Ecuador: UK Threatens to Raid Embassy

[Forsher]

In Discworld it would work.

HE needs a disguise. A good one. And a look alike. Or some Columbian/Ecuadorian scuffle that distracts everyone. Better yet he should have Swedish assurance that he will not be going anywhere other than Ecuador or Britain or somewhere in Sweden once he arrives. Or, he needs some screwed up documents a la Kim Dotcom.

Perhaps the Thomas Crowne Affair tactic, dress up hundreds of people in suits and bowler hats and arrange a complicated synchronised move so he escapes in the confusion.

Frankly I'm surprised it's taking him so long.

He should "leak" his plans and then proceed to escape using those plans. No-one will expect it.

In Discworld it would work.

HE needs a disguise. A good one. And a look alike. Or some Columbian/Ecuadorian scuffle that distracts everyone. Better yet he should have Swedish assurance that he will not be going anywhere other than Ecuador or Britain or somewhere in Sweden once he arrives. Or, he needs some screwed up documents a la Kim Dotcom.

If he threw all of his latest wikileaks files out of the window, I expect the frantic scuffle for their retrieval would last long enough for him to at least get down to Dover. From there, he just needs a wig, a moustache, and a fake passport, and he could be anywhere.

He should die and cut that hair first. It's sort of distinctive.

[Person012345]

i first supported the UK, until the minister of industry said spain was full of mosquitoes and it was too hot. And the government are just a bunch of hypocrits, becouse the president is in Palma de Mallorca and the vice-president in Castilla-La Mancha.

Also, whith state funds several tv stations show desert beaches and street. know why? they were filming at 7:30 in the morning! i know it becousi saw one of them while i was running in Costa Ballena, Cadiz.

Go Ecuador! Go!

Edit and P.S: UK, instead of getting in diplomatic conflicts, try to make nor beatiful your country... so some tourists go there...

What?

I've never heard that he said that, but then I don't pay much attention to what random people say. I'm not actually sure we have a minister of industry. Anyway, lets assume he said that, is any of it untrue? I mean, the "too hot" is subjective, although I would certainly agree with it (I don't really like heat very much) and is it not full of mosquitoes? I imagine mosquitoes quite like the climate there.

Additionally, the government is not a single person in many disguises. Just because the trade minister doesn't like spain doesn't mean that the PM doesn't like spain or that the Vice-PM doesn't like spain. We don't have presidents though so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

The state doesn't determine the programming on most channels (even the BBC is mostly autonomous). And channels don't generally make their own programmes (it happens sometimes, but normally they just buy the rights). Additionally, are deserted streets bad? I'm not sure what your point is.

Furthermore, why would all this make you support alleged rapists? Are you an idiot?

P.S. Heathrow is the busiest airport in the world by international traffic.

[Forsakia]

His options are therefore highly limited. The 'smuggle him out in a diplomatic pouch' option is, as I noted earlier in this thread, almost as silly as the helicopter fantasy.

From the BBC's Q&A:

Could he be taken out of the embassy in a container?
There are strict rules relating to "diplomatic bags" which are designed to allow countries to bring their documents in and out of a host nation. Diplomatic bags can be any size that the country wants them to be and they cannot be opened or detained in transit.

But the law says they are for official materials, so it is difficult to see how Julian Assange could be put in a crate and shipped out - not least because the British authorities would have a fairly clear idea what was in the box.

Thank you for ruining John Rhys Davies' crowning moment of awesome in The Living Daylights, Archy. >=I

Hmm, what if they did a dry run with crates filled with official documents a few times first.

[The UK in Exile]

I saw those ads as well. They weren't government ones, they were actually adverts from British Airways. I found it quite interesting, actually. I wonder how much more custom they got from the olympic sponsership deal.

Nonetheless, it was scarcely propaganda, it was an advert from a company interested in making money out of the olympics.

and when theminister of industry said spain was full of mosquitoes and was just too hot? i mean, now hes the tourist advisor?

and newspapers saying spanish beaches are without people... ect.

they Cant be without people becouse we receive 1.2 tourists per person is Spain, and only france has more tourists than Spain

chances are he's an idiot.

on behalf of the UK, I apologise for our Idiot Minister.

[The Matthew Islands]

i first supported the UK, until the minister of industry said spain was full of mosquitoes and it was too hot. And the government are just a bunch of hypocrits, becouse the president is in Palma de Mallorca and the vice-president in Castilla-La Mancha.

Also, whith state funds several tv stations show desert beaches and street. know why? they were filming at 7:30 in the morning! i know it becousi saw one of them while i was running in Costa Ballena, Cadiz.

Go Ecuador! Go!

Edit and P.S: UK, instead of getting in diplomatic conflicts, try to make nor beatiful your country... so some tourists go there...

What?

I don't think English is his first language. I think Arch talked to him in Spanish, you could try thy if you find a google translator

[Laerod]

What?

I don't think English is his first language. I think Arch talked to him in Spanish, you could try thy if you find a google translator :P

There's a Spanish-speaker thread for that. This remains an English language forum and it's generally frowned upon to engaging in debating with languages that exclude others.

[Person012345]

Additionally, the "what" was rhetorical and not directed at his grammatical skills.

[The Archregimancy]

I don't think English is his first language. I think Arch talked to him in Spanish, you could try thy if you find a google translator

There's a Spanish-speaker thread for that. This remains an English language forum and it's generally frowned upon to engaging in debating with languages that exclude others.

It is; but I made an exception here because I thought it worth quickly noting a couple of points of pedantic accuracy in (slightly wobbly) Spanish in such a manner so as to discourage a broader threadjack on the topic of Cameron's title and Clegg's family.

I would not encourage other participants in the thread to post in Spanish, and apologise if I gave the impression that this was acceptable practice.

[Laerod]

There's a Spanish-speaker thread for that. This remains an English language forum and it's generally frowned upon to engaging in debating with languages that exclude others.

It is; but I made an exception here because I thought it worth quickly noting a couple of points of pedantic accuracy in (slightly wobbly) Spanish in such a manner so as to discourage a broader threadjack on the topic of Cameron's title and Clegg's family.

I would not encourage other participants in the thread to post in Spanish, and apologise if I gave the impression that this was acceptable practice.

Yeah. I was trying to point out that continuing it might not be a good idea.

[Nadkor]

Other than the fact that they are harboring a criminal I can't think of any.

A criminal is someone who has been convicted of a crime, I think you've forgotten about a little concept called Innocent Until Proven Guilty.

The problem is that everybody forgets the word at the beginning of that phrase: "presumed".

The accused in a court is not innocent until proven guilty. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty. This does not mean that they are innocent of the crime until they are proven guilty. They may well be guilty of the crime, but the court will presume that they are not until it is proven.

[Person012345]

A criminal is someone who has been convicted of a crime, I think you've forgotten about a little concept called Innocent Until Proven Guilty.

The problem is that everybody forgets the word at the beginning of that phrase: "presumed".

The accused in a court is not innocent until proven guilty. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty. This does not mean that they are innocent of the crime until they are proven guilty. They may well be guilty of the crime, but the court will presume that they are not until it is proven.

That's a truism though, all you're saying is that if someone did it they did it. The presumed is unnecessary because if they are presumed and we cannot prove otherwise then we have to say that they are not guilty. Whether they did it or not cannot impact anyone except the victim if it can't be proven to them beyond their own doubt.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

The problem is that everybody forgets the word at the beginning of that phrase: "presumed".

The accused in a court is not innocent until proven guilty. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty. This does not mean that they are innocent of the crime until they are proven guilty. They may well be guilty of the crime, but the court will presume that they are not until it is proven.

That's a truism though, all you're saying is that if someone did it they did it. The presumed is unnecessary because if they are presumed and we cannot prove otherwise then we have to say that they are not guilty. Whether they did it or not cannot impact anyone except the victim if it can't be proven to them beyond their own doubt.

In functionalist terms, yes. But the disctinction between "presumed innocent" and "innocent" is quite significant.

[Caninope]

The problem is that everybody forgets the word at the beginning of that phrase: "presumed".

The accused in a court is not innocent until proven guilty. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty. This does not mean that they are innocent of the crime until they are proven guilty. They may well be guilty of the crime, but the court will presume that they are not until it is proven.

That's a truism though, all you're saying is that if someone did it they did it. The presumed is unnecessary because if they are presumed and we cannot prove otherwise then we have to say that they are not guilty. Whether they did it or not cannot impact anyone except the victim if it can't be proven to them beyond their own doubt.

Also, everyone knows he's guilty of at least one crime.

[The UK in Exile]

The problem is that everybody forgets the word at the beginning of that phrase: "presumed".

The accused in a court is not innocent until proven guilty. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty. This does not mean that they are innocent of the crime until they are proven guilty. They may well be guilty of the crime, but the court will presume that they are not until it is proven.

That's a truism though, all you're saying is that if someone did it they did it. The presumed is unnecessary because if they are presumed and we cannot prove otherwise then we have to say that they are not guilty. Whether they did it or not cannot impact anyone except the victim if it can't be proven to them beyond their own doubt.

its not a truism, its about how the logic of the court is applied. its just as easy to have the doctrine of guilty until proven innocent.

[Person012345]

That's a truism though, all you're saying is that if someone did it they did it. The presumed is unnecessary because if they are presumed and we cannot prove otherwise then we have to say that they are not guilty. Whether they did it or not cannot impact anyone except the victim if it can't be proven to them beyond their own doubt.

In functionalist terms, yes. But the disctinction between "presumed innocent" and "innocent" is quite significant.

In linguistic terms sure, but in functional terms I don't see how.

[Person012345]

That's a truism though, all you're saying is that if someone did it they did it. The presumed is unnecessary because if they are presumed and we cannot prove otherwise then we have to say that they are not guilty. Whether they did it or not cannot impact anyone except the victim if it can't be proven to them beyond their own doubt.

its not a truism, its about how the logic of the court is applied. its just as easy to have the doctrine of guilty until proven innocent.

Talking about the distinction between "presumed" innocent and innocent.

[The UK in Exile]

its not a truism, its about how the logic of the court is applied. its just as easy to have the doctrine of guilty until proven innocent.

Talking about the distinction between "presumed" innocent and innocent.

the distinction is that "presumed innocent" accurately describes the principle and "innocent" does not.

at no point does it mean that "if someone did it they did it."

it means that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. which is why the word "presumed" is important.

[Person012345]

Talking about the distinction between "presumed" innocent and innocent.

the distinction is that "presumed innocent" accurately describes the principle and "innocent" does not.

at no point does it mean that "if someone did it they did it."

it means that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. which is why the word "presumed" is important.

The accused in a court is not innocent until proven guilty. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty. This does not mean that they are innocent of the crime until they are proven guilty. They may well be guilty of the crime, but the court will presume that they are not until it is proven.

As I already said, linguistically, sure, but in real, practical terms, how is there any difference between prefixing the presumed and not for anyone except the victim (and potentially the offender)?

[Nadkor]

The problem is that everybody forgets the word at the beginning of that phrase: "presumed".

The accused in a court is not innocent until proven guilty. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty. This does not mean that they are innocent of the crime until they are proven guilty. They may well be guilty of the crime, but the court will presume that they are not until it is proven.

That's a truism though, all you're saying is that if someone did it they did it. The presumed is unnecessary because if they are presumed and we cannot prove otherwise then we have to say that they are not guilty. Whether they did it or not cannot impact anyone except the victim if it can't be proven to them beyond their own doubt.

The difference between "innocent" and "presumed innocent" is huge. One means that a person did not commit the crime, full stop. The other means that we're going to assume that the person did not commit the crime until the prosecution can prove that they did. "Not guilty" does not mean that you did not commit the crime. It means that you were not found guilty of committing the crime. There are plenty of people who commit crimes and get off in court. The fact that a court did not find them guilty (note: the court did not find them innocent, either) does not mean that they did not commit the crime.

Take, for example, Anders Breivik. Everybody in that courtroom, indeed everybody familiar with the story, knows that he did what he is accused of doing. He is not innocent. He did it; he is guilty. The court, however, will presume that he is innocent until the prosecution presents their evidence and can prove that he did it. There is a huge difference. Breivik is not innocent, but he is presumed innocent by the court.

The presumption of innocence (you will note that it is called the presumption of innocence) is not a truism. It accurately describes how a fair criminal justice system operates. And "presumed innocent" is not the same as "innocent".

[The UK in Exile]

the distinction is that "presumed innocent" accurately describes the principle and "innocent" does not.

at no point does it mean that "if someone did it they did it."

it means that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. which is why the word "presumed" is important.

The accused in a court is not innocent until proven guilty. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty. This does not mean that they are innocent of the crime until they are proven guilty. They may well be guilty of the crime, but the court will presume that they are not until it is proven.

As I already said, linguistically, sure, but in real, practical terms, how is there any difference between prefixing the presumed and not for anyone except the victim (and potentially the offender)?

because if one were to apply "Innocent until proven guilty" as a logical principle, the police cannot arrest anyone, as they are innocent. no-one can be investigated because they are innocent. no cases can be brought. because they are innocent. which is why it is not applied. it does not describe a real thing.

hence we employ the principle that whilst they may or may not be guilty. in court they enjoy the presumption that they are innocent. and must be proven guilty before they are treated as such.

[Person012345]

The difference between "innocent" and "presumed innocent" is huge. One means that a person did not commit the crime, full stop. The other means that we're going to assume that the person did not commit the crime until the prosecution can prove that they did. "Not guilty" does not mean that you did not commit the crime. It means that you were not found guilty of committing the crime. There are plenty of people who commit crimes and get off in court. The fact that a court did not find them guilty (note: the court did not find them innocent, either) does not mean that they did not commit the crime.

That's what I mean. If he did it he did it, if he didn't he didn't. That's a truism.

Take, for example, Anders Breivik. Everybody in that courtroom, indeed everybody familiar with the story, knows that he did what he is accused of doing. He is not innocent. He did it; he is guilty. The court, however, will presume that he is innocent until the prosecution presents their evidence and can prove that he did it. There is a huge difference. Breivik is not innocent, but he is presumed innocent by the court.

The presumption of innocence (you will note that it is called the presumption of innocence) is not a truism. It accurately describes how a fair criminal justice system operates. And "presumed innocent" is not the same as "innocent".

No. If everyone knows he did it then they quite obviously aren't presuming him innocent. They just aren't, even if they should be. And if they are, they don't know he did it and saying that's he's innocent until proven guilty is fine - they would indeed be presuming he is innocent and thus are justified in saying that he is innocent. They might be wrong, but that's a possibility in every case and comes back to the truism - if he did it he did it. We know that. But presuming his innocence he must be treated in every way as if he is innocent.

[Person012345]

because if one were to apply "Innocent until proven guilty" as a logical principle, the police cannot arrest anyone, as they are innocent. no-one can be investigated because they are innocent. no cases can be brought. because they are innocent. which is why it is not applied. it does not describe a real thing.

hence we employ the principle that whilst they may or may not be guilty. in court they enjoy the presumption that they are innocent. and must be proven guilty before they are treated as such.

What you're saying applies to presumed as well. If we presume them innocent then there's no reason to arrest them. No reason to investigate them. Because we presume they are innocent.

[Ifreann]

Well this is a change of tangent. Have we swapped absurdities about getting Assange out of the UK for philosophising about presumption of innocence?

[The UK in Exile]

because if one were to apply "Innocent until proven guilty" as a logical principle, the police cannot arrest anyone, as they are innocent. no-one can be investigated because they are innocent. no cases can be brought. because they are innocent. which is why it is not applied. it does not describe a real thing.

hence we employ the principle that whilst they may or may not be guilty. in court they enjoy the presumption that they are innocent. and must be proven guilty before they are treated as such.

What you're saying applies to presumed as well. If we presume them innocent then there's no reason to arrest them. No reason to investigate them. Because we presume they are innocent.

no it doesn't.

[Person012345]

What you're saying applies to presumed as well. If we presume them innocent then there's no reason to arrest them. No reason to investigate them. Because we presume they are innocent.

no it doesn't.

Do you investigate everyone for everything that happens to you?