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

41–50 of 152 posts

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

#41

Post by rmc »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #22
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?

I know nothing about Swedish law but, as an EU member and ECHR [1] signatory, Sweden cannot extradite a person to the US (or any other country) if a possible punishment that they could receive would deprive that person of their rights under the convention. In practice, this applies to judicial execution, detention without trial, or detention without the possibility of release. It may be that the US could give underta…

The US & EU have signed treaties requiring that the death penalty not be imposed (or carried out) if there's an extradition.

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_secur...

Why someone would flee Sweden to go to the UK when they are afraid of US extradition is beyond me. The UK has a much closer relationship with the US.

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

#42

Post by barrkel »

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've had two motorcycles stolen in the UK. The police gave me a crime reference number and sent out a victim support letter; that was the sum total of their apparent effort.

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

#43

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

alex_hitchins wrote: post #37
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And I can counter it by saying that, in the UK, I'm aware of cases in which property theft has been followed up by an investigation in which the perpetrators were caught. The original comment insinuated that we're living in some kind of free-for-all anarchy where you can get away with petty theft without any consequences, which is certainly not the case. (You can get away with non-petty theft without any consequences, but that's a whole other issue ...)

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

#44

Post by robmccoll »

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?

Same thing happens in the US. Called in a smash and grab on my car and was told that it happens all the time and that they don't come out or even take a report over the phone unless something was left in the car (rock or brick or tool used to smash the windows). Go fill out a form on the website. The crimes are on their radar, but investigating them individually would be hopeless.

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

#45

Post by rmc »

madaxe_again wrote: post #27

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

Assange is wanted for crimes that are unconnected with his political activism is. Everyone is human, incl Assange, everyone can make mistakes. Don't think your heros are perfect, they might not be.

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

#46

Post by alex_hitchins »

madaxe_again wrote: post #24
alex_hitchins wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Interfering with diplomatic staff is also illegal. I understand that everybody apparently wants to see Assange burn at the stake for being a sexual predator (not that the evidence is terribly substantive...), but that's not a justification for an act of war.

> (not that the evidence is terribly substantive...)

What evidence do you want/expect to see? Genuinely intrigued as so what burden of proof is deemed necessary in this situation.

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

#47

Post by rmc »

madaxe_again wrote: post #34
rmc wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bor…

I was thinking of NI border. If he can get out of the embassy and London, why not sneak to Scotland, boat across, and sneak over?

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

#48

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

sago wrote: post #19
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.

"5 years, for another £30m"

Why is the cost suddenly going to treble?

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

#49

Post by madaxe_again »

alex_hitchins wrote: post #38
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..."

And to my knowledge neither has Assange. He has been accused of rape, which isn't the same thing as being found guilty of rape. I accuse you of being a pederast - therefore you should report yourself to the police? No? No. It doesn't work that way.

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

#50

Post by mverwijs »

They've a typo right smack on the first part of their page: "The Seige of Julian Assange is ...."

Trying to alert the owner of the site by following the 'contact' link, and I get an Undelivered (554) back from their mailservers.

: host mx1.privateemail.com[192.64.116.221] said: 554 5.7.1 : Relay access denied (in reply to RCPT TO command)

Very shoddy impression.

Post reply on HN