According to Google the average salary of a police man in England is £30,000 and they work about 40 hours per week. So it should cost £126,000 station one person for 24/7. Now I understand that real costs will be higher for various reasons, but 100x?
It's pretty easy to find reasonable multiples on your assumptions. It's London and they might not be average policemen: salary x2 ; Overtime/nighttime: x2, Administrative overhead (they must spend time reporting, at the precinct, ...): x2 ; Multiple policemen (1 would not be enough to act): x3-x5 ; Management of those officers & briefings: x2-x3 ; That's already ~x100 and it's human costs only.
I don't believe most of these numbers. I'll be back later with a spreadsheet
Why am I being downvoted? Seriously, this math calculates to me differently in my head - so I am going to put a spreadsheet together to see if these costs are real.
Ill assume the avg salary stated above, plus the hours and schedules.
I can't believe that some beat officer is going to inflate costs 2x for doing reporting. I HIGHLY doubt there is that much paperwork for a simple shift change.
Further, the "cost" could be highly falsely inflated to justify the stopping of guarding Assange as they may see it a waste - and want to inflate how much waste there is so as to get easy agreement that "its not worth it"
They're probably not "Beat" cops, there are highly paid special branch and detectives too. Lets say on £80k each. There's all the intelligence activities that go into this. As somebody else mentioned overtime, other costs such as surveillance equipment, maintaining a situation room, heating, and food, helicopters, public relations christ the costs go on and on ...
Heh, Yeah I didnt really mean "beat" officers, per se... but I am refering to officers that are simply guarding an already guarded building for political reasons...
I hadn't thought of the officers as being some elite force -- though I have no idea if they are, although assuming they may be lowly "beat"-like types is not a good assumption. :-)
Look at the attached picture. I count EIGHT officers in that picture alone. Add to that the multipliers previously posted and you can rapidly approach that kind of cost.
I'm not sure why 8 officers would be required to keep an eye on one door for one person, but that's a tangential question...
I don't think that Sweden will storm a foreign embassy in a foreign country non the least, and if the US wanted him that bad they would've gotten him already.
The guard most likely wasn't to keep him safe, but to keep him in the embassy at all time, this is the same kind of guard that a US diplomat would've gotten while visiting the USSR and probably still gets when they visit Russia and vice versa.
I think we have different definitions of what "badly" means when we are talking about the full might of the United States, if they wanted him badly Cathryn would've been making zero-dark-frothy by now.
Also the rape charges pre-date most of the embarrassing leaks on Wikileaks, not to mention that a trial in Sweden of all countries is not the place you threaten some one with, and the US-Swedish extradition treaty makes it unlikely for that to ever happen.
And most importantly he's been held up in the Ecuadorian embassy not the Russian one, Ecuador is the 4th largest receiver of US Economic and Military aid in South America the US also provides loan guarantees for most of Ecuadors loans including the recent 10bln USD loan from China which was secured through the IIC which is a US body.
There wasn't any need to guard the Ecuadorian embassy, now or then. He couldn't have travelled out of the country without being arrested at the port or airport, and could have been picked up easily if he'd stayed at a house or hotel anywhere inside the UK.
People who are far less well known are routinely arrested by the police for failure to turn up in court. There was no need for this expensive 24 hour guard.
I think they fear that he has well-connected and organized supporters, something most other people fleeing don't have. And he has the benefit of time: he doesn't have to move until everything is perfect, because there is no way of catching up to him where is right now.
If you don't know when your target is going to move, how do you stop him from leaving UK waters before you even realize he isn't there anymore? Monitor every single boat moving on the Thames, 24/7? Search every ship leaving your jurisdiction?
Getting out probably isn't easy, but I would be surprised if there weren't quite a few people/organizations capable of doing it.
From the point-of-view of the Metropolitan Police, he's wanted for two things: extradition for a criminal prosecution under a EAW (to Sweden), and for arrest under Section 7 of the Bail Act (for failing to surrender himself to the police as required by the conditions of bail).
You also used the clause, "if someone raped you", stated as if it were a fact and not an allegation. Or, at least, that's how it reads to me.
If you posed the question, "How much would you want society to spend if someone raped you?" it would have carried a different connotation. But by asking "whats the limit on how much society should spend..." implies society knows for a fact that you were raped by someone.
Sorry if it's not the meaning you intended, but you made it sound like we should all believe Assange is guilty. I don't believe that's a reasonable conclusion.
> Oh please, you absolutely understood what he really meant and are arguing over the wrong usage of words rather than the point he was making.
First, I'm not entirely sure this person is a he. In the absence of an indicator of which gender a person is, I typically don't assume.
"Oh please, you absolutely understood" is not a justifiable statement here. What knowledge do you possess of what I do or do not understand?
And I'm not being pedantic here: I actually though that 'polack was trying to weasel in the suggestion that Assange is guilty without proving beyond a shadow of a doubt (which no Internet commentor really should be able to, barring a huge evidence mis-handling by the Swedish investigators).
The masculine form is traditionally used as the unmarked form when the gender is not known, it is not assuming any gender. And again, arguing over that while it is not even anywhere near the point we're discussing makes no sense. Although we lately have seen the emergence of gender neutral pronoun, it is rather unpleasing to use "he/she" is an informal discussion forum when the unmarked form meaning is well understood and has been for centuries.
As for the rest, what was meant higher up was that from the justice point of view at this stage of a case, whether the rape happened or not is not known nor required to make the decision, a complaint has been made and it is the job of the state offices (both police and justice) to ensure the case can go through unimpeded.
As such, the question asked clearly meant "if you make an accusation of rape against you, how much should the state be willing to pay to see the case go through if the person you accuse makes it difficult / what is the maximal amount after which they should stop".
Now, maybe english is not your first language, because this was sincerely very clear and evident that this is what was meant in the message.
Whether the person was really raped or whether that person makes it up does not change that amount, since the state does not know at that point and the amount is spent in order to see the case go through to figure it out.
> Although we lately have seen the emergence of gender neutral pronoun, it is rather unpleasing to use "he/she" is an informal discussion forum when the unmarked form meaning is well understood and has been for centuries.
Singular "they" works wonders.
> Now, maybe english is not your first language
Only non-programming language, actually.
> because this was sincerely very clear and evident that this is what was meant in the message.
I disagree, and that was the entirety of my point here.
I'm not sure if you are being facetious, but that's actually exactly the right question to ask. Not only would it be great to explicitly know the exact number, but that number should be the same no matter who the victim (or perpetrator) is.
I think you and I agree. I'm saying the opposite of "hedge fund managers get special treatment":
> that number should be the same no matter who the victim (or perpetrator) is.
Meaning: if you are wealthy, law enforcement pays $20,000 to investigate and prosecute the person who raped you. If you are a hobo, law enforcement pays $20,000 to investigate and prosecute the person who raped you.
If you're being serious then I'll give you a serious answer.
Exempli gratia, let's pretend I was raped. I should be able to reify my victimhood and sell it to a lawyer, thereby transferring to that lawyer the right to extract compensation from the perpetrator.
Now there's a market for it and the price is whatever a lawyer is willing to pay. You will quickly see a market form around it. This was done in Medieval Iceland for longer than the United States has been a country, so mind your glass ceiling when criticizing this idea.
I really meant reify, as in "turn an abstract thing into a marketable thing". Monetize would mean something else.
> Is this really a workable view of criminality and justice?
It worked for 400 years in Medieval Iceland. If you are interested in debating this I'd like to hear from you why you think that what you say would happen if this was in place, in fact did not happen when this was in place.
I don't know about Sweden, but at least here in Portugal rape is what is called a "public crime", that is, there is no need for charges to be pressed for it to be prosecuted.
I'm curious. Is this that all that is needed to be prosecuted for a public crime such as this is for someone to accuse you? Whether they are connected to the alleged crime or not? Whether there is a victim or not? For that matter, how can one be prosecuted with no charges?
I think I may be misunderstanding the context of the terms.
Sorry, sometimes I fumble the terms in English. What I meant was that the State may (or may not) prosecute the case, regardless of the wishes of the victim.
I suppose it's the State who "presses charges" in this case, but I believed that term was only used for the victim(s).
Although I think that's an excellent example of a reason for the state to press charges, I think it's rather obvious that's a different matter. I would imagine one could argue that the victim in the case is potentially the state itself.
I'm thinking more along the lines that there is a clear cut victim of the alleged crime that refuses to file charges and the state does it in their stead. It would seem that the lack of charges from the alleged victim is the first defense of the accused, even the victim disagrees with the state.
Of course, if the victim claims the crime didn't happen, it obviously makes it harder to prove it did, and the prosecutor will take that into account when deciding if the case should be brought to trial.
But there are important reasons why one wouldn't press charges despite having suffered the crime; a few of the obvious ones include fear of retaliation, being unwilling to be in the presence of the perpetrator(s), lying to protect them, etc. And despite that refusal, there still may there be enough evidence to prove it happened.
Sure, if there is evidence beyond the victim then I can see the case moving forward. But I'm deliberately speaking of situations where often the only evidence is from the victim, which is often common with rape cases. Which is what started the whole thread and my initial question. It's just that I keep getting hypothetical cases outside that original context.
The statute of limitations ran out on three of the four charges. That is quite different than the charges being dropped. The fourth charge is still within the statute of limitations and will be for another 10 years.
Send the bill to Sweden then. It is their problem.
Edit: Can someone explain the downvote - the UK government spend 12M GBP to monitor a person that Sweden wanted. It is up to Sweden to decide if such prodigious waste of resources is warranted.
Depends on what the cost of not providing the police presence is. Is he worth more than £12m alive, when other countries may want him silenced (say by "wetwork")?
And by removing that police protection, perhaps they are trying to entice him to provide some £12m or more of information in light of the likelihood of that wetwork?
I find it interesting that MPS went and consulted the Foreign and Commonwealth Office before deciding how to balance their internal resources in a proportionate way.
There is nothing to gain for Ecuador by escalating the situation. Already they spent a lot of political capital and goodwill vs US/UK by hosting Assange in the face of overwhelming hostility, cracking practical jokes at the MET would only make things worse.
There is a lot of pen-testing fun to be had here. At the least you'll annoy them and amuse you, and at the best you cause them to expose the holes in their security capabilities.
I suppose there's the argument about how much the Ecuadorians are willing to risk annoying the UK — allowing him to stay is one thing, smuggling him out another.
A. Because he's wanted for arrest, and you can't arrest someone over Google Hangout / Skype / etc.
I had thought that one possible outcome of the interview with him would be a decision to not arrest him. If that's the case it seems they'd want to get the interview out of the way by any means, and then if the need to arrest him stands, deal with that then.
B. Because the Ecuadorian government required guarantees the Swedish government cannot provide (because it'd be overriding the judiciary).
Interesting, I don't remember that bit, but that sounds likely. Oh well... what can ya do? shrug
The view of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom was that the "interview" was, in practical terms, equivalent to arrest under English and Welsh law. From memory (though this was years ago!) a formal charge must be occur at the end of an interview. There's no distinction, in the view of the Supreme Court, between the interview and the arrest.
The argument that he's only wanted for interview was a large part of his defence prior to entering the embassy, and was entirely shot down by the courts.
Am I the only one who was reminded of the end of THX 1138 -- specifically when the droids stopped following due to exceeding budget -- while reading this article?
So who should get fired for such a waste of police resources?