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

(Incidentally, if you still obtusely persist in disputing this, may I direct your attention to the High Court judgement at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html . In particular, the following paragraphs:

Para133: "Extradition treaties, and extradition statutes, ought, therefore, to be accorded a broad and generous construction so far as the texts permits it in order to facilitate extradition ... It follows that it would be wrong to approach the problem of construction solely from the perspective of English criminal procedure"

Or in other words, your used of the word "charged" in its English law definition is wrong.

Para140: "In our view, the terms of the EAW read as a whole made clear that not only was the EAW issued for the purpose of Mr Assange being prosecuted for the offence, but that he was required for the purposes of being tried after being identified as the perpetrator of specific criminal offences"

Or, as it might be English law, "charged", if you must.

Para148: "The Senior District Judge found on the basis of the extraneous evidence that the fact some further pre-trial evidential investigation might result in no trial taking place did not mean Mr Assange was suspected as opposed to accused; and the fact that under Swedish law a person had to be interrogated before a decision to charge was made was not determinative"

Or in other words, the "wanted for questioning" terminology is a canard.

Or para154, which I won't reproduce as it speaks for itself.

These are the judgements of a fair court, explained in great detail. Assange is stamping his foot and not accepting them, but it's not his place to do that. He had his day in court, and he lost. And then he had another, and lost again. If he ever goes to Sweden, he'll have his day in court there, too. Why should he be exempt from that process?

I have read the New Statesman link and I agree with most of what you say, Honestiago. However, the offence allegedly committed in Sweden has nothing to do with English law. It's a Swedish case, and under their system (no need to compare it with ours) Assange has not been charged. That is all I am saying.

HI, have you honestly read what I´ve linked? Have you read what I mean?

When I started to read this thread I didn´t have any position about the issue, in which Assange is a part of it.

The link you mention follows what the latter prosecutor has done since she revived this case which had been dropped. To get the full picture of this case, please read the inform of that Swedish expert witness in the case.

". It's a Swedish case, and under their system (no need to compare it with ours) Assange has not been charged. That is all I am saying."

"no need to compare it to ours"???

If there's no need to compare it to ours, what possible relevance has it whether he's been charged or not?

Do please explain.

>>It's a Swedish case, and under their system (no need to compare it with ours) Assange has not been charged. That is all I am saying.<<

But that's a meaningless statement. It carries no evidential weight. Some people are using that he hasn't been charged to imply the case isn't well-advanced or to minimise the severity of it and neither of those things are true. Some people are using this misunderstanding to try and give justification to Assange's actions.

What is it about the sentence, "That is all I am saying.", that you don't understand, Hoo?

I understand that "that's all that you're saying" perfectly. What I don't understand is - why?

Because you seem, on the one hand, to think that the fact that he's not been charged is relevant, based on the ENGLISH meaning of the word "charged".

And yet in the same sentence you're saying there's no need to compare our system to the Swedish one, which you demonstrably don't understand.

So let's agree that I understand perfectly that ALL you're saying is that he hasn't been charged.

Why on earth are you saying that? What makes you think it's even faintly relevant to the case?

HI:
<<regardless of his status in Sweden, Assange is demonstrably a criminal under English law. He skipped bail, he's committed contempt of court.

He´s a criminal because he break the bail conditions by seeking asylum.
Yes, you are right there.

Legally he is a criminal, he has committed that crime of skipping the bail.
Some say that it´s to avoid being jailed for rape. However if you read el puto inform of that Swedish judicial witness, you can understand why Assange asked for assylum.

And yes, it´s not legal to skip a bail, it´s not legal to ignore laws, it´s not legal to do many things... but it is legitimate in this case?

International Law says it is.

We´ll see how this macho contest ends. So far, Former Banana republic ( promoted by the "civilized") 1, the "civilized" ,0 (and playing a sad role of bully)

You think Ecuador are winning here? Interesting.

>>And yes, it´s not legal to skip a bail, it´s not legal to ignore laws, it´s not legal to do many things... but it is legitimate in this case?<<

No.

"if you read el puto inform of that Swedish judicial witness"

In English, please?

Ecuador is not winning anything except the honour of defending the basic human rights of a person who need protection.

>>So far, Former Banana republic ( promoted by the "civilized") 1, the "civilized" ,0 (and playing a sad role of bully)<<

A couple of points strike me here:

1) It isn't about winning or losing. Two women may have been raped, and Assange may be the victim of malicious allegations: that is what is at stake, not some petty international pissing contest.

2) Sweden/the UK are playing the sad roles of bullies by insisting our laws/legal systems are respected? Interesting point of view.

When Chile got Pinochet instead of Spain, did you see that as the former banana (or copper) republic "winning" against the civilised playing the role of bully too?

<if you read el puto inform of that Swedish judicial witness"

In English, please?

I really love you when you want to expand your linguistic horizon...

Rule number one, to be applied when reading a foreing language or your own language: use the context to guess the meaning of the word.

it´s an adjetive, so you don´t really need to know its meaning, the substance is in the noun ´inform´

Ah, I thought this was all about an international pissing contest: The US against the Axis of Evil that is Wikileaks.

1) of course is not about winning or losing. And no woman has been raped . For goat shake! read the allegations and that inform!!

2)read the Swedish inform and you´ll see that the Swedish law hasn´t been respected in this case.

It´s clear we differ about legal and legitimate actions. I won´t go further with it. I´ll just say that along history, it has been the action of those who broke the law because they considered legitimated to do so, what has brought changes , positive changes to humanity.


About Pinochet, you should know about the laws that the dictator had for his safety in Chile, laws that still applied then.

Would it be rude to point out that "inform" is not a noun?

I hope so.

Are you capable of expressing that sentence in English, or not?

"Why on earth are you saying that?"

I joined this conversation to support Maria following your totally unfounded attacks on her.

The statement that Assange has not been charged under Swedish law IS fact. Both you, Hoo, and Honestiago may be wrong to assume that I do not understand the imnplications of that FACT.

Rape* is an extremely serious offence - rapists are frequently jailed for life. I agree that Assange must not be allowed to escape the consequences... if he is found guilty. (*An offence which surely takes priority over offences committed later in the UK.)

That really is all I have to say.

>>And no woman has been raped . For goat shake! read the allegations and that inform!!<<

Thanks for that, we don't need a trial or any of this then. Cheers Maria, you've saved us all so much time, money and effort by making this decision. Have you told the two women in question they weren't raped? Because they seem to think they were.

"no woman has been raped "

And you have established this fact how, exactly?

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm entirely with you - if a woman says she's been raped, we absolutely should in all cases assume she's lying. Women shouldn't be trusted when a man's liberty is at stake.

And if TWO women say they've been raped by the same man, well, hey, OBviously they're colluding to make him look bad. It's not like a man would sexually assault a woman and then rape another one shortly after or anything. Guys don't do that. It's not like those are patterns of behaviour or anything.

So I'm entirely with you, I agree, no women have been raped, it's never been established in a court of law that they have so it didn't happen, and given that it's not been established in a court that they've been raped it's a scandal that poor Julian is being pursued through the courts for something that's not even been proved to ever have happened!

I mean, why do we even *ever* prosecute rape allegations? No woman has been raped.

I mean, if someone tomorrow accuses me of rape, OBVIOUSLY no woman has been raped because there's not been a successful prosecution, so I shouldn't be arrested... right?

That's your logic, so far...