3 ms·

There are many, many laws, that if it cost £10m to catch one violator, would not be enforced (well, would not be aggressively pursued, it isn't like they'd say

by sago 12y ago

There are many, many laws, that if it cost £10m to catch one violator, would not be enforced (well, would not be aggressively pursued, it isn't like they'd say "no, you're fine, go about your life"). Police make priority judgements all the time about where to allocate their resources. The concern in this case is that the allocation is not being made on reasonable grounds based on the nature of the crime and normal policing priorities, but on political grounds because of who the accused person is.

matthewmacleod 12y ago
I don't agree. In reality, there are very few situations in which ew are fully aware of a criminal's location, but for diplomatic reasons we can't actually apprehend them. That's why this is different. Can you imagine the uproar if we allowed targets of arrest warrants to walk free despite knowing their location, and having it surrounded? This is an exceptional case.
- sago 12y ago
  Seems a false dichotomy. I wouldn't suggest we "let him go free", but when any public service has resource limits, you have assign them reasonably to the public benefit. As for whether this would happen for another person in the same situation who wasn't a major political bogeyman figure? I suspect not. I suspect they'd wait until intelligence suggested he had left, and apprehend him then. Or he'd just be on general no-travel lists at ports and airports. It strains my belief to think that this kind of theatre isn't in large part because he's Julian Assange, source of significant political embarrassment for the UK and its ally across the pond.
  - matthewmacleod 12y ago
    I don't think that follows – surely if the target was a source of 'significant political embarrassment', the last thing you'd want to do is draw attention to the matter! Honestly, I don't know what would happen if he weren't a political hot potato. Much like Abu Hamza, I imagine the British establishment would rather he was just none of their problem. Unfortunately, that's not something they can do in this case.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

by sago 12y ago

matthewmacleod 12y ago

I don't agree. In reality, there are very few situations in which ew are fully aware of a criminal's location, but for diplomatic reasons we can't actually apprehend them. That's why this is different. Can you imagine the uproar if we allowed targets of arrest warrants to walk free despite knowing their location, and having it surrounded? This is an exceptional case.

sago 12y ago
Seems a false dichotomy. I wouldn't suggest we "let him go free", but when any public service has resource limits, you have assign them reasonably to the public benefit. As for whether this would happen for another person in the same situation who wasn't a major political bogeyman figure? I suspect not. I suspect they'd wait until intelligence suggested he had left, and apprehend him then. Or he'd just be on general no-travel lists at ports and airports. It strains my belief to think that this kind of theatre isn't in large part because he's Julian Assange, source of significant political embarrassment for the UK and its ally across the pond.
- matthewmacleod 12y ago
  I don't think that follows – surely if the target was a source of 'significant political embarrassment', the last thing you'd want to do is draw attention to the matter! Honestly, I don't know what would happen if he weren't a political hot potato. Much like Abu Hamza, I imagine the British establishment would rather he was just none of their problem. Unfortunately, that's not something they can do in this case.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]