4 ms·

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 on

by ra 12y ago

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 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    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.
- unfamiliar 12y ago
  >Is it a disproportionate response then to spend £10m on one guy? Yes I think it is. But that is not my point. There are much bigger wastes in the budget, yet here we are getting upset about the (relatively) small excess that is spent on Assange. People are complaining about the expense, when what they are really incredulous about is the fact that Assange is locked up.
corin_ 12y ago
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.
- ra 12y ago
  Yeah but 185,000 grandmothers? No one bombed anyone.
  - corin_ 12y ago
    Right. So like I said, I'm not arguing this use of money is a good one. Just that the reason it's bad isn't because it's disproportionate, it's just the wrong kind of disproportionate.
unfamiliar 12y ago
Interesting that you chose to note that this is "the annual policing budget of 185,000 people," rather than the fact that it works out to 15 pence per-person per-year. That will be lost in the noise of my tax returns, which most people could probably only guess to the nearest £100 or £1000.

by ra 12y ago

matthewmacleod 12y ago

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 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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.
unfamiliar 12y ago
>Is it a disproportionate response then to spend £10m on one guy? Yes I think it is. But that is not my point. There are much bigger wastes in the budget, yet here we are getting upset about the (relatively) small excess that is spent on Assange. People are complaining about the expense, when what they are really incredulous about is the fact that Assange is locked up.

corin_ 12y ago

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.

ra 12y ago
Yeah but 185,000 grandmothers? No one bombed anyone.
- corin_ 12y ago
  Right. So like I said, I'm not arguing this use of money is a good one. Just that the reason it's bad isn't because it's disproportionate, it's just the wrong kind of disproportionate.

unfamiliar 12y ago

Interesting that you chose to note that this is "the annual policing budget of 185,000 people," rather than the fact that it works out to 15 pence per-person per-year. That will be lost in the noise of my tax returns, which most people could probably only guess to the nearest £100 or £1000.