Julian Assange

Bags.

Sorry you don't follow. I think I would being patronising to tell you or else I am just an ignorant thicko and used the wrong terminology but here goes.

I thought I was making a point that Assange (and Wikileaks) have an abhorrence in their blood and beleifs for countries that have poor human rights violations. Given Equador is one of those countries why would he elect to look at Equador for asylum.

Is that better.

POGS I think Assange became buddies with Ecuador's President a while ago when they were both slagging off the United States on a television programme. Uniting against a shared "enemy"makes them friends.

I think it's worth pointing out that the convention of an embassy giving asylum to someone was never intended to protect that someone from the criminal law of the host country. It was designed to protect people from political or religious persecution. Assange is not facing political or religious persecution. This country is legally required to extradite Assange to Sweden to face accusations of sexual assault. There has, so far, been no request from the US for his extradition and if there were, there is no guarantee that Sweden would agree to it. It is not relevant that the Swedish charges relate to acts that would not be regarded as illegal in Ecuador.

As a result of all this, Assange has managed to present himself as some kind of potential political martyr rather than a man accused of sexual assault. The sexual assault charges have been completely sidelined. If they are spurious, it would be better to have the whole matter openly examined and Assange clearly exonerated.

William Hague has made the UK look stupid and dishonourable with his burblings about being able to withdraw diplomatic status from the embassy. Ecuadorean politicians, plus allies such as Venezuela, have happily jumped on the bash Britain bandwagon as a proxy for the US, thanks to his silliness.

It is in Assange's interest (and character) to keep up the media interest. It would be better if the media found something more interesting to write about and photograph and left bored policeman to hang around the embassy building.

Thanks for the reply, pogs. I thought that was pretty much what you meant, but wanted to be sure. I find it difficult, as well as risky, to interpret 'poetic' phrases like "abhorrence in their blood" on political issues, that's all.

Correction Julian Assange has not been charged with anything in Sweden. He is required to answer questions regarding allegations of sexual assault and rape. Apologies.

Glad you said that, absent. It is what I had thought. Which is why I don,t understand why Swedish police can't come here and question him. Apparently that has been done in similar cases.

I listened to his speech and thought it good. He and other Wiki people think the US ia paranoid about Wikileaks (it wouldn't be surprising). Starting from that understanding (or belief), I thought the speech was bang on.

I'm not really interested in whether he's a narcissist. As far as the Wikileaks revelations (e.g. of US soldiers' abuse of prisoners) are concerned, I think Wikileaks has done the world a service. Good luck to them, I say.

Oh Bags I thought his speech was terrible – turgid, irrelevant and egotistical. I found the sudden burst of parental concern nauseating.

It is not surprising that the US is less than ecstatic about the publication of confidential cables but, yes, some figures are distinctly OTT about Wikileaks. I confess I read only some of the stuff and relied on the Guardian's comment pieces for most of my information when they were publishing the Wikileaks stuff in the UK.

Welll said Bags

Very interesting debate on Newsnight, Monday 20th Aug.

If Assange has these two men on his side, one being George Galloway, who both basically said the two women in Sweden were liars, I don't think they have earnt respect for themselves nor more favour for Assange.

I thought the woman from, I think it was, the Independant spoke very well and made rational comments.

I watched it too, POGS. I didn't think George Galloway's speech was helpful to Assange - if anything it just drew attention to the way some people nit-pick about the definition of rape, or sexual assault.

Some simple facts.... www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

Personally, I can't stand the man.

I'm talking about the short speech JA made from the balcony of the Ecuadorean Embassy. Haven't heard anyone else talking about the case.

I suppose you could call it turgid. So what? I think anyone'd sound a bit strange in those circumstances. He was asking for the US to leave Wikileaks alone. I don't see what's so strange about that. Sorry, absent, but I don't think I understand what you're saying really.

Of course he's egotistical. Again, so what? You'd need to be to do a job like that, just to have the nerve to do it! Loads of famous people are egotistical. I wishbpeople would stop talking about his weird personality and get to grips with what Wikileaks is for! It has done something GOOD for heaven's sake!

By the way, I also think Assange should go to Sweden and stand trial for the sexual assault allegations/charges, whatever they are. That's a separate issue from the Wikileaks one, but I can see why he's afraid of the USA, whether his fears are groundless or not.

I can't stand the man (what little I know of him!) either. IRRELEVANT!

What I am trying – and clearly not succeeding in saying – is that Julian Assange is doing everything he can to sideline the sexual assault allegations. Having exhausted every legal process in this country, he is now using the threat of extradition to America (not made, but it could be) and the potential death penalty (total rubbish) as a means of diverting attention from the Swedish issue. He has even suggested that he was magnanimous in agreeing that the Swedish authorities could interview him in the UK on certain conditions. They need to arrest him before they can charge him and proceed further with the case. He is in no position to make conditions about how the Swedish legal system treats him. I am not claiming that he is guilty of sexual assault and rape but these are serious allegations which he is doing his best to sideline as trivial compared with his legal risks after publishing the American cables (why do they still them cables?). And as I said previously, I found playing the caring parent card devious and nauseating.

OK. Understood, and agreed.

So now it's a case of waiting to see how the stalemate is resolved.

I too have never liked the look of JA but what's that got to do with anything?

When the sexaul assault charges suddenly appeared after some time of Wikileaks activity I just cynically assumed they were trumped up'

If I were JA I'd be really worried about the USA. They are ruthless; look what happened with that young hacker (can't remember his name now) who was extradited some time ago.

We get the face we deserve.

Looks can tell a lot about a person.

That's rubbish, jings, and you know it. What about all the children born with cleft palate problems? Did they 'deserve' their poor deformed faces?

Oh don't be silly!

That is a ridiculous post!

You must realise I mean character is reflected in someone's face as one grows older.

That simple enough for you?

Simple enough, yes, but probably not true.

I should have made it clearer what I meant.

Sorry.

I think your character is reflected in your face big

It is not for George Galloway to define rape for the Swedish legal system. Given the way he lauded Saddam Hussein to the skies, I would suggest that he is severely lacking in any sort of reasonable judgement. It is also not for George Galloway to decide that the women who have made the allegations against Julian Assange are liars.

Strangely, I don't think Julian Assange's face betrays much at all.

I agree. It's rather bland and characterless.

I don't think the comments made re his appearance are really the issue, surely.

We all at times have made comments of a similar nature and when we write them or read them we understand it is a generalisation not a comment that is meant as gospel.

I liken it to someone saying Blair or Cameron or Balls look smug.
Milliband looks like Grommit. It can be nothing more than simple joshing and or a light hearted way of putting your point of view. Goodness knows I have read some comments about politicians that have been made in just that way.