Role of UK judiciary system put into question again after failing to deal with Julian Assange efficiently
Now the Olympics in London has finished, it is now time to relax and enjoy the rest of the summer. Prime Minister David Cameron and Deputy PM Nick Clegg have taken their family to hotter locations and celebrating the fact they do not need to make life-changing decisions for a couple of weeks. Little did they realise is that news and politics is a 24 hour service and their imminent return to the UK means they have a lot of stories to clear up.
One story has seen the recent developments to the future of WikiLeaks owner, Julian Assange. Earlier this summer, he was found guilty for a series of rape charges he constantly denied. These charges meant he was supposed to be handed over to the US government by Britain and therefore extradited to Sweden, the country where the alleged incidents occurred. This decision has aggravated several nerves of the Australian "whistle-blower". Much so, he applied for a political asylum to Ecuador in June. By doing this, Assange would be abiding by the rules of the UK judiciary system and its Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 rather than the United States one, something the British government did not see coming. However, recent twists have emerged that Assange was recently granted by the Ecuadorean government to reside there and that the country has received backing from other nations of that continent. Hearing this news has been welcomed by the supporters of Assange and certainly his lawyers and advisers who have ensured that he got what he wanted - especially when the Ecuador leader said they would protect him when necessary.
But the potential move to Ecuador has angered some politicians. For example, former Conservative MP Louise Mensch has written on Twitter her disgust of the whistle-blower. On one occasion, she wrote moments surrounding Assange's speech on his stance with Ecuador, "Let's hear it for the guy who put the "Ass" in#Assange!" and another; "#Assange nutters on my timeline mercifully embarrassed into silence." Mensch probably has every right to hate him. After all, he has humiliated the Labour government during the time of the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions (voted mostly by Conservative politicians) by releasing hundreds-of-thousands of private and official documents to confirm that both, particularly the latter was an "illegal war". However, I don't understand why Assange should bother her, or any Conservative politician. She wasn't an MP when it came to voting for the Iraq war in 2003 and in my opinion, Assange's whistle-blowing actions has gotten people to vote for the Tory Party in 2010 - the recession has also been a contributing factor as well. If Tony Blair was angry with Assange, I'd understand more than I would of Louise Mensch, and other Conservative MPs for that matter.
On the other hand, he has been charged with rape - a massive and complex issue that hasn't a specific automatic jail sentence. Some say 5-10 years in prison but with Assange, he receives special treatment which has been criticised by campaigners against victims of such crime. I want to distance myself on this situation as much as some of the bloggers and journalists. However, it wouldn't surprise me if there will be another twist on that story in the near future saying that there 'wasn't sufficient evidence to support the case that Assange did such crime'.
But if that wasn't the case, you can see why Julian Assange decided to apply for asylum in Ecuador. Not only could he help promote the country's public freedom like he is to campaign for the release of friend, former army officer and fellow whistle-blower, Bradley Manning, but also he would realise that politics there is done very differently to those in the UK and US - and Sweden. Pointing fingers at the UK and the "witch-hunting" US governments for invading Iraq is valid, but there are other countries that have done much worse to their own people.
Also, he realises how the judiciary system in the United States can punish him something terrible in comparison to the weaker system in the UK. Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke has had very little to say about Assange's recent developments which he needed to once the story continuously escalated. His influence on the matter could have made an impact on the timing of Assange's speech on Sunday but he scored an own goal there by not acting. David Cameron is at a stage where he is to reshuffle the government and although it has been claimed Clarke loves his current role, he isn't doing anything positive in that position. It is up to Cameron to decide whether to keep Clarke as Justice Secretary and tell him to respond to Assange on behalf of the government, or get rid of Clarke altogether and someone else in his place can be stricter towards Assange.
I have nothing against Assange but I've written before that his website is potentially dangerous, not just for the reputation of governments, but for their people. The example I gave before was the recent rocky relationship between Iran and Saudi Arabia, but with his fan base getting bigger by the day, more and more people would rebel against politicians in the UK and USA. If Assange is kept on the public limelight to this extent, by 2015 when the UK general election takes place, I can only see another hung Parliament. The government are clueless without America's assistance as in this situation, they have to act alone.
Romney may be level-pegging with Obama in polls, but his tax returns will come back to haunt him and Paul Ryan
In American however, Republican Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney and current President Barack Obama have distanced themselves from Assange. To them, he's the least of their worries, for now. They are more concerned about what will happen this November when the country's general election occurs. It is getting exciting as there isn't a clear favourite to who will occupy the White House residence and lead the country forward (or backward). According to the polls, it is tight. Before Romney won the Republican nomination race earlier this year, Obama was outshining all of the centre-right candidates but despite his blunders such as mistaking a Sikh Gurdwara (the religion's place of worship) to a "Sheikh Temple", Mitt Romney is getting settled in his role as Republican leader. In the last ten days, he appointed Paul Ryan as his running mate and potential Vice President if the centre right-wing Party succeed in the forthcoming election which has had a positive effect to his chances of being the next President.
So who is Paul Ryan? According to his Wikipedia page, he is a 40-year-old man from Wisconsin and has been a politician there since 1999. In addition, he is a "generic Republican on foreign policy", a family man, a lover of the United States, a lover of God and a recent fitness fanatic - an ideal Vice-President for Americans, surely? His recent appointment has helped Romney in the polls as he is four percent above Obama in Gallup Tracking, Rasmussen Tracking and Angus Reid Public Opinion. Should Obama be concerned, not at all. It is expected to see Romney do well at this point but once the President's campaign escalates, I can only see him remain as President for another term.
I wouldn't blame Ryan if the Republicans fail in November. The Americans still have an issue over Romney's tax returns. Ryan has revealed he paid 20 percent in tax in 2011 compared to 15.9 percent in 2010, although his wage increased by around $108,000 - that is compared to Romney's 13 percent tax return in the last year. I mentioned at a previous blog post that if you're earning more than $379,000 in the US, you should pay 35 percent in tax. Ryan should have paid 33 percent. To me, it isn't difficult to pay the correct taxes, although because I'm unemployed I'm not obliged to pay - but if I found a job, I'd definitely pay my correct taxes - and I'm sure the American public who aren't so wealthy pay their due. The amount of tax Ryan paid in 2011 was five percent short to those who earn $34,500- $83,600. Now you can see why he can afford the P90X fitness programme.
Obama says he would raise taxes on the rich but would he guarantee that they would pay the sufficient amount? It does seem unlikely that Romney would pay a twenty percent increase in tax in the next year - unless he defies all odds and does the right thing for the American people, who he claims to love. Obama received a $38,553 penalty for not paying his taxes on time in 2011 but he paid the vast majority of it off. It is the right thing to do. He needs to be given a lot more credit than he has had.
I don't want people to be put off voting for Mitt Romney. He was chosen to be the man to compete against Obama but his home and international policies aren't as efficient and in the public interest. Obama's ideas aren't mind-blowing but politics isn't mind-blowing. United States in 2012 is in a much better situation than the United States George W. Bush left in 2008. What both candidates need to do is to help Britain out and seek action to sort the Julian Assange situation out. I feel he mustn't go to prison for his WikiLeaks role but if he is for sure guilty of raping in Sweden, and then he should face the consequences. In the meantime, I don't want to listen to him attacking politicians who have to make life-changing decisions to the public who are uncertain about the future of Britain and the US.
Now the Olympics in London has finished, it is now time to relax and enjoy the rest of the summer. Prime Minister David Cameron and Deputy PM Nick Clegg have taken their family to hotter locations and celebrating the fact they do not need to make life-changing decisions for a couple of weeks. Little did they realise is that news and politics is a 24 hour service and their imminent return to the UK means they have a lot of stories to clear up.
One story has seen the recent developments to the future of WikiLeaks owner, Julian Assange. Earlier this summer, he was found guilty for a series of rape charges he constantly denied. These charges meant he was supposed to be handed over to the US government by Britain and therefore extradited to Sweden, the country where the alleged incidents occurred. This decision has aggravated several nerves of the Australian "whistle-blower". Much so, he applied for a political asylum to Ecuador in June. By doing this, Assange would be abiding by the rules of the UK judiciary system and its Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 rather than the United States one, something the British government did not see coming. However, recent twists have emerged that Assange was recently granted by the Ecuadorean government to reside there and that the country has received backing from other nations of that continent. Hearing this news has been welcomed by the supporters of Assange and certainly his lawyers and advisers who have ensured that he got what he wanted - especially when the Ecuador leader said they would protect him when necessary.
But the potential move to Ecuador has angered some politicians. For example, former Conservative MP Louise Mensch has written on Twitter her disgust of the whistle-blower. On one occasion, she wrote moments surrounding Assange's speech on his stance with Ecuador, "Let's hear it for the guy who put the "Ass" in
On the other hand, he has been charged with rape - a massive and complex issue that hasn't a specific automatic jail sentence. Some say 5-10 years in prison but with Assange, he receives special treatment which has been criticised by campaigners against victims of such crime. I want to distance myself on this situation as much as some of the bloggers and journalists. However, it wouldn't surprise me if there will be another twist on that story in the near future saying that there 'wasn't sufficient evidence to support the case that Assange did such crime'.
But if that wasn't the case, you can see why Julian Assange decided to apply for asylum in Ecuador. Not only could he help promote the country's public freedom like he is to campaign for the release of friend, former army officer and fellow whistle-blower, Bradley Manning, but also he would realise that politics there is done very differently to those in the UK and US - and Sweden. Pointing fingers at the UK and the "witch-hunting" US governments for invading Iraq is valid, but there are other countries that have done much worse to their own people.
Also, he realises how the judiciary system in the United States can punish him something terrible in comparison to the weaker system in the UK. Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke has had very little to say about Assange's recent developments which he needed to once the story continuously escalated. His influence on the matter could have made an impact on the timing of Assange's speech on Sunday but he scored an own goal there by not acting. David Cameron is at a stage where he is to reshuffle the government and although it has been claimed Clarke loves his current role, he isn't doing anything positive in that position. It is up to Cameron to decide whether to keep Clarke as Justice Secretary and tell him to respond to Assange on behalf of the government, or get rid of Clarke altogether and someone else in his place can be stricter towards Assange.
I have nothing against Assange but I've written before that his website is potentially dangerous, not just for the reputation of governments, but for their people. The example I gave before was the recent rocky relationship between Iran and Saudi Arabia, but with his fan base getting bigger by the day, more and more people would rebel against politicians in the UK and USA. If Assange is kept on the public limelight to this extent, by 2015 when the UK general election takes place, I can only see another hung Parliament. The government are clueless without America's assistance as in this situation, they have to act alone.
Romney may be level-pegging with Obama in polls, but his tax returns will come back to haunt him and Paul Ryan
In American however, Republican Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney and current President Barack Obama have distanced themselves from Assange. To them, he's the least of their worries, for now. They are more concerned about what will happen this November when the country's general election occurs. It is getting exciting as there isn't a clear favourite to who will occupy the White House residence and lead the country forward (or backward). According to the polls, it is tight. Before Romney won the Republican nomination race earlier this year, Obama was outshining all of the centre-right candidates but despite his blunders such as mistaking a Sikh Gurdwara (the religion's place of worship) to a "Sheikh Temple", Mitt Romney is getting settled in his role as Republican leader. In the last ten days, he appointed Paul Ryan as his running mate and potential Vice President if the centre right-wing Party succeed in the forthcoming election which has had a positive effect to his chances of being the next President.
So who is Paul Ryan? According to his Wikipedia page, he is a 40-year-old man from Wisconsin and has been a politician there since 1999. In addition, he is a "generic Republican on foreign policy", a family man, a lover of the United States, a lover of God and a recent fitness fanatic - an ideal Vice-President for Americans, surely? His recent appointment has helped Romney in the polls as he is four percent above Obama in Gallup Tracking, Rasmussen Tracking and Angus Reid Public Opinion. Should Obama be concerned, not at all. It is expected to see Romney do well at this point but once the President's campaign escalates, I can only see him remain as President for another term.
I wouldn't blame Ryan if the Republicans fail in November. The Americans still have an issue over Romney's tax returns. Ryan has revealed he paid 20 percent in tax in 2011 compared to 15.9 percent in 2010, although his wage increased by around $108,000 - that is compared to Romney's 13 percent tax return in the last year. I mentioned at a previous blog post that if you're earning more than $379,000 in the US, you should pay 35 percent in tax. Ryan should have paid 33 percent. To me, it isn't difficult to pay the correct taxes, although because I'm unemployed I'm not obliged to pay - but if I found a job, I'd definitely pay my correct taxes - and I'm sure the American public who aren't so wealthy pay their due. The amount of tax Ryan paid in 2011 was five percent short to those who earn $34,500- $83,600. Now you can see why he can afford the P90X fitness programme.
Obama says he would raise taxes on the rich but would he guarantee that they would pay the sufficient amount? It does seem unlikely that Romney would pay a twenty percent increase in tax in the next year - unless he defies all odds and does the right thing for the American people, who he claims to love. Obama received a $38,553 penalty for not paying his taxes on time in 2011 but he paid the vast majority of it off. It is the right thing to do. He needs to be given a lot more credit than he has had.
I don't want people to be put off voting for Mitt Romney. He was chosen to be the man to compete against Obama but his home and international policies aren't as efficient and in the public interest. Obama's ideas aren't mind-blowing but politics isn't mind-blowing. United States in 2012 is in a much better situation than the United States George W. Bush left in 2008. What both candidates need to do is to help Britain out and seek action to sort the Julian Assange situation out. I feel he mustn't go to prison for his WikiLeaks role but if he is for sure guilty of raping in Sweden, and then he should face the consequences. In the meantime, I don't want to listen to him attacking politicians who have to make life-changing decisions to the public who are uncertain about the future of Britain and the US.
Comments
Post a Comment