Your ad hominem attacks on me must stop - they are offensive and hurtful ! This is the Lifeboat News Archived Message
Posted by CJ on March 14, 2019, 5:11 am, in reply to "Re: No mud, just facts - Assange was on UK conditional bail whilst the UK Supreme Court considered his "
not some redneck shock jock site. :"Perhaps a lack of perception on my part, but only caused by your own confusion/assumptions" - don't blame me for your own ignorance. As far as I can see the relevant legislation would have required the Supreme Court to remand JA in custody or on bail - I believe they gave him 14 days to surrender himself and it is during this period that JA skipped his bail. I point out the relevance of the Supreme Court because this skipping of bail occurred immediately after he lost his final appeal before the highest court in the land which had required him to surrender himself to the authorities within 14 days. By jumping bail at this time he wasn't just ignoring a high court judge but a Supreme Court judgement and to suggest he should ignore that judgement is more difficult, imo, for any politician holding an official post in Parliament. The separation of powers is a principle that all office holders must follow and commentary on issues that affect this subject needs to be carefully expressed - hence my reference to the Royal Pardon as a way round this. I find it bizarre that you can't accept the relevance of these issues. :"Further, the notion that any MPs would not support the UN panel of Human Rights experts... is also equally bizarre" - this is a body which has been ignored by all MPs in the Government, as I assume they can do, as it has no official legal standing in our judicial system. Although of course they have accepted their opinions in the past. Obviously I support the findings of this panel but then I'm not a Privy Councillor or an office holder. We don't know who supports the panel outside the Government unless they come out and say so - I haven't kept track. People can hold private views without expressing them in public. :"“all I suggested”/ “ I don't know whether JC's” etc… More unverifiable assumptions, freely offered by yourself as possible reasons to explain why Corbyn went silent on Assange the moment he was elected Leader, yet after offering them, you then state that “there is no point in speculating” on them ! So you offer possible speculation for JC, that you say you don’t really approve off, yet when somebody points out the moral bankruptcy of these speculations, you bizarrely throw a hissy fit ! " You fail yet again to read the actual words I write - I proferred my view as to what JC advisers might have done although I would not agree with that, I did not offer "possible speculation for JC" at all. and it is only in respect of JC's reasons that I suggested there is no point in speculating. It is clear that you are doing the speculating by asserting JC has acted immorally by doing or failing to do something for a particular reason when you have no idea what that reason is. Smearing JC in this way smacks of moral bankruptcy in my view just like the anti-semitism accusations of the far right! :"Seems to me that your admiration for JC, which is understandable in light that he’s still standing after all that has been thrown at him, and the hope that he represents, has clearly warped your capacity for rational reasoning & debate, and causes you to excuse clear & obvious immoral behaviour. " Your ad hominem attacks on me must stop - are you incapable of conducting yourself without this extreme rhetoric?
|
|