40 replies to this topic

[Millman]

The lad's been given bail.

[Chronicler of Chiswick]

Am I being a bit dim, or is this nothing to do with RL?

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

Am I being a bit dim, or is this nothing to do with RL?

He's a mad keen Batley supporter

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Am I being a bit dim, or is this nothing to do with RL?

hence it's on AOB

[ckn]

hence it's on AOB

It was originally mistakenly posted on the main forum

[l'angelo mysterioso]

It was originally mistakenly posted on the main forum

thank you very much

[Bedford Roughyed]

He may or may not of been a naughty boy but a number of journalists etc have made up their minds!

Don't mix wikileaks up with this case, they should be seen as seperate.

Let the rule of law follow its path.

[Northern Sol]

He may or may not of been a naughty boy but a number of journalists etc have made up their minds!

He has been a very naughty boy but the rape charges are a nonsense. I'm hoping that they charge him with a proper crime. Not that rape isn't a "proper crime" but what he is alleged to have done isn't rape even by Swedish standards.

[Bedford Roughyed]

He has been a very naughty boy but the rape charges are a nonsense. I'm hoping that they charge him with a proper crime. Not that rape isn't a "proper crime" but what he is alleged to have done isn't rape even by Swedish standards.

I'm glad you know what he is done. He is yet to be charged with anything, the Swedes want him for questioning. What the papers are alleging might not be true (there is no sex by surprise law in sweden for example).

[Northern Sol]

I'm glad you know what he is done. He is yet to be charged with anything, the Swedes want him for questioning. What the papers are alleging might not be true (there is no sex by surprise law in sweden for example).

I don't think there is any questioning that he has been publishing confidential documents online. For this IMO he deserves locking up. There is little public interest in 95% of what was published.

However, the charges in Sweden are a joke. They were abandoned by the Swedish prosecutor as being nonsensical and it is simply a matter of American political pressure making them now suddenly pursue the matter. They've never tried to extradite anyone for this crime before and even if he was convicted, he would be unlikely to go to prison.

[JohnM]

I don't think there is any questioning that he has been publishing confidential documents online. For this IMO he deserves locking up. There is little public interest in 95% of what was published.

What of the Telegraph and them leaking MPs expense details?

In any case I bet different sections of the public are interested in different 5%s.

If the whole episode punctures the pomposity and self-importance of the world's politicians, then something good will have been achieved.

Of course, I uphold the rule of law and one cannot pick and choose which laws one obeys. In addition, if you do break th law you have to accept the consequences.

Equally, though, states cannot act outside the law and in this case, given the US's proclivity for illegal action, we will have to be extra vigilant.

Of course, you could be saying Assange deserves locking up for boring us to death!

[Northern Sol]

What of the Telegraph and them leaking MPs expense details?

There was definitely a public interest there.

In any case I bet different sections of the public are interested in different 5%s.

If the whole episode punctures the pomposity and self-importance of the world's politicians, then something good will have been achieved.

Of course, I uphold the rule of law and one cannot pick and choose which laws one obeys. In addition, if you do break th law you have to accept the consequences.

Equally, though, states cannot act outside the law and in this case, given the US's proclivity for illegal action, we will have to be extra vigilant.

Of course, you could be saying Assange deserves locking up for boring us to death!

I disagree, it has undermined the diplomatic service unnecessarily. Nobody wishes to negotiate or comment on an issue if they think that their honest views might end up in the newspaper. This might be defensible if the leaks had anything that was particularly "interesting" i.e. that a public statement was contradicted in private but the leaks have often been about mundane things such as the American ambassadors' opinion on Brown (which contained nothing that any Labour backbencher wouldn't have said).

Possible some of the Iraq or Afghan stuff might be in the public interest to know but unfortunately Assange didn't edit the information to remove the names of those Iraqis / Afghans who "collaborated" with Western forces. An unforgivable error IMO.

The central problem in my view is that Assange is an attention-whore and not a proper journalist.

[WearyRhino]

I don't think there is any questioning that he has been publishing confidential documents online. For this IMO he deserves locking up. There is little public interest in 95% of what was published.

However, the charges in Sweden are a joke. They were abandoned by the Swedish prosecutor as being nonsensical and it is simply a matter of American political pressure making them now suddenly pursue the matter. They've never tried to extradite anyone for this crime before and even if he was convicted, he would be unlikely to go to prison.

There is definite public interest in US, UK and other nations diplomats, politicians, spies etc using secret channels to spread tittle tattle, unfounded rumour, attributed and non-attribitouted slander and libel about each other and private citizens.

I thought the USA and UK had Freedom of Information legislation.

[Northern Sol]

There is definite public interest in US, UK and other nations diplomats, politicians, spies etc using secret channels to spread tittle tattle, unfounded rumour, attributed and non-attribitouted slander and libel about each other and private citizens.

There is, why?

You are confusing "public interest" i.e. people find it interesting and "in the public interest" i.e. serving the needs of the public.

What the American ambassador thinks about Brown is certainly not going to serve anybody's needs except possibly tabloid editors.

I thought the USA and UK had Freedom of Information legislation.

It's not an absolute freedom.

Edited by Northern Sol, 17 December 2010 - 07:16 PM.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

what he is alleged to have done isn't rape even by Swedish standards.

what do you mean?

[Northern Sol]

what do you mean?

The basis of what he is supposed to have done is that he slept with one "groupie"; another the following day and back to the first the day after. Not very nice but not a crime. Neither girl alleged rape until they discovered that he had been bed hopping. the charge was initially thrown out by the prosecutor for a lack of evidence.

[WearyRhino]

There is, why?

You are confusing "public interest" i.e. people find it interesting and "in the public interest" i.e. serving the needs of the public.

What the American ambassador thinks about Brown is certainly not going to serve anybody's needs except possibly tabloid editors.

As is your want, you misunderstand me. I am not interested in what is said per se but the fact that people are saying things whilst acting as agents of my government and my nation. Moreover, it is not for those who are the agents of such secrets to be the arbiters of what is and is not in my interest. Governments and their agents rarely feel it is in the interests of their citizens to know when they are telling lies, what lies they are telling and why they are telling them.

It's not an absolute freedom.

I think it goes beyond freedom and is a human right and as such it is most definitely an 'absolute' - but like all rights it comes with responsibilities.

[Northern Sol]

As is your want, you misunderstand me. I am not interested in what is said per se but the fact that people are saying things whilst acting as agents of my government and my nation. Moreover, it is not for those who are the agents of such secrets to be the arbiters of what is and is not in my interest. Governments and their agents rarely feel it is in the interests of their citizens to know when they are telling lies, what lies they are telling and why they are telling them.

If they were lies then there would be a public interest in them being shown to be lies. However, if they are not then there isn't.

I think it goes beyond freedom and is a human right and as such it is most definitely an 'absolute' - but like all rights it comes with responsibilities.

No, it is not an absolute. If I asked you for your PIN number on your bank card and your password on your email address, would you give them to me?

I suspect that you would not. These things are secret for a reason.

[East Coast Tiger]

Why would publishing documents be a crime? Did he steal the documents? If yes then charge him with theft, if not he's done nothing wrong. The whole point of Wikileaks is that they are LEAKS. Info provided to them. This website has no less right to publish them than a newspaper would for publishing similar leaks about government behaviour etc.

[Li0nhead]

Why would publishing documents be a crime? Did he steal the documents? If yes then charge him with theft, if not he's done nothing wrong. The whole point of Wikileaks is that they are LEAKS. Info provided to them. This website has no less right to publish them than a newspaper would for publishing similar leaks about government behaviour etc.

Re-reading your post it just gave me an idea.....to stall everything as a tatic it could be worth a member of the public to report him for handling stolen goods....Police have then invistigate, CPS get file, decide to push for trial, at worst he gets a slap on the wrist and deported to Oz....All will take time....just an idea.