3 ms·
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
by 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 agoRelatively 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 ago1 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.