Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Corbyn backs Assange, again. Backing for alledged illegal activity providing motives appear good. The Assange story gets more interesting by the day.

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 7:45 am Corbyn backs Assange, again. Backing for alledged illegal activity providing motives appear good. The Assange story gets more interesting by the day.

Quality

It's hardly the first time in history someone has broken the law in pursuit of a greater good, is it? It's actually a well established and perfectly legitimate (though illegal) form of protest.

EH16 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:29 am It's hardly the first time in history someone has broken the law in pursuit of a greater good, is it? It's actually a well established and perfectly legitimate (though illegal) form of protest.

But who decides what’s for the greater good and where do we draw the line. In fact why have lines. If we believe doing something illegal is for the greater good then so we should, why not?

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:46 am

EH16 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:29 am It's hardly the first time in history someone has broken the law in pursuit of a greater good, is it? It's actually a well established and perfectly legitimate (though illegal) form of protest.

But who decides what’s for the greater good and where do we draw the line. In fact why have lines. If we believe doing something illegal is for the greater good then so we should, why not?

It's something an individual has to decide for themselves but as ever, if you are of a broadly liberal persuasion (in a social, not political, sense) then obviously its a grey area. Clearly, though, there are limits that few, other than fanatics, would find acceptable. It's much easier to take the authoritarian view and say if it's illegal it's wrong but that way lies dictatorship.

if you break the law you have to pay the price.

Breaking the law for "the greater good" is as some would say a grey area.

Some people would support IRA terrorists murdering innocent British civilian women and children
OR
Palestinian Terrorists murdering innocent Jewish civilian women and children

Can't imagine any liberal minded person supporting murders like the ones carried out by those groups

What about the repressive governments who try and stiffle any kind of opposition? There must be a moral case for resistance to their power even if is against the sort of draconian laws that some of the ERG want to bring in.

Mikero

spen666 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:18 am Breaking the law for "the greater good" is as some would say a grey area.

Some people would support IRA terrorists murdering innocent British civilian women and children
OR
Palestinian Terrorists murdering innocent Jewish civilian women and children

Can't imagine any liberal minded person supporting murders like the ones carried out by those groups

Of course not but right wingers always use examples like that to make it sound like their viewpoint is valid when in fact their argument is just plain lazy. Also worth pointing out that while I abhor violence by the groups you mention I find it equally abhorrent when British troops murder innocent Irish civilians or Israeli troops murder innocent women and children.

I think the upshot is that each of us has our own ideas over what “for the greater good” means therefore the only sensible route is to set laws that for the most part attempt to be fair. Though of course they are unlikely to be fair for everyone.

Assange may have had the best of intentions (or simply trying to get rich and famous) but who is he to determine what is fair and what is for the greater good. Also, such examples highlighted by him may miss the context surrounding the actions that may shed it in a different light.

He is not above the law, even the bad law, and should be held to account.

What laws has he broken?

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:15 am What laws has he broken?

That’s what a trial will determine. Being charged isn’t being guilty. I have little doubt he would get a top legal team here, in Sweden and the USA to defend him. As is his right. He could well walk free.

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:19 am

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:15 am What laws has he broken?

That’s what a trial will determine. Being charged isn’t being guilty. I have little doubt he would get a top legal team here, in Sweden and the USA to defend him. As is his right. He could well walk free.

Only to die in a state sponsored act of murder whilst taking a leisurely stroll in the woods but made to look like he committed suicide on an unexplained impulse.

Bob R Smillie wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:22 am

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:19 am

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:15 am What laws has he broken?

That’s what a trial will determine. Being charged isn’t being guilty. I have little doubt he would get a top legal team here, in Sweden and the USA to defend him. As is his right. He could well walk free.

Only to die in a state sponsored act of murder whilst taking a leisurely stroll in the woods but made to look like he committed suicide on an unexplained impulse.

Perhaps someone thinks such an action would be for the greater good. Who is he to argue if so. Such is the problem of this type of action. Where does it end

Bob R Smillie wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:22 am

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:19 am

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:15 am What laws has he broken?

That’s what a trial will determine. Being charged isn’t being guilty. I have little doubt he would get a top legal team here, in Sweden and the USA to defend him. As is his right. He could well walk free.

Only to die in a state sponsored act of murder whilst taking a leisurely stroll in the woods but made to look like he committed suicide on an unexplained impulse.

Or he'll receive such a large sentence that he may end up that way by his choosing, like Aaron Swartz. All for making the public aware of something they have a right to be aware of - government overreach.

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:16 pm

Bob R Smillie wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:22 am

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:19 am

That’s what a trial will determine. Being charged isn’t being guilty. I have little doubt he would get a top legal team here, in Sweden and the USA to defend him. As is his right. He could well walk free.

Only to die in a state sponsored act of murder whilst taking a leisurely stroll in the woods but made to look like he committed suicide on an unexplained impulse.

Perhaps someone thinks such an action would be for the greater good. Who is he to argue if so. Such is the problem of this type of action. Where does it end

probably under a flyover in concrete.

greyhound wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:43 pm

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:16 pm

Bob R Smillie wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:22 am

Only to die in a state sponsored act of murder whilst taking a leisurely stroll in the woods but made to look like he committed suicide on an unexplained impulse.

Perhaps someone thinks such an action would be for the greater good. Who is he to argue if so. Such is the problem of this type of action. Where does it end

probably under a flyover in concrete.

Love it.

The US want to extradite him on a charge which carries a maximum prison term of 5 years. The Swedish charges were dropped.

spen666 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:18 am Breaking the law for "the greater good" is as some would say a grey area.

Some people would support IRA terrorists murdering innocent British civilian women and children
OR
Palestinian Terrorists murdering innocent Jewish civilian women and children

Can't imagine any liberal minded person supporting murders like the ones carried out by those groups

Could you explain the greater good from this please ?

East Surrey Orient wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 1:08 pm The US want to extradite him on a charge which carries a maximum prison term of 5 years. The Swedish charges were dropped.

They were dropped because they could not pursue in his absence. They can if they choose reopen the case. Whether they will is another matter. I have no doubt they will explore the possibility.

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 2:05 pm

East Surrey Orient wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 1:08 pm The US want to extradite him on a charge which carries a maximum prison term of 5 years. The Swedish charges were dropped.

They were dropped because they could not pursue in his absence. They can if they choose reopen the case. Whether they will is another matter. I have no doubt they will explore the possibility.

I read somewhere that the complainants withdrew their complaints because it was all a set up by the CIA.

Seems Diane Abbott has joined in the defence of Assange. Seems she is unconcerned about the sexual assault and rape charges made and the fact that he has avoided trial for sexual assault by hiding away, meaning the 5 year statute of limitations has expired. But the rape charge can still be reinstated.

So let’s all hail a man who feels Governments should be held to account for alledged wrongdoing yet does not feel he personally should do so.

Fair play to Emily Thornbury who feels he should be extradited to Sweden if so requested.

Labour 6 to 8 points ahead of the Tories, depending which opinion poll you look at.

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 1:51 pm Seems Diane Abbott has joined in the defence of Assange. Seems she is unconcerned about the sexual assault and rape charges made and the fact that he has avoided trial for sexual assault by hiding away, meaning the 5 year statute of limitations has expired. But the rape charge can still be reinstated.

So let’s all hail a man who feels Governments should be held to account for alledged wrongdoing yet does not feel he personally should do so.

Fair play to Emily Thornbury who feels he should be extradited to Sweden if so requested.

You seem to be conflating two separate issues here. Either accidentally because you’re bit of a dunderhead, or deliberately because you’re malicious. I’m not sure which.

The Swedish charges were dropped due to a lack of evidence and probably because they were trumped up due to American involvement and their promise to fund the new Abba museum in Stockholm.