Julian Assange "arbitrarily detained"

Blue in Munich

Blue in Munich

Crocked Professional Yeti Impersonator
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
14,099
Location
Worcester Park
Visit site
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35504237

Really? Who in their right mind came to this conclusion? The self-appointed judge & jury of all things establishment, being not so keen to answer allegations against himself, ducks into the embassy of a country to whom he has no obvious link to avoid being extradited. And now, the United Nations has apparently decided that he has been hard done to, and entitled to compensation.

I'm with Philip Hammond on this one; come out any time you like Julian and face the music. No one's depriving you of your freedom or your kids of a father other than you. If you didn't do it, prove it and if you did, come out and face the music like you expect everyone else to.
 
Totally agree, what about the rights of the woman he allegedly attacked, no one but himself is keeping him in there.
 
You really do have to wonder how the eejits get into a position to be able to even judge the case?
 
I had to turn the news over when he came on, my blood pressure is usually pretty good and want to keep it that way!
 
Has anyone read the actual decision? http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17012&LangID=E

It seems to be a joke, to summarise "we don't think the Swedish prosecutor did a great job, therefore this is illegal detention". Doesn't seem to take the slightest bit of notice of the process of law. Surely if you get arrested (or have a warrant issued) and the charge turns out to be inaccurate, then your lawyers point this out in court and you get off?

Impressively though, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has achieved something that not many others can, and got virtually everyone in the country having the same opinion regardless of their politics!
 
I'd be happy if he was/had been tried for the assault/rape accusations in a country where there was no extradition to US.

He should answer the charges, but there's too much of a smell of US interference involved for me!

I'm rather astonished at the UN result! He is not actually being 'detained' at all! Though I believe he's right to fear US extradition should he be arrested by UK Police - as they are required to do!

I'm ambivalent towards what WikiLeaks stands for. While there are certain obscene actions that have been taken in the name of governments (primarily), there are also confidentiality obligations that those who sign up for employment by those governments are required to comply with. If they don't like what they are doing, then they should consider leaving, rather than leaking documents!

That said, I believe whistle-blowing should be encouraged and whistle-blowers protected. The issue is where to draw the line between whistle-blowing and 'treasonous' activity!
 
Whilst I am of the opinion that he should grow a pair and face the music, if only to be found innocent, I am also of the opinion that I'd be leaning towards being relatively happy if he rots forever in the Equadorian Embassy.
The bloke's a Weasel.
 
You have to love the fact that he proudly claims this "court ruling" as being legal and vindication. And yet he ignores all the other ones that don't go his way. Let the little scrote rot in that embassy.
 
Foxholer said:
I'd be happy if he was/had been tried for the assault/rape accusations in a country where there was no extradition to US.

He should answer the charges, but there's too much of a smell of US interference involved for me!

I'm rather astonished at the UN result! He is not actually being 'detained' at all! Though I believe he's right to fear US extradition should he be arrested by UK Police - as they are required to do!

I'm ambivalent towards what WikiLeaks stands for. While there are certain obscene actions that have been taken in the name of governments (primarily), there are also confidentiality obligations that those who sign up for employment by those governments are required to comply with. If they don't like what they are doing, then they should consider leaving, rather than leaking documents!

That said, I believe whistle-blowing should be encouraged and whistle-blowers protected. The issue is where to draw the line between whistle-blowing and 'treasonous' activity!
Click to expand...

I agree but would also suggest that the Whistleblower also needs some investigation before their allegations are made public. The recent Public enquiry into pedophile rings alleged to have been run by top establishment people has spent a considerable amount of money pursuing the claims of a whistleblower, it now seems that these allegations are unfounded and based on evidence from a very unreliable source. The whistleblower has done very well for himself sitting on the enquiry at £300 a day and has now resigned.
 
Imurg said:
Whilst I am of the opinion that he should grow a pair and face the music, if only to be found innocent, I am also of the opinion that I'd be leaning towards being relatively happy if he rots forever in the Equadorian Embassy.
The bloke's a Weasel.
Click to expand...

Even with the money it's costing the public purse for policing? Not sure I'd tar weasels with the same brush as Assange, but hypocrite & coward both spring to mind.
 
Blue in Munich said:
Even with the money it's costing the public purse for policing? Not sure I'd tar weasels with the same brush as Assange, but hypocrite & coward both spring to mind.
Click to expand...

Work on the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy principle...
Assume that the Police presence is always going to be there so the Police dont actually have to be there so JA won't come out...that way no cost...simples..!
 
Oxfordcomma said:
Has anyone read the actual decision? http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17012&LangID=E

It seems to be a joke, to summarise "we don't think the Swedish prosecutor did a great job, therefore this is illegal detention". Doesn't seem to take the slightest bit of notice of the process of law. Surely if you get arrested (or have a warrant issued) and the charge turns out to be inaccurate, then your lawyers point this out in court and you get off?

Impressively though, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has achieved something that not many others can, and got virtually everyone in the country having the same opinion regardless of their politics!
Click to expand...

For those that haven't, here's some prize snippets;

"Since August 2012, Mr. Assange has not been able to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy and is subject to extensive surveillance by the British police."


"because of the lack of diligence by the Swedish Prosecutor in its investigations, which resulted in the lengthy detention of Mr. Assange."

"The Working Group also considered that the detention should be brought to an end and that Mr. Assange should be afforded the right to compensation."

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]How exactly does the Swedish prosecutor exercise full diligence when in most sexual assault cases it is one person's word against another, and whilst one person has given their version, the other prefers to hide away? I'm not sure there's any evidence of surveillance by the British police, otherwise the ambassador would be jumping up and down, and Philip Hammond, on behalf of the Government, assured Mr. Assange only yesterday that he is more than welcome to come out at any time he likes as he is not being detained by anyone other than himself.

The only members of the Working Group that emerge with any degree of common sense or credit are the fellow Australian who excused herself on the basis on conflict of interest, albeit that in itself that is almost as much a ducking of the issue as dear old Julian is undertaking, and the one member of the Working Group who correctly identified that he is not being detained & that therefore it is none of their business. Incidentally the opinion of the working group is described as that of the majority, and whilst factually true, when you look at the make up of it it's hardly overwhelming; 5 members, one abstention & one against. Wonder who the sensible one was?

[/FONT]http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Detention/Pages/Members.aspx[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
 
We should tell Equador to kick him out of their Embassy , if they refuse we should withdraw diplomatic relations , kick them out then go and get the scroat

Sorry Equador you'll get over it .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Alternatives to the Haka
Replies
1
Views
2K
dewsweeper
D
Top