Julian Assange to stay in prison over absconding fears
bbc.com
bbc.com
He'd normally be given bail for that, but given what happened last time he was, his lawyer didn't even ask for it this time. So he's remanded in custody until the extradition hearing.
Or, perhaps they have settled. Compromise?
One reason is it's more difficult to make a living if you're fired (not many press jobs anymore, whether online or print), and more easy to be branded for life as unwelcome.
As for going at it on your own, e.g. as a vlogger/journalist, if you get too much on the establishment's nerves it's very easy to deplatform you, not just from e.g. youtube, but even from payment platforms for donations...
2) He's not being tortured.
3) It's entirely reasonable that a known and proven flight risk will be held without bail when facing criminal charges.
2) He's being tortured
3) I wasn't addressing this
Letting people upload troves of information, and just dumping them to the public without going through and vetting them, isn't journalism in my book. He's a journalist in the same sense that a data breach dumped on pastebin is a news article.
The fact that some journalists are so vehement against Assange imho proves that he s a journalist. People always shoot the messenger
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/journalist 1.b: a writer who aims at a mass audience
Julian Assange: Technically a journalist.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-17/is-jul...
I don't think it's a matter of explanation anymore. Whether Assange is a journalist depends on political affiliations. It's a shame that the trump election had to end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater by discrediting wikileaks. This kind of thing usually has unintented, bad consequences.
https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/t...
Flight risks get denied bail, and Assange is a proven flight risk.
Regardless of charge, he was wanted and has proven himself a flight-risk.
If you read into the events, it seems possible/likely that the two women got together and filed charges as retribution for being cheated on, without a condom. And were possibly encouraged by a 3rd patty.
Are the "rape" victims still pushing for justice?
The accusers never withdrew the charges.
And putting the word rape in quotes really isn't a good look.
But they attempted to, I believe.
And you don't close a case because the target is shielded - you may put it on the back burner, but not close it.
Rape is sex without consent. That doesn't seem to be quite the case here. The "look" is quite clear, the rape charge is exaggerated.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/julian-assange-tortured-psycho...
Just wondering. My personal opinion: Julian Assange is a hero who deserves all the accolades available, including the Nobel Peace Prize. But, I am aware that he has his haters here on HN: What say you about his torture? Justified?
If Assange hadn't been an egomaniac and conspiracy-theorist, he would have put the Swedish indictment far behind by now.
Also: your "source" is embarrassing.
Not looking great for credibility.
The Centre for Research on Globalization promotes a variety of conspiracy theories and falsehoods.
Do you have a link to a source? I know a lot about use of restraint and rapid tranquillisation on people with mental illness and this sounds like an unlikely situation.
EDIT: after having read your source and I can say it's fucking bullshit.
EDIT2: In the spirit of teaching people stuff. All episodes of restraint of mental health patients in England is supposed to be recorded. This should include all types of restraint where a staff member puts a hand on the patient. This range stretches from prone restraint and rapid tranquillisation all the way to "guiding hand" ("hey Bob, I can see your annoyed. Come and have a cup of tea and tell me what's going on" with a hand on the shoulder is probably an incident of recordable restraint).
We want to end all episodes of restraint.
We especially want to end all episodes of prone restraint because it's traumatic, degrading, and dangerous.
We want to avoid all other forms of restraint because preventative working to avoid the situation happening is better for that patient, for other patients, and for staff.
If you want to see what we're doing to try to end restraint the "Reducing Restrictive Practice" programme might be interesting (although it's heavily aimed at staff and patients in MH settings in England) https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/improving-care/nccmh/reducing-rest...
Restraint is used in in-patient mental health settings, and in in-patient learning disability and intellectual disability settings.
Mental health settings can include prisons and also "forensic" (secure) hospitals. (Secure is a bit of jargon with specific meaning in the context of MH care).
So, if you want to claim a prisoner is being restrained and drugged it would be easy to make this credible. Use words like "supine restraint" and "rapid tranquillisation". Get the names of the meds right. Say that you've put in FoI requests but were denied access to someone's medical information. But also put in an FoI request to see total numbers of restraint and rapid tranq being used in that setting.
There's probably a name for this thing where a conspiracy theory is such obvious bollocks that the only people who believe it are other conspiracy theorists. I guess it's a bit like some email scams are deliberately full of typos in order to select a particular audience.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/31/julian-assange...
It's not a conspiracy theory
I'm sure he's found his experience of self-imposed exile hard, and his current imprisonment can't be easy, but did you read parent poster's link? That's what I'm describing as bollocks.