They could lock up Brand and anyone else telling the truth, with no evidence nor justification and throw away the key, just like they have with Assange.
They want to scare us because they can't go after all of us. We can't back down. We have to keep doing our bit, no matter how small. What is that bit? Standing up to corruption, and a lot of that corruption is our own. Small little things that add up. This is how we fight them.
Yes. The whole thing is disgusting. If you are traumatised by rape you'd be advised to go to professionals and the police, not pour your personal traumas out to the media who salivate over the details and use you to make lots of money. This includes what used to be thought the more serious, the broad sheets, who are now in the gutter with everyone else. There is real relish over this from men in the press who aren't so rich, sexy and funny, who don't have thousands of women wanting to sleep with them. Also real concern about real abuse and real imbalances of power is lost in the titillation of the public.
It is also interesting to question if it was proved or confessed to that, for example, an addict misread a sexual encounter with a person who was voluntarily in their home, who subsequently attended a rape crisis centre for birth control or in the mistaken belief that post exposure prophylaxis to 'HIV" was required from unprotected sex, who was then ferreted out by journalists doing a lot of digging, whether that addict, who had since become a recovering addict and was a clean, sober, loving family man, would be able to continue to speak his truth, or whether society believes that some people are born monsters and can never speak again once we find out that they're monsters or that only the perfect ones whoever have never misread any personal situation nor had any addictions can speak.
It is always heartening to see the slow motion execution of Julian Assange raised as a foundational example of the fate of truth tellers. Craig Murray is an incredible supporter and source for details of the farce of "justice system" in the case.
Another fabulous reference that gets into the weeds with respect to the frame up for sexual predator smears is report by Nilz Meltzer UN Rapporteur on Torture...
A murderous system is being created before our very eyes
Thank you. There are so many similarities - now with the government going after Brand's platform and message - not caring at all about the accusers of the alleged crimes. You just have to look at how the case was run: For Sweden, it was never about the interests of the two women. Even after his request for assurances that he would not be extradited, Assange still wanted to testify. He said: If you cannot guarantee that I won’t be extradited, then I am willing to be questioned in London or via video link.
But is it normal, or even legally acceptable, for Swedish authorities to travel to a different country for such an interrogation?
That is a further indication that Sweden was never interested in finding the truth. For exactly these kinds of judiciary issues, there is a cooperation treaty between the United Kingdom and Sweden, which foresees that Swedish officials can travel to the UK, or vice versa, to conduct interrogations or that such questioning can take place via video link. During the period of time in question, such questioning between Sweden and England took place in 44 other cases. It was only in Julian Assange’s case that Sweden insisted that it was essential for him to appear in person.'
They want to scare us because they can't go after all of us. We can't back down. We have to keep doing our bit, no matter how small. What is that bit? Standing up to corruption, and a lot of that corruption is our own. Small little things that add up. This is how we fight them.
🙏🏽♥️
Rape is difficult to prove. It is also difficult to disprove which makes it the ideal accusation if you want to smear someone.
Yes. The whole thing is disgusting. If you are traumatised by rape you'd be advised to go to professionals and the police, not pour your personal traumas out to the media who salivate over the details and use you to make lots of money. This includes what used to be thought the more serious, the broad sheets, who are now in the gutter with everyone else. There is real relish over this from men in the press who aren't so rich, sexy and funny, who don't have thousands of women wanting to sleep with them. Also real concern about real abuse and real imbalances of power is lost in the titillation of the public.
It is also interesting to question if it was proved or confessed to that, for example, an addict misread a sexual encounter with a person who was voluntarily in their home, who subsequently attended a rape crisis centre for birth control or in the mistaken belief that post exposure prophylaxis to 'HIV" was required from unprotected sex, who was then ferreted out by journalists doing a lot of digging, whether that addict, who had since become a recovering addict and was a clean, sober, loving family man, would be able to continue to speak his truth, or whether society believes that some people are born monsters and can never speak again once we find out that they're monsters or that only the perfect ones whoever have never misread any personal situation nor had any addictions can speak.
It is always heartening to see the slow motion execution of Julian Assange raised as a foundational example of the fate of truth tellers. Craig Murray is an incredible supporter and source for details of the farce of "justice system" in the case.
Another fabulous reference that gets into the weeds with respect to the frame up for sexual predator smears is report by Nilz Meltzer UN Rapporteur on Torture...
A murderous system is being created before our very eyes
https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange
Thank you. There are so many similarities - now with the government going after Brand's platform and message - not caring at all about the accusers of the alleged crimes. You just have to look at how the case was run: For Sweden, it was never about the interests of the two women. Even after his request for assurances that he would not be extradited, Assange still wanted to testify. He said: If you cannot guarantee that I won’t be extradited, then I am willing to be questioned in London or via video link.
But is it normal, or even legally acceptable, for Swedish authorities to travel to a different country for such an interrogation?
That is a further indication that Sweden was never interested in finding the truth. For exactly these kinds of judiciary issues, there is a cooperation treaty between the United Kingdom and Sweden, which foresees that Swedish officials can travel to the UK, or vice versa, to conduct interrogations or that such questioning can take place via video link. During the period of time in question, such questioning between Sweden and England took place in 44 other cases. It was only in Julian Assange’s case that Sweden insisted that it was essential for him to appear in person.'
It'is clearly Brand's message that is the crime