RayC

More than a tiff by the sound of things. AfD too extreme even for the likes of France's NF and Belgium's Vlaams Belang. Tells you all you need to know.

You have avoided directly addressing my questions regarding Russia's relationship with its' neighbours. I agree with the principle of national self-determination, but am not so naive to believe that the effect on relations with other nations does not play a part in the decision making process. The topic of conversation is Ukraine, not Cuba. In any event, whatever the rights or wrongs of US "interference" in Cuban affairs, a defence of 'two wrongs make a right' offers no justification whatsoever for Russia's actions in Ukraine. You are wrong about the events in 2014 in Ukraine. The Maiden revolt against Yanukovych's pro-Russia government was not, as you imply, a result of US interference, but was fueled by Yanukovych unilaterally deciding against signing the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement; a measure which had been approved by the Ukrainian parliament, and a policy platform on which Yanukovych had stood for election in 2010. However, without wishing to sound like an apologist for Yanukovych, he was in a difficult position. Russia was opposed to the signing of the EU-Ukraine Agreement and had placed trade sanctions on Ukraine and issued threats against Ukraine - which culminated in the annexation of Crimea and the Donbass - in order to get the Ukrainian government to change its' stance. Re Landsbergis: Why shouldn't the Foreign Minister of a nation make public his views on international matters, especially where he believes that his nation's interests are involved?

Julian created this mess for Julian. He has demonstrated time and again that he does consider himself to be responsible and accountable for his actions. I would hope that the victims of Assange's alleged sexual crimes will get their day in court but, unfortunately, that now appears very unlikely.

No due process is well ... a process. It does not say anything about guilt or innocence. If by doing so it lead to people making millions of illegal downloads of movies, songs or books then you would leave yourself open to prosecution. However, I doubt that simply jotting down 64 characters in a notebook would result in illegal downloads taking place You can rewrite definitions as much and as often as you please. It is completely irrelevant. What counts is the legal definition(s) which I'm pretty certain doesn't mention RIAA. I don't know and I don't understand what point you are trying to make. There can be little doubt that Pirate Bay facilitated illegal downloads. This impinges on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). I can only assume that you do not believe in IPR.

You're of course correct that no one can force me to watch GB News which is a blessing. However, by no stretch of the imagination can it be claimed that GB News is somehow less bias than other media outlets. The political affiliations of tonight's presenters suggests the exact opposite.

The first court found Pirate Bay guilty, the Swedish Appeal Court upheld the verdict, the ECJ confirmed the verdict and, in a separate case, a UK court reached a similar conclusion. Do you believe all these courts were following the same political motivated agenda? It all sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/15/pirate-bay-european-court-of-justice-rules-infringing-copyright-torrent-sites

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.