Ian Brady & Julian Assange – Twin Souls in the Narcism Stakes.
I was struck this morning by the similarities between Ian Brady and Julian Assange – the individuals, not their crimes.
You cannot compare the cruelty and callousness of Brady’s child murders with Assange’s alleged offences, though if you throw in his apparent callousness towards those Afghan informers whose lives he was prepared to throw to the wolves – ”Well, they’re informants. So, if they get killed, they’ve got it coming to them,” he reportedly said – you are in the same league of callousness.
Debating point? Surely Wikileaks are ‘Informers’, are they not?
The similarity lies in their reaction to being taken to task for their behaviour. Neither believe that the authorities have any business questioning any whim of theirs. Both believe that the law should be bent to exclude them from the restrictions made on ordinary men. Both enjoy the spectacle of tweaking the authorities noses as they garner world wide press and support for their chosen activities. Both believe that being held to account for their activities amounts to ‘persecution’. Quote, Unquote. Neither show an ounce of empathy towards those affected by their behaviour.
Until Assange took refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy – ‘I’m thrilled’ said Julian’s ex-host in an amusingly ambiguous comment when Julian was formally offered asylum by Ecuador – both of them have for years racked up enormous bills at the tax payers expense as they set about proving that ‘they’ were different.
With considerable media accumen, both have managed to persuade sections of the media and the general public, that the campaigns for which they have become icons are soooo important that they almost preclude any consideration of their behaviour. Brady has become the poster child of the ‘Right to die’ campaigners, with scarcely a backward glance at his victims; Assange, whose left wing ‘Right to Free Speech’ campaigners would be frothing at the mouth under normal circumstances should an unwashed, uncouth, male of the species dare look at a woman in a manner she found offensive, airily dismiss the right of two Swedish women to even complain about his sexual habits.
Only one of them has been formally declared insane….
Assange went to Sweden in the first place because he was so admiring of their legal system. Until they dared to question him. Then it became the most backward judiciary in the world, and he fled to Britain – possibly the country most inclined to hand him over to the US should they request that, which they never have. When it seemed that the UK was going to abide by International Law, he decided that the only country in the world whose legal system could be trusted was Ecuador; now he sits in a small, poorly lit room, surrounded by policemen, with an exercise treadmill, and takeaway chinese for dinner and relishes his ‘freedom’ from persecution…interesting that it is Brady who is declared insane.
Brady meanwhile has handed an envelope containing possibly his recipe for chocolate cup cakes, possibly the site of Keith Bennett’s grave, to his mental health advocate, whilst declaring that ‘it will bring serenity’ to the Mother of Keith Bennett, a beautifully judged piece of innuendo designed to rake the ashes, and which so far has resulted in said mental health advocate being arrested for possibly preventing a burial. Possibly, because nobody, not even the mental health advocate, knows what is in the envelope. She will be hauled through the courts and forced (maybe) to break her professional code of confidentiality, whilst Brady continues to hog the headlines.
More test cases, more legal fees, more worry lines, more expense to everyone other than these two jokers. Have you ever noticed that neither have a single line on their faces?
If Narcism was an Olympic sport, we’d have racked up another pair of gold medals.
August 27, 2012 at 19:04
-
Wow – what a debate! I am late to the party (again) but I’ll stick my
ha’penny worth anyway.
I won’t be commenting on Brady – he isn’t worth the time in my brain.
Assange, on the other hand! I have been an Assange heretic for a
considerable time. Ever since he declared himself my messiah in fact – here to
save me from those terrible un-named but almost exclusively western, oh
alright American, governments and their evil information hoarding. But Mr
Assange would like his own privacy respected thank-you-very-much. In his court
case he asked that details not be reported – the irony was so damn thick it
spontaneously formed an anvil and dropped on his bone-head where it did
absolutely no damage whatsoever.
I have no idea if he raped those women or not. It is irrelevant if our
legal system holds the same definition – it is held in Sweden and we have an
extradition treaty with them. BTW I have huge issued with the EAW and made a
nuisance of myself over it but am with Anna on that not applying here. Assange
should go back to Sweden, answer the questions and, if there is a trial (big
if) use an open and transparent legal system to defend himself. What he seems
to be saying is ‘I am not to be questioned, I am above the law’. His case is
NOT helped by odious supporters naming – NAMING – the women and trashing their
reputations. He is entirely hypocrital in his position as defender of freedom
of information when he takes shelter in the Embassy of a country with form for
being the opposite. Presumably all principles are off when his own skin is at
stake. I wish him joy of his confined quarters and crappy diet.
Does he genuinely believe he is in danger? Probably. He thinks he is the
hub about which the universe turns. Is this a reasonable fear given the facts
– no. America has a better chance of getting him extradited from here.
I do not think all information should be transmitted and there is no need
for privacy. I think that as an ideal it is right down there with Communism
for it’s delusional view of the realities of human nature.
What do I hope? I hope he spends years there, in discomfort, before finally
going to Sweden for questioning and for the case to be dropped. Will I laugh?
Like drain!
-
August 22, 2012 at 07:41
-
Why does Assange have to go to Sweden? Don’t they have telephones in
Sweden?
- August 21, 2012 at 23:35
-
You know, I sometimes do wonder about intelligent people like you lot. Have
any of you ever had heterosexual sex? I can assure you that saying “Can I do
you this time” and “can I do you again” and “How about this time, can I do you
now” Will most certainly take the thrill out of a relationship. Normal people
just work up to it and if the girl doesn’t say no or move away or something
like that, a red blooded male in full cry will do the business and 999 times
out of a thousand he’s made love as required by his lover. All the philosophy
and judiciary in the world won’t change love making and sometimes there will
be mistakes. No, I don’t mean brutality and force either. But this stuff from
Sweden stinks to high heaven of CIA dirty tricks. To believe otherwise is
naive or disingenuous. The USA wants him and what the USA wants, it gets. At
least until it realises that its empire is going the way of all empires.
Incidentally, I like the Yanks but they set out to destroy the British Empire
successfully and now their turn has come – poetic justice.
-
August 21, 2012 at 20:16
-
That is just not true, Brian. Without any threat of violence then any woman
can walk away.
However, I doubt that Master Julian ‘andcart would ever
commit Rape because his Mother would marmalise him. But he isn’t that way
inclined anyway.
And if any daughter of mine had behaved in the way in
which those two women did, then I would probably have marmalised them as well.
At the the very least I would have said, “Serves you bloody right. Now shut
your mouth.” Unless they wish to remain completely unmarriageable.
I mean,
come on. What was so fanciable about him? Not my type at all.
Okay. Have you still got your own teeth? I am getting desperate.
- August 21,
2012 at 20:48
-
Elena,
What about a sleeping woman or a drunk woman (and please don’t
say that she oughtn’t get drunk because that argument lives next door to she
was wearing a mini skirt so was asking for it)? If a man can’t control his
own desires and respect others then he’s not a proper man.
- August 21, 2012 at 21:39
-
Every woman has got as much right to get drunk as any man may have. And
she can wear a mini skirt for all I care. I did in my hey day. Still do on
occasions.. This never meant that anyone had a right Rape me. Although
someone did once. I gave in gracefully and then didn’t talk about. And No,
it did not ruin my life. In fact I barely thought about it
afterwards.
But these two women didn’t claim that they were drunk, and
neither did they refuse on either occasion. They just decided that they
had been violated at some later date, after they discovered that
whatshisname had screwed both of them. And quite frankly, neither of them
should have been quite so keen to jump into bed with him in the first
place. Who is he, for Christ’s sake? But they appear to have thought that
he was Jesus Christ. Sorry about that, he isn’t.
At what point in time
does a man have to take total responsibility for a screw when the woman
seems to be aquiescent? This is why it is difficult to confine this to
Legalities.
-
August 21, 2012 at 15:55
-
@ Brian. Thanks for the Est Ici, Brian. But would what Julian Assange is
reputed to have done actually constitute Rape in France? What do you think?
But I wouldn’t mind hearing that one argued in a French Court.
- August 21,
2012 at 16:49
-
Elena,
Well one of the four charges on the EAW is Rape and the other
three are sexual offences in the UK. Have a look at this judgement from November 2011 esp para 3 and paras
70-100 and compare the alleged offences with French law. There must be a
loi against frottant le Jean-Thomas contre quelque personne sans culottes or
similar.
- August
21, 2012 at 17:15
-
Elena,
You’re right
Strictly speaking the first three alleged offences aren’t crimes in France
but delits That being said they’re still extraditable.
- August 21, 2012 at 17:22
-
I can’t open the link, Brian, but it doesn’t appear to be French Law.
And if any woman was wandering around without her knickers on then I would
expect her to get into some sort of trouble. Being screwed by Julian
Assange without a condom on a second occasion might be the least of her
problems.
The question is, does consent some not too long before while
sleeping in the same bed, suggest that said John Thomas has a penchant for
another go. I personally wouldn’t blame any John Thomas who thought he
might. He could have been sleep sexing for all I know, and just forgotten
about a condom.
Who is ever going to be able to prove who said or did
what?
This whole thing is so ridiculous that anyone could be forgiven
for thinking that it might be a set up
- August
21, 2012 at 18:08
-
Elena,
The link was to a page on French law that divided things
into contraventions, delits and crimes.
As for consent, it’s not like a standing order or direct debit. As
for whoever is going to prove etc, isn’t that what a trial is for?
If only a parent had ever used the word No to little Julian or told
him that he wasn’t always right and cleverer than everyone else all the
time he might not have got himself into the present trouble – but it’s
never his fault, that’s the problem. Like the nonsense on Qantas it’s
caused by the feminisation of Australian society and the consequent
destruction of “Mateship”, the greatest contribution to humanity of the
Southern hemisphere.
- August 21, 2012 at
18:36
-
I frequently said No to little Julian, but he had his own ideas
about that. And short of beating him into submission there wasn’t much
more I could have done. Pure chance that he turned into a really nice
person. Absolutely nothing to do with me.
I am not a Feminist,
never have been, and never will be. But I expect you have already
gathered that.
I believe that women owe it to themselves to behave
in a sensible way. And jumping into bed with any Tom, Dick or Harry is
not the best way to go. But if they do then it would be far better to
keep it to themselves. No great harm was done, and no one got hurt,
apart from Egos.
These silly women detract from the real Crime of
Rape.
- August 21, 2012 at 19:47
-
Elena,
I meant Assange nor Master ‘andcart. As for the “real
crime of rape” that’s having sex without consent. Rape doesn’t need
violence to make it rape, violence is an aggravating element.
- August 21,
2012 at 11:01
-
If we are going to discuss what constitutes rape in Sweden a copy of the
relevant section of the Swedish Penal (stop sniggering at the back) Code is
essential. Here’s the English translation. Bet it will be ignored.
-
August 21, 2012 at 11:55
-
They didn’t leave much out, did they Brian. It might be safer not to have
sex in Sweden under any circumstances. In fact, Don’t even think about
it.
- August
21, 2012 at 12:16
-
Elena, I’m surprised that violence, or threat of, is still needed to
constitute rape when the person is conscious. In a way, it’s an
old-fashioned requirement that has been replaced by consent in England
(and for unconscious Swedes).
- August 21, 2012 at 12:39
-
I would have thought that it would be difficult to commit rape
without a threat of violence, unless the woman had been drugged in some
way, Brian. But apparently in Sweden you need to obtain written
permission, and stating who supplies the condoms if that permission
includes more than once.
You can’t be extradited from France if the accusation isn’t a crime
in France. But I don’t know the definition of Rape in France. Although
The French are much better manner in general.
- August 21, 2012 at 13:56
-
Elena,
Rape is one of the 32 offences to which dual criminality
doesn’t apply to the EAW see Article 2 of this link. Most of the other offences
are included to cramp the French government’s style.
French rape law 80-1041 23 December 1980 est ici
According to wikipedia:
Any act of sexual penetration, whatever its nature, committed
against another person by violence, constraint, threat or surprise, is
rape. Rape is punished by a maximum of fifteen years’ criminal
imprisonment.
Rape is punished by a maximum of twenty years’
criminal imprisonment in certain aggravating factors (including victim
under age of 15).
Rape is punished by a maximum of thirty years’
criminal imprisonment where it caused the death of the victim.
Rape
is punished by a maximum of imprisonment for life when it is preceded,
accompanied or followed by torture or acts of barbarity.
No mention of consent.
- August 21, 2012 at 01:14
-
George Galloway is defending him now so he’s really in trouble.
- August 19,
2012 at 11:58
-
Like I wrote earlier I trust Wallander. The Sweden extradition system is explained here. It appears
fair and with guarantees for the person extradited.
Assange is simply an Australian citizen who has breached bail conditions in
one country in order to avoid answering questions about sexual assaults in a
second. Why hasn’t there been the same DSK style attack on him from the
sisterhood? And 99% of Mummies would say their little Julian is a lovely
little chap who would never, ever do anything wrong.
- August 19,
2012 at 14:08
-
Ironically, Assange’s lawyer is a convicted wiretapper who issued an international arrest
warrant for General Pinochet in 1998. He was arrested by British Police.
Assange is anti-Swedish because its Försvarets Radioanstalt allegedly
intercepts 80% of Russian internet traffic, some of which it passes on to
the US, and also because Sweden is considering moving from neutrality to
NATO membership.
- August 19, 2012 at 11:22
-
What did Assange hope to achieve at the end of the day? What was his
primary motive?
Probably self-glorification?
He does not really seem to
have had anyone else’s welfare at heart.
He tickled the dragon’s tail and said: “See what a clever boy I am.”
And
the dragon wacked him.
Well, almost has.
So what does he expect?
He
is an irresponsible, spoilt brat and rather typical of ‘what is wrong with the
world’.
Was/is Brady playing a similar game in terms of motivation?
Certainly he personally used far bloodier and awful instruments in his game
and has aroused far greater horror by his personally horrifying actions.
I guess Assange has the blood of the people whose deaths he facilitated on
his hands. Because he did not personally saw anyone’s head off does not really
give him a let-out.
-
August 19, 2012 at 11:16
-
Britain is really proposing to break the Vienna convention to extract an
Australian citizen from the Equadorian embassy to face questionable sexual
assault charges in Sweden, and there’s nothing more to it than that?
Really???
- August 22,
2012 at 14:14
-
But hasn’t Ecuador breached the 1961 Vienna Convention by not respecting
the sovereignty of another country and its judicial processes?
Article 41
1.Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of
all persons enjoying such
privileges and immunities to respect the laws
and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a
duty not to
interfere in the internal affairs of that State.
- August 19, 2012 at 11:03
-
It’s a hell of a fuss if he is only wanted for questioning. It makes
absolutely no sense and so we must conclude a whole different agenda.
My guess is that if Assange goes to Sweden he will be found not guilty, but
within days he will be on his way to the US. That’s what this is all about
really.
-
August 22, 2012 at 07:37
-
In a nutshell
- August 22,
2012 at 12:53
-
It’s a hell of a fuss about someone who skipped bail to avoid a legal
extradition to a liberal country. Perhaps you recommend the Spanish incompetent method of dealing with EAWs?
And what about the charging of some members of the Jordanian Paralympic squad in Norn Iron for alleged sexual
assaults – what has the Orange Order to gain from destabilising the Middle
East? Tinfoil bowler hats and sashes, so it is.
-
August 19, 2012 at 08:52
-
The logic trail in this post comments is becoming very confused by the
random way comments are appearing!
- August 19, 2012 at 09:07
-
They are not actually random Wigner – if you hit the ‘reply’ button under
a specific comment, your reply will appear under that comment. If you merely
enter a comment in the comment box, your comment will appear as the ‘last
comment’.
- August 19, 2012 at 15:07
-
This time I am “replying”, on previous posts I was attemptint to “Leave
a Comment” as I have done, successfully, on other threads yet my remarks
have appeared randomly distributed as “Replies”. I must have finger
trouble or something!
-
August 19, 2012 at 08:50
-
I ask again, cananybody explain why he is more likely to be extradited to
USA from Sweden than from UK?
- August 19, 2012 at 07:59
-
Obviously, logical arguments are being confused by the random order in
which comments are appearing on the blog. It’s totally confusing.
To answer your question, of course I wasn’t there when the ‘rape’ happened.
Presumably, if this farce goes to a trial, others who also weren’t there will
be called upon to make a judgement. I’m not a lawyer. I don’t care for point
scoring, but there is a lot of information which has been in the public
domain. If a judgement is to be made, on the balance of probability, Julian
Assange has done nothing wrong. It’s his word against hers and that is no
grounds for a guilty verdict.
- August 19, 2012 at 09:01
- August 18, 2012 at 21:26
-
Assange and Brady… Well. Firstly, I think that Assange is, largely, the
author of his own misfortunes. Surely, he must have realised the implications
of publishing stuff that the American Government would find embarassing. It
was hilarious to watch the American administration squirm but… America will
never forget this, regardless of whether the stuff that was published was true
or not. Madness. Like kicking a sleeping Tiger. Only a fool would do so,
unless one was very well protected, which Assange was not.
I am guessing that these to Swedish trollops made an allegation of rape
because they found out that neither was the sole object of Assange’s desires.
‘Hell hath no fury’ etc. That he does not choose even to return to Sweden to
be interviewed says quite a lot about Assange’s lofty opinion of himself.
Assange seems to belittle any democracy that has issues with his own
personal behaviour, but he has now gone beyond the pale – aligning himself, as
he has done with Ecuador, that well known bastion of human rights and free
speech (er, not). If his supporters in the UK have lost their bail money then
good. It will teach them to meddle, and I am sure they can afford it. His
antics subsequent to the ‘Wilikleaks’ scandal have shown him to have feet of
clay.
As for Brady. I do not believe for a moment that he ever intended to bring
any relief to the mother of Keith Bennett and this latest load of nonsense has
only hastened the poor woman’s death this evening. I do not believe that Brady
would feel an ounce of compassion for her and doubt very much if this fabled
envelope contained anything of value. I do not believe that the IMHA owed any
duty of confidentiality to Brady that would extend to her retaining material
that might disclose the whereabouts of a murder victim, so the whole thing has
been another exercise by Brady of his continuing hold over people. It is
inexplicable. The man is evil beyond measure.
Libertarian I may be, by inclination, but I would not extend this to the
likes of Brady – for whom the practice of extracting the truth by
Waterboarding must surely have been invented.
- August 18, 2012 at 19:09
-
My remark about hearsay was referring to what Assange ‘reportedly said’
about the informers getting what was coming to them. That is hearsay?
The ‘trumped up charge’ is in reference to the alleged rape which was no
such thing by any reasonable definition.
- August 18, 2012 at 19:43
-
August 18, 2012 at 09:38
-
I am still confused (nothing unusual there then). Why would Assange be more
likely to be extradited to the USA from Sweden than from UK? If it is obvious,
tell me how thick I am then explain as you would to a normal 11 year old with
a current “bog standard” UK education. Ta.
- August 18, 2012 at 09:29
-
I think you all have very short memories – please see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0
This stuff needs to be reported. He did report it and now the USA will get
him one way or another.
I think comparisons of any kind with Brady are unfortunate,
-
August 18, 2012 at 12:28
-
Sheesh, that Video is awful. But I really don’t know what to say about
the attitude of those doing the shooting.
-
August 18, 2012 at 13:02
-
Unfortunately they remind me of very clever young men I have worked
with – red hot on their specialism but without knowledge of the world.
They seem to treat their job like an x-box video game, not understanding
that there are fathers, mothers, brothers on the end of their 30mm cannon
shells. Their officers are probably no good at command and
supervision.
- August 18, 2012 at 20:02
-
Come on, that was a blood bath. And done with some glee. But I expect
that you meant that anyway. I just don’t know how to deal with this.
-
August 18, 2012 at 21:21
-
The conditioning of the military to carry out orders that from the
comfort of our Western settees seem offensive and inhumane is nothing
new. When (dripping wet in my view) 18 +year olds came to a parish
council meeting a few years ago wanting BMX and skateboard parks I
couldn’t help but reflect that at the same age some of their
grandfathers were flying in Lancasters. Immensely brave and risking
death, but efficiently bombing and killing thousands of civilians for
the greater good.
Let’s be grateful we don’t have these decisions
to make; and I excuse nothing.
Assange and Brady are not the same.
Brady is a convicted criminal who cruelly murdered to satisfy entirely
personal motives. Assange, regardless of his apparent personality
flaws, has simply exploited information to embarass a global
superpower, contrary to that superpower’s laws, but presumably outside
it’s lawful jurisdiction.. He may have committed offenses under
Swedish law too, but hardly at the international incident level.
- August 18, 2012 at 08:31
-
This is an odious comparison however you qualify it. You cannot separate
these men from their ‘crimes’. Except that one of them is a psychopathic
murderer while the other is a man of principle, whose crime has been
manufactured by those in authority. I’m not saying that Assange is not a
narcissist, I’m asking whether that even matters. To condemn the man on the
basis of hearsay is unfair. (Besides, the US are great defenders of collateral
damage.) I think he’s a brave man in an impossible situation, pursued most
unfairly by a powerful government.
Everybody knows that this is a trumped up charge, brought belatedly, by a
couple of disgruntled women who are serving a useful purpose. If it was
anybody else nobody could care less. If he didn’t have good reason to believe
that travelling to Sweden would result in extradition to the US and a life in
jail, or worse, he would have sorted this out a long time ago.
I don’t care if Ian Brady is a narcissist. What matters is that he is a
brutal man, guilty of horrific crimes. That’s all there is to it.
These two men should not be mentioned in the same sentence.
- August 18, 2012 at 11:04
- August 18, 2012 at 00:23
-
”Well, they’re informants. So, if they get killed, they’ve got it coming to
them,”
For that alone, I hope that when Ass-ange eventually gets to federal prison
in the US, he will start with sharing a cell with a 250lb BBMF who will make
Ass-ange his bitch…
- August 17, 2012 at 23:37
-
I really don’t understand why, with a nod from plod, he isn’t whisked out
in a laundry basket or some such and smuggled to Ecuador where they can deal
with his narcissistic personality and he with their crap bandwidth. I’m with
Elena on those angry Swedish groupies and with Anna that he is deeply
unpleasant but I really don’t think he warrants the three ring circus of
policemen around the embassy paid for out of my taxes.
- August 17, 2012 at 22:39
-
We regularly hear of very unpleasant convicted criminals with no right to
live here being allowed to stay in Britain because they might be at risk if
returned to their home states. I have no idea how true these stories are or
the numbers involved.
Assange appears to be an unlikeable person, but there
is little indication that he is a direct threat to anybody, here or in Sweden;
I say this not having the interest or will to read the Wikileaks
docs.
Sure, Assange should subject himself to Swedish procedure, but there
does seem to be a gross lack of proportion or balance in the British response.
The Foreign Secretary involved even.
On the more intangible, I can admire much about the US, but given their
relentless and at times apparently illegal international pursuit of people
they think might be a threat; their recent apparent willingness to use
torture, and their extremely tough sentencing policies, what would you do?.
Suggestions of our collusion are also not encouraging.
This man has for
whatever reason decided to expose and offend the US, and will be only too well
aware of the potential consequences.
- August 18, 2012 at 06:48
-
Even in Ecuador, if I were him I’d be looking to the skies to see where
the drones are.
- August 17, 2012 at 22:20
-
Isn’t he in just as much danger of being extradited to the US from the UK
as he would be in Sweden?
-
August 17, 2012 at 22:09
-
That’s it really, Anna. I totally disagree with The Extradition Treaty,
it’s bias, and the way in which Britain falls over itself to comply. The rest
of my comments are just window dressing. Although not necessarily
irrelevant.
But it was a good discussion. Wasn’t it?
- August 17, 2012 at 22:12
- August 18,
2012 at 10:25
-
Told you I’d be ignored.
- August 18, 2012 at
11:06
-
My apologies my little petal, I didn’t mean to ignore you – I have Ms
Smudd staying with me at the moment, and that is a mighty distraction from
everything. Big Kiss from Auntie Anna.
- August
18, 2012 at 11:53
-
Awwwww. schucks, thanks
Best wishes to Ms Smudd and Mr G. Am I the third attention seeking
narcissist? I ought to be first.
- August 18, 2012 at 19:02
-
Whilst you and La Smudd are having a tranquil evening in La belle
France, I shall be in the town square in Esbjerg, bopping to The
Rubettes. Eat your hearts out!
- August 18, 2012 at 14:32
-
You aren’t subtle enough, Brian. First of all you have to pretend that
your opinions are so controversial that no one would dare to print them.
And then everyone wants to know what you think, either so they can shout
at you, or agree with you because you had the balls to say it first. The
fact that you then produce a Damp Squib is not important because you got
ATTENTION, even if only briefly. Which is quite possibly what Julian
Assange is all about. I don’t know him personally, but I like his Mum. And
I did need to see that Video “Game.”. So more power to his elbow for that
one.
PS. My Posted Opinions should never be taken as my Actual Opinions
because quite often even I don’t know what my Actual Opinions are. None of
this stuff is ever straight forward, and given a really good reason, I
have been know to change my mind.
I think that the inception of The United States of America was really
amazing, and so brave. And I have nothing even remotely bad to say about
your average American. But I do think that the Powers that Be have lost
the plot. And if I was Julian Assange, I would be very worried about what
they might do to me.
- August
18, 2012 at 18:48
-
Thanks Elena, I’ll try again with this potentially unpopular
comment:
I haven’t checked with HM Land Registry but I assume that the
Ecuadorean Embassy only owns the leasehold to its premises*. Contrary to
popular belief, it is not a little bit of Ecuador in London, merely a
property into which the Police etc can only enter with the Ambassador’s
permission. Perhaps the freeholder of 3 Hans Crescent could check the
terms of the lease to see if any breaches, eg residential use, addition
of a shower, etc have been made. The freeholder could then instruct
lawyers to enable the forfeiture of the lease. If successful, the
Embassy would have to move, perhaps within the same building, and
Assange would no longer reside in a diplomatically protected flat and
could be arrested. Twenty years ago the Chilean government turfed Erich
Honecker out of its Moscow Embassy by threatening to move. I’m sure the
FCO would be able to persuade the freehold owner to oblige.
* If the property has a shared freehold then the other members of the
freehold company will have to be persuaded. It’s a tricky problem but
for once I’m glad that lawyers are needed to sort the problem out. Far,
far preferable to gunboats.
- August 18, 2012 at
19:54
-
Don’t ever talk to me about Freeholds or Leaseholds because there
is nothing that I don’t know about that one. I just read The Leases
that these people sign. And as The Freeholder, I have got no rights
what so ever. Tough shit. Pay the Rent, and if they do, then that is
the end of it. As it should be.
But this is An Embassy, and is
sacrosanct. What ever anyone might think after that is irrelevant.
They have every right to give him Sanctuary. Or whatever.
- August 19, 2012 at 02:20
-
Elena,
Article 21 of the Vienna Convention 1961 applies which states that
“The receiving State shall either facilitate the acquisition on its
territory, in accordance with its
laws, by the sending State of
premises necessary for its mission or assist the latter in
obtaining
accommodation in some other way”
“In accordance with its laws” means that Embassies have to obtain
planning permission and building regs approval for works and change of
use.
-
August 17, 2012 at 21:43
-
See. I bet you all wish you hadn’t asked.
- August 17, 2012 at 20:52
-
To start another ‘parallel’, what about Ian Brady and Tony Nicklinson ?
Both want to die, but both are being kept alive despite that.
I suspect that, seeing a noble and still articulate man like Tony
Nicklinson broken by his condition, most of us would deeply sympathise with
his case. Some would say that to help Ian Brady to die would at least remove
the remainder of a 40 year burden on the State, while others will maintain
that he should be compelled to live out all his natural days in the most
miserable circumstances possible as some penance for his inhuman misdeeds.
Interesting that two such contrasting cases should seek the same solution,
and both be denied it.
- August 17, 2012 at 19:28
-
If I stole somebody’s personal correspondence and published it, I suspect
most would take a pretty dim view of my actions. So if Assange makes it his
business to go around stealing and publishing confidential information, he
can’t really be particularly surprised when owner of said information takes a
dim view of it. That’s completely irrespective of whether publishing said
information is in the public interest or not. From what I’ve read of the
published information, most of it is of no interest to anybody, to why he’s so
bothered about publishing it is also somewhat beyond me. Assange seems to lack
empathy for others, and a lack of awareness of the consequences of his
actions, including in his private life.
Brady, as far as I’m concerned, can rot in a particularly unpleasant pit in
Hell, but not before his hell on earth has been prolonged somewhat. Finding
and properly laying to rest one of his victims would certainly give the
victim’s family some small crumb of comfort, but tormenting them with maybe’s
in this manner is almost as callous as his original crimes. Far from being
unaware of the consequences of his actions, Brady is all too aware; he is
possibly one of the vilest pieces of scum ever to possess skin.
- August 17, 2012 at 17:33
-
As Spike Milligan attested, only the insane who recover, get given a
certificate to prove they’re sane.
The rest of us have no proof of our sanity.
-
August 17, 2012 at 16:54
-
Buttheyhave both done a wonderful job of tying our left leaning amigos into
serious knots – wonderful to watch the Gaurdianistas try to reconcile their
own inconsistent stances.
C’mon Elena, at least when people here disagree with one they do so much
more politely than on most blogs. A definite + to my mind.
-
August 17, 2012 at 17:44
-
Done., Wigner’s Friend. I was just being a wimp. But I don’t much like
offending People, unless it is particularly pertinent to me. Or has offended
me personally.
This Assange business is much more complicated and far
reaching than it might appear. No British Subject is safe from spurious and
unproven allegations, and anyone can be Extradited without a scrap of real
proof, and then subjected to whatever deprivations are normal in the
accusing Country.
This business is in fact nothing to do with Britain,
and Julian Assange should be allowed to return to Australia. Let Australia
sort it out.
- August 17, 2012 at 16:26
-
Not to mention Assange’s assumption that it is totally fine to fuck up his
bail poster’s bank accounts. He clearly doesn’t realise/care that his
supporters put up £20k + a piece because they trusted him to meet his bail
conditions. But he’s worth it. I am so glad I learned to spot his particular
personality disorder in minutes (even if the lesson was hideous.) I always
think the worst punishment for a Narcissist would be to lock them in a room
with another of their own kind.
-
August 17, 2012 at 21:02
-
Lock them in a room with a mirror, you mean.
- August 17,
2012 at 16:08
-
Ecuadorean lawyer and journalist Pablo Emilio Guerrero Martinez has been granted
political asylum by the Czech Republic. Assange ought to have read this article
before picking Ecuador.
- August 17,
2012 at 19:15
-
If we ignore the fact that Julian Assange is the subject of the
two ladies’ allegations …. I trust Wallander’s judgement. As for letting the Aussies sort out Assange’s extradtion …
they have treaties with both Sweden and the USA.
-
August 17, 2012 at 16:02
-
I am not commenting on this because I have discovered that my opinion is
not popular. Just in case you all wondered. Which I don’t suppose you
have.
- August 17,
2012 at 16:12
-
Elena,
Your opinion may not be popular but you are so please share it.
The worst that can happen is that you’re ignored like me
- August 17, 2012 at 16:24
- August 17, 2012 at 16:49
-
Popularity is for wimps. Out with it man / woman / whatever!
- August 17, 2012 at 17:28
-
Okay. If you insist. This could be my Fifteen Minutes. Although
probably not.
First of all, I don’t really care about Julian Assange.
Except that he’s got the same name as one of my my sons. And if I was his
Mother I would be in there fighting tooth and claw to get the stupid
little prick out of trouble. Julians have a habit of getting into trouble,
by the way.
That said, If I was him I would not be going to Sweden
voluntarily anytime soon. America is still pursuing Gary McKinnon, and
Gary only embarrassed them, so I don’t think for a minute that there is
any chance of America giving up on Julian Assange, where ever they think
it might be more easy to extradite him from.
I would also like to know
why neither of these two Swedish women accused him until several days
later, and after they found out that he had had his way with both of
them.
To add to that, The Crime that he is being accused of in Sweden
doesn’t actually appear to be a Crime in UK, and much as I might
sympathise to some small extent with these two women, I can’t help feeling
that theywere in part culpable. But then I’m a bit old fashioned about
this subject.
No, I do not think that any woman deserves to be Raped,
but come on, this was hardly Rape in the sense that the word is supposed
to convey. And they did rather put themselves in the way of it. If what
they say is true. But I very much doubt that they can prove that now, if
they ever could. They admitted to Consensual Sex. It is only the lack of a
Condom that is in question, and we only have their word for that.
So, I suspect that there is a set up here. And why would Sweden want to
do that? But you know what they say about Paranoia. It is only heightened
awareness. “If you think that someone is out to get you, they probably
are.”
I can’t comment on how much damage Julian Assange may have done to
individuals because I don’t know, but if America is worth it’s Salt then
they will have gotten these people out tout de bloody suite.
PS. and you are going to have to forgive me for this. But he wouldn’t
be Extradited from France. France didn’t join this horrendously biased
Treaty.
- August 17, 2012 at 17:38
-
That’s not an unpopular opinion at all.
- August 17, 2012 at
18:28
-
Thank you for that, Julia M.
I have been trying to look at this
from a Legal point of view, and not from an emotional one. I don’t
have an emotional point of view on Julian Assange. But this is
difficult. The Extradition Treaty is biased, but it is also Law. So
all I can do is point out the reasons for why he should not be
Extradited, none of which reflect well on Britain, Sweden, or
America.
But how are they going to get him out of The Ecuadorian
Embassy? Not that it matters all that much, but threatening them was
not a good idea.
- August 17, 2012 at 19:24
-
I agree with you up to a point Elena – had he been charged then I
would feel more strongly. He has only been asked to go back to
Sweden to answer some questions to see if there IS a case to answer
– but for some reason everyone is reacting as though being charged,
being found guilty, and being subsequently extradited is not just a
possibility but A FOREGONE CONCLUSION.
- August 17, 2012 at
20:10
-
Would you want to risk it, Anna? I certainly wouldn’t.
We have a man who is accused of a Crime that we aren’t even
sure is a Crime. But they want him Extradited? Isn’t this using a
bloody great hammer to crack a Cob Nut? Extradition alone implies
wrong doing. I mean, who gets Extradited for fun, or if they are
not guilty?
I can only refer you to your Campaign for Mr. Mitchell against
his possible Extradition to Portugal. And where do you think he
would have finished up, if not for you and your efforts? And then
what would we all have done?
- August 17, 2012 at 21:10
-
But that is just the point Elena – Graham Mitchell was being
extradited to serve a sentence for murder – I wouldn’t have been
campaigning for him if he was being extradited to answer
questions. The Swedes are entitled to investigate the alleged
crime. If Assange had gone back to answer the questions there
would not have been an extradition warrant – it is only because
he refused to even answer questions that he is being extradited.
The outcome of those questions is not a foregone conclusion –
unless of course, Assange knows he is guilty. The issue of
whether or not it is an offence in this country is a non runner
– what he is alleged to have done IS an offence in that country
surely, and given that he had gone to that country in the first
place specifically because he could do there things that would
have been an offence in his native Australia, or indeed in the
UK, it is a bit rich to complain that he shouldn’t answer to
their justice system.
- August 17, 2012 at
21:41
-
I would have campaigned for Graham Mitchell if he was just
wanted to return to Portugal to answer questions. People get
stitched up in Portugal. Everybody knows that. In fact, people
even commit suicide by hitting themselves over the head four
times with an axe. But that is by the by, unless someone wants
to send Ian Brady to Portugal.
My point about The Swedish
Extradition is that Julian Assange does not know if he will be
extradited to America from Sweden. But Sweden could solve that
problem by giving an undertaking that this would not happen.
So far they have failed to do this. One can only wonder why.
But he was questioned in Sweden about these allegations, and
then they allowed him to leave. So why do they want him back
now? Why is No Evidence required in these extradition Cases?
What has happened in the meantime to warrant such heavy handed
tactics?
- August 17, 2012 at 21:59
- August 21, 2012 at
19:49
-
Yeah, what Julia said
- August 17, 2012 at 18:03
-
Surely if the USA wanted to have him extradited they would started
that process ages ago?
I can’t see the logic of persuading the Swedes to trump up a charge,
hold him captive and only then put in a bid for extradition. Far too
many risky stages.
If, as you imply, the writ of the EU arrest warrant doesn’t run in
France then he is an idiot for not moving there.
- August 17, 2012 at
18:52
-
What do you think I am doing in France? Sorry, that was a joke. But
I have far more Yuman Rites in France than I ever had in Britain.
It would appear that Mr. Assange never got half a chance. He left
Sweden with the permission of Passport Control, and with his Passport
still in his possession, so presumably he did this legally. He was
then slapped with an Extradition Order, with which Britain is forced
to comply. Or so I am told. Despite whether or not the Crime of which
he has been accused is actually a Crime in Britain.
Jeezuz. Lets
keep this local. Two women who willingly went to bed with him, and
then several days later threw a wobbly when they found out that they
weren’t the only best thing since sliced bread, then accused him of
not using a Condom on the second occasion that he had sex with them
while sleeping in their individual beds with their permission, in the
middle of the night. This is ridiculous. My personal Paranoia has just
ramped up two notches. And I wouldn’t trust Sweden if you paid me.
- August 17, 2012 at
21:13
-
Er… unpopular? Certainly not. I too couldn’t give a stuff about
Assange, and yes the two women not reporting the ‘rape’ until they found
out he’d screwed both of them also smells like a fit up. Especially this
long after the event. Outrageously so.
France not signing up to the one sided ‘extradition’ treaty is a bad
thing? Certaiment pas, mon vieux No forgiveness required.
- August 17, 2012 at
21:21
-
Bill Sticker, I Only said “Forgive me” because certain of us who
live here are forever on about how wonderful France is, and certain
other people get a bit fed up with it. But they can’t tell us to bog
off and live in France because we already do. Ha ha.
- August 19, 2012 at 18:28
-
Elena ‘andcart:
In your response to JuliaM, you stressed that you were trying to view
this issue from a “legal point of view”, however you seem to have passed
over the legal facts – in Sweden “withdrawal of consent” is a crime and
is a form of sexual assault. Regardless of your personal opinion that
“this is hardly rape in the sense that the word is supposed to convey”,
aren’t we talking about the “legal point of view”? So, what is the law?
If the claims in Sweden are not “trumped up”, meaning trying to look at
the facts and remove emotion, than shouldn’t Mr. Assange be extradited
to Sweden to face prosecution for his crimes? Conclusion on this point
with a question – if the charges against Mr. Assange are not “rape in
the sense the word is supposed to convey”, than what is the line? If
someone says “no”, man or woman, than anything other than “no” should be
rape. Perhaps I am more conservative in my belief that rape should
consist of anything, not just forced sexual intercourse, where one party
is unwilling.
In your post, you inquired as to why neither of the two Swedish women
accused him until several days later. That is a surprising inquiry by
you. Research suggests that 75% to 95% of rape crimes go unrreported.
Strangely, of those that go unrreported, over 20% are not reported by
victims because they are considered to be a “personal matter”. Further,
nearly 20% of victims fear reprisal. It is far from UNcommon that a few
days would pass before a rape is reported. The emotional trauma a woman
experiences (in instances of a woman raped by a male) can be significant
and there are many emotional states which may pass prior to a report
(ex. someone the woman feels she is at fault, etc.). In the case of Mr.
Assange, you have two women who apparently looked up to Mr. Assange,
complicating the trauma which may have existed afterwards.
My point to all of this is, you wanted to speak to the “legal point
of view”, but in reading your comments you do appear to have discounted
the legal side of the discussion – Sweden law, whether or not you or I
agree with it, is the prevailing law in this situation. In addition, and
this is not directed solely at your comments, so please forgive me, but
it seems people hold Mr. Assange in some level of high regard. When, in
reality, he has cost the lives of many innocent people. He acts with
impugnity and that is just not right. If a government’s top-secret legal
documents are corrupted, than shame on them. The US should look to fix
it’s own internal security issues. However, Mr. Assange, or anyone who
makes such information public should be held to any applicable laws.
Further, their is a moral component which should be adhered to. What I
mean is, if Mr. Assange recklessly releases information that causes harm
to others, than that is his doing and his should be accountable for his
actions.
Mr. Assange is not a martyr or a saint. Mr. Assange, by all accounts,
is concerned about his own vanity. In his demonstrated actions, Mr.
Assange puts his vanity ahead of the lives of innocent people. It is a
sad state on our global society that such a person is rallied around and
“protected”.
-
August 21, 2012 at 08:09
-
Elena ‘andcart
I share your opinion.
The ‘charges’ against Assange have changed several times. They were
made; they were withdrawn; they were remade, with changes in the
severity of the alleged offence. And at the end of the day, it seems it
will come down to ‘his word against hers’ because (I presume) there were
only two people in the bed – both of whom agree that they both got into
it voluntarily. ‘His word against hers’ is, in my opinion, not proof of
a crime being committed.
Information about the ‘offences’ which have been made public indicate
that the first incident of intercourse was consensual. The female
participant remained in the bed and went to sleep – rather indicating
that she hadn’t objected to this or to his bed-time behaviour and he
‘took advantage’ later in the night. That isn’t rape. It is (as Galloway
said) possibly bad sexual manners.
The extradition is being carried out because of the pernicious
European Arrest Warrent, which requires us to surrender an individual to
a foreign system of justice, with no evidence submitted or scrutinised
by a British judge. We can do nothing to block an extradition request.
This is an appalling piece of EU legislation which should NEVER have
been accepted into British law. It gives far too much power to ‘the
State’ and fails to protect the individual.
The case against Assange looks, sounds and smells like a set up. They
will bang him up in Sweden whilst the Yanks get on tout suite with an
extradition request – which is what this is really about. How to get
Assange to America to face trial for the appalling crime of releasing
information about activities relating to the USA’s foreign
adventures.
I don’t like the man. I think he was stupid to release the American
documents and not expect them to persue him relentlessly. But the
Swedish ‘rape’ charges look, sound and smell like a stitch-up and I am
ashamed that, having surrendered Habeas Corpus to the European Arrest
Warrent, our Government is only too happy to oblige.
- August 21, 2012 at
12:16
-
Boudicca. It is The EAW that is my main target. It is an appalling
piece of legislation. But I don’t live in Britain anymore, and it
doesn’t apply in France. So technically it isn’t any of my
business
But if there isn’t something funny going on behind the
scenes why is there such a kerfuffle over what looks to me like, “She
said, He said.” Actually He hasn’t said anything. Would we like him
any better if he gave chapter and verse? Almost certainly not. That
would indeed be Bad Manners. So he’s damned if he does and damned if
he doesn’t.
As for Extraditing Julian Assange to America, Australia
might not be very happy about that. They have very strict rules about
extraditing anyone where Death Penalties and Inhuman Treatment might
be involved. Much better to let Sweden do it, then it won’t be
Britain’s fault.
- August 21, 2012 at 12:22
-
Elena,
Actually the EAW does apply in France except for alleged crimes
committed before 1994 – someone has to protect collaborateurs and
torture/murderers of Algerians from justice.
- August 23, 2012 at 11:19
-
To add to that, The Crime that he is being accused of in Sweden
doesn’t actually appear to be a Crime in UK,
Appearances can be deceiving. It is S1 SOA2003 Rape, see S75.2.d and the Court of Appeal said as much in denying
his attempt to block his extradition.
and much as I might sympathise to some small extent with these two
women, I can’t help feeling that theywere in part culpable.
Yes, taking delusional narcissists home and sleeping with them is
certainly high risk behaviour. I don’t think it does, or should, amount
to legal culpability, though.
- August 23, 2012 at
12:54
- August 23, 2012 at 13:51
-
“lay opinions of the law”
Ooh, you are awful, what an unfortunate expression when discussing
sexual offences..
- August 17, 2012 at 14:39
-
While we’re on the subject -there’s also a very interesting development in
the lovely Kingdom of Northumbria: http://caedmonscat.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/beseiged.html
{ 94 comments }