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

#51

Post by oneeyedpigeon » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 1:30 PM UTC

alex_hitchins wrote: post #33

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?

From [1]:

"The next step in the Swedish proceedings is to conduct a second interview with him before making a decision whether to formally charge him. The prosecutor is presently disposed to charge him, unless any new evidence emerges that might change her mind. If a decision is taken to formally charge him, Assange would face trial within two weeks of that decision being made. It is difficult to see how this could happen if the final interview takes place in the Ecuadorian embassy in Knightsbridge. Even if he were interviewed in the embassy, if a decision was then taken to formally charge him, it is somewhat difficult to believe that Assange would suddenly renounce his claim to asylum in Ecuador."

[1] https://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-doesn-t-sweden-interview-...

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

#52

Post by madaxe_again » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 1:30 PM UTC

alex_hitchins wrote: post #46

madaxe_again wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The burden of proof is always on the prosecutor - they have to prove you guilty, not the other way around.

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

#53

Post by icebraining » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 1:31 PM UTC

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 are ways of effectively letting it go without having to admit it. I mean, the UK is the origin of Yes, Minister, which provides plenty of lessons in the area of pretending to do stuff without actually doing it (and vice-versa).

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

#54

Post by sago » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 1:31 PM UTC

arethuza wrote: post #14

sago wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I agree. The most damning thing I heard on this was a story about the military planning in the US after 9/11. During the practice roleplaying in the state department, in advance of its diplomatic efforts, the staffer 'playing' the UK ambassador was told to say or do whatever he thought would ingratiate him the most to the US.

As insulting to the UK as that is, I can't actually think of an example which would suggest they were wrong.

However, on the last point, true it is a rounding error, but ten million here, ten million there, if you're not careful, after a while it will add up to real money.

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

#55

Post by sago » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 1:34 PM UTC

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #43

alex_hitchins wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If the original comment refers to me, then that wasn't my intent to insinuate that at all.

The published data shows that only a tiny minority of petty crimes end in conviction, however. In my experience (5 times, including family and close friends), the police chose not to send an officer to the scene.

I'm sure some petty crimes get solved, and some serious crimes don't. But if you thought I was making either point, may I respectfully suggest you reread my comment.

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

#56

Post by alex_hitchins » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 1:34 PM UTC

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #43

alex_hitchins wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm not saying it never gets investigated... Just all four times I have reported a crime, nothing happened after getting the crime number.

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

#57

Post by psykovsky » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 1:36 PM UTC

arethuza wrote: post #8

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.

£700 billion - not £700 trillion!

American billions or European billions?

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

#58

Post by alex_hitchins » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 1:37 PM UTC

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #51

alex_hitchins wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

From [1]: "The next step in the Swedish proceedings is to conduct a second interview with him before making a decision whether to formally charge him. The prosecutor is presently disposed to charge him, unless any new evidence emerges that might change her mind. If a decision is taken to formally charge him, Assange would face trial within two weeks of that decision being made. It is difficult to see how this could h…

Very interesting indeed. Thanks for the link.

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

#59

Post by sago » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 1:38 PM UTC

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #48

sago wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because my math sucks. Sorry. Edited.

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

#60

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 1:38 PM UTC

rmc wrote: post #45

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.

[deleted]