Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I don't consider unambiguous presumption of guilt based on tabloid tittle-tattle, innuendo, run-arounds, gratuitous repetition, misdirection, and deliberate attempts to play down and ignore real evidence to be good faith. Not when the charge is this serious.

Good faith would be 'Well - this is dramatic, but let's wait and see how it plays out.'

And now it's clear that there is no rape case, there was no rape case, and that any case that remains is so ambiguous and poorly defined that not even the prosecutor is sure what exactly Assange is supposed to have done.

Admittedly, this may change. But with what's known today, it's a fair guess that it's not looking likely.

But still - I'm curious why Fairleft followed through this diary through with such persistence.

What was the point? Why keep repeating 'They say there's no smoke without fire...' over and over?

I don't think it persuaded anyone that Assange is a rapist or pervert, or that Wikileaks is a bad thing, or that the war in Afghanistan is a good thing.

I don't even think it convinced anyone that Assange might be a rapist, given the chance.

I'm more perplexed by the energy expended on a diary with no clear point to it - beyond a nonsensical one - than about the details.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Aug 25th, 2010 at 09:37:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

DoDo 4


Occasional Series