- Why does JK put JC in the frame when he clearly says 'IF' JA has questions to answer he must answer Archived Message
- Good article on Assange: "Corbyn has been played" - Poster123 April 26, 2019, 8:21 am
- Putin ought to offer asylum to persecuted reporters....nm - Keith-264 April 26, 2019, 8:34 am
- “the British government must extradite Assange to Sweden.” JC didn't actually say any such thing - - Rhisiart Gwilym April 26, 2019, 9:59 am
- Putin ought to offer asylum to persecuted reporters....nm - Keith-264 April 26, 2019, 8:34 am
Posted by CJ
on April 26, 2019, 2:33 pm, in reply to "“the British government must extradite Assange to Sweden.” JC didn't actually say any such thing -"
|
them, and why does he throw in the "arsehole" throwaway - JK just spoiled an otherwise well laid out coverage of the situation. Of course he misses one of the key aspects of resurrecting the Swedish element - sexual smears. These are always used as a character smasher before the main event kicks in! Finally JK misses a couple of key points of the Swedish sledge hammer - neither woman said Assange raped them and the only one who claimed sex with a torn condom produced a torn condom which tested clean of any dna at all! There were no charges because there was no evidence - JA's questioning in 2016 did not produce an admission of any guilt and the main witness was unreliable. The whole thing screams "set up" to anyone with dna! The final point missed by JK was the bail "skipping" issue : since when has any nation spent over £13 million pounds surrounding an Embassy 24/7 for 7 years to arrest a person for skipping bail on a dubious European Arrest Warrant (EAW) to ask him some questions about events that if a charge was made and he was tried and was convicted the sentence would be under 4 years most of which would be regarded as having been served already in the UK prison system. Further the UK law on the EAW was doubted by 2 of the 5 UK Supreme Court judges and it was in fact amended in 2014 to make future EAW requests of the "Assange" variety unlawful - JA's case of course could not benefit retroactively from this change of law. We are told of course that most bail skipping where the original basis of the charge has been dropped (and particularly where the "skipping" was to enable the person to claim asylum) would be dealt with by dropping the charge or imposing a nominal fine, certainly not referred to as a serious crime requiring the case to go to the Crown court for severe sentencing! To my mind JA's only hope is the election of JC who can then pardon JA for bail skipping and release him from extradition on humanitarian health grounds. If necessary this might mean taking back political control of this aspect from the courts to whom May passed the power. cheers |
| Message Thread:
|