4 ms·

Or questioning whether the status quo is a good thing? You think there are not enough competent people out there for us to avoid conflicts of interest? As for

Or questioning whether the status quo is a good thing? You think there are not enough competent people out there for us to avoid conflicts of interest? As for complying with extradition requests is this sort of abuse of power not the kind of thing the UK wanted to "tweak" the human rights act for? we (the UK) seems to have participated in these war crimes to a certain extent, i actually have hopes for a better future with a fairer society - so yes I do want to people to call out conflicts of interest and yes i do want people to keep re-justifying their actions through modern morals and context rather than being caught up in nostalgia and nationalism.

Traster 6y ago
I don't think there's a person on earth that could serve as the judge that would satisfy the people commentating on Assange's hearings short of sticking a wig on Assange himself. There is no conflict of interest and frankly, the standard set by this claim of a conflict absolutely would disqualify every single qualified judge in the UK. As for the extradition requests, of course that's how it works. The UK finds whether the case is more or less fine and then it's off to the US to actually try the case. Why? Because it's not a good idea for the UK to be ruling on US law and they're a close ally with similar laws.
- useriousbro 6y ago
  okay, so giving him 50 weeks (i think it was) in maximum security for a crime that normally gets a fine. holding him in solitary confinement (against human rights act) and not allowing him to meet with his lawyers/solicitors is how it should work? I personally think that we can find people with less conflicts of interest - but in the UK we traditionally don't as we are normalised to the concentration of power that exists in a heavily class based society. Would love to hear your comments on the article i linked to (https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...) as it seems a bit tautological to just say it must be right because thats what the UK machinery does. edit: Apologies i need to stop commenting as the article was linked in another response - its a VERY good read though and i think that when it comes to a potentially precedent setting situation like this the specifics are vitally important.
  - Traster 6y ago
    I don't think it's unreasonable to give Assange 50 weeks for skipping bail. He was given every opportunity, he pleaded his case right up to the highest court in the land, and once he didn't get what he wanted? He decided he could opt-out of the justice system. It's not like he surrender himself either, he got turfed out of the Ecuadorian embassy. I don't think I could find a better example of where someone should face the absolute maximum penalty for skipping bail. We will never know the merits of the rape cases because of his actions. As for holding him solitary confinement I could definitely understand how a prison warden would decide to do that with a high profile prisoner such as Assange. It's also worth noting that he's not actually in solitary confinement now. As for the rumours and claims about seeing his lawyers, I don't have a strong view on it, since the claims seem quite weird and unsubstantiated. I've looked and I can't find any actual reliable reporting on whether he is being denied real representation and I find that suspicious. It's not like there's no journalists who are sympathetic to Assange. I understand it's obviously in the interests of the defence to delay and claim they don't have enough time and information, but that doesn't necessarily make it some human rights issue, it could simply be that that is a strategy they're using to delay the decision. It's clear the judge is not convinced that Assange has been denied proper representation, and if he is, why aren't there any articles in any of our press saying "Here are the 10 times Assange's laywers got turned away". Do you understand where I'm coming from here. It sort of works for Assange to claim that the perfectly ordinary restrictions on visitation are some massive overbearing conspiracy to deprive him of liberty, it doesn't necessarily make it true. Edit: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/failure-to-surrender-to-bail/ https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-co... - here are the sentencing guidelines, Assange could not have been sentenced to anything less than 6 weeks. At which point he would've been remanded for the extradition anyway.
    - useriousbro 6y ago
      I like to grab my state propaganda from the BBC, so i visit it a few times a day.. ive not seen anything about the assange hearing there at all.. so why do you expect to hear about the details of his complaints there.. i mean why is this the article that HN is linking to? In the article his solicitor seems to be referring to a lack of ability to prepare and doesnt seem to have been pulled up on any specifcs not being true? Also if 50 weeks is standard is it right to only allow 15 mins to prepare a defence? Not just keep him on remand in the mean time? A high profile case questioning his right to asylum should be rushed like that? And why max security and solitary confinement? Are our prisons and border securities so weak we need to go to such lengths? I would have thought house arrest would probably have done it, yes survailance wpuld cost but how kuch does solitary confinment cost? Asshole or not he is no terrorist or mass murder, i recon i could kick the crap out him and trust me i am not tough. And as far as i can gather (may be wrong but looking for info) he did actually go along with the police requests in sweden and volunteered repeatedly to give a statement or be interviewed but was denied it. He even told them of his intentions to leave the country. The lack of cooperation apparently came when he got wind of the US wanting to extrodite him, and had sweden agreed not to extrodite him he would have returned for the interviews.. he also was offering remote interviews or ones in london. But at a high level your statements dont hold for me as there is clear evidence that the governments involved are up to dodgey things, so its absolutley fine for him to seek asylum etc.

Traster 6y ago

I don't think there's a person on earth that could serve as the judge that would satisfy the people commentating on Assange's hearings short of sticking a wig on Assange himself. There is no conflict of interest and frankly, the standard set by this claim of a conflict absolutely would disqualify every single qualified judge in the UK. As for the extradition requests, of course that's how it works. The UK finds whether the case is more or less fine and then it's off to the US to actually try the case. Why? Because it's not a good idea for the UK to be ruling on US law and they're a close ally with similar laws.

useriousbro 6y ago
okay, so giving him 50 weeks (i think it was) in maximum security for a crime that normally gets a fine. holding him in solitary confinement (against human rights act) and not allowing him to meet with his lawyers/solicitors is how it should work? I personally think that we can find people with less conflicts of interest - but in the UK we traditionally don't as we are normalised to the concentration of power that exists in a heavily class based society. Would love to hear your comments on the article i linked to (https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...) as it seems a bit tautological to just say it must be right because thats what the UK machinery does. edit: Apologies i need to stop commenting as the article was linked in another response - its a VERY good read though and i think that when it comes to a potentially precedent setting situation like this the specifics are vitally important.
- Traster 6y ago
  I don't think it's unreasonable to give Assange 50 weeks for skipping bail. He was given every opportunity, he pleaded his case right up to the highest court in the land, and once he didn't get what he wanted? He decided he could opt-out of the justice system. It's not like he surrender himself either, he got turfed out of the Ecuadorian embassy. I don't think I could find a better example of where someone should face the absolute maximum penalty for skipping bail. We will never know the merits of the rape cases because of his actions. As for holding him solitary confinement I could definitely understand how a prison warden would decide to do that with a high profile prisoner such as Assange. It's also worth noting that he's not actually in solitary confinement now. As for the rumours and claims about seeing his lawyers, I don't have a strong view on it, since the claims seem quite weird and unsubstantiated. I've looked and I can't find any actual reliable reporting on whether he is being denied real representation and I find that suspicious. It's not like there's no journalists who are sympathetic to Assange. I understand it's obviously in the interests of the defence to delay and claim they don't have enough time and information, but that doesn't necessarily make it some human rights issue, it could simply be that that is a strategy they're using to delay the decision. It's clear the judge is not convinced that Assange has been denied proper representation, and if he is, why aren't there any articles in any of our press saying "Here are the 10 times Assange's laywers got turned away". Do you understand where I'm coming from here. It sort of works for Assange to claim that the perfectly ordinary restrictions on visitation are some massive overbearing conspiracy to deprive him of liberty, it doesn't necessarily make it true. Edit: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/failure-to-surrender-to-bail/ https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-co... - here are the sentencing guidelines, Assange could not have been sentenced to anything less than 6 weeks. At which point he would've been remanded for the extradition anyway.
  - useriousbro 6y ago
    I like to grab my state propaganda from the BBC, so i visit it a few times a day.. ive not seen anything about the assange hearing there at all.. so why do you expect to hear about the details of his complaints there.. i mean why is this the article that HN is linking to? In the article his solicitor seems to be referring to a lack of ability to prepare and doesnt seem to have been pulled up on any specifcs not being true? Also if 50 weeks is standard is it right to only allow 15 mins to prepare a defence? Not just keep him on remand in the mean time? A high profile case questioning his right to asylum should be rushed like that? And why max security and solitary confinement? Are our prisons and border securities so weak we need to go to such lengths? I would have thought house arrest would probably have done it, yes survailance wpuld cost but how kuch does solitary confinment cost? Asshole or not he is no terrorist or mass murder, i recon i could kick the crap out him and trust me i am not tough. And as far as i can gather (may be wrong but looking for info) he did actually go along with the police requests in sweden and volunteered repeatedly to give a statement or be interviewed but was denied it. He even told them of his intentions to leave the country. The lack of cooperation apparently came when he got wind of the US wanting to extrodite him, and had sweden agreed not to extrodite him he would have returned for the interviews.. he also was offering remote interviews or ones in london. But at a high level your statements dont hold for me as there is clear evidence that the governments involved are up to dodgey things, so its absolutley fine for him to seek asylum etc.