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

91–100 of 152 posts

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

#91

Post by chrisseaton »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #64
barrkel wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, presumably they'll also have placed the VIN (or equivalent) on their watchlist. But aside from that – what do you expect to happen in the case of a crime like that?

Come and look for evidence? Finger or shoe prints? Check if there are CCTV cameras that might have been covering the area? Interview neighbours and see if they saw anything? Confirm if you did actually have these motorcycles and that this isn't an insurance scam? Advise you on how to better secure them in the future?

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

#92

Post by corin_ »

ra wrote: post #15
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

Not that I think it's a good use of money in this case, but disproportional responses are what is expected and needed from policing. The other option is "well we think this guy just bombed a street and raped 15 people but we've already hit the £54 budget so we'll forget about him, let's go spend £54 on some old grandmother who hasn't committed any crimes in her life".

The issue isn't with police actions being disproportional to average budget per person, the issue is whether they make the right decisions on who and to what extent.

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

#93

Post by chippy »

alextgordon wrote: post #82
rhblake wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. There is nobody in Sweden with the power to make such an advance promise. It's simply impossible, by law. This is generally a good thing.

The real question in all of this is why does Sweden have an extradition treaty with a country infamous the world over for torture of detainees?

treaties work in both directions

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

#94

Post by mercer »

sago wrote: post #54
arethuza wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is one of the central themes of In The Loop, a feature film spin-off from the excellent The Thick Of It (UK TV show), and a funny and possibly pretty accurate depiction of the USA-UK relationship.

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

#95

Post by gutnor »

sago wrote: post #35
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?

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 mor…

I was surprised when they started an actual investigation when some idiot slashed my and my neighbors tires.

Apparently my neighbor heard the guy shouting "Fucking foreigner" (we both had foreign registration plates at the time) or something similar and reported it. Apparently, that moves the crime into the hate crime category and warrant extra police work. So even though I didn't report the slashing, the police came to my place to gather my version.

Overall same result though and I wasn't really expecting any result to be fair.

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

#96

Post by alextgordon »

chippy wrote: post #93
alextgordon wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real question in all of this is why does Sweden have an extradition treaty with a country infamous the world over for torture of detainees?

treaties work in both directions

Hardly a justification for cooperating with torturers, more of an excuse.

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

#97

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#98

Post by ra »

corin_ wrote: post #92
ra wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not that I think it's a good use of money in this case, but disproportional responses are what is expected and needed from policing. The other option is "well we think this guy just bombed a street and raped 15 people but we've already hit the £54 budget so we'll forget about him, let's go spend £54 on some old grandmother who hasn't committed any crimes in her life". The issue isn't with police actions being disprop…

Yeah but 185,000 grandmothers?

No one bombed anyone.

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

#99

Post by PlzSnow »

Jedd wrote: post #81
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…

Law is littered with unwanted precedents. They are not, generally, compelling reasons to act in a sane and thoughtful way, and rarely (especially with such obvious edge cases as this) inform future decisions. Is there actually an arrest warrant in Sweden for Assange? It's a highly convoluted arrangement between the UK (ostensibly keen to arrest, to satisfy their Swedish colleagues) and Sweden (who wish to question).…

Assange is wanted for questioning on allegations of sexual assault. Assange is a powerful and connected person, with strong support from a considerable percentage of the population. I am glad that that does not affect the legal process, and I would never want to live in a society where it did.

EDIT: The article says "He has been in a cell, under house arrest, or effectively detained at the Ecuadorian Embassy since December 2010."

This is patently a lie. He chooses to stay in the embassay of his own volition. How can anyone take this article seriously?

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

#100

Post by TranceMan »

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...

[OT] Corruption and blackmail.
Post reply on HN