Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

How is this a live stream, or breaking pictures if they are taken at night?

It's still pretty light out in old Blighty at the moment...

dæl wrote:

Wyrmalla wrote:I have a shred of common sense, need I say more about a natural loathing for the Labour party being incited at birth?

FTFY

Good job!

dæl wrote:

Wyrmalla wrote:I have a shred of humanity, need I say more about a natural loathing for the Tory party being incited at birth?

FTFY

That's just stupid. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for hating the labour party, but nothing like the widespread ruin that the conservatives bought to large parts of the country. I have grown up around this desolation, as many people have.

mattyrm wrote:

dæl wrote:

Wyrmalla wrote:I have a shred of common sense, need I say more about a natural loathing for the Labour party being incited at birth?

FTFY

Good job!

They are both equally incompetent, the difference being that the tories are motivated by greed and selfishness and the suffering they cause is actually part of their plan.

Orlanth wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:And Ecuador has granted him asylum. Wonder how they're planning on getting him there though...

That's easy.

Assange gets on an Equadorian registered diplomatic vehicle with CD plates on the embassy premesis. The diplomatic vehicle, which is Equadorian territory goes to the airport and Assange gets on an Equadroain diplomatic jet from the door of the limo without setting foot on the ground. The jet flies to Equador.

Done this way Assange never enters UK jurisdiction.

I hope he gets away, trying to stop this is going to do nothing but sour relations with Equador, which is already making ugly noises. If Assange's freedom upsets the Obama government so be it, not point in trying to help stop the egg on his face from running when it is plain as day he does nothing in return for us, in fact quite the opposite.

Blow it up. Its the Chicago Way.

dæl wrote:
They are both equally incompetent, the difference being that the tories are motivated by greed and selfishness and the suffering they cause is actually part of their plan.

Lets not get into a gak political debate mate, just go and read some impartial books on the subject, and then come back and admit you were wrong and I was right.

Seriously, the above quote is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen a grown man write. I'm not being funny, how old are you?

If you are under 15 and you believe every short sighted thing you read in Unison's monthly magazine, or on the national socialist workers party website, fair dos, your only young once.

But otherwise you should be embarrassed. British politics has become increasingly centrist the last two decades, one party is (slightly) more fiscally conservative, ergo is less inclined to give money out on social programmes, but that's pretty much it. The Tories have been in charge for a few years, and everyone is still living in their council houses, still drinking their special brew, buying their scratch cards and fething like rats to get more child support.

Ergo, everything you wrote is flat out wrong.

"Suffering is part of the plan"

If never working and still being able to get pissed 4 days a week and smoke 60 fags a day is "suffering" then fething strap me onto the suffering machine!

mattyrm wrote:

dæl wrote:
They are both equally incompetent, the difference being that the tories are motivated by greed and selfishness and the suffering they cause is actually part of their plan.

Lets not get into a gak political debate mate, just go and read some impartial books on the subject, and then come back and admit you were wrong and I was right.

Seriously, the above quote is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen a grown man write. I'm not being funny, how old are you?

If you are under 15 and you believe every short sighted thing you read in Unison's monthly magazine, or on the national socialist workers party website, fair dos, your only young once.

But otherwise you should be embarrassed. British politics has become increasingly centrist the last two decades, one party is (slightly) more fiscally conservative, ergo is less inclined to give money out on social programmes, but that's pretty much it. The Tories have been in charge for a few years, and everyone is still living in their council houses, still drinking their special brew, buying their scratch cards and fething like rats to get more child support.

Ergo, everything you wrote is flat out wrong.

"Suffering is part of the plan"

If never working and still being able to get pissed 4 days a week and smoke 60 fags a day is "suffering" then fething strap me onto the suffering machine!

I'm 27, and have no time for any of the main political parties. If you think the tories are causing no suffering then cool. Alas that is not the case, the workshy are doing fine but take some time and look at how welfare reform is affecting the disabled, be it through targeted work capability assessments, when 32 people a week are dying after being found "fit for work" or the number of suicides that have been attributed to welfare reform sine 2010. Hate crimes against the disabled are increasing exponentially year on year as the agenda of "punish the scrounger" is pursued, benefit scroungers make up a tiny percentage of the number on benefits and cost the country £1bn a year, which is one sixth of the Vodafone tax bill Gideon Osbourne wrote off last year. People, some of the most vulnerable ones in our society, are being mistreated and dying to pursue an agenda that has bugger all to do with cost and everything to do with appealing to the public's worst aspects for cheap political points.

But still, this is probably for another thread.

On Topic, I thought the Swedish case had been thrown out of court twice now.

Orlanth wrote:
I hope he gets away, trying to stop this is going to do nothing but sour relations with Equador, which is already making ugly noises. If Assange's freedom upsets the Obama government so be it, not point in trying to help stop the egg on his face from running when it is plain as day he does nothing in return for us, in fact quite the opposite.

Considering that Ecuadorian trade with Iran hasn't soured US-Ecuador relations, I sincerely doubt that any move on Assange that didn't violate diplomatic protocol would have any significant effect.

As for your statement that Obama has been openly hostile to the UK, well, we've been down that road a few times before and my conclusion has always been that your stiff upper lip is showing signs of quivering; so I'll just leave it at that.

If the UK isn't careful we will send Romney back and make him stay this time.

dogma wrote:
As for your statement that Obama has been openly hostile to the UK, well, we've been down that road a few times before and my conclusion has always been that your stiff upper lip is showing signs of quivering; so I'll just leave it at that.

Translation please.

From the other closed thread:

The point is, seriously.. protesters are just sad bastards! I hate all sorts of things, but what would you rather do? Spend 6 hours in the pub with your mates, or on a fething picket holding a sign and shouting?!

Sorry mate I was only joking about that! I don't give a jot about what other people think! I should have used a winking smilie

Steven Stevenson wrote:I don't understand why people think its more likely that it is some convoluted conspiracy to extradite someone who is a minor irritation to the US than that the women are telling the truth and Sweden is just trying to enforce the law equally.

Hes just using the bizarre world he has built up around him to justify not facing justice in a fair and free country.

Some info you might not be aware of Steven Stevenson:
- The Ecuadorian ambassador offered the Swedish police entrance to the embassy to interview him (now the only thing they want from him, as charges have been dropped). The Swedes declined this offer.
- Sweden has a terrible record of handing people over to the CIA without any kind of legal process.
- The wiki-leaks were a bit more than a minor irritation and I think you are understating how damaging the cables were to the US and its foreign policy. To give a few examples it caused a spate with Russia (Putin found out exactly what was thought of him), caused US ambassadors to be expelled in South America once those country's governments learned of what tomfoolery the US was up to there (including Ecuador - no doubt the reason they are giving Assange sanctuary). Some of the meeting moments from the Middle East were particularly enlightening, with the likes of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia requesting the US to "please bomb country x for us". There has been a fair amount of hashish-pipe smoking needed since by US diplomats.
Seriously, I would thoroughly recommend an evening reading through some of the wiki-leaks stuff, it's thoroughly entertaining and will also reduce your confidence in the people in politics, and their intelligence, considerably..
- The fact that the UK government seemed to be seriously considering breaking the Vienna Convention to go into the Ecuadorian embassy to get Assange gives you some idea of what is happening here. Pretty much every solicitor in existence has now informed them that they mis-interpreted the law they were going to use to break the treaty, and it's now been put on the back burner. But, that this plan even raised its head gives some idea of external pressure.
- The US says 'we don't want him', and he would pick up his coat, go outside and get arrested. The fact that the US hasn't said this, or any kind of comment in fact, probably indicates that they are building up a solid case against him. Apparently 10 years imprisonment for every break of the 'secrets act', it would probably be a bad idea of him to leave the Embassy without a good collection of reading material at this point.

I agree that Assange comes across as massively slidy. But, this isn't about him, it's about transparency in government and international relations, and it will set a precedent for this kind of thing in future. The tragedy of all of this is that people seem more intent on getting Assange in the stocks and pelting him with rotten vegetables, when really he should be lauded for exposing so many politicians as being even more nefarious and amoral than many could have thought they would be, and perhaps even stopping a few of the worst plans in their tracks.

Frazzled wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:And Ecuador has granted him asylum. Wonder how they're planning on getting him there though...

That's easy.

Assange gets on an Equadorian registered diplomatic vehicle with CD plates on the embassy premesis. The diplomatic vehicle, which is Equadorian territory goes to the airport and Assange gets on an Equadroain diplomatic jet from the door of the limo without setting foot on the ground. The jet flies to Equador.

Done this way Assange never enters UK jurisdiction.

I hope he gets away, trying to stop this is going to do nothing but sour relations with Equador, which is already making ugly noises. If Assange's freedom upsets the Obama government so be it, not point in trying to help stop the egg on his face from running when it is plain as day he does nothing in return for us, in fact quite the opposite.

Blow it up. Its the Chicago Way.

Roger that, package inbound.

Pacific wrote:- The wiki-leaks were a bit more than a minor irritation and I think you are understating how damaging the cables were to the US and its foreign policy. To give a few examples it caused a spate with Russia (Putin found out exactly what was thought of him), caused US ambassadors to be expelled in South America once those country's governments learned of what tomfoolery the US was up to there (including Ecuador - no doubt the reason they are giving Assange sanctuary). Some of the meeting moments from the Middle East were particularly enlightening, with the likes of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia requesting the US to "please bomb country x for us". There has been a fair amount of hashish-pipe smoking needed since by US diplomats.

It's about as embarrassing as being caught telling a dirty joke about your friend at a party. Sure he gets embarrassed and a little PO'd, but in the end he'll let it go cause he's invested too much in his relationship with you to really stay angry forever of such a minor gaffe.

- The US says 'we don't want him', and he would pick up his coat, go outside and get arrested.

No he wouldn't. Assange drinks too much of his own Kool-aid and assumes everyone is out to get him.

The fact that the US hasn't said this, or any kind of comment in fact, probably indicates that they are building up a solid case against him.

... Or they don't think it's worthy of comment? Hell, the US government would probably love to put him from the ringer, but I doubt they feel like going out of their way to do it. If they really wanted to be rid of him, they'd just do something. But seeing as Assange is a satire of himself, I think the government is content to sit back and watch his stupidity play out.

But, this isn't about him, it's about transparency in government and international relations, and it will set a precedent for this kind of thing in future.

You realize the stupidity of that right? If there is no confidence that diplomatic discussions will be kept confidential, there's no reason for any country to speak to any other country with any confidence that what is said will be believed or regarded with seriousness. After all, if the US is just going to publicly announce how nervous the ME is about Iran, why would any country in the region bother expressing to us their concerns?

Transparency is just the toy word people like to throw out in place of "government bad." The nature of international relations forces some things to be secret, otherwise the system ceases to function.

The tragedy of all of this is that people seem more intent on getting Assange in the stocks and pelting him with rotten vegetables, when really he should be lauded for exposing so many politicians as being even more nefarious and amoral than many could have thought they would be, and perhaps even stopping a few of the worst plans in their tracks.

No. The tragedy is that a joke like Assange can make a fool of himself, undermine diplomatic relations with a silly little game of "oh look what I found", pretend what he's doing is actually great, be a complete douche and harass women, and get a free pass right off the bat cause he's a "great whistle blower."

The man's a joke.

Pacific wrote:
- Sweden has a terrible record of handing people over to the CIA without any kind of legal process.

Interesting.

Pacific wrote:
- The wiki-leaks were a bit more than a minor irritation and I think you are understating how damaging the cables were to the US and its foreign policy. To give a few examples it caused a spate with Russia (Putin found out exactly what was thought of him), caused US ambassadors to be expelled in South America once those country's governments learned of what tomfoolery the US was up to there (including Ecuador - no doubt the reason they are giving Assange sanctuary). Some of the meeting moments from the Middle East were particularly enlightening, with the likes of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia requesting the US to "please bomb country x for us". There has been a fair amount of hashish-pipe smoking needed since by US diplomats.
Seriously, I would thoroughly recommend an evening reading through some of the wiki-leaks stuff, it's thoroughly entertaining and will also reduce your confidence in the people in politics, and their intelligence, considerably..

That is reason to hammer the guy who leaked the information. Wikileaks on the other hand has no moral obligation to keep the US's secrets.
The US wants Assange for revenge, not justice.

Pacific wrote:
- The fact that the UK government seemed to be seriously considering breaking the Vienna Convention to go into the Ecuadorian embassy to get Assange gives you some idea of what is happening here. Pretty much every solicitor in existence has now informed them that they mis-interpreted the law they were going to use to break the treaty, and it's now been put on the back burner. But, that this plan even raised its head gives some idea of external pressure.

This I find worrisome. Though it appears the UK is looking for treaty loopholes to use.
My take is don't bother: it will cost us a whole lot, in return for not much.

Pacific wrote:
- Sweden has a terrible record of handing people over to the CIA without any kind of legal process.

Cite an example.

Assange is full of crap. He's claiming that the CIA engineered this whole elaborate honey trap using two Swedish women, with the collaboration of the Swedish government.

Kanluwen wrote:

Pacific wrote:
- Sweden has a terrible record of handing people over to the CIA without any kind of legal process.

Cite an example.

Assange is full of crap. He's claiming that the CIA engineered this whole elaborate honey trap using two Swedish women, with the collaboration of the Swedish government.

Well the US is gunning for him, its not that improbable a defence.

Orlanth wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Pacific wrote:
- Sweden has a terrible record of handing people over to the CIA without any kind of legal process.

Cite an example.

Assange is full of crap. He's claiming that the CIA engineered this whole elaborate honey trap using two Swedish women, with the collaboration of the Swedish government.

Well the US is gunning for him, its not that improbable a defence.

It's stupid. It really is.

Do you think the CIA goes around coming up with ways to make pompous, arrogant gits like Assange discredit themselves?

I can't believe anyone still takes his claims of "innocence" seriously.
He had his chance to cooperate with the Swedish authorities when the event happened, and instead he went to England.
When England suggested they'd turn him over, it's a "conspiracy".

If the US is gunning for Assange why didn't they request the UK extradite him when he was in British custody?

KalashnikovMarine wrote:If the US is gunning for Assange why didn't they request the UK extradite him when he was in British custody?

Because it would be too obvious. Clearly, the US would prefer a extravagent plan of numerous over complications rather than taking a single action that would solve the problem.

It's not a grand conspiracy until it's GRAND sir

Kanluwen wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Pacific wrote:
- Sweden has a terrible record of handing people over to the CIA without any kind of legal process.

Cite an example.

Assange is full of crap. He's claiming that the CIA engineered this whole elaborate honey trap using two Swedish women, with the collaboration of the Swedish government.

Well the US is gunning for him, its not that improbable a defence.

It's stupid. It really is.

Do you think the CIA goes around coming up with ways to make pompous, arrogant gits like Assange discredit themselves?

I can't believe anyone still takes his claims of "innocence" seriously.
He had his chance to cooperate with the Swedish authorities when the event happened, and instead he went to England.
When England suggested they'd turn him over, it's a "conspiracy".

Well in order to try and get Gary McKinnon the US upgrades adding some trolling comments to a hacked US government website into multiple counts of damage exheeding $500 a computer. That threshold was needed to make the case extraditable.

McKinnon is harmless but causing embarrassment, so the case is ongoing. Thankfully for him extraditing McKinnon would be a major PR problem for the government, so the case is caught up in constant red tape.

LordofHats wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:If the US is gunning for Assange why didn't they request the UK extradite him when he was in British custody?

Because it would be too obvious. Clearly, the US would prefer a extravagent plan of numerous over complications rather than taking a single action that would solve the problem.

It's not a grand conspiracy until it's GRAND sir

Of course how silly of me.

...

Comparing Gary McKinnon to Assange is a travesty. Assange is a 10 year old boy who likes to pretend he's fighting against the man and his actions amount to a minor annoyance on par with constantly asking "Am I important yet? Pay attention to me!"

Gary McKinnon is a computer genius who shut down numerous military computer networks and a small NASA network for 24 hours and cost tax payers hundreds of thousands while those systems were repaired, and deleted data files were restored. The sad thing for Gary McKinnon is trying to prosecute an autistic, not that his actions were harmless.

Orlanth wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Pacific wrote:
- Sweden has a terrible record of handing people over to the CIA without any kind of legal process.

Cite an example.

Assange is full of crap. He's claiming that the CIA engineered this whole elaborate honey trap using two Swedish women, with the collaboration of the Swedish government.

Well the US is gunning for him, its not that improbable a defence.

It's stupid. It really is.

Do you think the CIA goes around coming up with ways to make pompous, arrogant gits like Assange discredit themselves?

I can't believe anyone still takes his claims of "innocence" seriously.
He had his chance to cooperate with the Swedish authorities when the event happened, and instead he went to England.
When England suggested they'd turn him over, it's a "conspiracy".

Well in order to try and get Gary McKinnon the US upgrades adding some trolling comments to a hacked US government website into multiple counts of damage exceeding $500 a computer. That threshold was needed to make the case extraditable.

I think you need to step back and realize what you're saying.

Gary McKinnon accessed hundreds--if not thousands--of computers associated with the Pentagon, NASA, and other agencies searching for in his own words "evidence of free energy suppression and knowledge about unidentified flying objects".

McKinnon is harmless but causing embarrassment, so the case is ongoing. Thankfully for him extraditing McKinnon would be a major PR problem for the government, so the case is caught up in constant red tape.

Er no. The case is "ongoing" largely because of McKinnon being mentally ill, suffering from Asperger's Syndrome.

There was an attempt made for him to have a severely reduced sentence (he currently faces ~7-10 years per count, with 7 counts--amounting up to 70 or more years). The deal was for 3 and a half to 4 years) which was rejected by his barrister on his behalf.

one great suggestion I heard was have him packaged up in a shipping crate as diplomatic property and shipped to Ecuador

LordofHats wrote:Gary McKinnon is a computer genius who shut down numerous military computer networks

IIRC he used an 'off the shelf' product bought on the internet and gained access via poor security protocols. I would disagree that he is a computer genius. Otherwise he wouldn't have been caught.

and a small NASA network for 24 hours and cost tax payers hundreds of thousands while those systems were repaired, and deleted data files were restored. The sad thing for Gary McKinnon is trying to prosecute an autistic, not that his actions were harmless.

I wouldn't disagree, but the cynic in me can't help but think that the US inflated the 'damages' in order to fast track the entire process.

Cheers

Andrew

AndrewC wrote:IIRC he used an 'off the shelf' product bought on the internet and gained access via poor security protocols. I would disagree that he is a computer genius. Otherwise he wouldn't have been caught.

While this is true, the feat is still marvelous. Back when he did this in 2002, it was an unheard of feat. Even with poor security, cutting into numerous networks at the same time, deleting OS security files, copy others, and compromising entire systems as a single operator within a matter of hours is an outstanding case of hacking (EDIT: To ad perspective, it takes Anonymous botnets and numerous operates to even execute simpler breaches against corporations today).

That he was caught was kind of inevitable. It's no where near as hard to track hackers as people seem to think it is.

Kanluwen wrote:

Pacific wrote:
- Sweden has a terrible record of handing people over to the CIA without any kind of legal process.

Cite an example.

This good enough?

http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition

Ecuador attempted to gain assurances from Sweden it would not extradite Assange to the US in order to consider releasing him. Sweden declined.
Ecuador then attempted to gain assurances from the US it would not request extradition. The US declined.
Make of that what you will.

To me, it's pretty obvious what is happening here, and I'm quite willing to consider these accusations against the guy conveniently appearing right when they did not being a coincidence. When the US government pressures corporations into blocking payments to Wikileaks, you really have to be in a bad case of denial to not see that there are some very dirty strings being pulled here.

Lynata wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Pacific wrote:
- Sweden has a terrible record of handing people over to the CIA without any kind of legal process.

Cite an example.

This good enough?

http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition

It's not.

Why? Because to put it bluntly: far too many countries had their hands dirty in that crap to paint it as "Sweden and the US are BFFs!".

Ecuador attempted to gain assurances from Sweden it would not extradite Assange to the US in order to consider releasing him. Sweden declined.
Ecuador then attempted to gain assurances from the US it would not request extradition. The US declined.
Make of that what you will.

Of course they made no assurances. There's no reason for extradition to take place from Sweden to the US.

The man is on trial for sexual assaults.

To me, it's pretty obvious what is happening here, and I'm quite willing to consider these accusations against the guy conveniently appearing right when they did not being a coincidence. When the US government pressures corporations into blocking payments to Wikileaks, you really have to be in a bad case of denial to not see that there are some very dirty strings being pulled here.

And this is why Assange is able to throw himself up on a plywood cross and get away with this bollocks.

The guy wants amnesty in Ecuador, because he's afraid of the death penalty in the USA, when he faces charges in Sweden (which doesn't have the death penalty).

It would be unlawful for either the UK or Sweden to extradite him to the USA if he was facing the death penalty anyway. And I trust British or Swedish judges before I trust Ecuadorian judges

This is all ignoring the fact that the Yanks don't even want him.

Testify wrote:The guy wants amnesty in Ecuador, because he's afraid of the death penalty in the USA, when he faces charges in Sweden (which doesn't have the death penalty).

It would be unlawful for either the UK or Sweden to extradite him to the USA if he was facing the death penalty anyway. And I trust British or Swedish judges before I trust Ecuadorian judges

This is all ignoring the fact that the Yanks don't even want him.

Is he a US citizen? 'cuz the only way I can see he'd get the death penalty is for treason... and that's not likely.