11 ms·

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

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.

sago 12y ago
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 affordably apprehended, then that is reasonable. The problem is that this spending is on policing theatre, aimed at making clear (primarily to the US) that the UK takes Assange seriously as a threat to security. This kind of performance wouldn't be put on, at this expense, if a random alleged-rapist took shelter in an embassy. The police would leave them to it, and act when they had intelligence that they'd slipped out.
- oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
  What evidence do you have that car and property crime aren't investigated, and in which country are you talking about?
  - sago 12y ago
    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 more severe than quotidian offences. But typically the crime number allows you to make your insurance claim, it gets logged in the police crime database, and that's all that happens. My evidence is the experience of myself, friends and family.
    - gutnor 12y ago
      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.
      - sago 12y ago
        Yes, as I understand it, police authorities allocate resources for categories of crime based on national and local policing priorities. If your low-priority crime (like criminal damage) can somehow be placed in a higher priority category (like hate-crime), the police will find it much easier to allocate resources to it, and you will see a more spirited investigation. My original point was merely to say that there are such things as low-priorities for which the police don't put much effort, and by doing so they set a precedence for what crimes one could reasonably expect to get away with.
  - alex_hitchins 12y ago
    I can say from my experience that in the UK property and car crime is seldom investigated. Police just issue a crime number for insurance.
    - oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
      And I can counter it by saying that, in the UK, I'm aware of cases in which property theft has been followed up by an investigation in which the perpetrators were caught. The original comment insinuated that we're living in some kind of free-for-all anarchy where you can get away with petty theft without any consequences, which is certainly not the case. (You can get away with non-petty theft without any consequences, but that's a whole other issue ...)
      - sago 12y ago
        If the original comment refers to me, then that wasn't my intent to insinuate that at all. The published data shows that only a tiny minority of petty crimes end in conviction, however. In my experience (5 times, including family and close friends), the police chose not to send an officer to the scene. I'm sure some petty crimes get solved, and some serious crimes don't. But if you thought I was making either point, may I respectfully suggest you reread my comment.
        oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
        Fair enough, the investigation rate is obviously at neither extreme, and I'd still argue that "reasonably expect to get away with" is pretty loaded, but if you mean there's a greater > 50% chance then, sure, I can believe that!
        sago 12y ago
        According to the official Ministry of Justice figures, there were 745,000 reported burglaries in the UK in 2013 (last figures I could find), and there were 26,300 convictions for burglary. Although the rates fluctuate, they don't change by orders of magnitude, so a steady state assumption isn't accurate, but is near enough for ballpark figures. So on that basis, the likelihood is > 95% that you'll get away with it. And note that those statistics are for all burglary, including aggravated burglary. I can't tell from the data, but I'd suggest it is reasonable to assume that petty burglary has a lower conviction rate still.
  - disputin 12y ago
    From the article: UK police watchdog: burglary and car crime "on verge of being decriminalised."
  - barrkel 12y ago
    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.
    - matthewmacleod 12y ago
      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?
      - bro-kaizen 12y ago
        Something tells me that if it were the chief of Police's motorcycle stolen, the bobbies might be a bit more energetic in recovering it. Probably what the GP expects is some subset of what they would do for the chief.
      - chrisseaton 12y ago
        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?
      - honeybooboo123 12y ago
        We'd expect the police to do their best to catch the filthy criminals, just like in the movies!
  - robmccoll 12y ago
    Same thing happens in the US. Called in a smash and grab on my car and was told that it happens all the time and that they don't come out or even take a report over the phone unless something was left in the car (rock or brick or tool used to smash the windows). Go fill out a form on the website. The crimes are on their radar, but investigating them individually would be hopeless.
- gadders 12y ago
  Minor car and property crime may not be investigated, but rape and sexual assault are taken seriously.
  - sago 12y ago
    I've no idea what impact you think that makes on my point. Rape may be 'taken seriously' incidentally (though actually you probably mean certain stereotypes of rape), but its conviction rate is still so low that, unfortunately, a rapist in the UK has a very high probability of getting away with their crime. The police certainly have improved in the professionalism with which they address rape, but rape prevention and womens charities in the UK still maintain that insufficient resources and effort is put into prosecuting rape cases to a conviction.
    - gadders 12y ago
      The conviction rate for rape is 58%, higher than that for other crimes at 57%, so rapists have less chance of getting away with their crime. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7442785/Rape-conviction-rate-figures-misleading.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7442785/Rape-co...
      - sago 12y ago
        My apologies, I thought the context of discussing whether someone would get away with a crime they had committed or not (in the context of a conversation about whether crimes are even investigated) would make it clear I wasn't talking about conviction rate at trial. You're right, if a rape case gets to court, the conviction rate is high. Using "conviction rate" in my comment was unnecessarily ambiguous, I apologise. But I wasn't referring to conviction rate at trial. As you point out, conviction rate at trial is roughly the same over a broad range of offences. Which is mostly a consequence of the British system of Crown Prosecution. It bears little relationship to the ratio of reported crimes to convictions, nor the likelihood of a particular criminal getting away with an offence. Elsewhere I show Ministry of Justice figures for this broader sense of 'conviction rate' for burglary, which is under 5%. Your last clause does not follow from the statistics you cite, obviously. And you still haven't addressed the issue of what impact your contention has on the point you responded to originally.
- wmil 12y ago
  > This kind of performance wouldn't be put on, at this expense, if a random alleged-rapist took shelter in an embassy. The police would leave them to it, and act when they had intelligence that they'd slipped out. An embassy would never shelter a non-citizen unless the case was politically sensitive. Sheltering someone free on bail is particularly insulting to the UK's judicial system. The UK would never just leave them to it and accept that kind of insult.
vdaniuk 12y ago
>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_exploitation_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploit... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elm_Guest_House_child_abuse_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elm_Guest_House_child_abuse_sc...
- atmosx 12y ago
  Because the UK government is acting as proxy for the USA government! (As if you didn't know that already :-P )
- TranceMan 12y ago
  [OT] Corruption and blackmail.
- wmil 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    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-relations-activists-routine http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/17/spies-sexual-relat...
icebraining 12y ago
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).
- busterarm 12y ago
  That show is classic. The Thick of It is another favorite.
Jedd 12y ago
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). UK's position to extradite a person from another country into Sweden would not be weakened by any actions in this particular case. There's no precedent for that kind of prevarication. Finally, you seem to imply that Assange would rather metaphorically 'wither and rot' (asserting facts not in evidence) in an embassy, rather than wither and rot (almost definitely guaranteed to be in the near-literal interpretation in a much more restrictive US-funded establishment), with the rather ambiguous phrase of 'deal with charges against him'. The charges, which haven't technically been made by the Swedes, and, on the face of it, are a smidge dubious, aren't what he's avoiding - it's the non-made charges that would occur once Sweden shipped him off to NOT 'deal with the charges against him' likely to be levelled by the US. Do you think Snowden, Manning, et al are 'paranoid' (quotes to reflect implied inappropriate concern for self-wellbeing).
- PlzSnow 12y ago
  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?
  - Jedd 12y ago
    > Assange is wanted for questioning on allegations of sexual assault. These questions can evidently not be asked within the embassy. (Ignoring the various, and I concede very loaded, discussions around the validity of the allegations.) > Assange is a powerful and connected person, with strong support from a considerable percentage of the population. Substitute 'American intelligence agencies' for 'Assange' in that sentence, and perhaps stick a 'tacit' in front of the word support, while you're at it. To be clear, my point here is that Assange is nowhere near as powerful as any or all of the Swedish, UK, or US governments (or any of their agencies). However, world+dog understands that it's a bit more complicated than 'come and talk to us in our country about these dubious claims, oh and we can't guarantee that we haven't already arranged for you to be flown into Central America to not face charges for the rest of your life'. > I am glad that that does not affect the legal process, and I would never want to live in a society where it did. I am genuinely concerned about your understanding of the society/ies that you believe you're living in now.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
belorn 12y ago
Are we saying here that having a cap on 10,000,000£ for on-going spending in criminal cases that carries a maximum of 4 years in prison, would result in an unwanted precedence? I would be happy to read a historical list of such cases. It would not surprise me if the case of Julian Assange is the single most expensive criminal case ever conducted where the maximum punishment is 4 years or less. Instead of asking how many teachers could get paid from that, maybe we should ask how many criminals got away scotch free because there was no money left to investigate. How many violent rapes (i.e. not those of lesser degree) has been overlooked because a lack of funds? Police funding, which this 10,000,000£ is drawn from, has a real impact on peoples lives. Any unwanted precedence should be balanced to that cost, and those in charge should be ready to defend how they chose to spend it.
- foldr 12y ago
  >precedence precedent > scotch free scot free
ahallock 12y ago
Governments have the means to escalate situations to Moby Dick levels of megalomania, especially when it's other people's money funding it. Until we have the power to withdraw funding from crap like this -- much more powerful than voting -- the insanity will continue.

sago 12y ago

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 affordably apprehended, then that is reasonable. The problem is that this spending is on policing theatre, aimed at making clear (primarily to the US) that the UK takes Assange seriously as a threat to security. This kind of performance wouldn't be put on, at this expense, if a random alleged-rapist took shelter in an embassy. The police would leave them to it, and act when they had intelligence that they'd slipped out.

oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
What evidence do you have that car and property crime aren't investigated, and in which country are you talking about?
- sago 12y ago
  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 more severe than quotidian offences. But typically the crime number allows you to make your insurance claim, it gets logged in the police crime database, and that's all that happens. My evidence is the experience of myself, friends and family.
  - gutnor 12y ago
    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.
    - sago 12y ago
      Yes, as I understand it, police authorities allocate resources for categories of crime based on national and local policing priorities. If your low-priority crime (like criminal damage) can somehow be placed in a higher priority category (like hate-crime), the police will find it much easier to allocate resources to it, and you will see a more spirited investigation. My original point was merely to say that there are such things as low-priorities for which the police don't put much effort, and by doing so they set a precedence for what crimes one could reasonably expect to get away with.
- alex_hitchins 12y ago
  I can say from my experience that in the UK property and car crime is seldom investigated. Police just issue a crime number for insurance.
  - oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
    And I can counter it by saying that, in the UK, I'm aware of cases in which property theft has been followed up by an investigation in which the perpetrators were caught. The original comment insinuated that we're living in some kind of free-for-all anarchy where you can get away with petty theft without any consequences, which is certainly not the case. (You can get away with non-petty theft without any consequences, but that's a whole other issue ...)
    - sago 12y ago
      If the original comment refers to me, then that wasn't my intent to insinuate that at all. The published data shows that only a tiny minority of petty crimes end in conviction, however. In my experience (5 times, including family and close friends), the police chose not to send an officer to the scene. I'm sure some petty crimes get solved, and some serious crimes don't. But if you thought I was making either point, may I respectfully suggest you reread my comment.
      - oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
        Fair enough, the investigation rate is obviously at neither extreme, and I'd still argue that "reasonably expect to get away with" is pretty loaded, but if you mean there's a greater > 50% chance then, sure, I can believe that!
        sago 12y ago
        According to the official Ministry of Justice figures, there were 745,000 reported burglaries in the UK in 2013 (last figures I could find), and there were 26,300 convictions for burglary. Although the rates fluctuate, they don't change by orders of magnitude, so a steady state assumption isn't accurate, but is near enough for ballpark figures. So on that basis, the likelihood is > 95% that you'll get away with it. And note that those statistics are for all burglary, including aggravated burglary. I can't tell from the data, but I'd suggest it is reasonable to assume that petty burglary has a lower conviction rate still.
- disputin 12y ago
  From the article: UK police watchdog: burglary and car crime "on verge of being decriminalised."
- barrkel 12y ago
  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.
  - matthewmacleod 12y ago
    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?
    - bro-kaizen 12y ago
      Something tells me that if it were the chief of Police's motorcycle stolen, the bobbies might be a bit more energetic in recovering it. Probably what the GP expects is some subset of what they would do for the chief.
    - chrisseaton 12y ago
      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?
    - honeybooboo123 12y ago
      We'd expect the police to do their best to catch the filthy criminals, just like in the movies!
- robmccoll 12y ago
  Same thing happens in the US. Called in a smash and grab on my car and was told that it happens all the time and that they don't come out or even take a report over the phone unless something was left in the car (rock or brick or tool used to smash the windows). Go fill out a form on the website. The crimes are on their radar, but investigating them individually would be hopeless.
gadders 12y ago
Minor car and property crime may not be investigated, but rape and sexual assault are taken seriously.
- sago 12y ago
  I've no idea what impact you think that makes on my point. Rape may be 'taken seriously' incidentally (though actually you probably mean certain stereotypes of rape), but its conviction rate is still so low that, unfortunately, a rapist in the UK has a very high probability of getting away with their crime. The police certainly have improved in the professionalism with which they address rape, but rape prevention and womens charities in the UK still maintain that insufficient resources and effort is put into prosecuting rape cases to a conviction.
  - gadders 12y ago
    The conviction rate for rape is 58%, higher than that for other crimes at 57%, so rapists have less chance of getting away with their crime. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7442785/Rape-conviction-rate-figures-misleading.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7442785/Rape-co...
    - sago 12y ago
      My apologies, I thought the context of discussing whether someone would get away with a crime they had committed or not (in the context of a conversation about whether crimes are even investigated) would make it clear I wasn't talking about conviction rate at trial. You're right, if a rape case gets to court, the conviction rate is high. Using "conviction rate" in my comment was unnecessarily ambiguous, I apologise. But I wasn't referring to conviction rate at trial. As you point out, conviction rate at trial is roughly the same over a broad range of offences. Which is mostly a consequence of the British system of Crown Prosecution. It bears little relationship to the ratio of reported crimes to convictions, nor the likelihood of a particular criminal getting away with an offence. Elsewhere I show Ministry of Justice figures for this broader sense of 'conviction rate' for burglary, which is under 5%. Your last clause does not follow from the statistics you cite, obviously. And you still haven't addressed the issue of what impact your contention has on the point you responded to originally.
wmil 12y ago
> This kind of performance wouldn't be put on, at this expense, if a random alleged-rapist took shelter in an embassy. The police would leave them to it, and act when they had intelligence that they'd slipped out. An embassy would never shelter a non-citizen unless the case was politically sensitive. Sheltering someone free on bail is particularly insulting to the UK's judicial system. The UK would never just leave them to it and accept that kind of insult.

vdaniuk 12y ago

>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_exploitation_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploit... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elm_Guest_House_child_abuse_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elm_Guest_House_child_abuse_sc...

atmosx 12y ago
Because the UK government is acting as proxy for the USA government! (As if you didn't know that already :-P )
TranceMan 12y ago
[OT] Corruption and blackmail.
wmil 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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-relations-activists-routine http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/17/spies-sexual-relat...

icebraining 12y ago

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).

busterarm 12y ago
That show is classic. The Thick of It is another favorite.

Jedd 12y ago

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). UK's position to extradite a person from another country into Sweden would not be weakened by any actions in this particular case. There's no precedent for that kind of prevarication. Finally, you seem to imply that Assange would rather metaphorically 'wither and rot' (asserting facts not in evidence) in an embassy, rather than wither and rot (almost definitely guaranteed to be in the near-literal interpretation in a much more restrictive US-funded establishment), with the rather ambiguous phrase of 'deal with charges against him'. The charges, which haven't technically been made by the Swedes, and, on the face of it, are a smidge dubious, aren't what he's avoiding - it's the non-made charges that would occur once Sweden shipped him off to NOT 'deal with the charges against him' likely to be levelled by the US. Do you think Snowden, Manning, et al are 'paranoid' (quotes to reflect implied inappropriate concern for self-wellbeing).

PlzSnow 12y ago
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?
- Jedd 12y ago
  > Assange is wanted for questioning on allegations of sexual assault. These questions can evidently not be asked within the embassy. (Ignoring the various, and I concede very loaded, discussions around the validity of the allegations.) > Assange is a powerful and connected person, with strong support from a considerable percentage of the population. Substitute 'American intelligence agencies' for 'Assange' in that sentence, and perhaps stick a 'tacit' in front of the word support, while you're at it. To be clear, my point here is that Assange is nowhere near as powerful as any or all of the Swedish, UK, or US governments (or any of their agencies). However, world+dog understands that it's a bit more complicated than 'come and talk to us in our country about these dubious claims, oh and we can't guarantee that we haven't already arranged for you to be flown into Central America to not face charges for the rest of your life'. > I am glad that that does not affect the legal process, and I would never want to live in a society where it did. I am genuinely concerned about your understanding of the society/ies that you believe you're living in now.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

belorn 12y ago

Are we saying here that having a cap on 10,000,000£ for on-going spending in criminal cases that carries a maximum of 4 years in prison, would result in an unwanted precedence? I would be happy to read a historical list of such cases. It would not surprise me if the case of Julian Assange is the single most expensive criminal case ever conducted where the maximum punishment is 4 years or less. Instead of asking how many teachers could get paid from that, maybe we should ask how many criminals got away scotch free because there was no money left to investigate. How many violent rapes (i.e. not those of lesser degree) has been overlooked because a lack of funds? Police funding, which this 10,000,000£ is drawn from, has a real impact on peoples lives. Any unwanted precedence should be balanced to that cost, and those in charge should be ready to defend how they chose to spend it.

foldr 12y ago
>precedence precedent > scotch free scot free

ahallock 12y ago

Governments have the means to escalate situations to Moby Dick levels of megalomania, especially when it's other people's money funding it. Until we have the power to withdraw funding from crap like this -- much more powerful than voting -- the insanity will continue.