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
.
NomadUK, did you get the dates on that TIME magazine photoshop job? The issue has Assange on the cover, with a gag of the flag, stars and stripes that is.
did you get the dates on that TIME magazine photoshop job
Don’t care, to be honest. The thing is so stupid and juvenile it’s not worth paying attention to.
“Majority of people do not know who Anna Ardin is, even in Sweden”
@Soc:
The majority of people don’t know where Timbuktu is. The majority of people who are interested in Africa do.
The majority of the people who are interested in this case (and I presume that includes everyone posting here) know who Anna Ardin is. It’s called being well-informed.
Thanks for picking that up Clark. It was a genuine mistake be assured. I did think it odd for Time Magazine and should have twigged it. There were other photographs in the set. Specsavers call.
What we really need here is an Internet trial of the (alleged) victims by bloggers and tweeters. That will surely get to the truth of the matter.
That is not allowed Hans, do not go there. We can say anything we want about the accused whistleblower though.
How about a trial by the aftonbladet and the expressen, Hans, they have been at it for some while and they know all the important hands to press.
Crayfish anyone?
I think Eddie-G’s advice on the immediately preceding thread (Naming Anna Ardin, 21 Aug @10:19) is excellent. Given the nature of the enemy, exemplified in this case by the BBC, being polite and sweetly reasonable is not winning backgammon – backgammon being a game of ruthless calculation.
Unfortunately on this occasion Galloway made a pig’s ear of his blog diary on the topic, but in general you can learn a lot from his approach: know the most telling points of your argument, stick to them and bat away any attempt to move the argument to more doubtful ground. On TV you are not trying to communicate with the others in the studio. The protagonists are chosen to make consensus inevitable (Question Time) or impossible (the sort of thing you will be asked to do). You won’t convince intellectual lichen like Gavin Esler/Joan Wotsitsname because you can’t better their salaries, so just take the opportunity to speak to the viewing public. Us!
Look back at your interview and listen to the Raeburn/Linklater interview linked below – I think the parallels are clear. You will not be fairly dealt with: recognise that and plan any further such ‘discussions’ carefully. And ruthlessly. You might generally respect Joan Thingy but you should have pished on her anyway. There are much bigger chips on the table than old-fashioned gallantry.
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/the-great-linklater-raeburn-lockerbie.html
I believe there is an orchestrated UK-wide MSM propaganda campaign being waged here. I can’t believe I have just written that, but I am forced to as it is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn form the vile barrage of lies and misinformation being pushed out relentlessly at the moment, not least by the BBC on the Assange extradition case.
Over the last several days, I have been reading the Guardian articles on this and am flabbergasted at the blatant smear tactics used by them. I have read the comments section and am now pretty sure there are paid shills on there because every time anyone tries to post the actual facts of the Assange case there is a sudden and mountainous flurry of posts that quickly buries them of the main comments page. When I have tried to post the known facts of the Assange case in response to the persistent and blatant lies, the mods have begun to delete them. These post have not been rude or using bad language.
They have simply been deleted.
Additionally, all of the Assange related stories that are on their front page on the website have now had all capacity for comments closed down. The only remaining one with such a capacity is off the main page and so difficult to find.
This is orchestrated.
I am frankly scared by this. I always know even an organisation like the BBC, with it’s supposed impartiality, is going to be a voice for the establishment world view. Even so, I always assumed there was only so far an agenda could be pushed before a line was reached that would not be crossed. I was wrong. I just feel that some kind of really important line really has been crossed and we are in a new world. A darker world.
What the hell is going on?
I’m sorry, I’m just a nobody and my last post must seem, to some, to be naive in the extreme. But, I find what is happening at the moment to be absolutely shocking
“I’m sorry, I’m just a nobody and my last post must seem, to some, to be naive in the extreme. But, I find what is happening at the moment to be absolutely shocking”
.
.
not too worry better ten years late than never .
“Unfortunately on this occasion Galloway made a pig’s ear of his blog diary on the topic, but in general you can learn a lot from his approach: know the most telling points of your argument, stick to them and bat away any attempt to move the argument to more doubtful ground.”
.
.
the mistake galloway makes is that he assumes that the public are aware of the context as detailed above by craig in his blog. they are not, majority of people are still spoon fed by the msm .
.
in order to get the point home a degree of context needs to be made as a point of entry ..
To be honest I didn’t know the women’s name and the Newsnight interview was first time I heard it. I think the use of it was counterproductive and entirely inappropriate. Counterproductive because it just demeans the points made.
Even if her name is over the internet, and even been used in other countries, this does mean it needs to be aired again on live TV in the UK (where it has not) and indeed many people have not sought out the information and do not wish to do so (myself included). Anonymity in the UK is guaranteed for people who make allegations of sexual offences and so this is as much about consistency. If a naming occurs this time what is to say it does not happen again and again in other instances, where some people may think they are equaly entitled to say it for another reason. It’s a slippery slope and whilst I appreciate people have strong passions around this case, sometimes there are a need to step back from what is in front of you and look at the implications.
I also think bit silly to have a go at the interviewer. Gavin esler just interviewed like a normal presenter and asked challenging questions. Pretty standard across most interviews with different points of view, and indeed had occurred only moments earlier in the debate around housing.
Stephen Cook, don’t worry. I know it seems so hard to believe. But it isn’t a massive conspiracy (though there are plenty of small ones). Here are some things that might help:
http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=90&Itemid=22
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/how-the-spooks-took-over-the-news-780672.html
“The majority of the people who are interested in this case (and I presume that includes everyone posting here) know who Anna Ardin is. It’s called being well-informed.”
.
youre wrong. people consider themselves well informed but still not know who aa is or the details of the assange allegations.
.
what they do know is superficial and distilled from msm who muddy the water and out of that create their narrative for the benefit of those with vested interests bigger, brutal and dishonest than assange or galloways
“I also think bit silly to have a go at the interviewer. Gavin esler just interviewed like a normal presenter and asked challenging questions. ”
.
.
esler is not a neutral player he is very much neocon – pro zionist . in that context he is not a normal presenter asking challenging questions.
“…I also think bit silly to have a go at the interviewer. Gavin esler just interviewed like a normal presenter and asked challenging questions. Pretty standard across most interviews with different points of view, and indeed had occurred only moments earlier in the debate around housing….”
I’m sorry, but I can’t agree with that.
I have been watching Newsnight over the last few days and the presenting of the Assange case has not been merely the usual “challenging” questions. There has been an orchestraed tone in my opinion. Gavin Estler’s interview with Craig Murry and Joan Snith was just the latest expression of that orchestrated tone.
I can’t comment on the overall tone of reporting in recent days, and may be is the case, and to be honest I was only watching yesterday due to the story on housing, but from an objective point of view (which I honestly think I am) I don’t think he showed bias. Think he and Joan Smith were just shocked and surprised to hear a name mentioned. This did not result in the interview stopping, indeed Craig Murray was invited to make the same point he was making, just told not to say a name. I don’t know the facts of the case, so not going make a judgement, but fair to say the use of the name was counterproductive as it knocked Craig Murray completely of his stride. I don’t think that was the fault of Esler and Joan Smith, as I said earlier, it just would not be correct to name anybody who has alleged a sexual offence (regardless of circumstance or sympathises) and so they, in my view, were right to interject on that point.
“…..Stephen Cook, don’t worry. I know it seems so hard to believe. But it isn’t a massive conspiracy….”
I would have always ordinarily been of a similar opinion. That is to say, there are factions in positions of power who, from time to time, push, nudge, or even force events in their favour. But, for the most part, there is no overarching orchestration from above, save for absolute totalitarian regimes such as Stalinist Russia etc.
However, the lies and misinformation I am witnessing in the MSM at the moment can only be described as orchestrated. Also, it’s worth bearing in mind that our system is very pyramidal in structure. The chain of command from the newsroom to the very upper echelons of power will not involve that many people. A policy decision in terms of what news is going to get pushed and the manner in which it is be pushed, by the time it gets down to the editor’s desk or the presenters desk, becomes transformed from policy to procedure. Before long, every other news outlet gets the message and gets on message.
At the bottom of these food chains are real people with mortgages to service and pensions to fill up who are not paid to seriously question what they are putting out.
I can’t comment on the overall tone of reporting in recent days, and may be is the case, and to be honest I was only watching yesterday due to the story on housing, but from an objective point of view (which I honestly think I am) I don’t think he showed bias. Think he and Joan Smith were just shocked and surprised to hear a name mentioned. This did not result in the interview stopping, indeed Craig Murray was invited to make the same point he was making, just told not to say a name. I don’t know the facts of the case, so not going make a judgement, but fair to say the use of the name was counterproductive as it knocked Craig Murray completely of his stride. I don’t think that was the fault of Esler and Joan Smith, as I said earlier, it just would not be correct to name anybody who has alleged a sexual offence (regardless of circumstance or sympathises or country) and so they, in my view, were right to interject on that point.
apologies pressed submit twice
“However, the lies and misinformation I am witnessing in the MSM at the moment can only be described as orchestrated. Also, it’s worth bearing in mind that our system is very pyramidal in structure. The chain of command from the newsroom to the very upper echelons of power will not involve that many people. A policy decision in terms of what news is going to get pushed and the manner in which it is be pushed, by the time it gets down to the editor’s desk or the presenters desk, becomes transformed from policy to procedure. Before long, every other news outlet gets the message and gets on message.”
.
.
a pretty accurate representation .. its why the murdoch deal is important but is being whitewashed away ..
“….There are also very sinister things going on when the BBC consciously puts a story of the rape of a boy in a store lift right next to a story about Assange….”
Theyve got him surrounded now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
I thought you meant the embassy Stephen hehe!
No its these BBC News headlines:
Meles death ‘won’t unsettle Ethiopia’
Paralympian trio facing charges
Boy is raped in department store
Assange protest hits UK websites
Rape-remark US candidate digs in
Galloway ‘clarifies’ rape views
Wet weather ‘cuts insect numbers’
Just a coincidence im sure, a dearth of rape headlines – it would be wrong to curate them any other way. /s
Excellent and clear. Murray spoke very well outside the Ecuador Embassy. Anyone following Assange sees the name Ardin almost daily in the press.
Of course, it was fine for the Swedish police to leak what should have been confidential and private to the tabloids and set-off an around the clock smear campaign against Julian Assange, but it’s not alright for you to name someone whom everyone familiar with the case has known about all along. I’m glad that the Australian media has been brave enough to name names and call this into question instead of taking on an overly sanctimonious air about Anna Ardin all the while character assasinating Julian Assange.
Passerby
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.
No, wrong again – but nice try ! Nor am I a fat hairy lesbian, or sexually frustrated and “in need of a good seeing to”, before you ask. I’m not quite sure what pouring of venom you’re referring to; I asked a simple question, to which I have yet to receive a response.
Now are you going to discuss things nicely like an adult, or stay in the playground adn carrying on hurling insults to people who challenge your viewpoint ?
I read above someone invoking the term feminism. It would of course be more accurate to speak of feminisms. Just as there are unhealthy forms of maleism (some call it misogyny), so to are there unhealthy forms of feminism. Feminism in principle is laudable of course, but much of British feminism failed, and cannot really be called feminism at all. We still have a disgusting patriarchy, and nowhere is it more visible than this notion that woman are to be protected, but men needn’t be protected – be it from false allegations, manipulation and control, etc. Feminism was hijacked long ago by the gender-warmongers and the domestic violence lobby, with the express purpose of pushing the myth of the violent male sexual predator, and with the upshot that loving fathers are routinely bullied out of the lives of their children, and have no say in reproductive, health and educational matters re children. This domestic violence lobby is extremely powerful, and maintains its power and funding by grossly distorting statistics of male-on-female violence (suppressing any hint that the violence is just as often the other way about).
In the media at least, this is no longer about the politics of Wikileaks. The game has moved on. This is about the politics of gender warfare.
Someone above also made the remark that nothing has done more to destroy Assange and Wikileaks than this divide and conquer strategy that certain parties are playing at. That couldn’t be more true.
“…..In the media at least, this is no longer about the politics of Wikileaks. The game has moved on. This is about the politics of gender warfare.
Someone above also made the remark that nothing has done more to destroy Assange and Wikileaks than this divide and conquer strategy that certain parties are playing at. That couldn’t be more true…..”
Yep, they play us all like bloody fiddles.
It’s so sodding depressing.
I saw Newsnight and under ordinary circumstances it would be illegal and disgraceful to name a rape victim. Most decent people would support victims’ rights and the logical pursuit of “criminals”. The contention is that this is something else and there is good reason to think so. Anna Ardin has named herself and the Swedish police have behaved indiscreetly. The behaviour of the people concerned doesn’t add up. Assange has good reason to believe dark forces are at work here – after all in the initial instance he cooperated with Swedish police and was told he was free to leave the country. I actually don’t think there is a case that would stand up if heard in a Swedish court nor do I believe he would be extradited to the US. What is happening here is a good old fashioned bit of “discrediting” a whistleblower (of sorts) by polluting the issue with a controversial segue ie stop the media from printing Assange truthseeker / whistleblower etc and get them to print Assange – rapist. What is really disappointing is the number of single issue focused people including feminists out there who don’t know when they are being used. For anyone unsure there are facts available through basic online research.