All it is is a case of a broken condom during consensual sex. Would anyone else be charged with that here?

Interestingly, according to Newsnight, these cases were previously dropped in Sweden before by the prosecutor, and were only recently revived by a different prosecutor. The timing is, of course, highly suspicious.

Possibly Durex might, under the goods and services act*?

*I am not a lawyer - I'm sure someone here knows the relevant details.

I swear nobody reads anything I write on here, I'm sure I've mentioned that a couple of times somewhere.

Now go back and read through every single posting ever made!

Assange to be released

Prosecution appeal fails

By Chris Williams • Get more from this author

Posted in Government, 16th December 2010 13:27 GMT

A High Court judge has rejected a call to keep Julian Assange in jail while the courts consider Sweden's extradition request.

The Wikileaks founder, wanted in Sweden for questioning in relation to alleged sex crimes, was granted bail on Tuesday, but was held in prison pending today's appeal by the Crown Prosecution Service.

He will now be freed later today.

Assange's supporters will pay the court a £200,000 security deposit, and £40,000 in sureties. He will live in Suffolk at the home of Vaughan Smith, a journalist who founded the Frontline Club, wear an electronic tag, and report daily to the local police station.

The next hearing is scheduled for 11 January. Assange denies the allegations and his lawyers will oppose extradition. ®

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/16/assange_free/

The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention

Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old U.S. Army Private accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, has never been convicted of that crime, nor of any other crime. Despite that, he has been detained at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia for five months -- and for two months before that in a military jail in Kuwait -- under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture. Interviews with several people directly familiar with the conditions of Manning's detention, ultimately including a Quantico brig official (Lt. Brian Villiard) who confirmed much of what they conveyed, establishes that the accused leaker is subjected to detention conditions likely to create long-term psychological injuries.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... 4/manning/

As with JA, I hope he sues the sh1t out of them if it's appropriate

I do not think that the US has signed up to the Human Rights Convention, Though if so we should not extradite anyone to a country that is not a signed and ratified the convention.

Wikileaks' Julian Assange says the US fears losing face

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has said the United States is conducting an "aggressive" and "illegal" investigation into him and his site.

Mr Assange is free on bail while awaiting extradition proceedings to Sweden over sex allegations.

The 39-year-old said: "A lot of face has been lost by some people and some people have careers to make by pursuing a famous case."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12020063

I do not think any less of the US as a result of these diplomatic leaks. I think it is rather more embarrassing of the rest of the world. The views of our leaders are pretty accurate, and I would imagine that the views are accurate of everyone else that is mentioned. So the US are not losing face over this. The fact that they centralised all the data even after Garry McKinnon should be embarrassing.

Of course it's embarrassing for the US. It's no good telling Britain to it's face "You're an important ally" and "thanks for Afghanistan" if privately you're saying "The British Army is rubbish at this Helmand lark". If that doesn't make Downing Street reconsider their feelings towards Washington, it'll definitely rile the British public, not to mention those who have lost relatives to that pointless military escapade.

I would not say that. Think of it on a personal level at the pub, you might support a friend in public yet privately tell them they are being idiots or whatever. It is basically the same. The fact that our troops were rubbish was down to the poor equipment that they had. Inadequate helicopters bad body armour are not the fault of the troops. That is embarrassing for the PM and MOD who claimed that they wanted for nothing. Your anger should be at the MOD and the British for failing to equip our troops better. Just because the diplomatic records shows that they told us that does not make them bad.

You're damn right I'm angry at the MOD and Downing Street, not only for the shoddy equipment they foist upon the troops, but mostly for dragging us kicking and screaming into this in the first place. The US is partly to blame for the latter point, and thus will not escape public anger.

Actually, if you read the comments of a lot of soldiers in the wake of the leaks, it's down to a lack of understanding of the situation on the ground by the brass and politicians. Which is always a problem. Many of them claim they played the hand they were dealt, as best they could.

Just watch Generation Kill for a wonderful picture of how a sit rep from a non-com often means nothing to battalion or divisional command.

I was thinking of the body armour issue, lack of helicopters and vehicles that the brass were not allowed to go in because they were insufficiently armoured yet the troops had to use daily. That was the sort of thing. As you say they had to operate with the hand they dealt with. I am not criticising the troops. The problems were all much higher up the chain of command.

The problems are with the politicians at the top of the chain

All soldiers, given the choice, would have every single piece of equipment ever manufactured. But wars are expensive and we can't afford it like the Yanks can.