Nah, you are confused by the different jurisdictions. In Sweden you have the right to a speedy trial which puts timeframe limitations on when you can be charged. You can also only be charged following a formal interview. Assange is being disingenuous when he asks to be interviewed in London as he knows that the purpose of the interview is to charge him afterwards - and if Sweden do that then he can sit tight in the embassy and have the case dropped due to the speedy trial rules.
Well, it counts as a prosecutable offence in both the UK and Sweden as the courts have repeatedly shown.
I know that lawyers aren't exactly known for being honourable but some of the arguments Assange's lawyers have used have been a best naive and at worst disgraceful. They complained to the UK courts that the cost to to "guard" the Ecuadorian embassy (£10000/day) was not a justifiable use of money and therefore they should just let Julian go. Or to the Swedish courts that he has spent so long trapped in the embassy that to prosecute and potentially jail him would be a double punishment.
If you choose to skip bail and hide in an embassy then you have to accept the consequences.
She doesn't like that she conformed to the group she was in and feels that is a bad thing. But yet recognises that she feels much comfortable amongst people who "share her cultural upbringing" and doesn't think that's a bad thing. There's inconsistency there.
But then when she talks about joining a group at work who enjoy going out to have a beer or two and then complains that they she doesn't like beer and that they should do something else. Not very appreciative of views diverse from her own there!
At one point she mentions that she was the only black women in her team of two. As opposed to what, being two black women alone in the same team? That's not very diverse now, is it?
South of Vatnajokull is an area of gravel desert with little to no inhabitants. As there are frequent floods and ever changing "river" estuaries, all of the many small bridges in the region are specifically designed to be washed away easily. It's simply cheaper to build them new ones after every serious flood. The Icelanders know what they are doing!
When was the last time you heard anything controversial about the UN-run ITU?
The UK courts generate a lot of uproar in the US (and rightly so) about them overstepping their jurisdiction with regards to libel laws. There seems to be a complete lack of self-awareness when lawsuits such as these come up. The plaintiffs in this case are trying to collect their award of $109 million (from a default judgement in Rubin et al v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al,) in retribution to injuries caused by a Hamas bombing they claim was funded by Iran. Using the American courts in this way rides roughshod over other the independence of other countries.
They also tried to sue the EU for giving aid to the "terrorist sponsoring" Palestinian Authority (they lost due to diplomatic immunity). Using the courts in this way seems to have very little to do with justice and more to do with politics.
I'd wager that petrol prices are comparatively higher in europe vs usa then electricity ones.
She is also effectively calling her two female co-workers strippers. I wonder if she asked for their permission before airing that grievance. It'll be an awkward return to work for those two after that comparison.
Julie Horvath complained and had removed a rug at GitHub which she objected to because of the word "meritocracy". As that would imply that the fact there were so few women in IT and in GitHub in general was because women were not as good as men.
She also headed-up a female-only lecture project within GitHub.
Take these facts into consideration when considering her claims of hula-hoop-sexism.
I don't understand the clamour to define this as sexism when 90% of the alleged harassment was from the founder's wife. Simply watching someone hula-hoop in public at a works party is not harassment and paints "Julie" in a bad light when she compares it to a strip-club and that she felt "unsafe".
It's a misnomer to say he hasn't been charged. Swedish law has strict requirements regarding the timeline between charging and the court case which in principle means that they only charge someone when he is in their physical custody.
RTFS she will visit Assange who is skipped bail.
Foreign citizen turns up at the border and mentions that she will visit a fugitive from the law and is surprised when that results in an border interrogation?