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

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

You're doing a *terrible* job.

"The statement that Assange has not been charged under Swedish law IS fact"

The statement that his middle name is Paul IS fact.

It's irrelevant, but it's fact.

I ask again - why do you persist in repeating this irrelevant fact?

"You're doing a *terrible* job." I forgot to mention that.

"I ask again - why do you persist in repeating this irrelevant fact?"

At last! You admit that it IS a fact. Thank you, and goodnight.

According to the allegations and to that puto report ( you are right, inform is not a noun is a verb, but I was using it as a noun, informe is the word in Spanish)

those women weren´t raped, that is what was stimated by the first prosecutor and what any person with a bit of logic, you really don´t need to be a woman or to have shagged to see what happened, can see clearly.

She said she was half asleep....erm.... and dear, didn´t you notice someone were shagging you? yes, she did, but " I was tired of asking him to use a condom" so she went on "half asleep"

To all that there are many more evidences that there wasn´t and there isn´t any case of sexual abuse.

That is what you think Maria? Jesus H Christ I now understand why the right are so dismissive of us. That version of event is not what

**ASSANGE'S OWN LEGAL TEAM HAVE ACCEPTED IN COURT***

And in open court ***TIME AFTER TIME*** it has been found that the allegations would amount to Rape if the had been commited in the UK (and I bet folding money in Spain too).

That a partisan ***OPINION PIECES*** suggest otherwise isn't the same as examining the ***ACTUAL EVIDENCE*** put forward to courts, open courts at that, with full transcripts of what was said for anyone who wants (or can be bothered) to know.

So if you think a two year o9ld comment peice has more validity than the factual records of what happened in an open court of law, and ***HAVE BEEN CONCEEDED BY THE ASSANGE LEGAL TEAM*** simply because it fits with your pre existing beliefs....

.... then well frankly I can't see there is any point in continuing the discussion. It is like talking to a flat earther.



FB

This is relevant. A comparison of what rape means in various jurisdictions:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19333439

Maria, your contention that because one of Assange's accusers was half-asleep, it isn't rape has no basis in law. Not in the UK, certainly not in Sweden. The standard is 'awake' - if the person you're having sex with isn't awake you are leaving yourself open to a rape allegation.

I don't care if you disagree with that, if you think she should have been woken up the sexual activity, you are quite simply wrong and the above link gives the evidence and references to laws of various countries so you can check for yourself.

>>"I was tired of asking him to use a condom"<<

This is at the heart of the other accusation: that, without consent, Assange engaged in unprotected sex. Again, that counts as rape. If someone, against my will, had unprotected sex with me they'd be out of the door in a heartbeat. If it turned out they had put me at risk of STDs then damn right they'd be facing a rape charge.

Oh an sorry for the shouting. Bad ettiquette and all that (As Galloway would say)....

FB

Rudest Elf: you appear to believe you've scored some sort of point, despite having not answered the single simple question I keep asking you.

I did not at any stage dispute that, under the Swedish system, Assange has not been charged.

I pointed out that this fact is about as relevant to the case as the fact that his middle name is Paul. I explained why this is the case, with direct reference to the UK High Court judgement in the matter.

You have so far, despite having been asked again, and again, and again, failed to respond to the question of why you keep on and on and on repeating this entirely irrelevant fact as though it had some bearing on anything that's happening.

Do you, in fact, have any point to make, or are you simply repeating "he's not been charged" like a parrot, entirely ignorant of the meaning of the actual words, just to make a noise?

"you are right, inform is not a noun is a verb, but I was using it as a noun, informe is the word in Spanish"

And we are, in case you hadn't noticed, conversing here in English (by we I mean everyone except you - there's no such words as "stimated" for instance, and nothing from the context to give much of a clue what you think you mean).

If you wish to converse in Spanish, I'm sure there are plenty of places on the internet where you can do that, so do, please, go there instead.

I think I'm mainly falling on the side of HI & Hoov on this one. Maria's reference to the Swedish expert witness does give pause for thought, but that statement was submitted to the court, and so it will have been considered in their decision. The legal position we are in now has taken into account the expert's opinion, and yet we are still here.
I *think* RE's point was that, even though the statement is irrelevant, it is still true, and it being dismissed as if it were false (as well as irrelevant) was an example of people generally being a bit mean to Maria. I note that she appears to have dropped this line of reasoning before RE stepped in, and did not take it back up since then.

"there's no such words as "stimated" for instance"

Take care before you accuse others of using poor English, Hoo. English IS your first language, isn't it?

Perhaps not. That would explain why you don't understand what I meant by the words, "That is all I am saying". Bob understands what was meant - why can't you?

"it being dismissed as if it were false "

F F S. It's not being dismissed as if it were false.

It is, to use a phrase I like about string theory, "not even wrong".

Its truth or falsehood doesn't matter because it's not a piece of information that is in any way relevant.

What IS false is that notions of "charged" or "accused" or whatever have easy analogues in the English justice system. That IS false, demonstrably. See the High Court judgement, linked above.

So when someone in the UK bleats, repeatedly "but, but, but, he's NOT EVEN BEEN CHARGED", that just betrays the fact that they've not bothered to understand what's actually going on.

For a dolt trying to use this argument in a discussion in a pub, this might, possibly, be something you could simply pity them for. Poor bloke, too dumb to understand why what he's saying is just making him look uninformed.

But for someone clearly sitting in front of an internet-connected computer - someone who by definition could access the relevant information in a matter of seconds - it smacks of wilful ignorance. It's not just that they don't understand - they *actively* don't WANT to understand. The facts are pointed out to them repeatedly, and they stick their fingers in their ears and hum until the noise stops and they can start bleating again.

"See! You admit he hasn't been charged!!" they drone.

It's not that that's wrong. It's that that information is as relevant as the criminal's middle name.

And as for Maria's redefinition of rape... words fail. I expect such massively misgynist attitudes from male American Republican politicians... but from a European woman? Shame on you. Really.

Rudest Elf: do you understand that I have asked you a question?

I read that as a "no".

Once more, then:

Why did you bring up the fact that Assange hasn't been charged?

>> I expect such massively misgynist attitudes from male American Republican politicians<<

Hey - our own politicians (using politician in the loosest sense when discussing Galloway) can be just as scummy.

FB, contrary to right–wingers who, most of them, present a granitic way of thinking, the left is characterized by freedom of opinion, and diversity. However, I understand that when people feel uncertain about something they take the words of their gurus, instead of going directly to the sources, something pretty easy to do in this Internet times.


From the appeal in the Royal Court of London:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/12/julian-assange-extradition-live-coverage

<<12.07pm: Emmerson is now explaining the alleged victim SW's witness statement. Emmerson says:
They fell asleep and she woke up by his penetrating her. She immediately asked if he was wearing anything. He answered: "You." She said: "You better not have HIV." He said: "Of course not." She may have been upset, but she clearly consented to its [the sexual encounter's] continuation and that is a central consideration.
12.20pm: The thrust of the Assange team's case is that there was no lack of consent in the incidents and that the Swedish district courts were misled by the wording of the arrest warrant

Also:

<<Emmerson said earlier that he was not challenging the fact that they "found Mr Assange's sexual behaviour in these encounters disreputable, discourteous, disturbing or even pushing towards the boundaries of what they were comfortable with". But the sexual activities that occurred had taken place with consent,<<<

And:

<<Julian Assange's legal team is arguing that the European arrest warrant issued against the WikiLeaks founder is invalid, because of significant discrepancies between its allegations of sexual assault and rape and the testimonies of the two women he allegedly had sex with.<<<

There´s more and certainly, your witty blogger can take the defence words against them, but, that´s playing dirty since you need to look at the whole picture to understand what and why the defence says what it says.

And now , a very important part of the picture:
The allegations :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

just a bit of it:

"The second complainant, too, failed to complain for several days until she found out about the first complainant: she claimed that after several acts of consensual sexual intercourse, she fell half asleep and thinks that he ejaculated without using a condom – a possibility about which she says they joked afterwards.
"Both complainants say they did not report him to the police for prosecution but only to require him to have an STD test. However, his Swedish lawyer has been shown evidence of their text messages which indicate that they were concerned to obtain money by going to a tabloid newspaper and were motivated by other matters including a desire for revenge."

And finally the report of that Swedish judicial witness, see post 121. Venga, it´s only 5 pages of scrib, very short, and it´s like reading one of those Scandinavian novels of crime.
And contrary to that witty blogger that takes words out of context, it´s a report of a judicial expert witness of the case.

.......................

Facts from Internet , 1, Bigger dycs, 0

<<American Republican politicians

Hoo, please, dear be more precise, you mean North American, don´t you?

Shame, you being so exquisite with language...

You're so right, Maria. My minor geographical slip is perfectly equivalent to and entirely excuses your misogyny and rape apologias.

Maria, thank you for quoting the part that shows there is, prima facie, a case of rape to be answered. It's very generous of you to show precisely where you are wrong.

"They fell asleep and *she woke up by his penetrating her*" - he was having sex with her whilst she was asleep. If you check the BBC article I linked to earlier it explicitly states that, under Swedish and British law, having sex with someone who is asleep constitutes rape. Assange and his lawyers have never disputed this part of the account so even they acknowledge that a rape may have occurred.

"She immediately asked if he was wearing anything. He answered: "You." She said: "You better not have HIV."

This creates space to assert that she didn't know she was being penetrated without protection and she was concerned she'd been exposed to an STD. Assange's assurances that he didn't have HIV are worth less than nothing as Assange is a proven liar. These are two clear-cut prima facie cases of rape. The devil will be in the detail, but the detail can't be ascertained until Assange submits himself to the Swedish legal system.

"The second complainant, too, failed to complain for several days until she found out about the first complainant"

"thinks that he ejaculated without using a condom – a possibility about which she says they joked afterwards"

These two observations are utterly irrelevant: justice delayed is not justice denied and the behaviour of the potential victim afterwards is not what's at stake. It's the behaviour of the accused at the time of the alleged incident that matters and that behaviour isn't changed by the alleged victim's behaviour afterwards. People don't always have full possession of the facts and, even if they do, some people act strangely after acts of crime.

I'll give an example from my own life, I mentioned it obliquely earlier. Some years ago I was in a long-term (nearly 2 years) monogamous relationship with a bloke. One night we were in bed and started having sex: we had a rule that we always used protection but he decided to flout that rule, something I only realised once he was finished. I was furious, he was booted out but I later calmed down, reasoning that since we were monogamous I wasn't at risk, and realised that it wasn't a relationship-ending misdemeanour. If you saw my phone you'd have seen texts dealing with the issue and then the resumption of our normal texting pattern - flirty, daft and joking.

A couple of weeks later he told me that actually he hadn't been faithful to me and had in fact had unprotected sex with other guys, putting me at risk of STDs. Angry doesn't begin to cover how violated I felt, how abused I felt. I was advised to go to the police by the GUM clinic because what this guy did was rape. That I didn't go straight away, or that I exchanged flirty texts with him afterwards didn't affect the criminality of his behaviour. The same applies in this situation with these women.

Maria, you seem to be missing the point of Mr Emmerson's job: he is the defense counsel. It is his job to minimise the severity of what Assange freely admits to doing. Note that in every court he's argued in, Mr Emmerson's arguments have been rejected so they have very little basis in law.

You haven't given facts (or at least not ones that support your claim), you've given opinion and faulty supposition.

"The second complainant, too, failed to complain for several days until she found out about the first complainant"

This is remarkably common. Guilt, shame, shock and confusion leads to many survivors (sexual abuse professionals never use the term "victims") delaying even talking about the incident(s) for, days, months and sometimes years. It's not uncommon for survivors to come forward when they see their assailant in the street, in a newspaper or on tv being accused of a similar crime. It used to be the case that Judges took the delay in reporting as a mitigating factor when reaching judgements but this was ended after an appeal court ruling a few years ago.


Incredible the lengths some people will go to delude themselves on the basis that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".