h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

forensic facts, stuff tested?

Let´s forget about witty bloggers for a while, even about the allegations, which still are the same(hint: otherwise Assange would have been charged)and that you can read in that Guardian article. And let´s consider the words of this Swedish jurist who knows from first hand this issue, he was expert witness in the case:

http://es.scribd.com/doc/48396086/Assange-Case-Opionion-Sven-Erik-Alhem

"(hint: otherwise Assange would have been charged)"

Can we please get past this "he hasn't been charged" nonsense?

He CANNOT be charged until he is physically present in Sweden. That's the way their system works. It's not like the UK where you can be charged in absentia. There, you must undergo at least two bouts of questions, and after the second, if charged, your trial *must* happen within two weeks. This means that second round of questioning is a cast-iron part of the charging process, not just a chat over tea and biscuits. That's why it can't happen in the UK.

Persistent refusal to understand or acknowledge this fact marks one out as one of the tinfoil hat brigade at best, and at worst as simply stupid.

In any meaningful sense, Assange HAS been charged, as British law would call it. Now, accept this fact, and move on.

read the link in post 121, before calling anyone stupid.


ah, sorry, I forgot that your interest with me is just scoring points to get your Olympic medal of Stultus.

... I´ll ignore you then.

"Can we please get past this "he hasn't been charged" nonsense?"

"He CANNOT be charged until he is physically present in Sweden."

So, Hoo, has he been charged according to Swedish law, or not?

Maria, don't let Hoo get you down - they say he's a sweetie in real life...

I was half asleep when I wrote that. Now I think it´s just his style.

are you sure he wants to get down with me? I wouldn´t mind a dance, really.

"So, Hoo, has he been charged according to Swedish law, or not?"

No.

He cannot be charged until AFTER he has been arrested and questioned. I think this is a large part of the reason for the confusion - a technical difference in the way the systems work in the UK and Sweden. It's a technicality, a matter of different definitions of the same concepts.

In the UK, a person can be "charged" with an offence wherever they happen to be - Brazil, say. It's then down to the authorities to effect an arrest. Or, you can be arrested on suspicion of something, and later charged.

In the Swedish system, EXACTLY THE SAME THING APPLIES, except at that stage you aren't referred to as "charged", but "accused" - except "accused" in the Swedish sense has a more formal meaning than it does in English law. It's not merely an allegation, it's a formal accusation - a charge, to use the English term...

In Sweden, the *formal* charge only happens after arrest and final interrogation, and the trial MUST happen within two weeks of charge.



An analogy occurs to me. Imagine, if you will, that an American driving a car in the UK is sent to jail for driving on the pavement. Now, to someone in the UK, that seems perfectly reasonable. To someone in the US, it sounds insane. Why? Because in the UK "pavement" is the bit at the side of the road where the pedestrians are, whereas in the US "pavement" is the tarmac bit in the middle where the cars go.

Now imagine Americans indignantly campaigning for the driver's release, based entirely on the fact that "driving on the pavement" is OBVIOUSLY perfectly OK and how dare the UK prosecute someone for that. Imagine how *deliberately* ignorant you'd have to be to maintain that argument for more than a minute. Imagine how tiresome it would be for someone who does understand to point out the different definition of the word, then the next day come across yet another dolt who didn't get the memo.

That's what's going on here, every time someone smugly asserts that Assange "hasn't even been charged".



The issue here is this: there's a process. Assange has gone through the process, in Sweden and in the UK, right up to the Supreme Court, and at every stage exhausted every single possible legal avenue of escape, and lost at every stage. This "asylum" thing is a last throw of the dice. He's not been denied any rights. What he's been denied is his own way.

Rudest Elf on the charge thing Sweden has a different legal framework form the UK and charging works differently.

Read point 4 in that New Stateman piece again:-

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/d...gal-myths-about-assange-extradition

FB

You mean this?

"he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested."

So, he hasn't yet been charged, has he?

You mean "he was driving on the pavement and what on earth is wrong with that?".

Not one of your better analogies, Hoo.

I am right behind you when you get stuck into someone who deserves it, but Maria is no fool, and you are clearly wrong in this case. You owe her an apology.

Let's put this another way:

By the standards of English law - YES, he has been charged.

The Swedes don't call it that, but THAT DOESN'T MATTER. Bearing in mind that two countries' legal systems can never be perfectly mapped onto one another, then by *English* legal standards, Assange HAS been charged.

(This does rather start to remind me of talking to Christians. Conversations which should be about ideas are by sheer force of ignorance reduced to arguments about the definitions of certain specific words, words which aren't even in the original language in which the ideas were first expressed. A simple sentence like "I know God exists" becomes a minefield of wilful self-delusion. Which is what we see here. Yes, Assange has been charged, by the English definition. No, he hasn't, by the Swedish definition, but that's because the Swedish define the word differently to mean a separate, LATER stage of the legal process, one that happens IMMEDIATELY before the actual trial.)

"Not one of your better analogies, Hoo"

Oh, didn't you understand it? It seems not, since you're persisting with this "he hasn't been charged" canard.

A simple answer to a straightforward question please, Hoo. Has Assange been charged, or not?

It´s obvious that nobody here has read the link in post 121.

I rest my case.
This convo is starting to become another contest of my blogger is smarter than yours.

The difference is that I´m not linking a blogger rants but first hand information. An information that tells why Assange has more than reasonable doubts about a fair trial in Sweden. But that´s not what matter to some of you. What matters is that British goverment or the image of Britain gets clean of all this mess and blame Assange of it. Too late.

Paul, I missed the previous posts.

Yes I also think it´s a poor analogy. And it´s funny to see how he repeats himself: use of hollow analogies, use of the expression " this is like talking to Christians..." etc.

He won´t apology, he is unable to feel that, too vain, and most important , I don´t care.

"A simple answer to a straightforward question please, Hoo. Has Assange been charged, or not?"

Since you address me in English, I shall assume your definition of "charged" is the one applicable in English law. On that basis, as I believe I've already said:

YES, Assange has been charged.

Happy?

You're all missing the most obvious issue here. It doesn't matter what Sweden want or for that matter the US, the fact is Assange has committed a criminal offence right here in the UK. He has jumped bail. He is in contempt of court. (not known if he's removed his tag but if so has compounded his crime). He faces a max sentence of 12 mths for bail jumping plus whatever the judge decides on the day for the contempt and if he's removed the tag then that also incurs a custodial sentence too. His backers who stumped up 100's of 1000's of pounds have lost their money. On arrest here, however or whenever that happens, he faces a custodial sentence here before any thoughts of deporting him. All he's done is prove to all he cannot be trusted in anything he says or does.
One other thought, he was granted asylum on the basis he makes no overt political statements. So what the was he doing making that speech from the balcony ranting against the US? If that wasn't overtly political I don't know what is.

You're trying hard to win a lost battle, Hoo. I can't blame you for that. . But it does tend to make you seem just a little less intelligent than you think you are.

Hmm. Projection, much? "Trying hard to win a lost battle" sounds more like something Assange and his dwindling band of supporters are guilty of.

He's exhausted every *legal* avenue, and resorted to contempt of court and bail-jumping.

He HAS been charged. What do you make of that fact?

Drat, BMT beat me to it: regardless of his status in Sweden, Assange is demonstrably a criminal under English law. He skipped bail, he's committed contempt of court.

Rudest Elf and Maria, Hoo is right on this: asking "has he been charged?" doesn't mean anything unless you realise that the Swedish notion of charging someone means something very different to the British notion of charging someone. As was noted in Z/FB's link, if this incident occurred in the UK, Assange would have been charged and in front of a magistrate already.

Under the English system the process is (correct me if I'm wrong people):

Initial interview -> formal charge -> CPS deciding if there is a case to answer/is prosecuting that case in the public interest? -> magistrates court -> crown court.

In this system, Assange is just before the last stage.

The Swedish system (again, as I understand it and if there are any Swedes please correct me if wrong):

Initial interview -> accusation -> Swedish CPS deciding if there's a case to answer/is it in the public interest to prosecute -> second interview -> formal charge -> court.

Asking "has he been charged?" whilst refusing to recognise a Swedish charge is different to what you understand as a charge is like asking "is his name Peter?". No, it isn't, but that doesn't change the fact that he stands accused of a serious crime. That he isn't called Peter isn't a justification for him to skip bail or fight extradition.

Rudest Elf and Maria, have you honestly read the New Statesman link? it provides links to expert testimony and quotes/legal opinions from Assange's trip through the English/Swedish legal systems. It provides facts and figures. It isn't simply someone's opinion.