61–70 of 85 posts
So here's a question: why don't the Swedish just do the common-sense thing, drop the political posturing and either: A. interview him via Google Hangout / Skype / etc. or B. fly somebody to England to interview him at the Ecuadorian embassy?
B. Because the Ecuadorian government required guarantees the Swedish government cannot provide (because it'd be overriding the judiciary).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look at the attached picture. I count EIGHT officers in that picture alone. Add to that the multipliers previously posted and you can rapidly approach that kind of cost. I'm not sure why 8 officers would be required to keep an eye on one door for one person, but that's a tangential question...
Perhaps they suspected an escape or extradition attempt with a well-funded commando-style raid?
The guard most likely wasn't to keep him safe, but to keep him in the embassy at all time, this is the same kind of guard that a US diplomat would've gotten while visiting the USSR and probably still gets when they visit Russia and vice versa.
So here's a question: why don't the Swedish just do the common-sense thing, drop the political posturing and either: A. interview him via Google Hangout / Skype / etc. or B. fly somebody to England to interview him at the Ecuadorian embassy?
A. Because he's wanted for arrest, and you can't arrest someone over Google Hangout / Skype / etc. B. Because the Ecuadorian government required guarantees the Swedish government cannot provide (because it'd be overriding the judiciary).
I had thought that one possible outcome of the interview with him would be a decision to not arrest him. If that's the case it seems they'd want to get the interview out of the way by any means, and then if the need to arrest him stands, deal with that then.
B. Because the Ecuadorian government required guarantees the Swedish government cannot provide (because it'd be overriding the judiciary).
Interesting, I don't remember that bit, but that sounds likely. Oh well... what can ya do? shrug
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where do these prices come from anyway? According to Google the average salary of a police man in England is £30,000 and they work about 40 hours per week. So it should cost £126,000 station one person for 24/7. Now I understand that real costs will be higher for various reasons, but 100x?
Look at the attached picture. I count EIGHT officers in that picture alone. Add to that the multipliers previously posted and you can rapidly approach that kind of cost. I'm not sure why 8 officers would be required to keep an eye on one door for one person, but that's a tangential question...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure if you are being facetious, but that's actually exactly the right question to ask. Not only would it be great to explicitly know the exact number, but that number should be the same no matter who the victim (or perpetrator) is.
Wait, doesn't that logic essentially inoculate hedge fund managers and private equity barons from rape prosecutions? That can't possibly be right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, doesn't that logic essentially inoculate hedge fund managers and private equity barons from rape prosecutions? That can't possibly be right.
I'm not certain hedge fund managers and private equity barons are subject to most of our laws anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know about Sweden, but at least here in Portugal rape is what is called a "public crime", that is, there is no need for charges to be pressed for it to be prosecuted.
I'm curious. Is this that all that is needed to be prosecuted for a public crime such as this is for someone to accuse you? Whether they are connected to the alleged crime or not? Whether there is a victim or not? For that matter, how can one be prosecuted with no charges? I think I may be misunderstanding the context of the terms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know about Sweden, but at least here in Portugal rape is what is called a "public crime", that is, there is no need for charges to be pressed for it to be prosecuted.
I'm curious. Is this that all that is needed to be prosecuted for a public crime such as this is for someone to accuse you? Whether they are connected to the alleged crime or not? Whether there is a victim or not? For that matter, how can one be prosecuted with no charges? I think I may be misunderstanding the context of the terms.
I suppose it's the State who "presses charges" in this case, but I believed that term was only used for the victim(s).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So whats the limit on how much society should spend to seek justice if someone raped you?
There wasn't any need to guard the Ecuadorian embassy, now or then. He couldn't have travelled out of the country without being arrested at the port or airport, and could have been picked up easily if he'd stayed at a house or hotel anywhere inside the UK. People who are far less well known are routinely arrested by the police for failure to turn up in court. There was no need for this expensive 24 hour guard.
If you don't know when your target is going to move, how do you stop him from leaving UK waters before you even realize he isn't there anymore? Monitor every single boat moving on the Thames, 24/7? Search every ship leaving your jurisdiction?
Getting out probably isn't easy, but I would be surprised if there weren't quite a few people/organizations capable of doing it.