Slashdot Mirror

Well, given that Sweden's government has treaties in place they must honor, they cannot give him a guarantee he won't be extradited to elsewhere.

There is a clear risk of political persecution for Assange in the USA. Furthermore, US law which fails to guarantee fair treatment for those without sufficient funds and which includes illegal punishments such as the death sentence and chain gangs clearly does not qualify as a proper system of law under European law. For these reasons it is perfectly standard for European countries to refuse extraditions to the US (see the recent sex offender case) or to do with conditions imposed on a case by case basis. In fact; the condition against the death penalty is now so standard that it has become a standard agreement.

Sweden not just could give guarantees against political extradition and torture for Assange. It is duty bound under European human rights law to do so. That the Swedes won't just simply stand up and state this is pretty suspicious.

The U.K. High Court properly held that what he is charged with qualifies as rape under U.K. law, and that it carries a maximum penalty of 4 years in Sweden. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_11_11_assange.pdf

Reading the linked document, I don't think charged is a correct term to describe the situation, even if considering the particularities of the Swedish law into account. The prosecutor has the intention to prosecute but can not do so unless the investigation is complete (which is actually the reason for the arrest warrant).

Probably the closest term to use would be potentially accused?

There is also a long tradition of those who "made it" to an embassy being allowed to depart the host country, never to return.

See for example here.

However in this case, this tradition is not being followed. Why?

"Rape"? The case involves him failing to use a condom. The ladies involved have recanted. The prosecutor tried to drop the charges.

This again? Yes, it "involves" him failing to use a condom. But, with respect to one of the counts, it's a lot more than that: the allegation is that he had sex with a woman who was asleep, thus unable to consent. This lack of consent was aggravated by his knowledge that she didn't want to have sex without a condom. The other conduct described might be considered trivial by some, but this act qualifies as rape in most civilized countries.

The U.K. High Court properly held that what he is charged with qualifies as rape under U.K. law, and that it carries a maximum penalty of 4 years in Sweden. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_11_11_assange.pdf

Of course, it's possible none of that conduct occurred. Under the EU extradition system, it's not the U.K.'s job - either the government's or the courts' - to decide whether he's guilty.

The alleged "recantation" has been addressed a bit below.

Weather may also be affecting the birds.

The question is, which kind of weather affects them more?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-19374950

Please don't tar us all with the same brush. USA != west, and establishment != the people. The middle east is also not the only region getting US special coup d'état treatment - see Chile, Bay of Pigs etc.

If you follow western media, you do read about Saudi & women. In fact very recently.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18422642
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18571193

Please don't tar us all with the same brush. USA != west, and establishment != the people. The middle east is also not the only region getting US special coup d'état treatment - see Chile, Bay of Pigs etc.

If you follow western media, you do read about Saudi & women. In fact very recently.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18422642
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18571193

Let me address the only points in your attempt to Fisk me that were not about my misspelling names.

The Lance Armstrong Performance Program, Chris Carmichael with Lance Armstrong

99 test for cortisone was idiotic because he was cleared by cycling officials to use it, of course it showed up in his urine.

Secondly, those same samples were the source of the EPO testing I detailed:

Even in 1999, the year of his first Tour de France win, there were already objective suggestions that Armstrong's success may not have been entirely on the up and up. That year, his urine sample showed a small trace of a banned steroid used to assist muscle recovery, but he was cleared when his team produced a medical certificate showing that the chemical was present in a cream Armstrong used for "saddle sores."
In 2005, a French newspaper reported that Armstrong's 1999 urine samples had retroactively tested positive for the "blood booster" Erythropoietin (EPO), a banned substance that couldn't yet be detected in urine tests in 1999. But because the 2005 urine tests were not conducted according to official standards, the results had no effect on Armstrong's standing.

http://news.yahoo.com/did-armstrong-busted-212732618.html

As for the "Cool story bro"

World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) chief Dick Pound has rejected the independent investigation which cleared Lance Armstrong of doping allegations.
Pound said Wada is considering legal action over the verdict into L'Equipe's claims that Armstrong's samples on the 1999 Tour de France tested positive.
He said the investigation headed by lawyer Emile Vrijman and the Dutch law firm Scholten "bordered on farcical."
Their report exonerated Armstrong and blamed anti-doping authorities.
It accused the Wada agency of behaving in ways "completely inconsistent" with testing rules, and determined the testing procedures at the French national doping laboratory LNDD had been insufficient to label the American's sample positive.
Vrijman also stated that Wada and the LNDD had effectively pronounced Armstrong guilty of a doping violation without sufficient basis.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/5043260.stm

In a rebuke considered rare because it involves one of its own members, the International Olympic Committee officially reprimanded Pound for comments that might have damaged the legendary cyclist's reputation. The Los Angeles Times first reported the story on Saturday.

But Pound seemed unfazed by it all. "This has nothing to do with either the IOC ethics commission or the IOC board,'' Pound told The Associated Press by telephone from Montreal. "Anything I do or say in relation to doping is done in my capacity with WADA.
"I'm responsible to WADA, not the IOC," he added. "Everything I've done has been in accordance with instructions or approval from WADA."
Pound also said he will discuss the matter with the IOC.
"I'll tell them with the greatest of respect, 'I think you've got it wrong,'" Pound said. "People are going to wonder if the IOC is serious or not."
According to the IOC's decision, dated Feb. 2, the organization's ethics commission recommended that Pound had "the obligation to exercise greater prudence consistent with the Olympic spirit when making public pronouncements that may affect the reputation of others."

Oh, and one last thing: How does an organization keep a guy like Dick Pound around with quotes like this:

In January 2007, Pound responded to Floyd Landis' testosterone test following stage 17 of the Tour of France, an event (and a stage) which Landis initially won, but of which he was stripped after failing a dope case and losing at arbitration. Pound declared "I mean, it was 11 to 1!" referring to the tes

Just keep it off the bridges

I agree that it is better to use testing data over testimonies, however there is evidence to suggest that passing drugs tests isn't a guarantor of not being doped. Consider: -His competitors and team mates admitted to doping, without testing positive -He had doctors on his team that were convicted of being heavily involved in doping http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/18788834 Having doctors on your side would help enormously in the planning of getting a clean test -Athletes in other sports, eg the BALCO scandal, tested clean in many races before being caught - I agree the tests in the 90s were a joke, and (I imagine - see the quote) only testing out of competition became the norm during Armstrong's winning streak: "The rise to prominence of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in the late 1990s was a significant stimulus to the development of established and transparent out-of-competition testing practices" - I couldn't find exactly when out-of-competition testing became the norm in cycling http://www.faqs.org/sports-science/Mo-Pl/Out-of-Competition-Testing.html#b What the East Germans used to do, before going to international competition, was to test every athlete. Those that tested positive were withdrawn with an "injury". So even though he has tested clean - he had doctors that helped with doping, and teammates who were either convicted / admitted to doping. In this case the science is unfortunately all that its cracked up to be, hence the added weight to testimonial evidence I have a friend who is a big cycling geek, and a great source of info is this book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Breaking-The-Chain-Drugs-Cycling/dp/0224061178

I am expressly not listing any elements involving the validity of the allegations themselves, but only such ones that may influence Assange that are outside the scope of the alleged crimes. There is more to be said (see links in the text), but here are the main points of swedish behaviour which are likely to trouble Assange:

• Preliminary investigation: failures to follow procedure and the probable biais of an investigating officer due to personal acquaintance with one of the defendants unfortunately put the investigation itself in a bad light.
• No case: the investigation was opened, closed, then re-opened on request of the lawyer representing the two women. The investigators themselves did not consider the evidence sufficient for court.
• Proportionality: the fact that Assange has already been held in house arrest for over 500 days and faces at least short imprisonment in Sweden prior to any trial raises serious proportionality concerns. Given this result, I believe the argument of Assange's lawyers in court, that the use of an European Arrest Warrant simply in order to further an investigation before any actual prosecution takes place is disproportionate, to be valid. However, opionions are divided on this issue.
• Questioning in the UK: there is no legal problem whatsoever for the prosecutor to do this outside of Sweden, and indeed Sweden has questioned defendants or suspects abroad in the past. This is a decision that is entirely up to the prosecutor, and that decision has not satisfactorily been explained (audio interview with Swedish prosecution authority). Only recently, one justification has been given, and it is essentially one of prestige, which is a rather poor explanation given the fears expressed by Assange and the lack of any non-extradition guarantees by the Swedish government. I would be very curious to know what the real justification was before the case blew up.
• Connections: as mentioned in previous post.
• Expected future behaviour: opinions expressed in the press by Swedish journalists and intellectuals have become virulent, to say the least. Along with the media, public opinion has swayed in disfavor of Assange, giving cause for Assange to fear a fair trial, should it ever come to one. This case would likely collapse before any trial, according to Ove Bring, professor Emeritus of the Swedish national defence college (see previous link). However, with media and public opinion and concerns of prestige being as they are, this has become less likely. Interestingly, similar reasons may be given to argue that an actual extradition from Sweden to the US has become even less probable. It would go down very poorly in the court of global, public opinion should Sweden do so after months of trying to get him to return to Sweden for completely unrelated reasons. Personally, I believe Assange's fears have alway also centered around receiving a fair trial. With time, this fear has probably become increasingly real.

I am expressly not listing any elements involving the validity of the allegations themselves, but only such ones that may influence Assange that are outside the scope of the alleged crimes. There is more to be said (see links in the text), but here are the main points of swedish behaviour which are likely to trouble Assange:

• Preliminary investigation: failures to follow procedure and the probable biais of an investigating officer due to personal acquaintance with one of the defendants unfortunately put the investigation itself in a bad light.
• No case: the investigation was opened, closed, then re-opened on request of the lawyer representing the two women. The investigators themselves did not consider the evidence sufficient for court.
• Proportionality: the fact that Assange has already been held in house arrest for over 500 days and faces at least short imprisonment in Sweden prior to any trial raises serious proportionality concerns. Given this result, I believe the argument of Assange's lawyers in court, that the use of an European Arrest Warrant simply in order to further an investigation before any actual prosecution takes place is disproportionate, to be valid. However, opionions are divided on this issue.
• Questioning in the UK: there is no legal problem whatsoever for the prosecutor to do this outside of Sweden, and indeed Sweden has questioned defendants or suspects abroad in the past. This is a decision that is entirely up to the prosecutor, and that decision has not satisfactorily been explained (audio interview with Swedish prosecution authority). Only recently, one justification has been given, and it is essentially one of prestige, which is a rather poor explanation given the fears expressed by Assange and the lack of any non-extradition guarantees by the Swedish government. I would be very curious to know what the real justification was before the case blew up.
• Connections: as mentioned in previous post.
• Expected future behaviour: opinions expressed in the press by Swedish journalists and intellectuals have become virulent, to say the least. Along with the media, public opinion has swayed in disfavor of Assange, giving cause for Assange to fear a fair trial, should it ever come to one. This case would likely collapse before any trial, according to Ove Bring, professor Emeritus of the Swedish national defence college (see previous link). However, with media and public opinion and concerns of prestige being as they are, this has become less likely. Interestingly, similar reasons may be given to argue that an actual extradition from Sweden to the US has become even less probable. It would go down very poorly in the court of global, public opinion should Sweden do so after months of trying to get him to return to Sweden for completely unrelated reasons. Personally, I believe Assange's fears have alway also centered around receiving a fair trial. With time, this fear has probably become increasingly real.

So older men may father more sick children. But they also father longer-lived ones.

Ever since Lord Reith, the BBC has carefully guarded its independence.

"They know they (the government) can trust us not to be really impartial" - Lord Reith in his diary during the General Strike in 1926.

The BBC is in no sense independent. The board of governors is appointed directly by the government. Trying to argue that the BBC is independent is like trying to argue that the department manager has no influence over you because you only answer to the line manager (who is answerable to the department manager). There are plenty of examples of the BBC being highly partisan and serving the interests of government. Perhaps one of the most notable is the BBC's involvement in the 1953 Iranian coup. The BBC broadcast the "go" code for the operation.

Most of the time though, you don't need to have some government minister secretly complaining to the board. Like most news organisations, the BBC is well versed in self-censorship. Even the language used betrays the establishment mindset. You can see this most clearly when you contrast reporting on a domestic issue with reporting on a similar foreign issue. So for example, when police are hitting protesters with batons in the UK, the BBC will describe it as "police scuffled with protesters". In contrast, when police in Iran hit Iranian protesters in similar ways, the BBC describe it as "batons swinging wildly at unarmed protesters" etc.

Another example is the seige of Grozny where the BBC reporter was allowed to get fist-shakingly angry (because Russia is an enemy) and demanded to know what right the Russians had to order the citizens to leave.

How many of them were incinerated, crushed by falling masonry or shredded by shrapnel nobody yet knows.
Moscow excused itself the trouble of worrying about such details by equating those who stayed on with terrorists.
Why should they go? By what right was the Russian army forcing them from their homes? So Russia could destroy what it itself dismissed as a handful of terrorists?

In contrast it is interesting to see how the BBC dealt with the very similar situation of the seige of Fallujah. This time the army carrying out the siege was the US army, so the gloves go back on. Instead of a angry reporter cursing the US, we had articles like "Fixing the Problem of Fallujah".

They also show a genuine concern for civilians of Falluja.
The big question is whether the rebels will stay and fight, or if they will simply melt away, as guerrillas tend to do when faced with a large conventional force.
But for the highly-professional marines, Falluja is also a return to the simplicity of combat after the complexities of peacekeeping and an enemy that never shows itself.

Notice the difference?

Ever since Lord Reith, the BBC has carefully guarded its independence.

"They know they (the government) can trust us not to be really impartial" - Lord Reith in his diary during the General Strike in 1926.

The BBC is in no sense independent. The board of governors is appointed directly by the government. Trying to argue that the BBC is independent is like trying to argue that the department manager has no influence over you because you only answer to the line manager (who is answerable to the department manager). There are plenty of examples of the BBC being highly partisan and serving the interests of government. Perhaps one of the most notable is the BBC's involvement in the 1953 Iranian coup. The BBC broadcast the "go" code for the operation.

Most of the time though, you don't need to have some government minister secretly complaining to the board. Like most news organisations, the BBC is well versed in self-censorship. Even the language used betrays the establishment mindset. You can see this most clearly when you contrast reporting on a domestic issue with reporting on a similar foreign issue. So for example, when police are hitting protesters with batons in the UK, the BBC will describe it as "police scuffled with protesters". In contrast, when police in Iran hit Iranian protesters in similar ways, the BBC describe it as "batons swinging wildly at unarmed protesters" etc.

Another example is the seige of Grozny where the BBC reporter was allowed to get fist-shakingly angry (because Russia is an enemy) and demanded to know what right the Russians had to order the citizens to leave.

How many of them were incinerated, crushed by falling masonry or shredded by shrapnel nobody yet knows.
Moscow excused itself the trouble of worrying about such details by equating those who stayed on with terrorists.
Why should they go? By what right was the Russian army forcing them from their homes? So Russia could destroy what it itself dismissed as a handful of terrorists?

In contrast it is interesting to see how the BBC dealt with the very similar situation of the seige of Fallujah. This time the army carrying out the siege was the US army, so the gloves go back on. Instead of a angry reporter cursing the US, we had articles like "Fixing the Problem of Fallujah".

They also show a genuine concern for civilians of Falluja.
The big question is whether the rebels will stay and fight, or if they will simply melt away, as guerrillas tend to do when faced with a large conventional force.
But for the highly-professional marines, Falluja is also a return to the simplicity of combat after the complexities of peacekeeping and an enemy that never shows itself.

Notice the difference?

Surveillance cameras on every corner - not true

You're right, there are probably a few corners without CCTV. But there are enough cameras in the UK that there is one for every 32 citizens.

no freedom of speech - not true

Proof

no right to self defense - not true

Proof. Notice how strong the doublethink is in the judge, who exlclaims that "People have the right to use that reasonable force" while simultaneously sentencing someone for exercising that right.

no protection against self-incrimination (encryption keys) - not true (not true)

Proof

The BBC and NHK collaborated to demonstrate this system during the olympics , broadcasting to 3 sites in UK , 2 in US and 2 in Japan.
Further detail See http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/researchanddevelopment/2012/08/the-olympics-in-super-hi-visio.shtml
The opening/closing ceremony were broadcast live whereas during the rest of the week a daily hour long highlights package covering the opening ceremony and specific events package was compiled and broadcast on a daily basis.
I was fortunate enough to experience the system at Bradford Museum of the Moving Image on a 15 metre square screen and a couple of megawatts of sound..
With reputedly only 3 cameras in the world camera angles were somewhat limited, the opening ceremony coverage placed you in the heart of the stadium as if you were an audience member showing off the wide field of vision offered. I found the 22 channels of sound to be somewhat overwhelming in volume which I judged to be a bit of a cheap trick to impress. As with initial experience of Hidef the enhanced resolution can lead one to examine detail towards the edge of the field of vision. I was slightly disappointed that there was some blockiness at the edge. This may be due to focussing issues, focus is performed away from the camera.
All in all I found it quite comparable to the Imax experience excepting lack of 3d.

It is enforced solely by the BBC, according to Wikipedia:

Since 1991, collection and enforcement of the licence fee is the responsibility of the BBC in its role as TV Licensing Authority.

Original source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/keyfacts/stories/licencefee.shtml

The BBC became the Licensing Authority with responsibility for the administration of the television licensing system in 1991.

That would actually take a good bit more energy than just ejecting it from the solar system entirely.

getting it into the Sun is not the problem, it's getting it safely off the Earth that's the issue.
the thorium fuel cycle produces ~30x less long-lasting hazardous waste than uranium per W output (~15kg/GWyr).

The Statue of Liberty wouldn't have been built unless Americans paid for and built it's pedastel/ base. That was a huge amount of money at the time, all paid for by private citizens, many of them schoolchildren donating saved pennies. http://www.statueofliberty.org/Statue_History.html I think the Tesla Museum will be great! Here is thee BBC news story link.: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19343855

I've used the BBC news website as my main and often only source of news for years. However, I am still consistently amazed every few months when I discover yet another service that the BBC has been modestly offering in the background.

A couple of years ago the Tory government in the UK were trying to reduce the BBC's budget dramatically, arguing that it's lost focus on its core objective of news. In particular, they wanted to scale back the websites to just basic news, arguing that the real content should be provided by newspapers' websites. The reality is that the public love and defend the BBC's diverse range of services, and in the end I think the bill was scrapped. Now, with the recent Olympics, the BBC successfully (without a hitch, from what I saw) broadcast web-based feeds of 30 sporting events simultaneously, to tens of millions of viewers at once. Not only that, but you could rewind and seek within the live stream videos to rewatch notable events. They've recently extended the same functionalty to their iPlayer (catch-up TV) service, allowing me to rewind a programme that's currently broadcasting if I've missed the beginning.

The licence fee is an absolute bargain. I'd happily pay twice that amount. The only comparable website (and there are no real comparisons) would perhaps be the Guardian newspaper's website, which at least competes for news content. It doesn't make a stab at history sections, archives of old film footage (such as the Titanic launch), learning/revision services for school kids, a news service entirely aimed at kids (and toddlers), science...

I've used the BBC news website as my main and often only source of news for years. However, I am still consistently amazed every few months when I discover yet another service that the BBC has been modestly offering in the background.

A couple of years ago the Tory government in the UK were trying to reduce the BBC's budget dramatically, arguing that it's lost focus on its core objective of news. In particular, they wanted to scale back the websites to just basic news, arguing that the real content should be provided by newspapers' websites. The reality is that the public love and defend the BBC's diverse range of services, and in the end I think the bill was scrapped. Now, with the recent Olympics, the BBC successfully (without a hitch, from what I saw) broadcast web-based feeds of 30 sporting events simultaneously, to tens of millions of viewers at once. Not only that, but you could rewind and seek within the live stream videos to rewatch notable events. They've recently extended the same functionalty to their iPlayer (catch-up TV) service, allowing me to rewind a programme that's currently broadcasting if I've missed the beginning.

The licence fee is an absolute bargain. I'd happily pay twice that amount. The only comparable website (and there are no real comparisons) would perhaps be the Guardian newspaper's website, which at least competes for news content. It doesn't make a stab at history sections, archives of old film footage (such as the Titanic launch), learning/revision services for school kids, a news service entirely aimed at kids (and toddlers), science...

I've used the BBC news website as my main and often only source of news for years. However, I am still consistently amazed every few months when I discover yet another service that the BBC has been modestly offering in the background.

A couple of years ago the Tory government in the UK were trying to reduce the BBC's budget dramatically, arguing that it's lost focus on its core objective of news. In particular, they wanted to scale back the websites to just basic news, arguing that the real content should be provided by newspapers' websites. The reality is that the public love and defend the BBC's diverse range of services, and in the end I think the bill was scrapped. Now, with the recent Olympics, the BBC successfully (without a hitch, from what I saw) broadcast web-based feeds of 30 sporting events simultaneously, to tens of millions of viewers at once. Not only that, but you could rewind and seek within the live stream videos to rewatch notable events. They've recently extended the same functionalty to their iPlayer (catch-up TV) service, allowing me to rewind a programme that's currently broadcasting if I've missed the beginning.

The licence fee is an absolute bargain. I'd happily pay twice that amount. The only comparable website (and there are no real comparisons) would perhaps be the Guardian newspaper's website, which at least competes for news content. It doesn't make a stab at history sections, archives of old film footage (such as the Titanic launch), learning/revision services for school kids, a news service entirely aimed at kids (and toddlers), science...

I've used the BBC news website as my main and often only source of news for years. However, I am still consistently amazed every few months when I discover yet another service that the BBC has been modestly offering in the background.

A couple of years ago the Tory government in the UK were trying to reduce the BBC's budget dramatically, arguing that it's lost focus on its core objective of news. In particular, they wanted to scale back the websites to just basic news, arguing that the real content should be provided by newspapers' websites. The reality is that the public love and defend the BBC's diverse range of services, and in the end I think the bill was scrapped. Now, with the recent Olympics, the BBC successfully (without a hitch, from what I saw) broadcast web-based feeds of 30 sporting events simultaneously, to tens of millions of viewers at once. Not only that, but you could rewind and seek within the live stream videos to rewatch notable events. They've recently extended the same functionalty to their iPlayer (catch-up TV) service, allowing me to rewind a programme that's currently broadcasting if I've missed the beginning.

The licence fee is an absolute bargain. I'd happily pay twice that amount. The only comparable website (and there are no real comparisons) would perhaps be the Guardian newspaper's website, which at least competes for news content. It doesn't make a stab at history sections, archives of old film footage (such as the Titanic launch), learning/revision services for school kids, a news service entirely aimed at kids (and toddlers), science...

I've used the BBC news website as my main and often only source of news for years. However, I am still consistently amazed every few months when I discover yet another service that the BBC has been modestly offering in the background.

A couple of years ago the Tory government in the UK were trying to reduce the BBC's budget dramatically, arguing that it's lost focus on its core objective of news. In particular, they wanted to scale back the websites to just basic news, arguing that the real content should be provided by newspapers' websites. The reality is that the public love and defend the BBC's diverse range of services, and in the end I think the bill was scrapped. Now, with the recent Olympics, the BBC successfully (without a hitch, from what I saw) broadcast web-based feeds of 30 sporting events simultaneously, to tens of millions of viewers at once. Not only that, but you could rewind and seek within the live stream videos to rewatch notable events. They've recently extended the same functionalty to their iPlayer (catch-up TV) service, allowing me to rewind a programme that's currently broadcasting if I've missed the beginning.

The licence fee is an absolute bargain. I'd happily pay twice that amount. The only comparable website (and there are no real comparisons) would perhaps be the Guardian newspaper's website, which at least competes for news content. It doesn't make a stab at history sections, archives of old film footage (such as the Titanic launch), learning/revision services for school kids, a news service entirely aimed at kids (and toddlers), science...

I've used the BBC news website as my main and often only source of news for years. However, I am still consistently amazed every few months when I discover yet another service that the BBC has been modestly offering in the background.

A couple of years ago the Tory government in the UK were trying to reduce the BBC's budget dramatically, arguing that it's lost focus on its core objective of news. In particular, they wanted to scale back the websites to just basic news, arguing that the real content should be provided by newspapers' websites. The reality is that the public love and defend the BBC's diverse range of services, and in the end I think the bill was scrapped. Now, with the recent Olympics, the BBC successfully (without a hitch, from what I saw) broadcast web-based feeds of 30 sporting events simultaneously, to tens of millions of viewers at once. Not only that, but you could rewind and seek within the live stream videos to rewatch notable events. They've recently extended the same functionalty to their iPlayer (catch-up TV) service, allowing me to rewind a programme that's currently broadcasting if I've missed the beginning.

The licence fee is an absolute bargain. I'd happily pay twice that amount. The only comparable website (and there are no real comparisons) would perhaps be the Guardian newspaper's website, which at least competes for news content. It doesn't make a stab at history sections, archives of old film footage (such as the Titanic launch), learning/revision services for school kids, a news service entirely aimed at kids (and toddlers), science...

Yet despite socialism's "drag" the socialist economies in Europe have a better economic output than the US combined, and Norway which is very socialist even has a higher GDP per capita, and this is despite the US having a massive advantage in these areas due to it being in the fortunate position of being able to dictate most world trade rules in place today.

So how does that figure into your equation? Why are people in socialist countries also more productive?

You obviously haven't really thought through your point, but let me explain why this is generally the case. The reasons are varied but fairly simple, that without a sensible social security blanket, such as socialised healthcare, you end up with people being taken out of the productive portion of the economy, people get sick and can't become productive again because of lack of suitable healthcare to do so. You also have greater access to education when it receives more state funding, and you have people with benefits able to get back on their feet more easily rather than completely falling into ruin and ending up a burden on the state, often resorting to crime etc.

This isn't to say socialism is all great, it does have it's disadvantages, it does mean less elite universities for the small fragment of the population that can afford it, it does mean let billionaires, etc. What it does do is help the average person though, it allows the average to be better educated, it allows the average to be happier, it allows the average to be healthier. It means more people a better off, more people are healthier, and more people are happier. It means you don't end up with parts of your country being basically third world, like parts of New Orleans, and Detroit.

So sure, the US system is great if you're one of the few fortunate enough to be born into, or even fewer lucky enough to make it into the elite, but for everyone else, including people like you, it's far worse, so you're a fool for defending it, one of the fools discussed here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8474611.stm

But I'm sure you wont get this, your post was ignorant and short sighted, and with that kind of ignorance of different political systems it's unlikely that you'll be able to have a sensible and rational conversation on this. Still, hopefully you'll suprise me and be able to show at least some grasp of the different merits of socialism and capitalism rather than an outright clueless troll suggesting that socialism is never productive. You only have to look at the UK, which is one of the least socialist and most pro-capitalist states in Europe to see that more capitalism has far from helped us, as we're still a weaker economy than France and Germany, and despite 2 years of more capitalist oriented changes to our economy by the government, things have only gotten worse.

This will go over about as well as the old Ananova.com website. Am I the only one who remembers that crime against journalism? It was like having the news fed through Xtranormal.

Here's a brief BBC story on Ananova, for the youngsters who have no idea what gramps is ranting about this time: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/606855.stm

In the civilised world, we view people who refuse to help the sick and injured as evil scum. In your country you may be happy with people dying, untreated, on the streets. YMMV.

The same civilized world which in many places don't have the right to free speech? You might not be aware of the fact that people here DO get treatment. If you look at any of the border states especially you'll see the Hospitals filled with people. At one point in Los Angeles 60% of the patients aren't even citizens. How about Hospitals faltering because of massive influx of non citizens.

1) Don't be so eager to downplay conservative social attitudes—after all, there are lots of countries where something is legal, but so shameful that no one would ever get caught doing it for fear of being disowned by their families. Unfortunately this even happens in the United States. A state-encouraged culture of conservatism constitutes a form of repression itself; the United States became much more conservative after World War II in part because the government wanted to show a strong face to Russia. And lo and behold: two women were executed for being 'tinged with capitalism' because they had sex with each other and had been to Japan.

2) The Carter comment comes from a BBC story. This Guardian article, also cited on the page, says that the World Food Programme estimates that six million (out of 23 million total) are short of food.

3) Here's a bit more on the educational situation. I do agree that university tuition is a scandal in a lot of Western countries, but (in Canada and the US, anyway) that tuition is just a matter of acquiring a loan, usually from the government, which you can reasonably expect to pay back, especially if you finish your degree. Regardless of how university is in North Korea, many never get through basic school, and much of the curriculum is political indoctrination.

3 again, let's call it 4) If you read the articles on each of the four parties' pages, it appears they exist now only to give the illusion of choice. While they had political agendas early on, all of them are allied with the ruling party, and none exist except as a formality. It's slightly more elaborate than the CPSU, but it does not appear to be any more free. In the United States the two parties aren't truly political causes, but really more sets of rich people, who at least actually oppose each other. There are many political movements (ranging from the Tea Party, to the Libertarians, to the Green Party, to the Neocons, to Occupy Wall Street) which are allowed to express their views publicly, and have influenced the policies of their corresponding political parties.

4, bumped to 5) Have you seen this? I think it might be useful. You are wrong to say North Koreans are free to be homosexual (which you called "totally ok"); the statement that women have suffrage is meaningless because no democratic elections occur; there are numerous sources stating that North Korea has a serious and continual food problem; and for many North Koreans, public school education is very different from the equivalent in other countries, consisting largely of indoctrination.

5, bumped to 6) Like it or not, the government of Taiwan still claims mainland China. The official 'Taiwan' got stuck to it largely because other countries wanted to open up dealings with the PRC, and not offend the PRC when they did so. The legislature is still the Republic of China's legislature all the way back—you might as well say that Constantine's empire wasn't the Roman Empire just because it didn't possess Rome.

6, bumped to 7) Colonialism in the past doesn't affect a country's participation in the free world in the present. The UK does have a lot of problems, but it is still essentially a free country.

As for Greeks: no, it's more about your English. :) The person I knew was actually very conservative and admired the social order and relative lack of corruption in the US.

Socialism and capitalism aren't mutually exclusive. As for whether socialism works, well, I'd say Germany is a good example that it does, but the EU in general is mostly socialist and economically larger than the US whilst having lower average levels of crime, better measures of personal happiness, higher levels of adult numeracy and literacy, longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality rates, greater political respect globally, and so forth.

Unless of course you're doing as many right-wing Americans do and confusing socialism with communism as is often the case with the American right in which case you're correct, communism has never really been shown to work.

I don't think anyone whether from America or not complaining about US style-capitalism is suggesting a massive lurch from the fairly far right to the complete opposite on the far left that is communism, they're probably just saying that America has taken capitalism a little too far to the point that it's detrimental not just to the country, but to it's citizens as well, and that a healthy injection of socialism as countries like those in Europe have would probably improve things.

Certainly the answer for America is absolutely not to lurch even more to the right, because at that point it's really entering the realm of fascism. I know the left-right scale is fairly imperfect, but it does illustrate the relative position of these ideologies quite well. Effectively from left to right you have Communism, then Socialism, then Capitalism, then Fascism. A healthy balance of the middle two is best, too far into either one is unhealthy and moving into communism or fascism is just catastrophic. This isn't to say European nations always get it right, far from it - Greece went too far with it's socialism for example relative to the amount of money it had available as a nation, much as America has gone too far with it's capitalism to the detriment of many of it's citizens being left unable too meaningfully contribute to and participate enjoyably in society.

The thing is, when put objectively, the vast majority of Americans even seem to agree that capitalism has pushed inequality in the US much too far, and would actually prefer a more socialist society:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19284017

But of course, what people say in an objective study, and what they vote for in a more emotion filled ballot box, are two different things.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-05-17/world/world_mexico-decapitated-bodies_1_drug-war-gulf-cartel-monterrey?_s=PM:WORLD
http://www.infowars.com/35-decapitations-in-past-six-weeks-near-us-mexico-border/
http://www.bestgore.com/beheading/chainsaw-beheading-video-sinaloa-cartel-members-decapitated-mexico/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18063328
--
And so on.

They can use robot guards, presumably running Windows, to guard the site

the leaked cables absolutely do give up details of all sorts of covert operations, quiet conversations between nations, at-risk protesters with families living under brutal regimes like Iran, etc.

The leaked cables certainly contained details of quiet conversations between nations, many of which were not in the best interests of their citizens. Take an example from the list in this article: an innocent German citizen was abducted by the US, and Germany was warned not to arrest the CIA agents involved. Germany should have made that public - and the US wouldn't have made such a shameful request if they hadn't been able to do so secretly. A few others are almost as bad; most are ambiguous, with no particular benefit or harm resulting from them becoming known. This is an area in which we can certainly debate the appropriate degree of transparency: I doubt that it needs to be total, but I would like to see more than we have currently.

I'm more interested, though, in your other two points. Details of covert operations? At-risk protesters with families living under brutal regimes? Accusations of this sort were all over the place a few weeks after the Wikileaks cables were released, and I've yet to see a single one - a single concrete example of harm resulting from the release - which actually provided a reliable citation. Given the amount of FUD on the issue, I'm afraid that I'll have to insist on a link to the actual cable on Wikileaks. Got anything?

There are probably many more peaceful/tolerant muslims in the world than there are Christians, but it's the "Fred Phelp's" groups that get all the attention, not the Lutherans down the block.

Not likely, as there are more Christians than Muslims, and at least a large portion of the Muslims are not particularly tolerant. Of course, many of the muslims in the west are those who can't stand this religious oppression.

BBC video of the arrest:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19300149

Rough transcription: "What are you doing? I'm being detained? What am I charged with? What am I charged with? What am I charged with? What am I charged with? What am I charged with? What am I charged with?"

1) Where did the UK state that? (i.e. you HAVEN'T read the letter, which was published in the same newspaper linked to above - there is no mention of storming or even entering ANYTHING, ANYWHERE in the entire letter).

That would be the last story slashdot posted on this... 12 hours ago, and it was based on a BBC story mentioning the letter, and to quote directly from the Foreign Minister of Equador: "Today we received from the United Kingdom an express threat, in writing, that they might storm our embassy in London if we don't hand over Julian Assange," he said."

That (emphasised) quote in no way answers the question asked (the article doesn't, either, but you never asserted that)

Things rarely are that black & white or simple.

For example the last bit you quoted is precious:

The new article prohibits media from "either directly or indirectly promoting any given candidate, proposal, options, electoral preferences or political thesis, through articles, specials or any other form of message".

That's damn right, the journalists SHOULD BE OBJECTIVE, and not biased like Faux News.
Not sure how the full article goes, but given that Assange wanted asylum at Ecuador AND this from TFA:

President Rafael Correa, a self-declared enemy of "corrupt" media and U.S. "imperialism".

I'm saying the truth is not so simple.

Following does not represent my opinion or viewpoint, but could as well be true/what's actually going on:
Rafael Correa is actually FOR objective and open journalism without bias, and those articles saying otherwise are drawn out of context and/or wildly exaggerated, cases where President Correa has been trying to weed out corruption, smear campaigning (maybe against himself, but anyone else could be the target) or otherwise being tried to ruin reputation for.

It could be possible that El Universo was a corrupt organization who under the journalism & free speech protection thought they could run any kind of smear campaign articles based loosely, or not based at all on truth. Being very biased, and maybe being paid for by 3rd parties to drive the agenda of said 3rd parties.

Such a biased "reporting" or outright lies about Media wouldn't be anything new at all. There are far too often a bias on the news being "represented".
A good comparison would be watching the usual Faux News, CNN or other western media reporting and compare that report to the Russian broadcast! I haven't personally seen, but my dad has gotten to compare Russian broadcast vs. BBC/CNN etc. on a terrorism case happening at a theater in Russia, plenty hostages etc.
The report was certainly a lot different between the two.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2363601.stm

What the actual truth and reality is then, everyone has to judge for themselves.

1) Where did the UK state that? (i.e. you HAVEN'T read the letter, which was published in the same newspaper linked to above - there is no mention of storming or even entering ANYTHING, ANYWHERE in the entire letter).

That would be the last story slashdot posted on this... 12 hours ago, and it was based on a BBC story mentioning the letter, and to quote directly from the Foreign Minister of Equador: "Today we received from the United Kingdom an express threat, in writing, that they might storm our embassy in London if we don't hand over Julian Assange," he said."

A quote from an Equadorian minister is in no way the same thing as "the UK stating that", that's silly. As the GP already told you, read the actual letter! This is the relevant part:

We have to reiterate that we consider continued use of diplomatic premises in this way, to be incompatible with the VCDR (Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations) and not sustainable, and that we have already made clear to you the serious implications for our diplomatic relations.

You should be aware that there is a legal basis in the U.K. the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act which would allow us to take action to arrest Mr. Assange in the current premises of the Embassy.

We very much hope not to get this point, but if you cannot resolve the issue of Mr. Assange's presence on your premises, this route is open to us.

2) It doesn't violate the Vienna convention to dissolve the embassy or even expel all the diplomatic staff. Go read it. It's quite clear that the UK can do that "at any time, and for any reason". Assange isn't covered by that, no matter what.

It violates article 9 of the Vienna convention, a treaty signed by the UK which supercecedes national law.

See previous quote from their letter, if you had read it you'd see they already addressed that as well.

Rather than take Assange out of the embassy, they have threatened (indirectly and politely) to take the embassy away from Assange. Which is perfectly legitimate.

I dislike what the British government is doing, but I dislike arguments based on inaccurate information even more...

1) Where did the UK state that? (i.e. you HAVEN'T read the letter, which was published in the same newspaper linked to above - there is no mention of storming or even entering ANYTHING, ANYWHERE in the entire letter).

That would be the last story slashdot posted on this... 12 hours ago, and it was based on a BBC story mentioning the letter, and to quote directly from the Foreign Minister of Equador: "Today we received from the United Kingdom an express threat, in writing, that they might storm our embassy in London if we don't hand over Julian Assange," he said."

2) It doesn't violate the Vienna convention to dissolve the embassy or even expel all the diplomatic staff. Go read it. It's quite clear that the UK can do that "at any time, and for any reason". Assange isn't covered by that, no matter what.

It violates article 9 of the Vienna convention, a treaty signed by the UK which supercecedes national law. That's the very definition of a treaty. The US has stated it has withdrawn from the Vienna convention, which is why it considers itself able to commit forced extradition of other countries citizens without any need to explain or justify itself. It has taken the diplomatic position of "We have more guns. Go ahead and try and stop us, but some piece of paper means nothing to us."

Rather than take Assange out of the embassy, they have threatened (indirectly and politely) to take the embassy away from Assange. Which is perfectly legitimate.

Yes, well, I see you have your life and liberty. I can't take away your liberty, so I'll just threaten to take your life -- indirectly and politely. It's perfectly legitimate because although it ends the exact same way, I can now say I never threatened to take away your liberty... your dead corpse will still have it. My internet logic is unbeatable!

Legitimacy isn't defined as what you can get away with; It's sticking to what you said before. And the UK signed the treaty, and the treaty is very explicit about this, in no uncertain terms, beyond any internet-troll logic: Once asylum is granted, the other country can't do anything to that person. Not while they're at the embassy. Not while they're in a vehicle leaving the embassy under the embassies protection. Not while they're at the airport getting out of the car. Not once they're in the air. Not anything. Anywhere. At anytime. For any reason. Period. End. Of. Discussion.

To quote directly from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, source from the website of the organization responsible for its creation and oversight, the UN, Article 22, Item 1: The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission, as wll as Article 29, The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention.

You'll note it says person of a diplomatic agent; which refers to anyone under the protection of that embassy. It does not require approval of the host country, and does not restrict in any way that diplomatic envoy's right to designate any person as being under their protection, at any time, for any reason.

Can people PLEASE stop spreading this ridiculous lie. The U.K. High Court properly held that what he is charged with qualifies as rape under U.K. law, and that it carries a maximum penalty of 4 years in Sweden. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_11_11_assange.pdf

The description of the alleged unlawful conduct includes sex with a woman who was asleep, thus unable to consent, which was aggravated by his knowledge that she didn't want to have sex without a condom. The other conduct described might be considered trivial by some, but this act qualifies as rape in most civilized countries.

Of course, it's possible none of that conduct occurred. Under the EU extradition system, it's not the U.K.'s job - either the government's or the courts' - to decide whether he's guilty.

Ecuador's free speech record at odds with Julian Assange's bid for openness
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/19/ecuador-free-speech-julian-assange

Ecuador, a country with a tenuous respect for international human rights law, is counter-intuitive refuge for the free speech and transparency crusader.

Ecuador's justice system and record on free speech have been called into question by Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and Amnesty International.

"I think this is ironic that you have a journalist, or an activist, seeking political asylum from a government that has – after Cuba – the poorest record of free speech in the region, and the practice of persecuting local journalists when the government is upset by their opinions or their research," José Miguel Vivanco, director of Human Rights Watch's Americas division, told the Guardian.

Vivanco points out that in April of 2011, Ecuador expelled the US ambassador Heather Hodges over diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks alleging widespread corruption within the Ecuadorian police.

Ecuador’s Assault on Free Speech
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/opinion/ecuadors-assault-on-free-speech.html

Ecuador’s highest court has delivered a staggering, shameful blow to the country’s democracy, siding with President Rafael Correa’s campaign to silence and bankrupt El Universo, Ecuador’s largest newspaper.

Ecuador's Rafael Correa under fire for media laws
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16806224

[...] the president ought to be known for "the most comprehensive and ruthless assault on free media under way in the Western Hemisphere".

According to various international rights organisations, 2011 was a bad year for freedom of speech in Ecuador, and 2012 does not bode well.

Following a change to the current electoral law, which comes into effect on 4 February, journalists will face restrictions when reporting on the forthcoming campaign for the 2013 presidential election.

The new article prohibits media from "either directly or indirectly promoting any given candidate, proposal, options, electoral preferences or political thesis, through articles, specials or any other form of message".

Also, to preempt this ridiculousness:

The UK didn't say it was going to "storm" Ecuador's embassy. (The origin of that claim? None other than Ecuador.) What the UK said is that Ecuador's embassy may be stripped of its diplomatic status (a move which would have serious diplomatic fallout), and police may arrest Assange.

People who think this is "good news" for Assange and/or Ecuador and/or the world at large are certainly showing their true colors: not only a disregard and lack of respect for freedom (including that of speech), but a celebration of anything that attacks the US and the West -- institutions which, for all their many imperfections, actually promote ideals of freedom and liberal democracy. Indeed, as Steven Aftergood, veteran crusader against excessive US government secrecy and director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy: "WikiLeaks must be counted among the enemies of open society because it does not respect the rule of law nor does it honor the rights of individuals."

But about this blimp, how many 50 cal rounds do you think it can take before floating down to the ground? Everyone is talking about missiles, I'm think anti-aircraft guns or a planes 50 cal machine guns, simple but effective. As others have said as well, the US fights a lot of wars where our enemy has inferior technology, so a bullet would probably be the best weapon they have.

It probably can take quite a few 50 cal rounds. These balloons have small pressure differences between inside and outside. I'd wager it would drift down slowly once hit. The equipment carried, would of course be more susceptible to that sort of thing.

I've heard a story of the Canadian airforce trying to shoot down a balloon that was just above the upper ceiling at which their aircraft could fly. Oh, google found the story. Turns out both Canadian and UK aircraft (possibly the US too) took a lot of shots at a 25 story balloon.

The balloon also remained aloft after two Canadian air force CF-18 fighters fired more than 1,000 rounds of cannon shells into it off the coast of Newfoundland

I imagine the balloon was a lot higher than 20,000 feet too.

The anti-air weapons seems more likely to be effective since it's a combination of explosion and shrapnel, the balloon is as unarmored as you can get, and it's a slow moving target relative to the gunner. But all you have to do is raise the height of the balloon. If it's above 50,000 feet, there's not much that can touch it. For what it's worth, you can fly balloons past 100,000 feet relatively easily.

Noted on BBC website:

Foreign minister Ricardo Patino said the letter from the UK to Ecuador stated: "You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy.

"We sincerely hope that we do not reach that point, but if you are not capable of resolving this matter of Mr Assange's presence in your premises, this is an open option for us."

It went on: "We need to reiterate that we consider the continued use of the diplomatic premises in this way incompatible with the Vienna Convention and unsustainable and we have made clear the serious implications that this has for our diplomatic relations."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19259623

They say they are not about to raid the embassy.

Much like anything else involving Assange, it appears Assange's side is amping up the hype.

Did it roll out 24 extra HD channels? Does it air the segments live, back-to-back and without commercials?

Regarding your question about live coverage, the answer is yes -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympic_games/vancouver_2010/8468322.stm

And they had daily recap programs for those that missed the live coverage.

Why is it so hard for some people to accept that you can have a high quality public service run by a public organisation without a profit motive? Is it so hard to see beyond the dogma?

The BBC also recorded some of the events in Super Hi Vision Engadget has a review: "while watching the swimming event and cut-down highlights of the opening ceremony, there were moments when we could almost have believed we were looking not at a projected image, but rather through a window direct onto the Olympic Stadium or Aquatics Center itself."

Figures you'd be the one to say this is a "good" thing, Hatta. ;-)

Ecuador's Rafael Correa under fire for media laws
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16806224

Ecuador's free speech record at odds with Julian Assange's bid for openness
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/19/ecuador-free-speech-julian-assange

Ecuador’s Assault on Free Speech
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/opinion/ecuadors-assault-on-free-speech.html

Oh, I know that in your world Ecuador is probably some kind of panacea — but this really just shows Assange's true colors (and those of anyone who can't see anything in conflict between concepts like "free speech" and "Ecuador") in spades.

Listen to Assange's side of the story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9309000/9309320.stm

He isn't wanted for a crime in Sweden, only for "questioning" by a prosecutor. He was in Sweden for 5 weeks following the alleged incidents so there was ample opportunity for this. When he left, he wasn't running from the Swedish authorities like a fugitive. He's also willing to speak with the Swedish prosecutor, but he didn't want to go back to Sweden to do it.

I think this reeks of conspiracy.