What did you do when the Olympic Torch passed by?

[FamilyWiggs]

And on that touch of humour, I'm going to leave the thread. 8)

Didn't last long! :lol:

 

[Flyfisher]

Second time lucky? :wink:

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Second time lucky? :wink:

Is that a hint? :lol:



Bringing us right back to the beginning of the topic.....:

Scooby, Shaggy, Velma and Daphne entered the 4x100m relay at the London Olympics.

And they'd have won too, if it hadn't been for those medalling Jamaicans.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Stan James bookmakers have just put up a market entitled ‘How Will Julian Assange Leave The Ecuadorian Embassy?’ and currently betting options include:

In a British Police Car – priced at a somewhat stingy 6/5

In an Ecuadorian State Car – priced up at 13/8

In a Diplomatic Crate or Bag – priced longer at 4/1

Helicopter – currently up at 7/1

Ambulance – which is 10/1

Tunnel – a speculative 50/1

London Black Cab – in his dreams priced at 66/1

Batmobile – priced at 200/1


Place your bets! I'm going with the odds-on favourite...

 

[Flyfisher]

Is that a hint? :lol:

Not at all. I admire your tenacity, but I don't detect any swaying of opinion, so I reckon a bit of humour is a welcome diversion. And on that note:

A reporter meets a man carrying an eight-foot-long metal stick and asks, “Are you a pole vaulter?”
“No,” says the man, “I’m German. But how did you know my name is Walter?

 

[biffvernon]

Does anyone else find it ironic that Ecuador and its president are apparently standing up for the principle of freedom of speech and freedom from persecution? :roll:

You read this piece then? http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2012/aug/22/ecuador-dismissive-portrayal-post-colonial-arrogance

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Does anyone else find it ironic that Ecuador and its president are apparently standing up for the principle of freedom of speech and freedom from persecution? :roll:

You read this piece then? http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2012/aug/22/ecuador-dismissive-portrayal-post-colonial-arrogance

Come off it Biff, Robin cited Amnesty International as the source for the alternative view. Or are they not neutrally lefty enough for you?

 

[FamilyWiggs]

A Scotsman, an Englishman and an Irishman want to get into the Olympics but they haven't got tickets.

The Scotsman picks up a manhole-cover, tucks it under his arm and walks to the gate. "McTavish, Scotland" he says, "Discus", and in he walks.

The Englishman picks up a length of scaffolding and slings it over his shoulder. "Waddington-Smythe, England," he says, "Pole vault," and in he walks.

The Irishman looks around, picks up a roll of barbed wire and tucks it under his arm. "O'Malley, Ireland," he says, "Fencing."



*other national stereotypes areavailable.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Come off it Biff, Robin cited Amnesty International as the source for the alternative view. Or are they not neutrally lefty enough for you?

I deliberately sought out Amnesty and Guardian sources...but the best so far I think is the Speccie articlelinked to above. The Glenn Greenwald aritcle in today's Grauniad Biff cites was the biggest pile of bilge I've read in a while. And to be honest, I don't have 46 mins spare to give up to the ABC programme.... I know I'll regret wasting those 46 mins on my deathbed if I do!

 

[FamilyWiggs]

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

That's the most sense any of us have spoken on the subject, Gareth!

 

[Flyfisher]

This explains a lot, especially the bit at 1:30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0OYyUbuFmM&feature=related

 

[biffvernon]

Is there anything in this that can be shown to be untrue? I think not.

Despite what the media have projected, Julian Assange did not flee Sweden to avoid Questioning. He was given permission to leave the country on the 15th September 2010, after remaining 5 weeks in Sweden for the purpose of answering the allegations made against him.

The case against Julian Assange was initially dropped, and deemed so weak it could not warrant investigation. After the intervention of a Swedish politician close to American diplomats, it was revived by a different prosecutor.

In all instances, the 3 plaintiffs consented to sexual intercourse, which they did not take the initiative to stop: they never expressed non-consent and afterwards declared to not have felt threatened by Julian Assange. Indeed, AA continued to see Julian Assaange, for four days after the alleged offence, including him continuing to stay at her flat and including engaging in further consensual sex with him.

After the date of the alleged sexual misconduct: a) Complainant AA created then deleted evidence (tweets) indicating that she was enjoying Julian Assange's company: b) AA went as far as suggesting one of her friends (Witness C) should be intimate with Julian Assange as well.

During the initial visit to the police, the two complainants went to find out how to force Assange to get a HIV test. This was escalated by the officer at the behest of AA, during the visit, to allegations of sexual molestation. The other complainant (not AA) was so distraught by this escalation that she absolutely refused to sign the allegation and left the police station before complainant AA.

A condom submitted as evidence by complainant AA, who claimed it had been deliberately torn by Julian Assange during sexual intercourse, contains no absolutely no chromosomal DNA from either the complainant or Julian Assange.

Text messages exchanged between complainants and their friends contradict the factual allegations in the European arrest warrant (EAW) issued for Julian Assange and cast doubt on the allegations.

The law firm hired in the Assange investigation is run by Claes Borgstrm (politician and legal representative for both plaintiffs) and by former minister Thomas Bodsrtm. Both are members of the Social Democrat Party in Sweden. Bodstrm is a friend of police interrogator Irmeli Krans, who interrogated complainant SW.

Police interrogator Irmeli Krans is, in turn, friends with the other plaintiff, complainant AA, with whom she has political ties (Social Democrat Party). Krans also breached protocol by commenting negatively about Julian Assange on social media.

Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, refused to provide Julian Assange or his lawyers with information on the allegations against him in writing. This violates the Swedish Code of Procedure (RB 23:18.) and the European Convention of Human Rights (article 5) and the EU Fundamental Charter on Human Rights. Prosecution also refused all voluntary offers for cooperation that fit under the Mutual Legal Assistance Protocol, such as making use of alternative methods to interview Julian Assange.

Both the EAW and the Interpol red-notice were issued for Julian Assange by Sweden just before Wiki leaks began to publish Cablegate.

If extradited to Sweden; still without charge, Juylian Assange would be held incommunicado and placed under solitary confinement. Pre-trial detention could last for an indefinite period. The trial in Sweden could be held in secret.

The Swedish legal system features lay judges who are appointed because of their political affiliation. They have no formal legal training.

Sweden has the highest per capita rate of cases brought to the European Court of Human Rights relating to article 6.1 (right to a fair trial)

In 2001 the Swedish government delivered two Egyptians seeking asylum to the CIA, which rendered them to the Mubarak regime, which tortured them.

The Swedish government has NEVER refused a request from America to render someone to them.

Irrespective of whether Assange is guilty or innocent of any sex crime, we all know this is not why Sweden and the UK are so desperate to get him there.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Irrespective of whether Assange is guilty or innocent of any sex crime, we all know this is not why Sweden and the UK are so desperate to get him there.

Here we go again with the conspiracies, eh Biff? :roll:

Except, and let me say this slowly for you. IT IS ALL FLUFF. I know you weally weally don't want this to be the case, but I'm afraid it is just that, FLUFF!

The UK received an extradition request. It was argued and judged competent in a magistrates court, the High Court and finally the Supreme Court. Assange's extradition request is probably the most argued and considered in English legal history, by a most competent and expensive legal team. He argued and lost at each level.

We have an independent judiciary. It was all fair and above board.

If you are really arguing that the UK goverment, in cahoots with the US government and bent Swedish prosecutors , engineered a political outcome from all three layers of our independent judiciary, then you really are even more deluded than you present. :lol:

Give it up biff - there are more genuine cases of miscarriages justice and oppression you could pick up. I'm being harassed by a charlatan private parking charge firm... and I reckon they have links to the CIA. Please help me.

 

[Flyfisher]

I'm being harassed by a charlatan private parking charge firm... and I reckon they have links to the CIA. Please help me.

Ah, much more interesting. Don't pay the chancers!
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/private-parking-tickets

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Thanks - yes, I'm well aware that they have no basis in law to pursue me. But I'm enjoying the sport just now with Civil Enforcement Ltd.

It's especially annoying as I have provided them with evidence that I was exempted from the charges anyway. We're at the stage of swapping threats of County Court cases... part of me wants to go to court. Graham Skier-Hughes of this parish had a similar victory today -and I fancy a day in court and then smacking them for my fees, charges and interest. Of course, we know it won't go that far; as soon as they realise I won't pay, they'll move on to easier prey.

I'm thinking of claiming political asylum in some embassy.... anyone care to suggest which??!!

 

[LadyArowana]

I'm thinking of claiming political asylum in some embassy.... anyone care to suggest which??!!

How about Brazil? but go to Rio in person rather than hiding out in the embassy. Of course it will mean swapping the esteemed Mrs Wiggs for a Brazilian girlfriend to provide you with another little Wiggs and a reason to fight extradition, but there is the added advantage of only having to wait 4 years for the next big Olympic partaaaaaay.

 

[Feltwell]

part of me wants to go to court. Graham Skier-Hughes of this parish had a similar victory today -and I fancy a day in court and then smacking them for my fees, charges and interest. Of course, we know it won't go that far; as soon as they realise I won't pay, they'll move on to easier prey.

I was quite disappointed when mine gave up, I was looking forward to court. Mrs F got the ticket whilst driving my car, so genuinely they had no case against me (and I was under no obligation to tell them who was driving). They even sent me through a photocopy of the (handwritten) court application documents with my name added on - when I checked online, they send the same photocopy to everyone they try to fleece! Parasites.

I'm thinking of claiming political asylum in some embassy.... anyone care to suggest which??!!

Sealand - they'll never find that embassy, you'll be safe there :wink:

http://www.sealandgov.org/

 

[biffvernon]

... you are really arguing that the UK goverment, in cahoots with the US government and bent Swedish prosecutors , engineered a political outcome from all three layers of our independent judiciary...

Exactly so.

If it came to trial and I was on the jury and presented with evidence thus:

However, in the case of Assange and AA, what we do know as facts that are already on the record are:

In all instances, the 3 plaintiffs consented to sexual intercourse, which they did not take the initiative to stop: they never expressed non-consent and afterwards declared to not have felt threatened by Julian Assange. Indeed, AA continued to see Julian Assaange, for four days after the alleged offence, including him continuing to stay at her flat and including engaging in further consensual sex with him.

After the date of the alleged sexual misconduct: a) Complainant AA created then deleted evidence (tweets) indicating that she was enjoying Julian Assange's company: b) AA went as far as suggesting one of her friends (Witness C) should be intimate with Julian Assange as well.

A condom submitted as evidence by complainant AA, who claimed it had been deliberately torn by Julian Assange during sexual intercourse, contains absolutely no chromosomal DNA from either the complainant or Julian Assange.

Text messages exchanged between complainants and their friends contradict the factual allegations in the European arrest warrant (EAW) issued for Julian Assange and so cast further doubt on the allegations.

It would be a no-brainer to say "Not guilty m'lud." And I would want to know why the case was ever prosecuted and why police forces, courts and governments around the world had spent millions pursuing the matter. It would be a no-brainer to come to the conclusion that the USA government did not approve of the publication of evidence pointing to war-crimes.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

If you are really arguing that the UK government, in cahoots with the US government and bent Swedish prosecutors , engineered a political outcome from all three layers of our independent judiciary, then you really are even more deluded than you present. :lol:

Exactly so.

I rest my case. :roll: :roll: :roll:

Let's move on.