Judge approves Assange extradition

**larvidchr** · 17-08-2012, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by setaputra

Originally Posted by dobella

Originally Posted by setaputra

Please get the facts right. He has not even been charged . He is wanted for questioning. And the previous case was thrown out by the Swedish courts. And there has been no fresh evidenced. It was re-opened only after the wikileaks broke. Big coincidence, isn't it?

Ok, nitpicking are we ? - the pussy wont confront the allegations.
Does that sound better to you ? - the egotistic motherfucker cannot rule the world with impunity.

Not nitpicking. The facts are
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

Patino has no legal expertise

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.

Do wake up.

**dobella** · 17-08-2012, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Patino has no legal expertise 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.

Nice one, but boy ...... can this Patino fool talk.... i never saw him take a drop of water for 40 mins. or more.
Equador is back on the map but for all the wrong reasons.

**kingwilly** · 17-08-2012, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by buriramboy

Originally Posted by Sir Wilson

Originally Posted by buriramboy

There is NO chance that Britain will storm will the Ecuador embassy, but that wasn't my point.

Originally Posted by buriramboy

hence you are obviously unaware of the law that entitles them to do just that and the British government have implied they will do just that,

So which statement is correct Buribums?

They both are troll boy, i know you do struggle to keep up but i have a few minutes to waste so i'll explain to you again, Britain are legally entitled to storm the embassy in these circumstances and wrote a letter to Ecuador basically threatening to do just that. Then last night Hague said they wouldn't storm the embassy. Which subject is your degree in again???

If England were never going to storm the embassy, why threatened and imply they would? Caused a right old mess for nothing.

And who said I had a degree?

**buriramboy** · 17-08-2012, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by Sir Wilson

Originally Posted by buriramboy

Originally Posted by Sir Wilson

Originally Posted by buriramboy

There is NO chance that Britain will storm will the Ecuador embassy, but that wasn't my point.

Originally Posted by buriramboy

hence you are obviously unaware of the law that entitles them to do just that and the British government have implied they will do just that,

So which statement is correct Buribums?

They both are troll boy, i know you do struggle to keep up but i have a few minutes to waste so i'll explain to you again, Britain are legally entitled to storm the embassy in these circumstances and wrote a letter to Ecuador basically threatening to do just that. Then last night Hague said they wouldn't storm the embassy. Which subject is your degree in again???

If England were never going to storm the embassy, why threatened and imply they would? Caused a right old mess for nothing.

And who said I had a degree?

So you're a teacher without a degree, explains a lot. Obviously they were trying to put pressure on Ecuador with the letter they wrote, you're really not to bright are you????

**dobella** · 17-08-2012, 05:01 PM

OK everyone, let us boil it all down.
Julian wants the whole world to know everything about everything.
Well i had a shit today around 11. am and it was not to runny, a little firm in places.
Wise up you liberal numpty's, the guy is not doing it for the worlds' benefit, he is on a massive ego trip that has backfired big time.

**kingwilly** · 17-08-2012, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by buriramboy

So you're a teacher without a degree, explains a lot. Obviously they were trying to put pressure on Ecuador with the letter they wrote, you're really not to bright are you????

Yeah, great pressure, it's backfired on them though, whoever was advising them to do that was not too bright. (Notice the double o? Don't feel bad classic mistake for the uneducated).

**billy the kid** · 17-08-2012, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by dobella

he is on a massive ego trip that has backfired big time.

that's about it.

**buriramboy** · 17-08-2012, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by Sir Wilson

Originally Posted by buriramboy

So you're a teacher without a degree, explains a lot. Obviously they were trying to put pressure on Ecuador with the letter they wrote, you're really not to bright are you????

Yeah, great pressure, it's backfired on them though, whoever was advising them to do that was not too bright. (Notice the double o? Don't feel bad classic mistake for the uneducated).

ROFL at troll boy resorting to picking up on spelling mistakes now, do you actually have anything constructive to add to the topic at hand or you just here trolling as per usual???

**kingwilly** · 17-08-2012, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by buriramboy

Originally Posted by Sir Wilson

Originally Posted by buriramboy

So you're a teacher without a degree, explains a lot. Obviously they were trying to put pressure on Ecuador with the letter they wrote, you're really not to bright are you????

Yeah, great pressure, it's backfired on them though, whoever was advising them to do that was not too bright. (Notice the double o? Don't feel bad classic mistake for the uneducated).

ROFL at troll boy resorting to picking up on spelling mistakes now, do you actually have anything constructive to add to the topic at hand or you just here trolling as per usual???

The first 2 out of 3 lines are about the topic mate, for someone who carries on about comprehension all the time you do seem to struggle a bit.

**Latindancer** · 17-08-2012, 06:14 PM

It 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")

. 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 :

Originally Posted by OhOh

Nobody seems to remember that the prime accuser of Julian Assange – Anna Ardin in Sweden – used to work for extreme anti-Castro publications funded by the CIA.

And what was he doing hanging around with HER, anyway ?
.
.
.

**OhOh** · 17-08-2012, 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by buriramboy

Obviously not being the brightest tool in the box, you may find the following link a bit hard to understand, but give it a go and you'll see there is a law in place that would allow the British Government to storm the embassy under these circumstances, so it seems the one spouting is crap is you and of course Willy.

Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987

Once again dipshit you fail to provide any evidence of the law which allows armed forces to storm the embassy.

You quote a law inferred by the UK CPL as relevant but have not actually pointed to the relevant clause, as usual.

**dobella** · 17-08-2012, 08:10 PM

^ The British government added a clause to immunity of diplomats after the Libyans shot dead a woman police officer in the eighties.
No need to show you the full detail, if you are really interested then google Yvonne Fletcher murder Libya.

**OhOh** · 17-08-2012, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by Latindancer

And what was he doing hanging around with HER, anyway ?

No due diligence at 2am I suppose.

**OhOh** · 17-08-2012, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by dobella

^ The British government added a clause to immunity of diplomats after the Libyans shot dead a woman police officer in the eighties.
No need to show you the full detail, if you are really interested then google Yvonne Fletcher murder Libya.

Not to the law that dipshit BB and to the one the CPL quoted.

The actual law is available for any to read as I and dipshit BB have provided links. I have read the link and found no relevant clause. Dipshit BB quotes it but may not have read it. He certainly hasn't quoted any relevant clause. As usual he is pissing in the wind. It of course may be there but until it is pointed out to me it is both you and dipshit BB who fail 101 comprehension.

Which you have failed to show any revisionary clause, as of yet. You point to wiki as a fact source.

As dipshit BB you are pissing in the wind.

**slackula** · 17-08-2012, 08:27 PM

I can't be bothered to read the whole thread but it would be a lot easier to feel sympathy for Assange if he wasn't such a self-promoting dickhead.

The goals of Wikileaks weren't a bad idea imho but he seems unable to resist the temptation to make any story about himself and start attention whoring.

I saw a few of his interview programs on RT and they were feeble; watching him lob stupid questions at his guests and then cackling at the answers was as about as informative as watching Sean Hannity interview Sarah Palin.

**OhOh** · 17-08-2012, 08:29 PM

^Spoken from the mouths of babes - I cant be bothered to ......, but here is my considered opinion.

I am presuming the poster has the right to vote. No wonder the world is as it is.

**slackula** · 17-08-2012, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by OhOh

^Spoken from the mouths of babes - I cant be bothered to ......, but here is my considered opinion. I am presuming the poster has the right to vote. No wonder the world is as it is.

Not quite sure what your point is there. OO

My right to vote was taken away from me about 25 years ago (and not because I had committed any crime), but I think I am still able to make comments on stuff on a web board..

**dobella** · 17-08-2012, 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

I can't be bothered to read the whole thread but it would be a lot easier to feel sympathy for Assange if he wasn't such a self-promoting dickhead

A god summation.

**dobella** · 17-08-2012, 08:40 PM

^ missed the o out in 'good'.

**slackula** · 17-08-2012, 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by dobella

^ missed the o out in 'good'.

It's OK, I'll try not to let the god bit go to my head!

**OhOh** · 17-08-2012, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

but I think I am still able to make comments on stuff on a web board..

If you think, which I feel may be a dubious statement, you would probably need to understand the question. Otherwise your ability to "comment on stuff" is seriously questionable.

**buriramboy** · 17-08-2012, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by buriramboy

Obviously not being the brightest tool in the box, you may find the following link a bit hard to understand, but give it a go and you'll see there is a law in place that would allow the British Government to storm the embassy under these circumstances, so it seems the one spouting is crap is you and of course Willy.

Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987

Once again dipshit you fail to provide any evidence of the law which allows armed forces to storm the embassy.

You quote a law inferred by the UK CPL as relevant but have not actually pointed to the relevant clause, as usual.

I did warn that not being too bright that you may find it a bit hard to follow, so i'll try to make it a bit easier for you although i feel i'll be wasting my time, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 permits the revocation of the special status of a building if the foreign power occupying it "ceases to use land for the purposes of its mission or exclusively for the purposes of a consular post". Are you following yet or do i have to rephrase it using smaller words????

**dobella** · 17-08-2012, 09:26 PM

^ 5* for trying mate but think the 2 words 'brick and wall' come into mind here.

**slackula** · 17-08-2012, 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by OhOh

If you think, which I feel may be a dubious statement, you would probably need to understand the question.

Where is the question in your response to my post? Inform me where it is and I'll try to reply. To be clear here is what you posted:

^Spoken from the mouths of babes - I cant be bothered to ......, but here is my considered opinion.

I am presuming the poster has the right to vote. No wonder the world is as it is.

Your "considered opinion" was an emoticon? Oh well, I am sure it took you a while to choose the right one.

**OhOh** · 17-08-2012, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by buriramboy

the revocation of the special status of a building if the foreign power occupying it "ceases to use land for the purposes of its mission or exclusively for the purposes of a consular post"

Which obviously to most intelligent people the Ecuadorian government has no intention of doing.

Which negates the claim by you and the UK CPL that they have any authority to "storm the embassy" and kidnap anyone.

I of course may have missed the statement that the Ecuadorian Government has informed the UK that it wishes to "cease using the embassy".

The UK law, once again, does not allow for the host nation - the UK to storm any embassy.

The other international treaty and laws accepted by the UK and the other countries are signatory to does not allow for the host nation - the UK to storm any embassy.

Or you suggesting that now that Assange is staying there it has now become a Hotel and that the town and country planning laws of the area have been broken ?

Thread: Judge approves Assange extradition

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions