Author Topic: juilan assange rape chardge.  (Read 625 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14876
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11000
Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2019, 04:58:PM »
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/05/the-missing-step/
Isn't this just a technicality and shouldn't he return to Sweden to answer the rape charges?

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14876
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11000
Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2019, 07:57:PM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0mHsGnaTPA
These allegations should be tested in a court of law, not YouTube. The woman is doing her gender no favours at all by comparing rape to DUI. However based on the following evidence I probably wouldn't have found him guilty of rape had I been on the jury. https://observer.com/2016/02/exclusive-new-docs-throw-doubt-on-julian-assange-rape-charges-in-stockholm/

Online gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1270
Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2019, 10:50:PM »
These allegations should be tested in a court of law, not YouTube. The woman is doing her gender no favours at all by comparing rape to DUI. However based on the following evidence I probably wouldn't have found him guilty of rape had I been on the jury. https://observer.com/2016/02/exclusive-new-docs-throw-doubt-on-julian-assange-rape-charges-in-stockholm/
   The allegations don't even pass the threshold to be tested in court. The allegations are a clear and blatant fabrication. Events since the allegations first surfaced and Assange sought asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy have made plain for all to see that the Americans are determined to get their hands on Assange for exposing their criminality and this has nothing to do with fabricated allegations in Sweden.
    Anyone still duped by the inconsistent lies pumped out about Assange is probably beyond reasoning with. The recent US and UK violations of diplomatic premises are unprecedented and expose their desperation. Russian, Venezualan and Ecuadorian Embassies have been violated in the last two or three years. These violations of long established and observed protocols of the Vienna Convention are shocking and dangerous for our own diplomats abroad. The US are also credibly accused of being behind the raid on the North Korean Embassy in Madrid. They also violated the diplomatic immunity of Evo Morales presidential plane when he headed back to Bolivia after visiting Russia and it was believed that Edward Snowden was on board. These conventions are observed by all countries in the world and even Iran and Saudi Arabia who have cut off diplomatic relations with each other still protect each others diplomatic premises and have an arrangement of inspections. US and UK are resorting to thuggery and in doing so put diplomats everywhere at risk. Along with the US we are trashing the Vienna convention and protocols that are observed by even the most despotic regimes. Nobody should be cheering this on.
    That the US and UK conspired to bully and coerce Ecuador to withdraw Assange's asylum should tell you that there is something larger at play. The unprecedented denial of passage for asylum from the Embassy, the 24 hour surveillance and millions of pounds spent on this surveillance can't really have been about all about the weak allegations in Sweden and the extra charges levelled today by the US surely make that clear.
     The persecution of Julian Assange is an all out attack on free speech and real journalists everywhere conducted by US and UK. It should shame us all.
   

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14876
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
« Reply #5 on: May 24, 2019, 02:56:PM »
   The allegations don't even pass the threshold to be tested in court. The allegations are a clear and blatant fabrication. Events since the allegations first surfaced and Assange sought asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy have made plain for all to see that the Americans are determined to get their hands on Assange for exposing their criminality and this has nothing to do with fabricated allegations in Sweden.
    Anyone still duped by the inconsistent lies pumped out about Assange is probably beyond reasoning with. The recent US and UK violations of diplomatic premises are unprecedented and expose their desperation. Russian, Venezualan and Ecuadorian Embassies have been violated in the last two or three years. These violations of long established and observed protocols of the Vienna Convention are shocking and dangerous for our own diplomats abroad. The US are also credibly accused of being behind the raid on the North Korean Embassy in Madrid. They also violated the diplomatic immunity of Evo Morales presidential plane when he headed back to Bolivia after visiting Russia and it was believed that Edward Snowden was on board. These conventions are observed by all countries in the world and even Iran and Saudi Arabia who have cut off diplomatic relations with each other still protect each others diplomatic premises and have an arrangement of inspections. US and UK are resorting to thuggery and in doing so put diplomats everywhere at risk. Along with the US we are trashing the Vienna convention and protocols that are observed by even the most despotic regimes. Nobody should be cheering this on.
    That the US and UK conspired to bully and coerce Ecuador to withdraw Assange's asylum should tell you that there is something larger at play. The unprecedented denial of passage for asylum from the Embassy, the 24 hour surveillance and millions of pounds spent on this surveillance can't really have been about all about the weak allegations in Sweden and the extra charges levelled today by the US surely make that clear.
     The persecution of Julian Assange is an all out attack on free speech and real journalists everywhere conducted by US and UK. It should shame us all.
   

i found a bit about kier starmers involvment in all this i will post it later.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11000
Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
« Reply #6 on: May 24, 2019, 09:27:PM »
   The allegations don't even pass the threshold to be tested in court. The allegations are a clear and blatant fabrication. Events since the allegations first surfaced and Assange sought asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy have made plain for all to see that the Americans are determined to get their hands on Assange for exposing their criminality and this has nothing to do with fabricated allegations in Sweden.
    Anyone still duped by the inconsistent lies pumped out about Assange is probably beyond reasoning with. The recent US and UK violations of diplomatic premises are unprecedented and expose their desperation. Russian, Venezualan and Ecuadorian Embassies have been violated in the last two or three years. These violations of long established and observed protocols of the Vienna Convention are shocking and dangerous for our own diplomats abroad. The US are also credibly accused of being behind the raid on the North Korean Embassy in Madrid. They also violated the diplomatic immunity of Evo Morales presidential plane when he headed back to Bolivia after visiting Russia and it was believed that Edward Snowden was on board. These conventions are observed by all countries in the world and even Iran and Saudi Arabia who have cut off diplomatic relations with each other still protect each others diplomatic premises and have an arrangement of inspections. US and UK are resorting to thuggery and in doing so put diplomats everywhere at risk. Along with the US we are trashing the Vienna convention and protocols that are observed by even the most despotic regimes. Nobody should be cheering this on.
    That the US and UK conspired to bully and coerce Ecuador to withdraw Assange's asylum should tell you that there is something larger at play. The unprecedented denial of passage for asylum from the Embassy, the 24 hour surveillance and millions of pounds spent on this surveillance can't really have been about all about the weak allegations in Sweden and the extra charges levelled today by the US surely make that clear.
     The persecution of Julian Assange is an all out attack on free speech and real journalists everywhere conducted by US and UK. It should shame us all.
   

I'm not sure I agree with this. You conveniently forget the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, which at the time I feared augured ill for the future. It was proceeded by the Salisbury novichok tragedy. As for Julian Assange, the gist of the video is that rape in Sweden requires a lower threshold of proof and it's up to a Swedish jury to decide, not that woman on YouTube. I think a deterioration in Assange's mental health and his concomitant behaviours within the embassy was the cause of Ecuador revoking his honorary citizenship, and not pressure from any Western government as you assert.

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14876
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2019, 10:00:PM »
I'm not sure I agree with this. You conveniently forget the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, which at the time I feared augured ill for the future. It was proceeded by the Salisbury novichok tragedy. As for Julian Assange, the gist of the video is that rape in Sweden requires a lower threshold of proof and it's up to a Swedish jury to decide, not that woman on YouTube. I think a deterioration in Assange's mental health and his concomitant behaviours within the embassy was the cause of Ecuador revoking his honorary citizenship, and not pressure from any Western government as you assert.

sweedish do not have jurys in rape trails its heard by one judge

normaly inn secret.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2019, 10:05:PM by nugnug »

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11000
Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
« Reply #8 on: May 24, 2019, 10:35:PM »
sweedish do not have jurys in rape trails its heard by one judge

normaly inn secret.
Yes it seems they have juries for freedom of the press issues. I'm not sure if it's just one lay jury though who decides.

Online gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1270
Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
« Reply #9 on: May 24, 2019, 11:58:PM »
I'm not sure I agree with this. You conveniently forget the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, which at the time I feared augured ill for the future. It was proceeded by the Salisbury novichok tragedy. As for Julian Assange, the gist of the video is that rape in Sweden requires a lower threshold of proof and it's up to a Swedish jury to decide, not that woman on YouTube. I think a deterioration in Assange's mental health and his concomitant behaviours within the embassy was the cause of Ecuador revoking his honorary citizenship, and not pressure from any Western government as you assert.
   I didn't forget the Litvinenko poisoning, it has no relevance to the Julian Assange issue. As far as the Salisbury incident is concerned, you display your lack of real knowledge of the issue by referring to it as the "novichock tragedy".
    There was much going on in Salisbury around Skripal that day and if you really want to unravel the discrepancies in the ever evolving official narrative then I highly recommend the excellent Blogmire. It is a blog written by Rob Slane who is a resident of Salisbury. He followed it from the beginning and there is so much that you don't know, evidenced by your inappropriate labelling of the incident, that it is impossible to know where to begin with you. There are also many excellent comments on each section. It is linked here:  https://www.theblogmire.com/category/novichok/ 
    If you want to discuss it I would be happy to, but on a separate thread rather than divert the issue from Assange, suffice to say that the official narrative is ludicrous. You would benefit from reading sites that challenge the obvious holes, lies and dmsa notices.
    Anyway Litvinenko and Skripal aside, both of whom I didn't mention, which parts of my summary are you disagreeing with. Are you untroubled by the new approach to diplomatic premises and Vienna Conventions taken by the UK and US governments?
    It is troubling that there are still those who are easily whipped up about supposed outside threats. It is as if masses of people fail to pay attention and learn from history even as it happens around them.
   From Saddam, Gaddafi and onwards to Assad there are dupes who are willing to fall for the deceptions and justify setting ourselves up as some sort of World police protecting other countries by attempting to remove various leaders. Never does it occur that we should leave countries to choose or overthrow their own leaders. You are extremely naive and uninformed on geopolitics, Steve, which is fair enough if it's not your interest, but I would refrain from commenting if I were you. The real reasons for our many interventions are out there and well documented and understood but obviously not in anything that you read.
    But back to Assange and the latest charges by the US under the Espionage Act which carry possible/probable 170 years or more. The latest charges seem to have belatedly woken some of the media who perhaps now realise that this is an all out attack and threat to journalists and publishers everywhere. Having spent the last 7 years or more smearing Assange and basically being complicit in the attempts to neuter free speech comes the belated realisation that they are, and have been, on the wrong side of history. You haven't come to that realisation yet, apparently.
   

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14876
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
« Reply #10 on: May 25, 2019, 12:26:PM »
funy there reponing the investigation now times have they reoponed and closed this investigation.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11000
Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
« Reply #11 on: May 25, 2019, 08:30:PM »
   I didn't forget the Litvinenko poisoning, it has no relevance to the Julian Assange issue. As far as the Salisbury incident is concerned, you display your lack of real knowledge of the issue by referring to it as the "novichock tragedy".
    There was much going on in Salisbury around Skripal that day and if you really want to unravel the discrepancies in the ever evolving official narrative then I highly recommend the excellent Blogmire. It is a blog written by Rob Slane who is a resident of Salisbury. He followed it from the beginning and there is so much that you don't know, evidenced by your inappropriate labelling of the incident, that it is impossible to know where to begin with you. There are also many excellent comments on each section. It is linked here:  https://www.theblogmire.com/category/novichok/ 
    If you want to discuss it I would be happy to, but on a separate thread rather than divert the issue from Assange, suffice to say that the official narrative is ludicrous. You would benefit from reading sites that challenge the obvious holes, lies and dmsa notices.
    Anyway Litvinenko and Skripal aside, both of whom I didn't mention, which parts of my summary are you disagreeing with. Are you untroubled by the new approach to diplomatic premises and Vienna Conventions taken by the UK and US governments?
    It is troubling that there are still those who are easily whipped up about supposed outside threats. It is as if masses of people fail to pay attention and learn from history even as it happens around them.
   From Saddam, Gaddafi and onwards to Assad there are dupes who are willing to fall for the deceptions and justify setting ourselves up as some sort of World police protecting other countries by attempting to remove various leaders. Never does it occur that we should leave countries to choose or overthrow their own leaders. You are extremely naive and uninformed on geopolitics, Steve, which is fair enough if it's not your interest, but I would refrain from commenting if I were you. The real reasons for our many interventions are out there and well documented and understood but obviously not in anything that you read.
    But back to Assange and the latest charges by the US under the Espionage Act which carry possible/probable 170 years or more. The latest charges seem to have belatedly woken some of the media who perhaps now realise that this is an all out attack and threat to journalists and publishers everywhere. Having spent the last 7 years or more smearing Assange and basically being complicit in the attempts to neuter free speech comes the belated realisation that they are, and have been, on the wrong side of history. You haven't come to that realisation yet, apparently.
   
Everybody knows that Russia was behind the Salisbury attack except you. Where did the novichok come from? Do you think the assassins of Alexander Litvinenko bought polonium at B&Q? Why are you separating diplomatic law from international law, which Russia has clearly broken by invading Crimea.

I'll let members make their own minds up, thank you.

Online gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1270
Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
« Reply #12 on: May 25, 2019, 10:12:PM »
Everybody knows that Russia was behind the Salisbury attack except you. Where did the novichok come from? Do you think the assassins of Alexander Litvinenko bought polonium at B&Q? Why are you separating diplomatic law from international law, which Russia has clearly broken by invading Crimea.

I'll let members make their own minds up, thank you.
   The Salisbury incident wasn't even a novichock attack and you would know this if you bothered to read the OPCW reports. Where novichock is mentioned is in UK govt. statements and briefings and then parroted by a compliant media. All informed people, those who have called out previous lies on Iraq, Libya, Syria and now Venezuala and Iran, understand full well that UK intelligence agencies are neck deep in the Salisbury theatre. Novichock use has not been confirmed and I challenge you to find a source confirming its use. An actual source, not a report of one. The, highly compromised, OPCW would not go so far and merely confirmed that the agent used was the same one that the UK govt. had asked them to confirm. This information was confidential and not released.
    So to sum up, Steve. The UK govt. claimed that Russia had used chemical weapons, namely novichock, in Salisbury. After at first refusing to involve the OPCW they succumbed to pressure from other countries who were being asked to expel diplomats and impose other sanctions on Russia. However, rather than ask the OPCW to conduct a full FFM(fact finding mission), the UK govt. simply asked the OPCW to confirm that the agent used was the same as the agent that the UK govt. had asked them to confirm. The information of what the agent was is confidential between the OPCW and the UK govt.
     The effects and symptons displayed by the victims rule out novichock as does their still being alive. The whereabouts of the supposed victims and the dmsa notices issued by the UK govt. should also alert those paying attention that something is badly amiss with the UK govt. narrative.
    As for your diversions re international/diplomatic law and Crimea. Again I would invite you to open a thread if you want a serious discussion of these matters. The Crimeans themselves seem perfectly happy to be part of Russia and I fail to see why you would have issue with the self proclaimed will of the Crimeans. Do you think that the Crimeans want to be part of Ukraine? Do you not believe in self determination?
    What does this have to do with Assange and the cavalier attitude of UK and US governments towards diplomatic premises and the Geneva conventions. You really should be more concerned about your own government's transgressions of international law which are many and dwarf those of your perceived bogey men. Diplomatic law is part of international law, Steve and I would confidently wager that your knowledge of both would comfortably fit on the back of a postage stamp and still leave room for the Lord's Prayer.
    Expand your reading, Steve, or stick to commenting on things that you have at least a passing acquaintance with. You have so far demonstrated that you have a less than passing acquaintance with the Salisbury incident, Crimea, Litvinenko's poisoning and Swedish law not to mention the whole Assange affair which is what the thread is supposed to be about. That you have managed to display such a wide breadth of misunderstanding into less than a couple of handfuls of sentences is impressive but not in a good way.
     Do you disagree that the charges put forward by US are a danger to journalists and publishers everywhere? If you do disagree then perhaps you would care to explain how every media outlet that publishes US govt. leaks would be different to Wikileaks and Assange. The use of the Espionage Act against Assange was discussed and dismissed by the Obama administration for this very reason. I don't believe that you understand the implications of Assange being extradited to the US or the UK complicity in this attack on journalism and free speech or the use of the Espionage Act. Others fortunately do hence the rowing back of many media outlets now that the extra charges have been made.
    I doubt that any reply will address the questions raised but don't worry, I will be sure to remind you of them should you fail to do so. 
     

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11000
Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
« Reply #13 on: May 26, 2019, 03:04:AM »
  The Salisbury incident wasn't even a novichock attack and you would know this if you bothered to read the OPCW reports. Where novichock is mentioned is in UK govt. statements and briefings and then parroted by a compliant media. All informed people, those who have called out previous lies on Iraq, Libya, Syria and now Venezuala and Iran, understand full well that UK intelligence agencies are neck deep in the Salisbury theatre. Novichock use has not been confirmed and I challenge you to find a source confirming its use. An actual source, not a report of one. The, highly compromised, OPCW would not go so far and merely confirmed that the agent used was the same one that the UK govt. had asked them to confirm. This information was confidential and not released.
    So to sum up, Steve. The UK govt. claimed that Russia had used chemical weapons, namely novichock, in Salisbury. After at first refusing to involve the OPCW they succumbed to pressure from other countries who were being asked to expel diplomats and impose other sanctions on Russia. However, rather than ask the OPCW to conduct a full FFM(fact finding mission), the UK govt. simply asked the OPCW to confirm that the agent used was the same as the agent that the UK govt. had asked them to confirm. The information of what the agent was is confidential between the OPCW and the UK govt.
     The effects and symptons displayed by the victims rule out novichock as does their still being alive. The whereabouts of the supposed victims and the dmsa notices issued by the UK govt. should also alert those paying attention that something is badly amiss with the UK govt. narrative.
    As for your diversions re international/diplomatic law and Crimea. Again I would invite you to open a thread if you want a serious discussion of these matters. The Crimeans themselves seem perfectly happy to be part of Russia and I fail to see why you would have issue with the self proclaimed will of the Crimeans. Do you think that the Crimeans want to be part of Ukraine? Do you not believe in self determination?
    What does this have to do with Assange and the cavalier attitude of UK and US governments towards diplomatic premises and the Geneva conventions. You really should be more concerned about your own government's transgressions of international law which are many and dwarf those of your perceived bogey men. Diplomatic law is part of international law, Steve and I would confidently wager that your knowledge of both would comfortably fit on the back of a postage stamp and still leave room for the Lord's Prayer.
    Expand your reading, Steve, or stick to commenting on things that you have at least a passing acquaintance with. You have so far demonstrated that you have a less than passing acquaintance with the Salisbury incident, Crimea, Litvinenko's poisoning and Swedish law not to mention the whole Assange affair which is what the thread is supposed to be about. That you have managed to display such a wide breadth of misunderstanding into less than a couple of handfuls of sentences is impressive but not in a good way.
     Do you disagree that the charges put forward by US are a danger to journalists and publishers everywhere? If you do disagree then perhaps you would care to explain how every media outlet that publishes US govt. leaks would be different to Wikileaks and Assange. The use of the Espionage Act against Assange was discussed and dismissed by the Obama administration for this very reason. I don't believe that you understand the implications of Assange being extradited to the US or the UK complicity in this attack on journalism and free speech or the use of the Espionage Act. Others fortunately do hence the rowing back of many media outlets now that the extra charges have been made.
    I doubt that any reply will address the questions raised but don't worry, I will be sure to remind you of them should you fail to do so. 
   

There is more than a suspicion that Russia was behind the novichok attack, not the oligarchs, not a rogue player, but authorized by Putin himself. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/16/russian-spy-poisoning-attack-novichok-chemist

You seem happy for international borders to be changed by force. It reminds one of the 1930s and Adolf Hitler's attempt to reunite ethnic Germans. A thread has already been started here, despite what you assert. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6518.0.html

I don't have a problem with some of the information released by Julian Assange or Edward Snowden. The problem is that this was all spewed out haphazardly and could not possibly have been read fully by the perpetrators before release.  https://www.apnews.com/b70da83fd111496dbdf015acbb7987fb

I made a mistake about juries in Sweden. If you'd read previous posts of mine I'd stated never to underestimate nugnug.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2019, 03:05:AM by Steve_uk »

Online gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1270
Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
« Reply #14 on: May 26, 2019, 07:39:AM »
There is more than a suspicion that Russia was behind the novichok attack, not the oligarchs, not a rogue player, but authorized by Putin himself. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/16/russian-spy-poisoning-attack-novichok-chemist

You seem happy for international borders to be changed by force. It reminds one of the 1930s and Adolf Hitler's attempt to reunite ethnic Germans. A thread has already been started here, despite what you assert. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6518.0.html

I don't have a problem with some of the information released by Julian Assange or Edward Snowden. The problem is that this was all spewed out haphazardly and could not possibly have been read fully by the perpetrators before release.  https://www.apnews.com/b70da83fd111496dbdf015acbb7987fb

I made a mistake about juries in Sweden. If you'd read previous posts of mine I'd stated never to underestimate nugnug.
   You clearly haven't read never mind digested the implications of the OPCW report on Salisbury. A report in the Guardian is not evidence of novichock being used so I repeat the challenge to produce evidence of novichock use. The OPCW were only able to confirm that the agent detected in the samples collected were the same as they were asked to confirm by the UK govt. They were not asked to confirm novichock and nor have they. These are facts, Steve. I know that your limited reading and knowledge of the whole saga means that you didn't know this, but it is true nonetheless. The exact nature and details of the substance that the UK govt. asked for confirmation of are confidential.
    The scientists at Porton Down have also never confirmed novichock use. It is far more likely that the victims were attacked with BZ not novichock. There are far more relevant questions that you should want answering. Where are the Skripals now? Why is there a "d notice" issued by the UK govt. almost immediately after the incident preventing the media from mentioning or discussing Pablo Miller? Do you even know who Pablo Miller is or Christopher Steele or Orbis Intelligence and why and how they are connected to Sergei Skripal? Of course you don't. You have just bought the official narrative despite its many changes as new facts emerged and despite the many unexplained inconsistencies.
    Your idiotic assertion that I am happy for borders to be changed by force is based on what exactly? What force was used in Crimea? How many deaths/injuries? You appear to believe that the Crimeans should be part of Ukraine and not Russia, so how do you propose to do this given the Crimeans overwhelmingly want to be part of Russia. I doubt that you know the first thing about the history of the Crimean peninsula. It was gifted to Ukraine in the 1950's by Krushchev. Both were part of the Soviet Union and it was internal bureaucracy. The people of Crimea have made pretty clear their own views and no force was necessary. Force would certainly be required to unite Ukraine and Crimea so who is the one advocating force to change borders.
     The thread that you link to is the "Russia Worrying" thread and the debate on there, much of which I contributed, demonstrates pretty clearly our relative knowledge and understanding of international law and the wider geopolitical picture. Your contributions then, as now, consisted largely of just mentioning things that you'd heard of but had no understanding of. Which things, specifically, did Assange release that put anyone in danger? Unless you can specify a cable or email that he shouldn't have released, I am going to have to assume that you are just repeating talking points you've heard others say.
     It is noticeable that those media outlets that have been leading the charge in the Assange smear campaign have suddenly changed tack now that the Espionage Act has been used. You really don't understand the implications of what the US charges mean to journalism and journalists everywhere. There is not a publisher, media outlet or journalist anywhere who would be safe.
      Change the US to Russia or China and ask yourself if you would support either of those in attempting to get their hands on a foreign journalist who had published their leaked secrets. Concern yourself with the crimes and war crimes exposed rather than the vilification of those brave enough to expose them.