RayC

Tonight's GB news schedule: 4:00pm Martin Daubney (former Reform party politician) 7:00pm Dewbs & Co Michelle Dewberry (Reform party member) 8:00pm Farage (Former Brexit party leader) 9:00pm Jacob Rees-Mogg's State of the Nation (Conservative party MP) 10:00pm Patrick Christys Tonight (no idea who he is or what is his political affiliation) And you consider that line-up to be representative and less bias than the presenters on BBC News, Channel 4, ITV, CNN, etc?

Index files could be viewed as derivatives. (I have no idea whether this formed part of the prosecution's case) As you are no doubt aware, Judge Norstrom's impartially was the subject of an appeal. This appeal was heard and dismissed. It is also worth noting that there were two other judges in addition to Norstrom. You might not agree with the verdict but the bottom line is that due process was followed according to Swedish law.

You appear to have given Rayner a Scouse accent.

So your solution is what? Raise the drawbridge and have us live like a European version of North Korea?

Right. Everything's just peachy here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021–present_United_Kingdom_cost-of-living_crisis#:~:text=Causes unique to the UK,a rise in Council Tax.

Rayner's from Manchester, Trans. Unlikely to be drinking Newkie Brown, more likely she'll have a pint of Bodies😉

The concept of copyright infringement (see below) is imo an easy concept to grasp, although you seem to be unable or unwilling to accept it. Whether you believe it to be a 'just' law is completely irrelevant. The simple fact is that a Swedish court and Appeal Court found PB guilty of copyright infringement. I imagine that the verdict would have been the same had the trial been held in the UK, US or Timbuktu although, of course, that is my opinion not a fact. -----++++ "What is copyright infringement? As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner."

I can understand that Russia might perceive that to be the case but your easy question throws up numerous supplementaries. Does that perception justify Russia invading Ukraine? Should sovereign countries - such as Ukraine - be prevented from pursuing actions, which they consider to be in their best interests, in order to satisfy Russian sensitivities? Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Poland (with Kalingrad) share land borders and a host of countries share Black sea borders with Russia: Should these countries have been prevented from joining NATO? Should they now be forced to leave NATO? Do you think that Russia would be justified in invading any of these countries because of their perceived threat?

The only way that your statement can be true is if you redefine the word 'illegal'. PB hosted files when they did not have permission to do so. The site broached companies' Intellectual Property Rights. This is illegal and a criminal offence.

The appeal court concluded that “The Pirate Bay has facilitated illegal file sharing in a way that results in criminal liability for those who run the service.” That's a pretty definite and unambiguous statement. What is bogus about It? Are you suggesting that PB didn't engage in illegal file sharing?

Wrong. Firstly, there were three victims not just one as you suggest. Secondly, the 'lesser' charges were dropped due to the stature of limitation in Swedish law (the charges effectively timed out). Thirdly, the Swedish prosecutor decided to drop the remaining charges and close the case because "the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed" but said that "the complainant had submitted a credible and reliable version of events". Hardly an admission that they believed Assange to be innocent.

"In April 2009, the website's founders–Fredrik Neij, Peter Sunde and Gottfrid Svartholm–were found guilty in the Pirate Bay trial in Sweden for assisting in copyright infringement and were sentenced to serve one year in prison and pay a fine." (Source: Wikipedia)

Copies of speeches are often given to the media before they are actually delivered.

Why is obvious that the UK would have extradited Assange to Sweden so that Sweden, in turn, could extradite him to the UK? Why would Sweden - a country admired for being largely free from corruption (see quote below) - embroil itself in a scandal by inventing charges against Assange? What's in it for them? What evidence exists to support any of these opinions? Answer: None. As Chomper has correctly stated throughout this thread, it is all conspiratorial nonsense. -------- "Transparency International's 2023 Corruption Perceptions Index scored Sweden at 82 on a scale from 0 ("highly corrupt") to 100 ("very clean"). When ranked by score, Sweden ranked 6th among the 180 countries in the Index, where the country ranked first is perceived to have the most honest public sector." (Source: Wikipedia).

An idiot is a person of low intelligence. Whether you accept Horowitz's premise or conclusion, he presents a coherent argument which suggests that he is not an idiot. I do not want to believe anything. It's simply that I find the counter arguments such as this war all being part of some US attempt to solidify its' unipolar hegemony; Russia having no choice; Putin saving Ukraine from corruption; Putin ridding us of Nazism, etc altogether less convincing. We all have bias. We need to recognise that and mitigate against as best we can.

The process governing audience selection for programmes such as QT would suggest otherwise https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/5HrMm77Yz7vwzCZZ570nTdp/frequently-asked-questions

Imo Horowitz makes a compelling argument in support of the premise is, " ... Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is driven by Putin’s desire to expand Russian influence and power". He is far from being an idiot.

Why do you consider Horowitz to be an idiot? He presents a well-reasoned argument. Churchill never met Hitler, but that didn't prevent Churchill forming the correct opinion of Hitler.

I agree with your sentiments but in Assange's case his confinement was, for the most part, of his own volition. Assange had the choice between facing charges of sexual assault in Sweden or breaking his UK bail conditions and escaping to the Ecuadorian embassy. He chose the latter course of action. He has no one to blame for those 'lost' 15 years but himself.

Biden's going after the bird and cattle vote? (No sheep quips please. Thank you).

... said the editor of the 'Bigot and Misogynist weekly'

Cherry orchard located. Plenty of pickings. Other fruits also available. https://ukandeu.ac.uk/reports/

@Hawaiian is correct. Although some anti-biotics are 'targeted', many are not and they can therefore eliminate friendly gut bacteria. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/247213/antibiotics-promote-growth-antibiotic-resistant-bacteria/#:~:text=Some antibiotics target specific bacteria,with digestion and other processes.

Is there any meaning attached to these sentences? Rhetorical question: Answer is 'No'.

I would agree with most of that but would argue that this shift in power has been recognised in mainland Europe with the realisation that it needs to act as a bloc to remain relevant. However, unfortunately imo 52% of those voting in a referendum in the UK had a different view.