MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
OAS decides to hold ministerial meeting on Ecuador-UK conflict next week
The Organization of American States (OAS) has scheduled an emergency meeting of its foreign ministers next week to discuss the differences between Ecuador and Britain over the asylum that Quito granted to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesOnce again the UK bullying a small country. Once again breaking international law.
Aug 18th, 2012 - 02:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0An Argie talking about bullying small countries and flouting international law... I think the Hypocrisy-o-meter just exploded.
Aug 18th, 2012 - 02:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0The US and Canada (a US ape in most issues) have already declared that the conflict is not of international interest. I'm sorry, but an issue involving one country's threats against the sovereignty of another, in violation of international law -- it is what, if not of international interest? The sheer hypocrisy is to make one's body tremble with indignation!
Aug 18th, 2012 - 03:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0@3. Quite. if it were the other way round, and Ecuador had threatened to break into the UKs embassy in Quito Hilary would have been the first to step up to the microphone to lecture Ecuador on international law.
Aug 18th, 2012 - 03:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0#2
Aug 18th, 2012 - 03:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Speaking of hypocrisy, I'd like to see how will the British bloggers'' best argument about the claim over the FI -- that people have the right to exercise their sovereignty and self-determination -- how will it play now that the UK has threatened the sovereignty of another nation, and a fellow South American country at that. You can't apply the sovereignty argument only when it best suits. The argument is either valid for all, or it is no good. You can't claim the British have a sovereign right over “their” territories and embassies (remember 2011 Tehran) whilst denying it to others, like Ecuador. You better create a new excuse to avoid talks with Argentina over the islands!
All the UK did was point out UK law to the Ecuadorians, no sovereignty has been breached. All you're doing is taking an opportunity to squawk about something that hasn't happened.
Aug 18th, 2012 - 04:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0It wouldn't be a breach of sovereignty anyway. Ecuador would be given formal due notice that their embassy credentials have been withdrawn and they'd be entitled to clear out leaving simply another building in London. Any nation is perfectly entitled to break diplomatic relations with another - and the mighty Ecuador wouldn't be that great a loss.
I'm loving the way South Americans are flocking to support a rapist simply because they believe it serves their purposes in international realpolitik.
PS 5 Forgetit87 - that's the funniest strawman argument I've read in a long time. It makes no logical sense at all.
@5 On the one hand we have a politely worded diplomatic letter containing a point of British law that states we could, if we wished, rescind the Ecuadorian embassy's official status.
Aug 18th, 2012 - 04:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0On the other we have Iranian thugs storming into a British embassy and trashing the place and the vindictive decades-long campaign against the Falklands by Argentina who have done everything in their - meagre - power to rob 3000 people of their rights and no doubt would do more if they were capable.
Not exactly comparable, except in the histrionic minds of certain South Americans who love an excuse to bleat about the “evils” of the more developed world. At the very worst, I'd say we just sank to your level for a very brief period. Fortunately common sense prevailed (you should try it some time).
Ecuador sovereignty? Inside the house maybe - arguably, but outside is Britain, and the rapist should be taken to court. Can't see the fugitive fitting inside a diplomatic bag somehow :-)
Aug 18th, 2012 - 04:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Criminals should not be able to hide behind a tin-pot dictators' skirts !
@8 minor point of order , 'alleged rapist' maybe.....?
Aug 18th, 2012 - 04:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0'Criminals should not be able to hide behind a tin-pot dictators' skirts. hmmmmm.....there is precedent here.... rather a lot of nazis were given asylum in RGland by the peronistas.
As stated above the UK government has simply pointed out that they can terminate the Ecuadorian lease on the premises..... the crap about the police 'storming' the embassy is just typical south american bullshit...
@ 1 Well you know all about bullying small countries, your quite good at it if my memory serves me well
Aug 18th, 2012 - 04:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0@5 There was NO THREAT (hence US/CANADA's indifference), we just stated UK law and as usual a Latam took it the wrong way and got his knickers in a twist, and of course Rgenweener has to poke it's nose in with the usual ranting and bring the Falklands in to it (there are no Malvinas). No excuse needed the FIG have invited you for talks numerous times, but you don't recognise them DO YOU?
You seem to miss THE POINT this man is wanted for attempted RAPE / RAPE, or doesn't that matter now, as you've turned it into a diplomatic circus, if he is innocent let him prove his innocence. If Sweden don't want to interview him in the Ecuadorian embassy thats thier perrogative, nothing to do with us. Listen if he hadn't broke his bail we wouldn't be talking about this at all. There's no need to threaten anyones sovereignty, the embassy belongs to Ecuador, just leave him in there, until he steps out for the airport and then arrest him on British soil.........simples.
PS.what happened about the attacks on the British Embassy in BA, I'll tell you what nothing, yada, nowt, FUCK all, not even an apology from Turkey neck, so I think yet again you are clutching at straws and when the dust settles you'll have done what you normally do, nothing but spout hot air.
The apologists of UK aggression can really shove their excuses. I won't all that you wrote.
Aug 18th, 2012 - 04:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0To the guy who said of the Iranian students who stormed the British embassy that they were thugs: those students were actually conscientious citizens of a country that right now is being economically starved with complicity of your government; and they were reacting to what they saw as meddling on the part of the British embassy personnel in their country's domestic affairs. By violating your country's sovereignty, they were standing up for theirs. What they did might not have been legal or moral, but it was understandable.
Whatever sympathy I might have had for the UK at the time of the invasion, has evaporated now that your country has shown itself to be so hypocritical on the subject of international law and sovereign rights. I'll cheer very hard for whoever is it that repeats the valiant deed of the Iranian students in 2011.
What the UK is now doing is much worse than what the Iranians did: the UK, after all, isn't really threatened by either Ecuador or Assange one way or another. By bullying both, it's doing nothing but play its traditional post-war role as the bitch of America. Be proud, how good is it to be British!
I am sure the man accused of rape in a EU country will enjoy the freedom of the press in his new country of choice.........................................not
Aug 18th, 2012 - 05:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0@11 Don't worry, we always *will* feel proud and superior compared to drivel-spouting melodramatic gimps like you ;)
Aug 18th, 2012 - 05:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Right back at ya. I, too, feel very superior to those who feel the need to always side with their government, no matter what it does -- provincial scum who can't think for themselves and take directions from corrupt elected swindlers.
Aug 18th, 2012 - 05:32 am - Link - Report abuse 08 Mr Lorton ”Criminals should not be able to hide behind a tin-pot dictators' skirts !
Aug 18th, 2012 - 05:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Is that why your government released Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi?
London's threat to storm Ecuador's embassy has backfired in their faces.
Nothing you can do Lorton...get used to it...Take it to the ICJ :-))))
@11 again you have a short memory, your cuddling up to Iran now, but remember 1994, when Nestor and a top judge issued a warrant for Irans President and 8 others for the bombing in BA that killed 85 i quote “the UK is now doing is much worse than what the Iranians did”, you didn't think you were threatened by them then did you? An old saying my old mukka, watch you enemys closely, but watch your friends even closer, and YEP BRITISH and Proud.
Aug 18th, 2012 - 05:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now back to the subject Assange has broken the law by breaking his bail conditions, what part of BREAKING the LAW don't you understand?
“provincial scum who can't think for themselves and take directions from corrupt elected swindlers.”
Aug 18th, 2012 - 05:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think that's written right next to ARGIE in the dictionary?
@7 I'm loving the way South Americans are flocking to support a rapist simply because they believe it serves their purposes in international realpolitik. Well said mate, it's amazing how something like this brings them out the woodwork and suddenly they are all together against the world. Next week we will be reading about Rgenweener and Uruguay arguing again about rivers, and the rg's will be calling Ecuador a third world country again, Brazils military build up on rg's border will continue and everything will be back to normal. And the suspected rapist will still be stuck in London unable to go out, and we'll all say Assange who?
Aug 18th, 2012 - 05:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0The pain of a mother watching his son as he's martyred in the name of truth:
Aug 18th, 2012 - 06:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.presstv.ir/detail/256848.html
#18
Aug 18th, 2012 - 06:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0How do you know Assange's a rapist? The man hasn't even been charged or tried yet. It denounces a very anti-democratic mindset that you can already judge this man's character only on the basis of the UK government's hostility to him. Congratulations, you're a government bitch who think as he's told.
@20 I don't know I cut and pasted that from 7, lazy I know, but whatever he is breaking / has broken the law, if he is innocent he should fight his cause in Swedish courts. I doubt the British goverment has any real hostility towards him and neither do I except he has broken the law and should be held accountable same as the average joe public who breaks the law. I dont think as a brain washed rg that you can comment on anyone doing as their told, because of your inability to see anyone elses point of view or accept history as written hundreds of years ago, rather you go with what you have had pushed into your tiny mind and actually believe it, do some research, take your CFK coloured blinkers off, then I might give you a bit of respect and credence, because at the moment you come across as a bit of a self important person who really thinks they know it all, when in fact your not that clever
Aug 18th, 2012 - 06:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0On the international scene, Sweden is, as usual, doing what they are told to. No more leaks from an Ecuatorian embassy. This is a peerfect example of western democracy, freedom of speach and civil rights in general :)
Aug 18th, 2012 - 07:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Assange's last leak will be showing your true face...
@22 didn't you give the perfect example of democracy when you invaded stole land and forced the locals (ones who weren't killed off of course) to speak Spanish and or Portuguese, your selective History really does let you down when trying to score points Guzz. Move back to Spain or Italy or Portugal and give the locals the land back (as you should have done once you gained independence from yourselves?). Then preach from the high ground, fair call? you decide.
Aug 18th, 2012 - 07:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0“You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy.
Aug 18th, 2012 - 08:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0”We sincerely hope that we do not reach that point, but if you are not capable of resolving this matter of Mr Assange's presence in your premises, this is an open option for us.”
I have read the above letter, I do not see any mention of threatening to storm the Embassy, something lost in tranlation, you think?
@4 Troneas (#)
Aug 18th, 2012 - 08:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Aug 18th, 2012 - 03:10 am
No it's worse than that. This is Equador meddling in the British and the Swedish judicial system. The UK hasn't threatened anybody. Only Eqador and other idiots looking to make political capitol out of an alleged rapist is accusing the UK of threatening anybody.
Of course, in Argentina, the government doesn't threaten foreign embassy territory or staff. They just incite a riot then stand and watch whilst foreign territory is trashed and embassy staff are assaulted. Laughing all the while.
The UK doesn't and didn't threaten Equador and well you know it. Nobody threatened to kick down the door and nobody will. However, in a meeting between Equadorian officials and their UK counterparts, trying to come to some agreement about how they should resolve the problem, various options were discussed including the the perfectly legal option for the UK to temporarily suspend the buildings political status if and only if the Equadorian government were agreeable. It was intended to give the Equadorians another option. The Equadorians could simply have said no and moved onto the next option but no. That would never do would it? Just like a Malvinista they cried wolf, shouted accusations from on high and generally acted like a bunch of prissy teenagers with a toddler complex.
No wonder you idiots can't get on with anybody. You constantly seek conflict where there isn't any? You feckers couldn't give a flying fart about Julian Assanges human rights, just his political worth. It is people like you that start wars, feed others into it and watch it all from a safe distance.
Black Cat
Aug 18th, 2012 - 08:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Don't be ridiculous, my blood is from at least 10 different nations. Stick to today and don't travel 200 years back in history to find your excuses, thy want you talk about history, yours is dark and bloody...
.Courtesy of the Law Review.
Aug 18th, 2012 - 08:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Inviolability guarantees the sanctity of diplomatic and consular premises.
While it does not place premises above the law, anybody who remains on diplomatic or consular premises can take refuge from the law.
The Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 ('the Act') is the vehicle for reforming the government's powers for dealing with the abuse of diplomatic and consular premises.
Under the Act where premises are misused, their diplomatic or consular status may be lost, together with all concomitant rights, (including inviolability).
Is the OAS going to debate the right of a Sovereign nation to legislate to prevent abuse of consular powers. As was the case with the Libyan and Nigerian Embassies, murder of a British Police officer and the Kidnap of refugee.
Okay, the current situation is not comparable, but it is most certainly interference in the host nations domestic law.
Lord Ton (#8)
Aug 18th, 2012 - 08:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0”Can't see the fugitive fitting inside a diplomatic bag somehow :-)”
'Though they can't open it, they can poke it hard with a pointy stick ... if it screams in an Aussie accent, they can 'request the item is transferred to the safe keeping of Her Majesty's Constabulary'.' (BBC Radio 2, 17 August 2012)
...................................
He allowed his site (Wikileaks) to leak. That's what the site is there for, to reveal that which it is better that the public should know about the black machinations of its supposed democratic governments. Interestingly, the vast majority of materials posted showed the USA in an extremely good light. Going to war against Saddam showed just the opposite, and USA politicians do not like their autobiographies to be tainted by truth.
Arguably, the major crime was electronically stealing a copy of the documents, for which the US serviceman will probably spend the rest of his life in prison, as a message to others.
Assange paid for and had sex with two prostitutes in Sweden. The retrospective claim wrt the condom may constitute technical rape, but this is a moot point in the context of consent and financial transaction. Lawyers will have fun and make money, and August is the 'silly season' for the media in the Northern hemisphere.
Assange is less concerned with his 'good name', more concerned with the way 'the machine of power' can destroy him using the laws and powers of secondary states such as Sweden. Prostitutes have forever tried for the wallet .. or the big pot of gold when induced to 'kiss and tell .. and lie' .. just a thought.
Why does the USA not want to address the Wikileaks matter head on? ... because, for God's sake, the case can be made.
To use that old un-PC phrase ... because there are 'too many niggers in their woodpile'. Perhaps they know that he knows what they are, and perhaps they are just afraid that he might press the 'Post' button.
A perfect example of Argentinian and Ecuadorian “democracy, freedom of speach and civil rights in general”
Aug 18th, 2012 - 09:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://knightcenter.utexas.edu/blog/00-11034-press-organizations-fault-argentina-ecuador-crumbling-press-freedoms
Most of the world finds this situation bemusing, OAS, Unasur and ALBA holding emergency meetings!
Aug 18th, 2012 - 09:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0This should have been a minor news story.
Britain is just the middleman, a messenger, just trying to fulfil their duty to international law.
Maybe the letter to Ecuador letting them know about the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987, which would allow us to take action to arrest Mr. Assange in the existing facilities of the embassy, was deliberate, so the world could see how deluded and strange these organisations are.
'The US envoy to the OAS, Carmen Lomellin, said a meeting of OAS foreign ministers “would be unhelpful and harmful to the OAS reputation as an institution.”'
26 Guzz (#)
Aug 18th, 2012 - 09:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0My History is pure 100% Celtic, your a Squatter on stolen land, if you had that much conviction in your highly mixed blood, you'd pick one of the ten countries your squatering background is made up of, hand back any title deeds to what clearly is stolen land and get back to to were your DNA is from, instead of populating the posts with your I'm holier than thou drivel. It's a story about about a squatter , You have helped yourself nicely from fruits aggressive land grabs as a nation, just don't talk about history and keep on living on stolen lands and enjoy the spoils of others that have been mistreated at the hands of your 10 strains of blood? hell of a salad Guzz, hell of a salad.
It is simply an oppurtunity for the South American dictators to capitolise on the situation for their own gain. The oppurtunity has presented itself and they are grabbing it with both hands. They are just a bunch of filthy murdering liars. The civilised world understands the predicament the UK government are in and won't give two hoots what these despots concoct between themselves. The situation has absolutely nothing NOTHING to do with the Falkland Islands, but you can bet your life it will by the time they have finished.
Aug 18th, 2012 - 09:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0@26 Guzz (#)
Aug 18th, 2012 - 09:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Aug 18th, 2012 - 08:39 am
Behave Guzz. As an example, Malvinista claims to the Falkland Islands are rooted firmly in the past, if that is where you lead an argument that is where it is likely to go and, as already discussed ad nauseoum, our history is no darker than anybody else's and certainy not as dark as Argntinas.
33 War Monkey (#)
Aug 18th, 2012 - 09:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe it's Guzz's 10 different blood groups he claims he has coursing through his veins that make the option of whether 200 years of history is valid or not in his posts, Good point War Monkey.
BC
Aug 18th, 2012 - 10:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Spaniards and portuguese were in SA for some 300 years before we gained independency. During all that time, black people mixed with white ones, local ones, and less so ones. We are not spaniards nor portuguese. Not even Italians. We are 300 years of mixed races, including Charrua...
Seems I owe Mr Assange an apology, I got the idea that these allegations were made by two prostitutes, probably because I have seen them referred to on here as whores.
Aug 18th, 2012 - 10:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Having resesearched it better, it seems that the allegations were brought by two of his supporters, which brings further credence to them in my opinion. Then again it could be argued by conspiracy theorists that this was a honey trap, set up by the US. In any case, apologies Mr Assange, now stop stirring things up, bugger off to Sweden and get this all sorted!
From the daily mail ''If a man-shaped diplomatic bag is seen emerging from the Ecuadorian Embassy and we prod it with pitchfork to confirm that it only contains diplomatic items, a squeak of ''Ouch!'' would give us all the legal options we needed to ask the Embassy yo undo it and show us who or what is therein,' former British Ambassador Charles Crawford said.'
Aug 18th, 2012 - 11:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0A man shaped diplomatic bag? Alicia Castro??
“A man shaped diplomatic bag? Alicia Castro??”
Aug 18th, 2012 - 11:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0PMSL.
10 out of 10 best yet.
Aug 18th, 2012 - 11:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Comment removed by the editor.
Aug 18th, 2012 - 11:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinas. Now the inviolability of embasies...
Aug 18th, 2012 - 11:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0OEA, Unasur and ALBA meeting to discuss UK's violation of a Latinamerican country's sovereignty... Latinamericans united again against british arrogance.
When will the UK realize acting in the old emperial ways is no longer valid for a crude colonial power in decline?
@41
Aug 18th, 2012 - 12:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Last I saw we were still in the G8, Its your country that gets invited to the G20 so the rich countries can understand and keep in touch with an example of a third world.
Cristina Kirchner is known around the world for being all fur coat and no knickers and that sums up your pathetic country quite well!
@41 Islas Malvinas (#)
Aug 18th, 2012 - 01:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Aug 18th, 2012 - 11:51 am
Oh change the record you throbbing nonce.
@35 Guzz nice to hear from you. I would like to hear your opinion on these questions. Do you think that this case is being used to silence Julian Assange, and to try and stop Wikileaks? And do you think that this story highlights the corruption UK government, but also can be used to show that it needs to be stopped, in order to protect ourselves?
Aug 18th, 2012 - 01:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0we see the banana gang are at it again, british did this , british did that , pure anti british childish mud slinging.
Aug 18th, 2012 - 02:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and what of your feeble words, they all fall on the cow pad where it belongs,
as for the this silly meeting,
just what can theydo,
nothing nothing nothing.
oh sorry, they can but talk. silly children.
conqueror
Aug 18th, 2012 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are correct, Fructuoso Rivera is the man responsible for the massacre of the Charruas. He is also the founder of the Colorado party, that together with the Blancos are todays opposition in Uruguay. I agree with you it's a good thing those crooks are not any longer in power, and we'll assure you we'll do our to make sure to keep them away. Have a peek in history and see what US CHARRUAS, FOLLOWERS OF JOSE G ARTIGAS, did to Bernabé Rivera :)
Ecuador
Aug 18th, 2012 - 02:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And its supporters,
We think that if this country wishes to show the free world, how great it is, it must lead by example, Ecuadorians can prove to the rest of us mortals, and set a great example,
We think this great little country, full of honest people, protecting the innocent should offer asylum to all suspected or wrongly convicted criminal all over the world, sussyusa and her crosdressing mates .
[Yes we do], Ecuador can show us, how its done, , how many criminals claim they are innocent, and wont get a fair trial,
We think all criminals should be encouraged to enter Ecuadorian embassies all over the world, and ask for asylum.
This way the Ecuadorian government would win the respect of the free world, and criminals everywhere.
So come on fellers, encourage a potential criminal to enter Ecuadorian embassies all over the world, and demand asylum.
Still.
It was worth a few laughs was it not .lol.
Theman
Aug 18th, 2012 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nice to see you too. Indeed I think this is to silence Assange. As things are now, they are doing a quite fine job as well. No leaks for months...
But it doesn't show Britains corruption. Britain is not alone in this game, and the corruption here is human, not national
Guzz
Aug 18th, 2012 - 03:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are what you are my confused friend, European stock
No. 5
Aug 18th, 2012 - 03:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It isn't just a question of whether the UK recognises the rights of the Falklanders to self-determination. The Islanders decide that for themselves, whether the UK or anyone else agrees or not. The UK is defending that right for as long as the Islanders wish it; which is likely to be for a very long time.. The Equadorean questions on Mr Assange and other matters isn't relevant to what the Islanders want themselves. That personal right will be confused deliberately because the governments have other issues to use the Falklands argument for. The Islanders are pawns for desired power and resources.
@15 “Is that why your government released Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi?”
Aug 18th, 2012 - 04:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A point of fact. It was not the British government responsible for releasing Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. It was entirely the decision of the Scottish Parliament against the wishes of the British Government.
And with typical over-reaction the South Americans are claiming The British are going to storm the Ecuadorian Embassy. Not true. Not true at all. It was pointed out as an option the COULD be used as part of the minutes of a discussion between diplomats from both countries. It seemed at the time that Ecuador were seeking a way out of the mess. I have no doubt they are heartily sick of housing Assange in one room of their very small premises. He is reported to be climbing the walls. I suspect this will end soon.
@35 So there was no policy of blanqueamiento (whitening) in SA?
Aug 18th, 2012 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To all these monkeys blathering on cluelessly about Diplomatic Law and sovereign territory: do show me where in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations it states that an embassy is the sovereign territory of the country whose embassy it is. Oh, that's right, you can't .. because it doesn't actually say that. It simply says that the embassy is inviolate and must not be entered by the host country except by permission of the head of the mission - but that inviolate status is abrogated if the country whose embassy it is allows the mission, as Ecuador has done, to be used in a way which is incompatible with the functions of the mission ... such as shielding fugitives from criminal justice, which is exactly what Assange is because he has experienced no censorship and no curtailment in his political activities whilst in the UK (a state of affairs that he can't hope to replicate in the retarded shithole they call Ecuador, where there isn't even the most basic freedom of the press and expression).
Aug 18th, 2012 - 05:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And for those even more clueless monkeys who listen to Assange's disbarred corrupt Spanish judge friend and are pinning their hopes on the concept of 'Diplomatic asylum', there is only one problem with that: Diplomatic asylum isn't a concept that is recognised by either the United Nations or the International Court of Justice. In fact 'Diplomatic asylum' is a concept that is only recognised by the OAS .. and even then only a minority of OAS members.
Finally, diplomatic relations between two countries exist purely by virtue of mutual consent. It is within the UK's right to terminate diplomatic relations with Ecuador at any time it wishes (and God only knows why the UK would even want diplomatic relations with that festering back end of beyond). Contrary to the perverse propagandist bullshit being spewed by Ecuador and her third world allies, there is therefore no need for British authorities to violate Diplomatic laws in order to get their hands on the common criminal.
53
Aug 18th, 2012 - 05:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do us that favour, show us just how right we are regarding you folks and show the world your true faces. Personally, I can't bloody wait :)
54, [ouch]
Aug 18th, 2012 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 053,
I read, that the British government give Ecuador three million plus,, in aid,, an MP on TV last night stated that it was a waste of time the brits trying to buy influence in that part of America, when it was clearly a waste of time, rather than buying influence, all it has done is proved what we all know, and that’s , they hate us, and we are just throwing good money after bad,
so as some may say, should great Britain even try with certain south American countries, and just leave them alone , and use our money, on British people, rather on those who, frankly just despise us.
Worth a thought is it not .
“No. 5
Aug 18th, 2012 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It isn't just a question of whether the UK recognises the rights of the Falklanders to self-determination. The Islanders decide that for themselves, whether the UK or anyone else agrees or not. The UK is defending that right for as long as the Islanders wish it;”
Simple point of order, that IS self-determination. If and when the Islanders ask the British government to discuss sovereignty, that is when negotiations will happen. The Islanders fate is in their own hands, precisely as the UN charter commands. If the Islanders wish to become part of Argentina, Britain can and will negotiate such an arrangement. Until then, constitutional changes towards self-government are perfectly applicable.
If the Islanders wish to remain an autonomous territory delegating military protection to Britain, so be it. If they wish to become an independant nation, remaining part of the commonwealth, equally acceptable. If they wish to become a republic and remove their dependance on the crown then so be it, the commonwealth has provisions for that within its structure.
The issue is, the Islanders realise that without the protection of the Royal Navy, the result of their independance would basically be genocide. Argentina's claims of “being all peaceful and stuff” are hollow given their actions of the last few years. Your government may have changed but ethnic cleansing is still your modus operandi. Until you grow up as a nation, your relationship with the Islands will never change. Better get over it...
@54 Our true face is a yawn, bored to tears at the tedium inflicted on us by subnormal LatAm nations who seem desperate to stick it to the “Colonials” at every opportunity. Whether its Argieland's repetitive futile attempts at thievery or Ecuador interfering in our justice system so its grubby leader can score some political points and whimper about how bullied they feel by the nasty nasty UK.
Aug 18th, 2012 - 07:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ideally we'd stick to doing business with the Pacific Alliance and tell the rest of your continent to F.O. Why the hell does a First World nation need diplomatic relations with Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua and the rest of your dysfunctional cluster of shithole countries?
51 ElaineB
Aug 18th, 2012 - 07:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't know how old are you but I can tell that you still believe in Santa Claus.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284132/Tony-Blair-special-adviser-dictator-Gaddafis-son.html
And whats wrong with father christmas,
Aug 18th, 2012 - 07:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0did you not get any presents as a child,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
easter bunny, nice eggs , lighten up, have fun , have a cuppa, and avoid the [ITS ]
its about and very scary lol.
@57B
Aug 18th, 2012 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Good question? why do we need to have consular relations with the likes of Ecuador and other countries, it is not as if there is anything of mutual benefit between us.
oh i dont know,,,,,
Aug 18th, 2012 - 07:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0we give them money,
and they in turn, laugh at us.
but perhaps the UK should concider removing relations with these countries.
@58 I was just telling you the facts. And Gordon Brown was Prime Minister at the time.
Aug 18th, 2012 - 07:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do I think Tony Blair is an individual with no morals and a messiah complex.?Hell, yes!
Do I think it was right for the Scottish to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi? Hell, no!
I was just helping you get some facts right and I never click linkies on messageboards.
I was going to to suggest we get the hell out of dodge and let the EU delegation act for our citizen there, however just checked and there is not one in Ecuador, not that it would help anyway, as they consider EU countries stooges and lapdogs of the USA.
Aug 18th, 2012 - 08:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 054 Guzz (#)
Aug 18th, 2012 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Aug 18th, 2012 - 05:44 pm
You show us yours and we might show you ours.
62
Aug 18th, 2012 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0British government facts most of the time are far from reality, the release of bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi a perfect example.
@46 According to the historical record, it was Bernabé Rivera that did the dirty deed.
Aug 18th, 2012 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@48 Don't be silly. Israel has proven more than once how easy it is to enter a country, abduct someone and spirit them out of the country. Or even eliminated in situ. Do you think the U.S. couldn't do the same? There are even USAF bases in the U.K. within easy distance of London. If the U.S. wanted Assange, he'd be there. And if they wanted him dead, he'd be dead. And yet Assange trotted around quite freely. Not even “in custody”. And that's what makes his claims of “fears” of U.S. action so unbelievable.
@54 It's easy. Justice will prevail. There is no way Assange can get out of the UK. He will be apprehended, arrested, placed in custody and then removed to Sweden. Meanwhile, Ecuador's position is difficult. It has now shown itself willing to interfere in the UK's internal judicial system. That is not acceptable or recognised diplomatic behaviour. Will the UK break off diplomatic relations? It could declare the ambassador persona non grata and reduce any diplomatic mission to the lowest possible, e.g. a consulate. It seems that the UK's “aid” to Ecuador has already ended. Seems the only South American country that the UK gives aid to is Guyana. So what are you lot to us? You could all get together and decide not to import any goods from Britain. So? We are interested in the Falkland Islands. And we can maintain that no matter what you do. You really must learn not to upset the big boys. Especially illegally. If necessary, the UK will make it's case. The world will see the difference between the calm, legal, logic of the UK and compare it with SA hysteria. Job done! Every involved SA country will suffer.
can you not read, or you not understand,
Aug 18th, 2012 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0SCOTLAND RELEASED HIM,
not the british goverment.
savvy.
and if you dont like it, then complain to the mighty BK .
Conqueror
Aug 18th, 2012 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's not like we are buying crap loads of stuff from you lot anyway :)
Keep your stuff, end all relations. Do us that favour :)
“Big Boy” :)
We were right to release an innocent person. The only 'claimed' evidence against Megrahi was a fragment of a suitcase he allegedly bought in Malta. Sounds pretty stupid to me. Anyway, some of the brainwashed people still think he's actually a rapist. Don't believe everything that a couple of sluts, or the authorities tell you.
Aug 18th, 2012 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Here's a story to read and consider- and it's from Australia-
Aug 18th, 2012 - 09:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/assange-exploits-decade-of-us-folly-20120817-24e25.html
well sooner or later,
Aug 18th, 2012 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0its gone all quiet,
but no doubt the spark with ignite again very soon.
Spare us the fake 'persecuted for his political beliefs' crap. If there was any truth to that line, and if there was anything remotely principled behind giving asylum to Assange, why is it then that in the midst of all this there is a certain Alexander Barankov rotting in a rat infested Quito jail – having been denied political asylum in Ecuador – whilst he awaits extradition to Belarus for nothing more serious that blogging a political belief that is critical of the Belarussian president who remains in power through rigging elections and using extreme violence, and even assassinations, to ruthlessly suppress any dissent?
Aug 19th, 2012 - 07:02 am - Link - Report abuse 072
Aug 19th, 2012 - 07:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well, both are persecuted for their political beliefs. Difference lays in that there are no political points to score with that Barankov fellow. After all, it's not Mother Teresa running Ecuador :)
After reading some if the stuff posted on this subject, I feel I need to add my tuppence worth.
Aug 19th, 2012 - 09:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0All those who think this is politcally motivated are in CLOUD CUCKOO LAND.
You have spouted a lot of misinformation, started by Mr Assange himself and spread by his wikileaks network.
1stly the US has not issued an arrest warrant for Mr Assange because he is a nobody.
2ndly if the US really wanted him it is easier to extradite him from the UK than it is from Sweden.
3rdly how do you all know that these women (wrongly described as prostitutes and who actually worked for wikileaks) were bribed? If you have evidence to support this claim then surely you should present it to the Swedish authorities, but you don't you are just spreading Mr Assanges misinformation.
4th how do you know that the Swedish don't have a case against him? Police forces around the world don't publish all their evidence prior to even charging someone. That's why they want to question him, to establish the facts.
5th the UK didn't threaten to 'storm' the Ecuadorian embassy, what they did was offer the Ecuadorian a way out that didn't make it look like they were bowing to outside pressure. Only the Embassy staff were too stupid to realise what it was and now they're stuck with the odious toad forever, in their embassy.
6th where is your proof that Sweden is going to send Mr Assange to the US? Sweden which has one of the best human rights records in the world.
Finally. Why are you all defending this man anyway? What has he done to protect his sources? Nothing! Bradley Manning is on trial in the US for treason, which could lead to the death penalty. What has Mr Assange and wikileaks done for him?
Answer once again is NOTHING. No protests, no rally's, no petitions, no high priced lawyer, they have just dropped him like a bad smell. And that will, more than anything else, invalidate wikileaks. I mean who is going to risk their lives to a group that won't support them afterwards?
Ecuador sovereignty? Inside the house maybe - arguably, but outside is Britain, and the rapist should be taken to court. #8 an ex policeman said this
Aug 19th, 2012 - 09:28 am - Link - Report abuse 074# Your post is pretty good but not comprehensive is it?
Like the remark from Lordton(the scientific and research oriented bigot) is starts from a conclusion rather than a neutral position
Some of the issues which need to be addressed-
1/ what if he is innocent.
2/can he get a fair trial in Sweden.
3/why has it took so long to make the accusations.
4/why is the UK(the WMD liars) so keen to ensure he goes to Sweden,bearing in mind,Spain wanted Pinochet.
5/ why does the UK want to provoke an aggressive attitude to a situation that it claims is illegal and diplomatic pressure would be sufficient to defend its sovreignity.
I believe lordton is well informed on international law even if ,at times,he reveals a lack of self-control.:-)
@75 - Yuleno
Aug 19th, 2012 - 10:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0In answer to your questions:
1. He is INNOCENT until proven guilty. That is what the Swedish authorities want to investigate, but by refusing to go to Sweden to answer the questions of the Swedish authorities how can they know if they have a case against him or not. That is why his crimes are alleged.
2. Sweden has one of the best human rights records in the world, so I suppose that if the Swedish authorities take him to court he'll get a fair trial. If you have any evidence to suggest that he wouldn't please provide it here.
3. There is no statue of limitations in Sweden. The victims of rape, child abuse etc...often report these incidents months, even years after the crime took place due to feelings of shame, or the belief that they wouldn't have been believed. Also the police would want to ensure that they had collated evidence, and since Mr Assange wasn't in Sweden, then there are a whole load of international red tape to get through to. So no the length of time is immaterial.
4. The British have upheld international law. (what does the WMD have to do with this - irrelevant!) In the case of Pinochet, there was also his health to consider, and in case you missed it, the Chilean government was against his extradition. Not only that, but it was ruled that Pinochet could only be extradited for crimes committed after 1988, which is when this international law of charging people for crimes that were committed in other countries came into force. I don't agree with that decision, but that was what was decided by people who know the law better than I. As for Assange, he has allegedly committed a crime in Sweden, and has broken British law by breaching his bail conditions, and refuses to go and answer those allegations.
5. Once again the UK NEVER said it would raid the Ecuadorian embassy. The Ecuadorians appear to have stated that themselves. The British offered
Ecuador a way out that let them keep face, but they decided to blow it up out of proportion.
Lep
Aug 19th, 2012 - 10:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why does Sweden refuses to guarantee that they wont send him to USA, when according to Swedish law they are not allowed to extradict anyone that could suffer political prosecution?
Why did tje Swedes drop the charges twice? Why do they change the charges with time, from rape to other sexual offense?
There's a hacker in UK that has been asked for by USA for the last 8 years, but British law makes in possible for him to avoid extradition to the USA. From Sweden to USA it's a whole lot easier...
@57 Britgayninja why don't first world countries cut off diplomatic relations will all 3rd world countries then? Let's see how that works out for ya. Even if all first world countries only had trlations with themselves, they still wouldnt be able to provide for their people. Lmao
Aug 19th, 2012 - 10:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0@74 “5th the UK didn't threaten to 'storm' the Ecuadorian embassy, what they did was offer the Ecuadorian a way out that didn't make it look like they were bowing to outside pressure. Only the Embassy staff were too stupid to realise what it was and now they're stuck with the odious toad forever, in their embassy.”
Aug 19th, 2012 - 11:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0It took Ecuador two long months to decide to give Assange asylum and only after there was no other way out.
It is true that the law allowing the British government to suspend Embassy credentials allowing them to enter the Embassy was mentioned as part of the minutes of a meeting between the two governments diplomats to try to resolve the problem. They understood perfectly it was only mentioned as a possibility.
So, why was it turned into an Anti-British circus by Ecuador? First, Correa takes instruction from his master, Chavez and secondly he is facing election soon and wants to appear strong.
How Correa can possibly claim to be standing up for free speech is being mocked around the world.
@77 - Guzz
Aug 19th, 2012 - 11:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0The USA hasn't made any request for Assange to be sent to them. So how can Sweden say they wouldn't send him under any circumstances?
Let's say, Assange is extradited to Sweden and they decide there is a case to bring against him, then the USA decide to issue an international arrest warrant for him and ask for him to be extradited.
First, Assange would have to face the charges in Sweden. Then the Swedish courts would hear the evidence from the USA and allow Mr Assange to mount a defence against extradition.
But Sweden couldn't possibly say they would never under any circumstances extradite Mr Assange, because they would have to hear the evidence 1st. So your point is entirely irrelevant, because what you are saying is that Assange could commit any crime he wanted against the US, then hide out in Sweden because they promised not to extradite him to the US under any circumstances.
But as I said, the US hasn't raised any warrants again Assange, so the point is moot.
If the US really wanted Assange it is easier to extradite him from the UK than from Sweden, as you have demonstrated in your post.
Finally, I don't know the ins and outs of this case because I haven't seen all the evidence. Perhaps more evidence came to light later on which made the Swedish authorities decide to investigate further.
By refusing to attend for questioning, how can the Swedish truly know if they have a valid case against him or not? Mr Assange is doing a very good job of trashing the alleged victims (just like many rapists do may I add), by getting THEM tried by public opinion, when no one has heard the actual evidence.
He is the prejudicing this case. He is not acting like an innocent man, in my opinion, but he is innocent until proven guilty. The problem is, he isn't man enough to face the music and clear his own name.
Ecuador's president has just been on the television, stating that rape isn't a crime in any Latin American countries! The man must be completely unhinged!
Lep
Aug 19th, 2012 - 11:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are wise enough to know Correa didn't say rape isn't a crime in SA/LA/Ecuador. That kind of statement is far below your standards...
We all know why Assange is where he is. You, me, lady Elaine, the Swedes...
@81 - Guzz
Aug 19th, 2012 - 11:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes I do know why he is there. He is there because he isn't man enough to face his accusers in Sweden.
SWEDEN Guzz, that has once of the best human rights records in the WORLD.
You see, unlike you I don't put any faith in 'conspiracy theory's' unless you can give me proof.
Your belief isn't proof. Face it, Guzz, Mr Assange is a nobody these days. He has destroyed wikileaks all by himself, his ego did it.
He abandoned Bradley Manning to potentially face the death penalty, whilst he waltzed around the world telling every one how great he is.
By doing that, no one with half a brain would trust Assange, so the whistle blowing has stopped. Did you notice that Guzz? Wikileaks isn't leaking anymore, except for spewing the unfounded conspiracy theory against Assange.
Why isn't it leaking anymore? Because NO ONE trusts them anymore. Face it, Assange is a has been, a nobody, that even the USA wouldn't soil their hands with.
The only people blowing this out of proportion is Assange himself. If he had just answered the allegations against him, he'd probably be home free by know, assuming he was innocent.
He is Ecuadors problem now, and soon they'll realise that he is more trouble than he is worth. All this jumping up and down by Ecuador is ridiculous, and looks extremely desperate to outsiders.
By the way since Mr Assange is being sort in relation to sexual assault, the Ecuadorian President did say that wasn't a crime anywhere in South America, so you'd better lock up your daughters, sisters, wives and mothers, because apparently its open season on women in South American today.
Mayhap you are right, not for me to discuss it worh you, as you have sentenced him already. No matter what, loads of free poonts for our governments, will probably five whole left wing SA 4-5 years more in power :)
Aug 19th, 2012 - 11:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0@83 - Guzz
Aug 19th, 2012 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have not sentenced him. I honestly don't know if he's guilty or innocent. What I won't do though, is believe a bunch of unsubstantiated accusations.
I believe in due process. The only people who can decide on Mr Assanges guilt or innocence will be a jury in Sweden, assuming that the Swedish even bring charges against him
All I stated was the fact that he won't return to Sweden to face his accusers appears suspicious to me. Everything else is just hype by Mr Assange and his followers.
Tell me, Guzz, where is your proof that Mr Assange is being persecuted because of his role in wikileaks? Wikileaks that didn't even affect Sweden?
Where is your proof that the USA want him? Where is your proof that Sweden will turn him over to the USA?
You have no proof, because it doesn't exist. If it did exist then I'm sure that Mr Assange stalwart followers would have spread it over the world's media by now.
Tell me, Guzz, do you believe that Mr Assange should be above the law? That he shouldn't have to face questioning about his alleged involvement in a crime like ordinary people have to?
If Mr Assange had just returned to Sweden and answered the questions, there is a good chance that he would be walking around free right know instead of being holed up inside the Ecuador embassy.
In regards to Ecuador, it's president has just made a fool of himself on the international stage. He is not doing this for the sake of human rights, and legally, no embassy in the world can give asylum to someone who has committed a criminal act. In fact, Ecuadors own human rights record could be described as abysmal, and they are well known for smothering the freedom of the press as well as curtailing the freedom of their own citizens.
The Latin American countries should distance themselves from this debacle by claiming neutrality, otherwise they may end up with egg on their faces.
Lep
Aug 19th, 2012 - 12:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You mean its a total coincidence that wikileaks servers were placed in Sweden?
@68 It's not like we're buying crap loads of stuff from you, either. Keep it. Don't want no LatAm crap. (And stop watching when I'm having a pee. Don't you know it's perverted?)
Aug 19th, 2012 - 12:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@75 Let me make my stab at answering your questions:
1) What if? Sweden wants to interview him on their turf and under their legal system. Don't they have that right? And then, if appropriate, charge him and try him under their legal system? Don't they have that right? And what if he's found not guilty? Exonerated. All his running and hiding for nothing. But that wouldn't suit him, would it? He has to be “persecuted”.
2) Sweden has one of the fairest judicial systems in the world. Ditto human rights.
3) It hasn't. He was arrested in the UK on the basis of a European Arrest Warrant issued 18 months ago. The intervening period is of Assange's making.
4) Alleged offences took place in Sweden. EAW issued by Sweden. Spain had no jurisdiction. Pinochet was returned to Chile where any alleged offences occurred.
5) The UK has merely pointed out UK law. The “diplomatic” status of the “embassy” can be revoked. It's a statement of fact, not a threat. But once the status is revoked, the police would be free to act.
@77 Why don't you ask Sweden? Are you an expert on Swedish law? Are you an expert on any law? Anywhere?
@79 Let me suggest that Correa had to consult with CFK and Chavez first. How could this be turned into an anti-British political scandal? I suggest that the UK starts cutting off links with dictatorial states. Diplomatic links, of course, but then trade links as well. Venezuela, argieland, Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru. Uruguay, maybe. It's unfortunate that British governments still seem to think almost anything can be solved by sane, sensible, logical, intelligent discussions. Apparently, they haven't noticed that there are few sane, sensible, logical or intelligent places in LatAm!
@85 One server is in Sweden. Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks. Read “Hosting”.
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=4222109
Aug 19th, 2012 - 12:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0USA illegally transporting political prisoners in Swedish territory, totally against Swedish law. So much for Swedish human rights
@84 If you seriously think that the US won't in due time issue an arrest warrant for him, then there's something wrong. It's common sense to think about this. I only said that it's highly possible that the US will fabricate some evidence so they can issue this warrant.
Aug 19th, 2012 - 12:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@86 As for your comment on SA countries being dictatorships, these last few years since the 9/11 and 7/7 incidents, the UK has effectively taken away most of our personal freedoms away, due to the ever increasing surveillance in our country, and for what? So they can falsely 'try and prevent terrorism'. The bombings wouldn't have happened if our governments didn't invade countries and slaughter hundreds of thousands of their people. It's our own fault that it happened, bu voting in a bunch of greedy, money driven scum. What I'm saying is, that even though our country claims to be a full, free democracy, our government acts like a dictatorship too in some ways. But we're certainly not the worst country around right now.
Theman
Aug 19th, 2012 - 12:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A full democracy is no place one lives in, it's a place one fights for. The scums agenda is the same, regardless if you live in the UK, Sweden or Uruguay..
@89 Guzz what I don't understand is that we all have the power, but continue to live under them. That I don't get.
Aug 19th, 2012 - 01:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@73 Guz
Aug 19th, 2012 - 01:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, both aren't persecuted for their political beliefs. Only Alexander Barankov is .. Assange is just a common fugitive from justice and has never had his freedom of expression restricted in either the UK or Sweden.
Only a complete imbecile could believe that the lowlife, cowardly, Assange scum is a refugee from political persecution.
Yes, and Iraq has WMD's, no abuse was done in Al Ghraib, Guantanamo is all about human rights and no political prisoners were illegally transported all across Europe. No civilians were shot from “allied” helicopter, USA is not in colombia to control the narco, and so on and so on. How on earth is anyone supposed to believe you lot? You lie and decieve, point fingers and abuse civil rights...
Aug 19th, 2012 - 01:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@88 - THEBrit
Aug 19th, 2012 - 01:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If that's the case why haven't they already issued it to extradite him from Britain, which is far easier to do than from Sweden?
Where is your proof? Your belief is not proof. Mr Assange is not nearly as important as he thinks he is. He has done far more damage to wikileaks than the US government could've hoped to do.
Also you say the UK has taken away your personal freedoms. I live in the UK and I still have all my personal freedoms, where do you live?
You also say that the bombings wouldn't have happened if we hadn't invaded other countries. Tell me, when those planes smashed into the world trade centre on 11 Sep 2001, which countries were the US and UK busy invading? The answer is NONE so your response is nonsense.
From what you say, I strongly doubt you are, THEBrit, actually British. But if you are, that's fine, you have the right to your opinion. Just try backing it up with some proof.
That is what you and all the other posters in support of Assange lack in spades. Proof that your conspiracy theory exists. It is all in your minds because you WANT it to be true.
@92 Guzz
Aug 19th, 2012 - 01:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You lie and decieve, point fingers and abuse civil rights..”
Exactly what the world thinks of stinking backwards shitholes like Argentina and Ecuador.
So would I be right in thinking that you lot would be happy if the UK extradited Assange to Sweden with a guarantee that he wasn't extradited on to the USA ... and that when the Swedes are done with him he is sent back to the UK to have his balls publicly busted for criminally breaking his bail conditions?
That is the only way the snivelling cowardly scumbag will
That would be because Sweden has this law that permits them to extradite people to USA without them being charged for any crime, something UK doesn't have.
Aug 19th, 2012 - 01:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Assange's speech was a bit awkward for the Ecuadorians. He just ranted about how the media and journalists must not be repressed. Embarrassing for Correa.
Aug 19th, 2012 - 01:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He made a grandstanding speech full of nonsense and not mentioning for one moment that he is wanted for questioning in Sweden about serious sex offences.
94
Aug 19th, 2012 - 01:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Difference lay in that you think we do that, we know you do what you do...
Lady Elaine
Those serious sex offences went from rape, to charges dropped and now it's sexual molestation because Assange didn't like the rubber. The only thing serious here iss the lack of it...
@93 Sorry LEP my phrasing in that was pretty crap. I was meaning that they are on the way to TAKING away our personal freedoms, like privacy without having to worry about a government official spying on you. It happens A LOT more than you think.
Aug 19th, 2012 - 01:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for the 9/11 part, here's a link explaining a few examples- http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/19/weinstein-is-ignoring-the-evidence/ .
Sorry for using the word invade. They did invade Iraq before 9/11 as well, and their unwanted presence was in many ME countries, which prompted Al-Qaeda to react to this. I think the bombings were horrible, but they don't really have any other alternatives, do they? It's sad that stuff like this happens because of two governments' greed and need to go into other countries to consume their resources. Hope you understand my view on this. And I am British.
@94 The whole world doesn't think they're stinking backwards shitholes, only you and a select number do. There are a lot of good, but misguided people in those countries, just like our own country.
@98 - THEBrit
Aug 19th, 2012 - 02:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When did the US and UK invade Iraq before 9/11?
I remember in the early 1990's a coalition of countries booting the Iraqi's out of Kuwait. Some Iraqi territory was briefly occupied to ensure that Saddam backed down, and by briefly, I mean a few days, weeks at most, and all of that was along the Saudi Arabian border and many countries were involved in that 'invasion'.
You also say that you support terrorist activity including the murder of innocent civilians. SHAME ON YOU! What do you mean they had no alternative? The actions they took were the actions of COWARDS.
There actions cannot even be justified in ANY shape of form. Even the Prophet Mohammed forbade the killing of women and children, even the women and children of infidels.
They had a choice. They could've attack military targets only. They could've decided to negotiate. They could've decided to take up meditation and contemplate their own navel. But they chose to MURDER women and children in breach of the words of Mohammed and the laws of Allah.
You are naive in the extreme to believe that the attacks of 9/11 or 7/7 or in Madrid or in Bali were in anyway JUSTIFIED by any law or religion on Earth.
Yes the US was in some ME countries, there with consent of these countries governments. Yes US foreign policy sometimes left and leaves something to be desired, but these attacks were totally unwarranted.
You say that it's the greed of the US and the UK that caused this. Tell me, just what has the US and UK gained financially from Iraq and Afghanistan? Nothing at all. Not even favour of being given 1st choice to buy the oil. In fact the Chinese have done best of all out of these situations.
As for the UK government spying on you? Why would they do that? Unless of course they had information that you were up to no good.
Do you really believe that the UK intelligence services have nothing better to do than watch 99.9 % of the population watch Coronation Street?
You are deluded or paranoid.
Lep
Aug 19th, 2012 - 02:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Tell me the difference in a child blown to pieces by a bomb pit in a train and a child blown to pieces by a bomb from an stealth plane...
The UK and US governments were never the winners, nor were they intended to be. Bush, Blair, Rasmussen and co are the winners, just check their pockets...
@99 I never said that I supported them, just merely saying that they had no alternative. The Americans were obviously involved with killings in the ME before 2001, they didn't like it and retaliated. As I said, I didn't like it, so don't go accusing me of supporting terrorism.
Aug 19th, 2012 - 02:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/business/energy-environment/15iht-srerussia15.html?pagewanted=all
Yes they had the consent of the ME governments, not the people, so thanks for proving my point. The people are the country, not a bunch of corrupted politicians who get rich by starving their own people of money, e.g. oil. As for your view that they didn't get that much oil, well, they probably did. The NY times did a piece on this, here's a link for it, read and you'll understand why many of us have opposing views.
As for the last part, yes that's what MI5 and other agencies do. They spy on the public, and other countries too, hence the term intelligence. However, no-one outside those agencies will know the exact truth behind what they really do, so neither my view or your own can be called correct. So I'm not really deluded or paranoid if you can't prove otherwise.
Also here's a link on a story by an ex MI5 member, not necessarily on what I said, but it's interesting. Have a read.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/business/energy-environment/15iht-srerussia15.html?pagewanted=all
99 LEPRecon. Dude wouldn't waste time arguing with conspiracy theorists, they are all blind as bats. The number of times i've had to argue about the moon landing with people who know some secret “truth” is just silly!. Paranoid is the best word to use for them.
Aug 19th, 2012 - 03:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There's a difference between shit like that and this one. That's false, and all of this Assange extradition stuff may well be true
Aug 19th, 2012 - 03:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0101# and others,of course
Aug 19th, 2012 - 03:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The problem with LEP is he is playing an empiricist game.What your sensations tell you is all there is.
But in reality we also know there are unwritten agendas.There are 30yr rules on the release of gvt secrets.For security reasons.But when they get released historians find that the previous history is not as it should be.
People on here are ignoring the underlying issues around Assange and are focussing on accusations unrelated to his role in wiki leaks.
We all know that Bush declared war on terrorism,and that you either supported them or you where for terrorism.Well that wasn't a democratic declaration and it has not been renounced by the USA.So,therefore,our good old LEP is trying to apply the same authoritarian logic to this issue.
Well I, from experience,do not trust this notion of a wonderful human rights supporting Sweden,not to bow to yanqui pressure and their wheeler dealing,and be the puppet,like the UK,in delivering,what is seen by some,a terror supporting individual to the USA.But the truth is,that Sweden is long gone and the world has globalised since then.
Of course,there's no proof of all this,but neither is there proof of what Sweden claim is not exploiting the word of others who claim something was different to what others perceive.In other words,we all know there is a parallel agenda in this matter and we are all aware of rendition, but LEP pretends there isnt
@100 - Guzz
Aug 19th, 2012 - 04:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's easy.
One is a deliberate act, one is accidental. Both are not good, but even someone like you Guzz, can understand that difference. The difference is intent.
Still waiting for you to produce evidence on this massive international conspiracy against Assange.
Still waiting...
@104 - Yuleno
And what about wikileaks unwritten agenda? Notice how they never target countries like North Korea, China, Iran, Syria? Only the west. One could believe that these people involved in wikileaks care less about the truth and more about undermining democracy, if one were paranoid.
But regarding your Assange conspiracy, some proof please. Something. You say we all know. Well I don't know and I don't support or believe unfounded rumours and conspiracy theories.
Surely wikileaks would have intercepted all the diplomatic communiques between the US and Sweden regarding this plot? If they have why haven't they published them?
Is it because there is no proof, but people like you WANT to believe in the conspiracies. Perhaps you could try getting a life instead of constantly thinking that the world is out to get you.
You see Mr Assange only thinks he's important. He isn't. He stopped being important when he showed the world how much he supports his sources. Bradley Manning could face the death penalty, but what has Mr Assange and wikileaks done to help him? No protests, no high priced lawyers, no petitions, nothing.
That's why wikileaks is now ineffective. No one in the world is going to supply them with information because they know that wikileaks will take all the glory and leave them to rot in prison.
So you see, the USA doesn't have to plot against Mr Assange and wikileaks, because they are now ineffective, impotent and obsolete.
Mr Assange should 'grow a pair' and go to Sweden and face his accusers, like a man would do, especially an innocent man.
Still waiting Guzz.
http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/24/gary-mckinnon-extradition-decision-delayed?cat=world&type=article
Aug 19th, 2012 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There you go, Lep
Sweden has an extradition treaty with tje US that permits them to send people who aren't charged with anything. Seems you guys don't sell your arses as cheap as the Swedes :)
Guzz, still waiting for some proof of this conspiracy against Assange.
Aug 19th, 2012 - 04:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are now posting random stuff that isn't proof. Just one piece of proof? Can be too hard surely?
Unless of course it doesn't exist because this conspiracy doesn't exist.
Still waiting Guzz...
Still waiting Guzz...
You're avoiding answering Guzz...
Still waiting...
The day I take USA to court, I'll present my proofs. :)
Aug 19th, 2012 - 04:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now, charge Assange with something, present your proofs, or just kill him in public, like the children of Iraq
108 guppy. And how are you going to take the Amercians to count? (inflated ego much) going to be hard as you seem to know very little about international law. As for Mr (Rapey) Assange, if you can read you'd know he's wanted for questioning in sweden, tho he has now broke UK law so gess we could charge him with something. I know south america isn't big on the rule of law but do try to keep up.
Aug 19th, 2012 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lol cornishair, I'm sorry for having to clarify to you, I sincerely thought people here actually understood there is no chance in hell for me to take US to court.
Aug 19th, 2012 - 04:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let me know if there's a statement in these lines you need me to explain further...
@107 Actually if I remember correctly, WikiLeaks has targeted several ME and Asian countries. Just go onto their site, and rummage through it all. Should be there, unless it's been deleted along with hundreds of others.
Aug 19th, 2012 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Seems like you're brainwashed as well, along with everyone else who doesn't think that Assange and WikiLeaks are being targeted by the US.
lol and you havn't answered LEPRecon's question so i gess your just jumping a the Assange bandwagon. ”na na na the west is evil, south america for south americans (or do i mean europeans, im sooooo confused about the one), hugo will save use etc etc etc.......”.
Aug 19th, 2012 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Guzz me old mucker he will be charged with breaking his bail conditions after that who knows..................simples, but bet he'll be in Sweden before Sussieus can light her crack pipe
Aug 19th, 2012 - 05:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why do I need to proove what I believe will happen in the future? How could I proove it?
Aug 19th, 2012 - 05:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Does that change the fact that Sweden helps the US to illegally transport people to Guantanamo? Or that they torture people in that very same place? Or that no charges have been presented against Assange? Or that Sweden refuses to grant him guarantees of not sending him to US, should he accept to go to Sweden? Or that Sweden could perfectly well hear him in London?
If I knew I was innocent and all this would happen to me, I wouldn't trust you a bit...
Im starting to think a couple people on here proberly get there news from RT & Presstv! and anyone with half a brain will know what i mean.
Aug 19th, 2012 - 05:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The whole world knows the truth. Old empire, handle this with care, you lost in the middle east and the world is in uproar. At the same time, China is cashing in at your expense. Assange is a mere drip in the ocean, but how many more drips can you take? I say this as a friend from the other side, I would never treat you lot as you treat us...
Aug 19th, 2012 - 05:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Guzz no point arguing with brainwashed people, just let them lick their 'lovable' leaders arseholes since they believe every word that comes from their mouths.
Aug 19th, 2012 - 05:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0116. Thats odd because south american contries are treating the poplution of a tiny island pretty badly at the moment. You do understand argentina is now dictating all of south america's (well the lefty ones) foreign policy, i really can't see this being good for you, as your being dragged into someone else's arguement.
Aug 19th, 2012 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0plus guzz you do understand most of the brits are on this website because of what argentina is doing?
@117 -THEBrit
Aug 19th, 2012 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hmm, you don't appear to like it when people disagree with you.
I don't know if Assange is innocent or guilty, that's up to the court to decide, but he is innocent until proven guilty.
My point has always been where is the proof of this international conspiracy?
Surely there must be proof, and if there is why not publish it to the world.
The point is, the international community (and the Swedes and US in particular) are being accused of a conspiracy. Under normal rules of law the international community is innocent until proven guilty. It is up to Mr Assange to provide that proof.
But he hasn't provide one iota of proof of this conspiracy. So therefore the international community is innocent of these allegations.
Oh, and just because I haven't swallowed Assanges bullsh!t doesn't make me brainwashed. It makes me a thinking person. You however, don't appear to think, you just want to believe the worse of everything even when there is no proof.
If you don't like the system, then why don't you stand for parliament, become an MP, form a politcal party with other like minded individuals, and work for change instead of moaning about the problems of the country and how you don't like them, and supporting unfounded allegations against the government. In other words DO something to change the laws and the system. Or are you all talk and no action?
Guzz, I'm still waiting for one iota of proof. You haven't provided it. Mr Assange hasn't provide it. This means that in probably doesn't exist because there is no conspiracy.
Mr Assange, and people like you Guzz are very quick to point fingers without proof. You don't even give the international community the same rights you are demanding for Assange (rights that have not been violated by the way). That makes you a hypocrite.
The burden of proof is on Assange. The burden of proof is also on you Guzz as you also made these allegations.
I'm still waiting, Guzz.
Lep, could I proove a theory, it wouldn't be a theory, it would be a fact.
Aug 19th, 2012 - 06:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I wont put myself between your sword and a wall, you need to be more clever than that.
Assange is not in the embassy of Ecuador because of a theory, so there ends your comparison.
LEP Again the governments aren't the international community. Assange is fighting for us people, against a form of oppression by the governments, by revealing their true colours. And I don't hate it when someone disagrees with me, I just don't understand why you can't see it. And again, never said you were brainwashed, but I will stand by what I said. There are people who comment on this site (Argentinian people on FI), and across the world, are brainwashed by the fact that they have the original concept of democracy in their lands, when they don't. They only have most of it, but there are probably a few pieces missing.
Aug 19th, 2012 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The haves,,,,,,
Aug 19th, 2012 - 07:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ecuador is now interfering in another countries right of law,
The South Americans are about to meet about sovereign territory [invasion of]
Ecuadorians are now abusing and burning British flags .
Both are openly condemning the British, for merely trying to enforce its own laws .
Ecuadorian president has now threatened the British government, as to what it will do, if the impossible happens .
And the south Americans may yet try to interfere in our legal system.
[THE HAVE NOT; S ]
Britain has not threatened to enter the embassy, they merely pointed out British law, as required,
The USA has not requested British extradite this man .
The Australians have not requested him back
And the Swedes have not threatened to send him anywhere,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
So who then may be in the wrong, or over reacting,
Who then is is using this to or for political gains,
Who then hopes to get away Scott free,
The difference then between the British, and a third world republic perhaps,
For not a rude peep from the brits , not a threat no insults, no crying,
Just British upper lip, on how to deal with things, [good or bag ? ]
Justa thought .
its only a blogg, lol.
Oh and they do care enough about Bradley Manning, that they put something on their site where you can donate money to his legal defence. Here's the link http://shop.wikileaks.org/donate
Aug 19th, 2012 - 07:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why on earth do people on here have more then on id?. I am gessing theman & thebrit are both the same person.
Aug 19th, 2012 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yeah it's just if I forget to post something, I have another account to post it straight after the previous one
Aug 19th, 2012 - 07:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Theman, why do you support Assange anyway?. Not only has he runaway from Sweden, he's now broken English law. Seem alot like he's using Wikileaks as a get out of free jail card. And as for seeking asylum in Ecuador well thats a bit of a joke really, i mean ecuador's just an awesome place to go for politial freedom!.
Aug 19th, 2012 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0cornishair just read my previous posts on all Assange related stories on here, then you'll know why
Aug 19th, 2012 - 07:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0lol i still think he looks like a creepy rapist! and his actions speak louder then his words, looks to me like he's trying to avoid the true.
Aug 19th, 2012 - 08:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for Assange being some kind of international hero, well bullshit. He's in it for personal glory/celebity.
If you don't like the system, then why don't you stand for parliament, become an MP, form a politcal party with other like minded individuals, and work for change.
Aug 19th, 2012 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Again a brilliant quote from LEP
How would starting a project like the one he advocates help in this situation.
If Assange goes to Sweden and the case is dropped because of a lack of evidence,for example,he should walk free.Instead,he would be re-arrested and probably extradicted to the USA.Sweden would have to take these actions as they have a treaty to uphold.
Now,what conspiracy is there here.What conspiracy needs proving is beyond me and that will no doubt be the subject of another post.
For me the question is -'why are the USA wanting Assange,when they are planning to withdraw from Afganistan without as yet establishing a democratic gvt,which was the original objective and Assange and wiki leaks only revealed stuff the military wanted to keep secret.
Openness is a problem for underhanded people.
Ifs and butts,
Aug 19th, 2012 - 08:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ifs and buts,
If he goes to Sweden, and is found guilty, he will be punished,,,,,
If he goes to Sweden and is found innocent, he should and will, be allowed to walk free, get on a plane, and freely go to Ecuador,
Anything else, at this stage, is purely ifs and buts.
And speculation,
Why not follow the logical path of British law, and sit back, and wait,
Then if he is high jacked by the Americans or E.T. then you can complain,
Until then every body should just let the law take its route,
1, he comes out of the embassy
2, he is extradited to Sweden,
That’s it, that’s where British control stops, end off,
And the British will be glad to get rid of him pronto,
Then it is Sweden’s problem,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
So why the south Americans are jumping up and down is rather silly ,,what,.
Here's an extract from a US based website, linked with the government. The U.S. Army, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Justice Department are considering criminally prosecuting WikiLeaks and Assange “on grounds they encouraged the theft of government property”,[201] although former prosecutors say doing so would be difficult.[70] According to a report on the Daily Beast website, the Obama administration asked Britain, Germany, and Australia among others to also consider bringing criminal charges against Assange for the Afghan war leaks and to help limit Assange's travels across international borders.
Aug 19th, 2012 - 09:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@121 -THEBrit
Aug 19th, 2012 - 10:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Assange is only fighting for one thing, himself.
Believe what you will, but everything Assange has done is for the greater glory of himself.
At one time I supported wikileaks, then the truth became apparent after they threw Bradley Manning to the wolves.
I began to read more around the subject, and you know what I found most disturbing? Not that wikileaks released information, but the fact that they refuse to accept any responsibility for their actions. They are answerable to no one. They could release any information about anyone at any time, and they don't care about the impact that could have. Their reckless actions could cost people their lives. Hence why Bradley Manning is sitting in a cell in the US charged with treason, and potentially facing the death penalty.
Assange and his wikileaks cohorts must have known the punishment Manning faced, but decided to use the information anyway. It's partially their fault that he's in this predicament (and partially his own), but they have dropped him like a bad habit, yet take all the glory for themselves. They refuse, however, to accept any responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
They also believe that they are above the laws of men. That also makes them dangerous.
Mr Assange currently believes he's above the laws of mortal men, hence his reluctance to go to Sweden and face his accusers.
But if you can give me one shred of actual evidence that this is all a international conspiracy against Assange, I'll change my opinion and state it on here.
Just because someone says something doesn't make it true. For example, everyday when I get the bus to work there is a man who swears blind he's been abducted by aliens. Now I don't know if it's true or not, but he can't produce any evidence of these abductions, which leads me to suspect that they never happened.
I've repeatedly asked Guzz to provide the evidence of this so-called conspiracy. But like the man on the bus he can't, so is it real?
@132 LEP Have you actually been on the WikiLeaks site. They're raising money for his legal defense, and have called for his release on other sites. Anyway, they can't do anything because the US, obviously, won't listen to anyone as they are renowned for their ignorance, worldwide. Anyway it's not a conspiracy. Just look at all the files Manning gave to them. There's hundreds on how the US and UK act on oppression, and taking away basic human rights. Look what I'm saying is that the US is probably the country in the world that you can trust the least because they fabricate 'evidence' to make an excuse for taking some sort of action against that country, if they oppose them in any way, or aren't 'co-operating' with them. Please give this all a thought. Don't get blinded by the lies that the governments tell you. They lie a lot, lot, lot more than you originally think. Like that MI5 torture foreign, and sometimes their own, citizens. They never said anything about that, did they? It had to be revealed by victims of it, and further opened by WikiLeaks. There are more examples if you go onto the site and see for yourself.
Aug 19th, 2012 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lep
Aug 19th, 2012 - 10:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You think too big of me. A theory doesn't depend on me being able to proove it to you, that eould be to put too much burden of my shoulders. As I told you, the day I have the evidence is the day noone know Assanges whereabouts or he is in US custody. Those kinds of proofs are no good (like the witches in the 1600's).
It comes down to the fact that Ecuador is harboring a criminal.
Aug 20th, 2012 - 03:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0It was just way too funny listening to him talking from the balcony..... banging on about freedom of the press etc from a 'Bolivarian' balcony.....
Aug 20th, 2012 - 03:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Dopey little bugger should try and educated himself.... something that his parents failed to do......
@134 - Guzz
Aug 20th, 2012 - 05:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes you have a theory, yet you have constantly been spouting that theory as FACT when you have no FACTS whatsoever.
So until you, or Mr Assange can provide supporting EVIDENCE then this remains a theory, a fairy tale, something that Assange has made up and that you choose to believe despite the FACT that it isn't supported by any actual FACTS.
And as I said before, Mr Assange, and you Guzz, are accusing the USA and Sweden of conspiring against him. Now you've constantly spouted on the Mr Assange is innocent until proven guilty and that the burden of proof in on his accusers.
All I want is for you to treat the USA and Sweden the same way. You have accused. Mr Assaange has accused. So by normal moral standards the USA and Sweden ARE innocent until PROVEN guilty. As as their accusers the burden of proof is now on YOUR shoulders. Yet all you do is rehash the same unsubstantiated rubbish and try to present your theory as if it were fact.
And finally, Guzz. If the USA or Sweden were a person instead of countries, they could sue Mr Assange and people like you for slander. Again the burden of proof would be on your shoulders to prove that you hadn't slandered them.
It's a pity that countries can't sue for slander and defamation of character, isn't it?
LEP-Re-read posts 4# and 5# and you are the man.
Aug 20th, 2012 - 10:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Also,have a look at the Peltier and Mumia Abu Jamal cases in the USA.
Tell me the number of times eg human rights activists in china,anti gvt protesters have holed up in an embassy,and what response they drew from the UK and USA .
And stop playing the idiot wanting proof of something about people who have spoke with forked tongues for centuries.Are you an innocent boy or can you not expand on the issue.Why does someone need to hole up in an embassy,nobody has arrested every war criminal yet.Took a long time to get to Astiz,didn't it?
@138 - Yuleno
Aug 20th, 2012 - 11:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0No I won't stop asking for proof of these allegations. If Mr Assange had made these allegations about a person and couldn't back them up with evidence then he could be sued for slander.
Why should it be different because he is accusing 3 seperate countries of a conspiracy against him, but has NOT produce one iota of EVIDENCE to back it up?
No one piece of evidence. Such claims would be laughed out of court.
Mr Assange has been accused of a serious sexual assault. I honestly don't know if he's guilty or innocent of that crime. However, refusing to cooperate with the Swedish authorities isn't going to resolve the situation. Hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy isn't going to resolve the situation.
Face it, Yuleno, Mr Assange appears to be using the wikileaks scandel as an excuse not to face his accusers over something UNRELATED to wikileaks. In fact the only connection to wikileaks is that Mr Assanges alleged victims WORKED for wikileaks.
So I WILL NOT believe in this conspiracy UNLESS Mr Assange can produce evidence of the said conspiracy.
Under judical law, Assange is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Under the same law the USA and Sweden are ALSO innocent until PROVEN guilty of this conspiracy.
Your belief in a conspiracy is not proof. You believe in this conspiracy because you WANT to believe that the USA is guilty. But that doesn't make them guilty.
You double standards make you a hypocrite.
Lep
Aug 20th, 2012 - 11:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Proof of what allegations? It is my firm belief that USA is after Assange's neck. Call it a theory. As with any theory and belief, there are no proofs, as with proofs it would be a FACT, and not a theory (or a belief). You don't believe in facts, you accept them, or you don't. Theories are free for all to believe in or not. The second the theory is prooven, it passes on to become a FACT.
Furthermore, nobody is charging USA or Sweden for their behaviours, nor is anyone calling them for a hearing, hence there is nothing to proove.
The day someone takes them to court, the burden of evidence will lay at the prosecutor.
Same with Assange, charge him and take him to court, or don't and let him be.
You are still free to think he is guilty, you are not obliged to proove your beliefs.
But in a court, that's the way it's done.
@139 LEP You can't charge the US or Sweden for getting him extradited, it makes no sense. Neither can you charge them for conspiring to do so. It is legal, under the LAW, but under moral law they are guilty because the US has on numerous occasions, and still is, thinking on trying to bring him to the US. I've given one example in one of my previous posts. Anyway, keep on supporting a corrupt, oppressionist and greed driven government, and see where our country ends up. Then you'll know what I was talking about.
Aug 20th, 2012 - 12:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@140
Aug 20th, 2012 - 12:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Come, come, Guzz, surely you know that some theories are more plausible than others, and you have to assess them on the best of the evidence available, reason, and common sense. Anything else is just prejudice.
@141 Wikileaks is good, the US hates wikileaks, therefore Assange can't be a rapist. Right.
@142 No he's probably not a rapist because the witnesses are whores and had consensual sex with him.
Aug 20th, 2012 - 01:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@143
Aug 20th, 2012 - 01:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, there's a point of view as enlightened as it's well researched.
The women in question are a wikileaks worker and a former Assange admirer, and the many attempts to discredit them from the left, have themselves been discredited from the left. Take, for example, the well-known establishment lickspittle Katha Pollitt: http://www.thenation.com/article/157288/case-julian-assange
@143 - THEMan or THEBrit or whatever you're calling yourself today.
Aug 20th, 2012 - 01:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What proof do you have that these women are whores?
Who said they were? Oh yes Jason Assange, that well known paragon of virtue who is accused of sexually assaulting them, and is too afraid to face the music.
Its amazing how you KNOW these things about these women. Have you seen the evidence that the Swedish authorities have collated about this case? No you haven't. You are making unfounded allegations without proof, because Mr Assange must be innocent because like, he's against the system, innit, and he's like against THEMan, innit. Let's stick it to THEMan innit, regardless of who gets hurt. YOU'RE PATHETIC.
Well THEMan, did you know that all rapists try and put the blame on the victims? They say things like:
They were asking for it by the way they dressed.
They were whores, they always slept around.
She didn't say no, so that means yes.
But the law doesn't recognise any of these 'excuses' rapists use.
I don't know if Mr Assange is guilty or innocent, but I can tell you, that if you and Mr Assange and his hangers on continue to try and blacken the names of these women, in other words try to prejudice the case in favour of Mr Assange, then these women have the right to sue Mr Assange for slander and libel.
They will even have a case to bring against you for libel. Don't for one minute think that the internet makes you anonymous. Interpol can easily trace IP addresses. Maybe they'll take all your stuff and you'll have to wait for mummy and daddy to buy you more, or God forbid, you may have to get off your backside and get a job!
@145 LEP read the parts in English on this- http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/case1.pdf
Aug 20th, 2012 - 02:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh and by the way I'd like to know what job you've got hotshot? As for the last part about slander, nope, Interpol have better things to do than look up posts on websites. And I find it funny how you're trying to insult me, when you're the one thinking that the case is probably true.
Is there any bloody wonder that it is difficult to get female victims of sexual assault to report the attacks, when some mindless halfwits brand them as “Whores.”
Aug 20th, 2012 - 03:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They are not “Whores” they are “Victims” and they should be treated accordingly, with understanding and compasssion.
They should be allowed access to the justice that all “Victims” deserve, particularly “Victims” of this type of crime.
One more thing, even if they were “Whores” they would still be entitled to the same protection under the law, as any other individual.
@146
Aug 20th, 2012 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Interesting document which inter alia blatantly contradicts your description of the two women as “whores”. All you've got is some blogger with his knickers in a twist about “radical feminists”. Can you enlighten me here? Are “radical feminists” more or less entitled than “whores” to have their day in court?
As for the rest of it, this has to be the crappest conspiracy I ever came across. The premise is gormless and the execution clueless.
HansNiesund You do know I was talking about them being attention whores, not the one you're talking about right now?
Aug 20th, 2012 - 05:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@149
Aug 20th, 2012 - 05:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No I don't. That's probably because what you said was :
“No he's probably not a rapist because the witnesses are whores and had consensual sex with him.” (#143)
@146 - THEMan
Aug 20th, 2012 - 05:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is that all you can come up with? THAT!
OMG it's priceless. Pathetic, but priceless! You're posting someone's opinion as proof, and it doesn't even support your case!
As for Interpol, I'm sure they'd make an exception, because you and people like you are trying to prejudice an ongoing investigation into a very serious crime. That's illegal.
Oh and in answer to your question. I was a medic in the Army before retiring. Then I went to University and I'm now a registered nurse.
Tell me, all knowing lofty arrogant one. Just what is your role in life that you can look down on us mere mortals, know the ins and outs of a sexual assault case when the police haven't released the details, know that the women in this case are whores, and just KNOW that there's this conspiracy despite the blatantly obvious lack of any evidence or credibility of your arguments?
Not only is Assange a criminal he is a sex pervert, and evidently an immoral person. Ecuador which is supposedly a Catholic country it is time to wake up and act like a Catholic country..
Aug 20th, 2012 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@151 Right. Last time I'll say this. What the US does or is planning to do is no conspiracy. And you know what? I'd say a lot more people are beginning to believe the stuff that I'm talking about, so I just find it sad that you can't see the truth when it's right in front of you. And you're a nurse. Good job.
Aug 20th, 2012 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm not trying to be arrogant, and if I am appearing as that, then I'm sorry.
Rape Victim’ Anna Ardin –
Aug 20th, 2012 - 07:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0One of Julian Assange, alleged victims.
http://www.anorak.co.uk/256861/news/julian-assange-loses-his-cool-to-rape-victim-anna-ardin-wilikleaks-is-scooped.html/
Wikileaks reveal US diplomats' view of UK as ally
The overall impression given by these telegrams is that Britain is regarded as a useful asset for the United States and that it must not be allowed to think otherwise
http://www.anorak.co.uk/256861/news/julian-assange-loses-his-cool-to-rape-victim-anna-ardin-wilikleaks-is-scooped.html/
perhaps,,,, just perhaps, we should think twice,
just a thought .
.
@153 - THEMan
Aug 20th, 2012 - 08:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lots of people believed the Nazi's too, but it doesn't mean that they were right.
All I have continuously asked for is some proof of this conspiracy. Just because you think someone is up to something doesn't make it true.
If Assange is innocent until proven guilty, then surely you should extend the same right to the US, and to Sweden as you seem to believe that they are involved in this so called conspiracy.
No one has offered any proof. You say lack of proof doesn't make the US innocent. Then if you truly believe that, then the same should be extended to Mr Assange. Lack of proof doesn't make him innocent either, in your world view.
People like conspiracy theories, not because they're true, but because you want to believe that the government is up to something. Well the government may well be up to something, but it probably isn't anything to do with Assange.
So unless you can show me proof, you'll never 'convert' me to your way of thinking.
By the way I invented sliced bread, the microchip (not McCains), and the leprechauns are plotting against me for stealing their pot of gold. I can't prove any of it, but it must be true because I said so.
So you see, anyone can claim anything about anyone or anything, but without proof it isn't true.
@154 We should think twice about what? Our relationship with them, or the stuff about the US thinking about getting him extradited?
Aug 20th, 2012 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just to add-
Aug 20th, 2012 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0LEP even on the BBC, it says that they want to prosecute him. Quote- Mr Assange is currently free on bail in Britain awaiting possible extradition to Sweden on sex crime charges. But the US authorities have made it clear they hope to prosecute him in the US over the release of thousands of classified diplomatic cables.
US Attorney General Eric Holder said officials were pursuing a “very serious criminal investigation” into the matter.
Recent reports indicate the US justice department may be seeking to indict him on charges of conspiring to steal documents with Private First Class Bradley Manning.'
It's info like this that just makes me even more suspicious of US activity.
LEP
Aug 20th, 2012 - 08:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have no proof that there is a witch hunt to get Assange or wiki leaks.It hasn't happened yet.
Neither do I have proof that anyone tried to poison Castro
Nor do I have proof that the USA de-stabilised Chile and supported Pinochet in the coup and the subsequent terror against the left in Chile .
I could go on but I believe Bradley Manning supplied evidence about certain activities which the USA preferred wasn't known.
So LEP says ' yeah yeah but what proof do you have'.
Well I spoke to my maker and he said'some people reject me because there is no legal proof of my existence,but they will meet me when they are not ready but I am'
One may leave that, to the reader.
Aug 20th, 2012 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0One thing is for sure,
The very last two humans on the planet, [assume]
And we bet, at least one of them, will have a secret, or is withholding information.
A theory , perhaps,
Or logical.
justa thought .
Lep
Aug 20th, 2012 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You really have a hard time figuring out your own language. Lets taste the word.
Theory.
Lets check the dictionary:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=theory
See? No proofs involved :)
I realæy dislike having to teach people their own language, but I've tried so many different angles now, you leave me no options...
Guzz,
Aug 20th, 2012 - 09:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nope. I understand my language perfectly well. You appear not to understand it though.
Definition: a theory is based on an hypothesis and BACKED by EVIDENCE.
The word theory is from the Greek meaning to 'contemplate' or to 'speculate'.
So your theory is that the USA and Sweden have entered a pact to extradite Assange. Your evidence is?
Lep, theory is as you say a greek word. Means belief, theorem, speculation, assumption, pick your choice. Not any of them needs to be prooven to be valid, even of they are all wrong. Your statements are getting ridiculous now and I will discuss this matter no further. It looks like soap, it tastes like soap, but it's cheese, isn't it?
Aug 20th, 2012 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Guzz
Aug 20th, 2012 - 09:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just because I'm not gullible enough to believe everything I hear doesn't make me wrong.
I am willing to be swayed, but I would require proof.
In my opinion this conspiracy only exists in the minds of Assange and people like yourself.
You have all made serious accusations against the US and Sweden. As I said before that if you made those same allegations against a person you could be sued for libel.
All I have stated is that you extend the same rights to Sweden and the US as have been extended to Assange, innocent until proven guilty. But you won't and that makes you a hypocrite.
You just nag LEP and think your smart.
Aug 20th, 2012 - 09:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Assange should be extradited to the United States, after first standing trial in Sweden, and if found guilty serve his time. Then when he is released from prison Assange should be extradited to the United States for trial. Assage is a crumb, a sleaze bag, and a coward.
Aug 21st, 2012 - 02:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0@164 - Yuleno
Aug 21st, 2012 - 06:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0At least I don't believe any old waffle that is spouted out at me.
I know the real reason people such as yourself and Guzz support Assange. It's because it gives you a chance to have a go at the US and UK, the evil imperialists.
But as I said, it's all irrelevant. Assange will eventually end up in Sweden. He will be questioned by the police, and their state prosecution services will decide whether or not their is sufficient evidence to bring charges (you see this would all have been sorted now if Assange had just been a man and faced his accusers).
Now why should the US extradite him from Sweden when not extraditing him blows his credibility out of the water?
So Assange may or may not stand trial in Sweden, due process is followed. He isn't extradited to the US and everyone realises that he is a liar and he no longer has any credibility in the world.
And the best thing about it all, is that the US didn't actually have to do anything, Assange has done it all to himself.
Gosh, he walked right into that one, how stupid of him.
166# LEP
Aug 21st, 2012 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I know the real reason people such as yourself and Guzz support Assange. It's because it gives you a chance to have a go at the US and UK, the evil imperialists.
Well said LEP and I know you can prove it can't you
One bit of proof ?
@167 - Yuleno
Aug 21st, 2012 - 03:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hmm, I don't know there are so many to choose from. How about every post you have ever made?
But still, Assange is the architect of his own demise. The US don't have to do anything, because sooner or later he'll end up in Sweden, then the US won't ask for him to be extradited thus proving that Assange is a liar and not to be trusted. Assange has done this to himself, he only has himself to blame, doesn't he?
LEP- But do you know what Assange has done? He's rightfully, and not yet fully, exposed more of the US and UK's atrocities from across the world, that were once hidden, to increase world anger and mistrust towards them, which in a way, is a good thing. Look, put the rape case aside for a moment and consider this: we need people like Assange to do these things as most of us are either too scared, or not smart enough to do so. These two countries, along with the Israelis, will most likely want to silence him. It's no conspiracy, and you don't need facts. The majority of the world knows this through common sense and because the US has done it hundreds of times in the past without us knowing. That's what powerful but vulnerable governments will do: try to silence any serious opposition. Assange goes to jail, no-one can fill his shoes, and we are screwed. The US wins, and will continue to kill their own people, foreign people, and steal resources without us knowing. Does that sound more legitimate?
Aug 21st, 2012 - 03:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@169 - THEMan
Aug 21st, 2012 - 05:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, he has allegedly raped two women and is too much of a coward to face justice.
And Julian Assange is the biggest liability to wikileaks right now.
And regarding your claims about atrocities. What atrocities have the UK allegedly committed? Facts please. Atrocities (assuming that is the correct word) where the UK authorities didn't launch an investigation. The same applies to atrocities the US have allegedly committed.
And one more thing. The UK and US governments are accountable to their people and to the laws of their respective countries.
Who is wikileaks accountable to? The answer is no one. They, like Assange, believe they are above the laws of the rest of us mere mortals.
But fortunately for the sane people of the world, Julian Assange is working hard to discredit them. Anyone would think he was in the pay of the USA...
How about that for a conspiracy theory. Assange is a fifth columnist in the employ of the USA. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
@170 OK now you're just getting ridiculous. The UK and US government commit atricities all the time, EVERY knowledgeable person knows that, AND they get away with it because they know that no-one can do a single thing about it, because most of them are brainwashed sheep who can't think for themselves. The UK authorities may launch an 'investigation' yes, but the majority of the time, doesn't do anything because a lot of the times an 'independent' investigator usually has ties with the government.
Aug 21st, 2012 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Would you agree with this question? Do you think we as a country should do more to prevent this stuff from happening in the first place? We don't have any direct control of the country, which we should in SOME cases, especially with foreign relations and any budget reformations. That, I think would make this country a little bit more like a pure democracy, where everyone can be even more directly involved with politics than it already is at. Agree? However, I agree there may be a few problems with that which would need solving before it happened.
About the rape case.... Would this be a good point? Okay, Assange could very well be extradited to Sweden to face charges? But wouldn't it also make sense for Swedish investigators to go to the Ecuadorian embassy? Couldn't they do that? That would make the case progress, and git his statements and side of the story. Also, the Swedish court could easily try him in absence, like they would normally do with other people in the same position. Many countries do this too. If it's certain that they always do this, then why would they act differently with Assange.? Maybe it's because it's 'more serious', maybe it's just a coincedence. These are just some of all the factors that you need to look into before deciding if it's more likely whether he's guilty or not, or there's a chance of political motivation for the case.
P.S since you're knowledgeable, can you tell me why at first the allegations were dismissed, but was suddenly reopened?
I like your level of proof LEP.You really are having a good time on this matter.
Aug 21st, 2012 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's a pity your not more aware of bad things the UK and the USA have done .Have a look into it because as it stands you are seriously lacking in balance.
But that is obvious anyway from your constant and repeated harping on this thread and the other related thread.Guess university did you more harm than good.
@172 Yuleno where are you from by any chance? Just curious
Aug 21st, 2012 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I continue to be amazed by the poverty of knowledge about 'the Assange case'.
Aug 21st, 2012 - 07:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Have a look at one well researched posting.
It may help posters on this site to chase truths rather than hares.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2f9ada24-eabe-11e1-984b-00144feab49a.html#axzz246ocmLdi
lawrenceab | August 21 11:28am |
GeoffWard2 thanks for the link about a story from a Conservative MP. As a Conservative, he's a twat, like the rest of them. Anyway a comment on this reminded me that there is a lack of or no physical evidence for the trial anyway. Any counterclaims against this?
Aug 21st, 2012 - 07:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lep
Aug 21st, 2012 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I just posted two links with info on a murdered 8 year old muslim girl and a 17 year old muslim youth. Both murdered by UK troops. The girl shot in the stomach and the boy forced in the water after getting a beating, where he drowned. Do I really need to post the links again?
@175 - THEMan
Aug 21st, 2012 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now it all becomes clear. You support anything that opposes the government because you don't like them.
Well in a free country like the UK that's your perogative. In Ecuador, if you had made such a statement about the ruling party, you would find yourself arrested and imprisoned. Yet you support Ecuadors stance on freedom.
Someone is a twat. If you look in the mirror you'll see him.
How do you know there's a lack of evidence in the case against Assange? The police won't release the evidence they have because it could prejudice the case against Mr Assange.
You see it's called due process. Mr Assange believes he's above the laws of mere mortals and shouldn't have to go through due process.
But let me ask you one thing. What do you think will happen if wikileaks manages to bring down all these governments and the establishments, that have taken centuries to build and refine, that you so rabidly oppose? Think about it. No police, no courts, no armed forces, no health service, no money for students, no benefit payments, no education services.
Do you think there will be peaceful transition of power? Or will situations like Libya and Syria occur with thousands killed in civil war?
You really are naive. You see Britain and the USA have had our civil wars, and emerged with systems in place that allow equity, democracy and peace to prevail. I'm not saying there isn't some corruption (it's chicken feed compared to the corruption in Ecuador), but it's better than the anarchy that people like you advocate.
Take a good look at Syria. Look at how many people have died and are still dying there every day.
You see people in Britain and the USA fought and died to prevent such things happening in our respective countries, to protect the rule of law, to protect the rights of people like you to say what you want, even if they don't believe in what you say.
Julian Assange is making a mockery of the law because he is too much of a coward to face the music.
Erm LEP it's called bringing in a new government that'll actually be better than the older ones. And you say there won't be any services like the police, or armed forces. Well, not really, because in this country there would be a more 'peaceful' transition of power, as the army wouldn't follow the governments orders, or the police, if the whole nation was against them. The soldiers aren't the bad people, it's the government. Oh and, corruption in the USA is huge amongst the police. You've got thousands of policeman who abuse their powers by unlawfully arresting and assaulting people, like the Occupy protests where dozens of students got maced and baton-ed by the police after merely sitting in a line on a pavement, causing no distress for the public. Especially in the UK, the police love to say that the are keeping the streets safe, where they spend most of their time writing tickets for every single thing that a person does, pulling them over under a Terror Act that's a lot of bullshit, and should only be used in extreme cases. In the past few years you may have noticed on the news where the police love to pull over thousands of Muslim drivers.
Aug 21st, 2012 - 09:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You said that Britain and the US had civil wars, yes i know that. At the start of the US history, the system was going well, until you go right up to the last few decades, where even the President was involved in scandals. Good thing he resigned. The system needs a cleanup, then it'll be fine. As like our own system needs a serious cleanup. Give the people a little more privacy. Give them more freedom. Repeal laws that are just a waste of time. Make this country a lot better. That's what I want. A brand new government, an actual written constitution that guarantees our rights, and will never be changed by anyone no matter what happens, as the people of this country deserve better than what they have right now.
Oh and btw I hate the Tories because they destroyed our country, and took all of our oil. It's ours, wait for 2014 ;)
Maybe you know why I hate them so much, and understand my reasoning for a new government, new parties, and an entirely new system for my country when it happens. The Tories destroyed Scotland during the late 70s, to the 90s, and we have had enough of them. Now, the UK government is using up oil that is in Scottish waters, not English, Welsh or NI, and we are pissed at that as well, because we tried to bring this up 30 years ago, but got silenced. THAT I know for a fact, because my dad knew someone who worked for the newspaper publishing about it all. I don't hate anyone apart from the Tories, who are nothing apart from Oxford educated imbeciles who care only about the wealthy side of society, like themselves. So now you get the full picture as to why I hate the UK government. The Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish can't vote on legislation in Parliament because over 70% of MPs are in England, so we decide fuck it. We want independence. We don't want to be controlled by England, and sincerely hope the other members follow suit (doubt it though). This is how most EDUCATED Scottish people feel.
Aug 21st, 2012 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#178
Aug 21st, 2012 - 10:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What country is that ??
@179 - THEMan
Aug 21st, 2012 - 10:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You vote to bring in new governments, you don't tear down the whole establishment.
I gather from your post that you are a student, probably at University, who thinks that you know everything about life, and how only you know how to make things better.
After reading your post, I realise just how naive you actually are and how little you understand human nature. If you have no police, no armed forces, then anarchy rules, until someone can gain control. And human history and human nature means that control will be forced onto people.
You won't be able to pop to the shops to buy food, the blackmarket would rule, and organised criminals would seize control. All the stuff, like electricity, clean water, sewage, public transport, convenience shops, all of these will be wiped away. People will starve because there will be no infrastructure to allow the passage of food, and people will start killing each other over what little food is left.
Regarding rights. You have more rights in this country than most other countries in the world. For instance, it is not required by law for you to carry identification with you everywhere you go. In the majority of the countries around the world it is a legal requirement.
The UKs Bill of Rights and constitution is so old that it pre-dates ALL other countries constitutions. It doesn't need to be written down in a list, because it is so thoroughly interwoven in the very fabric of all our laws and institutions, but it is written.
By the oil remark you must be Scottish. Well, it won't be yours because the North Sea Oil treaty was signed with the UK and not Scotland, so it would have to be renegotiated with all the signatories of the treaty, who could refuse Scotland any oil. You see, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Holland, Ireland, England all have the right to that oil too, so you won't get as much as you think you will. Plus you'll be out of the EU and Spain is determined to block Scotland's membership.
Nope LEP the oil is in Scottish waters. That's how it normally works. We split from the UK, we keep the oil in our waters and you keep the oil in yours. Pretty simple as a lot of the oil fields are off the east coast of Scotland. And I think we'd be better of without the EU, even if we do miss out on 'less restricted' travel to member states, and some trade as well. But we'd get around that. Also I had a look at the licensing agreements on Wikipedia for the North Sea, and from that I saw that Norway or any others will have no claim to it because it's in SCOTTISH waters, not theirs. Actually, tell me about this 'Treaty' because I may be mistaken? Here's an extract from a site The Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defines the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law[6] meaning that 90% of the UK's oil resources were under Scottish jurisdiction.[
Aug 21st, 2012 - 10:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@179
Aug 21st, 2012 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0> This is how most EDUCATED Scottish people feel.
Last I heard, support for independence in Scotland was running around 30%. So at max only 30% of Scots are “EDUCATED”?
You patronising little git.
Hans - Asked if Scotland should become an independent country, 45 per cent of Scottish voters say no and 44 per cent say yes, a higher level of support for independence than previously indicated by polls.
Aug 21st, 2012 - 10:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's not a majority yet, but it's 2 years till the referendum, and 2 more years of a Tory government will almost certainly push it up. And most of the polls have been conducted by English based papers, sites etc , no need to say any more.
LEP for you (Spain EU issue)- It was reported in The Spectator and The Independent that Spain may object to Scottish membership of the EU,[82][83] but this was denied by the Spanish Government.[84]
Aug 21st, 2012 - 10:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Scottish independence: Support falls to 27% in wake of Olympics, poll shows
Aug 21st, 2012 - 10:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-support-falls-to-27-in-wake-of-olympics-poll-shows-1-2477694
It looks like the EDUCATED in Scotland are a population in precipitous decline.
Hans it varies amongst different sites, so you can just get any random percentage from out of the blue, like where I found one where 70% are in favour. If you balance them all out, you'll see that we're not far off from getting there. But..., I love it when most of the voters in these polls probably aren't Scottish though, so.. hmm who knows. I for one know for a fact that the area that I live in, which has 200,000 has a 50% ish rate going right now.
Aug 21st, 2012 - 11:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0THEMan, you sure produce a lot of words to ad nauseum. Your main problem is that you don't know what your talking about.
Aug 22nd, 2012 - 03:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0@184 - THEMan
Aug 22nd, 2012 - 06:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0If Scotland cedes from the UK the treaty will have to renegotiated, as will the EEZ and the continental shelf agreements. Parts of the North East of England will have as much right to part of the North Sea oil fields as Scotland will.
So no, you won't get it all. Not only that but it is estimated that North Sea oil could be depleted in as little as 40years. So, Scotland will have a good run for about 40years then it will have nothing.
Secondly if you cede from the UK you also cede from the EU. So all the subsidies your government currently enjoy from the EU will stop immediately, and Scotland will have to reapply for membership.
Spain has already stated that it will veto any attempt for an independent Scotland to join, so you are already buggered over that one. So you won't be able to use the Euro as currency, you haven't the capital to float a currency of your own that would actually be worth anything, so your beloved leader, Salmond, has stated he will keep the British pound. But if he does that he cannot set interest rates etc...all that will still be done by the Bank of England.
Also some areas if Scotland, such as the Orkneys, Shetlands, Skye and some of the more northern and western parts have stated that they may cede from Scotland to remain part of the UK as they feel that the Scottish Parliament and the SNP in general marginalise them.
So by becoming independent, you risk breaking Scotland up, you have no financial independence, and you all become much poorer.
But hey, what do I care? More people in England want Scottish independence than Scots do.
By the way, if Scotland cedes it can forget building the new T26 destroyers for the RN. The North East of England will get the contract, and loads of men in Scotland will be made redundant, whilst loads of men in the North East will be cheering and thanking you all.
As for Spain denying Scotland entry into the EU, we'll just have to see, won't we?
What the hell has this got to do with the Ecuador-UK conflict ?
Aug 22nd, 2012 - 09:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0If the protagonists feel so strongly about the referendum, take it elsewhere.
I get pissed off when I hear anti-English and anti- Scottish rhetoric with each side purporting to speak for both countries by quoting dubious figures to strengthen their arguments.
There are lies, damn lies and statistics.
Just a point about shipbuilding in the NE, what shipyards are left and why would the Uk not have the ships built on the Clyde where the expertise is..
After all, they have just placed an order for some RN vessels to be built in Korea and other weapon systems are purchased from many other countries !
@190
Aug 22nd, 2012 - 11:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps if you could provide us upfront with a list of things you get pissed off about, we could better avoid digressing into such sensitive territory.
Millet Well I do seem to know what I'm talking about, as to regards with my own country, so just please stop uttering nonsense yourself.
Aug 22nd, 2012 - 04:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0LEP Being poorer isn't the point. I'd rather be £2,000 worse off and have independence, than stay the same and be governed by England on important stuff like tax, defence, major transport, and foreign policy. I understand that there will probably be a money price to pay, but I don't care. Many people in Scotland would agree with this point too. Just read up about every single thing to do with Scottish politics, how the English controlled UK government stops us from growing as a nation, because we can't get any important laws through Parliament.
#191
Aug 22nd, 2012 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0From #179 - 192 !!!!
As I said already, what has this got to do with the topic about the OAS holding its meeting.
@192 - THEMan
Aug 22nd, 2012 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm sure you don't speak for the majority of Scots, and now we seem to have upset Clyde15.
Clyde sorry for getting off topic.
Back to topic. The OAS will do nothing.
Assange will eventually be extradited to face Swedish justice. The US will not extradite him providing that he is a liar.
The Ecuadorians will extradite poor Barankov to face the death penalty proving that they are liars and hypocrites too.
Wikileaks will collapse as they will have been totally discredited, and the world will get back to as normal as it ever gets.
LEP my last post about the Scots issue will be this, and is pretty simple. Just wait for 2014 and see who's right. Simple?
Aug 22nd, 2012 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Anyway about Wikileaks, the only reason they would have for collapse isn't because of Assange, but more to do with the illegal actions of several major online and credit card companies who cannot give a good enough reason as to why they did it, apart from being pressured by the US government to do so. Surely even you have to agree with that?? And there is a ton of proof of the US doing stuff like that to companies, and countries if they are doing things that the White House doesn't like. Even the sanctions against Iran are a step too far. If they wanted sanctions against the government, make sure that they prevent their progress in the nuclear enrichment area, not making millions of civilian's lives slowly worse, as food imports are reduced, and many can't even buy basic food staples because of it. There's a similar example, but I will acknowledge that the Iran issue is more serious.
Theman
Aug 22nd, 2012 - 07:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's the agenda, first they starve Iran, then they point their pointy fingers saying “look, your people are starving, your system doesn't work, give me your oil”...
Guzz read this it's from the NY Times on their own government and Julian Assange. Really interesting, and makes a good few points. Don't you think?
Aug 22nd, 2012 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Forgot to put the link in lol.
Aug 22nd, 2012 - 08:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/opinion/wikileaks-and-the-global-future-of-free-speech.html
Michael Moore and Oliver Stone, excellent human beings!
Aug 22nd, 2012 - 08:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for sharing
THEman, you are one verbose person. ( One who is unable to say something in a straight simple manner.) Words, words and still more words.
Aug 23rd, 2012 - 03:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Millet couldn't give a shit.
Aug 23rd, 2012 - 03:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@202 - THEMan
Aug 23rd, 2012 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you a student? Your use of grammar is strange.
You seem to be saying that 'Millet couldn't give a sh!t.'
Do you actually mean, 'Millet, I couldn't give a sh!t.'
That's the problem with the English language, all those pesky words and punctuation marks that determine the meaning of the sentence.
If you are a University student, then I suggest you also take a course in English language and learn more about grammar and why it is important.
However, back to the thread. The OAS should tell Ecuador that this is a bilateral issue between the UK and Sweden, and that Ecuador should butt out.
202#Lep and not Millet
Aug 23rd, 2012 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are getting too far ahead of yourself arn't you.
You're telling (or advising) the OAS what it should do,and stating that Ecuador should stay out of it.Dear me,your professionalism isn't serving you to well.
Stay relaxed,and correct people's language or just their grammar
I hope my punctuation does not prevent you from understanding.
@202 LEP it's called 'social talk' for online purposes, I like using it in some cases. Maybe you're too old and outdated with today's world, because I think most people will have online grammar like myself, millions already do, and will use these techniques on less important forums/sites like this.And in a number of years I'll probably be teaching, or working in physics/astronomy with either the ESA, or possibly even CERN. I know I've got the potential to do all this, and I'll work for it.
Aug 23rd, 2012 - 09:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@204 - THEMan, Brit or whatever
Aug 24th, 2012 - 08:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's good to hear that you're going to work to achieve your dreams. I wish you every success.
As for your grammar, you have to understand that your statement above could've been taken more than one way, thus making it difficult to understand your actual meaning.
@203 - Yuleno
Well why is Ecuador, let alone anyone else in the OAS involved in this, anyway?
Ecuador is protecting a criminal. Assange became a criminal when he broke the conditions of his bail. Why is Ecuador protecting an alleged sex offender and interferring in the due process of law.
Assange had his chance to avoid extradition to Sweden, two years, but he could not produce one shred of evidence that it was politcally motivated or of this conspiracy he claimed was against him.
Sweden, a country who has one of the best human rights records in the world where he would get a fair trial.
So yes, I say that Ecuador and the OAS should butt out of something that has nothing to do with them.
The Ecuadorian embassy shouldn't have even let him in the door, and they could've saved themselves from the embarrassment that they are now facing.
LEP --Sweden, a country who has one of the best human rights records in the world where he would get a fair trial.
Aug 24th, 2012 - 12:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sweden is an identity,you know like a corporation.You should have wrote 'which' not 'who' shouldn't you?
Assange requested asylum,Ecuador granted.
@206 -Yuleno
Aug 24th, 2012 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nope, Ecuador broke international law by granting asylum in a criminal case, so therefore should not have granted asylum.
Assange had 2 years to prove that his extradition was politically motivated and he couldn't produce one shred of evidence supporting his claim.
Actually, Sweden is a country, but we often say the country's name when indicating the people of that country.
For instance, “Britain stated that it wouldn't let Assange leave.” or “Argentina stated that the USA had no right to ban our exports.”
Well Britain, Argentina and the USA cannot state or do anything because they are countries, but we often say these things meaning the people of that country, usually the leaders or government officials.
So yes, it was perfectly acceptable for me to use who instead of which.
Quite right LEP Argentina,USA and Britain (uk,great Britain,ect) are countries who (which) have people which(who) can speak for themselves but they do not speak for countries do they.No country speaks,makes a request or utters a preference.
Aug 24th, 2012 - 06:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So now,it's ok for me to say that.Well it's acceptable.Do I sound like you or is it my grammar?
@208 - Yuleno
Aug 24th, 2012 - 07:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You seem awfully upset about something.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/police-note-lets-slip-julian-assange-arrest-plan/story-fnd134gw-1226457832696
Aug 24th, 2012 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0conquistador, leprecon, isolda and all brirish bolggers: 17 hs. 15 min - OEA said: BRITISH GO HOME !!!!!!! hahahahahah. BRITISH GO HOME !!!!! KELPERS = BENNYS GO HOME !!!!!!!
Aug 24th, 2012 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Does anybody know where I can get one of those Malvinistas keyboards, the ones with all upper case and the industrial strength exclamation mark key?
Aug 24th, 2012 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Also, I'm looking for one of those monitors with a windscreen wiper on it.
#211
Aug 26th, 2012 - 03:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0BRIRISH BOLGGERS - ARE YOU CHINESE BY CHANCE !
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!