The Local is not responsible for content posted by users.
2 Pages V  < 1 2   Reply to this topic

Can someone explain to me this law regarding

The use of a condom during sex?

Rating 5 V
 
klubbnika
post 25.Jun.2012, 02:07 PM
Post #16
Joined: 1.Feb.2012

I will look for that now.

Ms. ASS-ange has admitted the deed himself, i e he admitted that he had sex with the women when she was sleeping and without her given consent. He just didn't think this was a crime, but a "suprise sex". Obviously, like many men, he believed that if the woman said yes to him yesterday she will be consenting to sex with him from now on regardless.

A lesson for him to learn.
Go to the top of the page
+
sometimesinsweden
post 25.Jun.2012, 02:09 PM
Post #17
Joined: 15.Jun.2012

Fck me, if a split condom is ever considered rape, I can guarantee all the men on this forum, apart from the lad on the other thread who hasn't spoken to a woman in 12 years, are going to be up before the beak and taking a holiday at His Majesty's Pleasure.
Go to the top of the page
+
byke
post 25.Jun.2012, 02:21 PM
Post #18
Location: Europe
Joined: 28.Oct.2008

QUOTE (klubbnika @ 25.Jun.2012, 03:07 PM) *
I will look for that now.Ms. ASS-ange has admitted the deed himself, i e he admitted that he had sex with the women when she was sleeping and without her given consent. He jus ... (show full quote)

The only reference to "surprise sex" I can find is what has been or could be a direct translation of suspected charges brought forth by the Swedish prosecution.

I think you may have misunderstood or heard reference by Assange of the suspected crimes against him rather than his view on this.

Some Examples :

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_pol...ted_states.html
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/02/sex-by-s...criminal-probe/
http://www.fastcompany.com/1707146/wikilea...ks-hes-a-rapist

And again, I refer to my previous post (#6)
Go to the top of the page
+
klubbnika
post 25.Jun.2012, 02:44 PM
Post #19
Joined: 1.Feb.2012

No, I do not think I misunderstood. This is how he sees his actions.
His lawyer speaks for him.

How otherwise can he claim that the sex with the sleeping woman is consentual?
Go to the top of the page
+
sometimesinsweden
post 25.Jun.2012, 02:57 PM
Post #20
Joined: 15.Jun.2012

Well, from what was written early on in the whole affair, some women and men like their sex lives out of the 'vanilla' category and he implied that this was the nature of his sexual relationship with the particular woman...that was what I assumed was his defence, which she denied and hence, wanted to press charges.
Go to the top of the page
+
byke
post 25.Jun.2012, 03:18 PM
Post #21
Location: Europe
Joined: 28.Oct.2008

QUOTE (klubbnika @ 25.Jun.2012, 03:44 PM) *
No, I do not think I misunderstood. This is how he sees his actions.. His lawyer speaks for him.. How otherwise can he claim that the sex with the sleeping woman is consentual?

Again, unless you can back up this belief I am afraid it would appear wrong.
Especially given the first 3 links when search on google.

If you see the swedish prosecutors reason for extradition (see previous image post), it doesn't say he had sex with a sleeping women. What the prosecution is saying is that because S.W was asleep when J.A first made advances, is that by waking someone is wrong and considers it "exploiting". However regardless if the actioning was consensual, the prosecutor is arguing that because J.A and S.W had consensual sexual intercourse without a sheath (after she had been woken up) - that this amounts to rape. As by doing such, it violated S.W sexual integrity. (as previous to this encounter she had requested the use of a condom)

Obviously in case like this its very hard to assertion what had happened.
But one must consider that this case had already been dropped the first time by the prosecution.
Go to the top of the page
+
Bender B Rodriquez
post 25.Jun.2012, 04:24 PM
Post #22
Joined: 25.Mar.2006

QUOTE (byke @ 25.Jun.2012, 04:18 PM) *
If you see the swedish prosecutors reason for extradition (see previous image post), it doesn't say he had sex with a sleeping women. What the prosecution is saying is tha ... (show full quote)

Wtf! Can you read at all?

If you see the previous image post you are referring to, you will see that it states nothing of what you said here. It says: "Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state." This is rape according to the law. What happened after she woke up is irrelevant. The fact that he didn't use a condom is only an aggravating circumstance, as you can clearly see in you own post if you had bothered to read it.
Go to the top of the page
+
klubbnika
post 25.Jun.2012, 04:29 PM
Post #23
Joined: 1.Feb.2012

#21, @ byke

It is true for the most cases that involve sexual crime that it is difficult to assert what happened.

However, ASSange admitted sex with a sleeping woman, he did. Directly by saying that it was all consentual sex and indirectly, via his lawyer, by saying he didn't consider "sex by surprise" a crime. A sex with a sleeping woman, unless agreed prior to that, is a sexual abuse at least. Assange doesn't think so though, his lawyer claims it is not a crime in other countries and that he doesn't understand what it is about.

You are of course free to have your opinion, and I have mine.
Go to the top of the page
+
skogsbo
post 25.Jun.2012, 04:55 PM
Post #24
Joined: 20.Sep.2011

that's the thing, by admitting he nailed her whilst she was sleeping, he has admitted rape. He should never have been allowed to leave the Police station here, or the country.
Go to the top of the page
+
mångk
post 6.Mar.2013, 06:28 PM
Post #25
Joined: 27.Jul.2008

It is interesting that given the rash of new threads started by the OP on the subject of rape to review the position of the OP on this topic.

Does anyone else see the conflict in the OP's position and complete lack of understanding on Swedish judicial procedure (and in fact the definition of 'rape')??? huh.gif
Go to the top of the page
+
byke
post 6.Mar.2013, 06:34 PM
Post #26
Location: Europe
Joined: 28.Oct.2008

I cant see how that this reply has anything to do with this thread.
Appart from looking to re-bump an old thread?

However these "rash" of new threads as you call it all appeared in the national Swedish newspapers TODAY and reflect the headlines of just a 24 hour period.

I would also like to point out that the specific action of bumping threads for no other reason than stalking specific individuals is not the type of behavior that the local supports under its rules or T&C.
Go to the top of the page
+
Hisingen
post 6.Mar.2013, 07:05 PM
Post #27
Joined: 5.Jul.2012

No matter what anyone says on here, the subject of all this is still a 'guest' of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, and is likely to remain there as long as he 'feels threatened', whether the threat is real or imagined by the creep himself.
A more obvious waste of egoistic space it is difficult to imagine. He is just like a worm on a hook, wriggling like mad to avoid being a meal for the judiciary. How long he can hold out, or how long the Ecuadorians are prepared to accommodate him is an open question. It might be different if he had to pay for his board and lodging, but Ecuador has no great love for anything UK, so maybe they are prepared to finance his keep.
More fools them, I might add.
Were it not for risking the wrath of the Moderators I could quote a nice little rhyme that sums this situation up nicely.
It begins:-
Father, oh Father, I'm in dire sistress,
I've just left a girl in a hell of a mess.
. . . . . . .
Some of the older Brits on here might well recognise it and know how it continues. cool.gif
Go to the top of the page
+
mångk
post 6.Mar.2013, 07:23 PM
Post #28
Joined: 27.Jul.2008

QUOTE (byke @ 24.Jun.2012, 08:06 AM) *
According to some reports surrounding the Assange case, one thing that is classed as "rape" in Sweden is the act of sexual contact without the use of a condom in com ... (show full quote)

QUOTE (byke @ 6.Mar.2013, 06:34 PM) *
I cant see how that this reply has anything to do with this thread.Appart from looking to re-bump an old thread?However these "rash" of new threads as you call it al ... (show full quote)

Well it seems that you have a problem with the definition of 'rape' and who it applies to. Given that you are the OP in these numerous threads on the topic and given that you have posted them in the discussion section, I would assume that you are asking others to discuss the matter with you, which is what I am doing. Further I am allowing your own posts and the posts of others previously provided to answer the discussions you raise, particularly given that you have a tendency to flood the board with new threads when you do not like an answer provided!

Isn't on of your issues with what people say to other posters?

If so why are you calling other posters 'stalkers'?

Have you not launched critique against other former moderators for exactly the same thing?
Go to the top of the page
+
byke
post 6.Mar.2013, 07:37 PM
Post #29
Location: Europe
Joined: 28.Oct.2008

The definition of rape?
This is about the Assange case.
A case that hasn't led to any trial, in which he has been given political asylum backed by something like 27 nations.

There has been no trial.
And no change in the case since you bumped it.

But you bumping a thread (actually numerous ones) with the same spam message that has had to be deleted 5 times now puts you in a category of a person looking to cause damage rather than discussion.

Furthermore, if there had been any question of rape and its definitions in any context.
The thread in question should have had a link to this thread as referral.

But the simple fact is, I have posted 3 headlines today from the national newspapers all relating to sex crimes. And all dated today. Now I didnt post them as they were the same subject, they were listed because they were the top most concerning stories in todays papers.

If you dont like people discussing such headlines in English, then stay away.
As by constantly looking to derail threads in an attempt to seek revenge for the mere fact they were even posted is naive.

You are not going to stop the news from being redistributed in other languages if people so choose. And you are not going to be allowed to continue with your imaginary claims and personal grudges in an attempt to either get me out or anyone else for that matter.

You dont like the OP fine.
Had you behaved like this to any other poster on the board, you would have had action taken against you.
Go to the top of the page
+
mångk
post 6.Mar.2013, 08:13 PM
Post #30
Joined: 27.Jul.2008

QUOTE (byke @ 6.Mar.2013, 07:37 PM) *
The definition of rape?This is about the Assange case.A case that hasn't led to any trial, in which he has been given political asylum backed by something like 27 nations. ... (show full quote)

Well that is simply not true!

In the Assange case there have been a number of court hearings both in Sweden and in the UK, in both series Assange was represented and the issue of what constitutes rape has been argued and evidence provided. The result is that Assange has been ordered to adhere to the arrest warrant issued and that he has not done.

Further in that case the accused breached the UK bail conditions and sought asylum, the validity of such has been called into question in recent news articles - including those recently published on The Local!

QUOTE (byke @ 6.Mar.2013, 07:37 PM) *
But you bumping a thread (actually numerous ones) with the same spam message that has had to be deleted 5 times now puts you in a category of a person looking to cause damage rather than discussion.

Bumping a thread is not considered spam nor is it purely 'to cause damage'. Bumping a thread has to do with both the fact that the thread has gone 'cold' and the potential that some of the issues raised in that bumped thread have relevance in new threads posted.

The fact that you thing you can post 'spam' as a moderator without relevance or discussion and that you believe that others cannot and you delete persons posts and thus act as 'The Local' raises genuine concerns.

QUOTE (byke @ 6.Mar.2013, 07:37 PM) *
Furthermore, if there had been any question of rape and its definitions in any context.. The thread in question should have had a link to this thread as referral.

No there is no such T&C that states that one cannot bump a thread, nor that links should be used. Furthermore links can be forged to direct persons to malicious or infected or spam websites, many people do not open such links given the social engineering tactics commonly used to link to such sites!
But the simple fact is, I have posted 3 headlines today from the national newspapers all relating to sex crimes. And all dated today. Now I didnt post them as they were the same subject, they were listed because they were the top most concerning stories in todays papers.
QUOTE (byke @ 6.Mar.2013, 07:37 PM) *
If you dont like people discussing such headlines in English, then stay away.. As by constantly looking to derail threads in an attempt to seek revenge for the mere fact they were even posted is naive..

Again is this a case of the pot calling the kettle a tool used to boil water?

Given that you have raised many issues in the past, given that you frequently use multiple threads in order to propagate you agenda, it seems a more reasonable alternative to bump those threads, so that people can easily and readily see that which has been discussed. Don't forget you are the person that is simply posting links and starting multiple threads without discussing them - and you do so in the discuss section. If you wish to be a journalist go to school!

QUOTE (byke @ 6.Mar.2013, 07:37 PM) *
You are not going to stop the news from being redistributed in other languages if people so choose. And you are not going to be allowed to continue with your imaginary claims ... (show full quote)

Are there not journalists and news stories published by the local? Have I not suggested that you post all of the links into one thread if you are not willing to actually discuss them?

But the threat contained above has not gone without notice. So is your position as sole moderator on The Local and as a representative of The Local that anyone who posts something that you personally do not agree with - regardless of what and how you post yourself - is likely to be coerced into following not the T&C's but your personal point of view?

QUOTE (byke @ 6.Mar.2013, 07:37 PM) *
You dont like the OP fine.. Had you behaved like this to any other poster on the board, you would have had action taken against you.

Again with the above a threat. When will you comply with the T&C's of the The Local?

Or are you exempt?
Go to the top of the page
+

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: