Am I the only one to think this rush to pronounce Assange guilty without any kind of trial disgusting?
Whatever happened to being presumed innocent?
Does anyone here actually have any real evidence that he skipped bail? Surely we should remain silent on this until the trial.
He (along with Branson & Top Gear) ruined Belstaffs for honest, hard working folk, the fcuker deserves everything he gets. Same as Farage with covert coats.
I do try to do the latter, hence I don't use pejorative terms for comfortably off Remainers who voted, in my opinion, to continue to damage the lives of the working class, and just think of them as lacking in empathy.
What do you think of working class Remainers?
Everyone has their reasons, I don't really think bad of anyone for voting the way they do, within reason.
You think they're voting to do damage to other working class people, or to themselves as well? In what form does this damage manifest itself?
Yes, I think they are voting to do damage to other working class people but am ready to accept that they don't think they are doing that
What form of damage?
FOM
They're damaged by having freedom?
FOM is damaging for the British working class, yes
Is it damaging for the German working class?
Neither know, nor care
If you're a working class man from Essex who meets a Polish girl who came here under FOM and falls in love and starts a family, have you been damaged by FOM?
No, but I am not saying it is a blanket negative for each individual but on balance a negative for a group.
If it's positive for some individuals, where does the downside come from?
Loss of job security, lower wages, rapidly changing neighbourhoods, longer queues at the doctors...
If the attempt to end FOM leads to losing your job, change in your neighbourhood, insufficient staff at the doctors, would it be worth it?
I do try to do the latter, hence I don't use pejorative terms for comfortably off Remainers who voted, in my opinion, to continue to damage the lives of the working class, and just think of them as lacking in empathy.
What do you think of working class Remainers?
Everyone has their reasons, I don't really think bad of anyone for voting the way they do, within reason.
You think they're voting to do damage to other working class people, or to themselves as well? In what form does this damage manifest itself?
Yes, I think they are voting to do damage to other working class people but am ready to accept that they don't think they are doing that
What form of damage?
FOM
They're damaged by having freedom?
FOM is damaging for the British working class, yes
Is it damaging for the German working class?
Neither know, nor care
If you're a working class man from Essex who meets a Polish girl who came here under FOM and falls in love and starts a family, have you been damaged by FOM?
No, but I am not saying it is a blanket negative for each individual but on balance a negative for a group.
If it's positive for some individuals, where does the downside come from?
Loss of job security, lower wages, rapidly changing neighbourhoods, longer queues at the doctors...
If the attempt to end FOM leads to losing your job, change in your neighbourhood, insufficient staff at the doctors, would it be worth it?
Well, obviously as someone who voted Leave for the reasons I have explained above, I think on balance people would be better off. There are winners and losers on the back of every political decision, I dont know why you are trying to frame it on individual hypothetical cases.
I do try to do the latter, hence I don't use pejorative terms for comfortably off Remainers who voted, in my opinion, to continue to damage the lives of the working class, and just think of them as lacking in empathy.
What do you think of working class Remainers?
Everyone has their reasons, I don't really think bad of anyone for voting the way they do, within reason.
You think they're voting to do damage to other working class people, or to themselves as well? In what form does this damage manifest itself?
Yes, I think they are voting to do damage to other working class people but am ready to accept that they don't think they are doing that
What form of damage?
FOM
They're damaged by having freedom?
FOM is damaging for the British working class, yes
Is it damaging for the German working class?
Neither know, nor care
If you're a working class man from Essex who meets a Polish girl who came here under FOM and falls in love and starts a family, have you been damaged by FOM?
No, but I am not saying it is a blanket negative for each individual but on balance a negative for a group.
If it's positive for some individuals, where does the downside come from?
Loss of job security, lower wages, rapidly changing neighbourhoods, longer queues at the doctors...
If the attempt to end FOM leads to losing your job, change in your neighbourhood, insufficient staff at the doctors, would it be worth it?
Well, obviously as someone who voted Leave for the reasons I have explained above, I think on balance people would be better off. There are winners and losers on the back of every political decision, I dont know why you are trying to frame it on individual hypothetical cases.
If you can't think of hypothetical individual cases in which people would benefit, it casts doubt on the idea that there would be a miraculous uplift in general well-being.
First and foremost Lammy is a partisan politician who will never miss an opportunity to smear his opponents. If he were someone apolitical or known for holding balanced view of things - such as a religious or community leader - then one would indeed be concerned. But Lammy has made so many stupid, provocative and outright dangerous comments in his time he has lost the right to be taken seriously at all.
Does this mean the ERG are innocent? No of course not. But it does mean it will take far better and more believable people than Lammy to make reasonable observers think there is any credence to be lent to his claims.
I do try to do the latter, hence I don't use pejorative terms for comfortably off Remainers who voted, in my opinion, to continue to damage the lives of the working class, and just think of them as lacking in empathy.
What do you think of working class Remainers?
Everyone has their reasons, I don't really think bad of anyone for voting the way they do, within reason.
You think they're voting to do damage to other working class people, or to themselves as well? In what form does this damage manifest itself?
Yes, I think they are voting to do damage to other working class people but am ready to accept that they don't think they are doing that
What form of damage?
FOM
They're damaged by having freedom?
FOM is damaging for the British working class, yes
Is it damaging for the German working class?
Neither know, nor care
If you're a working class man from Essex who meets a Polish girl who came here under FOM and falls in love and starts a family, have you been damaged by FOM?
If it's positive for some individuals, where does the downside come from?
Loss of job security, lower wages, rapidly changing neighbourhoods, longer queues at the doctors...
If the attempt to end FOM leads to losing your job, change in your neighbourhood, insufficient staff at the doctors, would it be worth it?
.
If you can't think of hypothetical individual cases in which people would benefit, it casts doubt on the idea that there would be a miraculous uplift in general well-being.
I can think of loads of such cases, I just think it would invite a "but what about someone who was negatively affected..." response, and we would go round in circles for hours with 0% chance of changing each others minds.
I think Lammy can overdo things sometimes . However Leave politicians can’t really scream innocent of all charges .
The biggest issue IMO with Brexit isn’t so much the act of leaving , it’s those behind it and where they want to take the country that is my main reasons for being totally against it.
Basically, May should threaten to call a General Election with the help of Labour if her deal does not pass.
How will that help if her bluff is called?
And remember she needs a two thirds majority to call an election directly and she is currently supposedly negotiating with Labour to modify the deal.
I would think Conservative payroll voters plus Lab, SNP and LD would get to two thirds.
However I am not sure how her mind is working right now. Supposedly the DUP withdraw their support if the deal passes. Unless it includes full alignment between NI and GB (which would split the Tories but probably not collapse the government). So maybe a Labour deal is the least worst option. But it would tarnish her legacy in Conservative circles.
It is easy to point at Lammy and laugh over the black/white smoke comment and the policeman video (and PBers are strongly encouraged to do so). But someone who does not know who Marie Curie was (and, given the prompt "Marie", thinks Marie Antoinette discovered radium) has no place in the House of Commons, even as a toilet attendant.
Basically, May should threaten to call a General Election with the help of Labour if her deal does not pass.
How will that help if her bluff is called?
And remember she needs a two thirds majority to call an election directly and she is currently supposedly negotiating with Labour to modify the deal.
I would think Conservative payroll voters plus Lab, SNP and LD would get to two thirds.
However I am not sure how her mind is working right now. Supposedly the DUP withdraw their support if the deal passes. Unless it includes full alignment between NI and GB (which would split the Tories but probably not collapse the government). So maybe a Labour deal is the least worst option. But it would tarnish her legacy in Conservative circles.
Again, how would an election help? The Conservatives would have no coherent message and presumably would be crushed. Labour would be likely to be offering a deal plus a ratifying referendum (to keep their coalition together). And corporal Farage would be on manoeuvres everywhere Brexity. I don’t see how a fresh election sorts out the mess even if she gets to call one.
This is a classic example of why politics is going down the plughole. One person who is a member of a very wide and diverse group says something. A member of an opposing group then says that person typifies that entire group.
He gets extra points for "Let's be honest," and "propaganda term"
It is easy to point at Lammy and laugh over the black/white smoke comment and the policeman video (and PBers are strongly encouraged to do so). But someone who does not know who Marie Curie was (and, given the prompt "Marie", thinks Marie Antoinette discovered radium) has no place in the House of Commons, even as a toilet attendant.
That's ridiculous. Andrea Leadsom discovered radium.
Basically, May should threaten to call a General Election with the help of Labour if her deal does not pass.
How will that help if her bluff is called?
And remember she needs a two thirds majority to call an election directly and she is currently supposedly negotiating with Labour to modify the deal.
I would think Conservative payroll voters plus Lab, SNP and LD would get to two thirds.
However I am not sure how her mind is working right now. Supposedly the DUP withdraw their support if the deal passes. Unless it includes full alignment between NI and GB (which would split the Tories but probably not collapse the government). So maybe a Labour deal is the least worst option. But it would tarnish her legacy in Conservative circles.
Again, how would an election help? The Conservatives would have no coherent message and presumably would be crushed. Labour would be likely to be offering a deal plus a ratifying referendum (to keep their coalition together). And corporal Farage would be on manoeuvres everywhere Brexity. I don’t see how a fresh election sorts out the mess even if she gets to call one.
I think the scenario you outline sorts out the problem in a very satisfactory way indeed.
Basically, May should threaten to call a General Election with the help of Labour if her deal does not pass.
How will that help if her bluff is called?
And remember she needs a two thirds majority to call an election directly and she is currently supposedly negotiating with Labour to modify the deal.
I would think Conservative payroll voters plus Lab, SNP and LD would get to two thirds.
However I am not sure how her mind is working right now. Supposedly the DUP withdraw their support if the deal passes. Unless it includes full alignment between NI and GB (which would split the Tories but probably not collapse the government). So maybe a Labour deal is the least worst option. But it would tarnish her legacy in Conservative circles.
Again, how would an election help? The Conservatives would have no coherent message and presumably would be crushed. Labour would be likely to be offering a deal plus a ratifying referendum (to keep their coalition together). And corporal Farage would be on manoeuvres everywhere Brexity. I don’t see how a fresh election sorts out the mess even if she gets to call one.
A GE would most likely be the end of the Tory minority government, and create a new one, most likely a minority Labour one. That is very likely to get past the current logjam.
In a field of very stiff competition, I'm calling that your finest ever thread header Cyclefree, for all the grimness of the subject matter. I agree with every single word and I only wish I had expressed it as eloquently myself below the line.
'Would it be too much to hope that those aiming for high office be aware of these pretty basic requirements?'
Sadly the answer appears to be 'yes.' How far we have fallen.
Basically, May should threaten to call a General Election with the help of Labour if her deal does not pass.
How will that help if her bluff is called?
And remember she needs a two thirds majority to call an election directly and she is currently supposedly negotiating with Labour to modify the deal.
I would think Conservative payroll voters plus Lab, SNP and LD would get to two thirds.
However I am not sure how her mind is working right now. Supposedly the DUP withdraw their support if the deal passes. Unless it includes full alignment between NI and GB (which would split the Tories but probably not collapse the government). So maybe a Labour deal is the least worst option. But it would tarnish her legacy in Conservative circles.
A GE is off the agenda for the Tories.
Talks with Labour aren't going anywhere.
May knows that Labour's price is at least a CU and possibly a free vote on a PV to boot.
May also knows that if parliament is forced to reach a consensus view through preference voting on the options, it'll probably be a CU as well, but with the PV less likely to pass as an amendment.
Faced with the choice of conceding a CU herself and being rounded on (again) by her party, or letting MPs as a whole opt for a CU so she can simply "respect the will of Parliament", it's a no brainer.
So it all hangs on the late April options exercise.
What I don't know is whether she could get the CU (assuming no PV) pushed through to passing the amended WAIB before 22 May to cancel the elections. I am pretty sure that is her aim.
Basically, May should threaten to call a General Election with the help of Labour if her deal does not pass.
How will that help if her bluff is called?
And remember she needs a two thirds majority to call an election directly and she is currently supposedly negotiating with Labour to modify the deal.
I would think Conservative payroll voters plus Lab, SNP and LD would get to two thirds.
However I am not sure how her mind is working right now. Supposedly the DUP withdraw their support if the deal passes. Unless it includes full alignment between NI and GB (which would split the Tories but probably not collapse the government). So maybe a Labour deal is the least worst option. But it would tarnish her legacy in Conservative circles.
Again, how would an election help? The Conservatives would have no coherent message and presumably would be crushed. Labour would be likely to be offering a deal plus a ratifying referendum (to keep their coalition together). And corporal Farage would be on manoeuvres everywhere Brexity. I don’t see how a fresh election sorts out the mess even if she gets to call one.
I doubt that Farage's Brexit party is anything other than a paper tiger in FPTP elections. PR elections are a different dynamic but given UKIP is on the ballot, the less enlightened might not even realise Farage is no longer UKIP! I think the most likely outcome of Farage's new party in a GE is a similar result to 2015 in that they get a good chunk of the vote but no seats (apart from one that a defector held onto in the guise of Douglas Carswell). The new Brexit party has no party machine, few boots on the ground or key personal who know what they are doing in electoral matters. The only thing that could help Farage's party is if he gets Tory MPs to defect but I think at most a handful could leave the Tories and I am doubtful that any would go as they might be forfeiting any chance of a true Brexiteer in No.10 . If some Tory MPs did defect they would have the advantage of incumbency rather like Douglas Carswell, however they could end up like Mark Reckless! Farage is all talk and the only thing that helps him is the Eurosceptic media who are at the heart of the Brexit phenomena.
Basically, May should threaten to call a General Election with the help of Labour if her deal does not pass.
How will that help if her bluff is called?
And remember she needs a two thirds majority to call an election directly and she is currently supposedly negotiating with Labour to modify the deal.
I would think Conservative payroll voters plus Lab, SNP and LD would get to two thirds.
However I am not sure how her mind is working right now. Supposedly the DUP withdraw their support if the deal passes. Unless it includes full alignment between NI and GB (which would split the Tories but probably not collapse the government). So maybe a Labour deal is the least worst option. But it would tarnish her legacy in Conservative circles.
A GE is off the agenda for the Tories.
Talks with Labour aren't going anywhere.
May knows that Labour's price is at least a CU and possibly a free vote on a PV to boot.
May also knows that if parliament is forced to reach a consensus view through preference voting on the options, it'll probably be a CU as well, but with the PV less likely to pass as an amendment.
Faced with the choice of conceding a CU herself and being rounded on (again) by her party, or letting MPs as a whole opt for a CU so she can simply "respect the will of Parliament", it's a no brainer.
So it all hangs on the late April options exercise.
What I don't know is whether she could get the CU (assuming no PV) pushed through to passing the amended WAIB before 22 May to cancel the elections. I am pretty sure that is her aim.
I think she will fail and to be honest the legislation that allows for the smooth exit of the UK from the EU is no further forward. We are in the EU until October at the least!
Basically, May should threaten to call a General Election with the help of Labour if her deal does not pass.
How will that help if her bluff is called?
And remember she needs a two thirds majority to call an election directly and she is currently supposedly negotiating with Labour to modify the deal.
I would think Conservative payroll voters plus Lab, SNP and LD would get to two thirds.
However I am not sure how her mind is working right now. Supposedly the DUP withdraw their support if the deal passes. Unless it includes full alignment between NI and GB (which would split the Tories but probably not collapse the government). So maybe a Labour deal is the least worst option. But it would tarnish her legacy in Conservative circles.
Again, how would an election help? The Conservatives would have no coherent message and presumably would be crushed. Labour would be likely to be offering a deal plus a ratifying referendum (to keep their coalition together). And corporal Farage would be on manoeuvres everywhere Brexity. I don’t see how a fresh election sorts out the mess even if she gets to call one.
A GE would most likely be the end of the Tory minority government, and create a new one, most likely a minority Labour one. That is very likely to get past the current logjam.
Presumably a labour coalition would need a second referendum for any chance of support from SNP/LibDems? I imagine Corbyn proposing that would get close to zero support from tory MPs as May has received from Labour MPs. So it would only take a dozen or so Labour MPs (depending on the numbers) to refuse to support a referendum to create a similar logjam. That is before noting that Corbyn does not want a referendum for "his" brexit.
Basically, May should threaten to call a General Election with the help of Labour if her deal does not pass.
How will that help if her bluff is called?
And remember she needs a two thirds majority to call an election directly and she is currently supposedly negotiating with Labour to modify the deal.
I would think Conservative payroll voters plus Lab, SNP and LD would get to two thirds.
However I am not sure how her mind is working right now. Supposedly the DUP withdraw their support if the deal passes. Unless it includes full alignment between NI and GB (which would split the Tories but probably not collapse the government). So maybe a Labour deal is the least worst option. But it would tarnish her legacy in Conservative circles.
Again, how would an election help? The Conservatives would have no coherent message and presumably would be crushed. Labour would be likely to be offering a deal plus a ratifying referendum (to keep their coalition together). And corporal Farage would be on manoeuvres everywhere Brexity. I don’t see how a fresh election sorts out the mess even if she gets to call one.
A GE would most likely be the end of the Tory minority government, and create a new one, most likely a minority Labour one. That is very likely to get past the current logjam.
Presumably a labour coalition would need a second referendum for any chance of support from SNP/LibDems? I imagine Corbyn proposing that would get close to zero support from tory MPs as May has received from Labour MPs. So it would only take a dozen or so Labour MPs (depending on the numbers) to refuse to support a referendum to create a similar logjam. That is before noting that Corbyn does not want a referendum for "his" brexit.
At the indicative vote on PV 8 Tories voted for it, 27 Labour voted against it and there were 74 abstentions. It lost by 27 votes.
On current polls, a GE would increase LD seats by 14 and Labour seats by 40. This is more than enough to overturn the deficit of 27 for a PV. But the abstentions hold the balance.
I'm not sure what I think about Assange, but Cyclefree is of course right that it's sensible to assume that any public figure (or anyone else) may have both good and bad sides. He should face proper investigation for the Swedish allegations, but on balance it seems to me that his hacking did more good than harm, and I'm wary of US motives in seeking to get him. So although I agree it's a legal and not a political matter, MPs are allowed to express an opinion, and dealing with the Swedish stuff first is probably the right place to end up.
As an aside, Julian Assange had better hope to be extradited to Sweden to face his sex molestation charges first. Because then, it will be the Swedish government (and not our own) who is considering the extradition request from the US government.
A pity he didn’t do that in 2011/2012 when he had the chance.
And remember: the Swedes have not charged him. They wanted to question him.
I'm not sure what I think about Assange, but Cyclefree is of course right that it's sensible to assume that any public figure (or anyone else) may have both good and bad sides. He should face proper investigation for the Swedish allegations, but on balance it seems to me that his hacking did more good than harm, and I'm wary of US motives in seeking to get him. So although I agree it's a legal and not a political matter, MPs are allowed to express an opinion, and dealing with the Swedish stuff first is probably the right place to end up.
"it seems to me that his hacking did more good than harm,"
That's easy for you to say. Not so much for the people who have actually been harmed, or who could have been.
As an aside, Julian Assange had better hope to be extradited to Sweden to face his sex molestation charges first. Because then, it will be the Swedish government (and not our own) who is considering the extradition request from the US government.
A pity he didn’t do that in 2011/2012 when he had the chance.
And remember: the Swedes have not charged him. They wanted to question him.
Wasn't the not unreasonable concern that once the Swedes had him, he could easily be handed over to the Americans.
Basically, May should threaten to call a General Election with the help of Labour if her deal does not pass.
How will that help if her bluff is called?
And remember she needs a two thirds majority to call an election directly and she is currently supposedly negotiating with Labour to modify the deal.
I would think Conservative payroll voters plus Lab, SNP and LD would get to two thirds.
However I am not sure how her mind is working right now. Supposedly the DUP withdraw their support if the deal passes. Unless it includes full alignment between NI and GB (which would split the Tories but probably not collapse the government). So maybe a Labour deal is the least worst option. But it would tarnish her legacy in Conservative circles.
Again, how would an election help? The Conservatives would have no coherent message and presumably would be crushed. Labour would be likely to be offering a deal plus a ratifying referendum (to keep their coalition together). And corporal Farage would be on manoeuvres everywhere Brexity. I don’t see how a fresh election sorts out the mess even if she gets to call one.
A GE would most likely be the end of the Tory minority government, and create a new one, most likely a minority Labour one. That is very likely to get past the current logjam.
Presumably a labour coalition would need a second referendum for any chance of support from SNP/LibDems? I imagine Corbyn proposing that would get close to zero support from tory MPs as May has received from Labour MPs. So it would only take a dozen or so Labour MPs (depending on the numbers) to refuse to support a referendum to create a similar logjam. That is before noting that Corbyn does not want a referendum for "his" brexit.
At the indicative vote on PV 8 Tories voted for it, 27 Labour voted against it and there were 74 abstentions. It lost by 27 votes.
On current polls, a GE would increase LD seats by 14 and Labour seats by 40. This is more than enough to overturn the deficit of 27 for a PV. But the abstentions hold the balance.
Most of the abstentions are Tory MPs who would vote against if it was proposed by a Corbyn coalition.
As an aside, Julian Assange had better hope to be extradited to Sweden to face his sex molestation charges first. Because then, it will be the Swedish government (and not our own) who is considering the extradition request from the US government.
A pity he didn’t do that in 2011/2012 when he had the chance.
And remember: the Swedes have not charged him. They wanted to question him.
Wasn't the not unreasonable concern that once the Swedes had him, he could easily be handed over to the Americans.
From memory of what was written at the time, it is harder to get extradited from Sweden than it is the UK. (I'd love someone to give more info on this).
Basically, May should threaten to call a General Election with the help of Labour if her deal does not pass.
How will that help if her bluff is called?
And remember she needs a two thirds majority to call an election directly and she is currently supposedly negotiating with Labour to modify the deal.
I would think Conservative payroll voters plus Lab, SNP and LD would get to two thirds.
However I am not sure how her mind is working right now. Supposedly the DUP withdraw their support if the deal passes. Unless it includes full alignment between NI and GB (which would split the Tories but probably not collapse the government). So maybe a Labour deal is the least worst option. But it would tarnish her legacy in Conservative circles.
Again, how would an election help? The Conservatives would have no coherent message and presumably would be crushed. Labour would be likely to be offering a deal plus a ratifying referendum (to keep their coalition together). And corporal Farage would be on manoeuvres everywhere Brexity. I don’t see how a fresh election sorts out the mess even if she gets to call one.
A GE would most likely be the end of the Tory minority government, and create a new one, most likely a minority Labour one. That is very likely to get past the current logjam.
Presumably a labour coalition would need a second referendum for any chance of support from SNP/LibDems? I imagine Corbyn proposing that would get close to zero support from tory MPs as May has received from Labour MPs. So it would only take a dozen or so Labour MPs (depending on the numbers) to refuse to support a referendum to create a similar logjam. That is before noting that Corbyn does not want a referendum for "his" brexit.
At the indicative vote on PV 8 Tories voted for it, 27 Labour voted against it and there were 74 abstentions. It lost by 27 votes.
On current polls, a GE would increase LD seats by 14 and Labour seats by 40. This is more than enough to overturn the deficit of 27 for a PV. But the abstentions hold the balance.
How many of those abstensions were on the government payroll?
On topic, you can dislike Julian Assange and all he stands for and still wonder whether the USA’s extradition attempts have pure motives.
I think you've nailed it.
Too many are playing the man not the ball.
American war crimes shouldn't be conflated with Assange's personal alleged criminal behaviour.
On the contrary, it is those who won’t hear a bad word said about Assange because of his revelations about US war crimes (though it should be, if consistency matters, alleged war crimes, no?) who are playing the man not the ball.
It is possible to think that both the alleged war crimes and the alleged rapes should be properly investigated and, if necessary prosecuted. Assange says yes to the former and no to the latter. Morally that is no different from someone saying that army misbehaviour should be overlooked because, hey, they’re out to get the bad guys like the Taliban, IS or AQ.
@AlastairMeeks is right to raise the question of the US’s motives. They may well want to deter whistleblowers. (Most countries do: remember the Ponting case?) There is much to criticise in the US’s approach to justice and its reach. They are tough on those they perceive to be wrongdoers. Fraudsters, for instance. We could do with emulating them in that area. But a journalist is not excused compliance with the law just because. And if Assange does have genuine press freedom arguments to make in defence, the US is a far better country to make them than here.
And it goes without saying that he too is entitled to be considered innocent of the allegations until there is a trial. A pity he has done everything possible to prevent such a trial. Justice delayed is justice denied to his alleged female victims too.
I'm not sure what I think about Assange, but Cyclefree is of course right that it's sensible to assume that any public figure (or anyone else) may have both good and bad sides. He should face proper investigation for the Swedish allegations, but on balance it seems to me that his hacking did more good than harm, and I'm wary of US motives in seeking to get him. So although I agree it's a legal and not a political matter, MPs are allowed to express an opinion, and dealing with the Swedish stuff first is probably the right place to end up.
Wikileaks was the mechanism that Putin's people used to get the Clinton email leaks that they had obtained into the public domain three weeks before WH2016. He played a key part in helping Trump and senior Labour figures want to suck up to him. Shameful.
I'm not sure what I think about Assange, but Cyclefree is of course right that it's sensible to assume that any public figure (or anyone else) may have both good and bad sides. He should face proper investigation for the Swedish allegations, but on balance it seems to me that his hacking did more good than harm, and I'm wary of US motives in seeking to get him. So although I agree it's a legal and not a political matter, MPs are allowed to express an opinion, and dealing with the Swedish stuff first is probably the right place to end up.
"it seems to me that his hacking did more good than harm,"
That's easy for you to say. Not so much for the people who have actually been harmed, or who could have been.
And what about the innocent people whose murders by the US in Afghanistan and Iraq led to all of this?
Assange should not have sought asylum and should have gone back to Sweden for questioning. But neither the UK or Sweden should be considering extraditing him to the US for what are, clearly, just political charges designed to try and take revenge for the embarrassment caused to the US administration by Wikileaks and to dissuade anyone else from revealing criminal acts by the US Government.
On the contrary, it is those who won’t hear a bad word said about Assange because of his revelations about US war crimes (though it should be, if consistency matters, alleged war crimes, no?) who are playing the man not the ball.
It is possible to think that both the alleged war crimes and the alleged rapes should be properly investigated and, if necessary prosecuted. Assange says yes to the former and no to the latter. Morally that is no different from someone saying that army misbehaviour should be overlooked because, hey, they’re out to get the bad guys like the Taliban, IS or AQ.
@AlastairMeeks is right to raise the question of the US’s motives. They may well want to deter whistleblowers. (Most countries do: remember the Ponting case?) There is much to criticise in the US’s approach to justice and its reach. They are tough on those they perceive to be wrongdoers. Fraudsters, for instance. We could do with emulating them in that area. But a journalist is not excused compliance with the law just because. And if Assange does have genuine press freedom arguments to make in defence, the US is a far better country to make them than here.
And it goes without saying that he too is entitled to be considered innocent of the allegations until there is a trial. A pity he has done everything possible to prevent such a trial. Justice delayed is justice denied to his alleged female victims too.
As I said in my first post, it would not surprise me if there was not enough evidence to extradite Assange, yet alone convict him once he has (aside from the jumping bail charge). However much I dislike him, if that's the case, then fair enough.
The best punishment Assange could get is for us all to ignore him. He thrives on publicity - as his once-friends have said, publicity for himself, not the work they're doing.
Sadly, all his ill-informed supporters will keep on feeding and excusing the hideous beast.
Donald Trump wanted his daughter Ivanka to be President of the World Bank.
“I even thought of Ivanka for the World Bank,” the president said according to a report in The Atlantic. “She would’ve been great at that because she’s very good with numbers.”
So, a trial where the defendant isn't even there? That's not justice. That's a show trial.
He was there. He admitted jumping bail. His defence was that the judge at his previous bail hearing was married to somebody who was in the pay of he Americans so his bail was not binding.
The judge told him he was a liar, a narcissist and a criminal, and dismissed his defence finding him as a result guilty. He has yet to be sentenced.
To my knowledge - correct me if I'm wrong - there is no current warrant for him in Sweden. So at the moment, ironically, the only countries that he could be sent to on release are Australia, because he's an Australian, or Yankeeland, because they want him for divers alleged offences.
I'm not sure what I think about Assange, but Cyclefree is of course right that it's sensible to assume that any public figure (or anyone else) may have both good and bad sides. He should face proper investigation for the Swedish allegations, but on balance it seems to me that his hacking did more good than harm, and I'm wary of US motives in seeking to get him. So although I agree it's a legal and not a political matter, MPs are allowed to express an opinion, and dealing with the Swedish stuff first is probably the right place to end up.
Wikileaks was the mechanism that Putin's people used to get the Clinton email leaks that they had obtained into the public domain three weeks before WH2016. He played a key part in helping Trump and senior Labour figures want to suck up to him. Shameful.
I keep pointing out the similarities between Trump and Corbyn...
As an aside, Julian Assange had better hope to be extradited to Sweden to face his sex molestation charges first. Because then, it will be the Swedish government (and not our own) who is considering the extradition request from the US government.
A pity he didn’t do that in 2011/2012 when he had the chance.
And remember: the Swedes have not charged him. They wanted to question him.
Wasn't the not unreasonable concern that once the Swedes had him, he could easily be handed over to the Americans.
Absolutely not. That was the bullshit being spun by him and his supporters. The US-UK extradition treaty made it very much easier than before to extradite someone from the UK to the US. That was one of the reasons it was criticised.
There was no equivalent extradition treaty between Sweden and the US. So had he gone there, he would likely have been safer from extradition to the US than he is now.
In going into the Ecuadorian Embassy in Britain Assange did exactly the wrong thing if he wanted to escape the US’s eventual clutches.
Or he did exactly the right thing if he wanted to turn himself into some sort of self-proclaimed martyr.
Ah, Superstars, It's A Knockout/Jeux Sans Frontieres, Opportunity Knocks, Golden Shot, Generation Game, nice to see you, to see you, nice, jumpers for goalposts...
I'm not sure what I think about Assange, but Cyclefree is of course right that it's sensible to assume that any public figure (or anyone else) may have both good and bad sides. He should face proper investigation for the Swedish allegations, but on balance it seems to me that his hacking did more good than harm, and I'm wary of US motives in seeking to get him. So although I agree it's a legal and not a political matter, MPs are allowed to express an opinion, and dealing with the Swedish stuff first is probably the right place to end up.
Wikileaks was the mechanism that Putin's people used to get the Clinton email leaks that they had obtained into the public domain three weeks before WH2016. He played a key part in helping Trump and senior Labour figures want to suck up to him. Shameful.
I keep pointing out the similarities between Trump and Corbyn...
They are ver tenuous. Trump has now disavowed Wikileaks, I see.
Just checked the odds on Will Hills. Man City 4/7 for the premier league. Liverpool 11/8. The only things in their favour are a game in hand (which would take them ahead) and goal difference. But they have 5 games to win whereas Liverpool only have 4. They have to play Tottenham and home straight after their champions league 2nd leg and then 4 days later away at United. A draw in either of those games hands the advantage back to Liverpool who have 4 relatively easy fixtures
Looks like the Finnish Social Democratic Party have won most seats, the Centre Party of Finland has lost most seats and the populist True Finns are third
On topic, you can dislike Julian Assange and all he stands for and still wonder whether the USA’s extradition attempts have pure motives.
I think you've nailed it.
Too many are playing the man not the ball.
American war crimes shouldn't be conflated with Assange's personal alleged criminal behaviour.
On the contrary, it is those who won’t hear a bad word said about Assange because of his revelations about US war crimes (though it should be, if consistency matters, alleged war crimes, no?) who are playing the man not the ball.
It is possible to think that both the alleged war crimes and the alleged rapes should be properly investigated and, if necessary prosecuted. Assange says yes to the former and no to the latter. Morally that is no different from someone saying that army misbehaviour should be overlooked because, hey, they’re out to get the bad guys like the Taliban, IS or AQ.
@AlastairMeeks is right to raise the question of the US’s motives. They may well want to deter whistleblowers. (Most countries do: remember the Ponting case?) There is much to criticise in the US’s approach to justice and its reach. They are tough on those they perceive to be wrongdoers. Fraudsters, for instance. We could do with emulating them in that area. But a journalist is not excused compliance with the law just because. And if Assange does have genuine press freedom arguments to make in defence, the US is a far better country to make them than here.
And it goes without saying that he too is entitled to be considered innocent of the allegations until there is a trial. A pity he has done everything possible to prevent such a trial. Justice delayed is justice denied to his alleged female victims too.
Tin foil milliners will wonder if this is not the American deep state aiming to discomfort Donald "we love wikileaks" Trump. It will get Russia's help for Trump back into the news before the next election.
As an aside, Julian Assange had better hope to be extradited to Sweden to face his sex molestation charges first. Because then, it will be the Swedish government (and not our own) who is considering the extradition request from the US government.
A pity he didn’t do that in 2011/2012 when he had the chance.
And remember: the Swedes have not charged him. They wanted to question him.
Wasn't the not unreasonable concern that once the Swedes had him, he could easily be handed over to the Americans.
Absolutely not. That was the bullshit being spun by him and his supporters. The US-UK extradition treaty made it very much easier than before to extradite someone from the UK to the US. That was one of the reasons it was criticised.
There was no equivalent extradition treaty between Sweden and the US. So had he gone there, he would likely have been safer from extradition to the US than he is now.
In going into the Ecuadorian Embassy in Britain Assange did exactly the wrong thing if he wanted to escape the US’s eventual clutches.
Or he did exactly the right thing if he wanted to turn himself into some sort of self-proclaimed martyr.
Another thing he didn't explain was why, if these charges were manufactured by the CIA they would be manufactured in Sweden, rather than the UK, which actually seems on my admittedly superficial reading of it to have much tougher laws on rape/sexual assault and isn't bound by statutes of limitation.
None of his arguments make sense.
That doesn't necessarily mean he's guilty of course. He comes across as not very bright and extremely paranoid, so he may just have panicked. But his actions are, to put it mildly, unhelpful for those building a case that he's a wronged man.
I'm not sure what I think about Assange, but Cyclefree is of course right that it's sensible to assume that any public figure (or anyone else) may have both good and bad sides. He should face proper investigation for the Swedish allegations, but on balance it seems to me that his hacking did more good than harm, and I'm wary of US motives in seeking to get him. So although I agree it's a legal and not a political matter, MPs are allowed to express an opinion, and dealing with the Swedish stuff first is probably the right place to end up.
Wikileaks was the mechanism that Putin's people used to get the Clinton email leaks that they had obtained into the public domain three weeks before WH2016. He played a key part in helping Trump and senior Labour figures want to suck up to him. Shameful.
I keep pointing out the similarities between Trump and Corbyn...
They are ver tenuous. Trump has now disavowed Wikileaks, I see.
Of course. Trump liked Wikileaks when it was shining the light on dodgy behaviour by the US under Clinton.
I think it's fair to say that he would not welcome the same attention.
Just checked the odds on Will Hills. Man City 4/7 for the premier league. Liverpool 11/8. The only things in their favour are a game in hand (which would take them ahead) and goal difference. But they have 5 games to win whereas Liverpool only have 4. They have to play Tottenham and home straight after their champions league 2nd leg and then 4 days later away at United. A draw in either of those games hands the advantage back to Liverpool who have 4 relatively easy fixtures
It’s going to come down to next Wednesday night at Old Trafford I think. For the first time in my life I’m going to be screaming and shouting Man United fan!
I think Liverpool are the value at those odds, but too emotionally involved to bet on it.
Basically, May should threaten to call a General Election with the help of Labour if her deal does not pass.
How will that help if her bluff is called?
And remember she needs a two thirds majority to call an election directly and she is currently supposedly negotiating with Labour to modify the deal.
I would think Conservative payroll voters plus Lab, SNP and LD would get to two thirds.
However I am not sure how her mind is working right now. Supposedly the DUP withdraw their support if the deal passes. Unless it includes full alignment between NI and GB (which would split the Tories but probably not collapse the government). So maybe a Labour deal is the least worst option. But it would tarnish her legacy in Conservative circles.
Again, how would an election help? The Conservatives would have no coherent message and presumably would be crushed. Labour would be likely to be offering a deal plus a ratifying referendum (to keep their coalition together). And corporal Farage would be on manoeuvres everywhere Brexity. I don’t see how a fresh election sorts out the mess even if she gets to call one.
A GE would most likely be the end of the Tory minority government, and create a new one, most likely a minority Labour one. That is very likely to get past the current logjam.
Presumably a labour coalition would need a second referendum for any chance of support from SNP/LibDems? I imagine Corbyn proposing that would get close to zero support from tory MPs as May has received from Labour MPs. So it would only take a dozen or so Labour MPs (depending on the numbers) to refuse to support a referendum to create a similar logjam. That is before noting that Corbyn does not want a referendum for "his" brexit.
At the indicative vote on PV 8 Tories voted for it, 27 Labour voted against it and there were 74 abstentions. It lost by 27 votes.
On current polls, a GE would increase LD seats by 14 and Labour seats by 40. This is more than enough to overturn the deficit of 27 for a PV. But the abstentions hold the balance.
How many of those abstensions were on the government payroll?
Most of them would vote against it even if they were not or risk deselection
I'm not sure what I think about Assange, but Cyclefree is of course right that it's sensible to assume that any public figure (or anyone else) may have both good and bad sides. He should face proper investigation for the Swedish allegations, but on balance it seems to me that his hacking did more good than harm, and I'm wary of US motives in seeking to get him. So although I agree it's a legal and not a political matter, MPs are allowed to express an opinion, and dealing with the Swedish stuff first is probably the right place to end up.
"it seems to me that his hacking did more good than harm,"
That's easy for you to say. Not so much for the people who have actually been harmed, or who could have been.
And what about the innocent people whose murders by the US in Afghanistan and Iraq led to all of this?
Assange should not have sought asylum and should have gone back to Sweden for questioning. But neither the UK or Sweden should be considering extraditing him to the US for what are, clearly, just political charges designed to try and take revenge for the embarrassment caused to the US administration by Wikileaks and to dissuade anyone else from revealing criminal acts by the US Government.
The argument you are using is exactly the argument that the US authorities used to stop the extradition of people wanted by Britain in relation to terrorism in Northern Ireland during the Troubles.
It was that lacuna that the Extradition Treaty was, in part, designed to close. As a result it is now very much harder to argue the “political” defence to prevent extradition. It is probably an easier argument to make in Sweden. Oh, the irony.
Assange will have known all this, not least because he was hiding in the home of Geoffrey Robinson QC before the Ecuadorians took him in. It appears that he may not have listened to the advice he was getting from his lawyers. It is a cross we lawyers have to bear with great fortitude.
As an aside, Julian Assange had better hope to be extradited to Sweden to face his sex molestation charges first. Because then, it will be the Swedish government (and not our own) who is considering the extradition request from the US government.
A pity he didn’t do that in 2011/2012 when he had the chance.
And remember: the Swedes have not charged him. They wanted to question him.
Wasn't the not unreasonable concern that once the Swedes had him, he could easily be handed over to the Americans.
Absolutely not. That was the bullshit being spun by him and his supporters. The US-UK extradition treaty made it very much easier than before to extradite someone from the UK to the US. That was one of the reasons it was criticised.
There was no equivalent extradition treaty between Sweden and the US. So had he gone there, he would likely have been safer from extradition to the US than he is now.
In going into the Ecuadorian Embassy in Britain Assange did exactly the wrong thing if he wanted to escape the US’s eventual clutches.
Or he did exactly the right thing if he wanted to turn himself into some sort of self-proclaimed martyr.
Cyclefree, really like your point about oversimplification of people's character and motives. It is one of the biggest cognitive traps we set for ourselves. In my workshops on accident investigations, I ask participants to put themselves in the mind of the person 'responsible' for the accident, and tell their story from that person's point of view, with them as the hero, not the villain. It opens up many new, different interpretations of the same action and a better, more nuanced understanding of complex actions and events.
Just checked the odds on Will Hills. Man City 4/7 for the premier league. Liverpool 11/8. The only things in their favour are a game in hand (which would take them ahead) and goal difference. But they have 5 games to win whereas Liverpool only have 4. They have to play Tottenham and home straight after their champions league 2nd leg and then 4 days later away at United. A draw in either of those games hands the advantage back to Liverpool who have 4 relatively easy fixtures
4/5 & 5/4 on Betfair now, and Hills are 4/6 11/10
I wonder how many people did the Tiger Roll/Tiger Woods double?
Loads of punters must have re invested Roll winnings on Woods I reckon
I'm not sure what I think about Assange, but Cyclefree is of course right that it's sensible to assume that any public figure (or anyone else) may have both good and bad sides. He should face proper investigation for the Swedish allegations, but on balance it seems to me that his hacking did more good than harm, and I'm wary of US motives in seeking to get him. So although I agree it's a legal and not a political matter, MPs are allowed to express an opinion, and dealing with the Swedish stuff first is probably the right place to end up.
Wikileaks was the mechanism that Putin's people used to get the Clinton email leaks that they had obtained into the public domain three weeks before WH2016. He played a key part in helping Trump and senior Labour figures want to suck up to him. Shameful.
I keep pointing out the similarities between Trump and Corbyn...
Looks like the Finnish Social Democratic Party have won most seats, the Centre Party of Finland has lost most seats and the populist True Finns are third
Looks like the Finnish Social Democratic Party have won most seats, the Centre Party of Finland has lost most seats and the populist True Finns are third
Tell me when it comes to a Finnish
Yellow pen update - both Blackpool branches yesterday.
Just checked the odds on Will Hills. Man City 4/7 for the premier league. Liverpool 11/8. The only things in their favour are a game in hand (which would take them ahead) and goal difference. But they have 5 games to win whereas Liverpool only have 4. They have to play Tottenham and home straight after their champions league 2nd leg and then 4 days later away at United. A draw in either of those games hands the advantage back to Liverpool who have 4 relatively easy fixtures
4/5 & 5/4 on Betfair now, and Hills are 4/6 11/10
I wonder how many people did the Tiger Roll/Tiger Woods double?
Loads of punters must have re invested Roll winnings on Woods I reckon
The argument you are using is exactly the argument that the US authorities used to stop the extradition of people wanted by Britain in relation to terrorism in Northern Ireland during the Troubles.
It was that lacuna that the Extradition Treaty was, in part, designed to close. As a result it is now very much harder to argue the “political” defence to prevent extradition. It is probably an easier argument to make in Sweden. Oh, the irony.
Assange will have known all this, not least because he was hiding in the home of Geoffrey Robinson QC before the Ecuadorians took him in. It appears that he may not have listened to the advice he was getting from his lawyers. It is a cross we lawyers have to bear with great fortitude.
My comments were in no way a defence of Assange. As I said he should have gone back to Sweden and answered the accusations. He strikes me as one of those arrogant types who start off perhaps trying to do something of value but who, with success, develop a messiah complex and think they can do no wrong. It is why, from the very start, the claims about him and his sexual assaults rang true.
But as I say that is a very different issue to that of the Wikileaks stuff. Assange is not accused of actually killing anyone (unlike the IRA cases you mention) and if the Irish nationalists had been limiting their activities to embarrassing the UK government then the US would have been absolutely right not to have extradited them.
It is also worth perhaps asking the question whether a change of administration in the US would be likely to alter their attempts to bring him to trial. If the answer to that is yes then it does make it seem far more credible that these are simply political charges designed to prevent future whistle blower cases and seek revenge.
Anyone not think Liverpool are premier league favourites now?
Me for starters. All the points about the final run of games is true, but when you see Man City play they look genuinely a lot better than anyone else, I would not bet against them.
Looks like the Finnish Social Democratic Party have won most seats, the Centre Party of Finland has lost most seats and the populist True Finns are third
Tell me when it comes to a Finnish
Yellow pen update - both Blackpool branches yesterday.
Excellent! I did both just over two years ago - plus the Tramway!
On the contrary, it is those who won’t hear a bad word said about Assange because of his revelations about US war crimes (though it should be, if consistency matters, alleged war crimes, no?) who are playing the man not the ball.
It is possible to think that both the alleged war crimes and the alleged rapes should be properly investigated and, if necessary prosecuted. Assange says yes to the former and no to the latter. Morally that is no different from someone saying that army misbehaviour should be overlooked because, hey, they’re out to get the bad guys like the Taliban, IS or AQ.
@AlastairMeeks is right to raise the question of the US’s motives. They may well want to deter whistleblowers. (Most countries do: remember the Ponting case?) There is much to criticise in the US’s approach to justice and its reach. They are tough on those they perceive to be wrongdoers. Fraudsters, for instance. We could do with emulating them in that area. But a journalist is not excused compliance with the law just because. And if Assange does have genuine press freedom arguments to make in defence, the US is a far better country to make them than here.
And it goes without saying that he too is entitled to be considered innocent of the allegations until there is a trial. A pity he has done everything possible to prevent such a trial. Justice delayed is justice denied to his alleged female victims too.
As I said in my first post, it would not surprise me if there was not enough evidence to extradite Assange, yet alone convict him once he has (aside from the jumping bail charge). However much I dislike him, if that's the case, then fair enough.
The best punishment Assange could get is for us all to ignore him. He thrives on publicity - as his once-friends have said, publicity for himself, not the work they're doing.
Sadly, all his ill-informed supporters will keep on feeding and excusing the hideous beast.
Evidence is now much less important than it used to be in extradition cases, both under the UK-US treaty and the European Arrest Warrant. It’s one of the problems I have with both of them. But that’s the law our MPs, in their wisdom, have enacted.
Ah, Superstars, It's A Knockout/Jeux Sans Frontieres, Opportunity Knocks, Golden Shot, Generation Game, nice to see you, to see you, nice, jumpers for goalposts...
Hughie 'of course he's not a Fascist' Green, Stuart 'indecent assault' Hall, innocent days.
The argument you are using is exactly the argument that the US authorities used to stop the extradition of people wanted by Britain in relation to terrorism in Northern Ireland during the Troubles.
It was that lacuna that the Extradition Treaty was, in part, designed to close. As a result it is now very much harder to argue the “political” defence to prevent extradition. It is probably an easier argument to make in Sweden. Oh, the irony.
Assange will have known all this, not least because he was hiding in the home of Geoffrey Robinson QC before the Ecuadorians took him in. It appears that he may not have listened to the advice he was getting from his lawyers. It is a cross we lawyers have to bear with great fortitude.
My comments were in no way a defence of Assange. As I said he should have gone back to Sweden and answered the accusations. He strikes me as one of those arrogant types who start off perhaps trying to do something of value but who, with success, develop a messiah complex and think they can do no wrong. It is why, from the very start, the claims about him and his sexual assaults rang true.
But as I say that is a very different issue to that of the Wikileaks stuff. Assange is not accused of actually killing anyone (unlike the IRA cases you mention) and if the Irish nationalists had been limiting their activities to embarrassing the UK government then the US would have been absolutely right not to have extradited them.
It is also worth perhaps asking the question whether a change of administration in the US would be likely to alter their attempts to bring him to trial. If the answer to that is yes then it does make it seem far more credible that these are simply political charges designed to prevent future whistle blower cases and seek revenge.
I believe the Obama administration were equally avid in wanting his extradition as Trump. I know my FBI buddies hate him with an intensity I find disturbing, even though I understand he probably put some of their friends' lives in danger. They are not Trump fans.
On the contrary, it is those who won’t hear a bad word said about Assange because of his revelations about US war crimes (though it should be, if consistency matters, alleged war crimes, no?) who are playing the man not the ball.
It is possible to think that both the alleged war crimes and the alleged rapes should be properly investigated and, if necessary prosecuted. Assange says yes to the former and no to the latter. Morally that is no different from someone saying that army misbehaviour should be overlooked because, hey, they’re out to get the bad guys like the Taliban, IS or AQ.
@AlastairMeeks is right to raise the question of the US’s motives. They may well want to deter whistleblowers. (Most countries do: remember the Ponting case?) There is much to criticise in the US’s approach to justice and its reach. They are tough on those they perceive to be wrongdoers. Fraudsters, for instance. We could do with emulating them in that area. But a journalist is not excused compliance with the law just because. And if Assange does have genuine press freedom arguments to make in defence, the US is a far better country to make them than here.
And it goes without saying that he too is entitled to be considered innocent of the allegations until there is a trial. A pity he has done everything possible to prevent such a trial. Justice delayed is justice denied to his alleged female victims too.
As I said in my first post, it would not surprise me if there was not enough evidence to extradite Assange, yet alone convict him once he has (aside from the jumping bail charge). However much I dislike him, if that's the case, then fair enough.
The best punishment Assange could get is for us all to ignore him. He thrives on publicity - as his once-friends have said, publicity for himself, not the work they're doing.
Sadly, all his ill-informed supporters will keep on feeding and excusing the hideous beast.
Evidence is now much less important than it used to be in extradition cases, both under the UK-US treaty and the European Arrest Warrant. It’s one of the problems I have with both of them. But that’s the law our MPs, in their wisdom, have enacted.
How quickly MPs and ex-MPs forgot what they voted for. We are in a year zero world.
Comments
"Whatever happened to being presumed innocent?"
I think that disappeared with ME-TOO. Before then, there's always been a tendency to pre-judge based on one's preference for politics.
Anyway, he looks a bad 'un.
Very good
And remember she needs a two thirds majority to call an election directly and she is currently supposedly negotiating with Labour to modify the deal.
Does this mean the ERG are innocent? No of course not. But it does mean it will take far better and more believable people than Lammy to make reasonable observers think there is any credence to be lent to his claims.
The biggest issue IMO with Brexit isn’t so much the act of leaving , it’s those behind it and where they want to take the country that is my main reasons for being totally against it.
However I am not sure how her mind is working right now. Supposedly the DUP withdraw their support if the deal passes. Unless it includes full alignment between NI and GB (which would split the Tories but probably not collapse the government). So maybe a Labour deal is the least worst option. But it would tarnish her legacy in Conservative circles.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44924244
He gets extra points for "Let's be honest," and "propaganda term"
(Note: I am not claiming to be immune to this...)
Frankly, I am confident that the justice system in the UK and Sweden will deal with Julian Assange appropriately.
Other than the forces of evil generally being in the ascendant around the world - what's there to worry about?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKAyfwcHHw0
Thank you.
Talks with Labour aren't going anywhere.
May knows that Labour's price is at least a CU and possibly a free vote on a PV to boot.
May also knows that if parliament is forced to reach a consensus view through preference voting on the options, it'll probably be a CU as well, but with the PV less likely to pass as an amendment.
Faced with the choice of conceding a CU herself and being rounded on (again) by her party, or letting MPs as a whole opt for a CU so she can simply "respect the will of Parliament", it's a no brainer.
So it all hangs on the late April options exercise.
What I don't know is whether she could get the CU (assuming no PV) pushed through to passing the amended WAIB before 22 May to cancel the elections. I am pretty sure that is her aim.
On current polls, a GE would increase LD seats by 14 and Labour seats by 40. This is more than enough to overturn the deficit of 27 for a PV. But the abstentions hold the balance.
And remember: the Swedes have not charged him. They wanted to question him.
That's easy for you to say. Not so much for the people who have actually been harmed, or who could have been.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ens-MNzQOE
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-47892602
It is possible to think that both the alleged war crimes and the alleged rapes should be properly investigated and, if necessary prosecuted. Assange says yes to the former and no to the latter. Morally that is no different from someone saying that army misbehaviour should be overlooked because, hey, they’re out to get the bad guys like the Taliban, IS or AQ.
@AlastairMeeks is right to raise the question of the US’s motives. They may well want to deter whistleblowers. (Most countries do: remember the Ponting case?) There is much to criticise in the US’s approach to justice and its reach. They are tough on those they perceive to be wrongdoers. Fraudsters, for instance. We could do with emulating them in that area. But a journalist is not excused compliance with the law just because. And if Assange does have genuine press freedom arguments to make in defence, the US is a far better country to make them than here.
And it goes without saying that he too is entitled to be considered innocent of the allegations until there is a trial. A pity he has done everything possible to prevent such a trial. Justice delayed is justice denied to his alleged female victims too.
https://vaalit.yle.fi/ev2019/en
so far 44% counted
Assange should not have sought asylum and should have gone back to Sweden for questioning. But neither the UK or Sweden should be considering extraditing him to the US for what are, clearly, just political charges designed to try and take revenge for the embarrassment caused to the US administration by Wikileaks and to dissuade anyone else from revealing criminal acts by the US Government.
From a greeny-red perspective, looking good!
The best punishment Assange could get is for us all to ignore him. He thrives on publicity - as his once-friends have said, publicity for himself, not the work they're doing.
Sadly, all his ill-informed supporters will keep on feeding and excusing the hideous beast.
“I even thought of Ivanka for the World Bank,” the president said according to a report in The Atlantic. “She would’ve been great at that because she’s very good with numbers.”
https://uinterview.com/uncategorized/donald-trump-wanted-daughter-ivanka-trump-to-head-world-bank-shes-very-good-with-numbers/
The judge told him he was a liar, a narcissist and a criminal, and dismissed his defence finding him as a result guilty. He has yet to be sentenced.
To my knowledge - correct me if I'm wrong - there is no current warrant for him in Sweden. So at the moment, ironically, the only countries that he could be sent to on release are Australia, because he's an Australian, or Yankeeland, because they want him for divers alleged offences.
Neither of which wanted him in 2011...
There was no equivalent extradition treaty between Sweden and the US. So had he gone there, he would likely have been safer from extradition to the US than he is now.
In going into the Ecuadorian Embassy in Britain Assange did exactly the wrong thing if he wanted to escape the US’s eventual clutches.
Or he did exactly the right thing if he wanted to turn himself into some sort of self-proclaimed martyr.
Ah, Superstars, It's A Knockout/Jeux Sans Frontieres, Opportunity Knocks, Golden Shot, Generation Game, nice to see you, to see you, nice, jumpers for goalposts...
None of his arguments make sense.
That doesn't necessarily mean he's guilty of course. He comes across as not very bright and extremely paranoid, so he may just have panicked. But his actions are, to put it mildly, unhelpful for those building a case that he's a wronged man.
I think it's fair to say that he would not welcome the same attention.
I think Liverpool are the value at those odds, but too emotionally involved to bet on it.
It was that lacuna that the Extradition Treaty was, in part, designed to close. As a result it is now very much harder to argue the “political” defence to prevent extradition. It is probably an easier argument to make in Sweden. Oh, the irony.
Assange will have known all this, not least because he was hiding in the home of Geoffrey Robinson QC before the Ecuadorians took him in. It appears that he may not have listened to the advice he was getting from his lawyers. It is a cross we lawyers have to bear with great fortitude.
PGA Championship - Bethpage Black, NY
U.S. Open - Pebble Beach, CA
Tiger has won majors at both courses. But they play a lot tougher than Augusta and Woods has had a fair amount of luck this week.
I wonder how many people did the Tiger Roll/Tiger Woods double?
Loads of punters must have re invested Roll winnings on Woods I reckon
I am sure you do. I have written a whole thread header on it - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/04/04/the-british-trump-the-similarities-between-the-president-and-the-leader-of-the-opposition/.
And got generally panned for my pains.
But I feel in good company now.
But as I say that is a very different issue to that of the Wikileaks stuff. Assange is not accused of actually killing anyone (unlike the IRA cases you mention) and if the Irish nationalists had been limiting their activities to embarrassing the UK government then the US would have been absolutely right not to have extradited them.
It is also worth perhaps asking the question whether a change of administration in the US would be likely to alter their attempts to bring him to trial. If the answer to that is yes then it does make it seem far more credible that these are simply political charges designed to prevent future whistle blower cases and seek revenge.
Indeed, read it here on PB.
https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1117481162480541697?s=21