Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spending by the UK government on the siege against Julian Assange

govwaste.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 152 posts

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

#31

Post by draugadrotten »

dublinclontarf wrote: post #18
ObviousScience wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

They should bring the Swedish Prosecutors to the Embassy and conduct the interview there, as is done in other cases.

This case is not about enforcing the law, it appears to be about using the letter of the law to intimidate one of USAs most wanted individuals and keeping him detained without a fair trial. Like using tax laws against Capone. Doing a s/Gitmo/Embassy/.

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

#32

Post by vdaniuk »

SilkRoadie wrote: post #12

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 U…

>There is an arrest warrant against Assange and the British Government has a duty to carry it out.

I wonder why the same law enforcement rigor wasn't applied in these cases, which are undoubtedly so much worse?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploit... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elm_Guest_House_child_abuse_sc...

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

#33

Post by alex_hitchins »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #28

It's a huge amount of money, sure. However, to claim that Assange is being 'detained without charge' is disingenuous to say the least. He is there completely of his own free will. I wish Sweden would just guarantee that he won't be extradited and we can get this all over with, but the changes of that happening now are remote - looks like a pretty permanent stalemate to me.

As much as I don't want to give in to his bullying tactics; I almost want Sweden to interview him in situ just to shut him up. Are there legal reasons this can't happen?

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

#34

Post by madaxe_again »

rmc wrote: post #23
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?

Borders aren't that permanent. Remember the UK has a decently sized open land border.

What? You mean between Northern Ireland and Ireland? That's the only land border the UK has, and it's one hell of a trek from London, and on the wrong side of the Irish Sea.

Sorry, I'm wrong, just thought of the other land border - Gibraltar and Spain. Still, he's going to do well to sneak across either of those... and sneaking around Europe, into Gibraltar, only then to sneak across the amazingly heavily guarded border there... is probably the worst escape plan I could think of.

Further edit: OK, Cyprus and Akrotiri, too, which is even further afield.

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

#35

Post by sago »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #30
sago wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any policing priorities set a precendent of expectation. For example, because of the way car and property crime are (not) investigated, a petty car criminal can reasonably expect to get away with their crime. There are plenty of other crimes where a police authority would choose not to take dramatic action and save a £10m cost of policing. The suggestion isn't Assange be allowed to walk. If he were able to be afforda…

What evidence do you have that car and property crime aren't investigated, and in which country are you talking about?

Sorry that phrasing was overly terse. In many regions of the UK the police won't come out to petty car or property crime, let alone conduct an investigation. They will issue a crime number by telephone.

If the stolen goods are identifiable and turn up in some way, you may get some progress. Or similarly if the pattern of crime suggests it is worth their time trying to catch a prolific offender. Or if the crime is more severe than quotidian offences. But typically the crime number allows you to make your insurance claim, it gets logged in the police crime database, and that's all that happens.

My evidence is the experience of myself, friends and family.

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

#36

Post by atmosx »

vdaniuk wrote: post #32
SilkRoadie wrote: post #12

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 U…

>There is an arrest warrant against Assange and the British Government has a duty to carry it out. I wonder why the same law enforcement rigor wasn't applied in these cases, which are undoubtedly so much worse? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploit... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elm_Guest_House_child_abuse_sc...

Because the UK government is acting as proxy for the USA government!

(As if you didn't know that already :-P )

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

#37

Post by alex_hitchins »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #30
sago wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any policing priorities set a precendent of expectation. For example, because of the way car and property crime are (not) investigated, a petty car criminal can reasonably expect to get away with their crime. There are plenty of other crimes where a police authority would choose not to take dramatic action and save a £10m cost of policing. The suggestion isn't Assange be allowed to walk. If he were able to be afforda…

What evidence do you have that car and property crime aren't investigated, and in which country are you talking about?

I can say from my experience that in the UK property and car crime is seldom investigated. Police just issue a crime number for insurance.

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

#38

Post by alex_hitchins »

madaxe_again wrote: post #27

I wonder how many would argue that Assange should "face the music" while simultaneously arguing that Snowden shouldn't.

To my knowledge Snowden isn't wanted for questioning over an alleged rape...

Edit : Why the downvotes? Edit 2 : Changed from "To my knowledge Snowden hasn't raped anyone..."

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

#39

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

rmc wrote: post #21
yummybear wrote: post #2

Just to play devil's advocate here: How are Sweden supposed to promise not to extradite him to the US? Wouldn't that depend on what kind of possible extradition request would arrive, if any?

They can't. There are laws in most countries that if country A does the right legal dances for extradition, then legally they must be extradited. What people are asking for is the government/politicians to somehow override the judicial or legal system, and ensure one legal thing doesn't happen.

That's rendition which Sweden has recently resisted wrt the US. Extradition is merely treaties and regulation, not strictly law. And it's full of nuances - e.g. exceptions for political crimes which is probably highly relevant in this case. I see no reason why a team of lawyers paid the same amount of cash reference in the article wouldn't be able to sort this out to the mutual satisfaction of the two (three if you include the UK) parties involved.

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

#40

Post by disputin »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #30
sago wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any policing priorities set a precendent of expectation. For example, because of the way car and property crime are (not) investigated, a petty car criminal can reasonably expect to get away with their crime. There are plenty of other crimes where a police authority would choose not to take dramatic action and save a £10m cost of policing. The suggestion isn't Assange be allowed to walk. If he were able to be afforda…

What evidence do you have that car and property crime aren't investigated, and in which country are you talking about?

From the article: UK police watchdog: burglary and car crime "on verge of being decriminalised."
Post reply on HN