I'd have spent my day running in and out the gates like a child shouting "try and catch me"

(02-04-2016, 02:34 PM)shaun.lawson Wrote: Ecuador offered Assange asylum. Britain and Sweden have no right to block it.

They are still entitled to pursue this rape enquiry and Britain should cooperate with Sweden on this. Sometimes principles are more important than money Shaun, would've thought you'd understand that applies even to situations that you don't personally agree with.

(02-04-2016, 03:14 PM)Donald Dank Wrote: They are still entitled to pursue this rape enquiry and Britain should cooperate with Sweden on this. Sometimes principles are more important than money Shaun, would've thought you'd understand that applies even to situations that you don't personally agree with.

This isn't about 'principles'. It's about power. Though the principle of free speech, Assange doing the world every bit as much a favour as Snowden (an American who actually understands the constitution, and his responsibility as a citizen) did, and not being subject to bogus smears and allegations is rather important - the very thing which underpins our civilisation - too.

Recommended viewing, which sets out what a pile of BS this whole case is:

(02-04-2016, 02:34 PM)shaun.lawson Wrote: Spending 12 million quid of taxpayers' money on keeping a patrol outside the Embassy.

Ecuador offered Assange asylum. Britain and Sweden have no right to block it.

We're not blocking anything. They and he can do what they want on their own soil.

But if he steps foot on our soil he'll rightly be detained.

(02-04-2016, 03:20 PM)TheMaganator2.0 Wrote: We're not blocking anything.  They and he can do what they want on their own soil.

But if he steps foot on our soil he'll rightly be detained.

The policy of spending 12 million on officers eating doughnuts outside an Ecuadorian embassy is sound.

Agreed, Scott.

We can't let justice be constrained by cost.

(02-04-2016, 03:32 PM)TheMaganator2.0 Wrote: Agreed, Scott.

We can't let justice be constrained by cost.

Agreed, Mags. I may be reminding you of that phrase later in this thread.

(02-04-2016, 03:35 PM)S.J. Wrote: Agreed, Mags. I may be reminding you of that phrase later in this thread.

Something for me to look forward to.

I am taking your perennial 'policy is sound' references to be an acceptance that you agree that that policy was sound btw

^^^^ politics fred guys.

(02-04-2016, 03:44 PM)Amnesiac Wrote: ^^^^ politics fred guys.

A sound policy, Lewis.

The politics thread is about the only place on here that we get a break from you

(02-04-2016, 03:42 PM)TheMaganator2.0 Wrote: Something for me to look forward to.

I am taking your perennial 'policy is sound' references to be an acceptance that you agree that that policy was sound btw

It wouldn't be the first time you got the wrong end of the stick.

(02-04-2016, 03:54 PM)TheMaganator2.0 Wrote: A sound policy, Lewis.

The politics thread is about the only place on here that we get a break from you

There's actually quite a few topics on the front page where i have very little if any posts in tbh mags

Anyway, carry on.

(02-04-2016, 03:32 PM)TheMaganator2.0 Wrote: Agreed, Scott.

We can't let justice be constrained by cost.

Quite right. Save that for the disabled, the mentally ill and kids

What about social justice?

Mags doesn't have a butler or servants ffs. He's a middle-class Jock: the kind of person big Davey C holds in contempt.

(02-04-2016, 04:37 PM)Makween Wrote: Mags doesn't have a butler or servants ffs.  He's a middle-class Jock: the kind of person big Davey C holds in contempt.

He's basically the modern day equivalent of an Uncle Tom

(02-04-2016, 04:37 PM)Makween Wrote: Mags doesn't have a butler or servants ffs.  He's a middle-class Jock: the kind of person big Davey C holds in contempt.

I know. And it was a stupid post anyway, so I've deleted it.

Isn't the point that Mags thinks he's upper class though?

(02-04-2016, 04:40 PM)shaun.lawson Wrote: I know. And it was a stupid post anyway, so I've deleted it.

Isn't the point that Mags thinks he's upper class though?

Nah, just better than everyone else - which, tbf, is not an exclusive club on here. In fact, it's where 90% of the posts stem from.

(02-04-2016, 03:20 PM)shaun.lawson Wrote: This isn't about 'principles'. It's about power. Though the principle of free speech, Assange doing the world every bit as much a favour as Snowden (an American who actually understands the constitution, and his responsibility as a citizen) did, and not being subject to bogus smears and allegations is rather important - the very thing which underpins our civilisation - too.

Well I'm about the biggest free speech advocate you'll find, I consider some of what governments have said about the principle of a government being entitled to have some things that are secret to be convincing and reasonable, but I have absolutely no problem with the information leak.

This isn't about that though, there is a reasonable case with statements from two women that both allege sexual conduct by Asdange that could be considered a crime. If true, those women have a right to have their cases heard and their chance for justice, if false there is still a case to answer and if there is a lack of evidence then he would be free to go.

The defence you're using for assange is the very defence that was used by supporters of members of the establishment when they were accused of abusing children, that these disgusting smears were faked to take them down. What I'm saying is your principles on this shift with your view on other actions of that person, and depending on whether or not you think they've done other things that are good or bad you'll support or oppose them. I think that's unprincipled.


To clarify - I think wikileaks was great, I loved that I was able to see all the stuff that for years had been locked up and secret, but I think Assange is an egotistical megalomaniac and I don't think the allegations against him are some conspiracy to ship him off to the US so he can get the chair.

(02-04-2016, 04:45 PM)Donald Dank Wrote: Well I'm about the biggest free speech advocate you'll find, I consider some of what governments have said about the principle of a government being entitled to have some things that are secret I have absolutely no problem with the information leak.

This isn't about that though, there is a reasonable case with statements from two women that both allege sexual conduct by Asdange that could be considered a crime. If true, those women have a right to have their cases heard and their chance for justice, if false there is still a case to answer and if there is a lack of evidence then he would be free to go.

The defence you're using for assange is the very defence that was used by supporters of members of the establishment when they were accused of abusing children, that these disgusting smears were faked to take them down. What I'm saying is your principles on this shift with your view on other actions of that person, and depending on whether or not you think they've done other things that are good or bad you'll support or oppose them. I think that's unprincipled.

Good point, to be fair. If I believed these women had a leg to stand on - as opposed to being pressured into making demonstrably false allegations by the Swedish authorities - I'd be demanding they have their day in court. But I don't, so I'm not. It's not just that the whole thing was suspicious as fuck to begin with. It's that their allegations are demonstrably false, as the documentary I linked to sets out.

In the case of the politicians: some may be guilty, some may not. I do agree it's the worst possible thing anyone can ever be accused of - hence why I believe in anonymity for both alleged perpetrators and alleged victims. But in whose interests would a cover-up suit? Them of course. In whose interests would a smear campaign against Assange suit? The West, of course. Cui bono? is what informs my views in both cases.