I saw a fire engine attending an emergency yesterday before I heard it. I knew it was there because the fucking large van in front of me (that my car would fit inside) made a strange unexplained manoeuvre that demonstrated something abnormal was occurring.
Lo, a fire engine. He'd been able to see it before I could but I still saw it long before I heard it.
If you can't see past the large vehicles by your own then you're driving blind and that makes you a fucking idiot. Stop being a fucking idiot. I've driven tiny shitty hire cars in the US just this year and had no trouble at all making enough space to retain situational awareness and sight lines. Maybe you should learn to fucking drive instead of worrying about headphones.
I'm not sure it was 2016 (may have happened before that particular dump) but there definitely was a switch by Wikileaks from "Sure, we'll host and protect the integrity of that unofficial data" to "We will control the flow of information".
I think that damaged them more than rape allegations. People understand and can at least respect the ethos behind 'information wants to be free' but despise people that try to control knowledge for their own selfish needs.
To avoid criminal sexual assault charges in Sweden. Nothing to do with Obama/Trump/etc.
I think the story all along has been that he was hiding from spurious charges intended to draw him back to a country from which he could be extradited to the US.
Whether that story is true or not, it's been the story.
Certainly the behaviour of the Swedish prosecutors has been deeply questionable, which does lend credence to the inherent paranoia behind the story, and lets face it, today's events have hardly disproven the conspiracy theory.
How exactly does that negate the point of the person to whom you replied?
I wont expect an answer because we both know it doesn't. You're just being silly.
The US were investigating Assange in 2011, 2012, 2014 and 2015, and that's just the explicit dates for which we have evidence. Claiming that this is specific to the current US administration is disingenuous at best, more likely just downright fucking maliciousness.
That's why you get bikes with loud exhaust and bikers who ride like everyone in a car is out to kill them.
These two things are intrinsically linked.
If you think a loud exhaust keeps you safer then you're a fucking idiot. Learn to ride safely or get killed, and if you have a shitty loud exhaust, you'll deserve it.
Given the issue is the words of the British Home Secretary I don't think exploring those words in the context of the criminal charges to which they refer is distracting from the issue.
If you are sitting in a normal car like mine, you can usually hear emergency vehicle sirens LONG before you can see them through the minivans and pickup trucks.
Given that lines of sight - even on congested roads - tend to substantially exceed sound transmission distances, no.
I'm still trying to get a sense of Javid. He's a career politician, clearly looking to progress up the ladder and that all by itself diminishes him, but he does seem to be a little less incompetent, authoritarian and dishonest than most of the other holders of his current role in the past two decades.
Like the prosecutors in Sweden and the UK doing a political dog and pony show?
Who in the UK has acted improperly, immorally or unethically, against International law, against UK law, against obligations agreed to in legally created treaties or indeed in a way that damages justice, regarding the Assange situation?
Other than Assange, I mean.
Like the people implicated by Wikileak's leaks?
Outside of UK jurisdiction. But if you do feel Wikileaks have demonstrated a breach of UK law then you're very welcome to bring a criminal prosecution in the UK.
Not to mention that the UK has become a parade example of how using laws as political weapons does not make them right.
While it's easy to find examples of any country doing shit like that, I'm not seeing its relevance in context. With no politics involved whatsoever Assange broke the law and has been arrested.
Someone found guilty of manslaughter broke the law in a similar fashion, was extradited from another country and was today sentenced to six months in prison. Are you going to pretend that was politically motivated?
I would've expected lots of people to show up and make it impossible for the police to arrest the guy while he walks to another embassy.
At which point the police arrest the entire fucking lot of them.
Not that it was even relevant, he was arrested within the embassy building and the police had full control over the 8 feet of pavement over which he was escorted into a police vehicle.
Hard to say if the CPS will go after him. On the one hand it would open up another can of worms for them, with Assange and Wikileaks going all out to show that he was at risk by releasing potentially sensitive information to use as evidence. There is also a good chance it wouldn't go anywhere - his legal team would argue that he already lost the bail money and spend 7 years in effective incarceration, so even if convicted no further punishment is merited.
Given someone was today given six months for skipping bail for a grand total of ten months I think the CPS will very much be expected to prosecuted.
That's not even factoring in that his arrest is explicitly _for_ skipping bail.
I know your pseudonym damages your credibility but perhaps you could at least fucking explain just what the fuck you think is wrong with 'nobody is above the law'.
Do you think Assange should be free to break any and all laws he chooses? Do you think the British police should ignore him breaking the law? Do you have evidence that the law is being inappropriately applied? Are you just being a cunt?
He was a distracted driver because earbuds block sound.
Perhaps he gets distracted by sound and blocking some of it helps him focus.
When I'm videoing dance competitions I wear ear defenders. I like the music but it damages me mentally. When I'm driving I don't want loud obnoxious noises for much the same reason.
hearing emergency vehicles
If you hear emergency vehicles before you know they're there through visual cues then stop fucking driving.
In depth analysis of the political situation surrounding his arrest, endless exploration of whether he'll be extradited to the US, complex discussions on why the police were permitted to enter the embassy to arrest him.
Not a single fucking mention of his cat.
What's happening to the cat! Come on BBC, step up, help us with the important question here.
For people in the US with only income from a single employer to report, filing is very easy.
You miss my point. In the UK with only income from a single employer to report, filing is not necessary. You don't do it. It's not easy, it's non-existent.
However, the person paying $1m on a $10m income is helping fund how far along the X axis that line intersects. So the poorest people are paying less tax because they're being subsidised by the person with the high income.
Tax me 96% of my income and I'll stop paying taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
They have to decide if the prosecution is in the public interest
Given that within four hours of you posted that he'd already been tried and convicted, I guess it was in the public interest.
I saw a fire engine attending an emergency yesterday before I heard it. I knew it was there because the fucking large van in front of me (that my car would fit inside) made a strange unexplained manoeuvre that demonstrated something abnormal was occurring.
Lo, a fire engine. He'd been able to see it before I could but I still saw it long before I heard it.
If you can't see past the large vehicles by your own then you're driving blind and that makes you a fucking idiot. Stop being a fucking idiot. I've driven tiny shitty hire cars in the US just this year and had no trouble at all making enough space to retain situational awareness and sight lines. Maybe you should learn to fucking drive instead of worrying about headphones.
I'm not sure it was 2016 (may have happened before that particular dump) but there definitely was a switch by Wikileaks from "Sure, we'll host and protect the integrity of that unofficial data" to "We will control the flow of information".
I think that damaged them more than rape allegations. People understand and can at least respect the ethos behind 'information wants to be free' but despise people that try to control knowledge for their own selfish needs.
To avoid criminal sexual assault charges in Sweden. Nothing to do with Obama/Trump/etc.
I think the story all along has been that he was hiding from spurious charges intended to draw him back to a country from which he could be extradited to the US.
Whether that story is true or not, it's been the story.
Certainly the behaviour of the Swedish prosecutors has been deeply questionable, which does lend credence to the inherent paranoia behind the story, and lets face it, today's events have hardly disproven the conspiracy theory.
How exactly does that negate the point of the person to whom you replied?
I wont expect an answer because we both know it doesn't. You're just being silly.
The US were investigating Assange in 2011, 2012, 2014 and 2015, and that's just the explicit dates for which we have evidence. Claiming that this is specific to the current US administration is disingenuous at best, more likely just downright fucking maliciousness.
Or.. they're going to argue that he's guilty of conspiracy to leak secrets.
That's a far more interesting charge.
That's why you get bikes with loud exhaust and bikers who ride like everyone in a car is out to kill them.
These two things are intrinsically linked.
If you think a loud exhaust keeps you safer then you're a fucking idiot. Learn to ride safely or get killed, and if you have a shitty loud exhaust, you'll deserve it.
Given the issue is the words of the British Home Secretary I don't think exploring those words in the context of the criminal charges to which they refer is distracting from the issue.
What the fuck are you talking about?
If you are sitting in a normal car like mine, you can usually hear emergency vehicle sirens LONG before you can see them through the minivans and pickup trucks.
Given that lines of sight - even on congested roads - tend to substantially exceed sound transmission distances, no.
Well write to the BBC and complain then, they're the ones constantly fucking discussing that shite.
Still no mention of the cat though.
I'm still trying to get a sense of Javid. He's a career politician, clearly looking to progress up the ladder and that all by itself diminishes him, but he does seem to be a little less incompetent, authoritarian and dishonest than most of the other holders of his current role in the past two decades.
Admittedly that's not a high bar.
Like the prosecutors in Sweden and the UK doing a political dog and pony show?
Who in the UK has acted improperly, immorally or unethically, against International law, against UK law, against obligations agreed to in legally created treaties or indeed in a way that damages justice, regarding the Assange situation?
Other than Assange, I mean.
Like the people implicated by Wikileak's leaks?
Outside of UK jurisdiction. But if you do feel Wikileaks have demonstrated a breach of UK law then you're very welcome to bring a criminal prosecution in the UK.
Not to mention that the UK has become a parade example of how using laws as political weapons does not make them right.
While it's easy to find examples of any country doing shit like that, I'm not seeing its relevance in context. With no politics involved whatsoever Assange broke the law and has been arrested.
Someone found guilty of manslaughter broke the law in a similar fashion, was extradited from another country and was today sentenced to six months in prison. Are you going to pretend that was politically motivated?
I would've expected lots of people to show up and make it impossible for the police to arrest the guy while he walks to another embassy.
At which point the police arrest the entire fucking lot of them.
Not that it was even relevant, he was arrested within the embassy building and the police had full control over the 8 feet of pavement over which he was escorted into a police vehicle.
Hard to say if the CPS will go after him. On the one hand it would open up another can of worms for them, with Assange and Wikileaks going all out to show that he was at risk by releasing potentially sensitive information to use as evidence. There is also a good chance it wouldn't go anywhere - his legal team would argue that he already lost the bail money and spend 7 years in effective incarceration, so even if convicted no further punishment is merited.
Given someone was today given six months for skipping bail for a grand total of ten months I think the CPS will very much be expected to prosecuted.
That's not even factoring in that his arrest is explicitly _for_ skipping bail.
The phone was not however correctly classified. It was not a handheld device. It was a pocket held device, or possibly an earheld device.
The judge is a fuckwit.
I know your pseudonym damages your credibility but perhaps you could at least fucking explain just what the fuck you think is wrong with 'nobody is above the law'.
Do you think Assange should be free to break any and all laws he chooses?
Do you think the British police should ignore him breaking the law?
Do you have evidence that the law is being inappropriately applied?
Are you just being a cunt?
The last question is rhetorical.
P.S. if my loud exhaust makes you aware I'm there, it did it's job.
Its job is to tell us there's a selfish stupid cunt on the road?
If you can't ride safely without a penis extension exhaust then sell your fucking bike.
He was a distracted driver because earbuds block sound.
Perhaps he gets distracted by sound and blocking some of it helps him focus.
When I'm videoing dance competitions I wear ear defenders. I like the music but it damages me mentally. When I'm driving I don't want loud obnoxious noises for much the same reason.
hearing emergency vehicles
If you hear emergency vehicles before you know they're there through visual cues then stop fucking driving.
You twisted deviant.
I'm so glad your kind never gained a foothold in modern computing.
In depth analysis of the political situation surrounding his arrest, endless exploration of whether he'll be extradited to the US, complex discussions on why the police were permitted to enter the embassy to arrest him.
Not a single fucking mention of his cat.
What's happening to the cat! Come on BBC, step up, help us with the important question here.
I'm confused, why do you find this a wow-worthy statement? Isn't that a basic element of any functioning justice system?
Well just how far back would you like to reset property ownership? Can't see that causing any problems at all for anybody...
For people in the US with only income from a single employer to report, filing is very easy.
You miss my point. In the UK with only income from a single employer to report, filing is not necessary. You don't do it. It's not easy, it's non-existent.
However, the person paying $1m on a $10m income is helping fund how far along the X axis that line intersects. So the poorest people are paying less tax because they're being subsidised by the person with the high income.
Tax me 96% of my income and I'll stop paying taxes.
In the UK it's even simpler. Most people just don't fill out a tax return.
Their employer pays them net of their income tax and sends that straight to the tax authority.