Do you have any evidence at all that the extradition request received by the UK was not received through the appropriate channels, with the appropriate sign-off from the authorised Swedish signatories?
Just that, if the request was received in accordance with the agreed protocol then it's valid, and must be treated as such.
Whether or not the Swedes behaved correctly prior to following those protocols is not something the UK can determine, and extraditing Assange does not prevent him from contesting Swedish process to get his case dismissed there.
Arresting Assange for breach of his bail conditions and extraditing him would not constitute an illegal arrest in the UK. Now fuck off you ignorant cunt.
Well fuck you and your total disregard for a fair trial.
Assange is in breach of bail conditions that are not considered excessively onerous, undue or demeaning. He's broken the law by failing to comply with those conditions.
It would compromise his right to a fair trial were he to speak beforehand with a judge that might preside over it. It would also compromise the public's right to a fair trial.
Don't forget the houses need support infrastructure - roads, sewerage, utilities, but also 224 homes will need a community hall, a couple of shops, a decent pub, a medical centre and/or dentist and (given this is America) at least seven churches.
Oh, it's trivial to work around - because unlike some Steam users $5 isn't half a day's salary for me. But until/unless someone is generous on her behalf she can not fully enjoy the platform or the games she owns on it.
Which has been the issue under discussion all along.
Because the game bought in Wal-Mart includes features such as "Access to community updates" and "play with your friends".
When a game forces you to use Steam if you want to play it, and requires Steam for specific features mentioned on the box, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to be able to access those features through Steam with no further expenditure.
Polygraphs have no basis in reality. They're purely a psychological tool.
I find it confusing that one would be used during the federal hiring process. At least it tells me I wouldn't want to work there; anybody with recruitment processes that fucked up isn't someone I want to work for.
Hmm. How about my name, my email address, the person that referred me to twitter, the people with whom I've exchanged private messages, the contents of those messages, the IP addresses that I connect from, the adverts shown to me and the ones on which I clicked.
I'm also sure my boss wont get fined if I disable his backdoor. But thanks for the gold star.
I think the Europeans are less rational about this than the Americans.
Your arguments are all "oh, Europe misbehaves too" as though that somehow means we shouldn't at least stop the fucking US "all your data are belong to us" bullshit.
We're working hard for privacy and security in Europe too, why should the US get a free ride.
it just doesn't pass the smell test to claim that the US-based version of twitter doesn't have the ability to get data from Irish twitter servers, particularly since the database software is probably designed here. Good luck convincing a Court you genuinely can't downgrade it to get rid of the security features you just added
If my direct boss - based in Texas - tells me to do something with the intent of breaking UK law, I say no. If I think he's going to use his access to a UK hosted system to break UK law, I'll get his access revoked.
He'll back me fully on that, and even if he doesn't, UK law prevents me being sacked for acting like that. Hell, the UK management team will thank me.
To subvert the security as you suggest, he'd need to do so without anybody in the UK finding out what he was planning to do, how he was doing it, or why. The moment we find out we're legally obliged to act to prevent him.
Maybe a US court wouldn't agree with that, but it's not hard to get a UK court order with which we'd comply.
The problem is that the people whose job it is to prevent people taking down a flight are obliged to treat it as not a joke.
Of course, the correct behaviour is to investigate, confirm it was a joke and tell the idiot that they weren't funny and be glad they're getting off with being called an idiot. It's still correct to investigate.
Slashdot Mirror
Look you ignorant cunt I've already fucking told you how she acquired the games on her account.
You're either being deliberating obtuse or you're so fucking stupid you don't belong on Slashdot. Now fuck off and stop wasting my fucking time.
Fuck me, how do you even get fucking dressed in the morning.
At last an anti-judge comment on this article with which I can agree. The wigs are indeed a bit bloody stupid.
Worse still, they can decline to 'see' any barrister that isn't wearing one.
You ignorant cunt. This is nothing of the kind. Incidentally kowtow tends to have a k in it.
Do you have any evidence at all that the extradition request received by the UK was not received through the appropriate channels, with the appropriate sign-off from the authorised Swedish signatories?
Just that, if the request was received in accordance with the agreed protocol then it's valid, and must be treated as such.
Whether or not the Swedes behaved correctly prior to following those protocols is not something the UK can determine, and extraditing Assange does not prevent him from contesting Swedish process to get his case dismissed there.
Arresting Assange for breach of his bail conditions and extraditing him would not constitute an illegal arrest in the UK. Now fuck off you ignorant cunt.
Well fuck you and your total disregard for a fair trial.
Assange is in breach of bail conditions that are not considered excessively onerous, undue or demeaning. He's broken the law by failing to comply with those conditions.
It would compromise his right to a fair trial were he to speak beforehand with a judge that might preside over it. It would also compromise the public's right to a fair trial.
He's breached bail conditions in the UK. That makes him a fugitive from justice in the UK.
Whether he's committed a crime in another country is totally fucking irrelevant.
The judges can't listen to him because it would compromise their integrity - the absolute fucking opposite reason of your alleged moral corruption.
This isn't even fucking complicated, you're just skipping past the obvious in a blind frenzy to defend Assange.
There is however a fucking warrant for his fucking arrest for breach of fucking bail.
That's against the fucking law in this country you total fuckwit.
Don't forget the houses need support infrastructure - roads, sewerage, utilities, but also 224 homes will need a community hall, a couple of shops, a decent pub, a medical centre and/or dentist and (given this is America) at least seven churches.
Only a portion of the spend will go on houses.
Oh, it's trivial to work around - because unlike some Steam users $5 isn't half a day's salary for me. But until/unless someone is generous on her behalf she can not fully enjoy the platform or the games she owns on it.
Which has been the issue under discussion all along.
Perhaps I should have been more explicit. The use of a polygraph as a means of verifying veracity has no basis in reality.
OK. My friend's daughter. She has 3-4 games on her Steam account, one gifted by her father and the others gifted by me.
She's too young for a credit card, but not too young to build things for the Steam workshop, let alone download content from others.
So by your logic I can legally promise to pay someone a few thousand dollars to kill you, because I'm just using words?
Luckily the law disagrees.
Because the game bought in Wal-Mart includes features such as "Access to community updates" and "play with your friends".
When a game forces you to use Steam if you want to play it, and requires Steam for specific features mentioned on the box, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to be able to access those features through Steam with no further expenditure.
Polygraphs have no basis in reality. They're purely a psychological tool.
I find it confusing that one would be used during the federal hiring process. At least it tells me I wouldn't want to work there; anybody with recruitment processes that fucked up isn't someone I want to work for.
He's not on trial for what he said. He's on trial for what he tried to do : Fraudulently subvert federal security.
Fuck all to do with the first amendment.
Hmm. How about my name, my email address, the person that referred me to twitter, the people with whom I've exchanged private messages, the contents of those messages, the IP addresses that I connect from, the adverts shown to me and the ones on which I clicked.
I'm also sure my boss wont get fined if I disable his backdoor. But thanks for the gold star.
I think the Europeans are less rational about this than the Americans.
Your arguments are all "oh, Europe misbehaves too" as though that somehow means we shouldn't at least stop the fucking US "all your data are belong to us" bullshit.
We're working hard for privacy and security in Europe too, why should the US get a free ride.
it just doesn't pass the smell test to claim that the US-based version of twitter doesn't have the ability to get data from Irish twitter servers, particularly since the database software is probably designed here. Good luck convincing a Court you genuinely can't downgrade it to get rid of the security features you just added
If my direct boss - based in Texas - tells me to do something with the intent of breaking UK law, I say no. If I think he's going to use his access to a UK hosted system to break UK law, I'll get his access revoked.
He'll back me fully on that, and even if he doesn't, UK law prevents me being sacked for acting like that. Hell, the UK management team will thank me.
To subvert the security as you suggest, he'd need to do so without anybody in the UK finding out what he was planning to do, how he was doing it, or why. The moment we find out we're legally obliged to act to prevent him.
Maybe a US court wouldn't agree with that, but it's not hard to get a UK court order with which we'd comply.
The FBI doesn't have the authority to 'request' you quit doing lawful things.
Of course they do. First amendment and all that crap.
Whether they have the authority to do anything in response to you politely declining is possibly where you wanted to explore?
The problem is that the people whose job it is to prevent people taking down a flight are obliged to treat it as not a joke.
Of course, the correct behaviour is to investigate, confirm it was a joke and tell the idiot that they weren't funny and be glad they're getting off with being called an idiot. It's still correct to investigate.
I'd pity the man willing to pay actual money to have sex with me. Not enough to take his money, but I'd pity him.
At the boys school the boys can't wear there skirts any higher than 4 inches above the knee
To be fair, I find that any higher than that and dangly bits show.
You may enjoy http://menkampf.com/
(it's not technically NSFW but probably best avoided in the office)
I'm finding myself amused and almost proud that AmiMoJo has me on his/her 'foes' list.
That little yellow 'freak' warning light that Slashdot shows is a lovely indicator that I should just skip straight past.
There's evidence that boys perform better academically at male only schools too.
My issue isn't with single sex schools (although I'm glad I never attended one*) it's with providing gender segregated subject matter.
"Right, girls, you're all in Auto Shop 101. Boys, come this way for the crochet class." Sure.
* although I did once ask out a girl that had been the only female student at a boy's school