Spending by the UK government on the siege against Julian Assange • Hacker News Board

Re: Spending by the UK government on the siege against Julian Assange

#11

Post by sago » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 12:59 PM UTC

unfamiliar wrote: post #5

Whenever big numbers are thrown around, there is a need to put them in perspective. However, I don't think "number of meals" or "teachers hired" are good or relevant perspectives. The UK police budget is about £3.5 billion. So this expense is about 0.3% of that. The UK budget is about £700 trillion, if I remember correctly. So this expense is about 0.0000014% of that.

> The UK budget is about £700 trillion, if I remember correctly.

Almost, but the GDP of the entire world is less than 10% of £700t.

You're remembering £700b, which is roughly the UK gov't spending.

Whatever the number, a huge chunk of government spending is allocated to this bit of theatre, aimed -- as far as I can see -- at making sure the UK looks like a good ally to the US.

Anyone who thinks this has anything to do with an extradition to Sweden on sex-crime charges is a tool. The UK police don't just drop £10m on extradition compliance for one suspect.

Re: Spending by the UK government on the siege against Julian Assange

#12

Post by SilkRoadie » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 1:00 PM UTC

Wouldn't it set an unwanted precedence if the British Government just let this go?

There is an arrest warrant against Assange and the British Government has a duty to carry it out. If they do not carry it out then theoretically anyone on the run could seek asylum in a foreign embassy knowing that if successful it was just a matter of time before they could make their escape.

I also wonder what would happen when the UK wanted to extradite a person from a foreign country after letting Assange walk. Would their position be weakened?

It is a bad situation but it seems like Assange would rather wither and rot stuck in an embassy rather than deal with the charges against him. The reason he will not come out is because he is locked in a prison of his own paranoia.

It is certainly money wasted but it seems that due to the chain of events it is money which has to be wasted.

Re: Spending by the UK government on the siege against Julian Assange

#13

Post by k-mcgrady » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 1:00 PM UTC

Why do they need to waste so many resources on him? Wouldn't it suffice to monitor the embassy with CCTV cameras on the street and have him flagged at the border if they see him leave?

Re: Spending by the UK government on the siege against Julian Assange

#14

Post by arethuza » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 1:01 PM UTC

sago wrote: post #11

unfamiliar wrote: post #5

Whenever big numbers are thrown around, there is a need to put them in perspective. However, I don't think "number of meals" or "teachers hired" are good or relevant perspectives. The UK police budget is about £3.5 billion. So this expense is about 0.3% of that. The UK budget is about £700 trillion, if I remember correctly. So this expense is about 0.0000014% of that.

> The UK budget is about £700 trillion, if I remember correctly. Almost, but the GDP of the entire world is less than 10% of £700t. You're remembering £700b, which is roughly the UK gov't spending. Whatever the number, a huge chunk of government spending is allocated to this bit of theatre, aimed -- as far as I can see -- at making sure the UK looks like a good ally to the US. Anyone who thinks this has anything to d…

Our entire defence policy since Suez has arguably been based on being an ally to the US even when it has required actions that were very unpopular with the public and extremely expensive.

A few million is a rounding error in that context.

Re: Spending by the UK government on the siege against Julian Assange

#15

Post by ra » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 1:02 PM UTC

unfamiliar wrote: post #5

Whenever big numbers are thrown around, there is a need to put them in perspective. However, I don't think "number of meals" or "teachers hired" are good or relevant perspectives. The UK police budget is about £3.5 billion. So this expense is about 0.3% of that. The UK budget is about £700 trillion, if I remember correctly. So this expense is about 0.0000014% of that.

If the UK population is 64 million [1] and the annual national policing budget is 3.5 billion, that's a per person budget of £54 per year.

So £10,000,000 on one accused person is the equivalent of the annual policing budget of 185,000 people. Spent on one person yet to be trialled.

You'd have to say this is a disproportional response. Why?

[1] https://www.google.com.au/search?q=uk+population

Re: Spending by the UK government on the siege against Julian Assange

#16

Post by k-mcgrady » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 1:03 PM UTC

unfamiliar wrote: post #5

Whenever big numbers are thrown around, there is a need to put them in perspective. However, I don't think "number of meals" or "teachers hired" are good or relevant perspectives. The UK police budget is about £3.5 billion. So this expense is about 0.3% of that. The UK budget is about £700 trillion, if I remember correctly. So this expense is about 0.0000014% of that.

>> "So this expense is about 0.3% of that."

That seems like enough perspective. 0.3% of the UK police budget to stand outside the residence of one man? If we did this for everyone we could monitor 333 people per year and get nowhere.

Re: Spending by the UK government on the siege against Julian Assange

#17

Post by alex_hitchins » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 1:04 PM UTC

jamespo wrote: post #7

Good to see the linked John Pilger piece repeats the disingenuous "not charged" claim

I was going to say this too. I did in a previous thread and got some down-votes.

Re: Spending by the UK government on the siege against Julian Assange

#18

Post by dublinclontarf » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 1:06 PM UTC

ObviousScience wrote: post #10

unfamiliar wrote: post #5

Whenever big numbers are thrown around, there is a need to put them in perspective. However, I don't think "number of meals" or "teachers hired" are good or relevant perspectives. The UK police budget is about £3.5 billion. So this expense is about 0.3% of that. The UK budget is about £700 trillion, if I remember correctly. So this expense is about 0.0000014% of that.

To put your numbers in perspective: the cost of Julian Assange being kept in the embassy is not policing all of the UK for a day or so. That is, the cost of keeping Assange under watch is the same as what would be spent on 1 average day of policing for the entire country. If I were a UK citizen concerned about local crime rates, I'd be mildly ticked off they were spending 1 nationwide police day on some guy rather th…

What are they supposed to do? Just not enforce the law?

Re: Spending by the UK government on the siege against Julian Assange

#19

Post by sago » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 1:07 PM UTC

jamespo wrote: post #7

Good to see the linked John Pilger piece repeats the disingenuous "not charged" claim

I agree "not charged" makes it sound less serious than it is (he hasn't been charged, but a warrant for his arrest on those charges has been issued).

Interestingly, though, if he sits it out for another 5 years, for another £10m or so in UK police spending, the Swedish statute of limitations (which is dependent on charging, not arrest warrants) will expire, and he can't be charged. As I understand it, anyway.

Re: Spending by the UK government on the siege against Julian Assange

#20

Post by alex_hitchins » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 1:08 PM UTC

k-mcgrady wrote: post #13

Why do they need to waste so many resources on him? Wouldn't it suffice to monitor the embassy with CCTV cameras on the street and have him flagged at the border if they see him leave?

I wonder if it would be possible to prevent the staff entering the embassy? We can't enter it legally, but we surly could prevent people entering? I understand it would create a stink, but starving the man out must be something they have thought about.