What is really happening in the Ukraine Conflict?

[Scott777]

I'm not trying to doge it, I'm standing by it.  Being neural (ie ceasing our support to Ukraine) with respect to the current ukr/rus war will make a Russian victory more likely. I assume you do not dispute that?

No, it won't MAKE a Russian victory more likely, but it will allow it.  And are you disputing that the US being neutral for the first year of WWII allowed for a Nazi victory to be more likely?  And did that make them on the side of Nazis?  You are trying to dodge it.  Fess up.

So maybe I should say to be accurate "supporting neutrality helps Russia achive itvs goal of winning the war, taking Ukrainian territory and imposing it's own puppet regime. " - any argument?

No, it does not help Russia.  Doing nothing helps nothing.

[Scott777]

Nope, he made the extradition argument well before he stepped into the embassy. It was a core part of his defence.

He stepped into the embassy when it looked like his appeal would fail.

He was using the US extradition argument as an excuse to avoid facing charges in Sweden.

"Assange's lawyers made over 30 offers to arrange for Assange to visit Sweden in exchange for a guarantee that he would not be extradited to the U.S. over unknown charges."

So clearly he was prepeared to go to Sweden.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#:~:text=In%20August%202014,%20Assange%20announced,work%20in%20the%20United%20States.%22

Is it your contention that a person can use "they are out to get me" as a defense against any and all charges even if thry are not related to his claimed persecution?

No.  But if there is evidence that the US wanted to extradite someone who is a whistleblower, and coincidentally another country wants him for "investigation" without any charges being filed, then yes, they should try to defend themself.  And what "charges" did you think were made against him?

[Unlucky4Sum]

No, sorry, but the regulations did not override European law which protects right of assembly.

That would be the imagined law that doesn't exist then.

Go on go read BOTH parts of Article 11 of the ECnHR  https://prd-echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_eng  

(also appears in Schedule 1 of the UK HRA)

or if you want to use Article 12 of the EU charter of rights best you read Articles 51 and 52 in it too https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT#d1e751-393-1 

[BeElBeeBub]

No, sorry, but the regulations did not override European law which protects right of assembly.

Not absolute.

Article 11
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions. Anyone has the right to organise private or public meetins, association and political parties. Authorities have an obligation to take appropriate steps not to dissuade citizens from exercising their right to freedom of peaceful assembly.


But case law. Finds that

"the freedom of peaceful assembly on the public highway (demonstration): states must guarantee the freedom of peaceful assembly. In order to ensure law and order, prior authorisation from the public authorities is legitimate if it is provided for by law."

My emphasis

That IS the state must provide mechanisms for you to protest but can put restrictions on to ensure order. 

We see this when the police route two counter groups so as to keep them apart. These groups could be rival football fans or pro/anti Israel marches. In fact the authorities have a duty to ensure then safety of protesters. For example the authorities must provide protection (in practice separation) for a.protest group from another larger group. The government cannot allow it's "patriotic citizen" supporters to beat the shit out of opposition protests (common tactic) 

[BeElBeeBub]

But overall, the law did not prohibit protest or gatherings.  Both are human rights.

It did, in that protest was not listed as a legal exception. 

Protest and gatherings are human rights but not absolute ones.

Both can be suspended in certain circumstances.

You can't just have a protest anywhere, anytime for any reason.

Try holding a protest across the. M25 or a Heathrow runway. 

The protesters are always welcome to appeal to the ECHR if they want - though ironically I'll bet the majority of the want to leave it. 

[BeElBeeBub]

Why are you so fake, oh slippery snake?  Trying to dodge your claim that being neutral means you are taking sides.  Just admit you are wrong, or say the US took sides with Nazis for a year.

No it doesn't.  Being neutral does not cause anything.  Only Russia can advance Russia's position.

I'm not trying to doge it, I'm standing by it.  Being neural (ie ceasing our support to Ukraine) with respect to the current ukr/rus war will make a Russian victory more likely. I assume you do not dispute that? 

Given Russia wants to win, ceasing our support helps Russia achive it's goal. Again I assume no argument from you.

So we have a course of action that if followed will help Russia. I wouod say that supporting that course of action is defacto supporting Russia (in achieving it's goals)

It is possible you might not support Russia in the sense of being all in on team Russia, whilst advocating a course of action that benefits it. 

So maybe I should say to be accurate "supporting neutrality helps Russia achive itvs goal of winning the war, taking Ukrainian territory and imposing it's own puppet regime. " - any argument? 

[Scott777]

I'm not sure the government telling the police to enforce the law is "police state".

The entire point of the police is to enforce the laws as set out by Parliament. The government, as the executive, has the job of ensuring that the police carry out that duty.

But overall, the law did not prohibit protest or gatherings.  Both are human rights.

[Scott777]

They were breaking the regulations on permitted gatherings.

Gatherings of more than 6 were not permitted except for certain exemptions, like work, education etc.

Protest was not one of the exemptions.

If they protested on their own or in groups of less than 6 (though there were also time restrictions and even some fairly harsh restrictions on going out at all at one point - remember the controversy about people going to sit in the park. Etc)

No, sorry, but the regulations did not override European law which protects right of assembly.

[Scott777]

Taking time to come to aid is different to not coming at all (or withdrawing aid to allow the aggressor to win).

Why are you so fake, oh slippery snake?  Trying to dodge your claim that being neutral means you are taking sides.  Just admit you are wrong, or say the US took sides with Nazis for a year.

Regardless of you trying to twist around, advocating for the US to remain neutral advances Russia's position.

No it doesn't.  Being neutral does not cause anything.  Only Russia can advance Russia's position.

[BeElBeeBub]

His argument about the Swedish case is not relevant.  His reason to be in the Ecuadorian Embassy was so the US or Sweden could not extradite him.  Being in Sweden would mean he was not protected by the Embassy.  And yes, that's a good reason.

Nope, he made the extradition argument well before he stepped into the embassy. It was a core part of his defence. 

He stepped into the embassy when it looked like his appeal would fail. 

Equador has an embassy in Sweden.

He was using the US extradition argument as an excuse to avoid facing charges in Sweden.

Ultimately he was successful as the case timed out.

Is it your contention that a person can use "they are out to get me" as a defense against any and all charges even if thry are not related to his claimed persecution? 

Can he get out of parking tickets because tgry might might be part of a US plot?  Drink driving? Shoplifting? 

It seems a number of your examples are using the "I'm a persecuted martyr" as a defence against being prosecuted. 

[BeElBeeBub]

Strawman alert!!!  I never said anything about "individuals".  The PM put pressure on police to shut down protests during Covid, and the police complied to avoid consequences.  It doesn't have to be direct "control"

I'm not sure the government telling the police to enforce the law is "police state".

Would you say the government urging the police to enforce the law if people ignored dispersal orders in place to sop riots was "police state" 

The entire point of the police is to enforce the laws as set out by Parliament. The government, as the executive, has the job of ensuring that the police carry out that duty. 

[Scott777]

JA only stated to claim this fear of being tortured by the US when Sweden wanted to extradite him. To charge him with sexual offenses.

Now he may well have had a well. Founded fear of US torture and that would be relevant if he was being extradited to the US.

But he was being extradited to Sweden.

His argument was that the Swedish case was merely a pretext to get him out of the UK to Sweden so the US could then extradited him from Sweden.

This falls down on several points.
1) the US could extradited him directly from the Uk.
2)such an extradition would probably be easier
3)sweden has similar if not stronger safeguards against extradition when facing torture
4) those safeguards would be backed up by both the EU and ECHR
5) any onward extradition from. Sweden would require UK consent

Again I don't think he should be extradited to the US. But does the fact someone migbt be wanted on the US form a defence against extradition to any other country?

His arguments were all heard in court, and through several appeals. And all the while he was free on bail.
He chose to evade the courts before his final appeal hearing. Which then set the stage for him being arrested and facing contempt of court (and jail) regardless of the outcome of the appeal.

His argument about the Swedish case is not relevant.  His reason to be in the Ecuadorian Embassy was so the US or Sweden could not extradite him.  Being in Sweden would mean he was not protected by the Embassy.  And yes, that's a good reason.

[BeElBeeBub]

As well as by the route of following orders which are not legislated, such as arresting people just for protesting.

They were breaking the regulations on permitted gatherings. 

Gatherings of more than 6 were not permitted except for certain exemptions, like work, education etc.

Protest was not one of the exemptions.

If they protested on their own or in groups of less than 6 (though there were also time restrictions and even some fairly harsh restrictions on going out at all at one point - remember the controversy about people going to sit in the park. Etc)

[Scott777]

But his recent sentences have been for contempt of court - mainstream media did not break the reporting restrictions or any breaches were deemed inadvertent and quickly deletes.

But mainstream media do break reporting restrictions, without going to prison.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-22043354

https://pressgazette.co.uk/the-wire/newspaper-corrections-media-mistakes-errors-legal/editors-code-privacy-ipso-rulings/

TR broke the reporting restrictions serioisly and deliberately having been warned beforehand.  He nearly collapsed the trial of the defendants. His actions. could have led to them walking away free.

Reporting things is always deliberate.  Evidence he nearly collapsed the trial?

You're right, it is hard to know if Navalny did break the law.... Mainly because his trials were held in secret.
Note one of the charges was breaking his parole conditions by leaving the country. Of course the reason he left Russia was for emergency treatment in Germany after being poisoned by nerve agents.  Which country do we know has a track record of using nerve agents on it's opposition? Or do you think the two Russian tourists were in Salisbury to look at the famous church spire?

So you agree, Navalny may have broken the law.  And Assange was in fear of his life.  But as a hyprocrite, you think that's not a good reason, while defending Navalny.

[Scott777]

I mean yes, the police do take their orders from the government. But crucially, they do so via the route of following legislation.

As well as by the route of following orders which are not legislated, such as arresting people just for protesting.

A minister cannot (and do not) direct the police to arrest or even investigate an individual.

Strawman alert!!!  I never said anything about "individuals".  The PM put pressure on police to shut down protests during Covid, and the police complied to avoid consequences.  It doesn't have to be direct "control".

"nobody is fast tracked to prison."

And yes, cases can be fast tracked,

Make your mind up.