b3ta.com qotw
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Question of the Week » Foot in Mouth Syndrome II » Post 1709510 | Search
This is a question Foot in Mouth Syndrome II

Have you ever said something and wished the ground would open up and swallow you? Tell us your tales of social embarrassment.

Thanks to BraynDedd for the suggestion

(, Thu 16 Aug 2012, 14:12)
Pages: Popular, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

« Go Back | See The Full Thread

Rape is one of those crimes
where no matter if you did it or not.. psychologically - you are still seen as a rapist. Its the ultimate Smear crime.

If they had claimed he had robbed a shop... the shop would be able to prove accounts. With 'accused' rape... its down to a persons claim.

Even though the women in question spent the following few days inviting him to dinner, and functions.... doesn’t scream victim to me, really.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 14:26, 4 replies)
It's not rape if you shout 'surprise' first either.

(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 14:31, closed)
Badge, do you think this counts as one of the worst things ever written on QoTW?

(, Wed 22 Aug 2012, 18:47, closed)
Generally, rape victims don't tend to look like rape victims until they get raped.

(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 14:33, closed)
And, really?
Fucking hell.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 14:34, closed)
Perhaps they were 'asking for it'
Y'know, dressing provocatively and that.
He is probably the real victim here. Probably.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 14:40, closed)
Basically, Dan is trying to tell us that he, Dan, is a rapist.

(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 14:42, closed)
Or to give him his full name:
Dan dan dan the rapist man.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 14:43, closed)
Well, hang on here
he might not be. He might just be George Galloway.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 14:45, closed)
"Rapey Dan" is more catchy, I think.

(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 14:50, closed)
Do you think if we accuse him of being a rapist enough he'll resign from QoTW?

(, Wed 22 Aug 2012, 18:44, closed)
no

(, Thu 23 Aug 2012, 12:45, closed)
Normally - I would be tad dubious of said claims
but given how this has panned out, it wouldnt surprise me if its true. (that its a smear campaign only. No rape occured)

His assistant who helped uncover the crimes, has been held without trial for over 800 days. Makes you wonder why?

And then to the 'rape victims' who could have exposed him when ever they liked, but chose - quite unusually to bring it up when Assange started to look a threat to international government. Either they were on the side of the American government to begin with, or have been manipulated to say he raped them.

When was the last time governments Chased someone for Rape in the manner that our governments have? When they are threatening to break into a foreign embassy?

Seems like the government are handling this like it isnt a Rape prosectuion at all.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 14:45, closed)
You mean they aren't trying to arrest a man who is suspected of sex crimes?

(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 14:47, closed)
I believe his liberties are bing breached
he is being forced to be arrested for crimes I am dubious that he committed. With the only evidence taken from a witness. No physical evidence.

In Jail you cant carry on your wikileaking. It silences you.. whilst you await trial.. which in his friends case, is looking like indefinite trial date.

Without wanting to shout Tin foil hats and all, it reminds me of the case of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Strauss-Kahn

Removed from a position of power by an accusation of rape.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:06, closed)
Fucks sake. Strauss-Kahn has been repeatedly accused of rape and sexual assualt
in the US and in France. What happened in your example was "powerful man got off an accusation of rape because the US legal system tends to favour money and power over truth"

Of course I don't know the details any more than you, so maybe he was innocent. Maybe he's been inncoent of every other rape accusation he's bought his way out of, too.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:10, closed)
Oh, wait.
you're trolling, aren't you? because I'm struggling to believe you're this daft actually.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:11, closed)
..im not siding, nor agreeing with anyone
Im merely pointing out, that people of power are easily removed by an alligation of rape...

its such an easy one to setup and watch them fall.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:12, closed)
What are you talking about, crocodile-like creatures do not make accusations of sexual assault.

(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:15, closed)
;)
"Allegation"

... i like alligation better,.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:18, closed)
See, well, here's the thing
they should probably stop fucking raping people, then, eh?
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:17, closed)
Rapers gonna rape, yo.

(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:19, closed)
probably
what if they didnt though?

That wouldnt be nice...

you know, a guy being accused of rape, would it? it wouldnt destroy any credibility in him at all would it.... even if it was an "Allegation"
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:19, closed)
it doesn't generally destroy credibility if you're found not guilty.
Strauss-Kahn didn't lose his job because he was accused of rape. He lost his job because, whether it was rape or not, he fucked a hotel maid and several other women who weren't his wife, whilst not telling his wife, and it's considered pretty poor form to be head of the IMF if you're a liar. Doesn't inspire confidence in the whole thing, really.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:22, closed)
youre right
but he resigned.

having an affair isnt that bad... but WAPE? no way.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:28, closed)
Poor old Elmer Fudd got done for wape a few years ago.

(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:32, closed)
It was an intentional mispell.

(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:38, closed)
I got it.
It made you look mega cool.
(, Wed 22 Aug 2012, 18:42, closed)
thanks
(gloats)
(, Thu 23 Aug 2012, 12:43, closed)
having an affair isn't that bad, no
oh, except if you hold a position where your honesty must be unquestionable, and you lie about it. Like he did. A lot.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:41, closed)
this part I agree with

(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:53, closed)
OK, for the sake of not just swearing a lot and be amazed how apparently rational people can believe such idiot things
Shall we deal with these points one by one?

- his "assistant" is a serving member of the military and has been detained as such. Why? because they can. Personally, no, I don't like that, but what on earth has that to do with whether Assange raped someone or not?

- You know absolutely nothing (I am assuming, please correct me if I'm wrong) about Swedish judicial process, so how can you comment on this? And I seriously doubt any goverment regards Assange as a "threat". And even in the highly unlikely event these two women are "setting him up" (which isn't really the issue now, is it, becuase he's admitted to what he is accused of, via his lawyer) the Swedish judicial system clearly is not. So, he has nothing to fear from questioning if he isn't guilty. The Swedish legal system is widely held up as a model of fairness and honesty.

- you don't have the faintest idea when someone last pursued someone for rape like this because the newspapers don't bang on about it unless it is someone in the public eye. Extraditions for crimes much lesser than rape happen on almost daily basis.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 14:56, closed)
Stop it, you're making my willy go fizzy.

(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 14:58, closed)
I also forgot
he can't be extradited from Sweden or UK or anywhere fucking else in europe to face the death penalty. Not won't, or isn't likely, but CAN'T. given that "fear of facing the death penalty" is one of the legal bases of his spurious appeals against extradition to Sweden, he's at the very least a massive fucking liar.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:01, closed)
Or an idiot. But probably both.
It concerns me that his lawyer went ahead with that one though, as it suggests he either doesn't understand the law himself, or is just parroting whatever Assange tells him to.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:06, closed)
His lawyer "is just parroting whatever Assange tells him to"?
You know that lawyers have to follow their instructions right? That's sort of the basis of the whole thing.

Another fine legal mind.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:37, closed)
not if they are fucking stupid, or involve breaking the law
I mean, they are supposed to follow instructions, but any half-decent lawyer would have told Assange the grounds for appeal were idiotic.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:40, closed)
Blimey, you really are a mong.

(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:57, closed)
I love how I provide a vaguely rational and almost polite answer
and underneath, you just say what we're both thinking. It's like a double-team of sexy.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 16:00, closed)
I'm your internal monologue. On the internet.

(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 16:12, closed)
mongologue?

(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 22:11, closed)
totally done a big wank to this thread

(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 16:16, closed)
I dont agree with the 'death penalty' bit myself.
But I can see this is just an easy way to stop assange hooking up a PC with his wikileaks friends and continuing his project to expose the governments.

Its all a little bit too convenient.

Im not denying they had sex.. they did, they both admit that. But to come out and say he raped them, just hours after he was exposed as mr.wikileaks, is a tad rather suspicious.

Why didnt she exclaim at an earlier point? Why wait til the hour he is exposing the very people she was also working to expose?
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:10, closed)
how do you know when she reported it? you only know when the Swedish courts and press announced it
And it's not going to stop him being anywhere near a PC. This is Sweden. SWEDEN. not fucking China. He won't even be remanded in custody if he's charged, unless he demonstrated a massive flight risk. Oh, wait, the idiot fucker jumped bail and saught political asylum? Ah. bit of a problem there. Probably a flight risk after all. So, the only reason he'd be locked up awaiting trial is purely and totally down to his own stupidity. If that's a government seeking to silence someone they've got a seriously roundabout way of doing it.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:16, closed)
What the actual fuck?
He'd been known as the founder of Wikileaks for fucking ages before this, and they can easily carry it on without him. It's not about stopping Wikileaks, it's about applying the justice system correctly because an accusation has been made.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:18, closed)
He had
but the allegation came out at the peak of the wikileaks ability of headline hitting.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:30, closed)
You mean when he was at the peak of his attention seeking arrogance and thought he was Wikileaks?

(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:37, closed)
ahem...'MR'
MR.Wikileaks
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:58, closed)
Im merely
showing you that his accomplice has already been arrested and silenced.

Which i believe is what is happening here. I think alot of people can also see it, hence his support.

It has nothing and everything to do with the rape.

Whether the Rape accusation is true or not... Assange will be held in jail... away from the press, wont be able to communicate, and any data he has will be destroyed whilst we wait for a trial.

They could of course kill him, but then - that attracts bad press, as we saw with that Russian guy with the radiation poisoning.

I agree, if has raped the girl - Then he is a massive dick.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:16, closed)
as I pointed out above
the only reason he would be held in jail is if he was a flight risk. Which he's just demonstrably shown he is. Making it a fairly odd conspiracy, don't you think, since it relies on him fucking everything up for himself?
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:19, closed)
I think we can see the problem hear
If she'd have screamed, it would definitely have been rape?
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 14:44, closed)
no
but good old prejudice towards what is quite possibly - an innocent man. Proven til found guilty and all that.

If the UK government are threatening to break into a foreign embassy - then surely they are treating him like a known criminal?

or could it be the UK govment have the US breathing down their necks?
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 14:47, closed)
Nobody is threatening to break into an embassy.
They merely pointed out that they had the option of revoking embassy status, at which point the police would be free to enter the building that would no longer be an embassy.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 14:51, closed)
...and that doesnt scare you or even worry you in the slightest?
Had this been in China or North Korea, would you be suspicious?
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 14:54, closed)
Why would it?

(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 14:55, closed)
He is a fucking known criminal, you idiot (I've given up being polite here)
He's broken the law in the UK.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 14:58, closed)
are you sure he has broken the law in the UK

(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:33, closed)
er, yeah.
He's skipped bail. That's against the law.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:38, closed)
so have you, with that post
You have transmitted an offensive message (language) via the web.
You are guilty under the same laws that the UK arrests internet trolls.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:39, closed)
I'm going to go out on a limb here
no I fucking haven't. Calling an adult an idiot for being an idiot is not offensive. Could I be arrested for saying it to him in a pub? nope. So good luck getting a prosecution on that one.

Although, in the same breath comparing me calling Dan an idiot with skipping bail to avoid questioning about rape ... that's special.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:43, closed)
Look out TMB, the internet police are onto you.

(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:48, closed)
They'll probably get me for implying that Barrymore and Norton like "Teh cock"

(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:55, closed)
Where is INTERNET LAWYERMAN when we need him?

(, Wed 22 Aug 2012, 19:20, closed)
you said fuck to someone on the internet
Read the case, precedence has been set
(, Thu 23 Aug 2012, 10:41, closed)
Get fucked you stupid bender.

(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:45, closed)
Fuck off, cunt.

(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 22:10, closed)
For fucks sake. You fucking wanker.

(, Wed 22 Aug 2012, 19:29, closed)

« Go Back | See The Full Thread

Pages: Popular, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1