Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

British Police Stop 24/7 Monitoring of Julian Assange At Ecuadorian Embassy (ibtimes.co.uk)

Posted by samzenpus on from the stop-watching dept.

Ewan Palmer writes with news that police are no longer guarding the Ecuadorian Embassy where Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been taking refuge for the past three years. According to IBTImes: "London police has announced it will remove the dedicated officers who have guarded the Ecuadorian Embassy 24 hours a day, seven days a week while WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange seeks asylum inside. The 44-year-old has been holed up inside the building since 2012 in a bid to avoid being extradited to Sweden to face sexual assault charges. He believes that once he is in Sweden, he will be extradited again to the US where he could face espionage charges following the leaking of thousands of classified documents on his WikiLeaks website. Police has now decided to withdraw the physical presence of officers from outside the embassy as it is 'no longer proportionate to commit officers to a permanent presence'. It is estimated the cost of deploying the officers outside the Embassy in London all day for the past three years has cost the British taxpayer more than $18m."

23 of 336 comments (clear)

  1. It's a TRAP! by Derekloffin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Come on now, we all know they just replaced them with under cover officers...

    1. Re:It's a TRAP! by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This hypothesis needs to be tested using an Assange look-alike.

    2. Re:It's a TRAP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Personally, I don't think the Swedish police would just hand him over to the Americans - the Scandinavian countries have demonstrated several times in the past that they don't simply roll over when the States tell them to.

      Scandinavian here (Denmark)... I think you put way too much trust in our governments. Maybe Norway is still willing to stand up for themselves (they can afford it), but Denmark and Sweden tends to roll over when the US says so. Examples: Both Denmark and Sweden are EU members, and thus fall under the EU privacy directive. Yet, both countries are actively supplying information to the US. Or take the pirate bay. The founders got convicted, even though until the case, none of the lawyers sending DMCA notices to the pirate bay could come up with a Swedish law they were breaking. Not even the one Swedish university complaining about pirated books could find such a law. Yet, they all got convicted, including they guy whose only job function was speech (as in "freedom of") - the spokesperson for TPB.

    3. Re:It's a TRAP! by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh Please! Sweden showed it was nothing but the USA's bitch when the Ecuadorian diplomat made it clear that all they had to do was agree they wouldn't ship him to the USA and they promptly REFUSED.

      Do you REALLY believe they went to all this trouble for a rape charge where the "victim" not only didn't call the cops while he was sound asleep in the bed, but instead actually went out, bought groceries, and then made him breakfast, really? If you but that horseshit I have a bridge you might be interested in.

      We all know that if Assange tried to go back to Sweden he'd never get to touch Swedish ground, they would divert the plane in the air to the USA where he would get stuck in Gitmo as an "example" of what happens when you dare to not bow down. they even have a name for this, its called a "rendition ride", look it up.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. Gift Horse by RDW · · Score: 5, Funny

    And as a gesture of goodwill, they've also left him a large wooden horse with a bow tied around it outside the embassy.

    1. Re: Gift Horse by Dereck1701 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah, the US government has never done anything crazy like abducting someone off the the streets, flying them to a foreign country black site for a little torture, and them realizing "oops, we grabbed the wrong guy" so lets dump him in the countryside another foreign country, oh wait.................

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  3. Yeah, makes perfect sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Spending $18m to monitor him was surely appropriate when he was wanted for "questioning in a sexual assault case", when anyone that wanted to interview him could visit him in the embassy.

    1. Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, it does. The charges kept changing to make them worse, but the version of the charges I read (translated, of course) indicated that it was rape because the woman withdrew her consent after the act. Such a chance of mind wouldn't be rape in the US. He lied to her to get her in bed, that sexual fraud is "rape" in Sweden, but not in most places. Some of the press releases by the police made the charges sound worse, which is why I read the charges themselves in their entirety (translated of course).

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    2. Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Informative

      He was done in by the prosecutor who is free to file charges even if the victim fails to press charges (same as in the US, for any crime) http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09... for an example where the "victim" objected to the prosecution of her sisters for plucking out her eyes.

      You are wrong about this being the law on university campuses. Nowhere in the US is a woman allowed to give consent before sex, then revoke consent after, and have the sex then be treated as rape. Go on, name one place where that's the case (in law, not just according to the statements of the defendant). If you can't, then you are a MRA lying and whining to slander SJW because you hate women, not because you are actually upset over the laws.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    3. Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wonder who decided at which point things went from "appropriate" to "inappropriate"? Is there a government guidebook that says that spending up to $17M monitoring someone who's charged with having a quick shag in Sweden is appropriate, but once the bill reaches $18M it's getting a bit out of hand?

      Just to put this into perspective, the cost of this little adventure would have put nearly two hundred extra police on the streets over the period in which it ran. So watching one attention-seeking Australian in an embassy potentially took two hundred policemen off the streets catching actual criminals.

    4. Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why does every piece of crap the government does always cost millions? What's the salary of a police officer? Lets be generous and for easy calculation say 100k in London. Say you have three police officers involved (2 in a car, monitoring, one in the office) working 8 hour shifts, so you need three shifts, meaning 9 police officers, lets make that 10.

      10 police officers for 100k a year is a million bucks. How does it cost EIGHTEEN times as much? Give another million for the cars and surveillance equipment, office work, whatever. How are the other 16 million justified?

  4. maths seem off by rmdingler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is estimated the cost of deploying the officers outside the Embassy in London all day for the past three years has cost the British taxpayer more than $18m.

    So dollars, then? Six million a year for 24 hour surveillance. 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

    $684.93 per hour. Thank you Wolfram Alpha. This has the smell of one of those 1000 kilo drug busts that calculates the value of the seizure by multiplying by the gram price.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:maths seem off by lucm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is small potatoes. That government spent $15 BILLIONS on a patient records system for the national health services before giving up. That's 7x more than the wonderful healthcare.gov website (which at least is "working").

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    2. Re:maths seem off by gweihir · · Score: 5, Informative

      And to add insult to injury, apparently nobody is responsible for that massive fuckup. It is just stealing from the taxpayer, no crime in that.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  5. 18 million for someone that was NEVER Charged?! by BrookHarty · · Score: 4, Insightful

    18 million for someone that was NEVER Charged?!

    Yup, no political motivation, move along citizen.

    1. Re:18 million for someone that was NEVER Charged?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, he has not been charged.

    2. Re:18 million for someone that was NEVER Charged?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're a liar. Assange has repeatedly offered to be interviewed at the Equadorian embassy. Swedish officials have interviewed people abroad in similar circumstances numerous times in the past. Those officials are every bit as dishonest and dishonorable as you are in this case. Read this. -PCP

    3. Re:18 million for someone that was NEVER Charged?! by careysub · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's not how things work here. The police typically interview you before charges are file. Assange has refused the interview.

      No he hasn't. The Swedes are refusing to interview him in the Embassy. Now, why would that be? Think, think...

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    4. Re:18 million for someone that was NEVER Charged?! by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      He refused the interview by having it, being cleared, leaving, then being re-charged for what he was already charged and dismissed for. Double jeopardy at its finest, though that's OK in most places.

      The delay in the charges was sufficient to indicate US interference in the case.

      Sweden has remotely interviewed others in similar circumstances, yet refuses to do so here? Why?

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
  6. Re:He hasn't been charged by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Informative

    There have been other cases of people interviewed remotely. It seems unusual that Sweden would not follow their regular procedure with him.Sweden has previously tried others in absentia. By international law, he has been "charged" with the crime (by the nature of the Interpol Warrant for Arrest Sweden has issued).

    By US standards, he was charged, then dismissed of the crime, and is now being tried a second time for the same crime. Almost nowhere else in the world has the strict double jeopardy laws the US has, but if we apply US standards, the charges and process are invalid many times over for many different reasons.

    --
    Learn to love Alaska
  7. Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by quenda · · Score: 5, Informative

    Assuming they even bother with the formality of extradition.

    Remember, Sweden (like other European countries) has a record of just handing over foreign suspects to the CIA for torture.

    The police took them to Bromma airport in Stockholm, and then stood aside as masked alleged CIA operatives cut their clothes from their bodies, inserted drugged suppositories in their anuses, and dressed them in diapers and overalls, handcuffed and chained them and put them on an executive jet with American registration N379P.

    I don't think any extradition lawyers were present.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  8. Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Compare the extradition treaties between the UK & the US & between Sweden & the US.

    OK. Sweden has just handed us people without proper process before. Has the UK?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  9. Re:Snowden will never leave Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Much like Kim Philby and others"

    Oh well done, slipped that in nicely.

    Snowden's a fooking hero, revealing massive law breaking and an out of control UStasi that threatens the very basis of the democracy. Every US candidate has a file on them in Alexanders database, because a fooking General decided that he was bigger than his country and it leaders.

    He shouldn't have to learn Russian, he should simply retire in the US protected by whistleblower legislation. Because he isn't, we know the US isn't free from military control and those Presidential leaders are more puppets than leaders.