Police [don't] invade Equadorian embassy [yet].

There must be more to life than football?
User avatar
Joe
Ageing international
Posts: 3561
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:04 pm

Re: Police [don't] invade Equadorian embassy [yet].

Post by Joe » Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:11 pm

Rover the Top wrote: Two women he admits sleeping with either have to have been planted to set him up or subsequently persuaded to make very serious but false claims against him.
The Swedish justice system has to have been corrupted to issue the arrest warrant to get him to Sweden so that they can pass him on to the USA.
The British justice system has to have been corrupted to reject his appeals against extradition if there's a genuine chance it is all a smoke screen.
I interpreted that you were arguing in favour of those points in bold, despite disagreeing (it seemed you were in the context of your post) with then. You had to argue in favour of them to go onto your next point, ie
Now, maybe people do think all that is possible. But then consider .......

User avatar
Rover Ryan
Ageing international
Posts: 4777
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 5:42 am
Location: Bolton, England
Contact:

Re: Police [don't] invade Equadorian embassy [yet].

Post by Rover Ryan » Mon Aug 20, 2012 3:58 am


User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 26811
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Police [don't] invade Equadorian embassy [yet].

Post by Rover the Top » Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:20 am

Joe wrote:
Rover the Top wrote: Two women he admits sleeping with either have to have been planted to set him up or subsequently persuaded to make very serious but false claims against him.
The Swedish justice system has to have been corrupted to issue the arrest warrant to get him to Sweden so that they can pass him on to the USA.
The British justice system has to have been corrupted to reject his appeals against extradition if there's a genuine chance it is all a smoke screen.
I interpreted that you were arguing in favour of those points in bold, despite disagreeing (it seemed you were in the context of your post) with then. You had to argue in favour of them to go onto your next point, ie
Now, maybe people do think all that is possible. But then consider .......
Well, no. That just doesn't follow at all. Saying some people might believe something isn't an argument in favour of that something. For example, I could say some people believe in god, it doesn't mean I believe in god, or that I'm making an argument for there being a god. If anything, it would suggest my own personal doubt...

But I've no idea how to resolve this: I'm not going to defend a point I didn't make, even though you're carrying on as though I did. I don't know if you actually agree or disagree with the point I did make, so I can't continue the discussion. And I don't know how to get you to see your mistake when I can't see how you've made it in the first place. Based on the above, I wonder if you'll understand this... :?

User avatar
theadore
Inexperienced manager
Posts: 9567
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:25 pm

Re: Police [don't] invade Equadorian embassy [yet].

Post by theadore » Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:56 am

Notice he barely mentions sweden at all.

You know Sweden Julian? The place where you should be now? Answering those pesky but very serious rape allegations? Ring any bells?

As pointed out in a blogpost (that I can't find at the moment) by the excellent Carl Gardener... Sweden can make no assurances one way or the other on an extradition request from the USA which doesn't even exist yet. They have international agreements in place to give any such request due consideration in their courts... it's not up to a faceless diplomat to make those kind of assurances.

Hat tip of the day yesterday to the person in the crowd shortly before the balcony speech who shouted "He's NOT the messiah... He's a VERY naughty boy!"

User avatar
Rover Ryan
Ageing international
Posts: 4777
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 5:42 am
Location: Bolton, England
Contact:

Re: Police [don't] invade Equadorian embassy [yet].

Post by Rover Ryan » Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:05 am

Just beware kids! If you are going to participate in consensual sex, make sure you wear a condom and no matter what you do make sure it doesn't break on you! If you fail to take part in these rules then you are a serial rapist :o

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 26811
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Police [don't] invade Equadorian embassy [yet].

Post by Rover the Top » Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:34 am

Ollie Board wrote:Just beware kids! If you are going to participate in consensual sex, make sure you wear a condom and no matter what you do make sure it doesn't break on you! If you fail to take part in these rules then you are a serial rapist :o
No, before you get the 'serial rapist' tag, you've got to flee to another country, and run and hide in a South American embassy to avoid being sent back to answer a few questions about that consensual sex... ;)

User avatar
Rover Ryan
Ageing international
Posts: 4777
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 5:42 am
Location: Bolton, England
Contact:

Re: Police [don't] invade Equadorian embassy [yet].

Post by Rover Ryan » Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:58 am

He's offered and has sat down with police since he's "flee'd" to this country and Equadors embassy. Yet they insist he needs to go back to Sweden. Who have an extradition treaty already in place with the US.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 26811
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Police [don't] invade Equadorian embassy [yet].

Post by Rover the Top » Mon Aug 20, 2012 11:15 am

Very good of him to offer to answer questions about the allegations in a place where he's immune from arrest and possible prosecution... :yeahright: And the USA have an extradition treaty with the UK too. :shrug: The Swedish treaty won't allow extradition on political grounds, including espionage. I also think, like the UK, they won't extradite unless there's guarantees that the death penalty will not be imposed, although I'm still looking for specific confirmation of that.

User avatar
theadore
Inexperienced manager
Posts: 9567
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:25 pm

Re: Police [don't] invade Equadorian embassy [yet].

Post by theadore » Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:19 pm

Sweden have a similar proviso... in fact I've yet to see any conclusive proof that Sweden are more likely to extradite to the US than we are.

Also - before we have 'consensual sex' thrown around - it's probably worth reading the actual charges.

http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/757 ... an-assange
The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.

The second charge alleged Assange "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.

The third charge claimed Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on August 18 "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity".

The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on August 17 without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.


User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 26811
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Police [don't] invade Ecuadorian embassy [yet].

Post by Rover the Top » Mon Aug 20, 2012 2:43 pm

Having unprotected sex with a sleeping woman is just "something which can happen, you know"? :shock: Of course, we'll only know for sure if they failed the Todd Akin "legitimate rape" test and got pregnant... At least the pair of them are demonstrating the value of free speech... :footinmouth:

User avatar
Joe
Ageing international
Posts: 3561
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:04 pm

Re: Police [don't] invade Equadorian embassy [yet].

Post by Joe » Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:03 pm

Rover the Top wrote:
Joe wrote:
Rover the Top wrote: Two women he admits sleeping with either have to have been planted to set him up or subsequently persuaded to make very serious but false claims against him.
The Swedish justice system has to have been corrupted to issue the arrest warrant to get him to Sweden so that they can pass him on to the USA.
The British justice system has to have been corrupted to reject his appeals against extradition if there's a genuine chance it is all a smoke screen.
I interpreted that you were arguing in favour of those points in bold, despite disagreeing (it seemed you were in the context of your post) with then. You had to argue in favour of them to go onto your next point, ie
Now, maybe people do think all that is possible. But then consider .......
Well, no. That just doesn't follow at all. Saying some people might believe something isn't an argument in favour of that something. For example, I could say some people believe in god, it doesn't mean I believe in god, or that I'm making an argument for there being a god. If anything, it would suggest my own personal doubt...

But I've no idea how to resolve this: I'm not going to defend a point I didn't make, even though you're carrying on as though I did. I don't know if you actually agree or disagree with the point I did make, so I can't continue the discussion. And I don't know how to get you to see your mistake when I can't see how you've made it in the first place. Based on the above, I wonder if you'll understand this... :?
I never actually disagreed with your original post, expect the bit about 'being in danger of condoning rape'.

This whole 'argument' has just been about whether you were playing devil's advocate. I guess you probably weren't after thinking about it for a while. I was equating you saying 'some people might believe x,y,z with you arguing in favour of it so you could make your next point. I'm currently unemplyed and very bored, and seemingly got the subtlties of the concept wrong :oops: So I guess I now at least have a thorough understanding of 'playing devils advocate'. So let's leave it at that :D

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14298
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Police [don't] invade Equadorian embassy [yet].

Post by mrblackbat » Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:05 pm

Get a job then! :x


:D

User avatar
Joe
Ageing international
Posts: 3561
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:04 pm

Re: Police [don't] invade Equadorian embassy [yet].

Post by Joe » Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:06 pm

theadore wrote:
Hat tip of the day yesterday to the person in the crowd shortly before the balcony speech who shouted "He's NOT the messiah... He's a VERY naughty boy!"
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9VWxIRIkRc[/youtube]

User avatar
Joe
Ageing international
Posts: 3561
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:04 pm

Re: Police [don't] invade Equadorian embassy [yet].

Post by Joe » Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:08 pm

mrblackbat wrote:Get a job then! :x


:D
I have one, just some fucking incompetent HR person has meant pre-employment checks have taken thus far 5 weeks. I've got 3 more interviews this week. So can hopefully tell my pending employer to do one.

Post Reply