In about-face, Sweden offers to question Assange in London

[dexterm]

phrodan,

He made a rod for his own back

I've got a feeling Sweden and quite a few other countries have been manufacturing rods too.Does UK wish to extend this fiasco and fabricate another one?

If Sweden drops the investigation, then that will prove Assange was right all along after every opportunity to interview him had been ignored by the Swedes.

Ergo, there was very good reason for him to seek refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy.

Sometimes the law is an ass.

Nonsense - he has clearly jumped bail, hence no fabrication required.

I've watched the Assange situ with interest. I have no opinion either way as to his guilt and/or conspiracy theories. I can also see the pro's and con's of his leaks.

The one thing that has struck me is the amount of people that rallied to his "cause." If he ends up being convicted, the majority of these people will refuse to accept it was a righteous verdict.

he may well be innocent, but then again - he may also be a high profile sex offender who has been hiding in plain sight, just like so many others. And what for his supporters? It could well be that they are nothing more than useful idiots to him.

The case was thrown out by the original Swedish prosecutor in 2010, then strangely reinstated.

He would have answered his accusers in court years ago, but for the elephant in the room.

Read the last 3 sentences of the OP. There's your answer.

Uhuhu -

Are you aware that the case was reopened before the primary leak of US documents? Well before.

A fact that many people choose to overlook.

Anyway, I've spent enough time discussing this issue. All the best.

You are cherry picking your dates.

Edited March 14, 2015 by dexterm

[Seastallion]

As a power driven rapist he should just step down from WL. Kind of defeating their purpose..

He is actually not the victim here and deserves no attention.

All this bull is just to play up his ego and own importance.

And of course being exposed and convicted as a rapist would hopefully be the end of his credibility.

He has now suffered a longer and worse detention than he ever would have gotten in Sweden. So sweden should just find him guilty, consider time served and not waste more money and give more publicity to the <deleted>.

Similarly uk should pull back the surveillance. Who gives a shit about that <deleted>.

You forgot '' alleged''

And also, the Assange demonisers forget that the term "rape" in this case is not what we normally understand or think of "rape".

"Rape" carries deeply abhorrent connotations, yet "non-consensual behaviour within consensual sex" is arguably ambiguous insofar as the enormity of the crime. Some jurisdictions wouldn't even entertain what he is alleged to have done to have been anything at all like "rape".

Sweden itself calls it "lesser rape", and that is a translation (wherein there could have been some loss in meaning).

At worst, he can be called an alleged lesser-rapist, and at best, a non-literal but accurate in spirit translation of the charge might allow him to be called an alleged premature ejaculator.

Alleged rapist sounds a whole lot more nasty than the latter, doesn't it.

I can see the charge of non-consensual behaviour within consensual sex could indeed be quite a serious charge, but it could also be something that most people would say is almost excusable behaviour. "Non-consensual behaviour" is a very broad term that can encompass anything from violent change in sexual acts that started out as consensual (which I daresay is what the charge is crafted for), to something as petty as "I said no tongue when we kiss, but he slipped it in".

Assange's charge is somewhere in between the extremes but in itself could have biological mitigations.

[Scott]

Off-topic post post removed.

[Chicog]

Assange's charge is somewhere in between the extremes but in itself could have biological mitigations.

Or it's a manufactured charge. She could have just taken the morning after pill if it was an issue.

He's been stitched up, let's face it.

[midas]

Assange's charge is somewhere in between the extremes but in itself could have biological mitigations.

Or it's a manufactured charge. She could have just taken the morning after pill if it was an issue.

He's been stitched up, let's face it.

She even withdrew her accusations at one stage but was pressed into reinstating them by the female prosecutor. It was an issue more for the female prosecutor than for the alleged victim.

[Rancid]

Always thought the charges were a bit light weight, contrived and very convenient. There will always be those that will swallow the MSM version hook, line and sinker, ah to have a mind unburdened by philosophical introspection.

A popular technique short of having people disappeared by convenient suicides and air crashes is the ever popular sex scandal. He was becoming a pain to the US and even more dangerous was threatening Bank of America, then bamm , a sex scandal. Remember the IMF guy, where did that go?

Sweden like the UK and Australia seems to be another of the US pit bulls.

[Seastallion]

Assange's charge is somewhere in between the extremes but in itself could have biological mitigations.

Or it's a manufactured charge. She could have just taken the morning after pill if it was an issue.

He's been stitched up, let's face it.

To be fair, I don't think the availability of the morning after pill is a mitigation....if she didn't want him to ejaculate, she didn't want him to, and that's her right. The oral sex scenario is almost the same; Don't c.... in my mouth. You're an aassshole if you do. Especially if by force.

But she should have been realistic into male sex drive....it's not really like in the porn movies.

The bottom line is, she wanted to withdraw the charges....she obviously wasn't all that perturbed.

[Chicog]

Assange's charge is somewhere in between the extremes but in itself could have biological mitigations.

Or it's a manufactured charge. She could have just taken the morning after pill if it was an issue.

He's been stitched up, let's face it.

To be fair, I don't think the availability of the morning after pill is a mitigation....if she didn't want him to ejaculate, she didn't want him to, and that's her right. The oral sex scenario is almost the same; Don't c.... in my mouth. You're an aassshole if you do. Especially if by force.

But she should have been realistic into male sex drive....it's not really like in the porn movies.

The bottom line is, she wanted to withdraw the charges....she obviously wasn't all that perturbed.

I have never heard of the charge of not being able to hold it in being a criminal offence!

Worth her never speaking to him again maybe, but if he's already banging her then it's a risk you take.

If the issue is not wanting to get pregnant or get an STD, she already blew that by allowing unprotected sex.

Still, from the excellent article posted above, one of the alleged victims said "I was not raped" and the response was "yes, but she's not a lawyer is she?".

Frankly that's appalling.

It's a fit up.

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been removed as well as a post commenting on moderation.

[Seastallion]

Assange's charge is somewhere in between the extremes but in itself could have biological mitigations.

Or it's a manufactured charge. She could have just taken the morning after pill if it was an issue.

He's been stitched up, let's face it.

To be fair, I don't think the availability of the morning after pill is a mitigation....if she didn't want him to ejaculate, she didn't want him to, and that's her right. The oral sex scenario is almost the same; Don't c.... in my mouth. You're an aassshole if you do. Especially if by force.

But she should have been realistic into male sex drive....it's not really like in the porn movies.

The bottom line is, she wanted to withdraw the charges....she obviously wasn't all that perturbed.

I have never heard of the charge of not being able to hold it in being a criminal offence!

Worth her never speaking to him again maybe, but if he's already banging her then it's a risk you take.

If the issue is not wanting to get pregnant or get an STD, she already blew that by allowing unprotected sex.

Still, from the excellent article posted above, one of the alleged victims said "I was not raped" and the response was "yes, but she's not a lawyer is she?".

Frankly that's appalling.

It's a fit up.

I agree with you, totally.

But I surmised previously that the charge of "lesser rape", described as non-consensual behaviour within consensual sex, was probably crafted to counter those guys who, once given the green light for standard sex, go overboard. I think it's a good idea, but not a well-crafted law as it indeed seems to be able to cover "not being able to hold it", at least for a charge.

I agree it's a fit up.

[Chicog]

I agree with you, totally.

But I surmised previously that the charge of "lesser rape", described as non-consensual behaviour within consensual sex, was probably crafted to counter those guys who, once given the green light for standard sex, go overboard.

I think if he'd gone "overboard" they probably wouldn't have had anything to charge him with. Littering maybe.

[sdanielmcev]

Julian Assange. Hates government secrets. Establishes secret society.

In a high profile case such as this, it is very doubtful the US could extradite him then make him go "missing." He says he's innocent, yet does everything to disprove that.

Edited March 15, 2015 by sdanielmcev

[Linky]

It has always seemed odd to me that when a govt is found to be doing the wrong thing they go after the messenger instead of addressing the issues. Assange's website merely posted what the govts had been doing. Whether he is Jack the Ripper or Mother Theresa is not the issue.

So for simply embarrassing govts by making public their wrongdoing he finds himself in all sorts of trouble. All this and he has never been charged with anything, only asked to answer questions. Even blind Pugh would know he is under no obligation at all to answer any questions.

So why the big fuss of having him go to Sweden to be questioned about something he doesn't need to answer? It's simply just about getting him in custody to hold him until they can find something to get him on, or stitched up on.

[GentlemanJim]

You don't know if he is a rapist and neither do I.

What we do know is that he has refused to submit to the legal process in two countries, that's all.

It will be a court of law that decides in the event that he is charged, and so be it.

As you well know it is not as simple as that, but don't wish to go off topic.

If it were as simple as that the Swedish prosecutor would have interviewed Assange in Sweden before he left after staying several weeks voluntarily, or in London, or by videolink, or by interview at the Ecuadorian embassy...all permissible under Swedish law.

..at last she is doing so after 4 years and ££m of UK taxpayers' money.

Can someone explain what "lower the quality of the interview" means? It's certainly proved an expensive one. What question can you ask him in person in Sweden that you cannot ask him in person at the Ecuadorian embassy?

I'm picking you up on your declaration that he is not a rapist, something that you cannot know for certain.

The British public would much rather he was in Sweden and out of our hands. Equally, the British public would not tolerate him being allowed to waltz to Heathrow Airport and fly out unencumbered.

He made a rod for his won back - and it doesn't matter how much it costs - he'll answer. And now? don't be shocked if the Swede's drop the investigation, and the Brits jail him for ninety days for jumping bail.

And the British public will cheer that, you better believe it.

Well I won't cheer that's for sure. I don't believe he is guilty, and he has not wasted any of the UK tax payers money, the Met Police has. He was perfectly and legally allowed to request questioning in the UK - FACT! Whilst in Sweden at the time he was questioned by the police - result - no charges. The Swedes do not want him on their soil to answer concocted charges (by the prosecutor) of rape, there is a different agenda. Anyone with a brain can see it a mile off.

For those with an interest just research the connections between the Prosecutor (the original public prosecutor at the time was replaced I recall for deciding no charges were warranted), the Swedish Minister for Justice at the time and the Ministers business interests and career. I am sure you will pick up the trail.

Edited March 15, 2015 by GentlemanJim