[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
news

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 18964)
Message
File  []
close
assangecat.png
189641896418964
>> No. 18964 Anonymous
11th April 2019
Thursday 9:19 pm
18964 Assange Arrest
Here's the proper thread. To confuse future generations of .gs users I'm using this photo of his cat that was featured on the Guardian Live Blog.

From the sounds of it he was acting a bit of a tit within the embassy, playing footy indoors and arguing with staff, which didn't help, and while I'm sure he is a bit of a tit, I can't imagine keep sane being couped up like that for so long. However the US have leant on the Ecuadorians for some time now and this whole thing stinks. The shite Trump's coming out with about not knowing a thing about Wikileaks is on another level.
Expand all images.
>> No. 18965 Anonymous
11th April 2019
Thursday 9:32 pm
18965 spacer
He looked pretty rough in the photos. I rather suspect he's gone a bit potty, which probably contributed to him overstaying his welcome.
>> No. 18967 Anonymous
11th April 2019
Thursday 9:33 pm
18967 spacer
Cooped, as in a hen coop, not couped which isn't a word but could conceivably refer to being the subject of a coup.
>> No. 18968 Anonymous
11th April 2019
Thursday 9:38 pm
18968 spacer
>>18967
I mean't what I said and I sticking buy it.

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 18970 Anonymous
11th April 2019
Thursday 10:49 pm
18970 spacer
>>18965
He did look rough in the photos and there was no need to act up on the way out at that point - the poor lad has gone a bit mad. A couple of years in our jails, about five in a US one, they'll feel like a holiday camp compared to that fucking cupboard. I bet he stinks.

It was only ever going to end like this.
>> No. 18972 Anonymous
11th April 2019
Thursday 10:54 pm
18972 spacer
>>18964
>The shite Trump's coming out with about not knowing a thing about Wikileaks is on another level.

I just don't know where to start with this shitty bit of it. As if Trumps cuntery knows any bounds, it still made me gasp in horror / laugh to hear what he said today.
>> No. 18973 Anonymous
11th April 2019
Thursday 11:40 pm
18973 spacer
>The shite Trump's coming out with about not knowing a thing about Wikileaks is on another level.

He leaked Hilary Clintons Emails, quite probably for the Russians in a deal that trump was involved in, any denial of knowledge by Trump is an obnoxious attempt to play dumb because there was NO COLUSION.
>> No. 18974 Anonymous
12th April 2019
Friday 5:27 am
18974 spacer
>>18968
>grammar/spelling ban
Based mods.
Inb4 I'm banned for saying based.Inb4 I'm banned for saying inb4.I've been at a lock in, please be kind.
>> No. 18975 Anonymous
12th April 2019
Friday 7:59 am
18975 spacer

D36xHYCUIAEzHV8.jpg
189751897518975
WHIFFYLEAKS.

Also, why are the tabloids so obsessed with Meghan Markle?
>> No. 18976 Anonymous
12th April 2019
Friday 8:38 am
18976 spacer

12165446-6913485-British_fashion_designer_and_acti.jpg
189761897618976
Fucking hell, he looks on death's door since he shaved.
>> No. 18977 Anonymous
12th April 2019
Friday 10:50 am
18977 spacer
This has been planned for a while now. DOJ had a jet (N996GA) sat on the tarmac at Luton for bloody ages the other week, coinciding with a buildup of agents around the Ecuadorian embassy. The timing is also highly suspicious because the Australian Parliament has just broken up for a General Election, so the Australians can't make any noise about one of their own until that's all done and dusted and it'll be far too late by then, he'll be off to Langley or worse, Gitmo.

Plain and simple, the US have exerted pressure on both Ecuador and the UK to have this done now because the US Presidential election is coming up and Trump wants him out of the way. The whole thing stinks to high heaven. International law has been broken for sure.
>> No. 18978 Anonymous
12th April 2019
Friday 11:06 am
18978 spacer

President_Donald_J._Trump_at_the_G20_Summit_(44304.jpg
189781897818978
>>18977
Would the Aussies even care? The chap calling himself PM over there for past week or so is very, very right wing and has readily brown-nosed Trump.
>> No. 18979 Anonymous
12th April 2019
Friday 12:14 pm
18979 spacer
>>18977

He's only been arrested on the condition of a deal that he can't be extradited to any countries that torture or execute prisoners- i.e the US.

Seven years is a long time though lads, just think about what you were up to seven years ago. Now imagine that instead of anything that's happened since then, you'd spent the whole time trapped in a Travelodge, like a serialised ITV version of Oldboy.
>> No. 18980 Anonymous
12th April 2019
Friday 12:19 pm
18980 spacer
>>18979
It's not far off what I have been doing, honestly.
>> No. 18981 Anonymous
12th April 2019
Friday 12:22 pm
18981 spacer
>>18980

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rUHSr59ftI

On a side note, has Kunt stopped making music?
>> No. 18982 Anonymous
12th April 2019
Friday 12:22 pm
18982 spacer
>>18977
>International law has been broken for sure.
Go on.
>> No. 18983 Anonymous
12th April 2019
Friday 12:24 pm
18983 spacer
>>18981
Yes, that was back during year five or six of Assange's enclosure.
>> No. 18984 Anonymous
12th April 2019
Friday 5:17 pm
18984 spacer

vaCnMIu.png
189841898418984
I like how it looks like they've captured some kind of goblin. Also, what happens to his cat? I can't find an answer anywhere.
>> No. 18985 Anonymous
12th April 2019
Friday 7:34 pm
18985 spacer
>>18984
Where did you look? In your fridge?
>> No. 18986 Anonymous
12th April 2019
Friday 8:38 pm
18986 spacer
>>18984

That copper looks right smug, I'd love to see my boy Ted Hastings sit him down and give him his Regulation 15 notice
>> No. 18989 Anonymous
12th April 2019
Friday 9:34 pm
18989 spacer
>>18984
I've finally figured out who he reminds me of in these photos. It's George Galloway!
>> No. 18990 Anonymous
12th April 2019
Friday 10:59 pm
18990 spacer
>>18986

I think he's just trying to hold in the laffs from seeing the Brian Sewell biography in Arseange's hand.
>> No. 18991 Anonymous
12th April 2019
Friday 11:07 pm
18991 spacer

>> No. 18992 Anonymous
12th April 2019
Friday 11:34 pm
18992 spacer
>>18964
Anyone who would dress a cat in a shirt collar and tie like that is an obvious wrong'un, so I say we send him to jail for rape. Barry the Bumder is going to pound that Assange into oblivion.
>> No. 18995 Anonymous
13th April 2019
Saturday 8:31 am
18995 spacer

12210450-6917341-image-a-16_1555103553189.jpg
189951899518995
DIRTY DISHES? DIABOLICAL DEVIANT!
>> No. 18998 Anonymous
13th April 2019
Saturday 9:07 am
18998 spacer
>>18964
>Here's the proper thread
What was wrong with the original?

>>18977
You come across as quite alarmist. Manning did a worse crime than Assange and didn't end up in Gitmo. As the other lad said max sentence is 5 years.

>>18984
According to the Granuiad, it was taken to a shelter when it was clear Assange couldn't look after it.
>> No. 19000 Anonymous
13th April 2019
Saturday 9:16 am
19000 spacer
>>18998
The other thread was on /b/ for no reason other than the OP was daft.

Also Manning ended up in solitary confinment and denied access to the hormone therapies she should have been receiving given her transgender status. They completely mistreated her and I wouldn't trust the Trump government as far as I could throw the Oval Office, it's not a normal government so I don't entirely believe it can be trusted to act on precedent.
>> No. 19002 Anonymous
13th April 2019
Saturday 9:25 am
19002 spacer
>>18998
>What was wrong with the original?

Only a carpet-bagger needs a quick response.
>> No. 19003 Anonymous
13th April 2019
Saturday 9:36 am
19003 spacer
>>19002
>Only a carpet-bagger needs a quick response.

LOOK WHAT YOU HAVE DONE, MODS. LOOK WHAT YOU HAVE DONE WITH YOUR WORDFILTERS THAT RUIN RHYMES.
>> No. 19005 Anonymous
13th April 2019
Saturday 11:24 am
19005 spacer
>>19000
I doubt Trump will come down heavy on one of his stooges.
>> No. 19006 Anonymous
13th April 2019
Saturday 11:34 am
19006 spacer
>>19005
He was useful during the campaign, but now poses a risk. Imagine if someone slipped him some Trump tax returns. The Donald can't have that, can he?
>> No. 19007 Anonymous
13th April 2019
Saturday 12:43 pm
19007 spacer
>>19005
Really? Has the past three years taught us nothing?
>> No. 19008 Anonymous
13th April 2019
Saturday 2:10 pm
19008 spacer
>>19007
"Leave off Flynn, he's a good guy."

>>19000
Ok. I will be sure to point this out to people posting newsworthy material on /b/ in future.
>> No. 19009 Anonymous
13th April 2019
Saturday 2:58 pm
19009 spacer
>>18984
It's really tempting to photoshop a turban on his head on this pic. He'd make a mighty fine stereotypical daft militant wog.
The previous thread in /b/ mentioned Manning. Wasn't he pardoned? I think there was something in the works after he'd been given 35 years of prison.
>> No. 19010 Anonymous
13th April 2019
Saturday 5:54 pm
19010 spacer
>>18989
Does nobody else see it?
>> No. 19011 Anonymous
13th April 2019
Saturday 6:05 pm
19011 spacer
>>19009
Obama commuted her sentence to time served shortly before leaving office.
>> No. 19012 Anonymous
13th April 2019
Saturday 8:43 pm
19012 spacer
I've found a couple of sticky labels plastered around the area with FREE JULIAN ASSANGE on them. I'm tempted to add to them with my own saying WHEN YOU SPEND £500 AT IKEA.
>> No. 19017 Anonymous
13th April 2019
Saturday 10:47 pm
19017 spacer
>>19012

Palpable mirth. I encourage you in your art.
>> No. 19018 Anonymous
13th April 2019
Saturday 10:58 pm
19018 spacer
>>19012

Do it, and post it on That Twitter.
>> No. 19030 Anonymous
15th April 2019
Monday 8:16 pm
19030 spacer
>>19000

>nonsense about Bradley Manning

Absolute bollocks. Bradley only played the transgender card because he thought it would get him an easier time in prison and because it amused him to make them jump through the hoops. If you genuinely believe his transgender act, you're deluded.
>> No. 19031 Anonymous
15th April 2019
Monday 9:01 pm
19031 spacer
>>19030

If you think someone is willing to undergo hormone replacement therapy and request gender reassignment surgery for a laugh, then I suggest that you're the deluded one.
>> No. 19032 Anonymous
15th April 2019
Monday 9:06 pm
19032 spacer
>>19031
Not him but there have definitely been quite a few cases of male prisoners transitioning in order to move to female facilities. Safety aside, it ties up the authorities and allows for a break in the monotony. And if you're already mentally ill, why not decide you're a girl now?
>> No. 19033 Anonymous
15th April 2019
Monday 9:37 pm
19033 spacer
>>19032
Not him, but there have definitely been quite a few cases of men transitioning because they're actually trans.
>> No. 19034 Anonymous
15th April 2019
Monday 9:54 pm
19034 spacer
>>19033
Well that's the issue in a nutshell. Do they have a mental illness, or are they just pretending for the sake of their own benefit? There's no way of disproving somebody's trans when they keep going to the doctor and insisting they're actually a girl trapped in the body of a man destined for a male prison. Are you saying it's impossible anyone would ever do this out of self-interest, or because they were mentally ill in other ways?
>> No. 19035 Anonymous
15th April 2019
Monday 9:58 pm
19035 spacer
>>19034

And herein lies the rub. If trans actually was an actual medical condition, you'd be able to tell, and either go through with it or tell them "fuck off no you don't have transgenderism you prick."

But it's not.
>> No. 19036 Anonymous
15th April 2019
Monday 10:04 pm
19036 spacer
>>19034
>>19035
Here's an idea. You two can keep pretending that being trans isn't real, and the rest of us can accept reality, move on and leave you to it. Deal?
>> No. 19037 Anonymous
15th April 2019
Monday 10:09 pm
19037 spacer
>>19036
Nobody is 'denying' trans doesn't exist, like those curious people who think depression and anxiety are myths, or that ADHD is just children acting up. But yes, it is a form of body dysmorphia and so a listed psychiatric condition.
>> No. 19038 Anonymous
15th April 2019
Monday 10:13 pm
19038 spacer
>>19037
>Nobody is 'denying' trans doesn't exist
Besides those two posters up there, who are blatantly denying it.
>> No. 19040 Anonymous
15th April 2019
Monday 10:19 pm
19040 spacer
>>19038
I'm not denying it. But there is a difference between someone who has a genuine delusion and who requires medical attention, and someone who is just malingering. There is no diagnostic test for transgenderism beyond the patient's own insistence - hence why it's perfectly plausible that someone could pretend to be trans out of self-interest.
>> No. 19041 Anonymous
15th April 2019
Monday 10:23 pm
19041 spacer
>>19040
>There is no diagnostic test for transgenderism beyond the patient's own insistence
You know about 90% of illness is diagnosed on the basis of what the patient says and not on any other sort of diagnostic test? They don't use any sort of diagnostic test for appendicitis other than "does this hurt?" and they operate on that basis.
>> No. 19044 Anonymous
15th April 2019
Monday 10:55 pm
19044 spacer
>>19041
For some reason you're ignoring the fact that physical conditions can be verified by scans, biopsies, chemical tests and direct observation. Mental conditions often can't, which is no surprise since our understanding of the brain is dreadful compared to the rest of the body. Regarding your choice of example, people do often fake abdominal pain out of self-interest. Typically this is to score painkillers, more rarely it's a form of persistent malingering where a patient psychologically craves the care, attention and sympathy that results from being ill. In either case there are many other diagnostic measures that can be taken following a patient's complaint that they 'feel funny'.
>> No. 19045 Anonymous
15th April 2019
Monday 11:00 pm
19045 spacer
>>19044
And some people don't fake them but feel the symptoms regardless of what the tests say.
>> No. 19046 Anonymous
15th April 2019
Monday 11:01 pm
19046 spacer
>>19030 here

I'm not denying trans exists. I'm stating that in Bradley's case, he did it out of ulterior motives and not because he's actually trans.

The thing is, trans is a mental illness, but not on its own. It's like, I might play Grand Theft Auto and think "Oooh, imagine doing that in real life"...but I don't, because there's that little switch in my brain that says "You can't do that, it's against the law and there'd be consequences." It's the same thing with trans - it's the lack of that little switch in your brain that stops you doing stupid things or taking it too far. I sometimes wonder what it'd be like to have tits, or what sex is like from a woman's point of view, but I don't go out and get surgery to make it reality because I know I'm a bloke, that's how I was born. Trans isn't it's own thing, it's just one of many symptoms of the same core mental issue.

As a side note, every trans I've ever met and interacted has had a fucking awful personality and clearly had other underlying mental issues which they've obviously attributed to 'being the wrong gender' without seeking proper help and lo and behold, they've changed gender and their mental issues are still there. But now they have that extra chip on their shoulder because they assume that everyone else is transphobic, when in reality it's their toxic personality that's putting people off.

Thank heavens for Darwin, that's all I can say. Natural selection will weed out the mentally ill and the transgenders
>> No. 19047 Anonymous
15th April 2019
Monday 11:05 pm
19047 spacer
>>19037

Trans medically and scientifically doesn't exist. It is a political term. The medical position is that it is a form of body dismophia a psychological illness where a person feels alien in their own body. Where the medical position is to augment that persons body so they feel more comfortable psycholically.

'Trans' isnt a thing either it is 3 distinct political / social terms that are distinctly different.

Transvestite a person who wears clothes designed for the other sex
Transsexual a person who identifies as a sex different from what the genitals they were born with dictate.

Transgender a political term invented by post structuralist to challenge the idea that sex and gender are linked in an argument to win the nature vs nurture debate with scientific realists about behaviour differences between the sexes, by arguing that gender is just a taught trait.

The reason I bring this up is that in a previous thread this shit came up someone said Eddie Izzard had transitioned and no one called them on their bullshit. Given he is just a man who likes wearing women's clothing.

If you think I'm being picky tell a trans women they are just a male who's chosen the gender women (the transgender position) and see how they react.
>> No. 19048 Anonymous
15th April 2019
Monday 11:32 pm
19048 spacer
>>19045
I don't understand your point. Acute idiopathic pain exists, but it's rare and hardly the first port of call for a diagnosis. Are you saying that the role of a doctor is to believe the patient in all cases, even when objective means of diagnosis exist? I can assure you you'd be a very popular doctor in prison if that's the case!

>>19046
That hasn't been my anecdotal experience. The only trans person I know is a close childhood friend who has always had a lovely personality, though I'd be the first to admit they've always been very odd, long before they started mentioning their gender dysphoria. It does make me understand why tempers can flare over this sort of thing. They're a logical enough person but I know it'd be cruel to tell them their identity is a psychiatric disorder. I think it's important to play along to a certain extant in order to spare their feelings.
>> No. 19049 Anonymous
15th April 2019
Monday 11:38 pm
19049 spacer
>>19046

As a consultant in the software industry, I've been lucky enough to meet a lot of charming and brilliant trans people.

>>19047

Your first paragraph more-or-less contradicts itself. Gender Dysmorphic Disorder is a recognised medical condition, for which the recommended treatment is gender realignment (i.e. transition).
>> No. 19050 Anonymous
15th April 2019
Monday 11:47 pm
19050 spacer
>>19046
>I'm stating that in Bradley's case, he did it out of ulterior motives and not because he's actually trans.
Which is functionally equivalent to denying the legitimacy of transfolk.
>> No. 19051 Anonymous
16th April 2019
Tuesday 12:07 am
19051 spacer
Are we seriously doing the whole trans thing again?
>> No. 19052 Anonymous
16th April 2019
Tuesday 12:27 am
19052 spacer
>>19050

It's not though, is it, you clod. It's denying the legitimacy of Bradley's trans-ness.
>> No. 19053 Anonymous
16th April 2019
Tuesday 12:52 am
19053 spacer
>>19050

No, it isn't. It's simply saying that in *this particular instance* the transgenderism is not legitimate. In the same way that if you call out, say, a disability benefit fraud, you are not saying that all disability benefit claimants are frauds.
>> No. 19055 Anonymous
16th April 2019
Tuesday 3:19 am
19055 spacer
>>19051
Of course we are. One of the mods is a tranny.
>> No. 19056 Anonymous
16th April 2019
Tuesday 5:59 am
19056 spacer
>>19055

That explains a lot, tbh
>> No. 19057 Anonymous
16th April 2019
Tuesday 7:33 am
19057 spacer
>>19053
But you're not calling out a disability benefit fraud. You're seeing someone in a wheelchair and reflexively claiming without further evidence that their claim is a fraud. That's nothing to do with the particular instance at hand, it's straight up prejudice.
>> No. 19058 Anonymous
16th April 2019
Tuesday 8:27 am
19058 spacer

sa.png
190581905819058
I don't think Shaun's really a midget, unless he stood on a box for this photo.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6448ZwG1JAU
>> No. 19059 Anonymous
16th April 2019
Tuesday 8:36 am
19059 spacer
>>19058

3:23

I liked when he called them scamps but I'm not sure it was the word he was looking for.
>> No. 19060 Anonymous
16th April 2019
Tuesday 8:46 am
19060 spacer
Skanky tramp portmanteau.
>> No. 32686 Anonymous
24th March 2021
Wednesday 5:20 pm
32686 spacer

fantastic.jpg
326863268632686
Bump for guardian readers and anyone who needs help working out if the media are just a bunch of #^@*$

Yes he's still in jail, what did the guardian, Guardians of the hard drve, do with all the information again ?
>> No. 32694 Anonymous
24th March 2021
Wednesday 6:54 pm
32694 spacer
>>32686
The cunt word isn't banned here, lad. Quite the the opposite, in fact.
>> No. 32695 Anonymous
24th March 2021
Wednesday 6:59 pm
32695 spacer
>>32694

I'll be given admin access for calling everyone cunts?
>> No. 32737 Anonymous
25th March 2021
Thursday 6:39 pm
32737 sage
>>32694>>32695

Thank you both for your keeping your replies short and sweet.

Also thanks for the heads up about call everyone here a bunch cunts, as it could land you an admin job.

I did look for a half man half biscuit t-shirt picture, about avoiding work, yet as always the internet let me down. So I(op) fail to deliever. Shocker
>> No. 32740 Anonymous
25th March 2021
Thursday 6:56 pm
32740 spacer

Annotation 2021-03-25 185540.jpg
327403274032740
>>32737

This one?
>> No. 32741 Anonymous
25th March 2021
Thursday 7:22 pm
32741 spacer
>>32686

GCHQ made them cut it up with an angle grinder. I think it's on display in the V&A. When GCHQ tell you to do something, either you do it or they do it and you go in the red bag. You do not want to go in the red bag.
>> No. 32774 Anonymous
26th March 2021
Friday 8:58 pm
32774 spacer
>>32740
Young uns don't know what the DHSS is anymore, they need to rerelease with 'Back in the JobCentre Plus'. Except the original reference won't scan either since nobody listens to The Beatles. Bear with me, I'll come up with something then you chaps can go record it.
>> No. 32841 Anonymous
29th March 2021
Monday 7:34 pm
32841 spacer
>>32740
No mate, It said "35 years of activetly avoiding work". It was not the last tour, the one before it.
>> No. 32842 Anonymous
29th March 2021
Monday 7:35 pm
32842 spacer
>>32741

Try replying to your post early today, late just say it got 404'd
>> No. 35410 Anonymous
28th September 2021
Tuesday 2:28 pm
35410 spacer

ca-timesbrightspotcdncom.jpg
354103541035410
https://news.yahoo.com/kidnapping-assassination-and-a-london-shoot-out-inside-the-ci-as-secret-war-plans-against-wiki-leaks-090057786.html

>In 2017, as Julian Assange began his fifth year holed up in Ecuador’s embassy in London, the CIA plotted to kidnap the WikiLeaks founder, spurring heated debate among Trump administration officials over the legality and practicality of such an operation.

>Some senior officials inside the CIA and the Trump administration even discussed killing Assange, going so far as to request “sketches” or “options” for how to assassinate him. Discussions over kidnapping or killing Assange occurred “at the highest levels” of the Trump administration, said a former senior counterintelligence official. “There seemed to be no boundaries.”
>> No. 35411 Anonymous
28th September 2021
Tuesday 3:11 pm
35411 spacer
>>35410
The American government have really ruined Edward Snowden's chances at getting rich on the after-dinner speaking circuit.
>> No. 38245 Anonymous
20th April 2022
Wednesday 12:48 pm
38245 UK court approves extradition of Julian Assange to US
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/apr/20/uk-court-approves-extradition-of-julian-assange-to-us

>A court has formally approved the extradition of Julian Assange to the US on espionage charges, in what will ultimately be a decision for the UK home secretary, Priti Patel.

>The Wikileaks co-founder, who has the right of appeal, appeared by videolink during the Westminster magistrates court hearing, which one of his barristers described as a “brief but significant moment in the case”.


It's not looking good for him at this point.
>> No. 38246 Anonymous
20th April 2022
Wednesday 1:09 pm
38246 spacer
>>38245
Does it ever look good for anyone when Priti Patel gets involved? He's going to be fed to dogs like in North Korea.
>> No. 38247 Anonymous
20th April 2022
Wednesday 1:53 pm
38247 spacer

dogmeat.jpg
382473824738247
>>38246

>He's going to be fed to dogs like in North Korea.

Not to get too technical, but it's usually the other way round in that part of the world.
>> No. 38248 Anonymous
20th April 2022
Wednesday 2:24 pm
38248 spacer
What would happen if Biden were to pardon him?
>> No. 38249 Anonymous
20th April 2022
Wednesday 3:16 pm
38249 spacer
>>38248
Then he'd be pardoned. But what on earth would motivate Biden to do that?
>> No. 38250 Anonymous
20th April 2022
Wednesday 4:35 pm
38250 spacer
>>38248
My head would explode such would be the force of my immense and overwhelming suprise.
>> No. 38251 Anonymous
20th April 2022
Wednesday 4:54 pm
38251 spacer
>>38248

Well, you'd probably see dozens of spineless journalists do an instant U-turn on their positions regarding Assange, followed by a flood of unbearable pieces about this being proof of Biden's benevolence and the US being a fundamentally moral force in the world.

The Guardian would then proceed to contort itself into an ever more incoherent position by claiming they supported Assange all along, but he still definitely probably certainly a confirmed rapist anyway and deserved his treatment, but also they supported him by publishing his leaks and absolutely do not regularly go squealing to the UK authorities so they can promptly destroy such leaks.

What I'm saying is, journalists are beneath only those working in marketing on the totem pole of cunts.
>> No. 38252 Anonymous
20th April 2022
Wednesday 5:50 pm
38252 spacer
>>38251

>The Guardian would then proceed to contort itself into an ever more incoherent position by claiming they supported Assange all along

Do they not already support him?
>> No. 38253 Anonymous
20th April 2022
Wednesday 6:39 pm
38253 spacer
>>38252

Absolutely not. There have been some fairly half-hearted calls not to extradite like the Owen Jones piece ("whatever you may think of Assange"...), but the bulk of the court case has been covered in embarrassingly little detail across the board, including The Guardian.

The Guardian shamelessly towed the line on the Swedish sexual assault "charges" (that were never actually formal charges, as I understand it, even though the press described it this way -- he was never arrested and the entire thing looks incredibly shady, with the women wanting to drop the case quite early on). Following that, The Guardian gleefully joined the pile-on as his mental health deteriorated in the Ecuadorian embassy, and the paper openly made fun of his supposedly paranoid delusions about extradition to the US -- now fully vindicated of course -- all while sharing barely a word on a UN Special Rapporteur describing Assange's being forced to hole up there as effective torture.

They were also supposedly aware of the ongoing espionage against Assange but sat on it, and then leaned hard into the ludicrous attempts to connect Assange directly to one of Trump's aides and "Russiagate", which turned out to be fabrication: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy

If you're lucky, you'll find Monbiot or Jones tweeting mealy-mouthed messages about how Assange shouldn't be extradited, while failing to recognise any of the above and more often than not sheepishly deleting them later.

Fuck them. Fuck them. Fuck them.
>> No. 38254 Anonymous
20th April 2022
Wednesday 6:42 pm
38254 spacer
>>38252
They're agnostic on Assange as far as I know. Some people just love to hate the Guardian.
>> No. 38255 Anonymous
20th April 2022
Wednesday 8:08 pm
38255 spacer

FQNoyfKXwAE9od-.jpg
382553825538255
>>38254

Well, there's a lot to hate, especially where Owen Jones is concerned. Originally I despised him because of his wanky first-year Uni Student Iconoclasm, but he is apparently a really nasty little shit.
>> No. 38256 Anonymous
20th April 2022
Wednesday 8:10 pm
38256 spacer
>>38254
Not who you're replying to but nah, he's right. Fuck those self serving hypocritical cunts. They'll be some amongst the ranks who are supportive of Assange (even if they're not being vocal about it) but the overall editorial tone and output makes quite clear that as an organisation they couldn't give a fuck if he rots.

So indeed, fuck them.
>> No. 38259 Anonymous
20th April 2022
Wednesday 10:51 pm
38259 spacer
>>38255
Has Private Eye really been reduced to reporting what's happening on Twitter?
>> No. 38260 Anonymous
20th April 2022
Wednesday 10:54 pm
38260 spacer
>>38256

The Guardian under Viner is a fundamentally different institution to The Guardian under Rusbridger.
>> No. 38261 Anonymous
21st April 2022
Thursday 12:29 am
38261 spacer
>>38255
That's fuck all. He slagged her off on Twitter and she's doing that thing where people act like mean tweets are magic harassment spells. For the record I can't remember the last time I read a Jones piece and I tend towards thinking all columnists should be exiled somewhere brutally hot or cold and out of WiFi range. Like Hell.

>>38256
I'm not saying I wholly disagree that they ought to be more pro-Assange, or at least anti-extraditing him. However, when The Mail and The Sun all but dictate government thinking and The Telegraph and Express run endless propganda for the Conservatives, I find it hard to criticise The Guardian as a whole. Their climate reporting is the best out of any big paper, and they were the first, as far as I know, to start calling it a "crisis" not a "change". It was a couple of their reporters who first uncovered former MP Owen Paterson's dodgy relationship Randox, the fallout from which has obviously been massive. I also like their recipes section and listening to The Football Weekly while I walk the dogs. I don't really know what else you expect of a paper, and as for the lad who constantly goes on about how "*sigh* back in Rusbridger's day all this used to be fields", I don't know what halcyon past you lived through, but feel free to catch me up. That cunt's working for Facebook last I heard anyway, so he can't be that principled.
>> No. 38262 Anonymous
21st April 2022
Thursday 12:42 am
38262 spacer
>>38261

Well, call me cynical mate, but this kind of says it all. If you're a posho there's the Graun, if you're a prole there's the Mirror, and those are the two remaining bastions against total conservative hegemony of the mainstream press.

I do agree that those bints are just trying to tear Based Ojo down for showing them up, though. He should have known better, being a white male in the age of today's day and age, going and mansplaining all over their faces. Just imagine when we're in our 60s and he's one of the old guards with a reputation as an old commie crank like Jezza. It hardly bears thinking about really.

Just let the climate crisis happen honestly, it'll hurt their profits more than it hurts people like you and me who have fuck all anyway. Or are you one of the people who does have fuck something? In which case fuck you anall.
>> No. 38263 Anonymous
21st April 2022
Thursday 2:33 am
38263 spacer
>>38259
>>38261
If you look at what she's actually complaining about, she's getting annoyed that Owen Jones dared to call her out for trannie-bashing.
>> No. 38264 Anonymous
21st April 2022
Thursday 6:55 am
38264 spacer
>>38263
From what I vaguely remember at the time, it was something fairly innocuous by Hadley Freeman that caused Owen Jones to start calling her a bigot because he disagreed with her. It might have been about whether trans-women should stand on Labour's all-women shortlists.

IIRC, it has been noted in the past that Owen Jones is a lot more civil with male journalists than female journalists when they each share the same view (which he disagrees with).

Anyway, it's given Suzanne Moore the opportunity to stick her oar in.

https://unherd.com/2022/04/how-the-guardian-enables-owen-jones/

https://unherd.com/2022/02/why-i-stopped-being-a-good-girl/
>> No. 38265 Anonymous
21st April 2022
Thursday 8:23 pm
38265 spacer
>>38264
>it was something fairly innocuous
>whether trans-women should stand on Labour's all-women shortlists.

Something something long-standing issues.
>> No. 38266 Anonymous
21st April 2022
Thursday 8:54 pm
38266 spacer
>>38265

Think about it though m8. All of this stems from the fact we still waste so much of our time pretending to care about women's issues, whatever those are in the 21st century first world west.

Think about it logically. If we would all stop pretending, and just go back to much more honestly rolling our eyes and thinking "I'm probably more adept at climbing a tree than somebody like you not this bollocks again, how many fucking times" every time a woman moans about something, these bitter old TERFs would instantly lose all of their leverage. Give them an inch and they'll take off your arm.

It's time men just re-grew a backbone and pulled the world back into reality. Stop bending over for moaning old bints and their trivial nonsense. We've got bigger issues to deal with.
>> No. 38267 Anonymous
21st April 2022
Thursday 11:38 pm
38267 spacer
>>38266
So deal with them then.
>> No. 38738 Anonymous
17th June 2022
Friday 10:35 am
38738 spacer
>UK approves U.S. extradition of WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-approves-us-extradition-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-2022-06-17/

Assenge's the name, getting tortured is the game. I'm sure Patel will get a plane to take off this time.
>> No. 38739 Anonymous
17th June 2022
Friday 10:52 am
38739 spacer
>>38738

And so the plot thickens.

Should've gone to Russia, like Edward Snowden.
>> No. 38740 Anonymous
17th June 2022
Friday 1:31 pm
38740 spacer
It would be great if people could stop pretending that this rapist provocateur was some kind of journalist whose only crime was releasing information.

Should have gone to Sweden, mate.
>> No. 38741 Anonymous
17th June 2022
Friday 1:39 pm
38741 spacer
>>38738
Will the CIA sissify him like they did with Manning or will they come up with an even more cruel and unusual form of punishment?
>> No. 38742 Anonymous
17th June 2022
Friday 2:04 pm
38742 spacer
>>38741
Now that would be a challenging wank.
>> No. 38743 Anonymous
17th June 2022
Friday 2:28 pm
38743 spacer

34970728-ee41-11ec-b94c-0242ac110002.jpg
387433874338743
>>38742
>> No. 38744 Anonymous
17th June 2022
Friday 2:29 pm
38744 spacer
>>38743
Wouldn't. Sorry, Jules.
>> No. 38745 Anonymous
17th June 2022
Friday 3:56 pm
38745 spacer
>>38740

>that this rapist provocateur was some kind of journalist

I'll give you that he was stretching the definition of journalism. But you have apparently no idea how easy it is to frame somebody under Swedish rape laws. Not defending rapists, Swedish or otherwise. But if you're accused of rape in Sweden, eight times out of ten you're shit out of luck proving your innocence.
>> No. 38749 Anonymous
17th June 2022
Friday 4:47 pm
38749 spacer
>>38745
>But if you're accused of rape in Sweden, eight times out of ten you're shit out of luck proving your innocence.
Have you tried not raping people?
>> No. 38750 Anonymous
17th June 2022
Friday 6:49 pm
38750 spacer
>>38749

In any other country, you'd have a perfectly valid point, but Sweden is (to my knowledge) the only country where retroactive withdrawal of consent is legally valid and grounds for prosecuting someone as a rapist.

So that's kind of the whole thing. In Sweden you can have perfectly consensual sex, and then the person you had consensual sex with changes their mind about having fucked you two weeks later, and then you become a rapist in the past.
>> No. 38751 Anonymous
17th June 2022
Friday 7:22 pm
38751 spacer
>>38750
A solid argument, let down only by the minor detail that you made it all up and none of it is actually true.
>> No. 38753 Anonymous
17th June 2022
Friday 8:31 pm
38753 spacer
>>38751

The problem with Swedish rape laws is that there needs to be no proof of force or coercion. Yes, it's quite possible that somebody wasn't forced or coerced as such, either physically or emotionally, and still didn't want to have sex with you. But here's the thing, what if you as the person initiating the act were given no signs at all that any reasonable person would have understood as a refusal to have sex with you at that moment? It's not just that somebody, let's call them the victim for argument's sake, may have let it happen without telling you to stop. What if they literally said yes, out of what reasonably seemed to you as free will, but deep down didn't really want to fuck you. Or they can indeed change their mind weeks after you had them between the sheets. How are you supposed to be able to tell, or even predict something like that.

Fine, I'm a lad, and it's usually more women who might just let a sex act happen instead of telling their bloke they don't want to that night. But I can remember a few shags where I didn't feel like shagging a lass all that much and went through with it anyway. Did that make me a victim of unconsensual sex?

And we're not talking about somebody being so pissed out of her skull or high on drugs that she doesn't remember her own name when you ask her if she wants to fuck you. That an incapacitated person cannot consent to sex is a given and there is nothing wrong with that. No, Swedish law makes it possible, as otherlad said, that somebody can simply change their mind long after the act and suddenly accuse you of rape. This may not be the law's raison d'être, but it throws the doors wide open to this kind of thing. And then you will pretty much have no defence at all.
>> No. 38754 Anonymous
17th June 2022
Friday 10:06 pm
38754 spacer

0s4ud0ht3y931.png
387543875438754
>>38753
>I didn't feel like shagging a lass all that much and went through with it anyway. Did that make me a victim of unconsensual sex?
Sounds like.
>> No. 38755 Anonymous
17th June 2022
Friday 10:15 pm
38755 spacer
>>38751

Except it is.
>> No. 38758 Anonymous
18th June 2022
Saturday 12:57 am
38758 spacer
>>38753
>The problem with Swedish rape laws is that there needs to be no proof of force or coercion. Yes, it's quite possible that somebody wasn't forced or coerced as such, either physically or emotionally, and still didn't want to have sex with you.
I'm not sure I get the part why this is a "problem". If someone doesn't have sex with you, and you carry on with it anyway, that's rape. This isn't rocket science.

>But here's the thing, what if you as the person initiating the act were given no signs at all that any reasonable person would have understood as a refusal to have sex with you at that moment?
"I didn't encounter any resistance so I just ploughed on" doesn't sound much like you got consent.

>No, Swedish law makes it possible, as otherlad said, that somebody can simply change their mind long after the act and suddenly accuse you of rape.
Yes, that's what otherlad said. No, it's not actually true. You know, there are these wonderful websites where you can type in words and it'll tell you things about it. You can ask them for information on Swedish law on sexual offences and notice how literally nowhere does anyone credible claim that this is a thing.

Have several fucking words with yourself, lad. I'd ask you to think about maybe not becoming a rapist but it sounds like you might already be one several times over.
>> No. 38759 Anonymous
18th June 2022
Saturday 2:18 am
38759 spacer
>>38758

I don't know why you think it's worth coming to one of the most niche and thoroughly nerdy image boards on this hemisphere of the internet just to make posts as eye-rollingly predictable as this, but you need to up your game, sunshine. I can't even be arsed having a cunt-off when you put so little effort in.
>> No. 38761 Anonymous
18th June 2022
Saturday 2:51 am
38761 spacer
>>38758

>I'm not sure I get the part why this is a "problem". If someone doesn't have sex with you, and you carry on with it anyway, that's rape. This isn't rocket science.

Under the ancient principles of English common law, a crime requires two elements - mens rea (guilty mind) and actus rea (guilty act). You have to do something wrong, but you also have to know (or should be reasonably expected to know) that you're doing something wrong. If either element is missing, it isn't a crime.

It's wholly reasonable to argue that someone was criminally negligent if they had sex with someone who is obviously not consenting. It is not reasonable to argue that either you should be telepathically capable of inferring whether someone is consenting, or all sexual acts should be conducted with both parties continuously chanting "I consent to this act" throughout like some weird tantric ritual. Even in the latter case, under Swedish law a plaintiff could legitimately argue that although they were constantly providing affirmative consent, they didn't actually mean it.

Swedish rape laws nullify both mens rea and actus rea. Someone who fully believes that they are engaging in consensual sex and has no possible reason to believe that the act is non-consensual can nonetheless find themselves on the wrong side of the law. They have created an offence which exists wholly within the perception of the victim, regardless of the observable facts or the intent of the supposed perpetrator.

It's as if I could give you a tenner and then later decide you stole the tenner from me because I didn't really want to give it to you. I wasn't coerced or tricked, I was in my right mind, I made it perfectly clear that I was giving you a tenner of my own volition, but nonetheless you are a thief because I changed my mind. You are guilty and have no defence in law, because I say so.
>> No. 38762 Anonymous
18th June 2022
Saturday 3:21 am
38762 spacer
At the risk of derailing a fascinating discussion of Swedish law on a board that surely has more convicted sex offenders from outside England than Swedish language speakers, I feel obliged to post a reminder that the charges made against Assange had nothing to do with the ability to retroactively withdraw consent. (And so far as I can tell, if that is part of Swedish law now, it wasn't back then.)
>> No. 38764 Anonymous
18th June 2022
Saturday 11:39 am
38764 spacer
>>38762

> I feel obliged to post a reminder that the charges made against Assange had nothing to do with the ability to retroactively withdraw consent.

Assange was charged with one count of having unprotected sex with a woman without her consent to having uprotected sex, which was then argued was a complete lack of consent. The other count was that he penetrated another woman who was asleep at the time.

I'm not going to argue that somebody who is asleep can give consent, because obviously they can't. And even if somebody generally enjoys sleeping with you as you're in a romantic relationship with them, you can't just have their way with them while they're not awake and assume that you've got a free pass. But it again gets tricky when you accuse somebody of maybe pulling off his condom before he penetrates you, unbeknownst to you. If that's really what happened, then yes, that's illegal even under UK law, for the obvious reason that there are ramifications if you have sex with somebody unprotected and must be given the chance to actively consent or refuse.

But how do you prove it. Even if you go straight to a hospital after you had sex and have them do a full vaginal exam, all they can attest to is that you have someone's spunk up your minge. Maybe they will find traces of condom lubricant, but who's to say that the two of you didn't decide in the heat of passion to do it without a condom after all. It may not strike many people as probable, but it is possible.

This would pose the obvious problem that even if somebody did slip off their condom against your will, it's their word against yours. But the argument goes both ways, in that somebody can theoretically simply state that you had sex with them unprotected against their will while they were under the assumtion that you still had your condom on.

Force or coercion tend to be easier to prove, especially if there was physical force involved. Yes, a bruise on someone's thigh or even around their private area could have come from some sort of accident while the two of you were at it consensually, but more often than not, it's a strong indication that illegal force or coercion was involved. Likewise, if force or coercion were objectively absent and there are no physical indications of either, it should normally go towards exonerating a defendant.

But if you remove the requirements of force and/or coercion from a rape charge, then what defence can you possibly hope to have, even if, or maybe especially when your sexual partner very literally told you they wanted to have sex with you, but then later just changed their mind. Again, I'm sure that law wasn't meant to be a free for all to have anybody nicked for a rape that never happened, but there seem to be no safety mechanisms to prevent an entirely innocent person from being prosecuted and sent to prison under that law.
>> No. 38766 Anonymous
18th June 2022
Saturday 12:13 pm
38766 spacer
>>38764
How do you explain 95% of reported rapes in Sweden failing to result in conviction?
>> No. 38767 Anonymous
18th June 2022
Saturday 12:14 pm
38767 spacer

PUTSOMETHINGONTHEENDOFIT.jpg
387673876738767
>>38764

Yeah, Assange's one was, if I recall correctly, more of a misinformed consent rather than withdrawn consent.

I absolutely agree that misinformed consent ultimately means non-consensual, but as I've argued before, I think there needs to be a seperate category to "rape" for such things. The word rape covering such a broad rage of different kinds of offense is unhelpful. Bit like murder and manslaughter or whatever.

Of course, we all know what the prevailing social attitude is to a man who gets "raped" in such a manner, don't we.

Anyway the thing is that's not what any of the conversation around any of this is about, is it. It comes down to two camps of people: One camp which believes in the concept of innocent and proven guilty and that overly trigger happy laws will lead to false convictions, which is overall worse than letting a potential rapist go unpunished; and another camp which believes increasing rape prosections at any costs is desirable to get justice for victims, because women never ever lie, and sometimes even goes as far as saying that false convictions are a price worth paying for the overall good.

If we're going to have this debate I think we should all be fully intellectually honest and argue not over the technicalities of a specific case but in a bigger picture philosophical manner over why you sit in the former or latter of those camps.
>> No. 38768 Anonymous
18th June 2022
Saturday 12:19 pm
38768 spacer
>>38766

I'm not sure where you got that number, but does it seem entirely impossible to you that someone makes up rape charges?

I'm not talking about somebody who actually got raped. I'm saying that as with any crime, there needs to be evidence. I'll acknowledge that evidence can be difficult to establish when a crime solely hinges on verbal assurances or lack thereof, but you can't just convict somebody on a hunch that they may have done something.

There are other equally or more serious offences like murder or grievous bodily harm where we wouldn't accept a lack of concrete evidence, and rightly so.
>> No. 38769 Anonymous
18th June 2022
Saturday 12:32 pm
38769 spacer
>>38768
There's not a court in the world that would convict a man of rape if both parties agree that verbal consent was provided during the act but the woman later regretted it. You're talking absolute bollocks.

A minute ago you were saying it's impossible for a man to exonerate himself by proving what was said in private. Yeah, it is. Now you say the onus should be on the accuser to prove what was said. Yes, it should. And it is. And that's why nearly all rape accusations go nowhere.

Here's my citation by the way. You'll have to muster the intellect to read past the headline and also employ division. (2019 numbers)

https://www.thelocal.se/20200616/how-swedens-new-consent-law-led-to-a-75-rise-in-rape-convictions/

Fun fact, make of this what you will: most people convicted of rape in Sweden aren't European. I'd speculate that much of the increase in convictions can be explained by ignorance of the law and people self incriminating.
>> No. 38772 Anonymous
18th June 2022
Saturday 12:57 pm
38772 spacer
>>38767

>One camp which believes in the concept of innocent and proven guilty and that overly trigger happy laws will lead to false convictions, which is overall worse than letting a potential rapist go unpunished;

I had this exact conversation with the wife of a good friend who is a dyed in the wool fisherperson, to the point that I wonder if she shits purple turds. Anyway, she said, well, even if a man is fasely convicted of a rape, he still goes free again if either he is proven innocent after all or in some cases if the real rapist is found. So I said, no, you're essentially arguing that it is okay to lock somebody up, potentially for many years, who either didn't commit a rape or was misidentified as an attacker in the first place. You're destroying someone's life who shouldn't spend a single day in jail at all. While, by chance, the real rapist may still be at large and hurt more people.

It's true that the requirement of evidence beyond reasonable doubt to convict somebody of a crime can lead to unsatisfactory results in a court of law. Murderers and rapists, but also fraudsters will occasionally go free. On the other hand, in most countries, rape and murder have very long statutes of limitation, if they expire at all. So not just technically, a murderer or rapist can be brought to justice years after their crime, when there is by whatever turn of events new evidence to convict them after all. So why drag an innocent person into it, just so you'll have somebody to pin a crime on. The latter is the way a lot of law enforcement in the U.S. functioned for decades, especially in rural areas or urban areas with many minorities. It's only now with DNA sequencing being abundantly available that many of these prisoners are exonerated, some of them having spent three or four decades locked up for something they never did. Is that the way our justice system should function here in the UK?


>because women never ever lie, and sometimes even goes as far as saying that false convictions are a price worth paying for the overall good.

Two things there though; both men and women have lied egregiously about all sorts of crimes in court since time began. Why should it be impossible for somebody to make up rape charges for whatever motive, if just to damage somebody's reputation or to exact revenge.

Also, I don't know if Sweden still does this, but for a while, men (and only men) accused of rape got their written criminal charges mailed to them in a distinctive red envelope which was only used by authorities for this purpose. It goes without saying that if somebody saw you receive a red envelope like that, your reputation as such either on your street or in your block of flats was ruined beyond repair. I remember reading that one of the politicians who came up with this measure was asked if that wasn't fraught with problems, especially if either somebody was mailed such an envelope by sheer mistake, or if their rape charges were later found by a court to be completely unfounded, and they said that that was ok, because men needed to acknowledge their "collective guilt" in facilitating a climate of rape culture in Sweden.

We wouldn't accept this for any other crime, or if any other segment of the population was targeted. You wouldn't send a red envelope containing criminal charges to foreign immigrants only and when asked if it's ok that they could get that envelope by mistake or could even be innocent, you wouldn't get away with saying immigrants needed to acknowledge that a lot of their kind commit crimes here.
>> No. 38773 Anonymous
18th June 2022
Saturday 1:03 pm
38773 spacer
>>38769

>There's not a court in the world that would convict a man of rape if both parties agree that verbal consent was provided during the act but the woman later regretted it. You're talking absolute bollocks.

You're misunderstanding my point. Yes, obviously, regret after the fact doesn't constitute a lack of consent. If you were to bring a case like that before a court, it'd get thrown out in less than five minutes. But the point isn't if somebody says they consented but later regretted it, but if somebody consented, to the point that you could reasonably assume they meant it during that moment, but later that person says in court that they never did.

As Swedish rape law stands, the doors are wide open for that to happen. Even if somebody told you to fuck their brains out loud and clear, you could still be at their mercy because they could very simply end up telling a court that that never happened, and that you bonked them against their will.
>> No. 38775 Anonymous
18th June 2022
Saturday 2:43 pm
38775 spacer
>>38773
What a surprise, the first case study I found involves the accused presumably pleading not guilty but having admitted to conduct that's now illegal.

https://www.thelocal.se/20190712/negligent-rape-has-swedens-sexual-consent-law-led-to-change/

Just don't admit to doing sketchy shit. Especially if you haven't done sketchy shit. It's not hard and your screeching that women are empowered to have any man they sleep with carted off to prison is absolutely bizarre.

Spend less time on r/thesissify or wherever the fuck you're getting this nonsense from.

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password