Jump to content

Is Assange an "information terrorist"?


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3119 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This pertains to SL in what way?

Thank you dear!

Took you forever to show up;)

ETA: read it long ago:

Off Topic Content: Please keep your commentary relevant to the discussion and within the format that the forum, board or question and answer area require. (For example, in the Answers section, please follow the Q&A format of the discussion.) Content that is blatantly off topic is not permitted. You may also not post regarding subjects that do not relate to Second Life except in the General forum discussion board.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was a fair question.

Guidelines are guides.

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................

 

It is Not about good people, who were planning surprise birthday parties, and those plans were spoiled.

 

The data leaked, is about bad people doing bad things.

These bad people, want to use the authority of their public office, to silence free speech, and remove Freedom's from the People, so that those in office, can be protected and sheltered from their crimes.

A New World Order.

They give orders, and the People's job, is to Obey the orders.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must run I must hide......... wooot

They would have been wiser to make pick ups every other week and 2 bags  - save on gas, equipment and wages....oh well


Maryanne Solo wrote:

Ecuadorian embassy looking good for you ^~ *points & wags finger...

Don't you love it.

22lbs = 9.97 kilograms.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Both of you seem to be choking on your own trash.   Can't you write to the town moderator and have them do something about your problem.  Rhetorical, as I am sure you already tried.  You are right however, it does begin to reek of stupidity after sometime.  You could always send to Assange, I am sure he is sick of take-out and would love to wallow in the trash.  From what I read Australians like stuff like that

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to report a robbery…….when did it happen?........well 3 weeks ago…….why didn’t you come in the day it happened?.........well I wasn’t sure. DUH

The US, British and other Governments got caught doing some no no’s, there is a surprise. They are pissed and want revenge, much like someone on here. It is not like any adult doesn’t understand that some not so pleasant dealings go on behind the scenes, and we get it. But there are limits!

So what better way to cover up, than to confuse what is written proof by opening a sex scandal. Sensationalism will steal the day every time.

As you can see here posters are not concerned about the content of the documents, just whether or not removing a condom constitutes rape.

My, my  Mr. Clarence, you do have problems with nationalities "must be hard to be Canadian", "Australians like stuff like that", not very nice of you.

Link to post
Share on other sites


DQ Darwin wrote:

 

My, my  Mr. Clarence, you do have problems with nationalities "must be hard to be Canadian", "Australians like stuff like that", not very nice of you.

We are chatting about an Australian national: Julian Assange.  You are talking about Canadian and Australian garbage, it fits perfectly.  

Link to post
Share on other sites


DQ Darwin wrote:

I would like to report a robbery…….when did it happen?........well 3 weeks ago…….why didn’t you come in the day it happened?.........well I wasn’t sure. DUH

The Specimen Direction on Late Reporting (.pdf, page 358) that English judges are supposed to give when summing up in rape cases is


It has been said on behalf of the defendant that the fact the complainant did not report what had happened to her (him) as soon as possible makes it less likely that the complaint she (he) eventually made was true. Whether that is so in this particular case is a matter for you to consider and resolve. However, it would be wrong to assume that every person who has been the victim of a sexual assault will report it as soon as possible.

The experience of the courts is that victims of sexual offences can react to the trauma in different ways. Some, in distress or anger, may complain to the first person they see. Others, who react with shame or fear or shock or confusion, do not complain or go to authority for some time. It takes a while for selfconfidence to reassert itself. There is, in other words, no classic or typical response.

A late complaint does not necessarily signify a false complaint, any more than an immediate complaint necessarily demonstrates a true complaint. It is matter for you to determine whether, in the case of this particular complainant, the lateness of the complaint, such as it is, assists you at all and, if so, what weight you attach to it. You need to consider what the complainant herself said about her experience and her reaction to it. On this issue the evidence she gave was......


That seems to me a very reasonable way of approaching it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Innula, well okay in England I have to give way to the ruling and I am not sure about in Canada. There will always be mitigating circumstances to consider, but I find in high profile cases the “rape” tag seems to happen with convenience. 

It is not for me to say but for a jury if trial ever takes place. You must admit the last sentence does cover it all….


Innula Zenovka wrote:


DQ Darwin wrote:

I would like to report a robbery…….when did it happen?........well 3 weeks ago…….why didn’t you come in the day it happened?.........well I wasn’t sure. DUH

The
 (.pdf, page 358) that English judges are supposed to give when summing up in rape cases is

 You need to consider what the complainant herself said about her experience and her reaction to it. On this issue the evidence she gave was......


That seems to me a very reasonable way of approaching it.



Link to post
Share on other sites


Innula Zenovka wrote:


DQ Darwin wrote:

I would like to report a robbery…….when did it happen?........well 3 weeks ago…….why didn’t you come in the day it happened?.........well I wasn’t sure. DUH

The
 (.pdf, page 358) that English judges are supposed to give when summing up in rape cases is

It has been said on behalf of the defendant that the fact the complainant did not report what had happened to her (him) as soon as possible makes it less likely that the complaint she (he) eventually made was true. Whether that is so in this particular case is a matter for you to consider and resolve. However, it would be wrong to assume that every person who has been the victim of a sexual assault will report it as soon as possible.

The experience of the courts is that victims of sexual offences can react to the trauma in different ways. Some, in distress or anger, may complain to the first person they see. Others, who react with shame or fear or shock or confusion, do not complain or go to authority for some time. It takes a while for selfconfidence to reassert itself. There is, in other words, no classic or typical response.

A late complaint does not necessarily signify a false complaint, any more than an immediate complaint necessarily demonstrates a true complaint. It is matter for you to determine whether, in the case of this particular complainant, the lateness of the complaint, such as it is, assists you at all and, if so, what weight you attach to it. You need to consider what the complainant herself said about her experience and her reaction to it. On this issue the evidence she gave was......


That seems to me a very reasonable way of approaching it.

Many late claimants are currently raising their heads against the recently Late Sir Jimmy Savile.  I never met him, I cannot even speculate about the likelihood of him being guilty of sexual offences against minors, or even miners.

Where I used to live in Hull, East Yorkshire, I, along with my neighbours, reported break-in and criminal damage as soon as it had occurred, but the police did not see fit to come out until nine days later. As I was walking across to my place of work, still feeling shaken up and insecure about the whole experience, a uniformed officer approached me, and once he had ascertained that I was one of victims of this particular crime, opened up his little notebook, poised his pen over the page, and said "When would you like to discuss the details of this crime", and I said "How about nine days ago when it happened".

Funny old world.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is a funny old world.

In all honesty, considering my gender, I guess I can only say what my reaction would be. If I was ever dumb enough to open my door to a stranger, hop in bed with him and finally uncross my legs and let him have a go, then allow him to remain in the apartment for a few days, I really have to say WTF.

This would be a interesting call *You need to consider what the complainant herself said about her experience and her reaction to it. On this issue the evidence she gave was......*

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What the complainant SW says happened is that, the first time they had sex, she made it clear that she did not consent to unprotected sex and only consented to sex if he used a condom.   They then had consensual, protected, sex and fell asleep.   She later woke up to find him inside her, not using a condom.

That is, on her account, he penetrated her when she was asleep, and thus incapable of consenting or not, and in circumstances to which he cannot reasonably have believed she did consent, since she'd made it clear to him, she says, that she did not consent to unprotected sex.

Penetration without consent and without a reasonable belief in consent is certainly rape in England, and, it would seem, in Sweden too.   

Obviously it's up to the court to decide what actually happened, if and when Assange can be brought to trial, but the events complained about don't seem to me particularly incredible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Understood and from what I read she consented to sex with the rider that a condom must be worn, which is the sticky part (no pun).

What I see here is the lack of an application of "common sense" on the part of SW. This is not sexual abuse, but the call of rape. I see also the need for common sense and that would be the jurys role since she didn't seem to have any.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand your point.  Do you say she lacked common sense in trusting Assange?

Quite possibly so, but that doesn't alter the fact that her complaint, if true, certainly describes rape in English (and, apparently, Swedish) law.   

As I understand it, initially she and the other complainant, AA, went to the police to see if Assange could be forced to take an AIDS test, so it may be that she didn't realise, either, that his behaviour constituted rape.

Not so long ago, I had some professional involvement in a case involving a guy who seemed, quite genuinely, not to understand that the fact someone consents to having sex with him once doesn't necessarily mean that she consents to have sex with him on demand on all future occasions he feels like it.    Someone he'd met online eventually complained and, when the police started investigating his online address book, they found three other women who'd had bad experiences with him on the second or third meeting, but, rather than go to the police,  had just written it off as a bad experience and wanted to get on with their lives.   

Despite the fact  the jury may wll have thought his victims had been imprudent or naive, it didn't take them very long to convict him of multiple counts of rape and sexual assault, and he's now serving an indefinite sentence for public protection.    

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess my point is we don't agree and that's fine :)


Innula Zenovka wrote:

I don't understand your point.  Do you say she lacked common sense in trusting Assange?

Quite possibly so, but that doesn't alter the fact that her complaint, if true, certainly describes rape in English (and, apparently, Swedish) law.   

As I understand it, initially she and the other complainant, AA, went to the police to see if Assange could be forced to take an AIDS test, so it may be that she didn't realise, either, that his behaviour constituted rape.

Not so long ago, I had some professional involvement in a case involving a guy who seemed, quite genuinely, not to understand that the fact someone consents to having sex with him once doesn't necessarily mean that she consents to have sex with him on demand on all future occasions he feels like it.    Someone he'd met online eventually complained and, when the police started investigating his online address book, they found three other women who'd had bad experiences with him on the second or third meeting, but, rather than go to the police,  had just written it off as a bad experience and wanted to get on with their lives.   

Despite the fact  the jury may wll have thought his victims had been imprudent or naive, it didn't take them very long to convict him of multiple counts of rape and sexual assault, and he's now serving an 
indefinite s
entence for public protection.    



Link to post
Share on other sites


DQ Darwin wrote:

I guess my point is we don't agree and that's fine
:)

And this is why there are twelve people on a jury. But just imagine if those 12 people on the jury
were
12 people involved in this thread?

If I was such a light sleeper that I wouldn't feel someone fannying about with my nether regions until they were well and truly embedded in them, I would ensure I took extra precautions, such as wearing three pairs of Bridget Jones style panties after any sexual encounter.

I personally find it difficult to believe cries of rape in this case

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

that's 2 out of 12 and I agree


Echo Hermit wrote:


DQ Darwin wrote:

I guess my point is we don't agree and that's fine
:)

And this is why there are twelve people on a jury. But just imagine if those 12 people on the jury
were
12 people involved in this thread?

If I was such a light sleeper that I wouldn't feel someone fannying about with my nether regions until they were well and truly embedded in them, I would ensure I took extra precautions, such as wearing three pairs of Bridget Jones style panties after any sexual encounter.

I personally find it difficult to believe cries of rape in this case

 



Link to post
Share on other sites

Bear in mind that my opinion is only my opinion, and this opinion has been based on basic facts gleaned from this thread, and not what I have read in the media (which has been zilch) or what I might have been presented with in a court room.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That in fact is what any of these posts are "that my opinion is only my opinion" and that pretty much wraps it up :)


Echo Hermit wrote:

Bear in mind that my opinion is only my opinion, and this opinion has been based on basic facts gleaned from this thread, and not what I have read in the media (which has been zilch) or what I might have been presented with in a court room.

 



Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3119 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...