Te Reo Putake3.1
Er, ‘holed up’ is a perfect phrase to descibe Assange’s attempt to avoid facing justice. When chased, rats do tend to ‘hole up’.Morrissey3.1.1
Er, ‘holed up’ is a perfect phrase to descibe Assange’s attempt to avoid facing justice. When chased, rats do tend to ‘hole up’.
It’s the perfect phrase if you’re in the business of black propaganda, as the British regime is. You should apply for a fee for acting as their uncritical mouthpiece.- ‘Black propaganda’. Is that a new euphemism for sexual assault?
- “Black propaganda’. Is that a new euphemism for sexual assault?”No, it means a sustained programme of lying, defamation and character assassination. It’s the kind of thing that mad Maoists, Stalinists and Trotskyists did in the 1960s, and ex-Trots like this fool did until his sudden demise last year…
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvSke9PqXuaXkM0RudvPD7hpB3kX2QgsuxX7rsOp4oXCIexTEh6t5gsJgLvnbBDE4AOdjRdUMq4qe13IEpbgWaW0OFp6_pj9i_woj3SeyvkVrpFPgD1EH1-TdeKcRZMPjMD1sGc-smG_TV/s400/Christopher+Hitchens+and+atheism.JPG
- ERRATUM
“…until his sudden demise last year…”
Apologies for the error. I should have written “…until his long-drawn-out and public demise last year.”
Please correct your print-outs. McFliper3.1.1.1.1.2
Oh – like what several Assange supporters have been engaged in, from “sex by surprise” to “illegal to have unprotected sex” and so on.
Thanks for the clarification.- ‘Oh – like what several Assange supporters have been engaged in, from “sex by surprise” to “illegal to have unprotected sex” and so on. Thanks for the clarification.’You obviously need help with a lot of things—like we all do. But I think you know perfectly well that a dissenter and his supporters pouring scorn on false accusations is stratospherically different from the full machinery of state, plus its ancillary organs like the totalitarian “liberal” media and their uncritical consumers, engaging in a campaign of character assassination.
- Nice words, Mozza. The problem is that the accusations don’t appear to be false at all. What Assange himself has admitted about his sexual behaviour tends to make the accusations look very likely to be true. Just to wind you up further, I think that even if the Americans said they intended to extradite him from Sweden and Sweden also agreed to change their laws to allow it, I still think Assange should face his accusers. The hypocrisy of championing transparency and openness while hiding from both is shameful.
No means no. And being a celebrity is no guide to guilt or innocence, nor a defence in court, as operation Yewtree shows all too clearly.- 1.) “Nice words, Mozza.”
Nothing “nice” about them at all. Simple facts, unadorned—that’s all.2.) “The problem is that the accusations don’t appear to be false at all.”
Argument by continued assertion of an already discredited accusation. That’s not the most convincing rhetorical strategy, my friend.3.) “What Assange himself has admitted about his sexual behaviour tends to make the accusations look very likely to be true.”
So the guy was (is) a superstar who suffered the galling indignity of having young women throw themselves at him. You can pretend to be disgusted, as his state accusers do, if you want. But whether or not you despise him for behaving like a rock star, you need something better than the unconvincing, in fact discredited, allegations that the state has forced these young women to make.4.) “Just to wind you up further,”
Don’t flatter yourself, my friend. I’m not the one hyperventilating about the fact that the U.K. regime has failed dismally in its attempt to prove it’s worthy of its junior partner status by handing a dissenter over to the tender mercies of the world’s worst rogue state.5.) “I think that even if the Americans said they intended to extradite him from Sweden and Sweden also agreed to change their laws to allow it, I still think Assange should face his accusers. The hypocrisy of championing transparency and openness while hiding from both is shameful.”
That’s fascinating logic. It could have been used against any fugitive from any rogue regime in history. All those hypocritical partisans in the Serbian hills and all those resistance fighters taking refuge in French forests during World War II should, following your reasoning, have openly and transparently handed themselves over to the authorities. (I’m not joking, by the way—and, more worryingly, it seems you are not joking either.)
6.) “No means no.”
It certainly does. And no evidence means no evidence. You can rage and threaten to break all international treaty laws, as the U.K. and U.S. regimes have done in their zeal to exact revenge on this dissenter, but when you have no evidence, you have no evidence. Unless, of course, you follow the loon’s logic that all sexual intercourse is rape.7.) “And being a celebrity is no guide to guilt or innocence, nor a defence in court, as operation Yewtree shows all too clearly.”
Julian Assange is a journalist and a political dissident and the hero of many young women, who want to sleep with him; Jimmy Savile was a third-rate comedian who forced himself on young girls. The BBC has been instrumental in acting as a conduit for false government accusations against Assange, just as it acted as a conduit for young girls for the old paedophile.You’re trying to suggest that Assange and Savile are comparable, somehow? Does Assange tell unfunny jokes and grope women on camera?
- Ooooh, I think I heard a figurative penny dropping in Mozza’s head while that last paragraph was being written!Just to make it easier for you, Moz, yes, I do think there are some similarities between the two. One is a discredited celebrity who used his fame to have sex with the willing and the unwilling. The other is dead.
- “One is a discredited celebrity who used his fame to have sex with the willing and the unwilling. The other is dead.”
Hell, Te Reo, surely you can do better than that. Who wrote that joke for you? Jimmy Savile? - One is a discredited celebrity who used his fame to have sex with the willing and the unwilling. The other is dead.*snort*
- The imperialist character assassination of Assange should not be ‘likened’ to that of ‘mad’ Maoists, Stalinists of Trotskyists. They are of a very different order. The US is the no 1 global terrorist that dominates the world. Assange understands that. The Stalinist/Maoist dictators were not ‘mad’ but negotiating their survival with imperialism. Trotskyists never got themselves in to a position where they could conduct genocides and suffered purges and insignificance. Recognising this Hitchens made a career move to become a black propagandist for imperialism. There are liars, major liars and hegemonic liars.
- That’s the shizzle
vto3.1.2
“When chased, rats do tend to ‘hole up’.”And rats only ever get chased for good reason eh.Why on earth would you trust the british system? And if you do so trust it then how does the Leveson enquiry and its findings around politicians and police fit into that?- wasn’t the Leveson enquiry part of the English system?
- Probably. So then trust the british system but not the english system ………… lol
- One would be a complete moron to assume any system is perfect.
But when it gets to be 2 people + 3 or 4 courts vs 1 person’s word, on the balance of probabilities and without clear indications to the contrary I tend to be cool with suggestion that there might be a case to answer.- Fair enough. But I’m not getting at whether the system is perfect or not in a technical sense. It is about corruption. It is about the interest the USA government has in the case (like dotcom here and our government was corrupted all over the place – police, GCSB, Prime Minister). It is about whether the britishenglish system bends itself to demands beyond its mandate.And everyone knows it does. The leveson enquiry is an indicator.
- And on the flipside, everyone also knows that some nice-looking guys who do some very good things in other aspects of their lives commit sexual assault or rape and then deny it to the nth degree.
A prime example being Muzza’s St John post (if at all accurate).
- Spoken like a True Believer. Folks like you did very well in Russia in the 1930s—until they found themselves consumed by the same state machinery they had enthusiastically championed.
http://lyndonlarouche.org/doctors-plot.gif- Folks like you did very well defending their local troop leader or deacon when those horrible allegations were made by those nasty delinquents.
- No I did not. When there’s ample evidence, corroborated by dozens, often hundreds of independent testimonies, none of whom has been coerced or inveigled into filing a false complaint, I support prosecution.
When there is not a skerrick of evidence, but the state still presses forward with the persecution of a dissenter, it’s an entirely different matter. I do not support that. You, on the other hand, have chosen to align yourself with the state apparatus of persecution and disinformation, for some reason.- Actually, I’ve sided with women who made a complaint, oh and ” British justice, which has been and is a real benefit to humankind”.
But your point seems to be that we should wait until their are dozens or even hundreds of complainants before Assange should answer questions in a court?
And to think you seemed to regard the Savile comparison as unfair. Colonial Weka…
It’s unfortunate that this needs to be pointed out, but often when women are raped there is no evidence beyond what they say.
- “wasn’t the Leveson enquiry part of the English system?”
I think you have (perhaps unwittingly) conflated British justice, which has been and is a real benefit to humankind, with the British state, which is often the polar opposite of that.- oh, okay, because it was the British justice system that decided Assange had a case to answer in Sweden.
- Again, you’ve confused British justice with the British state. You seem to think that Virtue and Goodness resides in the state and vice versa. It’s the same way that Stalin’s followers used to think, and that Israel’s supporters think today.
- So when you talk about “British justice”, what are you talking about?
The rules for cricket?
Or the system of legal precedence and tradition of Crown accountability that is entrenched in legislation going back to the Magna Carta and enforced by a system of courts and circuit judges to provide consistency in legal interpretation across the nation?- “Or the system of legal precedence and tradition of Crown accountability…”
Yes. It’s called the Law. You know, that thing that the British and U.S. governments are so frustrated by.- Law without courts is wishful thinking. Like your baseless assumption that Assange is definitely, without a skerrick of a doubt, innocent.
- “Law without courts is wishful thinking.”
Wishful thinking is that I’ll win Lotto tomorrow night. That the British government must observe the law is not a matter of wishful thinking, it’s a requirement. Either Britain is a rechtstaat or it’s a rogue state—like it threatened to be when it was contemplating the crime of invading the Ecuadorian embassy.“Like your baseless assumption that Assange is definitely, without a skerrick of a doubt, innocent.”
I’ve never said Assange is an angel. He has obviously enjoyed the attentions of some of his young admirers. But his accusers and persecutors are charged with backing up their charges with credible evidence. They have failed utterly.- And who holds the British government to account? The courts.
The same courts that decided during the extradition hearing that Assange’s accusers had actually demonstrated that he has a case to answer.
I repeat: the system that ensures the British government follows its requirement to obey its own laws also disagrees with your assessment that Assange’s accusers have failed to provide credible evidence. - “And who holds the British government to account? The courts.”
No. The people holding the British government to account are the likes of Julian Assange. Which is the reason for the massive mobilization of state propaganda against him. - So Assange is now a fundamental part of the British justice you hold in high regard, but the British courts are not?
Ever get the feeling you’re making shit up as you go along?
- “I think you have (perhaps unwittingly) conflated British justice, which has been and is a real benefit to humankind, with the British state, which is often the polar opposite of that.”Yes. We have the exact same problem here in NZ and the best recent example of that is Collins shenanigans.
xtasy…
Collins’ summer holiday reading choice: “Mein Kampf”!
Dr Terry3.1.3
TRP. Then you are telling us that you are holed up?
Wednesday, 17 January 2018
Melissa Davies, TV3’s substandard “London correspondent” (Dec. 14, 2012)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
TV3 Sunrise, Friday 14 December 2012, 7:28 p.m.