to annoy the UK at all. It was always about polishing the old "anti-Yankee credibility" and the UK were just unlucky to get lumbered with the mess.

  8. Dog Eatdog

    22-month sentence? I thought it was 50 weeks.

    1. Kabukiwookie Silver badge

      Pray they don't alter the deal further.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Invoke a deity as a defence from a legal process?

        Why not when there is little by way of reason to mount as a defence.

        1. Kabukiwookie Silver badge

          Please hand in your geek card on your way out.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            You do understand it's a sentence handed down from a criminal court and not a deal don't you?

            Just to be clear, religious beliefs are respected but have no sway in the judgement of criminality.

            I don't think it would be fair on you if you persisted in the belief a higher power would help you or anyone else.

            No need for thanks, just happy to be of service.

            1. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge
              Facepalm

              Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooshh

              (that could be the sound of an x-wing flying past with your clue)

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                So assuming that is not a keyboard problem but an attempt at wit, which part don't I have a clue about?

                That Kabukiwookie is encouraging people to pray for St Julian or that its some type of negotiable deal and not a criminal jail sentence being served?

                Enlighten me.

                1. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge

                  Ok, have you ever watched the Star Wars films?

                  The poster who made the comment was referring to a scene where Darth Vader had Llando Calrisian by the balls and changed the deal they'd struck. When Llando complained Darth Vader replied 'pray I don't alter the deal any further' or something close to that. It was a joke.

                  You being asked to hand in your geek card was also a joke, since any self-respecting El-Reg geek 'would have known that' (that's another film reference for the geeks out there).

                  I gave you a clue with the x-wing reference, which is a space ship/star fighter from the Star Wars films.

                  You're welcome.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    OK, Ha Ha.

                  2. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Was this Star Wars guy Welsh by any chance? Or was that part of the joke?

                    1. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge

                      No :) That's just my awful spelling

    2. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      It's 22 weeks, not 22 months.

      C.

      1. Dog Eatdog

        No, it's 50 weeks.

        They changed it from 22 months to 22 weeks, but The Reg is still wrong.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Never mind him

    How is his cat

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