MasterDex Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 Seems there's a lot of this going around in light of the Olympics. Is the idea that Ireland is still part of the UK really that prevalent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 I don't think it's Ireland specifically, I think it's just that people are completely clueless about the rest of the world (wherever they're from). The Ireland thing is probably just touchier than other mistakes people make, so it gets more coverage/outrage. Just my guess, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 For someone not from the UK & Ireland it's an understandable mistake I think. British Isles - Includes Republic of Ireland. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Everything but Republic of Ireland. etc, etc, etc. It also adds to the confusion when some Scottish and Welsh participants act like they are not British (for example by refusing to sing the National Anthem for political reasons) it gives the impression that they are in the same political position as Republic of Ireland, but not quite as stubborn. Finally, this guy as I understand it is a comedian, so even more reason to forgive his ignorance on the matter. It's not like he's the UK politics editor for the Telegraph or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted August 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 I usually expect comedians to be a bit smarter than average but I think it may be due to the ones I follow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 I thought the drunk, potato-loving hooligans bit for the boxer was worse. At least the Ireland being a separate country can be excused as genuine ignorance but that sort of stereotyping is just insane in a newspaper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 What I do find odd is Hong Kong having an Olympic team. Apparently "China" have something in the order of 4 or 5 teams. Including China, Chinese Olympic Comittee, Chinese Taipee, Hong Kong and I think another one who's name I can't recall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 "Chinese Taipei" at least is a compromise name that Taiwan (officially the "Republic of China") competes under to avoid pissing of the People's Republic of China (mainland China). So it is a separate sovereign entity. Apparently competing this year is China (the PRC), Chinese Taipei (Taiwan), and Hong Kong (Hong Kong). Starting in 2016 Macau will also be competing as a separate team. Apparently the Hong Kong and Macau teams are due to historical factors centered around their prior European ownership and semi-autonomy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuchikoma Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 Seems there's a lot of this going around in light of the Olympics. Is the idea that Ireland is still part of the UK really that prevalent? Outside the UK and Ireland, I'd expect someone to know only if they were specifically curious about it and looked it up. I'll admit I probably wouldn't know if I didn't hang out here... but my god, I'd still know enough to look it up and get it right before sticking my foot in my mouth like that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted August 11, 2012 Report Share Posted August 11, 2012 At least in Sweden, "everyone" knows ireland isn't part of the UK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterDex Posted August 15, 2012 Report Share Posted August 15, 2012 For someone not from the UK & Ireland it's an understandable mistake I think. British Isles - Includes Republic of Ireland. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Everything but Republic of Ireland. etc, etc, etc. In recent times, using the term British Isles to refer to the archipelago has come under scrutiny. Personally, I like the term Atlantic Archipelago as a neutral term, or The British and Irish Isles. I do think the term British Isles is too politically loaded myself. I thought the drunk, potato-loving hooligans bit for the boxer was worse. At least the Ireland being a separate country can be excused as genuine ignorance but that sort of stereotyping is just insane in a newspaper. Yeah, that was a pretty horrible news story but frankly, I was more shocked/outraged by the comments of this comedian. I don't really have a problem with stereotypes when they can be proven to be true to a strong degree and let's be honest, being a drunk, potato lover is very common in Ireland. I can't remember the last time I went through a week without either, and I've certainly went beyond moderation with both on many occasions. The hooligan part? I think the Brits have us beaten there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 Thanks to some sabre rattling from the UK, Ecuador has granted Assange political asylum. The whole situation is farcical. A brief re-cap: - He has not been charged with any crime (though he has been accused of sexual assault). - The Swedish authorities only want to question him (allegedly). - The Ecuadorian government offered to allow the Swedish investigators to enter their embassy and question him. The Swedish government refused. - The Ecuadorian government offered to send Assange over if the Swedes would promise not to hand him over to America. The Swedes refused. - The British government is threatening to revoke Ecuador's diplomatic immunity and grab him anyway. And all this over a bunch of emails about how the ambassador from Spain looks a little chubby these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterDex Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 Also worth noting that the crimes he's allegedly committed were made by two women in a country where rape charges are easy to come by. In most countries, including the UK, the charges levelled against Assange wouldn't be valid. Also, tweets from one of the women a day after the crime was allegedly committed, showed that she was still enjoying quite happily, the company of Mr Assange - Strange that she'd happily hang out with the man who just 'raped' her the day before. It's getting harder and harder to deny that these aren't just trumped up charges to get Assange into a room without a view in the US, especially when the British government are willing to break international law to extradite a man merely wanted for questioning. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 Yeah, I was trying to tread softly about the actual circumstances. I mean it is convenient that they both popped up to accuse him almost simultaneously, and as you say, there was no hint of any issues immediately after the alleged offence. Could be that he acted inappropriately with one or the other or both of them, in which case he should of course face charges and take whatever punishment is due... In Sweden. I just don't get why more people aren't more angry about this. It's three major first world governments seeking to skirt around international law to get rid of someone that they feel is a trouble maker. If the US want him they should just straight up ask the UK to extradite him. If Sweden want to pass him to America then they shouldn't pull this rape accusation BS. And the UK should not be playing piggy in the middle. It's pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 I'm not upset because I'm not convinced the Sweden thing has anything to do with the US, I think it's just Assange being a whiny asshat. If we wanted to disappear him we would have done it already, before he ever ended up in the Ecuadorian embassy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 I'm not sure what specifically is going on, but it's silly. If the Swedish government only wants to question him, as they claim, they should have taken the offer. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 Agreed. This seems like something that got blown way out of proportion because everyone involved is going "RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterDex Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 I'm not upset because I'm not convinced the Sweden thing has anything to do with the US, I think it's just Assange being a whiny asshat. If we wanted to disappear him we would have done it already, before he ever ended up in the Ecuadorian embassy. If the Sweden thing has nothing to do with the US then I see no reason why the Swedish government would not provide a guarantee to Assange that he would not be extradited to the US. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 Maybe because they don't want to box themselves in like that if later they're presented with valid reasons to extradite him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterDex Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 Surely though a legal contract could be written up specifying that without sufficient evidence to support a claim of extradition to the US that he would not be extradited? I don't know, I don't particularly like the man - though I do support many of the actions of Wikileaks - but this whole things stinks of ulterior motive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 It could also be a lower-key version of the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" attitude: they've got a court order saying he's to be extradited, and like hell are they gonna let him dictate terms to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterDex Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 Fair point. It'll be interesting to see how this develops in the coming weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 There's definitely a lot of political posturing going on. Ecuador would probably not have granted asylum so quickly if the UK government hadn't reminded them that the they could revoke diplomatic immunity and storm the place. Once the UK gov't did that the Ecuadorians had no choice but to grant asylum really. Otherwise they would have looked weak. Similarly, Sweden can't admit that they only want Assange in custody so that they can pony him up to the US or they will look like America's lackeys and the US can't admit that they want him to be extradited from Sweden or else Sweden would be forced to refuse extradition to avoid looking like lackeys. So basically there's a massive stalemate between Ecuador, UK, Sweden and US with no one wanting to look bad. Apart from the UK because everyone already knows that we do what the White House asks most of the time anyway. As for the US being able to disappear him if they wanted to, I think Assange is too high profile for that. If he mysteriously vanished it would only serve to further tarnish America's reputation and make any attempts to preach to China about human rights even more futile than it already is. Honestly I reckon the best solution to this (from a domestic perspective) is that the UK "accidentally" let Assange slip out of the country and on a plane to Ecuador. Then we can't send him to Sweden, Sweden can't send him to the US and we all get to blame Ecuador for abusing Diplomatic Privilege while keeping our Human Rights records shiny and clean. The US don't get their man, but they have effectively exiled him so it's not a total bust. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 (edited) The reason I talked about disappearing him was because everyone talked about how they were worried once the US got its hands on him he'd just disappear into a hole somewhere never to be heard from again. However, I think for the very same reasons you mentioned about how high-profile it is that he'd be tried very publicly, with all the i's dotted and t's crossed, to show everyone that it's all on the up and up. Assuming that the US was involved in this at all (which I'm still not convinced of) the "blame Ecuador" solution does look pretty good though. *Edit* - Here's what I think actually happened: he didn't want to go to Sweden for the rape charges, so he claims Sweden's just doing this at the request of the US and makes a big stink about it so he can avoid the Swedish charges. That, or he honestly believes that it is at the US request but is wrong, because I don't think it being for the US makes sense for the reasons I've already explained. Edited August 17, 2012 by TheMightyEthan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 Also, I think if he's trying to avoid being spirited away to the US he chose the wrong country to seek asylum from. Fucking with/kidnapping people from South American countries is like the US national pastime. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 Sweden could take the wind out of his sails pretty easily by simply heading over to the Ecuadorian Embassy. Interrogating him and charging him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.