Naming Anna Ardin on Newsnight 183


Anna Ardin herself went to the media, under her own name, as long as two years ago to publicise her allegations against Assange. From the New York Times, 25 August 2010:

Anna Ardin, 31, has told the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet that the complaints were “not orchestrated by the Pentagon” but prompted by “a man who has a twisted attitude toward women and a problem taking no for an answer.”

The furore that I “revealed” her name on Newsnight is a pathetic spasm of false indignation by establishment supporters.

A google search on “Anna Ardin” reveals 193,000 articles, virtually all relating to her sexual allegation against Julian Assange. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation last week broadcast nationwide a documentary investigating Ms Ardin’s allegations and not only naming her repeatedly, but showing several photographs of her and Assange together; it is a documentary everybody interested should watch. Literally thousands of newspapers and magazines all over the world have named her, including the New York Times and the Times of India, aside from those near 200,000 internet entries. The Twittersphere numbers are astronomical.

Gavin Esler, Joan Smith and I all knew her name – what special rights do we three enjoy that entitle us to know that, but would intend to debar the viewers from knowing that? I am willing to bet that virtually all those tweeting and pretending outrage that I named Ms Ardin, already themselves knew her name. They just somehow think nobody else should be allowed to. There is virtually nobody in Sweden – which is after all where she lives – who does not know her name. It is a cause celebre there.

If what I did was illegal, as is being claimed, then somebody had better come and arrest me. As however there are no legal proceedings on this issue in the UK and no prospect of a prosecution here, I know of no lawful reason I should not have named her. I suspect that the number of Newsnight viewers who heard the name for the first time is very small indeed. It might, of course, give some a tool to research further for themselves the facts of the case. That would be very useful indeed.

As for the interview, I was sorry that Aaronovitch was not there (as I had been told he would be) as I might have been more robust – I felt rather constrained arguing with Joan Smith as I generally like and respect her. Strangely enough, as I did the interview I was much less worried about it than I was on subsequently hearing it, because I did not realise the extent my microphone had been turned down compared to Gavin’s and Joan’s when they were speaking across me – which was most of the time I was speaking. It would be interesting if someone with the patience could tot up how many seconds I had speaking with nobody speaking over me, compared to Joan.

To sum up, I was insufficiently assertive and allowed myself to be shouted down, than which I really should know better. But I did succeed in getting over the fact, with examples, that whistleblowers are routinely fitted up with unrelated charges. And all the manufactured fury at my naming Anna Ardin might well lead people to research her claims and behaviour, which would be a good thing. So I am reasonably relaxed.

UPDATE

I have just found the transcript of the Australian Broadcasting Company’s documentary on the Ardin claims against Assange. This is genuine and painstaking investigative journalism from the flagship and long-established “Four corners” programme and shows a glaring contrast between the British and Australian Broadcasting Company approach. The BBC won’t even allow you to mention Ardin’s name, let alone question her story or her motives. The ABC does a full investigation and comes up with some extremely important facts.

It is also interesting that ABC interview Ardin’s own lawyer, as well as Assange’s, and neither shows any concern at the repeated use of Ardin’s name in the interview, of a piece with the fact that it has frequently appeared in the Swedish media.

The documentary is entitled “Sex, Lies and Julian Assange.” This extract starts about twenty minutes in. Click on the title for the full thing. Another interviewee, politician Rick Falkvinge, is obviously extremely conscious of what he may and may not say legally while extradition proceedings are in train, but again appears to have no problem with the interviewer using Anna Ardin’s name.

What is such a big issue for the BBC, and the politically correct media twitterers of London, is apparently not an issue for those in Sweden most closely connected to the case.

ANDREW FOWLER: At the heart of the matter is whether the Swedish judicial authorities will treat him fairly. Certainly, events so far provide a disturbing picture of Swedish justice. Using facts agreed between the defence and prosecution and other verified information, we have pieced together what happened during those crucial three weeks in August.

On August 11th, 2010, Assange arrived in Sweden to attend a conference organised by the Swedish Brotherhood – a branch of the Social Democratic Party. He was offered Anna Ardin’s apartment while she was away, but Ardin returned home a day early on Friday the 13th. She invited Assange to stay the night, and they had sex. She would later tell police Assange had violently pinned her down and ignored her requests to use a condom. Assange denies this.

The following day, Assange addressed the conference with Ardin at his side. Later that afternoon Ardin organised the Swedish equivalent of a top-notch barbeque – a Crayfish Party. She posted a Twitter message. “Julian wants to go to a crayfish party. Anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow?”

The crayfish party was held that night in a court yard off her apartment. It went on until the early hours of the morning. Ardin tweeted at 2am: “Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world’s coolest, smartest people! It’s amazing!”

A guest at the party would later tell Swedish Police the event was a very hearty evening. When he offered to put Assange up at his apartment, Ardin replied, “He can stay with me.”

In the past 24 hours, Ardin had worked closely with Assange, had sex with him, organised a crayfish party on his behalf – and, according to one witness, turned down alternate accommodation for him. It is during this same period that police will later investigate whether Assange coerced and sexually molested Anna Ardin.

PER E. SAMUELSON: Well, if you send text messages like that, “I’ve just spent some time with the coolest people in the world”, the night after you then say you were raped – I mean you shouldn’t write such text messages if you had been raped by that person the night before.

ANDREW FOWLER: Your client described Julian Assange as a “cool man”. I think, one of the “coolest men in the world” that she’d had in her bed.

CLAES BORGSTROM: I will argue in court. I have of course arguments concerning exactly what you’re talking about now, but I will not tell any media of how I am going to represent the women in in court. I’m sorry.

ANDREW FOWLER: But can you see how that looks as though…

CLAES BORGSTROM: Yes, of course I can.

ANDREW FOWLER: …it’s a fit up. It looks as though they are in fact setting him up.

CLAES BORGSTROM: I’m quite aware of that.

ANDREW FOWLER: Sunday August 15th – the next day. Assange attended a dinner party at Stockholm’s Glenfiddich restaurant, organised by pirate party founder Rick Falkvinge.

RICK FALKVINGE: I think a lot of people at the… at the table had meatballs. I think Julian might have been one of them. Now, Swedish meatballs that, that’s a little bit like mum’s apple pie in Sweden – as in, you can call my wife ugly, you can kick my dog, but the instant you say something bad about my mother’s meatballs I’m going to take it personal.

ANDREW FOWLER: Also at the dinner was Anna Ardin.

(to Rick Falkvinge) So, just to get this straight: Julian Assange arrived with Anna Ardin and he left with Anna Ardin.

RICK FALKVINGE: Yep.

ANDREW FOWLER: What was their behaviour like towards each other?

RICK FALKVINGE: Well, I was discussing mainly with Julian and the… again I can’t go into too much detail here, but it was at least a very professional dinner. There were two high level organisations, both intent on changing the world behaving professionally.

ANDREW FOWLER: The fact that Anna Ardin accompanied Julian Assange through this dinner and left with him – what does that say to you?

RICK FALKVINGE: Well that’s going into speculating on merits of extradition, and I can’t really do that. I think that be… you’re presenting an objective fact, as did I, and if people want to read something into that that’s obviously ripe for doing so, but I can’t spell it out.

ANDREW FOWLER: Four Corners has obtained a photograph, lodged with police investigators, from that evening. Anna Ardin is on the left. Afterwards, Assange would again spend the night at her apartment.

The following day, August the 16th, Assange had sex with Sophia Wilen at her apartment. According to police records, Ardin was aware that he had slept with Sophia. A witness told police he contacted Anna Ardin looking for Assange. She texted back: “He’s not here. He’s planned to have sex with the cashmere girl every evening, but not made it. Maybe he finally found time yesterday?” That same day, the witness asked Ardin, “Is it cool he’s living there? Do you want, like, for me to fix something else?” According to the witness she replied: “He doesn’t, like, sleep at nights so that’s a bit difficult. So he has a bit of difficulty taking care of his hygiene. But it’s ok if he lives with me, it’s no problem.”

Three days later on August 20th, Wilen, accompanied by Ardin went to the Klara police station in central Stockholm to seek advice about whether Assange could be forced to take an STD test. Ardin had gone along primarily to support Wilen. Sometime during Wilen’s questioning the police announced to Ardin and Wilen that Assange was to be arrested and questioned about possible rape and molestation. Wilen became so distraught she refused to give any more testimony and refused to sign what had been taken down.

JENNIFER ROBINSON: The circumstances leading up to the issue of the arrest warrant gave cause for grave concern for Julian about the procedures that were adopted in the investigation. We have to remember that when the announcement was put out that he would be subject to a warrant, one of the complainants was upset by that, and later said that she felt railroaded by the police.

KARIN ROSANDER, SWEDISH PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE: Well what happened is what was that the duty prosecutor got a phone call from the police and the duty prosecutor decided that he should be arrested.

ANDREW FOWLER: And what happened?

KARIN ROSANDER: He was arrested in his absence, but he… they never got in… got in contact with him so, but he was arrested in his absence. It’s a technical… technical thing in Sweden, Swedish law, yeah.

ANDREW FOWLER: The Prosecutor’s Office might not have contacted Assange but within hours they let the whole of Sweden know what was going on – leaking to the Expressen Tabloid the statements of Ardin and Wilen. The newspaper front page read: “Assange hunted for rape in Sweden”.

JENNIFER ROBINSON: Julian wakes up the following morning to read the newspapers to hear that he’s wanted for double rape and he’s absolutely shocked.

THOMAS MATTSSON: Two of our reporters had information about Julian Assange, and we also had a confirmation from the prosecutor which confirmed on record that there was a police investigation against Julian Assange.

ANDREW FOWLER: It was now the case took a strange twist. Within 24 hours, a more senior prosecutor dismissed the rape allegations, leaving only the lesser accusation of molestation. Assange willingly went to the police on August 30th and made a statement.

During the interview he expressed his fears that anything he said would end up in the tabloid newspaper Expressen. The interviewing police officer said: “I’m not going to leak anything.” The interview was leaked.

PER E. SAMUELSON: Why did you leak his name to a tabloid paper? How… how can you drop the case and reopen the case and how can you… how can you not say that he waited for five weeks in Sweden voluntarily to participate in the investigation? Why do you have to arrest him? Why do you have to keep him in handcuffs? Why can’t you conduct this in a proper manner? The rest of the world sees it, but Sweden unfortunately doesn’t.

ANDREW FOWLER: It is perhaps understandable that Assange had doubts he would receive fair treatment from the Swedish authorities. On September 15th, the prosecutor told Assange he was permitted to leave Sweden. Assange, back in England, would later offer to return within a month. The Swedish Authorities said too late – a second warrant had already been issued for his arrest.

ANDREW FOWLER: He says that he left the country and then was prepared to come back at any time. Is that your understanding?

CLAES BORGSTROM: I don’t believe that.

ANDREW FOWLER: He says that he was prepared to come back in October but the prosecutor wanted him back earlier.

CLAES BORGSTROM: I don’t know. I don’t believe he wanted to he was he wanted to come freely back to Sweden. I don’t think so.

ANDREW FOWLER: Can you understand that the Australian people may not understand how somebody can be accused in their absence when they haven’t even been interviewed, then have that rape case dropped, the arrest warrant removed and then have it re-instituted, all in the space of a few days?

KARIN ROSANDER: Yeah I can very well understand the confusion and, and, I… that is very difficult to understand, well, exactly how it works.

ANDREW FOWLER: Well you call it confusing, it’s… it may be slightly more than that.

KARIN ROSANDER: Well that’s the way it works here in Sweden so, well… but I can understand the confusion, definitely

.


183 thoughts on “Naming Anna Ardin on Newsnight

1 2 3 4 5 7
  • Komodo

    One more and I’ll shut up. I’ve been trying without much success to get a coherent timeline on the events leading to Assange’s problems. This is (via http://rixstep.com/1/20100914,00.shtml )from Aftenbladet, so as the site says, not reliable. But it looks like a logical sequence of events, and indicates that some of my previous assumptions are wrong. On the other hand, it shows that Wilen very much wanted to get near Assange, and that, unless Ardin and she were very good friends there is a huge question over why she later (but before going to the police) contacted Ardin.
    And, according to this account, it was Wilen who wanted to prefer a rape charge. This, after parting amicably from Assange, and confirming that he would phone her…

    √ 2010-08-20 (Friday). Assange moves his things out of Ardin’s flat. He claims it’s first on Friday he hears of her request.

    Wilén and Ardin arrive at the Klara police station at 14:00. Wilén wants to file charges of rape; Ardin tags along to be of help.

    They talk to a female police officer who concludes they’re both victims of sex crimes and decides to interrogate them separately. Of Wilén the female police officer writes the following in the report.

    ‘She said she’d been raped in her home on the morning of Tuesday 17 August by a man who had sex with her against her wishes.’

    The female police officer ends her report with the following.

    ‘Everyone I spoke to was in earnest agreement that this was a case of rape.’

    Ardin, who only came along to help Wilén, tells the policewoman she also had sex with Ardin. She tells the policewoman the condom broke during sex and now accuses Assange of deliberately breaking it. The police conduct their interrogation of Ardin the following day on the phone.

    So I don’t think Wilen comes well out of this either.

  • Mary

    Completely O/T but watch your shopping bills. I had a £12! overcharge on a Sainsburys bill the other day and then a smaller one when the prices on the shelf edges are different (ie lower) than the prices charged. This morning the CoOp did it too. Tesco do it but do at least pay back double the difference even though you have to go to the time and trouble of returning. Rarely do the staff at the ‘customer’ desks say sorry or if they do, sound as if they mean it.

  • Jon

    @Arnold – we can’t take your view seriously if you intend to make up “other victims” of Assange. Stick to the facts, and try to be even-handed (if you don’t like Wikileaks, then you need to put that to one side). As others have said, if the claims of sexual misdemeanor are correct, then the women have been badly let down by the Swedish prosecutors, who in turn appear to have politicised the case in a way that would cause any trial to fail *. Equally they have let down Assange, who – presumably you agree – also has the right to a fair and just hearing.

    (* I can’t speak for Swedish law, but here in the UK if there is significant media reportage on a jury trial before it has taken place, we call the situation “prejudiced” and our prosecutors can stop on the basis of the possibility of an unfair trial.)

  • durak

    Her name is essentially public knowledge so it’s rather silly to ignore it in a discussion centered around her is it not?

    Why be so farcical?

  • Rebecca

    Dunno why you like and respect Joan Smith, to me she looked like a total arse. Obvious wittering stooge is oh so blindingly obvious. Well done sticking up for yourself, I hope this helps more people see through the Chicanery of the Anglo-American propaganda effort. Once those blinkers are off they stay off!

  • Susie

    My microphone was turned down compared to the other – er, no it wasn’t. I watched the programme and heard you all equally well.

    I did not know this woman’s name, I don’t know anyone who did know it until you clearly said it, and I didn’t want to know her name, because it is her absolute right not to be named.

    Craig Murray’s behaviour demonstrates to me that although he clearly places his own profile and political considerations, above the human rights of 50% of the population – women. Murray came across as arrogant, peevish and childish, even more offensive than Galloway.

  • Eddie-G

    The discussion on Newsnight last night was a real disappointment – not your fault, Craig, but it simply ended up being layer upon layer of matters of secondary or minor importance. The whole naming-the-victim distraction was a prime example.
    .
    So I ended up trying instead to think how to avoid this happening in future… first and critical thing, it strikes me, is that you have to find a way of putting the Swedish charges to one side. Perhaps, by saying something like up front: “Julian completely rejects the sexual assault allegations, which he believes are a ruse and fabrication. His basic fear however is that in fighting the accusations in Sweden, he is putting himself at significant risk of extradition to the USA. It’s the latter issue which I am here to talk about.”
    .
    If someone else then wants to discuss to the Swedish charges, the instant rebuttal is – “sexual assault is obviously a serious crime, but as we can all agree, Julian Assange completely rejects the allegations against him, and that’s as far as we can helpfully advance this issue here. Now, back to why he is seeking political asylum…”
    .
    Maybe there’s a meta-legal strategy that makes this line of discussion unwise, but to me, unless you can set the sexual assault charges put to one side, it’s near impossible to have a substantive discussion about what’s actually going on here.
    .
    Finally, before anyone suggests I’m arguing otherwise, it is possible Julian Assange committed sexual assault. If he has, then he should face justice in Sweden. None of the discussion around his asylum bid negates this argument.

  • Komodo

    Ardin and Wilen were outed in 2010 in the NYT and Huffington Post. Counterpunch had both names by Aug 14th, 2010. ( http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/09/14/assange-beseiged/ ) By 2011, major print media worldwide (including Paris Match) are publishing Ardin’s name. There is one significant exception: the British English-language press.

    The names are in the public domain. The genie is out of the bottle. It is perfectly legitimate to use these names in a public discussion. The fact that they are out there at all is the fault of the Swedish authorities, and their shambolic handling of the case.

    You hadn’t heard of Ardin? Google Assange. The UK MSM is not the only show on the planet, and if you rely on it you are forging your own chains.

  • Another Gavin

    Craig – just a message of support. I’m a journalist of 25 years standing and a news junkie … I watched Newsnight last night and was horrified by the way Esler spoke to you and the unashamed bias he demonstrated. I switched off immediately after that. Who did the jumped up Paxman stand-in think he was speaking to adopting that tone? You did nothing wrong – this is just another smokescreen. Fight on.

  • John Goss

    Komodo, that is classic. So the Swedish press are trying to get this case thrown out when the prosecutor turns out to be a friend of Anna Ardin! Wonderful. It won’t be long before Julian Assange is walking free – with any luck.

  • Jon

    @Susie – I assume you’re an opponent of Wikileaks too, then.

    You know, it is quite possible to hold views that you presently regard as contradictory – you can oppose the work of Wikileaks, support the right of the women in this case to be heard, and be horrified at the covert and underhand campaign at extraditing Assange. As has been mentioned many times on these threads, the Swedish prosecutors could come to London, and turned down many chances to interview Assange in Sweden.

  • Simon McGrath

    If you think the case is so weak why not let it go to trial ?

    Glad you are no longer a Lib Dem – saves the trouble of trying to have you expelled.

  • Jives

    Simon McGrath,

    “Glad you are no longer a Lib Dem – saves the trouble of trying to have you expelled.”

    You mean the LibDems are(gasp!) actually going to do something?? Still,i suppose if Cameron allows you to why not.Cant be many left in your party now..

  • Jives

    Yes it appears Ardin and the interrogator knew each very well indeed.The interrogator seems quite the celeb too and bangs a fair few political drums.

    Curiouser and curiouser…

  • Komodo

    If you think the case is so weak why not let it go to trial ?

    Glad you are no longer a Lib Dem – saves the trouble of trying to have you expelled.

    All you Lib Dems have to do is ask your idol very good friend Hague to formally deny the Swedes permission to render Assange to the US, and – problem solved!

    That’s if even the Swedish justice system doesn’t consider any possible case to have been hopelessly compromised by its own leaks and drop the case anyway…

  • Passerby

    (In a hurry)

    As already someone has mentioned it, the fact that bait and switch tactic used by the hacks in the bbc, has worked, is corroborated by Craig himself in admitting to;“I was sorry that Aaronovitch was not there (as I had been told he would be) as I might have been more robust – I felt rather constrained arguing with Joan Smith…”

    Then his microphone has been turned down, whilst the others’ mics have been turned up so they could shout him down much more effectively, showing the punters and giving these the cues as to what line of thought they ought to be taking.

    Finally the god given excuse of the sacred Anna Ardin the sacred saint of confused whores and flighty spooks, mentioned. This latter point somehow confusing the issues, despite the fact that Assange will not be tried in UK for his “rape”. However this indignation overlooks that there is no judicial advantages or disadvantages to be gained or lost because her name was broadcast in UK. (never mind the fact that everyone across the planet knows this character)

    Further because Anna Ardin is a Swedish national therefore it is hardly likely that naming her on the telly in UK would cause her any kind of hardship, or embarrassment. However given that in the crazy times that we live in, any excuse to bash the dissents would do, and therefore the sacred rules broken here matters a great deal to Essler the anchorman who is in all probability and allegedly a guanine card carrying SIS asset among the many others masquerading as “reporters”. These fakes blow the matter up and run with the false indignation completing the farcical drama that Billy fourteen pints (the boss man) started by thinking; if he swings his dick around and looks big, it will do him good. Alas Billy fourteen pints has only ended up with his dick caught up in a door frame which Rafael Correa has been shutting it jam and holding onto the door handle steadfastly on the other side, leaving Billy fourteen pints with some considerable embarrassment and misery.

    Therefore the furore is to divert attention form the simple fact that a dissident is persecuted and upon his dash to freedom from persecution, the plutocrats are pulling all the stops to head him off at the pass, and keep persecuting, humiliating, and soft torturing him for the time being. Fact that some of the reporters ought to start reading wikipedia is an all too apparent need, these reporters should look up al Capone and see that he was arrested for spitting on the pavement and then tried for his none payment of taxes, and thereafter kept getting stitched up and kept there.

    In case of Mr. Capone the law did not have enough evidence to put him on trial for his crimes, in case of Assange he is going to be a guest in Gitmo for sure as already the Grand Jury in US has been set up in secret and is only awaiting his handover, by his future captors, however a little bit of extra torture dose not go wrong and puts the shits up any would be whistle-blower to go and mind his/her own business and stop being so fucking prissy about mundane facts: truth, justice, honesty, equity, and morality. QED mission accomplished.

  • John Goss

    Sorry, yes, I meant the police interrogator, not the prosecutor. The Expressen article suggests the police interrogator also seems to have a few lively interests.

    “The police interrogator has amongst other things been on the board of the HBT (homo-, bi- and transsexual) social democrats. On her homepage she has published pictures of herself together with the retired leader of the party Mona Sahlin, and the former minister Thomas Bodström. The same Bodström who together with the social democrat Claes Borgström runs the law firm that has been hired by the plaintiffs in the Assange-investigation.”

  • Passerby

    Liz Morgan

    Well, I didn’t. So you’re wrong on at least one count !

    Forgive me for prying, when was the last time you sat for tea and scones with Anna Ardin?

    Now that you know her to be the plaintiff, will you be taking tea and scones next Maundy Thursday, or is that to be scrapped?

    What utter nonsensical bile, now that you know the name what difference does it make to anyone, or anything, other than you pouring your venom in a “rational” fashion given this apparent opportunity to do so.

    I bet you are one of those man hating feminista whom will happily cull the last male or “potential rapist and aggressive killing murderer scum bastard” to have a world with perfect harmony of womanhood alone.

  • Ken

    I am dubious about the defence you used for naming Anna Ardin and I think that a dismissive one that Swedish law does not apply in Britain would have been better. You certainly could have used that against Esler when he went all precious on you.

    As for the rest I think your own analysis is spot on. You were too self-effacing and came over as a sort of other wordly vicar out of his depth. What was needed was a political bruiser like George Galloway who would have wiped his arse on that mouthy hackette.

    Still, the points about how the Great Satan and its vassals smear their opponents came over loud and clear and people will remember that nugget of information. Could you very briefly give us the four names and the details again please?

  • nevermind

    Susie and Sarah are clever enough to use twatter, are able to find this place here and complain to their hearts content that they did not know Anna Ardins name?

    I do not believe one word they are saying, its reactionary nonsense.
    I presume that they are interested in feminism, why else should they be bothered to react. So, given this interest, they are making out that they did not look into this male’ honey trap’ for endangered party politicians with anti Cuban vexations. That they were not interested in Ms Wilen tweeting during the Conference he shared with Anna Ardin after they had sex the night before ‘that he has looked at her’?

    Both of the women expressed interest in his person, Anna, even after having been alledgedly raped, invited friends to a hastily arranged crayfish party?

    For what was that? because she felt bad a being raped by this man she arranged the party for.

    Susie and Sarah’s silly girl comments here are about as superfluous as an ice cube in a single malt.

  • JimmyGiro

    ‘Equality of arms’ is a fundamental component of true justice, hence Assange is innocent until proven guilty. Anna Ardin has yet to prove she was a victim, especially owing to the facts so far relating to real events, and her behaviour in situ, and after so called offences.

    Only Marxist-Feminists who conspire to destroy our culture, and its world class standards of justice, are guilty in this matter. So evil are Marxist-Feminists, that they will even destroy their allies to further their subversions:

    “RICK FALKVINGE: Well, I was discussing mainly with Julian and the… again I can’t go into too much detail here, but it was at least a very professional dinner. There were two high level organisations, both intent on changing the world behaving professionally.”

  • AlexT

    I still find a most intriguing that Craig actually made it to the BBC. After the pattern of last minute cancellations over the past few years it is probably as significant as the content of those few minutes.
    Craig, do you have a theory about being off the black list ?

  • Mary

    The more we read and know about these two women, the more complicated the case seems.

    Dear old ZBC are jeering about Julian hugging Senor Garzon before he emerged to speak. All human feeling is despised by them.

    ‘The interview with Mr Correa opened with a short report from inside the Ecuadorean embassy in London.

    It showed Mr Assange hugging his lawyer, the former Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon, just minutes before he addressed crowds of his supporters from the embassy’s balcony on Sunday.’ {http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19328335}

    As I keep saying, bastards.

    Anonymous are attacking government websites including No 10 and the Home Office.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19330592

    As the horrible crowd all appear to be on holiday, I should think that is futile.

    Did you know that St Theresa of May is i/c of the country whilst Agent Cameron and Cleggover are away? 🙂

1 2 3 4 5 7

Comments are closed.