8 ms·

Assange Hearing Day 3

152 points by patal 7y ago

9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
I feel guilty for chuckling through an account of what is by any standard an absolute travesty of justice, but I have to say, the man can write: > Baraitser started to throw out jargon like a Dalek when it spins out of control. > He looked at her like a kindly uncle whose favourite niece has just started drinking tequila from the bottle at a family party.
- Fnoord 7y ago
  Feels like a sequel to The Fifth Estate [1] or the books it is based on (Inside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange and the World's Most Dangerous Website, and WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assanges War on Secrecy) is in order. Same, eventually, with Snowden. [1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1837703/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1837703/
- CarelessExpert 7y ago
  Apparently this is his idea of writing in a way that's not "a caricature or unfair exaggeration on [his] part"...
fareesh 7y ago
Isn't there something like court transcripts, where the public can read what the judge is saying? If the system is so opaque, what mechanism exists to protect against a judge who does whatever they want? If the judge is truly using some kind of apparent word salad to justify arbitrary decisions which don't pass a basic test of reasoning, doesn't this effectively mean that a judge can do this anytime without consequences?
- Ntrails 7y ago
  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/order-a-transcript-of-court-or-tribunal-proceedings-form-ex107 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/order-a-transcrip... I think that is the appropriate link. In general you can pay to get a copy of any transcribed court proceeding assuming the court approves. Some small hearings are not transcribed (eg magistrates) so are not available. Records are only kept for a few years?
  - rwmj 7y ago
    No [edit: ,] records are kept forever. There are court records going back to the middle ages, mostly stored in the National Archives (https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/start-here/what-we-have/ https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/...).
    - 5555624 7y ago
      >No records are kept forever. Not to be that guy; but, I think you need a comma in there: "No, records are kept forever" or just remove "no." Maybe it was just me; but, I read that sentence as saying records were not kept forever. Court records need to be kept, since they can provide precedent.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  > Isn't there something like court transcripts I don't believe you can get these in real time. You can apply for them afterwards, or you can go and listen for yourself, as this person did. In the UK we generally don't go in for blow-by-blow realtime reporting of court cases, like they do in the US. > doesn't this effectively mean that a judge can do this anytime without consequences? Judges in the UK are appointed professionals - they aren't elected as in many places in the US, so they aren't pursuing an agenda or appealing to an electorate. Judges going rogue isn't a problem in practice.
  - mcherm 7y ago
    > Judges in the UK are appointed professionals - they aren't elected as in many places in the US, so they aren't pursuing an agenda or appealing to an electorate. Judges going rogue isn't a problem in practice. I think in this very case the judge clearly IS pursuing an agenda. It may be a government-approved agenda, but it is clearly an agenda separate from the even-handed pursuit of justice.
    - mantap 7y ago
      Judges do sometimes have agendas. But that is exactly why higher courts exist. This particular case is shaping up to be appealed all the way to UK Supreme Court, these initial hearings are just practice sessions for both sides to hone their arguments.
  - fareesh 7y ago
    They can still have a personal agenda or be intimidated to pursue an agenda, or be incentivised to pursue an agenda. If the transcript exists it ought to be made available quickly to the public. If it's a matter of fees, there ought to be a way of paying in advance for the transcript for a particular day, unless I'm missing something that's unique to the transcription process that makes it less feasible than I'm imagining it to be.
  - wil421 7y ago
    Explain to me how being appointed by someone makes you any less bias them being elected. Most states have non-partisan elections for Judges, only 18 allow then to run with a political party. Federal Judges are appointed and about 90% of state judges are elected. There have only been 2 Federal judges that have been impeached since 1989.
- DanBC 7y ago
  Some high profile cases will be published on the Judiciary.uk website, but these will be decisions and judgments, not full transcripts. The site also publishes "coroner's reports to prevent future deaths"[1], and any committal for contempt cases. https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/ https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/ Here's what they have for Assange's previous cases: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/?filter_type=judgment&search=assange&tax-single-judgment-jurisdiction=-1&tax-single-court=-1&date-range-after=&date-range-before= https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/?filter_type=judgment&sea... Some other cases will be pushed to the charitable organisation BAILII, who'll do any necessary anonymisation, apply a standard format, and put them up on the web. https://www.bailii.org/ https://www.bailii.org/ Here's the BAILII search for Assange: https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/lucy_search_1.cgi?highlight=1&method=boolean&mask_path=/&sort=rank&results=200&query=(assange) https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/lucy_search_1.cgi?highlight=1... But in general, no, we don't have full transcripts easily available and nothing apart from court reporting is available in real time. The collapse of journalism as a career, especially local journalism (maybe this is just a UK thing?) means a lot of court reporting just doesn't happen any more, which is a bit worrying. [1] If anyone's looking for a project something that scrapes that data and makes it easier to search and pull out themes would be welcomed by many people in England. It's a shame that this important learning is locked up in PDFs that are hard to find and use.
  - Fnoord 7y ago
    In The Netherlands a platform arose to look up local news per city/town/village, called In De Buurt ("In The Neighborhood") [1]. It isn't complete ie. does not cover all cities, nor does it cover specific neighborhoods of cities (kinda ironic) but it does have professional journalists who do the work (I'd assume they work there freelance). It is considered complimentary to local TV/newspaper/radio (which also still exist, albeit different than pre-WWW). [1] https://indebuurt.nl https://indebuurt.nl
  - zaarn 7y ago
    In Europe, realtime court reporting just isn't as much of a thing as in the US, were court cases are more easily sensationalized.
- jackweirdy 7y ago
  > If the system is so opaque, what mechanism exists to protect against a judge who does whatever they want? Usually a higher court or the court of appeal, the latter of which you can appear before an unlimited number of times if you have grounds. Both have mechanisms for urgent hearings. Judges can also be struck off for misconduct, which happens from time to time Just to add though, this is not a judge, this is a magistrate, who take legal advice but are not legally qualified like a judge is.
  - fareesh 7y ago
    > this is a magistrate It says in some online articles that she is a district judge - is that the same thing as a magistrate? It seems unusual for an international case involving an Australian citizen, the UK crown and the US government to be at the mercy of someone who is not qualified at the highest level to make decisions and adjudicate the matter.
    - SteveSmith16384 7y ago
      IANAL, but I believe that most cases start in a Magistrates, and are then escalated if required (or appealed).
      - tialaramex 7y ago
        Ordinary criminal cases in England split into two categories which overlap to produce a third. The first category is "Summary offences" like maybe you stole merchandise from a shop or you punched somebody in a bar fight but there was no lasting harm done. These are heard by Magistrates, who are just lay people who volunteered and are "of good character" - it's usually like teachers and bank managers and people like that - with no jury, the magistrates are restricted in what sentences they can possibly order, and an actual lawyer sits with them to explain any details of law. At the other extreme there are "Indictable offences" like murder or rape. These are heard by a Judge and jury, guilt is decided by the jury and the sentence is only limited constitutionally (e.g. "life without possibility of parole" is prohibited as a sentence for any crime, except that it can be imposed for multiple independently conceived crimes of murder) In the middle is an overlap "Tried either way". This means the Prosecutors can decide e.g. "This was very serious, we need a Judge to impose the harsh sentence we'll request" or "This seems pretty routine, let magistrates handle it". If the magistrates disagree (they meet only as panels of three) they can send the case to a judge for a harsher sentence whereas a judge doesn't need to send cases down to magistrates they can just impose a lesser sentence themselves.
tristanperry 7y ago
> It would have to be up to Group 4 to decide if this was possible. > Yes, she really did say that. Group 4 would have to decide. Presumably that refers to G4S (nee Group 4), the private security company that the UK Government are increasingly farming work out too? i.e. the company who are embroiled in a series of scandals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_G4S https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_G4S It is therefore quite concerning that a justice-based decision (a prisoner sitting by their lawyers and being able to speak to them as normal) is down to a for-profit private company. I know that's just the tip of the iceberg, but still concerning to be reminded of it.
- moomin 7y ago
  To be honest, I think you've just exemplified a lot of what I think about this trial: people are reporting on what's happening, are outraged, but as far as I can tell, most of it is just par for the course for the British justice system. Which isn't to say you shouldn't be outraged, but you should probably be outraged about a sixteen year old black kid being brought up for possession as well. He's not high profile enough to get a star lawyer determined to enumerate the problems with his treatment.
  - Chris2048 7y ago
    > but you should probably be outraged about .. pointing out such inconsistency is an excellent way to dilute and dissolve outrage. Most people don't see such cases, they see this one because it's so high-profile/novel; If this is the breakthrough case that starts people talking it will benefit everyone.
    - moomin 7y ago
      That'd be great, but most of them seem to think the treatment is exceptional and targeted at Assange. If you pick the wrong target, all of your shots will miss. (Equally, wait until you find out exactly how limited the grounds are to refuse an extradition to America. And the fact that America refuses to allow symmetric rules. And the fact that Britain went along with this...)
easytiger 7y ago
Unrelated aside ≥ she appears to be the only public figure in Western Europe with no photo on the internet. Indeed the average proprietor of a rural car wash has left more evidence of their existence and life history on the internet than Vanessa Baraitser. Which is no crime on her part, but I suspect the expunging is not achieved without considerable effort Likely something more people should strive for
- UncleSlacky 7y ago
  Best we've got so far: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ERxqKg1XsAEctQm?format=jpg&name=4096x4096 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ERxqKg1XsAEctQm?format=jpg&name=...
  - gnfargbl 7y ago
    That is a picture of Lady Arbuthnot, who is not the magistrate in this case. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6351763/Judge-says-Uber-gravely-misled-regulators-judges.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6351763/Judge-says-...
- Fnoord 7y ago
  You can't always control that. Are you at a conference? Someone's making pictures? Woops. Plus, if you visit a large city, chances are there's security cameras everywhere.
  - easytiger 7y ago
    Hardly the same as temperance with online presence
  - tialaramex 7y ago
    Increasingly conferences are sensitive to this and provide some mechanism to signal that photographs are unwelcome. The IETF began using coloured lanyards, if you picked the special colour this was a signal to not record your presence at the in-person event where practical. When they first began doing this somebody key (maybe a Working Group chair or Area Director? Anyway someone who'd obviously be on camera all the time so that not recording them is hopeless) picked that colour because they liked it, and then only realised later why everybody was freaking out. Amusing.
barneygale 7y ago
Note that Craig Murray is a conspiracy theorist who insisted, for a long time, that the Salisbury poisoning was a false flag.
- trollied 7y ago
  Relevant blog post: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/03/pure-ten-points-i-just-cant-believe-about-the-official-skripal-narrative/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/03/pure-ten-poi...
  - Dayshine 7y ago
    Huh, wow, those are some pretty massive holes in the "official" narrative. I'm not sure I'd call him a conspiracy theorist for this, isn't it normal that the public aren't told the true progression of events for "Spy" stuff?
    - Traster 7y ago
      No, there are 'pretty massive holes' in what he misrepresents the official narrative to be. For example he states: >As the MSM never questions the official narrative, there has never been an official answer as to how the gel got from the doorknob to the roof. In 1 second of Googling: >Speaking to BBC Radio Wiltshire, Alistair Cunningham, the chair of the recovery coordination group, said: "the whole house had to be searched, including the roof space. >We want to be sure no contamination was taken from the door into the roof space. >It's a timber structure and when it comes to wood it's more difficult to clean. It's easier to remove." And that's just a random paragraph I pulled out of the middle of dozens of claims he makes. You need to actually read what he says and then relate what he claims people are lying to you about and what people are actually saying.
      - notahacker 7y ago
        It also helps as context to why Murray is viewed as a conspiracy theorist to read the multiple conflicting alternative narratives that Murray has pushed at different times (that the implicated Russians were telling the truth about going to England for the weekend to see Salisbury cathedral and it's racist to assume otherwise, that they were probably lying because they were a gay couple involved in the dodgy supplements trade, that they were probably meeting the Skripals but were probably Ukrainian, that there's no reason whatsoever to connect Russia with the assassination of Russian defectors using a Russian intelligence modus operandi and it's probably Israel instead)
Dahoon 7y ago
I don't understand anyone is surprised. This is a US court after all, even if it is located in the UK.
- socialdemocrat 7y ago
  Huh? How can the US have courts in the UK? Is this a common thing or just something that applies to the UK and the US in particular?
  - lawtalkinghuman 7y ago
    That is not meant literally but pejoratively.
  - mantap 7y ago
    I think they were being cynical, that the UK is the US's lapdog and so UK courts do whatever the US says. However this cynicism is misplaced. UK courts don't give a fuck about what even the UK government policy is (see today's ruling on third runway at Heathrow), let alone foreign government policy.
Traster 7y ago
There is genuinely more snide comment, ridiculous conspiracy theory and stupid misrepresentation in these reports than actual information on what's happening with the trial. In fact some of these comments are really quite disturbing. If I were responsible for being the judge at the extradition hearing of Julian Assange I wouldn't want my picture out in public either. Let's not pretend like there isn't a real threat that one of the loony conspiracy theorists that follow Assange wouldn't take matters in to their own hands. > Being angry at the public at random must be very stressful for her. I suspect she shouts a lot on trains. I know this guy thinks the legal case is going to be lost so wants to tarnish the reputation of the people he disagrees with, but could someone volunteer step forward and explain why this sort of bollocks makes them think lower of the judge rather than just thinking badly of the author?
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  Maybe a judge wouldn't need to fear the public, if there aren't reports of torture around. Not saying it is justified, just saying there are reasons for overstepping some lines.
- jevgeni 7y ago
  I mean, the footer just screams "This blog is the next Zero Hedge": > Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- tastroder 7y ago
  > explain why this sort of bollocks makes them think lower of the judge rather than just thinking badly of the author? That might not necessarily be what you want to hear but: Because I ignore the bollocks. Conspiracy theorist or not, the author seems to at least have an informed point of view, where his reporting is factual it seems to reflect reporting in e.g. the corresponding Guardian articles. Where it's not I either ignore it because it's unnecessary ramblings or see it as interesting tidbits dry reporting of other outlets leave out. The part you specifically point out for example, I had a laugh at that and went on with my life. I'm not reflecting much bad on that particular judge for that part but took it as a, in my view, rather ridiculous aspect of this proceeding (without too much judgement of whether that is normal or not, I wouldn't know). I knew nothing about this person 4 days ago, 3 days ago I learned that he was one of only 16 people (as per his first article in the series) to actually bother enough and manage to get one of the seats for the public. He clearly puts effort in and I for one enjoy his writing style. That doesn't mean I'll stop reading regular news but it certainly makes me come back when he publishes his piece on the next court date.
0x445442 7y ago
WRT the extradition debate, does anyone know if the key legislators responsible for drafting the laws are ever called as expert witnesses when questions arise interpreting the laws?

152 points by patal 7y ago

I feel guilty for chuckling through an account of what is by any standard an absolute travesty of justice, but I have to say, the man can write: > Baraitser started to throw out jargon like a Dalek when it spins out of control. > He looked at her like a kindly uncle whose favourite niece has just started drinking tequila from the bottle at a family party.

Fnoord 7y ago
Feels like a sequel to The Fifth Estate [1] or the books it is based on (Inside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange and the World's Most Dangerous Website, and WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assanges War on Secrecy) is in order. Same, eventually, with Snowden. [1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1837703/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1837703/
CarelessExpert 7y ago
Apparently this is his idea of writing in a way that's not "a caricature or unfair exaggeration on [his] part"...

fareesh 7y ago

Isn't there something like court transcripts, where the public can read what the judge is saying? If the system is so opaque, what mechanism exists to protect against a judge who does whatever they want? If the judge is truly using some kind of apparent word salad to justify arbitrary decisions which don't pass a basic test of reasoning, doesn't this effectively mean that a judge can do this anytime without consequences?

Ntrails 7y ago
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/order-a-transcript-of-court-or-tribunal-proceedings-form-ex107 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/order-a-transcrip... I think that is the appropriate link. In general you can pay to get a copy of any transcribed court proceeding assuming the court approves. Some small hearings are not transcribed (eg magistrates) so are not available. Records are only kept for a few years?
- rwmj 7y ago
  No [edit: ,] records are kept forever. There are court records going back to the middle ages, mostly stored in the National Archives (https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/start-here/what-we-have/ https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/...).
  - 5555624 7y ago
    >No records are kept forever. Not to be that guy; but, I think you need a comma in there: "No, records are kept forever" or just remove "no." Maybe it was just me; but, I read that sentence as saying records were not kept forever. Court records need to be kept, since they can provide precedent.
chrisseaton 7y ago
> Isn't there something like court transcripts I don't believe you can get these in real time. You can apply for them afterwards, or you can go and listen for yourself, as this person did. In the UK we generally don't go in for blow-by-blow realtime reporting of court cases, like they do in the US. > doesn't this effectively mean that a judge can do this anytime without consequences? Judges in the UK are appointed professionals - they aren't elected as in many places in the US, so they aren't pursuing an agenda or appealing to an electorate. Judges going rogue isn't a problem in practice.
- mcherm 7y ago
  > Judges in the UK are appointed professionals - they aren't elected as in many places in the US, so they aren't pursuing an agenda or appealing to an electorate. Judges going rogue isn't a problem in practice. I think in this very case the judge clearly IS pursuing an agenda. It may be a government-approved agenda, but it is clearly an agenda separate from the even-handed pursuit of justice.
  - mantap 7y ago
    Judges do sometimes have agendas. But that is exactly why higher courts exist. This particular case is shaping up to be appealed all the way to UK Supreme Court, these initial hearings are just practice sessions for both sides to hone their arguments.
- fareesh 7y ago
  They can still have a personal agenda or be intimidated to pursue an agenda, or be incentivised to pursue an agenda. If the transcript exists it ought to be made available quickly to the public. If it's a matter of fees, there ought to be a way of paying in advance for the transcript for a particular day, unless I'm missing something that's unique to the transcription process that makes it less feasible than I'm imagining it to be.
- wil421 7y ago
  Explain to me how being appointed by someone makes you any less bias them being elected. Most states have non-partisan elections for Judges, only 18 allow then to run with a political party. Federal Judges are appointed and about 90% of state judges are elected. There have only been 2 Federal judges that have been impeached since 1989.
DanBC 7y ago
Some high profile cases will be published on the Judiciary.uk website, but these will be decisions and judgments, not full transcripts. The site also publishes "coroner's reports to prevent future deaths"[1], and any committal for contempt cases. https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/ https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/ Here's what they have for Assange's previous cases: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/?filter_type=judgment&search=assange&tax-single-judgment-jurisdiction=-1&tax-single-court=-1&date-range-after=&date-range-before= https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/?filter_type=judgment&sea... Some other cases will be pushed to the charitable organisation BAILII, who'll do any necessary anonymisation, apply a standard format, and put them up on the web. https://www.bailii.org/ https://www.bailii.org/ Here's the BAILII search for Assange: https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/lucy_search_1.cgi?highlight=1&method=boolean&mask_path=/&sort=rank&results=200&query=(assange) https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/lucy_search_1.cgi?highlight=1... But in general, no, we don't have full transcripts easily available and nothing apart from court reporting is available in real time. The collapse of journalism as a career, especially local journalism (maybe this is just a UK thing?) means a lot of court reporting just doesn't happen any more, which is a bit worrying. [1] If anyone's looking for a project something that scrapes that data and makes it easier to search and pull out themes would be welcomed by many people in England. It's a shame that this important learning is locked up in PDFs that are hard to find and use.
- Fnoord 7y ago
  In The Netherlands a platform arose to look up local news per city/town/village, called In De Buurt ("In The Neighborhood") [1]. It isn't complete ie. does not cover all cities, nor does it cover specific neighborhoods of cities (kinda ironic) but it does have professional journalists who do the work (I'd assume they work there freelance). It is considered complimentary to local TV/newspaper/radio (which also still exist, albeit different than pre-WWW). [1] https://indebuurt.nl https://indebuurt.nl
- zaarn 7y ago
  In Europe, realtime court reporting just isn't as much of a thing as in the US, were court cases are more easily sensationalized.
jackweirdy 7y ago
> If the system is so opaque, what mechanism exists to protect against a judge who does whatever they want? Usually a higher court or the court of appeal, the latter of which you can appear before an unlimited number of times if you have grounds. Both have mechanisms for urgent hearings. Judges can also be struck off for misconduct, which happens from time to time Just to add though, this is not a judge, this is a magistrate, who take legal advice but are not legally qualified like a judge is.
- fareesh 7y ago
  > this is a magistrate It says in some online articles that she is a district judge - is that the same thing as a magistrate? It seems unusual for an international case involving an Australian citizen, the UK crown and the US government to be at the mercy of someone who is not qualified at the highest level to make decisions and adjudicate the matter.
  - SteveSmith16384 7y ago
    IANAL, but I believe that most cases start in a Magistrates, and are then escalated if required (or appealed).
    - tialaramex 7y ago
      Ordinary criminal cases in England split into two categories which overlap to produce a third. The first category is "Summary offences" like maybe you stole merchandise from a shop or you punched somebody in a bar fight but there was no lasting harm done. These are heard by Magistrates, who are just lay people who volunteered and are "of good character" - it's usually like teachers and bank managers and people like that - with no jury, the magistrates are restricted in what sentences they can possibly order, and an actual lawyer sits with them to explain any details of law. At the other extreme there are "Indictable offences" like murder or rape. These are heard by a Judge and jury, guilt is decided by the jury and the sentence is only limited constitutionally (e.g. "life without possibility of parole" is prohibited as a sentence for any crime, except that it can be imposed for multiple independently conceived crimes of murder) In the middle is an overlap "Tried either way". This means the Prosecutors can decide e.g. "This was very serious, we need a Judge to impose the harsh sentence we'll request" or "This seems pretty routine, let magistrates handle it". If the magistrates disagree (they meet only as panels of three) they can send the case to a judge for a harsher sentence whereas a judge doesn't need to send cases down to magistrates they can just impose a lesser sentence themselves.

tristanperry 7y ago

> It would have to be up to Group 4 to decide if this was possible. > Yes, she really did say that. Group 4 would have to decide. Presumably that refers to G4S (nee Group 4), the private security company that the UK Government are increasingly farming work out too? i.e. the company who are embroiled in a series of scandals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_G4S https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_G4S It is therefore quite concerning that a justice-based decision (a prisoner sitting by their lawyers and being able to speak to them as normal) is down to a for-profit private company. I know that's just the tip of the iceberg, but still concerning to be reminded of it.

moomin 7y ago
To be honest, I think you've just exemplified a lot of what I think about this trial: people are reporting on what's happening, are outraged, but as far as I can tell, most of it is just par for the course for the British justice system. Which isn't to say you shouldn't be outraged, but you should probably be outraged about a sixteen year old black kid being brought up for possession as well. He's not high profile enough to get a star lawyer determined to enumerate the problems with his treatment.
- Chris2048 7y ago
  > but you should probably be outraged about .. pointing out such inconsistency is an excellent way to dilute and dissolve outrage. Most people don't see such cases, they see this one because it's so high-profile/novel; If this is the breakthrough case that starts people talking it will benefit everyone.
  - moomin 7y ago
    That'd be great, but most of them seem to think the treatment is exceptional and targeted at Assange. If you pick the wrong target, all of your shots will miss. (Equally, wait until you find out exactly how limited the grounds are to refuse an extradition to America. And the fact that America refuses to allow symmetric rules. And the fact that Britain went along with this...)

easytiger 7y ago

Unrelated aside ≥ she appears to be the only public figure in Western Europe with no photo on the internet. Indeed the average proprietor of a rural car wash has left more evidence of their existence and life history on the internet than Vanessa Baraitser. Which is no crime on her part, but I suspect the expunging is not achieved without considerable effort Likely something more people should strive for

UncleSlacky 7y ago
Best we've got so far: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ERxqKg1XsAEctQm?format=jpg&name=4096x4096 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ERxqKg1XsAEctQm?format=jpg&name=...
- gnfargbl 7y ago
  That is a picture of Lady Arbuthnot, who is not the magistrate in this case. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6351763/Judge-says-Uber-gravely-misled-regulators-judges.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6351763/Judge-says-...
Fnoord 7y ago
You can't always control that. Are you at a conference? Someone's making pictures? Woops. Plus, if you visit a large city, chances are there's security cameras everywhere.
- easytiger 7y ago
  Hardly the same as temperance with online presence
- tialaramex 7y ago
  Increasingly conferences are sensitive to this and provide some mechanism to signal that photographs are unwelcome. The IETF began using coloured lanyards, if you picked the special colour this was a signal to not record your presence at the in-person event where practical. When they first began doing this somebody key (maybe a Working Group chair or Area Director? Anyway someone who'd obviously be on camera all the time so that not recording them is hopeless) picked that colour because they liked it, and then only realised later why everybody was freaking out. Amusing.

barneygale 7y ago

Note that Craig Murray is a conspiracy theorist who insisted, for a long time, that the Salisbury poisoning was a false flag.

trollied 7y ago
Relevant blog post: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/03/pure-ten-points-i-just-cant-believe-about-the-official-skripal-narrative/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/03/pure-ten-poi...
- Dayshine 7y ago
  Huh, wow, those are some pretty massive holes in the "official" narrative. I'm not sure I'd call him a conspiracy theorist for this, isn't it normal that the public aren't told the true progression of events for "Spy" stuff?
  - Traster 7y ago
    No, there are 'pretty massive holes' in what he misrepresents the official narrative to be. For example he states: >As the MSM never questions the official narrative, there has never been an official answer as to how the gel got from the doorknob to the roof. In 1 second of Googling: >Speaking to BBC Radio Wiltshire, Alistair Cunningham, the chair of the recovery coordination group, said: "the whole house had to be searched, including the roof space. >We want to be sure no contamination was taken from the door into the roof space. >It's a timber structure and when it comes to wood it's more difficult to clean. It's easier to remove." And that's just a random paragraph I pulled out of the middle of dozens of claims he makes. You need to actually read what he says and then relate what he claims people are lying to you about and what people are actually saying.
    - notahacker 7y ago
      It also helps as context to why Murray is viewed as a conspiracy theorist to read the multiple conflicting alternative narratives that Murray has pushed at different times (that the implicated Russians were telling the truth about going to England for the weekend to see Salisbury cathedral and it's racist to assume otherwise, that they were probably lying because they were a gay couple involved in the dodgy supplements trade, that they were probably meeting the Skripals but were probably Ukrainian, that there's no reason whatsoever to connect Russia with the assassination of Russian defectors using a Russian intelligence modus operandi and it's probably Israel instead)

Dahoon 7y ago

I don't understand anyone is surprised. This is a US court after all, even if it is located in the UK.

socialdemocrat 7y ago
Huh? How can the US have courts in the UK? Is this a common thing or just something that applies to the UK and the US in particular?
- lawtalkinghuman 7y ago
  That is not meant literally but pejoratively.
- mantap 7y ago
  I think they were being cynical, that the UK is the US's lapdog and so UK courts do whatever the US says. However this cynicism is misplaced. UK courts don't give a fuck about what even the UK government policy is (see today's ruling on third runway at Heathrow), let alone foreign government policy.

Traster 7y ago

There is genuinely more snide comment, ridiculous conspiracy theory and stupid misrepresentation in these reports than actual information on what's happening with the trial. In fact some of these comments are really quite disturbing. If I were responsible for being the judge at the extradition hearing of Julian Assange I wouldn't want my picture out in public either. Let's not pretend like there isn't a real threat that one of the loony conspiracy theorists that follow Assange wouldn't take matters in to their own hands. > Being angry at the public at random must be very stressful for her. I suspect she shouts a lot on trains. I know this guy thinks the legal case is going to be lost so wants to tarnish the reputation of the people he disagrees with, but could someone volunteer step forward and explain why this sort of bollocks makes them think lower of the judge rather than just thinking badly of the author?

raxxorrax 7y ago
Maybe a judge wouldn't need to fear the public, if there aren't reports of torture around. Not saying it is justified, just saying there are reasons for overstepping some lines.
jevgeni 7y ago
I mean, the footer just screams "This blog is the next Zero Hedge": > Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tastroder 7y ago
> explain why this sort of bollocks makes them think lower of the judge rather than just thinking badly of the author? That might not necessarily be what you want to hear but: Because I ignore the bollocks. Conspiracy theorist or not, the author seems to at least have an informed point of view, where his reporting is factual it seems to reflect reporting in e.g. the corresponding Guardian articles. Where it's not I either ignore it because it's unnecessary ramblings or see it as interesting tidbits dry reporting of other outlets leave out. The part you specifically point out for example, I had a laugh at that and went on with my life. I'm not reflecting much bad on that particular judge for that part but took it as a, in my view, rather ridiculous aspect of this proceeding (without too much judgement of whether that is normal or not, I wouldn't know). I knew nothing about this person 4 days ago, 3 days ago I learned that he was one of only 16 people (as per his first article in the series) to actually bother enough and manage to get one of the seats for the public. He clearly puts effort in and I for one enjoy his writing style. That doesn't mean I'll stop reading regular news but it certainly makes me come back when he publishes his piece on the next court date.

0x445442 7y ago

WRT the extradition debate, does anyone know if the key legislators responsible for drafting the laws are ever called as expert witnesses when questions arise interpreting the laws?