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

71–80 of 152 posts

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

#71

Post by corin_ »

madaxe_again wrote: post #49
alex_hitchins wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It does work that way. If someone accused me of being a pederast/paedophile (acting not just medically) then I would very much expect the police to want to interview me, and either clear me of all wrong doing or prosecute if it was true. And that's how it should be.

How else would anyone ever get convicted of a crime if they can just say "I'm not going near the police or a trial until I've already been proven guilty"?

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

#72

Post by sago »

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.

Edit: Reading another source suggests they can charge him in absentia, so the statute of limitations argument is probably moot.

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

#73

Post by matthewmacleod »

sago wrote: post #63
dublinclontarf wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There are many, many laws, that if it cost £10m to catch one violator, would not be enforced (well, would not be aggressively pursued, it isn't like they'd say "no, you're fine, go about your life"). Police make priority judgements all the time about where to allocate their resources. The concern in this case is that the allocation is not being made on reasonable grounds based on the nature of the crime and normal po…

I don't agree. In reality, there are very few situations in which ew are fully aware of a criminal's location, but for diplomatic reasons we can't actually apprehend them.

That's why this is different. Can you imagine the uproar if we allowed targets of arrest warrants to walk free despite knowing their location, and having it surrounded? This is an exceptional case.

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

#74

Post by busterarm »

icebraining wrote: post #53
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).

That show is classic.

The Thick of It is another favorite.

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

#75

Post by matthewmacleod »

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..."

Well, they both pretty obviously committed crimes - if the respective accusations are true. So it's difficult to see the difference between "accused of rape" and "accused of release of classified information".

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

#77

Post by alex_hitchins »

madaxe_again wrote: post #49
alex_hitchins wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've edited my comment however still feels it validates the point. The Snowden and Asange cases are not one and the same.

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

#78

Post by gadders »

sago wrote: post #26
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…

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…

Minor car and property crime may not be investigated, but rape and sexual assault are taken seriously.

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

#79

Post by [deleted] »

sago wrote: post #63
dublinclontarf wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There are many, many laws, that if it cost £10m to catch one violator, would not be enforced (well, would not be aggressively pursued, it isn't like they'd say "no, you're fine, go about your life"). Police make priority judgements all the time about where to allocate their resources. The concern in this case is that the allocation is not being made on reasonable grounds based on the nature of the crime and normal po…

[deleted]

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

#80

Post by sago »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #73
sago wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many, many laws, that if it cost £10m to catch one violator, would not be enforced (well, would not be aggressively pursued, it isn't like they'd say "no, you're fine, go about your life"). Police make priority judgements all the time about where to allocate their resources. The concern in this case is that the allocation is not being made on reasonable grounds based on the nature of the crime and normal po…

I don't agree. In reality, there are very few situations in which ew are fully aware of a criminal's location, but for diplomatic reasons we can't actually apprehend them. That's why this is different. Can you imagine the uproar if we allowed targets of arrest warrants to walk free despite knowing their location, and having it surrounded? This is an exceptional case.

Seems a false dichotomy. I wouldn't suggest we "let him go free", but when any public service has resource limits, you have assign them reasonably to the public benefit. As for whether this would happen for another person in the same situation who wasn't a major political bogeyman figure? I suspect not. I suspect they'd wait until intelligence suggested he had left, and apprehend him then. Or he'd just be on general no-travel lists at ports and airports. It strains my belief to think that this kind of theatre isn't in large part because he's Julian Assange, source of significant political embarrassment for the UK and its ally across the pond.
Post reply on HN