
Spending by the UK government on the siege against Julian Assange - chippy
https://govwaste.co.uk/
======
SilkRoadie
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 UK wanted to extradite a person from
a foreign country after letting Assange walk. Would their position be
weakened?

It is a bad situation but it seems like Assange would rather wither and rot
stuck in an embassy rather than deal with the charges against him. The reason
he will not come out is because he is locked in a prison of his own paranoia.

It is certainly money wasted but it seems that due to the chain of events it
is money which has to be wasted.

~~~
vdaniuk
>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/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elm_Guest_House_child_abuse_sc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elm_Guest_House_child_abuse_scandal)

~~~
wmil
Not even remotely the same thing. Those are cases of the police failing to
investigate and file charges.

The Assange case is about the enforcement of valid judicial warrants. The
police don't have the same discretion.

~~~
vdaniuk
Your thinking is double-plus good, citizen.

While we are on the topic of crimes involving sexuality, "... of the nine
undercover police identified by the Guardian over the past two years, eight
are believed to have slept with the people they were spying on. In other
words, it was the norm."[0]

Now, pick up that can.

[0][http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/17/spies-sexual-
relat...](http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/17/spies-sexual-relations-
activists-routine)

------
oneeyedpigeon
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.

~~~
alex_hitchins
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?

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
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-...](https://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-doesn-t-sweden-interview-
assange-in-london)

~~~
Jedd
Interesting insight, thank you.

I wonder what the _material_ difference is for Sweden between continuing to
not question him, and to question him on site at the embassy is, given the end
result would seem to be identical (viz. they don't get to formally charge him
and force him to face trial within Sweden in either scenario).

------
yummybear
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?

~~~
rhblake
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.

~~~
alextgordon
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?

~~~
rhblake
Well, you could ask roughly half of the world's sovereign states the same
question.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_extradition_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_extradition_treaties_countries.PNG)

~~~
alextgordon
I would be happy to. "Because everybody else is doing it", is not exactly the
most convincing of arguments.

------
PJDK
Every time this comes up a lot of people question whether Britain is making a
special case out of Assange. But the European arrest warrant system has been
around for a while, and been criticised for the burden it places on the police
when dealing with minor crimes.

There was a fuss sometime ago about Poles being extradited for chicken theft
and the like.
[http://www.economist.com/node/15179470](http://www.economist.com/node/15179470)

------
jamespo
Good to see the linked John Pilger piece repeats the disingenuous "not
charged" claim

~~~
sago
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.

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
"5 years, for another £30m"

Why is the cost suddenly going to treble?

~~~
sago
Because my math sucks. Sorry. Edited.

------
k-mcgrady
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?

~~~
alex_hitchins
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.

~~~
madaxe_again
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.

~~~
alex_hitchins
> (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.

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

~~~
DanBC
For a criminal prosecution to be successful the prosecutor needs to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did it.

But to bring a prosecution the English prosecutors use a "balance of
probabilities" test. As a random member of the public I want to know that the
evidence they have is at least balance of probabilities before they bring a
prosecution. The higher burden of proof is for the people at court to test.
It's not for me to test the evidence against that higher burden of proof.

------
rmc
He's not being held. He has choosen to not face legal cases against, and is in
hiding.

------
youngtaff
Assange is there of his own free will as he chose to go there rather than be
extradited to Sweden.

He chose to go through the legal process in the UK while it suited him and
then when it didn't suit him he decided to seek asylum.

I hope the UK Gov sends him the bill for wasting my tax money

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

~~~
rmc
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.

~~~
madaxe_again
Oh, I'm in favour of him having a fair trial for the crimes of which he's been
accused. I'm not in favour of a wham bam thank you ma'am extradition and media
pillory.

~~~
sago
Personally I'm in favour of him being extradited and charged under normal UK
and Swedish law and treaties.

I'm not in favour of the scale of the operation to enforce that, which I think
is primarily a function of the accused's political status.

------
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.

<admin@govwaste.co.uk>: host mx1.privateemail.com[192.64.116.221] said: 554
5.7.1 <admin@govwaste.co.uk>: Relay access denied (in reply to RCPT TO
command)

Very shoddy impression.

------
alex_hitchins
There must be far greater waste going on that is more irksome/disgraceful than
this.

It's almost as if there was some sort of agenda behind it...

------
singularity2001
So how much money do the US+UK spend on propaganda against Assange? Honest
question. Are there any estimates on the order of magnitude?

~~~
PlzSnow
My guess would be £0. Why would they need to? A very sizeable part of the
population think he's a creepy nerd who's hiding from sexual assault
allegations. The later is true, the former subjective.

------
Tomte
I'd laugh my ass off if Assange came out of the embassy eventually, was
extradited to Sweden, and after a short interview they'd let him go.

------
unfamiliar
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.

~~~
ra
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](https://www.google.com.au/search?q=uk+population)

~~~
matthewmacleod
That's not a reasonable argument, though. You can't generalise police spending
over the population because criminals make up a relatively small proportion.

Is it a disproportionate response then to spend £10m on one guy? The fact that
he's not been tried yet is irrelevant – there's a warrant for his arrest, and
for a pretty serious crime. I struggle to see what the alternative would be.

~~~
ra
Relatively small, yes. But I'd guess somewhere between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000
people are criminal?

1 in 185,000? That's not criminal it's targeted.

~~~
matthewmacleod
_1 in 185,000? That 's not criminal it's targeted._

Like I said, it doesn't work like that. We don't decide in advance how to
apportion resources on the basis of how many people are likely to commit a
crime this year, do we?

No, of course it's targeted. There's a warrant out for Assange; he went into
hiding. We know where he is, but for diplomatic reasons we can't arrest him.
This is a very unusual situation.

------
gaius
Send the bill to Ecuador, or slap a duty on imports. Job done.

~~~
GunlogAlm
Assange is well within his rights to apply for asylum, and Ecuador is well
within its rights to accept his application. Assange is inside the embassy
legally. It's the UK who are choosing to monitor the embassy with police
officers (rightly so IMO, mind), not Ecuador.

