@Mark V: What a ridiculous statement, are you feeling alright?

@Jointheclubtoo: Investigative journalism is already a thing of the past.

@Jointheclubtoo: Nothing should ruin the industrial military complex profits… Even the truth.

@Mark V: Rape?? Have you read the Bloody story? He’s accused of having consensual sex with a woman but not informing her he is not wearing a condom

@Garry Coll: most journalists are now activists with absolutely no objectivity & proud of it.

@Mark V: Low IQ individual

@Mark V: It’s an allegation of rape. He has has not been convicted of any offence so is as entitled as anybody else to walk freely.

@Mick.: No, what Swedish Prosecutor is stating is that European Arrest Warrant dictates that Assange cannot be extradited to a 3rd country on foot of that warrant – meaning cannot land in Sweden and get extradited to the US instead of getting questioned over the allegations of rape that the arrest warrant seeks. It means that the Swedish case has priority and, after the Swedish case is dealt with, he can be extradited to the US.

And we now know for that the US wants to extradite him. We know now of the secret court case that accuses Assange of offering to help Chelsea Manning to break a password for a US government computer network (potential 5 years sentence). Assange’s help was not needed in the end, Manning got access anyway and as a result we discovered US war crimes e.g.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstrike

No one was prosecuted for this.

Also, since Assange was never arrested for the allegations against him (because the Swedish prosecutor refused to travel to the UK to interview Assange in the embassy), Assange has no rights as a suspect. He has no right to see the evidence against him, no right to see potential exculpatory evidence that could help prove is innocence.

@David Jordan: We both know the the US have a far better chance of extradition from the UK with their “Special Relationship” on security matters than they would with Sweden. And that the US have already approached the UK about extradition. So extradition from Sweden would be an unnecessary complication unless Assange was found Guilty and Sentenced to Prison time in Sweden. In which case the US would have to make a fresh application to the Swedish authorities and run it through Swedish Courts.

@David Jordan: Wrong. The UK will ultimately make the decision on weather he will be extradited to the US as Mick stated in his first post.

@Mick.: Mick, there is no actual physical rape claim. The charge against him is that he intentionally removed his condom during intercourse. That us not a rape crime in any other country that I know of in Europe. You pedal the rape suggestion to make out he physically forced the victiim to have sex with him. That is sick.

@Stephen Ryan: “The UK will ultimately make the decision on weather he will be extradited to the US as Mick stated in his first post.”

Assuming this is true, what do you think the UK’s decision might be? Will they deny extradition? I very much doubt it.

The UK spent £24 million policing the embassy he was hold up in, do you seriously believe this is about weather or not a condom was used during sex?

The US wants his head over Wikileaks, the UK and Sweden are obediently dragging case this out as long as possible so he spends as much time in jail before his ultimate extradition to the US on charges of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion – for offering to crack one computer password.

@David Jordan: His prison time in the UK is entirely of his own making. He was granted Bail, while his extradition case was making its way through every court in the UK, he then chose to abscond when the final decision from the UK Supreme Court ruled against him, as such was found to be in contempt and Sentenced to 50 Weeks imprisonment.
Had he returned to Sweden 7 years ago he may have been charged and sent for trial or cleared of all charges and released to go on his merry way. Only recently have the US made a formal request from any Jurisdiction for Assange, and that is to the UK Authorities. Now that Sweden have reopened the investigation (It was not closed due to lack of evidence according the Swedish State Prosecutor, but because at the time it seemed unlikely that he would be in custody in the foreseeable future) it will remain to be seen if Sweden formerly charge Assange. In which case if they do, he will have his day in court and his legal team will have every chance to cross examine the Prosecution witnesses.
Now there seems to be some doubt being cast over the freedom of the Swedish Judicaries ability to make judgements outside of political interference. Yet nobody has so far been able to back up this aspersion with any evidence.

@Brian Mardle: do you think if a woman asks you to wear a condom and you go ahead and have sex with her without one that it’s OK? Because you should not engage in sex if that is the case.

@Mick.: Correction. If you have sex with a woman in Sweden without a condom laws there see this as rape full stop.

@Brian Mardle: I suggest you read what you write before you post. If you had in this case you would see just how stupid your second statement is. If that was the case the birth rate in Sweden would be virtually non existent and the those couples that did, one partner would be in Prison.
The Law is about “Consent”. If one person does not consent or has conditions on that consent and they are not met then it is “Non Consensual”. Now both women agreed to have sex with Assange with the proviso that he was wearing a condom. This he did not do. Therefore he broke the agreement with both women had about the intercourse and thus was “Non Consensual”. Its not that hard to understand.
What you want to believe is that this is all a “Set Up” and that Assange could not possibly do anything wrong.

@SFNutters: Obviously you can’t have sex with a woman without a condom if she doesn’t consent to it. My point is that in Sweden if you have sex with a women without a condom and with her consent then it is rape. That is my POINT !!!!!

@Dell: no I don’t think that. Read my previous reply

@Mick.: they consented to sex without a condom and then went boasting about how they just had sex with him on social media

@Brian Mardle: Says who? Assange!!! Two women who prior to the News breaking on the original charge did not know of each other make the same complaint to the Police. Against his word, knowing that an admission would lead to a criminal record for sexual assault.
The was a Fly on the Wall documentary done about Assange that aired a few weeks ago after his expulsion and arrest. In it Assange was complaining about the Swedish extradition request (prior to his bail jumping) and in he stated this. “If I were the Swedish Prosecutor, I would settle for me apologizing to the two women concerned and consider the matter settled”. Now in that statement he is admitting to wronging both women. It is an admission of guilt.

@Mick.: Miss W is the woman who is taking her case against Assange, involving 1 criminal complaint of rape. The case involving Miss A ended, her 3 less serious allegations were dropped due to the statute of limitations running out.

The one criminal complaint involves Assange starting to having sex with Miss W when she was asleep, she woke to find him having sex with her without a condom. She didn’t ask him to stop or bother to ask him to wear a condom as she has asked him several times already. She took the morning after pill. Assange was living in her flat at the time.

Miss W later met Miss A at a Wikileaks seminar, Miss A told Miss W that the condom ripped when Assange and her were having sex. Miss W, realising Assange was sleeping around without using condoms, then asked him to take an STD test, she says he refused.

Miss W and Miss A then went to the police to ask them to force Assange to take an STD test, the police told them they could not force Assange to take the test. The initial allegations, it seems, were not about rape or sexual assault, the women wanted Assange to take an STD test (we know by now just how stupidly stubborn Assange is).

The case was initially dropped but was reopened by Marianne Ny at the end of 2010, allegedly under pressure from the United States.

From the Guardian:

“The following day, Miss W phoned Assange and arranged to meet him late in the evening, according to her statement. The pair went back to her flat in Enkoping, near Stockholm. Miss W told police that though they started to have sex, Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when “he agreed unwillingly to use a condom”.”

“Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. “According to her statement, she said: ‘You better not have HIV’ and he answered: ‘Of course not,’ ” but “she couldn’t be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before.”

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

@David Jordan:So what you are saying is he raped her in while she was sleeping? Because you cannot consent while asleep. That’s even worse than having sex with her while awake but not wearing a condom.
Did you see the documentary I mentioned? After Assange made his statement about apologising to the two women, (to his Lawyer btw) he went on to say this. “If it was just one woman we could destroy her reputation, but two of them make that virtually impossible”. Sound like an innocent man?
Assange is a narcissist that is beyond dispute. And like like all those with narcissistic conditions they can’t see anything they do as wrong. And this case is a prime example. He can see no wrong in what he did to those women and he can see nothing wrong in absconding from his bail conditions and costing many people who supported him by paying his bail. Some of whom lost their life savings and others had fight court battles just to keep their homes from being seized.

@Mick.: you’ve lost the argument several times, several. you’re putting sh!t up with absolutely nothing to back your claims and you just keep digging..what’s you’re story just keep throwing sh!t something might stick…

@Jack: Firstly in your opinion. And as we all know “Opinions” are like arseholes we all have one.
Secondly. Its not “My Claims”. It is the claim of the Swedish State Prosecutor who knows more about the case than you. And it is “Fact” the Law in Sweden is based on Consent. It is “Fact” that Assange absconded from his Bail in the UK thus causing many of those that put up the security for that Bail extreme fincial hardship. And it is Fact that many people that have actually lived with Assange over the years have described him a narcissist.
And it is Fact that Assange made the Statements he did on film which I am sure you can find on line and verify yourself.

@Bhiniáimin Ó Beith: “Just turn yourself in bro and let the government bend you over” – Miniscule IQ

@Bhiniáimin Ó Beith: if he was extradited to Sweden he would have been arrested at the airport so no going to any embassy. As regards the Swedish prosecutor she was heavily criticised by other prosecutors in Sweden, who didn’t think much of the grounds she was using.
Finally, the Swedish Government specifically refused to guarantee extradition to the U.S.

@Jason Genovani: Enjoying your time in your basement with your tin foil hat? Don’t look now but I think they’re coming for you.

@Brendan Greene: Wrong! he would have probably made bail with the money raised by his supporters. He was on bail in the UK when he walked into the embassy that’s why he’s in jail now. Regardless of any criticism if there were evidence lacking to convict him he would have been exonerated in due process in the Swedish courts. Finally I already said that.