• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Ecuador 'very concerned about Julian Assange's health'

Status
Not open for further replies.

leadbelly

Banned
I do say so. RT openly practices what Assange lambasts other media outlets for. Not to mention being a tool of Putin to further his oppression.

lol

You clearly don't get it. Assange only has his own interests at heart. The reason he was with RT was because they gave him a platform to speak. This is a guy who thinks the world is out to get him. That he could be assassinated at any moment. The only thing he is concerned about is keeping himself safe. The whole purpose of his show on RT was to keep himself in the public consciousness. As a way to help garner support.

He couldn't care less what Russia Today's motivations are.
 
I can't believe so many people think he's a rapist.

The guy sells out the most powerful people in the world... then a short while later, he's accused of rape. Yeah, that doesn't stink at all.
 

KHarvey16

Member
I can't believe so many people think he's a rapist.

The guy sells out the most powerful people in the world... then a short while later, he's accused of rape. Yeah, that doesn't stink at all.

Oh no you're right, we should just ignore the accusation and not have a trial. Clearly thinking he's automatically guilty is stupid, but knowing he's innocent and suggesting we circumvent the legal system is as sane as sane can be! Good thinking!
 

Bo-Locks

Member
The argument isn't that this case should be handled by a court. The argument is whether or not going to court in this matter will result in him being for something that's supposedly completely unrelated.

I don't see how the mere act of extraditing Assange to Sweden to stand trial will make him or Wikileaks any more vulnerable to US jurisdiction. In fact, it makes him even more secure in Europe since any extradition request from the US will then have to be approved by UK, Swedish, and possibly European courts. The rape charges and European arrest warrant just add another layer of complexity to the process of any possible extradition to the US. In short, if the US wanted him, the rape charges are far from ideal from a legal perpective, although they are damaging his reputation.

There are suspicious circumstances, and naturally no proof to the contrary. I don't claim the US is involved - not because I can't proof it, but because I'm truly not convinced either way - but I do believe the US are capable to do this if they wanted too.

As I said above, the rape charges do not aid the US in any possible attempts to extradite him, but they do damage his reputation. It just seems an incredibly convoluted way just to simply damage his reputation, and given the lack of evidence of any US involvement in the rape charges, I simply don't believe that they are involved. Of course it's possible, but improbable. Much in the same way that I'm an atheist. There could be a God, but the lack of evidence and other factors lead me to believe that there isn't.

It's not a separate matter at all, it's at the core of the argument. Is there a 'common' molestation charge, or is there a conspiracy at work.
The argument is relevant, because it indicates that the US is willing to act immorally where it comes to freedom of information and such a conspiracy would be immoral. So in fact it's a counter argument against the hidden argument: 'The US would never steep so low'.
Again, they would, can't be sure they did or did not.

And this is where we fundamentally disagree. Julian Assange has been charged with rape/molestation. Wikileaks is not on trial. And I have already dispelled the idea that the US is involved in the rape/molestation charges. Of course it's possible, but there is no evidence for it and I find it highly unlikely. Given the highly unlikely nature of US involvement, there is no reason to stop the extradition from the UK to Sweden, and the trial itself. If you could offer information that would suggest that US authorities have been involved the decision to charge Assange, or that the complainants have been unduly influenced, then you might have a point. Legal proceedings cannot be stopped based on conspiracies.

And the freedom of information argument is not relevant here at all. It's an invalid extension of the conspiracy. What Wikileaks did was leak classified documents and diplomatic cables that contained very sensitive information and almost certainly endangered lives. I'm all for freedom of information and transparency, but Governments and individuals in sensitive roles expect to have a certain degree of privacy. It's not an all or nothing type situation.

This is certainly not true, the US has the power and resources to do as they please. History has shown they are willing to use that power way beyond the international legal systems. Just recently they killed a man with a beard by sending a team of marines(A fine choice, but few lawyers were involved).

I was originally going to add "assassination" into that statement, but I didn't think it was worth it, and as soon as I hit the post button I knew you were going to invoke Bin Laden. Lets be realistic here, the US is not going to assassinate Julian Assange in the UK or Sweden. A better comparison would have been Kim Dotcom, who is still fighting legal proceedings in NZ after a raid by the FBI. So for all intents and purposes I still stand by the statement that the only chance the US has of "targeting" Assange is through extradition (which would have to go through UK, Swedish and European courts).

Straw man argument right here. I'm not stating the US is involved, I'm stating they might me involved. And what I'm arguing here, is if they had taken this road, it would have been effective. This case has damaged the reputation of Assange. It's just that he might have done that himself.

But there is no evidence the US is involved. Simply saying they "might" be is not enough to change anything. And as I've already said, these rape allegations will damage Assange's reputation, but they add a layer of complexity to a potential extradition to the US. And it's an incredibly convoluted way of damaging his reputation.

What is currently damaging Assange's reputation is evading trial in a corrupt tin-pot South American countries embassy, who regularly clamp down on the freedoms which he is currently being afforded in the UK, while not even having the courage to speak out against them, and continuing with his "orchestrated by the US" routine as some sort of justification for breaking his bail conditions and evading the trial in Sweden, without even offering a shred of evidence in return.

I think you misunderstand. I understand what a criminal trial is for, I also understand that a criminal trial is not always in the best interest of the person on trial - especially if that person committed said crime. Said person is usually aware if he committed said crime and if so it would be in his best interest to make sure he is never tried.
In normal cases however, your day in court is perfect to prove your innocence. However, in this particular case, I would argue, would Assange truly be innocent, for him the fact that he is charged with rape would be strong evidence of a conspiracy.
In short, whether Assange is guilty or not he would be smart to stay away. If he is guilty, that would not be best for the Swedish citizens.

Well, especially if you add in his seemingly endless ego, then I agree that in his eyes skipping bail and evading the trial probably seems like a great idea. If it was me, I would have gone to Sweden to fight the charges, and trust the robustness of the Swedish judiciary which I l previously lauded and lived under.

True. You said the only argument people have would be that the courts are not independent. I say there is another argument: That there are people powerful enough to manipulate the legal system into making mistakes.
And no, I do not know this would happen in this case. The problem with covert operations is that they tend to stay secret, so nobody really knows.

But this isn't reason enough to halt legal proceedings. You freely admit that you do not know if the US is involved in fabricating these charges, merely that it's possible. This is not a reason to stop legal proceedings.

About this whole thing, I think is smells fishy. Problem is, who's making the stink,... Do we have a government abusing its power to harm a man who did his democratic duty, or do we have a molester who's abusing his podium to get out of a fair trial.
My gut feeling says maybe.

If only we could have a trial to find out.

EDIT: You're probably aware, but there has been a recent string of extraditions of alleged terrorists from the UK to the US. They took around 10 years to go through all the courts and the appeals courts to finally get them on the plane. The idea that Assange is going to be extradited to Sweden, jailed and then put on a plane and sent straight to a SUPERMAX prison in the US, with the public losing interest, is laughable. That does happen in ME countries, but it simply won't happen in this case due to the robustness of the countries and legal systems involved. His life is not in any immediate danger, and that's what leads me to believe that this whole saga is down to his ego.
 

KHarvey16

Member
It's interesting how people seem to have found him guilty of rape despite the fact that he hasn't been charged, let alone gone through a trial and found guilty.

He is being accused, and the equivalent status under western law is that he is being charged. His presence in Sweden is so he will stand trial, not simply answer questions.
 

Leucrota

Member
When was the last time Wikileaks leaked anything?

Seems they have moved to leaking 'bigger' stuff and have shied away from the stuff they leaked when I was in high school, like 1960s fraternity handbooks and secret conversations. For that, there is Cryptome.
 

leadbelly

Banned
It's interesting how people seem to have found him guilty of rape despite the fact that he hasn't been charged, let alone gone through a trial and found guilty.

He hasn't no. Of course people seem to forget that the 'rape' in which Assange is being accused of would not be classified as rape in other countries. And both women didn't actually believe they had been raped. They actually went to the police station for 'advice'.
 

KHarvey16

Member
He hasn't no. Of course people seem to forget that the 'rape' in which Assange is being accused of would not be classified as rape in other countries. And both women didn't actually believe they had been raped. They actually went to the police station for 'advice'.

Actually a specific requirement of the extradition request is that the crime they are accused of is also a crime in the country that extradition is being requested from. The UK courts, more than one, ruled that the offenses he is accused of and will stand trial for are also crimes in the UK and met the definitions presented by the Swedish prosecutors.
 

leadbelly

Banned
Actually a specific requirement of the extradition request is that the crime they are accused of is also a crime in the country that extradition is being requested from. The UK courts, more than one, ruled that the offenses he is accused of and will stand trial for are also crimes in the UK and met the definitions presented by the Swedish prosecutors.

Well, whatever that crime is, it certainly isn't rape.
 

Bo-Locks

Member
He hasn't no. Of course people seem to forget that the 'rape' in which Assange is being accused of would not be classified as rape in other countries. And both women didn't actually believe they had been raped. They actually went to the police station for 'advice'.

The judges in England looked at the his appeal and determined that the legal proceedings in Sweden are at an equivalent stage as to being charged in England. They also determined that the alleged incidents would be criminal in England and that if the incidents had taken place in England, then he would have been charged there, too. So you're wrong.

link

“1. Unlawful coercion - On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in
Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting
her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s
arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body
weight preventing her from moving or shifting.

2.Sexual molestation - On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in
Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner
designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the
expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a
condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her
knowledge.

3.Sexual molestation - On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that
date, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested
the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying
next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

4.Rape - On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enköping,
Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting
that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.

For certain serious offences listed in the Framework Decision called Framework Offences, dual
criminality is not required. Where an offence is not a Framework Offence, dual criminality is required -
the offence alleged must also be an offence in the country the accused is now in. Offences 1-3 are
not Framework Offences; Offence 4, rape, is a Framework Offence.

The Court considered the issue of dual criminality in relation to Offences 1 - 3 and ruled that
dual criminality was satisfied in each.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Well, whatever that crime is, it certainly isn't rape.

The accusation certainly fits the definition of rape. From the initial hearing in front of the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court:

4. On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.

It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.

The position with offence 4[quoted above] is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape.
 

leadbelly

Banned

Yeah. I was unaware those decisions were made. I am basing it on what was said in the media before that time.

4.Rape - On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enköping,
Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting
that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.

She wasnt asleep though, she was only 'half-asleep'. I recall reading that him not using a condom would not be considered rape in some countries.
 
Oh no you're right, we should just ignore the accusation and not have a trial. Clearly thinking he's automatically guilty is stupid, but knowing he's innocent and suggesting we circumvent the legal system is as sane as sane can be! Good thinking!

What I'm saying is, I believe he is innocent. Of course there should be a trial.

Jesus.

edit: I should say, I suspect he is innocent. Believe is too strong a word.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Yeah. I was unaware those decisions were made. I am basing it on what was said in the media at the time.



She wasnt asleep though, she was only 'half-asleep'. I recall reading that him not using a condom would not be considered rape in some countries.

The lack of the condom is an aggravating circumstance. It is not the reason the charge is considered rape.

As for the half-asleep detail, the High Court had this to say:

Nor do the inconsistencies in her account and text messages relied upon by Mr Assange assist. In one sent by her she described herself as "half asleep" and she accepted in a further interview that she was not fast asleep. These are matters of evidence which would be highly relevant at trial. But it is not for this court to asses whether the allegations may fail. It was not therefore necessary to set the details of these out. There is, therefore, nothing in the particulars which is neither fair nor accurate.

What I'm saying is, I believe he is innocent. Of course there should be a trial.

Jesus.

And for there to be a trial, he needs to leave the embassy and go to Sweden.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Okay, so the 'not-wearing-a-condom' crime was actually classified as 'sexual molestation' in the end?

It is that I was mainly talking about.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-12-08/news/30013405_1_condom-swedish-law-swedish-media

The one actually classified as rape, is certainly debatable as the woman actually claimed she was only 'half-asleep'.

Again, from the court:

4. On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.

It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.
 

leadbelly

Banned
Again, from the court:

Yes. Based on what the other guy posted:

2.Sexual molestation - On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in
Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner
designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the
expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a
condom be used
, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her
knowledge.

He did start having sex with a condom on though I think. Whether it broke, or he removed part of it himself, I don't know.
 

KHarvey16

Member
He did start having sex with a condom on though I think. Whether it broke, or he removed part of it himself, I don't know.

I'm not sure if that's the case, but the High Court did lay out its definition of consummate, which was intercourse and not necessarily ejaculation. As far as I can see there's nothing about beginning with a condom and then removing it.
 

leadbelly

Banned
I'm not sure if that's the case, but the High Court did lay out its definition of consummate, which was intercourse and not necessarily ejaculation. As far as I can see there's nothing about beginning with a condom and then removing it.

I can't be bothered to look, but I think that was what the woman said in her interview.
 

KHarvey16

Member
I can't be bothered to look, but I think that was what the woman said in her interview.

Think I found it. This is in reference to offense 2 from the High Court ruling, not the incident in which she claimed to be asleep:

After a while AA noticed that Mr Assange had pulled his penis out of her and started to arrange the condom. Judging by the sound AA thought he was removing the condom. He then penetrated her again and continued sexual intercourse. She felt again with her hand that the edge of the condom was, as previously, around the root of the penis. She therefore let him continue. AA stated that a while later he ejaculated inside her and then pulled out. When he removed the condom from his penis, AA saw it was empty of semen. When she started to move her body she noticed something was seeping out of her vagina and understood it must be his semen. AA told the police she was convinced that Mr Assange, when he pulled out of her, broke the condom by the glans and then continued the intercourse until he ejaculated.

The evidence in the file showed that the condom was examined by the Swedish National Laboratory of Forensic Science. The conclusion of the expert was that there was nothing to indicate that a tool had been used, but that the damage to the condom was created by the wear and tear of the condom.
 
And for there to be a trial, he needs to leave the embassy and go to Sweden.

The problem is that if Assange is innocent, that means he's being set up... in which case it would make perfect sense for him to want to avoid the trial.

On the other hand, if Assange raped those girls, it would make perfect sense for him to want to avoid the trial.

It's a fucked up situation.
 
There is no evidence of any rape claims, if anything it's to get him to Sweden so they can arrest and and extradite Assange to the US.

Jesus, how can you idiots still believe this? If Sweden wanted to extradite Assange to the US they would need approval from Britain. So then, why not just extradite straight from the UK? The answer: he's a rapist. He knows he's a rapist. He left Sweden the day they charged him with rape, and will continue to run from the Swedish government because he's guilty as fuck all.
 

leadbelly

Banned
Jesus, how can you idiots still believe this? If Sweden wanted to extradite Assange to the US they would need approval from Britain. So then, why not just extradite straight from the UK? The answer: he's a rapist. He knows he's a rapist. He left Sweden the day they charged him with rape, and will continue to run from the Swedish government because he's guilty as fuck all.

The sex he had with both women was consensual. One of them was pissed off because the condom split, for whatever reason, and the other was pissed off because... I'm not sure exactly. She allowed him to continue anyway. She consented in the end.
 
The sex he had with both women was consensual. One of them was pissed off because the condom split, for whatever reason, and the other was pissed off because... I'm not sure exactly. She allowed him to continue anyway. She consented in the end.

So then why is he afraid to stand trial if its so cut and dry? (mind you, I'm assuming you are capable of reading, and therefore are also capable of realizing how fucking dumb it is to assume that Assange would ever be deported to the US by Sweden authorities due to Wikileaks)
 
Assange is a hero but I'm sure that he's doing fine. He has tons of wealthy backers to get him whatever he wants in terms of food or comfort, and there's no reason why doctors or medical equipment can't be brought into the embassy. I love him but it's obviously just a ploy for sympathy or to help get the ball rolling on him being allowed to leave.
 

RangerX

Banned
Fucking hell. This thread is filled with brainwashed loons. The Judge dealing with the case in Sweden threw out the case because the claims were farcical. As has already been stated, one of the women threw a party for him and he left after the case was closed. Cleverer men than me, such as John Pilger, Chris Hedges have supported him and questioned the veracity of the swedish authorities charges.
Also i can't believe people think the wikileaks files were insignificant. The us was revealed to be, and by this i mean the us administrations, not the American people, infanticidal, megalomanical, power hungry warmongers the world has seen since WW2. Seriously some people need to fucking wake up. Assange is probably a bit of attention seeker but he does great work and if people don't think th US and Briatain are capable of completely ignoring international law then they should be sectioned.
 
Fucking hell. This thread is filled with brainwashed loons. The Judge dealing with the case in Sweden threw out the case because the claims were farcical. As has already been stated, one of the women threw a party for him and he left after the case was closed. Cleverer men than me, such as John Pilger, Chris Hedges have supported him and questioned the veracity of the swedish authorities charges.
Also i can't believe people think the wikileaks files were insignificant. The us was revealed to be, and by this i mean the us administrations, not the American people, infanticidal, megalomanical, power hungry warmongers the world has seen since WW2. Seriously some people need to fucking wake up. Assange is probably a bit of attention seeker but he does great work and if people don't think th US and Briatain are capable of completely ignoring international law then they should be sectioned.

Welp, that settles it. Rape victims who don't react accordingly aren't real rape victims.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Well, that is not entirely inaccurate. It was thrown out originally and the lawyer appealed. It was then handed over to another prosecutor. The original chief prosecutor being Eva Finné, and the other being Marianne Ny.

A judge never looked at it and no determination was made, never mind one deeming it "farcical". His statement was bullshit. The investigation was dropped by one prosecutor then another reconsidered based on the appeal and additional information. And I'll remind everyone, again, that multiple courts in the UK agreed with the determinations regarding charges made by the Swedish prosecutor.
 

leadbelly

Banned
A judge never looked at it and no determination was made, never mind one deeming it "farcical". His statement was bullshit. The investigation was dropped by one prosecutor then another reconsidered based on the appeal and additional information. And I'll remind everyone, again, that multiple courts in the UK agreed with the determinations regarding charges made by the Swedish prosecutor.

Well, no, the 'chief prosecutor' to be exact.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Well, no, the 'chief prosecutor' to be exact.

Not exactly. The term used on the European Arrest Warrant was "Director of Public Prosecution Marianne Ny", which the defense argued against and claimed that there was no such office(further, in the Supreme Court decision she is referred to as "a Director of Public Prosecution", not the). This was an attempt to nullify the warrant as having not been issued by the proper authority. The judge concluded that her title was a matter of Swedish law and the fact remained she was a prosecutor as designated by the Swedish Prosecution Authority and therefore had the authority to sign the warrant.
 

iamblades

Member
I've never understand during this whole situation, is why ANYONE would think that the US would have an easier time extraditing someone from Sweden than they would from the UK.

Given the historical relationship and cooperation between the UK and the US, the UK is probably the most likely nation on the planet to extradite him to the US. Aside from nations who would blatantly use him to get favors from the US like Saudi Arabia and Israel, anyway.

I think it's mostly Assange's ego and delusions of grandeur that make him believe that the US would actually expend any effort or call in any favors to extradite him for the purposes of execution. As much as he pissed some powerful people off, they have easier targets, all of wikileak's sources, who are perfectly within reach.

As much as I support wikileaks as an idea, I have never support Assange or the way he works. If it was really about making the information public he would have dumped it all into a torrent and actually make it public anonymously.

He was all about publicity and self congratulation and now he is all about furthering his own little martyrdom fantasy. No one really cares about him anymore, he's old news.
 

Kinyou

Member
I hope he didn't get poked with some umbrella

As much as I support wikileaks as an idea, I have never support Assange or the way he works. If it was really about making the information public he would have dumped it all into a torrent and actually make it public anonymously.

He was all about publicity and self congratulation and now he is all about furthering his own little martyrdom fantasy. No one really cares about him anymore, he's old news.
I don't really understand how you can say that you don't like the way he works but then say something like this. I thought the only thing that's being criticized about his methods was that the first leaks weren't controlled enough, like that he could have released stuff that gets someone killed.
Dumping everything on a torrent would have been insane.

Except all were so minor and insignificant that they created exactly 0 news. Wikileaks itself was the news.....not what came out. Nothing included in those files were more offensive than what would happen in any long term warzone with any military in the world.

Keep blowing smoke though.
The US spying on UN delegates was pretty messed up. Fortunately for the US though, does the UN apparently completely ignore it (for whatever fucked up reason).
 

beef3483

Member
I really don't know enough facts about Assange's case to make up my mind either way, but I always thought it suspicous that he had these charges brought against him right after he had leaked all that information. It made me think of that US spy who sold his secrets and also had it get out that he was a sexual predator shortly after he got busted(they made a movie about him with Ryan Phillipe). I remembered thinking, in that paranoid, conspiracy theorist portion of my brain, that spreading such allegations might be a good way to discredit a someone, because there is no other type of person that inspires such irrational hatred as a sexual predator.
 

iamblades

Member
I hope he didn't get poked with some umbrella


I don't really understand how you can say that you don't like the way he works but then say something like this. I thought the only thing that's being criticized about his methods was that the first leaks weren't controlled enough, like that he could have released stuff that gets someone killed.
Dumping everything on a torrent would have been insane.


The US spying on UN delegates was pretty messed up. Fortunately for the US does the UN apparently completely ignore it (for whatever fucked up reason).

No the main thing that was criticized publicly is where the information came from and the fact that it was leaked at all.

As for the consequences of releasing the information, that is up to him as to what and when he releases. But that is not the point, the point is how he releases, not what he chooses or doesn't choose to release. The self aggrandizing and publicity whoring doesn't work for someone who supposedly only cares about getting the information out.

As for spying on UN delegates, if you don't think that every diplomat on the planet is being spied on by multiple different nations every time they enter a foreign country, you are mistaken. You could argue that as the host nation the US would refrain from spying on it's guests, but if other nations can and do spy on UN delegates or even use UN delegations as cover for espionage against the US, why shouldn't they? Espionage is a dirty game, and that's why the UN members 'ignore' it. The major nations probably use it as a way to hone their counter espionage skills and potentially identify US spies. :p
 
Except all were so minor and insignificant that they created exactly 0 news. Wikileaks itself was the news.....not what came out. Nothing included in those files were more offensive than what would happen in any long term warzone with any military in the world.

Keep blowing smoke though.

There was a lot of news about the leaks, especially about the copter video.
 

jorma

is now taking requests
Welp, that settles it. Rape victims who don't react accordingly aren't real rape victims.

None of the girls claim that they have been raped. If they don't want to call themselves rape victims, why do you persist in doing so?

"he must be a rapist because i really want him to be"-gaf is weirdest gaf.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom