• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
Can't post at length at moment , been off FT for a few days. Just want to say that Galloway is a cretin. Afaiaa the two women involved in the case have given interviews. Theres more on it further back inthe thread.
 
That is a very interesting video indeed.
 
rynner2 said:
It's getting a bit paranoid when we have to censor initials!

The number of names that could fit a given pair of initials must be in the thousands, especially if you include all the unfamiliar-to-us foreign names.

It's not paranoid, it's the law. I also believe Sweden has something similar.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/82

Whether it's slapped all over the net, or the women have done interviews in Sweden or not, in the UK you're on very dodgy ground naming suspected rape victims, especially as it seems some Assange supporters are doing so to smear their name which is exactly why this legislation was brought in.
 
Quake42 said:
it would seem to be the case that the funding of the lawyer is being done externally and not by the two ladies ?

If this is the lawyer who is prosecuting Assange then presumably he is being funded by the Swedish justice system. Why would the complainants in a criminal case fund the prosecuter?

There's also the question of just where Annage is getting his funds from as he's hired some of the most expensive lawyers in the country to fight his case.
 
Yeah, it's been reported in a few papers - doesn't really look terribly surprising. What were prople expecting? A note saying that Assange should in fact be allowed to leave the embassy without being arrested?

Still, you would have thought police would have learned by now to keep their papers in a file or envelope...
 
Quake42 said:
Yeah, it's been reported in a few papers - doesn't really look terribly surprising. What were prople expecting? A note saying that Assange should in fact be allowed to leave the embassy without being arrested?

Still, you would have thought police would have learned by now to keep their papers in a file or envelope...

Its not the first time the police have un(half?)wittingly revealed information in this manner.

Heres an article by John Pilger.

The pursuit of Julian Assange is an assault on freedom and a mockery of journalism
23 August 2012
http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/the- ... journalism

The British government's threat to invade the Ecuadorean embassy in London and seize Julian Assange is of historic significance. David Cameron, the former PR man to a television industry huckster and arms salesman to sheikdoms, is well placed to dishonour international conventions that have protected Britons in places of upheaval. Just as Tony Blair's invasion of Iraq led directly to the acts of terrorismin London on 7 July 2005, so Cameron and Foreign Secretary William Hague have compromised the safety of British representatives across the world.
Threatening to abuse a law designed to expel murderers from foreign embassies, while defaming an innocent man as an "alleged criminal", Hague has made a laughing stock of Britain across the world, though this view is mostly suppressed in Britain. The same brave newspapers and broadcasters that have supported Britain's part in epic bloody crimes, from the genocide in Indonesia to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, now attack the "human rights record" of Ecuador, whose real crime is to stand up to the bullies in London and Washington.

It is as if the Olympics happy-clappery has been subverted overnight by a revealing display of colonial thuggery. Witness the British army officer-cum-BBC reporter Mark Urban "interviewing" a braying Sir Christopher Meyer, Blair's former apologist in Washington, outside the Ecuadorean embassy, the pair of them erupting with Blimpish indignation that the unclubbable Assange and the uncowed Rafael Correa should expose the western system of rapacious power. Similar affront is vivid in the pages of the Guardian, which has counselled Hague to be"patient" and that storming the embassy would be "more trouble than it is worth". Assange was not a political refugee, the Guardian declared, because "neither Sweden nor the UK would in any case deport someone who might face torture or the death penalty".

The irresponsibility of this statement matches the Guardian's perfidious role in the whole Assange affair. The paper knows full well that documents released by WikiLeaks indicate that Sweden has consistently submitted to pressure from the United States in matters of civil rights. In December 2001, the Swedish government abruptly revoked the political refugee status of two Egyptians, Ahmed Agiza and Mohammedel-Zari, who were handed to a CIA kidnap squad at Stockholm airport and "rendered" to Egypt, where theywere tortured. An investigation by the Swedish ombudsman for justice found that the government had "seriously violated" the two men's human rights. In a 2009 US embassy cable obtained by WikiLeaks, entitled "WikiLeaks puts neutrality in the Dustbin of History", the Swedish elite's vaunted reputation for neutrality is exposed as a sham. Another US cable reveals that "the extent of [Sweden'smilitary and intelligence] cooperation [with Nato] is not widely known" and unless kept secret "would open the government to domestic criticism".

The Swedish foreign minister, Carl Bildt, played a notorious leading role in George W Bush's Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and retains close ties to the Republican Party's extreme right. According to the former Swedish director of public prosecutions Sven-Erik Alhem, Sweden's decision to seek the extradition of Assange on allegations of sexual misconduct is "unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and disproportionate". Having offered himself for questioning, Assange was given permission to leave Sweden for London where, again, he offered to be questioned. In May, in a final appeal judgment on the extradition, Britain's Supreme Court introduced more farce by referring to non-existent "charges".
Accompanying this has been a vituperative personal campaign against Assange. Much of it has emanated from the Guardian, which, like a spurned lover,has turned on its besieged former source, having hugely profited from WikiLeaks disclosures. With not a penny going to Assange or WikiLeaks, a Guardian book has led to a lucrative Hollywood movie deal.The authors, David Leigh and Luke Harding, gratuitously abuse Assange as a "damaged personality" and "callous". They also reveal the secret password he had given the paper in confidence, which was designed to protect a digital file containing the US embassy cables. On 20 August, Harding was outside the Ecuadorean embassy, gloating on his blog that "Scotland Yard may get the last laugh". It is ironic, if entirely appropriate, that a Guardian editorial putting the paper's latest boot into Assange bears an uncanny likeness to the Murdoch press's predictable augmented bigotry on the same subject. How the glory of Leveson, Hackgate and honourable, independent journalism doth fade.

His tormentors make the point of Assange's persecution. Charged with no crime, he is not a fugitive from justice. Swedish case documents, including the text messages of the women involved, demonstrate to any fair-minded person the absurdity of the sex allegations - allegations almost entirely promptly dismissed by the senior prosecutor in Stockholm, Eva Finne, before the intervention of a politician, Claes Borgstr?At the pre-trial of Bradley Manning, a US army investigator confirmed that the FBI was secretly targeting the "founders, owners or managers of WikiLeaks" for espionage.

Four years ago, a barely noticed Pentagon document, leaked by WikiLeaks, described how WikiLeaks and Assange would be destroyed with a smear campaign leading to "criminal prosecution". On 18 August, the Sydney Morning Herald disclosed, in a Freedom of Information release of official files, that the Australian government had repeatedly received confirmation that the US was conducting an "unprecedented" pursuit of Assange and had raised no objections. Among Ecuador's reasons for granting asylum is Assange's abandonment "by the state of which he is a citizen". In 2010, an investigation by the Australian Federal Police found that Assange and WikiLeaks had committed no crime. His persecution is an assault on us all and on freedom.
 
since we cant mention the alledged victims names, or initials or anything, how does one go about saying something that may be of interest ? here ?

without breaking some law or other
 
Was ***** ***** a “CIA Honeytrap”?
By Guy Fawkes + December 16th, 2010
***** *****
In computer terminology, a honeytrap or honeypotis a trap set to detect, deflect, or in some manner counteract attempts at unauthorized use of information systems.

Even more interesting and weird stuff turns up regarding ***** ***** (News Post). New questions needs to be answered:

Did she plan the ‘rape’ with her friend?
Why did both ‘rape’ victims had hidden agendas?
Why would a Cuba dissident support WikiLeaks?
Are there more dirty tricks involved?

I just researched and will show you some interesting quotes and headlines:

“WikiLeaks ‘rape’ victims had hidden agendas … and I’ve seen the proof says Julian Assange’s lawyer” Source: dailymail.co.uk
“Revealed: Assange ‘rape’ accuser linked to notorious CIA operative” Source: rawstory.com
A growing number of observers believe ***** ***** works for the CIA and was employed to set-up Assange. “After leaving Cuba, ***** ***** worked with web sites financed by USAID and controlled by the CIA,” Source: Australia-Cuba Friendship Society
“I don’t know what is behind all this, but we have been warned that, for example Pentagon, would use dirty tricks to destroy things for us,” Assange told Aftonbladet. “And, I have also been warned about sex traps.” Source: Julian Assange, bloomberg.com
“Meet Wikileaks Founder’s Alleged Sex Victim” Source: gawker.com
In her interview, she dismissed the idea, seized on by many conspiracy theorists that ‘dirty tricks’ lay behind the rape allegations, because of WikiLeaks’ defiance of the US government. She said: “The charges against Assange are of course not orchestrated by the Pentagon.” Source: anorak.co.uk

can i post link ?
cause it has names in it ????
 
More importantly : how is it that we can mention the name of the supposed (or alleged) offender ?
 
there is some interesting stuff realting to ***** *****

she wrote a book about what she would do , do get back at a someone who jilted her... you may want to track this down

She didnt report any rape etc, till her mate had slept also with him !!!

she had tweeted about how wonderful he was the day after the alledged rape and been seen with him

her friend who is giving evidence now has a criminal record...

she alledged said to her friend, now you can **** him hes all yours or something like that...

how true any of this is isnt clear.... except her twitter posts, the piccys of her with him and the book !!!!!
 
Julian Assange is the subject of a criminal investigation into alleged sex offences. The Swedes have requested his extradition under the EAW. The matter has been considered by multiple British courts all of whom have concluded that the warrant is valid. He should go to Sweden to answer the allegations. Speculating publicly about the character of the women who complained is unhelpful and would probably be illegal if these were UK proceedings.
 
Julian Assange is the subject of a criminal investigation into alleged sex offences. The Swedes have requested his extradition under the EAW. The matter has been considered by multiple British courts all of whom have concluded that the warrant is valid. He should go to Sweden to answer the allegations. Speculating publicly about the character of the women who complained is unhelpful and would probably be illegal if these were UK proceedings.

thread closed
 
Jonfairway said:
can i post link ?
cause it has names in it ????

Post the link by all means, but anything you write, even if you're quoting from other sources, has to abide by house rules.
 
Post the link by all means, but anything you write, even if you're quoting from other sources, has to abide by house rules.

thank you but i think i will give up with this site once and for all..

if it isnt posible to give evidence of a potential plan to entrap or as this appears to be the case a jilted lovers revenge then its time to park my bag in some other dingy location

good luck boys and girls, happy discussing to you all
 
Jonfairway said:
Post the link by all means, but anything you write, even if you're quoting from other sources, has to abide by house rules.

thank you but i think i will give up with this site once and for all..

if it isnt posible to give evidence of a potential plan to entrap or as this appears to be the case a jilted lovers revenge then its time to park my bag in some other dingy location

good luck boys and girls, happy discussing to you all

Don't leave. Theres already such evidence (not proof) posted by me from the Australian ABC show. Yith has drawn attention to the particular sequences in the vid.
 
ramonmercado said:
Don't leave. Theres already such evidence (not proof) posted by me from the Australian ABC show. Yith has drawn attention to the particular sequences in the vid.

Don't worry, */Ominous Music* Jon will return.
 
Don't leave. Theres already such evidence (not proof) posted by me from the Australian ABC show. Yith has drawn attention to the particular sequences in the vid.

Equally, I posted earlier quotes from Assange's own barrister which do not paint him in a good light. Again, I would reiterate that a lengthy judicial process has taken place which has confirmed that the warrant is valid and that Assange should go to Sweden to answer the charges. Whether the EAW is in itself a good thing is another matter of course.

I do struggle with the idea that Assange should be exempt from national laws and due process simply because he has pissed off America, and in essence that is what his supporters seem to be arguing.
 
Quake42 said:
Don't leave. Theres already such evidence (not proof) posted by me from the Australian ABC show. Yith has drawn attention to the particular sequences in the vid.

Equally, I posted earlier quotes from Assange's own barrister which do not paint him in a good light. Again, I would reiterate that a lengthy judicial process has taken place which has confirmed that the warrant is valid and that Assange should go to Sweden to answer the charges. Whether the EAW is in itself a good thing is another matter of course.

I do struggle with the idea that Assange should be exempt from national laws and due process simply because he has pissed off America, and in essence that is what his supporters seem to be arguing.

Sweden has past form in illegally handing over suspects to the CIA who were then subject to extraordinary rendition and torture. I've posted comments about this on the thread. They subsequently won damages of approx £500,000 each in the Swedish Courts.

The real problem though is with the EAW.
 
Sweden has past form in illegally handing over suspects to the CIA who were then subject to extraordinary rendition and torture. I've posted comments about this on the thread. They subsequently won damages of approx £500,000 each in the Swedish Courts.

There was one case, I believe, in 2001. The Swedes were wrong to do it but it's hardly a regular occurrence and it is silly of Assange's supporters to pretend otherwise. For them to do so in this case, with the attention of the world's media on them, is pretty much unthinkable.

The real problem though is with the EAW.

Yes. I think there are major problems with the EAW but Assange's case is not a very good example. The point remains - why exactly should he avoid due process just because he ran a website which pissed off the Americans?
 
Quake42 said:
Sweden has past form in illegally handing over suspects to the CIA who were then subject to extraordinary rendition and torture. I've posted comments about this on the thread. They subsequently won damages of approx £500,000 each in the Swedish Courts.

There was one case, I believe, in 2001. The Swedes were wrong to do it but it's hardly a regular occurrence and it is silly of Assange's supporters to pretend otherwise. For them to do so in this case, with the attention of the world's media on them, is pretty much unthinkable.

The real problem though is with the EAW.

Yes. I think there are major problems with the EAW but Assange's case is not a very good example. The point remains - why exactly should he avoid due process just because he ran a website which pissed off the Americans?

I think the whole thing is a set up so that the Swedes can hand him over to the US. As the Swedish Foreign Minister said, extradition is a matter for the courts and he could not give guarantees.

Assange hasn't been charged with anything.
 
I think the whole thing is a set up so that the Swedes can hand him over to the US.

But WHY bother with such an elaborate plan. Why does the US not simply ask the UK to extradite him? Why the need for an additional complication via Sweden?

It makes no sense whatsoever.
 
Perhaps HM Govt. has quietly asked the American authorities not to put them in the position of having to approve or deny a extradition request. They know how unpopular some of the high-profile cases have been in recent years.
 
Quake42 said:
I think the whole thing is a set up so that the Swedes can hand him over to the US.

But WHY bother with such an elaborate plan. Why does the US not simply ask the UK to extradite him? Why the need for an additional complication via Sweden?

It makes no sense whatsoever.

Because its unlikely such an extradition request would be successful from the UK. I cannot see the Supreme Court allowing an extradition where he would face life imprisonment for the charges in question (extradition to face the death penalty would be a non-runner).
 
Back
Top