Julian Assange should be compensated by Britain and Sweden says the UN

the UN is a global socialist authority they should not even exist

What a farce of an organisation.
A demonic globalist cabal with a few threadbare bought out lackey celebs and politicians out front.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse_by_UN_peacekeepers

Assange has made it perfectly clear multiple times that he’s willing to return to Sweden to face trial if he receives a guarantee that he won’t be deported to the US. The Swedish government refuses to provide such guarantee.

Nor should they. He’s in no position to bargain, and they shouldn’t enter into any badgering with him. He’s accused of rape, he’ll be tried for rape.

*bargaining*

No one is bargaining or do you consider wanting a fair trial without risk of illegal arrest or deportation ‘bargaining’? Remember, although accused, he hasn’t been convicted of anything yet

WTF kind of twisted logic brings 1970′s NI politics into the UN Britain Sweden and Julian Assange?
Are you aware that Assange always said he would face trail in Sweden? Keep up ffs

So a Swedish citizen residing in the EU has no right to demand that he should not be extradited to the US over actions he took while residing in Sweden? That’s odd logic of yours Brian.

@Brian, Think he is many things nut not a coward and very doubtful of any of the accusations against him in sweden. When the UK and US government are after your blood, I’m sure you could be up for a series of charges. I don’t say that lightly as they are serious allegations but it makes no sense at all with regards to how events were unfolding and he was fleeing from the authorities. Note..UN weapons inspector holding the UK government back from war in Iraq hanged himself despite no indication of being depressed. MI5 agent found dead in London apartment was tarnished by press as being involved in deviant sex activities, they have retracted this allegation now. Bottom line, I wouldn’t fully trust the government! !

Bit hard to convict someone when they can’t be brought to court.

Assange has offered to meet with the Swedes in the embassy but they refused. He offered to be interviewed over video link but they refused, He offered to return to Sweden on condition that he would not end up in the US, they refused. He offered to give a statement in the UK, they refused. The Swedish Appeal Court found that the prosecutor had breached her duty in not accepting Assange’s statement in the UK.

He left Sweden because his work visa and residency were not renewed by the Swedish authorities. They told him to get out of the country 5 week AFTER the initial allegations were dropped by the DPP. the allegations only were reinstated after a politician had a word with the 2 alleged victims and the DPP. The 2 alleged victims wanted Assange to be tested for STI’s and made no rape allegations until after they had contact Claes Borgstrom, a man who believes that ALL men share a collective responsibility for sexual violence against women. He was subsequently fired by the alleged victims because in their view he seemed more interested in the media spotlight than in them.

Brian do ye blueshirts always want to see people locked up and why do ye discredit anyone or anything that defends civil liberties. If Jesus Christ came down and defended people from the injust authorities ye would nearly crucify him.. oh hold on . Yere obsession with the rule of law the two tier law system is robotic its like yere programmed to endorse authority even when its unjust. Ye must get off on seen people exposing the authorities malpractice been locked up. Bradley Manning and Barrett Brown are locked up i bet you have wet dreams over them. Calm down little lady there’s plenty injustice in the world to keep you happy.

@B-Egan – are you suggesting Pontius Pilate was a ‘blueshirt’?
Anyway – civil liberties are one thing, including those of the alleged victims in Sweden.

I think Sweden should not have the right to extradite him for one reason and then once they have possession of him they may be able to further extradite him outside the union for another reason.

Whistle blowers of the world unite, people like Asange should be applauded for their bravery in exposing state wrong doing,the British government are a disgrace and hypocritical ie support for Saudi Arabia etc the United Nations is our only way forward but will never be that without the support of ordinary citizens and I imagine that rape Allegation is trumped up, they are out for revenge no matter what it takes they will try to get him

This man risked life and limb to inform us of the dirty dealings going on behind the scenes. I don’t understand why more people aren’t standing up and showing their support and appreciation to him. Most of us have been conned since the get go…

There is an arrest warrant before even formal charges have been levelled against him, they claim to only want to interview him.

Assuming they are being honest and genuine, why then have they refused to carry out this interview in the embassy. He has valid concerns for his safety.

Also the UN are correct to point of the disproportionate level of targeting of Assange, and also with the criticisms of the swedish investigation.

It is plain to see the real motivation behind it, otherwise they would not be so unreasonable, and allow greater consideration of his rights and valid concerns.

Brian go back to what caused it and what was said at the time and it didn’t make sense, it is an excuse to get him into Sweden so that he can be renditioned to the U.S. as in the U.S. his leaks have made him classed as a terrorist…

So at the start he was suppose to rape a woman but he was not in the country at the time of the rape, then another accused him of rape and that was thrown out and then another accused him of rape after she wanted sex with him but then called it rape after he penetrated her a second time but at the time she did nothing as in any resistance in action or word or in behaviour but wanted sex.
The whole thing stinks of political involvement?

Well this is a turn for the books, what are they smoking in the UN? There is a outstanding warrant for his arrest and he decides to hold out in an embassy, his choice let him face up to his allegations!

Yeah I am surprised the UN are saying this as they are all bought and owned

@Avina,

Have you read the report before reaching your conclusions, I have and they are very clear.

They question the Swedish investigation, that does not even have any formal charges against Assange, they also question the arrest warrant at a preliminary stage of investigation.

And the inexplicable refusal by Sweden to carry out the interview they want without insisting on arrest and extradition, as a result, it is disproportionate and a violation of natural justice, human rights and amounts to “depravation of liberty”

They question the police presence and amount spent, to enforce this detention, in full knowledge of the objections, and without regard to the valid concerns.

Does this enlighten you a little, there is clear logic and reason and balance objective analysis included in the report.

They raise important questions……none of which bother you?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/us/politics/12leak.html?_r=0

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/05/un-julian-assange-wikileaks

Even Billy Bragg, long time stalwart of the left, recognises that the UN got it wrong…

@avina,

I will go with the objective legal opinion of the UN whose record in all cases the have reviewed is beyond reproach.

Before taking the casual opinion of a subjective defender who has vested interest being defending the actions of his own state.

Once again I will ask a question that you will no doubt ignore, have you read the report you are forming conclusions on?

Also do you not respect the UN human rights charter, or EU human rights convention which were the benchmarks the judgement used to reached its conclusions.

His article is clearly biased and without serious consideration or analysis of the issues raised by the UN……but as usual human rights are not your strong suit.

P.s. Is that the same pro Iraq war, illegal no UN Security Council resolution – Billy Bragg?

“I will go with the objective legal opinion of the UN whose record in all cases the have reviewed is beyond reproach.”

Muahahahahaha

This would be the same UN plagued by allegations of bias, widespread corruption, and (ironically, considering the story) sexual abuse by its peacekeeping troops. The same UN which has an abysmal record in the Balkans, Rwanda, Sri Lanka…

HGT – you obviously know sweet f all about Billy Bragg.
And based on your comments about the UN, presumably then you’d also agree with their assessment that 80% of Syrian refugees are fleeing Assad rather than IS?

And your repeated claims that anyone with a different opinion to yours is ‘biased’ is getting a bit trite at this stage.

@harry & Avina,

I was clearly referring to the UN humans rights committee WGAD of legal experts and their ruling on arbitrary detention, and their record, which is perfect. Not the UN as a whole, stop being deliberately obtuse, and misinterpreting disingenuously.

@Avina, i notice once again you refuse to answer direct questions, while you have record of demanding same from others. Is hypocrisy a concept you comprehend, because that is a perfect example.

Obviously Bragg is not objective, case in point Iraq war, where essentially america invented a pretext for war, and britain like the lap dog followed orders and also lied and invented protect, of which Bragg was a supporter….hardly a bastion of independent thought and supporter of rule of international law.

Finally calling out biased casual opinion by a singer songwriter……as being pathetic in comparison to legal experts in international human rights law, is just obvious, and your use of him as your only defence is pathetic.

@Harry,

Your argument against credibility is the actions of some members of an organisation that is disgusting i.e. child abuse.

If that is your basis for judgement, you don’t need to dig much to find plenty in the UK, by members of parliament, security services, the army, and institutions…….another pathetic argument….

Imagine finding corruption, or bias, by british institutions, how about illegal invasion of iraq…..murder of hundreds of thousand of people.

Murder and state collusion in paramilitaries and shoot to kill policies in the north, internment without trial. Mass murder in countries throughout the world in defence of their empire for hundreds of years……framing and jailing Irish citizens for crimes they did not commit for political expediency…….

But hey, your points don’t have to be consistent or relevant or make sense……so long as you jump on a bandwagon and take stupid consensus opinions you think others would agree with.

Name one country or institution without any corruption or abuse in their history, your argument is one of nihilism, but you wouldn’t even understand such a word

At least Avina has a brain, I don’t always agree, but I would afford her at least some respect.

“I will go with the objective legal opinion of the UK whose record in all cases the have reviewed is beyond reproach.”

Had this been in my post HGT, I might understand why you’d bring the UK’s various boo-boos into the equation.

Except of course it wasn’t. It was you trumpeting that the UN’s record was beyond reproach. WHOOPS.

Your argument against mine was essentially the demolition of a straw man – and seeing as you kindly made assumptions about my lexical knowledge, I’ll do the same in turn and assume you’re too poorly educated to understand what a straw man is, or indeed any other rhetorical fallacy.

Oh I get it HGT:
UN says what you want = UN good, beyond questioning.
UN says what you don’t want = UN bad, dismissed out of hand.
That clears that one up then, no bias there….
Re. Billy Bragg – you think he supported the Iraq war??? Show me the proof. The reality is he was a vigorous opponent, and even left the labour party over it!
Also you seem to think he wrote or was linked to the Guardian article in some way – actually he just referred to it and said “many people in this world are in arbitrary detention – Assange is not one of them”.
Finally I must have missed your question amongst the rest of your nonsense, but yes, I have read the report.

@Avina.

I respect the UN WGAD, as does almost the entire world, with the exceptions of the countries found in breach. There record and verdicts in all cases of arbitrary detention have been beyond reproach, have a look yourself, although I suspect you would disagree with their finding on Morsi in Egypt, but there findings were based on facts. And i agree with that one too.

RE: Billy Bragg, yes I can admit a mistake. I assumed from your comment that you meant he was the author, I now see that was a mistake. So hands up……I made a mistake there.
However During the 2005 general election campaign in the Bethnal Green and Bow constituency, Bragg supported Oona King, the Labour Party’s pro-Iraq war candidate. Which is a fact.

I base my comment on this particular committee, and their record, and independence, and previous judgements.

There are a lot of elements in the UN corrupted and manipulated, as seen in the run up to the Iraq war, where countries are manipulated by threats and promises of aid, or the use of US institutions like the world bank or IMF to influence and force countries to vote this way or that. It is well known and recorded fact. These can be criticised and are, by not me or the victim countries of the votes, but all independent free investigations media and opinion around the world.

Harry,

Once again I will point of the obvious to you, you seen to be blind or dumb.

I am referring to the UN WGAD…..not the UN as the entire institution. Can you see the difference, it is a simple concept, concentrate and you might do it. (try not to poo when you do)

I challenged you idiotic writing off of the entire UN by staring it against a similar approach to any institution or country. If you take the approach you took, you could deny credibility to anything at will.

Because of that obvious flaw, I pointed out your point was stupid, idiot, and worthy of contempt, which I happily offered you.

I don’t expect you to be able to accept any new ideas into your shrunken brain, or stretch your understanding beyond such logical and rational disfunction.

I understand a straw man, so well in fact that I satired yours i.e. UN corruption child abuse by individual peacekeepers etc etc….as if it had any relevance whatsoever to the UN WGAD.

I new word for you, hypocrisy (accusing me of straw man when I challenged your with a satire of it)….pathetic

Dear oh dear oh dear HGT. If you lived here in Blighty your level of backpedalling could have got you automatic Lib Dem membership.

Let’s just go over your original quote again (#Take 3)

“I will go with the objective legal opinion of the UN whose record in all cases the have reviewed is beyond reproach.”

There’s nothing about the WGAD in your original post. You merely tried slipping that in afterwards. And even if you did, it still changes nothing – the WGAD still isn’t flawless.

You’re half-right about satire, mind – your posts sound like a Dave Spart column.

@Harry,

Let me explain context to you, that quote is in the context of an article about the result of the UN WGAD committee, and i was commenting on that. It is implicit that that is the subject matter since it is in context. In the english language you do not need to keep repeating in every sentence the exact definition, as the listener is suppose to have the brain power to be aware of said context.

You posting quotes without reference to obvious context, is disingenuous, and the stuff of the daily mail. Which is your level.

If you cannot accept my word that I was commenting on the WGAD then you are just an id&*t. Because I was….. IT WAS WHAT THE ENTIRE ARTICLE IS ABOUT YOU ID&*T.

I said their record is impeccable which it is (look it up !!!), unless you want to actually post something relevant, like a decision you disagree with !!!! Not some irrelevant non sense about child molesting solders in peacekeeping duty !!!!!!!

I pointed out how ret%rded it was to use crimes by some low level of a massive organisation, to deduce that any and all output from that organisation is without credibility.

I used a simple explain for your simple brain of applying that logic to the UK…….to ridicule and satire the you…..but you are too dumb to even understand that.

So why don’t you stop talking now…..if you are the best that “Blighty” can offer, thank god I’m not there.