I live in Europe, work in industry, and agree with Val.
Posted Dec 3, 2010 6:28 UTC (Fri) by njs (guest, #40338)
Posted Dec 5, 2010 16:12 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
Posted Dec 7, 2010 11:57 UTC (Tue) by jackb (guest, #41909)
I live in Europe
Coincidentally, did you notice that the crime he's being accused of only exists because of the radical feminist doctrine that women can retroactively withdraw consent? (men, of course, do not have this privilege)
Posted Dec 7, 2010 14:23 UTC (Tue) by vaurora (guest, #38407)
"The New York Times reported that the two women claimed that "each had consensual sexual encounters with Mr. Assange that became nonconsensual.""
Basically, they started have sex, she said, "Okay, time for the condom!", he said, "Condom, schmondom" and proceeded against her wishes. Sorry, folks, but even after everyone has taken off all their clothes and are getting all snuggly, it's still possible to commit rape. Just imagine any number of things you would not like to have done to yourself while naked in bed. Go on, I'm sure you can think of something. Now imagine your next sex partner decided to do them to you and wouldn't take no for an answer. Also imagine that your sex partner is bigger and stronger than you and a worldwide hero and that thousands of self-righteous internet commenters will come to their defense.
If you think this is an okay way to have sex, do, please, post your name and photo so we can avoid you just as assiduously as Julian Assange. Thanks.
Posted Dec 7, 2010 14:33 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
(Warning for those who don't have an istyosty plugin installed: It's a dailymail link, but this one is at least interesting, and its author claims to be basing it on the actual police charges, combined with talking to associates of those involved. The latter of course not infrequently turns out to be highly biased / unreliable, but the author at least seems to try to differentiate what info came from what kind of source).
Posted Dec 7, 2010 15:58 UTC (Tue) by foom (subscriber, #14868)
Posted Dec 7, 2010 16:36 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
Posted Dec 7, 2010 16:30 UTC (Tue) by vaurora (guest, #38407)
I'm afraid this doesn't change my disagreement with the original poster at all. No consent was withdrawn retroactively, it was not given at the time of the act.
Posted Dec 7, 2010 16:40 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
Posted Dec 7, 2010 16:47 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
Posted Dec 7, 2010 17:07 UTC (Tue) by jackb (guest, #41909)
It's a sham that only makes sense under the twisted ideology of "all men are automatically rapists".
Of course it's all geopoliticaly motivated but the incident does serve to illuminate just how outrageous those laws have become.
Posted Dec 7, 2010 17:33 UTC (Tue) by jake (editor, #205)
Posted Dec 10, 2010 12:15 UTC (Fri) by randomguy3 (subscriber, #71063)
What we have are courts to hear the evidence and come to a conclusion. Largely open courts, whose decisions can be scrutinised by the press and public.
Mr Assange is attempting to avoid the confrontation with the courts. He believes he is in danger of either a miscarriage of justice or extradition to the US. These things may be true, but the world will be watching carefully.
Anyway, this is something of a digression from the topic of the article, but your automatic assumption that the women involved must be lying simply because his arrest is convenient for various governments certainly won't endear you to other readers. And you are somewhat undermining your earlier argument about how the police are the right people to deal with issues at conferences given how little faith you apparently have in European legal systems.
Copyright © 2018, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds