Printable View
My intention was to highlight that you feel qualified to "comment on stuff" without reading the thread. But hey you aren't the first to jump in like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by quimbian corholla
I also assumed that before you "comment on stuff" you consider your response, which again may be an error on my part.
^. I hope for you that you get to suck his cock before the nice gang affiliates in the US jail system do,
You love this egoistic piece of shit dont you ?
So although I have been following the case since the onset you would like to reject and ridicule my opinions because I didn't read through 6 pages of web board arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
Got it.
As i thought i'd be wasting my time trying to explain something that is really quite easy to understand to someone who has dug himself into a corner and refuses to acknowledge he is wrong. It's all there in black and white for you explaining how Britain has the legal right to storm the embassy and arrest Assange if they desire although they have now said they won't, whether you chose to accept the law as it is written and the FACTS is your perogative, but you are making yourself look a bit of a kok at the moment, so you may want to have a think before bashing your keyboard in reply.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
Nope, what I find appalling is the attitude of some the posters here who continually use derogatory statements as some kind of defence. That they are unable to construct a response to the topic under discussion and fail to respond when they are shown to be misinformed.Quote:
Originally Posted by dobella
Nice to see you do irony.:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
You have yet to quote the clause which allows the UK government to "storm the embassy".Quote:
Originally Posted by buriramboy
You have access to the published/written law, which clause allows for the "storming of the embassy"?Quote:
Originally Posted by buriramboy
You have access to the published/written law, which clause allows for the "storming of the embassy"?Quote:
Originally Posted by buriramboy
If the shoe fits you wear it.Quote:
Originally Posted by buriramboy
"We will not allow Mr. Assange safe passage out of the United Kingdom," British Foreign Secretary William Hague said at a press conference. "Nor is there any legal basis for us to do so. The United Kingdom does not recognize the principle of diplomatic asylum."
I find this an extraordinary statement.
.
.
.
Geez you are hard work, i have posted the law and the relevent clause for you, it's all there in black and white, if you are still struggling to understand it perhaps you have a friend with an IQ of higher than 50 who you could ask for help in getting you to understand what is really quite simple. Obviously i won't be holding my breath for you to finally see the light but stranger things have happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
If "diplomatic asylum" became the norm, when a murder or less is committed, the piece of crap who did the act would run to the nearest "friendly" embassy and... work it out for yourselves.
Correct, or should posters not ridicule other posters on a web site?Quote:
Originally Posted by quimbian corholla
If you dozed of you clearly can't comment on what he said. Let's face it you're too thick to understand as your posts show.Quote:
Originally Posted by dobella
Nothing in the Act you have or the UK CPL has quoted, enables them to "storm the Embassy".Quote:
Originally Posted by buriramboy
Do a simple "find" on the Act and come back with the clause which includes the words "storm the embassy".
Until you do you are shown to be the dipshit you are.
Probably something to do with the fact he is in a foreign embassy claiming political asylum when as far as i know he isn't being persecuted for his political beliefs in Britain nor will he be in the country (Sweden) that wants him extradited. So there is no basis for his claim for political asylum and Ecuador are abusing the purpose of their embassy in trying to prevent the judicial system running its course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latindancer
He quoted from International Law which even Hague did not challenge. Hague is quoting only the DCP of 1987. You are not up to speed on the legal side or the implications and are way out of your depth. Do you think you are some sort of judge or lead barrister. You are a fool. Wake upQuote:
Originally Posted by larvidchrPatino has no legal expertise:mid: nor is he an Authority or has any say on the legal matter between Assange -Sweden and the British supreme court, he is not an unbiased part but a player with an agenda, he is Ecuador's Dictators foreign minister and is dutybound to try to gloss over the crap the Dictator have gotten them into FFS.Quote:
Originally Posted by setaputraNot nitpicking. The facts areQuote:
Originally Posted by dobella
1. He has not been charged
2. The judges threw out the case originally. There is no fresh evidence
Your last sentence shows your bias in stark contrast to the facts. Lose an argument and your only response is to flame.
Listen to the legal argument put forward by Petino. Or do you not know who he is. There is a very good gardening thread on TD if you can't keep up
Do wake up.
Fucking persackly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daft Old Cat
You seem a bit obsessed with the word 'storm', is this your attempted get out to try and save a bit of face??? 0/10 for effort there.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
Let me put it in laymans terms for you, in the law which i kindly posted for you which you were obviously struggling to comprehend so i then even posted the relevent clause for you which you still can't come to terms with for some reason, which i find quite bizarre presuming you are a native English speaker as i just got my 9 year old daughter to read it and even she gets the gist of it, so here goes for a final time, if an embassy is using its premises to do naughty things, then those big bad policeman have the right to enter to stop said embassy being naughty boys.
You signed up to the forum or did your wife/partner for you you pussy.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
If you cant take criticsm for your liberal pussy views i suggest you fuck off to la la land where everything is rosy.
Have a nice day mate.
You are right but most on this forum want to be judge and jury and don't understand the facts or the law. He was originally cleared by the Swedish justice system and with no new evidence there should never have been a trumped up extradition request. Everyone is conveniently ignoring that. Because of course they have no answer but to keep on flaming.Quote:
Originally Posted by LatindancerIt would be interesting to see how much of this would have happened to some other ordinary Australian guy who went to Sweden and had the same things happen to him with two other women.
I can understand Assange being very wary of a possible US extradition request. There have been various other people who have been "done over" by the US at various times....though I admit the only case I have read about in detail was that of Howard Marks ( who wrote "Mr Nice") :rolleyes:. And there were some pretty nasty things done by the US there. All they need to do is get some overzealous ex-farm boy on Assange's case and he'll be history. Currently he has internet access, but give them a chance and the US will mire him in endless court shit and keep him out of action for as long as possible. I think JJ Cale summed up the mentality quite well in one of his songs :
If you're ever in Oklahoma
You better move around the law
They got fines and they got plenty
They'll hold you up for days on end
Threaten your life and take your money
Make you think you're there to stay
This part (if true) seems very suspicious to me :
And what was he doing hanging around with HER, anyway ?Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
.
.
.
You need to take that mirror away from your keyboard.Quote:
Originally Posted by setaputra
Errrm i think it is you trying to be judge and jury by trying to imply the British judicial system are incompetent and got it all wrong and know nothing about the case they have been presiding over when all along all they needed to do was just give you a call and you would have informed them of the correct judgement to make.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by setaputraYou are right but most on this forum want to be judge and jury and don't understand the facts or the law. He was originally cleared by the Swedish justice system and with no new evidence there should never have been a trumped up extradition request. Everyone is conveniently ignoring that. Because of course they have no answer but to keep on flaming.Quote:
Originally Posted by LatindancerIt would be interesting to see how much of this would have happened to some other ordinary Australian guy who went to Sweden and had the same things happen to him with two other women.
I can understand Assange being very wary of a possible US extradition request. There have been various other people who have been "done over" by the US at various times....though I admit the only case I have read about in detail was that of Howard Marks ( who wrote "Mr Nice") :rolleyes:. And there were some pretty nasty things done by the US there. All they need to do is get some overzealous ex-farm boy on Assange's case and he'll be history. Currently he has internet access, but give them a chance and the US will mire him in endless court shit and keep him out of action for as long as possible. I think JJ Cale summed up the mentality quite well in one of his songs :
If you're ever in Oklahoma
You better move around the law
They got fines and they got plenty
They'll hold you up for days on end
Threaten your life and take your money
Make you think you're there to stay
This part (if true) seems very suspicious to me :
And what was he doing hanging around with HER, anyway ?Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
.
.
.
Dobella. You are an embarrassment. You can't write in English. Your posts don't make sense. You do not understand the issues. You can't debate or argue a point. Good at flaming though, I give you that.Quote:
Originally Posted by dobella
Is diplomatic immunity retroactive?
What if Ecuador gave him citizenship and then appointed him to some diplomatic job, would that stop the UK from arresting him on his way to the airport?
Are you suggesting the Ecuadorian embassy is being used in such a way?Quote:
Originally Posted by buriramboy
Still no clauses which state "storming the embassy".:confused: