WikiLeaks

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Matt D

If someone wishes to have sexual intercourse with their partner, they require their partner's consent. It can be verbal, it can be non-verbal, but there must be consent.

A person needs consent to have sex, Matt I think we get that bit.
The consent issue was never disputed, just the form it must take.
It seems you finally agree that just assuming a person waking to having sex is automatically rape, is flawed as consent can take other forms.

---------- Post added at 19:08 ---------- Previous post was at 19:05 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

If the allegations are that flimsy then the Swedish courts would have already dismissed them.

The allegations were originally dismissed outright. Then the case was reopened, for reasons we can only speculate on.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

A person needs consent to have sex, Matt I think we get that bit.
The consent issue was never disputed, just the form it must take.
It seems you finally agree that just assuming a person waking to having sex is automatically rape, is flawed as consent can take other forms.

No I do not agree with that, as it is not possible to obtain consent from someone who is asleep or otherwise unconscious.

A sleeping person cannot consent to sex. If you have sex with someone without their consent, it is rape.

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by nomadking

What has the issue of anonymity got to do with this?

Because it's unfair for the reasons already mentioned. One person labelled as a rapist for life, regardless of evidence.

If you ever find yourself falsely accused, and your name splashed all over the news, we'll see how "fair" you think the rape laws are

---------- Post added at 19:12 ---------- Previous post was at 19:10 ----------

Originally Posted by Matt D

No I do not agree with that, as it is not possible to obtain consent from someone who is asleep or otherwise unconscious.

I think you've been unconscious, go back to sleep. Or try reading my post thoroughly addressing that point in nauseous detail earlier this afternoon.

All of which is entirely besides the point. The extradition request has been exhaustively examined by the British courts and has been approved. Assange must go to Sweden.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

A person needs consent to have sex, Matt I think we get that bit.
The consent issue was never disputed, just the form it must take.
It seems you finally agree that just assuming a person waking to having sex is automatically rape, is flawed as consent can take other forms.

The allegations were originally dismissed outright. Then the case was reopened, for reasons we can only speculate on.

Whether the case was reopened because of pressure from the US, would be totally irrelevant as the allegations had already been made before that time. Who is to say that the case was originally dismissed because somebody supported Wikileaks etc. There are many cases that are reopened or dismissed later on.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

A person needs consent to have sex, Matt I think we get that bit.
The consent issue was never disputed, just the form it must take.
It seems you finally agree that just assuming a person waking to having sex is automatically rape, is flawed as consent can take other forms.

---------- Post added at 19:08 ---------- Previous post was at 19:05 ----------



The allegations were originally dismissed outright. Then the case was reopened, for reasons we can only speculate on.

There was no consent given for unprotected sex.

[Derek]

Looks like being the friend of someone as slippery as Mr Assange can be an expensive business.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...d-forfeit-bail

Julian Assange's supporters have been ordered to forfeit £93,500 in bail money after the WikiLeaks founder sought political asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy in London.

Still why was the money not held in escrow until his legal status was sorted out and why do they get a discount on the money owed when it's clear he has failed to comply with the bail conditions surely the full amount should be forfeited.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Derek

Looks like being the friend of someone as slippery as Mr Assange can be an expensive business.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...d-forfeit-bail



Still why was the money not held in escrow until his legal status was sorted out and why do they get a discount on the money owed when it's clear he has failed to comply with the bail conditions surely the full amount should be forfeited.

It does seem weird. Even weirder is that people are ordered to pay different percentages of the amount pledged.

Vaughan Smith, the former British army captain who hosted Assange at his Norfolk home while he was on bail throughout 2011, and had promised to pay £20,000 if Assange skipped bail, was ordered to pay £12,000, while Philip Knightly, a veteran Australian investigative journalist who exposed the British traitor Kim Philby as a Russian spy, was ordered to pay £15,000, £5,000 less than he originally pledged.

So they both pledged to pay £20k and one is ordered to pay £12k and the other £15k?

Haha! What mugs these people are, going to court to weasel out of paying bail? Their case being that they didn't know he was going to run away? That's what bail is for! If the person fails to turn up then they broke the bail conditions and the money is forfeited. When you put the money up you do so on this understanding with the presumption from the court being that these people are confident that the bail will not be broken, they are backing up the character in question with cold, hard, cash.

Looks like they've learnt an expensive lesson yesterday. That offering to pay bail isn't a nice PR move to promote your credentials as a friend of the liberty and truth to the occupy movement, it's bail.

What. A. Bunch. Of. Mugs.

[Sirius]

I personally think they should have to pay the lot. They made there decision to support him and should have to pay the bail money. I hope they now know what i already knew and that is that he is a ******* that cannot be trusted.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Sirius

I personally think they should have to pay the lot. They made there decision to support him and should have to pay the bail money. I hope they now know what i already knew and that is that he is a ******* that cannot be trusted.

Ditto that.

They knew the rules and should have to pay up in full.

[Cyni_cal]

Someone will pay it, most think the yanks are behind this, and lots of people hate the yanks.
So a few quid will soon be forthcoming.

[Derek]

And the award for most ludicrous decision of the year goes to (drum roll)... The UN.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35499942

Wikileaks' Julian Assange is arbitrarily detained, UN panel finds

Apparently hiding away voluntarily and being free to leave your hiding place at any time amounts to unlawful detention to which Mr Assange should be entitled to compensation.

I'll happily give him 20p to compensate him for his time inside the embassy just as long as he comes in person to collect it.

The UN is full of these daft committees. They are invariably stuffed with small-minded delegates from tinpot states who can't resist an opportunity to stick it to the man.

Assange is a narcissist and his fans are deluded fools. He will either die in that embassy or else come out and face justice.

[Kursk]

In a way he's serving a self-imposed 'prison' sentence in that embassy. Then he has to come out and face his accusers...