WikiLeaks

[Mick Fisher]

Perhaps our more affluent Masters across the pond will foot the bill?

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Snigger! I was wondering that.Perhaps he's going to declaim from a balcony or try leaning out of a window.

He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!!

It's interesting that a number of people who normally would demand that someone who had been accused of sexual assault and rape should have their gonads removed with blunt shears, seem to have a different viewpoint on this....

btw, an important point to remember is this is all only happening because he doesn't want to be questioned in the country where the crime was alleged to have been committed - no other reason.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Hugh

He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!!

It's interesting that a number of people who normally would demand that someone who had been accused of sexual assault and rape should have their gonads removed with blunt shears, seem to have a different viewpoint on this....

btw, an important point to remember is this is all only happening because he doesn't want to be questioned in the country where the crime was alleged to have been committed - no other reason.

Yes, odd that eh?

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Snigger! I was wondering that.Perhaps he's going to declaim from a balcony or try leaning out of a window.

from a balcony ,if he goes on british soil he gets arrested so a balcony is the only other option

Originally Posted by Hugh

It's interesting that a number of people who normally would demand that someone who had been accused of sexual assault and rape should have their gonads removed with blunt shears, seem to have a different viewpoint on this....

Why is it interesting? Perhaps those people are skeptical about the allegations?

It's laughable the amount of Judges and Juries present in this thread who have made their mind up and convinced he his guilty of such allegations.

I am not bothered either way if he is or isn't. As I have said already, I am no fan of him - I just think all this trouble to get someone for an accusation is over the top and not worth the diplomatic mess it is creating.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Mick

Why are they Morons? The Movie makes a good point, that no nation should accept any kind of corrupt government that can bend the rules whenever it sees fit and use mass propaganda to back up it's actions. I am in favour of anyone standing up to a corrupt government, these masks kind of portray a standing up to the government.

These people in the mask believe the storming (Oh look, I've used this term again, get over it) of another Embassy is illegal under International Law and Treaties and strongly object to it, but at least we have established, they are not going to do this any time soon, to do so would be diplomatic suicide. So don't think there is any need for the displaying of such masks just yet.

So far. I am led to believe going off the news, that 1 Million pound has been spent on Police presence outside the embassy already. It's a bloody farce. It's one man, in a foreign nations Embassy, being accused of a sexual assault and as I have said previously, he is only at the accused stage.

The amount of resources being applied to get this one man is pathetic. Any one would think he was guilty of being a Terrorist the amount attention he is getting from Authority figures.

Fine then lets get this over with. Enter the embassy arrest that alleged rapist and then deal with the fallout later.

Originally Posted by Mick

Why are they Morons? The Movie makes a good point, that no nation should accept any kind of corrupt government that can bend the rules whenever it sees fit and use mass propaganda to back up it's actions. I am in favour of anyone standing up to a corrupt government, these masks kind of portray a standing up to the government.

The movie makes a hardly revolutionary point. The existence of an extremely totalitarian government taking over a country and imposing it's will on the population is an very common trope in film and literature. It's a plot device for a fun film which ends with a cool sequence of Parliament blowing up with everyone wearing Guy Fawkes masks.

However people take the whole pseudo-philosophy far too seriously. There is little in the film that offers much insight into real politics or the world. It reminds me of the people waving copies of 1984 around. It's worth mentioning that Alan Moore thought it missed the point and depth of this creation.

So I wonder what point they are making or are they just caught up the romance of the idea? There seems to be few substantial ideas behind the mask and the we're dealing with complicated issues here.

Anyway I don't care that much about the masks. Not enough to make it into an issue. So I retract calling them all 'morons'. It was just meant to be a throwaway remark.

These people in the mask believe the storming (Oh look, I've used this term again, get over it) of another Embassy is illegal under International Law and Treaties and strongly object to it, but at least we have established, they are not going to do this any time soon, to do so would be diplomatic suicide. So don't think there is any need for the displaying of such masks just yet.

I am not especially bothered by the use of the 'storming of the embassy'. I only objected because it was an over-emotive and dramatic representation of the rather mundane truth. That the UK was willing to revoke diplomatic protection for the embassy based on a law enacted a couple of decades ago. It would take months and years of court action and I don't think anyone was seriously suggesting it was a likely outcome. The way it was portrayed was that the SAS were poised to raid the place. I agree it would be a stupid thing to do and it was a stupid thing to invoke. It was bad politics which Ecuador were quick to exploit.

However when we're talking about international law it's also pretty questionable to use your embassy to protect someone from allegations of sexual assault. Especially when that someone has had the full use of the legal system to argue their case. As Hague said: "[Diplomatic Asylum] should not be used for the purposes of escaping the regular processes of the court". This is not what embassies were meant to do and it is not why they are granted protection under International law. It can easily be argued that Ecuador have brought a risk to their on embassy on themselves by abusing such privileges.

So far. I am led to believe going off the news, that 1 Million pound has been spent on Police presence outside the embassy already. It's a bloody farce. It's one man, in a foreign nations Embassy, being accused of a sexual assault and as I have said previously, he is only at the accused stage.

Well his own actions have ensured that Sweden can't take it past the accused stage just yet. This is a brilliantly circular argument whereby the investigation can't progress because he is fighting his extradition but the case for the extradition is harmed because the investigation hasn't progressed. He'll never have to face justice under such a view.

£1 million is sickening and depressing but we can't write it off. The blame for the cost is entirely at the hands of Mr Assange himself and not the police who are simply carrying out their legal obligations. You don't abandon a pursuit of a suspect because of cost, you shouldn't anyway.

The amount of resources being applied to get this one man is pathetic. Any one would think he was guilty of being a Terrorist the amount attention he is getting from Authority figures.

He is getting attention because of his public persona. The government wanted little to do with him preferring to leave it to the courts (as they should be doing) until he made it a international problem by avoiding the courts in the ecuadorian embassy.

---------- Post added at 13:18 ---------- Previous post was at 13:17 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

Perhaps our more affluent Masters across the pond will foot the bill?

Sweden aren't that rich.

Originally Posted by Sirius

Fine then lets get this over with. Enter the embassy arrest that alleged rapist and then deal with the fallout later.

I disagree.

The Fall out you mention would be catastrophic for the UK - you could see several nations, probably the entire Latin America, end diplomatic ties with the UK, this also includes trade and what not with Britain. We are already in a financial mess in this country we don't need more trouble, just because we have a need to catch one man.

Originally Posted by Mick

It's laughable the amount of Judges and Juries present in this thread who have made their mind up and convinced he his guilty of such allegations.

I haven't decided he is guilty. I think he should face justice and let the courts decide, not public opinion. Additionally actual judges have decided that he should do that too.

Originally Posted by Damien

I haven't decided he is guilty. I think he should face justice and let the courts decide, not public opinion. Additionally actual judges have decided that he should do that too.

That's fine Damien and I don't disagree with this, I just don't agree with the row this is creating and messing up our diplomatic ties in the process to get the man to justice.

[nomadking]

He has admitted something went on with 2 of his SUPPORTERS and that his behaviour wasn't very pleasant. IT IS NOT A CASE OF 2 RANDOM WOMEN MAKING ACCUSATIONS WHICH HAVE NO BASIS IN REALITY.

The claims were made by two female Wikileaks volunteers.

He also said he was not challenging the fact they found his sexual behaviour "disreputable, discourteous, disturbing or even pushing towards the boundaries of what they were comfortable with".

I'm not too sure that I would be happy if my behaviour was described in that way.

Well, he's made his speech and stood on his public platform (or balcony) and basically urged the U.S to drop it's pursuit against Wikileaks.

He apologised to his family and Children, but hinted at being reunited with them 'soon'.

He didn't step outside the Embassy, instead used the balcony and was still in the realms of the Ecuadorian Embassy and untouchable.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Go Boris!

I like him talking being united against oppression and citing the case of Pussy Riot. Don't think his slot of Kremlin funded Russia Today will have the latter on anytime soon....

What a pile of self-serving guff. I stomached the first five minutes or so then had to switch off. Did he have anything at all to say about the substantive issue of rape allegations in Sweden and the perfectly transparent and legal extradition proceedings he's hiding from in the UK?