his native Australia had made an "effective declaration of abandonment" by refusing to intervene in his planned extradition.
My government is not my government any more. It's just a subsidiary of the United States. They got together to send him back to the US.
Oh, for fuck's sake. They should rip up his passport for being a professional whiner. He expects a democracy to intervene in one of its citizens being extradited from another democracy to yet another democracy to face questioning for something that is a crime in all three? It's bloody unbelievable.
If he was being extradited to the US on political or espionage charges (espionage against the US not, to the best of my knowledge, being a crime in the UK, Australia or Sweden) then, well, it might a bit more reasonable. But he's not. "Rape and sexual assault".
I wonder how many of the various leftist running dogs would be supporting a Swede, living in the US, against allegations that he raped two women in London?
Notes for people who insist it wouldn't be a crime in the UK (Ed notes: references are to E&W law, the Act does not apply in Scotland, although there are similar provisions in Part 2 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009):
1. s75(2)(d) Sexual Offences Act 2003 covers " asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act" - reversing the burden of proof for consent. And as the woman has said she didn't consent ...
2. s76(2)(a) SOA03 covers the broken (or absent) condom: "the defendant intentionally deceived the complainant as to the nature or purpose of the relevant act;". This doesn't just reverse the burden of proof, it is "it is to be conclusively presumed":
(a)that the complainant did not consent to the relevant act, and
(b)that the defendant did not believe that the complainant consented to the relevant act.
No comments:
Post a Comment