I tell you what's not 'moral', Smokes – the readiness with which the disciples of St Julian of Assange are acting as bloody apologists for rape.



Plus there's the sheer ignorance of the fact that different country's judicial systems don't all actually work in the same way as that in the UK.



And he has had three opportunities to challenge the European arrest warrant, before three different courts, and all believe there is no reason to overturn the decision.



Of course, he could just stop being a cowardly twok and go to Sweden and face the arrest and the charges – and any further process. If he's innocent he will then be free.



If not, he'll serve the due punishment.



But this seems to be rocket science for his cultists.



[url=http://thevoluptuousmanifesto.blogspot.fr/2012/08/dancing-to-beat-of-st-julian.htmlFWIW, my thoughts on the subject.[/url

[url=http://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-doesn-t-sweden-interview-assange-in-london?utm_campaign=&utm_medium=sfy.co-twitter&awesm=sfy.co_e56c&utm_content=storify-pingback&utm_source=t.coStuff here about the Swedish judicial system re arrest, charge etc.[/url

In what way have i apologised for rape? at all?



I understand the swedish judicial system is different, the Saudi justice system is also different. I can accept they are different, i dont have to accept they are right.

But again, that is an argument that a suspect shouldn't be arrested before they are charged, which is daft.

We arent at that stage because that stage HAS to come AFTER an arrest, that's the only way an effective system could ever work. Otherwise you would have a situation where prosecutors are charging suspects without hearing their evidence.



Oh and a prima facie case has been made, that's why the arrest warrant was deemed legal.

No, im not. Im not saying anything even close to people needing to be charged before they are arrested. im saying there is a difference between arrest and forcible extradition and detention and the standard and need for proof should be higher because the effect of forcible extradition and detention on someone we are supposed to presume is innocent is much greater.

No you are suggesting that a decision to charge should already have been made before the suspect is arrested, as the decision to charge is necessary for a trial to be held.

No, im not.

Really?

Well then, if you have such great understanding, why are you claiming that it would be "immoral" for him to be sent back to Sweden to face a judicial process that is at advanced stage?



This is one of the tenets of the faithful – and in it, the two women have become unimportant, just as Bradley Manning was/is to St Julian the sociopath.



PS: he's a free-market capitalist, BTW, not some arch revolutionary. It's one of the ironies of some on the left wetting their knickers over him.

yes. The second occurs when the suspect has fled the jurisdiction of the court and police authorities to prevent the first happening

And, of course, there was a very simple course open to Assange to avoid the forcible extradition and detention following the European Arrest Warrent - simply return to Sweden under his own steam and clear his name, in a trial if necessary.

Because i dont think the necessary evidence has been shown to justify forcible extradition and detention.



You are being silly. It is sad that we dont catch all rapists, its terrible that so many get away with it. But nobody, even rape victims, benefits from innocent people being punished.

Our attempts to bring justice for rape victims are only undermined by us punishing innocent people as we presume Assange is, or we are supposed to presume he is.