5 ms·

So much wrong? >serious crime He faces allegations of sexual assault - I could be wrong but I'd assume this a serious crime in most places. Do you really not

So much wrong? >serious crime He faces allegations of sexual assault - I could be wrong but I'd assume this a serious crime in most places. Do you really not think the alleged crime is serious? >that you wanted to evade The Ecuadorian embassy upon last request denied the Swedish prosecution entry to question him. Also, it is gracious of him to permit them to call him over the phone for questioning. Do many formal police interviews occur telephonically? In situations where the defendant is already incarcerated, on remand or perhaps in a military setting I can understand but a civilian? Why should an exception be made? You aren't wasting your time replying, I am not aiming to troll or wind anyone up. I genuinely agree with my above statements and don't find them wrong, ill-conceived or flippant. It saddens me people down vote my comments just because they disagree with my conclusion.

whamlastxmas 10y ago
The downvotes are because your point of view is that of one who conveniently ignores the facts that don't fit the narrative they want to be true. >The Ecuadorian embassy upon last request denied the Swedish prosecution entry to question him. This is simply not true. Ecuador actively worked to persuade Sweden to get the prosecutor access to the embassy to interview Assange, and they were successful in doing so. >Do many formal police interviews occur telephonically? Why should an exception be made? How many police interviews take place with someone who is under political asylum to be protected from the UNITED STATES for a very real fear of being put to death or tortured because someone is politically motivated to make it happen? How often do they have to interview someone who the UN has officially declared as being illegally and arbitrarily detained? These are all tremendously good reasons for an exception, and obviously Sweden finally agreed since they did go to him in the embassy as a last resort. How often does Sweden try to extradite someone over or go through these lengths for an allegation (with no evidence) of sexual assault? Never. Why did they make the exception for Assange? >He faces allegations of sexual assault - I could be wrong but I'd assume this a serious crime in most places. Do you really not think the alleged crime is serious? I am not going to try to be an apologist for sexual assault. The facts are that the alleged assaults were non-violent and the involved women that had consented to sex with him, just not the exact way in which sex was allegedly had. Not using a condom during sex when you said you would doesn't rank anywhere near murdering someone (a serious crime) in my opinion. It is not an allegation worth trying to fucking extradite someone for questioning who is currently being protected by asylum for political reasons. A woman going to a police station and saying "he didn't use a condom when I told him to" should not be carte blanche for the nation of Sweden demanding someone be arrested and extradited from anywhere in the world. It is beyond ridiculous and transparently politically motivated and that you would argue otherwise is why you're downvoted.
- alex_hitchins 10y ago
  >conveniently ignores the facts Not so, and if I wanted I could say the same to yourself. >This is simply not true. OK, I'm guessing you must work there? To be that sure would indicate having knowledge that the lay man would not have. Are you able to let us in to any other information that might persuade me to come around to your line of thinking? >political asylum Remember - the charge against him currently is that of sexual assault. This isn't a political case, it's one for a crime. He sure wants it to be political as that will help him in his endeavours >I am not going to try to be an apologist for sexual assault. I am going to stop this discussion here as I am totally dismayed by your attitude to the seriousness of the crime committed. I can't see anything more positive to come from this thread. I urge you to see this without any bias and put yourself in the shoes of the alleged victim.
  - whamlastxmas 10y ago
    >OK, I'm guessing you must work there? To be that sure would indicate having knowledge that the lay man would not have. Are you able to let us in to any other information that might persuade me to come around to your line of thinking? https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/dec/12/julian-assange-may-face-swedish-interrogation-within-days https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/dec/12/julian-assange... >The WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, may be questioned in London within days about alleged sexual offences after Ecuador indicated it had reached a bilateral deal with Sweden. >Negotiations began in June this year between Ecuador’s acting foreign minister, Xavier Lasso, and the Swedish justice ministry’s international affairs chief, Anna-Carin Svensson.

whamlastxmas 10y ago

The downvotes are because your point of view is that of one who conveniently ignores the facts that don't fit the narrative they want to be true. >The Ecuadorian embassy upon last request denied the Swedish prosecution entry to question him. This is simply not true. Ecuador actively worked to persuade Sweden to get the prosecutor access to the embassy to interview Assange, and they were successful in doing so. >Do many formal police interviews occur telephonically? Why should an exception be made? How many police interviews take place with someone who is under political asylum to be protected from the UNITED STATES for a very real fear of being put to death or tortured because someone is politically motivated to make it happen? How often do they have to interview someone who the UN has officially declared as being illegally and arbitrarily detained? These are all tremendously good reasons for an exception, and obviously Sweden finally agreed since they did go to him in the embassy as a last resort. How often does Sweden try to extradite someone over or go through these lengths for an allegation (with no evidence) of sexual assault? Never. Why did they make the exception for Assange? >He faces allegations of sexual assault - I could be wrong but I'd assume this a serious crime in most places. Do you really not think the alleged crime is serious? I am not going to try to be an apologist for sexual assault. The facts are that the alleged assaults were non-violent and the involved women that had consented to sex with him, just not the exact way in which sex was allegedly had. Not using a condom during sex when you said you would doesn't rank anywhere near murdering someone (a serious crime) in my opinion. It is not an allegation worth trying to fucking extradite someone for questioning who is currently being protected by asylum for political reasons. A woman going to a police station and saying "he didn't use a condom when I told him to" should not be carte blanche for the nation of Sweden demanding someone be arrested and extradited from anywhere in the world. It is beyond ridiculous and transparently politically motivated and that you would argue otherwise is why you're downvoted.

alex_hitchins 10y ago
>conveniently ignores the facts Not so, and if I wanted I could say the same to yourself. >This is simply not true. OK, I'm guessing you must work there? To be that sure would indicate having knowledge that the lay man would not have. Are you able to let us in to any other information that might persuade me to come around to your line of thinking? >political asylum Remember - the charge against him currently is that of sexual assault. This isn't a political case, it's one for a crime. He sure wants it to be political as that will help him in his endeavours >I am not going to try to be an apologist for sexual assault. I am going to stop this discussion here as I am totally dismayed by your attitude to the seriousness of the crime committed. I can't see anything more positive to come from this thread. I urge you to see this without any bias and put yourself in the shoes of the alleged victim.
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  >OK, I'm guessing you must work there? To be that sure would indicate having knowledge that the lay man would not have. Are you able to let us in to any other information that might persuade me to come around to your line of thinking? https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/dec/12/julian-assange-may-face-swedish-interrogation-within-days https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/dec/12/julian-assange... >The WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, may be questioned in London within days about alleged sexual offences after Ecuador indicated it had reached a bilateral deal with Sweden. >Negotiations began in June this year between Ecuador’s acting foreign minister, Xavier Lasso, and the Swedish justice ministry’s international affairs chief, Anna-Carin Svensson.