Posts by Matt Bryant

Re: Re: @Bit Brain "Optional @John 104" Ah, but you see old chap as their.........

So after all that, are you agreeing that Dummies like Article Fox should stop blaming all Americas actions/ills on George Dubyha, or are you agreeing with him and believing that the Obumbler's administration had nothing to do with it? Perchance, do you agree with A$$nut groupies like Ars$elicker Fox in thinking that A$$nut is above the law? After all, you waded in, it would be a pleasant surprise to see you post an actual opinion. I'm not expecting much, certainly nothing original, but it would be encouraging to at least see you try.

Re: Re: Optional

Ken, go read a history book instead of IndyMedia.

".....which saw Curtis LeMay invent carpet bombing and firestorms....." Get a clue! Synchronised bombing was part of aerial ground attacks in WW1 and was first used to attack a civillian target (Guernica) by the Germans in the Spanish Civil War. Firestorms is subjective term, but both the RAF and Luftwaffe were packing their bombers with incendiary loads even before WW2 started, and the attacks on London and Coventry during the Blitz and the RAF's counter-attacks on German cities all used incendiaries to create firestorms.

Re: @Bit Brain "Optional @John 104" Ah, but you see old chap as their.........

Maybe they should check Artic Fox for brain death as Bush left office and it is Obambi's buddies passing the "enemy" calssification. When are the Dummicrats like Artic Fox going to stop trying to blame everything on Bush?

Re: Re: Optional @John 104

".....he's not a US citizen...." Correct, he's not a traitor as he's not and never was a US citizen. But he doesn't have to be a citizen to be classified as an enemy as the act of stealing and distributing secret military documents is enough to make him so. Whether Oz citizens want to class him as a traitor is their's to decide, but the majority probably just class him as a criminal, suspected rapist, bail-jumper and egotistical moron.

Re: The grades are out, Matt, and posted on the professor's door.

"You did very well...." Yes, I did do well in proving all your arguments for A$$nut as being factually innaccurate or just downright deceitful.

".....Unfortunately, it looks like you failed...." Really? But it's you that has cut and run, just like your Holy St Jules, Patron Saint of Bail Jumpers as well as The Deluded. But, if you can't stand the heat....

".....You'll have to take them over next semester." And there's the difference - unlike you, I have long-since completed my education and now live and learn in the University of Life, AKA the real World. You are obviously still being held back in the fourth grade. Don't cry too hard, little A$$nut groupie, you can save that for when the US uncloaks their A$$nut Extradition Black Choppers! In the meantime, you'd best tighten up your tinfoil hat as I hear Echelon is scanning for new dupes amongst the Faithful for the CIA to turn as operatives to ensnare A$$nut. Apparently, they have a new scheme to show how A$$nut doesn't just abuse women but also takes advantage of the mentally-challenged drug-users.....

Enjoy!

Re: You can abuse me, Matt. I deserve it.

"I've been pulling your chain about Manning and Assange...." Yes, and we all know that translates to "Crap, lost this one, best pretend I was joking all along." I'm not the only one on these forums that you have bleated at so it's far too late for you to pretend you're actually not one of the sheeple. I can almost picture you thumbing through your "Revolutionary Chic for Dummies" guide, desperately trying to find a way to back out from looking just plain stoooopid, and all it offers is: "When you come up against a running dog lackey of the imperialist oppressors that can actual pass doubt on The Truth, it is time to use the tactics of Che and melt into the background again. Make out it was all a joke so that you do not draw the attentions of Big Brother, as he is ALWAYS watching! Don't dwell on losing this one battle as it is the war against the oppressors that must be won. Viva la Revolucion!" You'd best hide fast, I'm sure the NSA will be sending black helicopters for you soon....

Re: "Jack Spratt could eat no fat"

".....Occasionally I merely imply that I'm wrong....." Nope, you ARE wrong, and on every bogus argument you have tried to raise. Mainly because they show no original thought, merely being the same doggerel as repeated by leftie blogs and mindless drones all over the Internet, all long since debunked.

".....To end the hideous publicity they are certain to get after 7 or 8 months of Julian all over the internet in video conferences and meetings...." Yes, it is really hideaous publicity to show the World that you not only follow the law but also give even morons like A$$nut fair and extensive recourse to the law. All A$$nut and his supporters have done is belittle the crime of rape and look like they are determined not to follow any law if it doesn't suit them. And then A$$nut caps that by preaching about freedom of the press whilst hiding behind a press abuser like Correa! I think that what you should be worrying about is that A$$nut is happilly destroying not only his own but also Wikileaks' respectability and ensuring there will be little sympathy for him by the time the US finally gets round to issuing a warrant for his extradition. Off the back end of the conviction of A$$nut they will then set about tearing down Wikileaks.

".....Tell me how you know that Manning hasn't already cut that deal....." So, now you're trying to avoid the likely impact of that occurence on A$$nut by asking how I know if Manning has already cut a deal? Fail! Concentrate - the problem for you and the others living up A$$nut's rectum is that Manning's testimony will put said recturm in an American prison cell for a long time. And if/when Manning does cut a deal, I'm in no doubt you and the other leftie trolls will reflexively start accusing your former "heroic whistleblower" Manning of being a CIA stooge. Your inherent failure trait is that predictable.

".....I just wanted to know. For future reference...." No, it was becasue you had lost the argument, again, and wanted to evade off into a different area rather than admit you were wrong. Again. Predictable fail, again.

Re: "why is St Jules running AWAY from a trial as fast as he can?"

So, yet again, no admittance that you were proven wrong, again, and no counters worth a damn, just more whimsy trying to link current events with some work of fiction.

"......After you put on a few more years......" Your problem is that you have very obviously put far too many years into drug abuse and what you have been told is "education", and not enough into gaining real World experience. You just talk out of your arse, and then that is from so far up A$$nut's rectum it has a double echo! A double echo in the vacuous echo chamber of the Internet, that's all you are.

So, you have run out of arguments, you are failing to admit you are wrong, so is it any surprise you take refuge in some liberal self-delusion that you can find answers in some work of fiction you have no doubt been told is "inspirational". I suggest you need to step outside your ivory tower before you realise it's just a high-rise slum of rather tatty, white-painted concrete.

Re: "Jack Spratt could eat no fat"

".....Haven't I already said on more than one occasion that I am occasionally wrong..." Really? Because you NEVER admit you are wrong when it comes to your Holy St Jules. You're not even admitting you were wrong about the formal questioning point which you were just caught out on.

"..... Those nice Ecuadorians are telling him, let us remove Julian from our embassy in London with a safe passage and get him into our embassy in Stockholm....." Why on Earth do you think the UK will just ignore A$$nut's bail jumping or the EAW and the precedent it sets for allowing a common criminal to dicatate terms?

".....And running a very poor third...." Reagrdless of where it runs in the World order, in the UK order it is yet to be seen whether a judge decides it is for A$$nut to answer to his bail jumping charge BEFORE being expelled to Sweden. The American crime is neither here nor there as the US has not issued a warrant for his arrest, as you continually forget. What the bail jumping does do, along with A$$nut's running away from Sweden in the first place, is give zero likelyhood that A$$nut will get bail in Sweden. The Swedes will not accept the Ecuadorean deal for that reason - A$$nut will have to go to a Swedish jail whilst he awaits trial, not hide up Correa's rectum.

"....Could you be correct again? If you are suggesting that the CIA can't walk and chew gum at the same time?...." What I'm pointing out is that it has NOTHING to do with the CIA, they will not be the party that issues the US warrant. Can't you get it through those A$$nut blinkers that Manning is going to go to trial, he will very likely lose, and at that point he will be looking at spending just about the rest of his life in prison - he will almost certainly cut a deal to implicate A$$nut. With Manning's testimony they will have a watertight case against A$$nut for espionage and it is then that they will issue a warrant.

".....the CIA got the WMD wrong in 2002 - 2003...." What has that to do with the case? Your evasions are just getting rediculously desperate. You may find cutting back on your intake of recreational drugs helps you concentrate on the matter in hand.

Re: Re: "Pray tell, which politicians?"

Well, if Borgstrom is just so obviously scheming and untrustworthy, and the women such obvious liars, why is St Jules running AWAY from a trial as fast as he can? MAJOR fail as all you post again is whimsy and wild conspiracy theories.

Re: "Jack Spratt could eat no fat"

"......Show me where I said I cared about this and thought it crucial....." You yourself posted the following as core to your denial: "....Get real, Matt. "FORMALLY questioned"? "final stage before being charged"? You make stuff up....." Oops! Hoisting and your own petard moment, me thinks! And the rest of your post is still the same evasions and denial.

".....the guy is in the Ecuadorian Embassy...." Yes, but for how long? The Ecuadoreans are already looking to cut some deal which includes A$$nut going back to Sweden for trial, which indicates they don't intend shielding him from justice forever. I just can't wait for you lefties to start screaming that Correa is a CIA operative, etc, etc.

".....Shut up already about bail jumping. It's a fait accompli....." No, it's a crime. And you want me to shut up about it as it reflects directly on the lack of character and poor decisions made by your Holy St Jules. You just can't accept that he made a serious boob by running again, it seems impossible for you to admit he could be fallible. In fact, you'd probably prefer it if I just shut up and stopped proving everything you post to be incorrect, untrue, our just pointless frothing.

"......Tell me why the CIA has no plans to extradite Julian to the US...." I already have - they haven't finished with Manning yet. Oh, and that election thingummy may have something to do with it, seeing as the Obumbler won't want to alienate his more rabid supporters (like you) by going after their Patron Saint Jules. Once a result is reached with Manning, especially if he does a deal and implicates A$$nut as actively seeking the data from Manning, then the extradition order for A$$nut will go out.

"..... if you had bothered to answer many of the important points...." LOL, so anything you can't answer are "irrelevancies" (like points of Swedish law, the fact that what A$$nut is alleged to have done would get him charged with rape in the UK - minor stuff like that?), but everything you "argue" is "important"? Please, do put those points you feel I have not answered across again, I'm just dying to see what rubbish you come up with!

Enjoy!

Re: "Pray tell, which politicians?"

"This is the dude, Dude. Claes Borgstrom....." LOL! You you really want to pretend that an ex-politician and lawyer is somehow so powerful that Anna Ardin would be trying to impress him? Bizarre! You also fail (as usual) to explain why Borgstrom would want to attack A$$nut or Wikileaks given his leftie history. What can Borgstrom offer Anna Ardin? You also fail to admit that Borgstrom has a history of being an anti-rape activist, believing in the "collective guilt" of all men and supporting the idea of a men-only tax. That makes him far more likely to be interested in the A$$nut case than any pretend theory that he is a CIA operative! In short, try again, only this time try and keep at least one foot in reality.

Even more tellingly is that Anna Ardin Tweeted that the she found the company at the crayfish party she threw for A$$nut just peachy, something about "the most intelligent people in the World", which sounds like she was much more interested in those fawning over A$$nut than those out to get him. It is ironic that those same people have since turned on her for blackening the reputation of St Jules.

You're just piling up the fail.

Re: Re: "There's also a rebuttal (http://www.theyorker.co.uk/politics/spotlight/12235)"

"....Get real, Matt. "FORMALLY questioned"? "final stage before being charged"? You make stuff up....." Unlike you, I don't need to live in a made up reality. When the original appeal against the EAW was heard in the UK, Gemma Lindfield (acting for the Swedish authorities) explained quite clearly that the EAW was for A$$nut to be arrested to stand trial, that the remaining questioning was merely a formality that had to be completed before charges could be laid, the arrest made, and the case could go to trial. She also made it clear there is no option of it not going to trial, the formal questioning is simple a procedural step. That is why A$$nut does not want to go back to Sweden for the questioning but wants to do it anywhere but under Swdish jurisdiction, as at the end of the formal questioning he will be arrested and charged and he will go straight to a Swedish jail until the trial commences. A$$nut's chances of getting bail in Sweden disappeared after he ran away when his lawyer was told he was going to be questioned, and that was even before he alienated most of Sweden by saying Swedish law was effectively America's "bitch".

And that is actualy A$$nut's biggest mistake. You see, if he had maintained his popularity in Sweden and the Yanks had made an extradition request then there would have been popular support for not extraditing him. The Swedes pride themselves on both the fairness of their legal system and their readiness to accept and protect political refugees from all over the World. But A$$nut's rediculously paranoid accusations fo collusion with the CIA has annoyed the very people A$$nut needed to keep chummy with. The point is explained here (http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/21/sweden-assange-idINL6E8JKBL020120821). Swedish legal specialists such as Marten Schultz, a professor of civil law at Uppsala University and also of the Uni of Stockholm, are baffled as to why A$$nut is so determined to shoot himself in the foot, pointing out that the whole matter has NOTHING to do with Wikileaks and EVERYTHING to do with A$$nut being accused of rape (http://martenschultz.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/assange-ecuador-and-the-swedish-legal-system/).

But I'm wandering away from the main point, which is your obtuse denial of the legal facts. The difference between initial questioning that A$$nut did do and the formal questioning has already been discussed on this forum, but to refresh your goldfish-like memory, here's a link explaining the legal angle for you (http://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-doesn-t-sweden-interview-assange-in-london?utm_campaign=&utm_medium=sfy.co-twitter&awesm=sfy.co_e56c&utm_content=storify-pingback&utm_source=t.co). A more thorough rounding of the many myths sprouted by A$$nut groupies like yourself is here (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition). You will probably need an adult to help you with the longer words.

Please do read carefully the bit that really destroys the "it wasn't rape" whine, the bit where High Court concludes:"Although it is clear a decision has not been taken to charge him, that is because, under Swedish procedure, that decision is taken at a late stage with the trial following quickly thereafter. In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced." Got that? Just to make sure, read it all again, make sure you understand every word. What A$$nut is accused of doing in Sweden would get him arrested and charged with rape in England.

Enjoy! Now, before you start frothing and posting more male bovine manure, I want you to actually try and argue the points mentioned above. You will fail. Again. If you still insist on posting anything other than an admittance that you were completely wrong about the legal angle then you will just be exposing yourelf as a lair, a dupe, or a complete fool. Or probably all three.

Re: "There's also a rebuttal (http://www.theyorker.co.uk/politics/spotlight/12235)"

More evasions, half-truths and denial from Local Dupe.

".....Pay no attention to the inconsistencies of the accounts of the complainants in this case...." You mean from leaked documents? Leaked by A$$nut apologists? Tell you what, you get your Holy St Jules to turn up for formal questioning and the trial and then we can discuss the alleged "inconsistencies". But you already know that won't happen as A$$nut is running scared from a trial.

Talking of formal questioning: ".....even though he already has been questioned....." He has not been FORMALLY questioned which is the final stage before he can be charged. He was origianally questioned but that was before possible charges had been defined, he now needs to be formally questioned regarding the charges as part of the Swedish legal process. That point has been repeated often here so please don't try pretending you don't know it.

"......get him out of Sweden on a technicality and back to the States....." This is the most laughable part of your grand self-delusion - the US doesn't need to "pull a fast one", all they would have to do is issue an extradition request and the Swedes would have to process it through their legal system! This applied in 2010 before A$$nut got a little too free with his anointments, it applies now, and it would apply even if A$$nut went to Sweden and was cleared at trial of all charges! Your complete denial of this simple fact is hilarious.

Seek professional help, you are worrying detached from reality.

Re: Re: Even If This Is Exactly What Happened (and I KNOW it isn't) It Still Reeks of Honey Trap

So your appraisal of the events is "she asked for it"? LOL! It is very obvious you only think she asked for it because you cannot deal with the idea that A$$nut did somehting other than a Holy Act in granting her the Great Honour of being His recepticle. You are nothng more than a politically-deluded apologist. Your leftie apologist "thought" is perfectly summed up here (in the leftie Guardian, no less!): http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/21/julian-assange-rape-denial

".....I have no great love for Julian Assange..." Now you really are taking the Mick! Having seen all the bile you throw at anyone that questions your Holy St Jules it looks like you wish it was you rather than Anna Ardin that A$$nut had chosen for anointing.

".....where unarmed youths are shot on a quotidian basis...." Prove it, otherwise that's just another "the Man" hating piece of blather.

"....please don't tell me what I have seen my government do and not do." Local Dupe, the problem is I don't doubt you have "seen" a lot, it's just that it comes across as you having "seen" most of it whilst under the influence of drugs. I really think you need to seek help.

Re: Re: Anna Ardin. The Girl with the Quisling Tattoo. (yes, i know it's norway)

"......No, I am saying she betrayed Julian to increase her position amongst important and powerful Swedish politicians....." Well, this little strand of paranoia shouldn't take long to exhaust. Pray tell, which politicians? All the leftie groupies she used to hang with are now smearing her. She has had to withdraw from leftie events and activities due to the deluge of hate she has received. So, who is it she is supposed to have been looking to impress?

Re: Anna Ardin. The Girl with the Quisling Tattoo. (yes, i know it's norway)

".....quisling is a "noun: traitor, betrayer, collaborator, renegade, Judas, turncoat, fifth columnist 'They called him a quisling.'"...." So you are saying that Anna Ardin is a traitor simply because she dared to accuse A$$nut of rape? Don't answer as it is quite clear your twisted view of reality simply fails to allow you to see any way in which your Holy St Jules, Patron Saint of the Want-To-Be-Duped, could do wrong. For you, the two women MUST be lying as any other outcome means A$$nut goes to a Swedish prison, and you extrapolate that to meaning he will then be at the mercy of the US.

There is a quite calm appraisal of how stupid that whole line is on The Yorker website (http://www.theyorker.co.uk/politics/uk/12219). There's also a rebuttal (http://www.theyorker.co.uk/politics/spotlight/12235) and you should read both as the latter repeats EXACTLY the same non-arguments as you only in much better English. Key to the rebuttal is the same senseless and debunked demand for a guarantee from the Swedish government of no extradition to the US, which just goes to show the best minds on the left just can't come up with anything better than that limp joke. If the US wants to extradite A$$nut from here or from Sweden (or from any other country they have an extradition agreement with), all they have to do is issue an extradition request. They don't need A$$nut banged up prior to the request. Once you cretins get that simple idea in your heads you will maybe realise how silly your villification of Ms Ardin sounds. In the meantime, the rest of us are laughing at you twisting your morals into a knot.

Re: You are the obtuse one, Matt the Hatter

Frankly, I'd tell you to get your head out of the sand, but I suspect it's a public service in keeping your gormless, dribbling visage out of view as much as possible.

"1) the US hasn't charged him because then the penalties for that charge are in the record of the court of extradition....." Que? What the fudge is that supposed to mean? It's just blathering. The US hasn't issued a warrant for A$$nut as they are still working on Manning. If Manning folds and does a deal which includes implicating A$$nut as more than just the non-solicting recipient of the docs that Manning stole then the US can go straight to trying A$$nut with very little need for further work. If Manning is stupid and takes the whole fifty year sentence then the US will have to prepare case that stands alone against A$$nut. Either way, seeing as they seem to have plenty of evidence (such as A$$nut's Twitter conversations), it would seem only a matter of time before they issue a warrant for A$$nut. An extradition from Sweden would be relatively straight forward.

".....2) Assange knows the US wants him and avoids being apprehended by any law enforcement agency to prevent his extraordinary rendition....." So what you're saying is that you think A$$nut can break all the laws of any land simply becuase of your blind support of his anti-US actions? There's a word for that kind of blind, unreasoning devotion, it's called cultism. Nice to see though that you have stopped denying he is a fugitive. It also dodges the simple fact that, if the US had wanted A$$nut in 2010, all they would have needed to do was issue an extradition request to Sweden, no need for fancy games.

".....One guy could do it all...." One guy did do it all - A$$nut! The little twit did it all by himself by mixing with and taking advantage of leftie groupies like Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen. All Borgström did was get involved quite late in the event. Indeed, if you go read even just the simple Wikipedia review of his careers in politics and law, it becomes quite clear that Claes Borgström is just a typical, popularist, guilt-ridden socialist, and not a CIA stooge. So funny how the Faithful turn on so many other members of their herd when A$$nut's freedom is in question! According to Local Dupe and RICHTO, half of Sweden must be working for the CIA! Maybe this is the real European plan for recovery - keep A$$nut hding in one embassy or another in Europe so the CIA are forced to emply millions of Europeans just in case he runs to another European country! ROFLMAO!

Your ability to quite happilly fool yourself and post nothing more than revelations of your collosal naivety is both very sad and very funny.

Re: Matt Hatter

Ignoring the simple fact that your prattle doesn't change the fact that A$$nut is still wanted for questioning in Sweden, that there is an European Arrest Warrant still outstanding for that plus his added stupidity of bail-jumping in the UK, let's just look at the carefully edited version of events you have been spoonfed and fill in the timeline.

20th August 2010 - Miss A (allegedly Anna Ardin) and Miss B (allegedly Sofia Wilen) went to Swedish police inquiring whether it was possible to impose an HIV test on Julian Assange after he had unprotected sex with them. During the deposition it becomes clear to the police that the unprotected penetrations had been against consent in that both women had asked for condoms during prior consensual sex. That point is very important. Miss A had allegedly been advised by a former policewoman that what A$$nut had done COULD be "rape" under Swedish laws but the initial request is simply for A$$nut to be forced to take an HIV test. When the Swedish police say that the depositions will likely lead to a charge of rape Miss B initially says she does not want to sign the complaint, probably because she predicts the way the left will turn on her. It is possible that Miss A lied to Miss B by agreeing with her the intent was just to get A$$nut to take an HIV test when she already knew it was likely to lead to "rape" charges, but either way it was the Swedish police that decided on that line of investigation. Eventually Miss B is presuaded to sign when she is told Miss A's deposition alone is enough for charges to be pressed. There is now the formal basis for the prosecution to investigate the alleged crimes.

21st August 2010 - Chief Prosecutor Eva Finné decides neither accusation amounts to FORCIBLE rape, which would be a different charge to the one A$$nut now faces. That possible forcible rape charge had arisen when Miss B claimed that A$$nut held her down and penetrated her. Another prosecutor from the Swedish Prosecution Authority, Karin Rosander, said Assange remained suspected of molestation, a lesser grouping of offences which includes the "sex by surprise" crime. Members of the Faithful may need help here in understanding that Ms Finné was not talking about ALL the possible charges and that there were more than one charge. This is probably very confusing for the Faithful as they seem to be unable to count, usually going "one, two, many." Be patient when explaining it to them and try using small words.

25th August 2010 - the preliminary investigation concerning FORCIBLE rape is discontinued, NOT the investigation of the lesser charges including "sex by surprise". Those lesser charges were NEVER dropped, re-instated or discontinued, despite what the Faithful want to pretend, ONLY the forcible rape charge part of the investigation was dropped. Only in the leftie fantasy do ALL the charges get dropped. Please note that even the old BBC article which the Faithful recently click-bombed to the top of the BBC "most read" rankings states that ONLY the forcible rape charge was ever dropped and points out the two sets of possible charges (".....The Swedish Prosecution Authority website said the chief prosecutor had come to the decision that Mr Assange was not suspected of rape.....Karin Rosander, communications head at Sweden's prosecutors' office, said there were two separate allegations against Mr Assange, one of rape and the other of molestation.....On Saturday she said the police investigation into the molestation allegation continued....." - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11049316). The BBC got it wrong with their headline so it's not surprising the Faithful were confused seeing as reading beyond the headline is a BIG problem for them.

27th August 2010 - Claes Borgström, the attorney who represents the two women, requests a review of the prosecutor's decision to terminate PARTS of the investigation, i.e. the forcible rape part NOT the "sex by surprise" part. BTW, as well as being a lawyer Claes Borgström is a Social Democrat politician and anti-rape activist, not a CIA stooge. It was his job to ensure as many charges are laid against A$$nut as possible, hence the request for the review. It is this request for a review that gets Marianne Ny involved. Now, it may be that Borgström cleverly knew Ny would take the review or it was just lucky for him, either way it was bad news for A$$nut as she had a previous record of a hard line on rape. But Borgström failed in this attempt to get the forcible rape part of the investigation re-instated as it was later rejected again by Ny. Now, if Ny was the CIA stooge the left like to pretend, then surely she would have re-instated the forcible rape charge as well? Oops, did that little bit of reality intrude on your carefully constructed fantasy world?

30th August 2010 - Assange was questioned by the Stockholm police and his version of events differed from that given by the women. A$$nut claimed everything was consensual but admitted he had started sex with one women whilst she was asleep and without a condom. That means that for St Jules to later pretend he didn't know who his accusers were is obviously a lie. The leftie blogs are already full of attacks on Ardin by this date.

1st September 2010 - Chief Prosecutor Marianne Ny decided to resume the preliminary investigation concerning ALL of the original allegations, including FORCIBLE rape. This is not a re-opening of the "sex by surprise" investigation as A$$nut groupies like to pretend, that part of the investigation was still ongoing. Ny will later drop the forcible rape part just as Finné did but will agree with Rosander that the lesser charges are still valid. See my note above about being patient when explaining this to A$$nut groupies.

27th September 2010 - Assange's lawyer is warned by the Swedish authorities that A$$nut is due to be arrested for formal questioning, the final stage before charges are laid and a trial date is set. Up to this point, A$$nut has been talking about staying in Sweden and had even applied for a work and residence permit, yet all of a sudden he runs to the UK that very same day. A$$nut's lawyer later denied that he had warned A$$nut but was then caught out by his phone records. For the A$$nut groupies to pretend that A$$nut was unaware of the prosecutor's intention is stupidly self-deceiving.

18th November 2010 - as A$$nut was now in England and refusing to return, Ny asked the local district court for a warrant for the arrest of Assange in order for him to be interviewed by the prosecutor.

20th November 2010 - Ny's arrest warrant is issued. Note that it required judicial review and was not something Ny could arrange on her own. A$$nut groupies will still insist A$$nut "knows nothing about the accusations", neatly ignoring the fact he instructed his lawyer to make an appeal against the warrant which included a review of ALL the potential charges ("våldtäkt" which translates as rape but doesn't have exactly the same legal implications as in English law; "olaga tvång" which is unlawful coercion; and two cases of "sexuellt ofredande", sexual harassment). The appeal fails and the Supreme Court of Sweden (not just Ny on her own) decides there is no further grounds for appeal and agrees to the European Arrest Warrant due to A$$nut's refusal to co-operate. Obviously, if you're an A$$nut groupie you will want to pretend the entire Swedish Supreme Court are all CIA operatives......

6th December 2010 - Scotland Yard in London receives the EAW. What follows is a farce as A$$nut preaches long and hard to his Faithful about press freedom and the law, cons his local groupies (including two Wikitwit staff) into stumping up his bail DESPITE having money of his own hidden away, then bunks off to hide behind a press-abusing quasi-dictator when he loses his appeal against the EAW. Cue much swallowing of the Koolaid by Local Dupe, RICHTO and other assorted cretins as they sing about their fantasy world of CIA plots and oppression of freedom of speech.

"......Naturally you are more familiar with the facts than a Stockholm based journalist." Maybe it's just I was not as constrained in looking for the facts as a Stockholm-based journo looking to sell a story to the Faithful. After all, all the information above comes from public sources, so maybe you need to just read a better class of paper. You know, one which is not all cartoons.

Re: Matt, did you have too much prune juice this morning?

".......Whatever he did it wasn't rape ...." That's your opinion. Of course, your opinion isn't worth a puddle of spit compared to that of Marianne Ny, the Swedish prosecutor that said that A$$nut did have a case to answer to. And that's the big problem for ickle A$$nut - no matter what fairytale his supporters want to believe, the authorities and the law is all against him. Enjoy!

Re: Re: Anna Ardin. The Girl with the Quisling Tattoo. (yes, i know it's norway)

Oh, and BTW, I claim my Godwin prize for your hilarious labelling of leftie Anna Ardin as a Quisling. Major fail! Mind you, the left have been falling all over themselves to abuse Ms Ardin and Ms Wilen simply because they dared to upset the Holy St Jules. Of course, if it was some vaguely right-wing (and by that, for people like Local Dupe that means someone slightly right of Stalin) politician instead of A$$nut that Ardin was making a compaint against, I'm sure the left would be up in arms at attempts to smear "one of their own". They are so blinded by their dogma it is truly hilarious.

Re: Anna Ardin. The Girl with the Quisling Tattoo. (yes, i know it's norway)

Your whole post is a simple evasion. If the CIA wanted him they would not need to go to the hassle of such an elaborate setup. If the US authorities wanted him for trial they would just issue a warrant. They don't want him - yet. You really need to stop drinking the Koolaid and try applying a simple principle - the simple explanation is very often the correct one. A$$nut screwed up in Sweden because he didn't know (or didn't care) about local laws, but thought he had gotten away with it until a feminist prosecutor with an axe to grind got involved. His bad luck, simple as that, but it does make the rest of us laugh how he has taken that bad luck and massively amplified it into a global FUBAR, all due to his own paranoia and sense of self-importance. If the CIA are doing anything it is laughing theirselves silly at A$$nut. And at you.

Re: Too busy yawning to read?

Local Dupe it is hard to believe anyone can be as obtuse as you and actually be able to use a keyboard! Please tell us that you are actually just pretending to be a droolling member of the A$$nut Faithful as I am becoming seriously worried for your ability to operate in the World.

"....Julian is swapped from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to the Ecuadorian Embassy in Stockholm....." OK, let's just assume A$$nut doesn't use the opportunity to do a bunk to somewhere else and does actually turn up in Sweden. He is still not fulfilling the warrant as he has not surrendered himself as requested - by hiding in the Ecuadorean embassy in Sweden he is still not on Swedish soil and therefore STILL not subject to Swedish law. The deal simply gives A$$nut all he wants - an escape route if/when he loses - without subjecting him to due process. It doesn't meet the requirement for the questioning nor the requirement for trial. It would in effect be a trial in absentia. The fact that you cannot grasp that simple fact is really worrying - have you taken you rmeds today?

".....You really do think this is a rape case and not a case of pissing off the USA, don't you?...." <Sigh> Stop letting the paranoia talk and try thinking for a minute. To get him this jammed up the CIA would have to have been pulling the strings not just in the case of Ms A and Ms B but also the prosecutor NY, PLUS A$$nut himself in getting him to both do the acts and run away to the UK. If you still seriously think the CIA could make all that happen then I seriously recommend you double up on your meds! Try and consider that if they had wanted to extradite him the US just had to issue a warrant and Sweden would have had to consider it - no need to fit A$$nut up with rape charges.

"......The venom of hatred has so brainwashed you...." It is very obvious that your hatred of "the Man" has simply blinded you to the facts, to the point where you unquestioningly accept everything that A$$nut dribbles. That is beyond sad.

Re: Here's what to expect if you go to the links @ LG Sunday 9/23/12 00:45GMT

<Yawn> All of which begs the question you are too blinkered to consider - if it is all so cut and dried, why is A$$nut still running and trying to hide in Quito? Why doesn't he just return to Sweden, clear his name and then enjoy the wonders of Europe without a European-wide arrest warrant hanging over his head? The only reason I can think of is because he is not so sure he will win in court. A$$nut's current actions mean he is not only now unable to travel in any country in Europe that will honour the EAW, but also any country that the UK can place an extradition order against for his bail jumping. That seems a lot of the World to alienate himself from if it was so easy for him to win the case.

Re: I don't know why I even bother...

"By now you've heard that Ecuador wants to swap Julian into the Ecuadorian Embassy in Sweden...." This is up to the UK to agree to, and the UK will probably object as it still does not meet the terms of the EAW which says A$$nut has to be surrendered to Swedish custody, not Ecuadorean. Either way, it doesn't remove the fact A$$nut is a bail-jumper here in the UK and therefore subject to arrest for that as a separate crime. It also requires that we trust the Ecuadoreans not to let A$$nut do a runner mid-transfer and get on a plane to Ecuador rather than Sweden.

But let's pretend that it somehow comes to pass, what happens when the Swedes question him, then say "okey, now we're charging and arresting you" - does A$$nut think he can scarper back to the Ecuadorean embassy in Stockholm? What if halfway through the Swedish trial the US issues a fully legal and proper extradition request, does A$$nut think he can then do a bunk back to hiding under Correa's apron? Or if A$$nut just thinks the trial is going badly for him, can he default and expect the Ecuadoreans to just whisk him away to Quito? A$$nut cannot be both under Ecuador's protection and at the same time appear in Swedish court, he has to give up the former to satisfy the latter, and before that he has to satisfy the UK's requirement that he surrenders to the UK police.

Re: Local G. Always the last to know

<Yawn> And yet, with all this supposed case-destroying info, A$$nut has done nothing but scarper in fear! Could it be his legal team (which are a lot more qualified in Swedish law than you) told A$$nut he was stuffed if the case got to court? Probably.

Re: Matt, did you have too much prune juice this morning?

".....What he did was consensual...." Gosh, don't you think that would be best examined in a Swedish court of law, by people actually qualified to pass judgement? Oh, of course not! I forgot - your Holy St Jules is above the law, n'estpas?

Re: Just some actual facts

"....I do believe everyone is entitled to being treated fairly...." Unless they're women accusing The Holy St Jules of rape, right? Assange had full recourse to the law in trying to block the EAW here in the UK, but he denied the women their right to trial. And when he lost here in the UK he ran to somewhere he knew there was no chance of a "fair" outcome as his buddy Correa abuses the law to his own ends. It is very indicative of your real sympathies in that you only want Assange to be treated "fairly".

Re: SPARC, not Sparc !

Shirley, that should be SPANKed! A much more accurate description of both the lack of performance AND how Oracle DB customers feel?

"....cultivate some salt marshes or mangrove swamps....."

An intersting idea which would probably have a side benefit of increasing fish populations in the area, whch could lead to improvements in local diet.

Re: Some of you..

"I live in a house in the pennines....." Whilst you are no doubt making the best of a poor situation, it really would need an Apocalyptic scenario to give the area appeal. After all, in the event of major flooding, where do you think all the inhabitants of Moss Side will be heading (after they finish looting)?

Re: @Oscar Pops 13:49 gimme what I want.. @J1

".....It is only reasonable for you to be prepared to deal with so many people who are professing the same faith." Well, surely that should actually mean MUSLIMS should learn how to interact with others without felling the need to riot, burn down embassies, etc, etc?

Re: Re: The Guardian?

".....And I wouldn't even call the Guardian 'leftie'...." Not REAL "worked-twenty-hours-down-pit" left, but "educated-and-pretending-to-be-caring-out-of-a-sense-of-moral-superiority" lefties. My old man used to refer to them as they type that have the mental equipment and opportuniy but prefer not to put it to a proper use. To paraphase a leftie luvvie that probably would pay the £2/month for the Guardian, George Bernard Shaw, those that can do, those that can't teach, and those that can't teach go into journalism or politics. Now, if the Guardian had some writers - maybe even just one - of the calibre of Mr Shaw then they wouldn't be in the pile of brown stuff they are in now. After all, I don't personally agree with half of Mr Shaw's politics, but he always delivered them in a manner that was both entertaining and insightful.

".....normally about fallballers and tits." You may think that unfortunate, but those are evidently the popular areas where people are still willing to pay for a paper. And before you get too high on your moral hobbyhorse, please do note that 90% of advertising, especially for "lifestyle" products such as perfume, cars, holidays, etc, are based on sex. Sex sells, even if it's in black-and-white and sold in high-brow circles as "art".

Re: Trowel, For The Laying Of

".....his salary in the upcoming 2012-13 financial year will be £395,010..... His annual pension contribution will be reduced to £75,000....." Gosh, how will the poor luvvie survive on that!?!?! He'll barely be able to afford (foreign immigrant) minions to clean his ivory tower!

Joking aside, I would suggest the best move on the part of the Trust would be to reduce Mr Rushbridger's salary to the London average (about £33k) and then put him on a profits-based commission for the rest. That should focus Mr Rushbridger's mind quite nicely. The resulting bloodbath of immediate cuts may drive the Guardian under or revitalise it, I don't really care, but at least the Guardian would be finally producing some entertainment of note for the rest of us.

Re: "The Trust will bleed it's businesses dry before the Guardian is allowed to expire,"

Damn! I like using Autotrader for the odd look at motors, but I suppose I can live without that just to make sure the Liberati lose their daily bible.