News1 min ago
Hague says Assange will not be allowed to leave the country...
Surely Ecuador can use the Diplomatic bag concept and we are powerless to stop it. Will we violate the DB?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by StarBeast. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.http:// www.mir ror.co. ...e-mp -learni ng-1238 155
Sandy, they’re still at it! The link shows how Nick Boles and the millionaire Jeremy Hunt arranged for us to pay for their language lessons just so that they could converse with their women.
Since it was startling rather than merely drab venality, one could almost wish for a return of the duck-house!
Sandy, they’re still at it! The link shows how Nick Boles and the millionaire Jeremy Hunt arranged for us to pay for their language lessons just so that they could converse with their women.
Since it was startling rather than merely drab venality, one could almost wish for a return of the duck-house!
Not sure how the details of MPs' expenses were 'stolen'. Were they meant to be covered by the Official Secrets Act? Or protected by Parliamentary privilege, on a stretch of the meaning of privliege? Were the physical files stolen ?
There would be a public interest defence open to anyone, in many or most cases of divulging the information. Evidence obtained by unlawful means may yet be acted upon and the results of obtaining it admitted in evidence. If I stole somebody's letters, or illegally intercepting their mail, and found they had admitted to a murder, both the result; the consequent investigation;and generally the letters or contents of the letters would be admitted in evidence. There might be no other evidence to identify the murderer.
There would be a public interest defence open to anyone, in many or most cases of divulging the information. Evidence obtained by unlawful means may yet be acted upon and the results of obtaining it admitted in evidence. If I stole somebody's letters, or illegally intercepting their mail, and found they had admitted to a murder, both the result; the consequent investigation;and generally the letters or contents of the letters would be admitted in evidence. There might be no other evidence to identify the murderer.
Fred, if a secretary with a grudge against her boss - and knowing that I wanted to discredit him - stole his briefcase and passed it to me, would I be at liberty to publicise any apparently humiliating documents within? Could I use the "public interest" defence to cover the use of his own stolen paperwork to shame him if he was a candidate for public office?
Why couldn't they come here and interview him? Then decide instead of deciding first? Why didn't they arrest him at the time? It's only a "rape" technically because of some strange Swedish hindsight law. Anywhere esle it would be consent. This does real rape victims no favours at all. But then as I said before this is a case of trying to get Assange to the US because he's upset them by revealing uncomfortable truths. The whole thing stinks to high heaven. Does anyone want to bet that he does not end up in the US if he does indeed go to Sweden?
"Could I use the "public interest" defence to cover the use of his own stolen paperwork to shame him if he was a candidate for public office?"
What a strange question, there is a clue in the name "public interest"... it depends on the contents, if it was proof they had been accepting bribes for public contracts, yes, if it was details of his lunch order, then probably not.
What a strange question, there is a clue in the name "public interest"... it depends on the contents, if it was proof they had been accepting bribes for public contracts, yes, if it was details of his lunch order, then probably not.
The Telegraph paid £150,000 for the disc holding the information. I was wrong in saying it was a quarter of a million.
http:// www.dig italspy ...s-ex penses- story.h tml
http://
Fair play to Assange at least in his bizarre speech he finished up by mentioning Pusst Rior. Other than that his speech was a piece of rambling nonsense. Bradley Manning drfibmnitely deserves to have the book thrown at him. What he committed was theft and nothing whatever to do with 'freedom of speech' The US should concentrate its fire on him.
Ickeria, as I understand it, as part of his deal with Ecuador, he undertook to make no political points in any speech. In fact, he gave a list of instructions to President Obama - which I devoutly hope the latter ignores - presumably failing to grasp that he is a politician and the only sorts of decisions he can make are political ones.
Manning deserves whatever he gets.
Manning deserves whatever he gets.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.