Did the UK government pay “millions and millions of dollars” to try to snag Julian Assange? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Is the Julian Assange sexual assault charge merely alleging condom non-use?Are the UK and Sweden in violation of international law with respect to detaining Julian Assange?Did Stalin personally tell Churchill that “the great bulk” of “10 millions” people were “wiped out” during collectivization?Could you drive a tank through London and not have to pay the congestion fee?Did Secretary Clinton suggest killing Julian Assange with a drone strike?Did the alleged victim of Julian Assange's Swedish sex crime say that police made it up?Did the Syrian government use chemical weapons in Khan Shaykhun?Did the DNC try to prevent Bernie Sanders from getting the Democratic nomination?Did the UK pay for the prince's wedding?Did Hillary Clinton pay Russian officials 30 million dollars, through her campaign to get dirt on Trump?

Is the address of a local variable a constexpr?

Is high blood pressure ever a symptom attributable solely to dehydration?

Should gear shift center itself while in neutral?

Stars Make Stars

Does surprise arrest existing movement?

Should I use Javascript Classes or Apex Classes in Lightning Web Components?

Using et al. for a last / senior author rather than for a first author

Why are there no cargo aircraft with "flying wing" design?

What is the musical term for a note that continously plays through a melody?

Java 8 stream max() function argument type Comparator vs Comparable

How do I stop a creek from eroding my steep embankment?

Output the ŋarâþ crîþ alphabet song without using (m)any letters

3 doors, three guards, one stone

Is there a service that would inform me whenever a new direct route is scheduled from a given airport?

How much radiation do nuclear physics experiments expose researchers to nowadays?

Is the Standard Deduction better than Itemized when both are the same amount?

Letter Boxed validator

List *all* the tuples!

What's the purpose of writing one's academic bio in 3rd person?

How does cp -a work

If 'B is more likely given A', then 'A is more likely given B'

Why don't the Weasley twins use magic outside of school if the Trace can only find the location of spells cast?

What would be the ideal power source for a cybernetic eye?

How to bypass password on Windows XP account?



Did the UK government pay “millions and millions of dollars” to try to snag Julian Assange?



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Is the Julian Assange sexual assault charge merely alleging condom non-use?Are the UK and Sweden in violation of international law with respect to detaining Julian Assange?Did Stalin personally tell Churchill that “the great bulk” of “10 millions” people were “wiped out” during collectivization?Could you drive a tank through London and not have to pay the congestion fee?Did Secretary Clinton suggest killing Julian Assange with a drone strike?Did the alleged victim of Julian Assange's Swedish sex crime say that police made it up?Did the Syrian government use chemical weapons in Khan Shaykhun?Did the DNC try to prevent Bernie Sanders from getting the Democratic nomination?Did the UK pay for the prince's wedding?Did Hillary Clinton pay Russian officials 30 million dollars, through her campaign to get dirt on Trump?










41















In a Fox News broadcast (timestamp 2:59), Greg Palkot (London-based senior foreign affairs correspondent for Fox News) said of Julian Assange:




"He has cost the UK government and security forces, police here, millions and millions of dollars. They've been guarding that place, waiting for him to come out, to snag him for the past several years..."




Did the UK government really spend millions of dollars to keep the Ecuadorian Embassy guarded for several years to prevent Julian Assange from leaving it and escaping?



How much did it cost and what was the money spent on?










share|improve this question




























    41















    In a Fox News broadcast (timestamp 2:59), Greg Palkot (London-based senior foreign affairs correspondent for Fox News) said of Julian Assange:




    "He has cost the UK government and security forces, police here, millions and millions of dollars. They've been guarding that place, waiting for him to come out, to snag him for the past several years..."




    Did the UK government really spend millions of dollars to keep the Ecuadorian Embassy guarded for several years to prevent Julian Assange from leaving it and escaping?



    How much did it cost and what was the money spent on?










    share|improve this question


























      41












      41








      41


      2






      In a Fox News broadcast (timestamp 2:59), Greg Palkot (London-based senior foreign affairs correspondent for Fox News) said of Julian Assange:




      "He has cost the UK government and security forces, police here, millions and millions of dollars. They've been guarding that place, waiting for him to come out, to snag him for the past several years..."




      Did the UK government really spend millions of dollars to keep the Ecuadorian Embassy guarded for several years to prevent Julian Assange from leaving it and escaping?



      How much did it cost and what was the money spent on?










      share|improve this question
















      In a Fox News broadcast (timestamp 2:59), Greg Palkot (London-based senior foreign affairs correspondent for Fox News) said of Julian Assange:




      "He has cost the UK government and security forces, police here, millions and millions of dollars. They've been guarding that place, waiting for him to come out, to snag him for the past several years..."




      Did the UK government really spend millions of dollars to keep the Ecuadorian Embassy guarded for several years to prevent Julian Assange from leaving it and escaping?



      How much did it cost and what was the money spent on?







      politics united-kingdom julian-assange






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Apr 12 at 8:02









      Andrew Grimm

      22.1k28107302




      22.1k28107302










      asked Apr 11 at 15:30









      Gimme the 411Gimme the 411

      39129




      39129




















          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          59














          Yes, back in 2015 a figure of around £11 million was estimated by the Metropolitan Police. This figure represents the total amount of resources allocated to monitoring the embassy for the three years between Assange entering the embassy (June 2012) to April 2015.



          From The Telegraph in June 2015:




          The embassy, behind Harrods in Knightsbridge, is watched by police stationed on the corners of the building, and an officer inside the foyer of the multipurpose red brick residence at all times. The Metropolitan Police refused to discuss how many policemen were deployed to the embassy, but they did confirm the cost.



          "As with all long term operations, issues around resourcing are subject to regular review in an attempt to minimise costs," a spokesman told The Telegraph.



          "The estimated full cost to April would be £11.1m. The costs provided are an estimate based on averages, as actual salary and overtime costs will vary daily."



          The Met said the figure included £6.5m of what they termed "opportunity costs" – police officer pay costs that would be incurred in normal duties – and £2.7m of additional costs such as police overtime. A further £1.1m was put down to "indirect costs" such as administration.




          Around October 2015 the constant monitoring and police presence was removed due to being "no longer proportionate", so presumably the figure today is not much higher than it was in 2015.



          A bit of context for these numbers and timelines can be found at this related Politics SE question.






          share|improve this answer




















          • 2





            The BBC has a more recent article stating “13.2 million between June 2012 and October 2015” bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47904837

            – Tim
            Apr 12 at 10:30



















          57














          No additional funds were spent on his capture beyond the spending already budgeted for 'Diplomatic Protection'.



          The Diplomatic Protection Group is responsible for the guarding of embassies. The money that was spent trying to apprehend Julian Assange from inside the Ecuadorian Embassy (or rather, waiting for him to come out) was covered by the existing budget assigned by the Metropolitan Police for the protection and guarding of embassies in that part of the UK.




          The Metropolitan Police said the costs were covered by the budget for diplomatic protection, which provides policing for embassies in the UK.



          BBC News: Julian Assange: Costs of policing Wikileaks founder reach £10m




          Since that money was already budgeted for the guarding of embassies, since that money was spent on guarding an embassy and since no additional funds were subsequently added to their budget to cover the shortfall caused by guarding that embassy, it's arguable that no additional money was spent on his capture.



          That being said, following the same argument to its logical conclusion, it did result in a focusing of the DPG's resources on a single embassy instead of all of the foreign embassies in the area.






          share|improve this answer




















          • 18





            Not sure this answers the question. The fact that a budget exists doesn't mean the same funds would have been spent anyway.

            – barbecue
            Apr 12 at 0:50






          • 9





            @barbecue And even if they had, they would have been spent on other things.

            – jpmc26
            Apr 12 at 3:55






          • 5





            @barbecue - Each year since its existence, the DPG has spent its entire budget on diplomatic protection. That hasn't changed since their mission to collect Assange began

            – Richard
            Apr 12 at 6:17






          • 7





            @VinceO'Sullivan there is an implicit suggestion in the quote that these funds were set aside for Assange specifically. If I say that "I spent $10K on a new car" that suggests I removed 10K from my pool of available funds to pay for a one-off expense. However, "I pay $10K a year for groceries" suggests this is just part of my normal budget. Richard's point is that this money was part of the regular budget so watching Assange didn't actually cost the UK state any money, it is just a matter of how the available money was used. The same amount would have been used anyway.

            – terdon
            Apr 12 at 9:31






          • 7





            @Richard - Standing outside an embassy looking at things is the very definition of guarding

            – Richard
            Apr 12 at 10:48


















          6














          According to the BBC, the cost was over £10 Million as of February 2015.




          Per this BBC report from 6 February 2015




          Scotland Yard has spent about £10m providing a 24-hour guard at the Ecuadorean embassy in London since Wikileaks founder Julian Assange claimed asylum there, figures show.



          ...



          Between June 2012 and October 2014, direct policing costs were £7.3m, with £1.8m spent on overtime, police said.



          Scotland Yard confirmed the cost of the operation to UK taxpayers in the first 28 months, until 31 October last year, had reached £9m.



          ...



          The cost of a further three months policing is now expected to have taken the total bill to about £10m.



          The figures - which equate to more than £10,000 a day - were obtained by LBC radio under the Freedom of Information Act.




          This obviously does not contain the total amount spent, as these numbers were current as of early 2015, but is well within the range of "millions and millions of dollars".






          share|improve this answer




















          • 1





            Can the downvoter please explain what they found incorrect in my answer?

            – DenisS
            Apr 12 at 1:42






          • 2





            I didn't downvote but probably because you have answered the question correctly but are ignoring the context as covered in the other answer which shows that depending on how you read the question the answer is also zero.

            – Tim B
            Apr 12 at 8:16






          • 1





            The higher that normal level of monitoring you describe was discontinued four years ago

            – RedGrittyBrick
            Apr 12 at 15:40






          • 1





            @RedGrittyBrick doesn't change the fact that millions of dollars/pounds were spent on monitoring him. And that didn't mean that they stopped monitoring him after that

            – DenisS
            Apr 12 at 15:55






          • 2





            @RedGrittyBrick i think it might just be a salty downvoter, three of the four answers all have downvotes despite a lack of actual criticism of the answers.

            – DenisS
            Apr 12 at 16:09


















          3














          Just to bring the information in the other answers together ...



          In the UK the phrase "UK Government" is taken to mean the Prime-minister and their cabinet members (including the home secretary responsible for policing in England and Wales - but not in Scotland or Northern Ireland).



          The police forces, not politicians, choose how to allocate their resources to individual investigations. In operational matters the UK police forces are independent of government



          These distinctions are very important in the UK.




          Did the UK government pay “millions and millions of dollars” to try to snag Julian Assange?




          No, as I understand it, the UK Government did not allocate any funds specifically for this purpose.



          Yes, from 2012 until 2015 the Metropolitan police chose to spend several million pounds of their policing budget, attempting to execute an arrest warrant on Assange. After 2015 they spent very little, relatively speaking.



          Note that neither the UK government nor the Metropolitan police issue arrest warrants (AFAIK that is the job of the judiciary, it is they who wished to snag Mr Assange)






          share|improve this answer
































            4 Answers
            4






            active

            oldest

            votes








            4 Answers
            4






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            59














            Yes, back in 2015 a figure of around £11 million was estimated by the Metropolitan Police. This figure represents the total amount of resources allocated to monitoring the embassy for the three years between Assange entering the embassy (June 2012) to April 2015.



            From The Telegraph in June 2015:




            The embassy, behind Harrods in Knightsbridge, is watched by police stationed on the corners of the building, and an officer inside the foyer of the multipurpose red brick residence at all times. The Metropolitan Police refused to discuss how many policemen were deployed to the embassy, but they did confirm the cost.



            "As with all long term operations, issues around resourcing are subject to regular review in an attempt to minimise costs," a spokesman told The Telegraph.



            "The estimated full cost to April would be £11.1m. The costs provided are an estimate based on averages, as actual salary and overtime costs will vary daily."



            The Met said the figure included £6.5m of what they termed "opportunity costs" – police officer pay costs that would be incurred in normal duties – and £2.7m of additional costs such as police overtime. A further £1.1m was put down to "indirect costs" such as administration.




            Around October 2015 the constant monitoring and police presence was removed due to being "no longer proportionate", so presumably the figure today is not much higher than it was in 2015.



            A bit of context for these numbers and timelines can be found at this related Politics SE question.






            share|improve this answer




















            • 2





              The BBC has a more recent article stating “13.2 million between June 2012 and October 2015” bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47904837

              – Tim
              Apr 12 at 10:30
















            59














            Yes, back in 2015 a figure of around £11 million was estimated by the Metropolitan Police. This figure represents the total amount of resources allocated to monitoring the embassy for the three years between Assange entering the embassy (June 2012) to April 2015.



            From The Telegraph in June 2015:




            The embassy, behind Harrods in Knightsbridge, is watched by police stationed on the corners of the building, and an officer inside the foyer of the multipurpose red brick residence at all times. The Metropolitan Police refused to discuss how many policemen were deployed to the embassy, but they did confirm the cost.



            "As with all long term operations, issues around resourcing are subject to regular review in an attempt to minimise costs," a spokesman told The Telegraph.



            "The estimated full cost to April would be £11.1m. The costs provided are an estimate based on averages, as actual salary and overtime costs will vary daily."



            The Met said the figure included £6.5m of what they termed "opportunity costs" – police officer pay costs that would be incurred in normal duties – and £2.7m of additional costs such as police overtime. A further £1.1m was put down to "indirect costs" such as administration.




            Around October 2015 the constant monitoring and police presence was removed due to being "no longer proportionate", so presumably the figure today is not much higher than it was in 2015.



            A bit of context for these numbers and timelines can be found at this related Politics SE question.






            share|improve this answer




















            • 2





              The BBC has a more recent article stating “13.2 million between June 2012 and October 2015” bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47904837

              – Tim
              Apr 12 at 10:30














            59












            59








            59







            Yes, back in 2015 a figure of around £11 million was estimated by the Metropolitan Police. This figure represents the total amount of resources allocated to monitoring the embassy for the three years between Assange entering the embassy (June 2012) to April 2015.



            From The Telegraph in June 2015:




            The embassy, behind Harrods in Knightsbridge, is watched by police stationed on the corners of the building, and an officer inside the foyer of the multipurpose red brick residence at all times. The Metropolitan Police refused to discuss how many policemen were deployed to the embassy, but they did confirm the cost.



            "As with all long term operations, issues around resourcing are subject to regular review in an attempt to minimise costs," a spokesman told The Telegraph.



            "The estimated full cost to April would be £11.1m. The costs provided are an estimate based on averages, as actual salary and overtime costs will vary daily."



            The Met said the figure included £6.5m of what they termed "opportunity costs" – police officer pay costs that would be incurred in normal duties – and £2.7m of additional costs such as police overtime. A further £1.1m was put down to "indirect costs" such as administration.




            Around October 2015 the constant monitoring and police presence was removed due to being "no longer proportionate", so presumably the figure today is not much higher than it was in 2015.



            A bit of context for these numbers and timelines can be found at this related Politics SE question.






            share|improve this answer















            Yes, back in 2015 a figure of around £11 million was estimated by the Metropolitan Police. This figure represents the total amount of resources allocated to monitoring the embassy for the three years between Assange entering the embassy (June 2012) to April 2015.



            From The Telegraph in June 2015:




            The embassy, behind Harrods in Knightsbridge, is watched by police stationed on the corners of the building, and an officer inside the foyer of the multipurpose red brick residence at all times. The Metropolitan Police refused to discuss how many policemen were deployed to the embassy, but they did confirm the cost.



            "As with all long term operations, issues around resourcing are subject to regular review in an attempt to minimise costs," a spokesman told The Telegraph.



            "The estimated full cost to April would be £11.1m. The costs provided are an estimate based on averages, as actual salary and overtime costs will vary daily."



            The Met said the figure included £6.5m of what they termed "opportunity costs" – police officer pay costs that would be incurred in normal duties – and £2.7m of additional costs such as police overtime. A further £1.1m was put down to "indirect costs" such as administration.




            Around October 2015 the constant monitoring and police presence was removed due to being "no longer proportionate", so presumably the figure today is not much higher than it was in 2015.



            A bit of context for these numbers and timelines can be found at this related Politics SE question.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Apr 11 at 22:58

























            answered Apr 11 at 15:54









            GiterGiter

            8,26663130




            8,26663130







            • 2





              The BBC has a more recent article stating “13.2 million between June 2012 and October 2015” bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47904837

              – Tim
              Apr 12 at 10:30













            • 2





              The BBC has a more recent article stating “13.2 million between June 2012 and October 2015” bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47904837

              – Tim
              Apr 12 at 10:30








            2




            2





            The BBC has a more recent article stating “13.2 million between June 2012 and October 2015” bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47904837

            – Tim
            Apr 12 at 10:30






            The BBC has a more recent article stating “13.2 million between June 2012 and October 2015” bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47904837

            – Tim
            Apr 12 at 10:30












            57














            No additional funds were spent on his capture beyond the spending already budgeted for 'Diplomatic Protection'.



            The Diplomatic Protection Group is responsible for the guarding of embassies. The money that was spent trying to apprehend Julian Assange from inside the Ecuadorian Embassy (or rather, waiting for him to come out) was covered by the existing budget assigned by the Metropolitan Police for the protection and guarding of embassies in that part of the UK.




            The Metropolitan Police said the costs were covered by the budget for diplomatic protection, which provides policing for embassies in the UK.



            BBC News: Julian Assange: Costs of policing Wikileaks founder reach £10m




            Since that money was already budgeted for the guarding of embassies, since that money was spent on guarding an embassy and since no additional funds were subsequently added to their budget to cover the shortfall caused by guarding that embassy, it's arguable that no additional money was spent on his capture.



            That being said, following the same argument to its logical conclusion, it did result in a focusing of the DPG's resources on a single embassy instead of all of the foreign embassies in the area.






            share|improve this answer




















            • 18





              Not sure this answers the question. The fact that a budget exists doesn't mean the same funds would have been spent anyway.

              – barbecue
              Apr 12 at 0:50






            • 9





              @barbecue And even if they had, they would have been spent on other things.

              – jpmc26
              Apr 12 at 3:55






            • 5





              @barbecue - Each year since its existence, the DPG has spent its entire budget on diplomatic protection. That hasn't changed since their mission to collect Assange began

              – Richard
              Apr 12 at 6:17






            • 7





              @VinceO'Sullivan there is an implicit suggestion in the quote that these funds were set aside for Assange specifically. If I say that "I spent $10K on a new car" that suggests I removed 10K from my pool of available funds to pay for a one-off expense. However, "I pay $10K a year for groceries" suggests this is just part of my normal budget. Richard's point is that this money was part of the regular budget so watching Assange didn't actually cost the UK state any money, it is just a matter of how the available money was used. The same amount would have been used anyway.

              – terdon
              Apr 12 at 9:31






            • 7





              @Richard - Standing outside an embassy looking at things is the very definition of guarding

              – Richard
              Apr 12 at 10:48















            57














            No additional funds were spent on his capture beyond the spending already budgeted for 'Diplomatic Protection'.



            The Diplomatic Protection Group is responsible for the guarding of embassies. The money that was spent trying to apprehend Julian Assange from inside the Ecuadorian Embassy (or rather, waiting for him to come out) was covered by the existing budget assigned by the Metropolitan Police for the protection and guarding of embassies in that part of the UK.




            The Metropolitan Police said the costs were covered by the budget for diplomatic protection, which provides policing for embassies in the UK.



            BBC News: Julian Assange: Costs of policing Wikileaks founder reach £10m




            Since that money was already budgeted for the guarding of embassies, since that money was spent on guarding an embassy and since no additional funds were subsequently added to their budget to cover the shortfall caused by guarding that embassy, it's arguable that no additional money was spent on his capture.



            That being said, following the same argument to its logical conclusion, it did result in a focusing of the DPG's resources on a single embassy instead of all of the foreign embassies in the area.






            share|improve this answer




















            • 18





              Not sure this answers the question. The fact that a budget exists doesn't mean the same funds would have been spent anyway.

              – barbecue
              Apr 12 at 0:50






            • 9





              @barbecue And even if they had, they would have been spent on other things.

              – jpmc26
              Apr 12 at 3:55






            • 5





              @barbecue - Each year since its existence, the DPG has spent its entire budget on diplomatic protection. That hasn't changed since their mission to collect Assange began

              – Richard
              Apr 12 at 6:17






            • 7





              @VinceO'Sullivan there is an implicit suggestion in the quote that these funds were set aside for Assange specifically. If I say that "I spent $10K on a new car" that suggests I removed 10K from my pool of available funds to pay for a one-off expense. However, "I pay $10K a year for groceries" suggests this is just part of my normal budget. Richard's point is that this money was part of the regular budget so watching Assange didn't actually cost the UK state any money, it is just a matter of how the available money was used. The same amount would have been used anyway.

              – terdon
              Apr 12 at 9:31






            • 7





              @Richard - Standing outside an embassy looking at things is the very definition of guarding

              – Richard
              Apr 12 at 10:48













            57












            57








            57







            No additional funds were spent on his capture beyond the spending already budgeted for 'Diplomatic Protection'.



            The Diplomatic Protection Group is responsible for the guarding of embassies. The money that was spent trying to apprehend Julian Assange from inside the Ecuadorian Embassy (or rather, waiting for him to come out) was covered by the existing budget assigned by the Metropolitan Police for the protection and guarding of embassies in that part of the UK.




            The Metropolitan Police said the costs were covered by the budget for diplomatic protection, which provides policing for embassies in the UK.



            BBC News: Julian Assange: Costs of policing Wikileaks founder reach £10m




            Since that money was already budgeted for the guarding of embassies, since that money was spent on guarding an embassy and since no additional funds were subsequently added to their budget to cover the shortfall caused by guarding that embassy, it's arguable that no additional money was spent on his capture.



            That being said, following the same argument to its logical conclusion, it did result in a focusing of the DPG's resources on a single embassy instead of all of the foreign embassies in the area.






            share|improve this answer















            No additional funds were spent on his capture beyond the spending already budgeted for 'Diplomatic Protection'.



            The Diplomatic Protection Group is responsible for the guarding of embassies. The money that was spent trying to apprehend Julian Assange from inside the Ecuadorian Embassy (or rather, waiting for him to come out) was covered by the existing budget assigned by the Metropolitan Police for the protection and guarding of embassies in that part of the UK.




            The Metropolitan Police said the costs were covered by the budget for diplomatic protection, which provides policing for embassies in the UK.



            BBC News: Julian Assange: Costs of policing Wikileaks founder reach £10m




            Since that money was already budgeted for the guarding of embassies, since that money was spent on guarding an embassy and since no additional funds were subsequently added to their budget to cover the shortfall caused by guarding that embassy, it's arguable that no additional money was spent on his capture.



            That being said, following the same argument to its logical conclusion, it did result in a focusing of the DPG's resources on a single embassy instead of all of the foreign embassies in the area.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Apr 12 at 15:39

























            answered Apr 11 at 19:45









            RichardRichard

            1,44311222




            1,44311222







            • 18





              Not sure this answers the question. The fact that a budget exists doesn't mean the same funds would have been spent anyway.

              – barbecue
              Apr 12 at 0:50






            • 9





              @barbecue And even if they had, they would have been spent on other things.

              – jpmc26
              Apr 12 at 3:55






            • 5





              @barbecue - Each year since its existence, the DPG has spent its entire budget on diplomatic protection. That hasn't changed since their mission to collect Assange began

              – Richard
              Apr 12 at 6:17






            • 7





              @VinceO'Sullivan there is an implicit suggestion in the quote that these funds were set aside for Assange specifically. If I say that "I spent $10K on a new car" that suggests I removed 10K from my pool of available funds to pay for a one-off expense. However, "I pay $10K a year for groceries" suggests this is just part of my normal budget. Richard's point is that this money was part of the regular budget so watching Assange didn't actually cost the UK state any money, it is just a matter of how the available money was used. The same amount would have been used anyway.

              – terdon
              Apr 12 at 9:31






            • 7





              @Richard - Standing outside an embassy looking at things is the very definition of guarding

              – Richard
              Apr 12 at 10:48












            • 18





              Not sure this answers the question. The fact that a budget exists doesn't mean the same funds would have been spent anyway.

              – barbecue
              Apr 12 at 0:50






            • 9





              @barbecue And even if they had, they would have been spent on other things.

              – jpmc26
              Apr 12 at 3:55






            • 5





              @barbecue - Each year since its existence, the DPG has spent its entire budget on diplomatic protection. That hasn't changed since their mission to collect Assange began

              – Richard
              Apr 12 at 6:17






            • 7





              @VinceO'Sullivan there is an implicit suggestion in the quote that these funds were set aside for Assange specifically. If I say that "I spent $10K on a new car" that suggests I removed 10K from my pool of available funds to pay for a one-off expense. However, "I pay $10K a year for groceries" suggests this is just part of my normal budget. Richard's point is that this money was part of the regular budget so watching Assange didn't actually cost the UK state any money, it is just a matter of how the available money was used. The same amount would have been used anyway.

              – terdon
              Apr 12 at 9:31






            • 7





              @Richard - Standing outside an embassy looking at things is the very definition of guarding

              – Richard
              Apr 12 at 10:48







            18




            18





            Not sure this answers the question. The fact that a budget exists doesn't mean the same funds would have been spent anyway.

            – barbecue
            Apr 12 at 0:50





            Not sure this answers the question. The fact that a budget exists doesn't mean the same funds would have been spent anyway.

            – barbecue
            Apr 12 at 0:50




            9




            9





            @barbecue And even if they had, they would have been spent on other things.

            – jpmc26
            Apr 12 at 3:55





            @barbecue And even if they had, they would have been spent on other things.

            – jpmc26
            Apr 12 at 3:55




            5




            5





            @barbecue - Each year since its existence, the DPG has spent its entire budget on diplomatic protection. That hasn't changed since their mission to collect Assange began

            – Richard
            Apr 12 at 6:17





            @barbecue - Each year since its existence, the DPG has spent its entire budget on diplomatic protection. That hasn't changed since their mission to collect Assange began

            – Richard
            Apr 12 at 6:17




            7




            7





            @VinceO'Sullivan there is an implicit suggestion in the quote that these funds were set aside for Assange specifically. If I say that "I spent $10K on a new car" that suggests I removed 10K from my pool of available funds to pay for a one-off expense. However, "I pay $10K a year for groceries" suggests this is just part of my normal budget. Richard's point is that this money was part of the regular budget so watching Assange didn't actually cost the UK state any money, it is just a matter of how the available money was used. The same amount would have been used anyway.

            – terdon
            Apr 12 at 9:31





            @VinceO'Sullivan there is an implicit suggestion in the quote that these funds were set aside for Assange specifically. If I say that "I spent $10K on a new car" that suggests I removed 10K from my pool of available funds to pay for a one-off expense. However, "I pay $10K a year for groceries" suggests this is just part of my normal budget. Richard's point is that this money was part of the regular budget so watching Assange didn't actually cost the UK state any money, it is just a matter of how the available money was used. The same amount would have been used anyway.

            – terdon
            Apr 12 at 9:31




            7




            7





            @Richard - Standing outside an embassy looking at things is the very definition of guarding

            – Richard
            Apr 12 at 10:48





            @Richard - Standing outside an embassy looking at things is the very definition of guarding

            – Richard
            Apr 12 at 10:48











            6














            According to the BBC, the cost was over £10 Million as of February 2015.




            Per this BBC report from 6 February 2015




            Scotland Yard has spent about £10m providing a 24-hour guard at the Ecuadorean embassy in London since Wikileaks founder Julian Assange claimed asylum there, figures show.



            ...



            Between June 2012 and October 2014, direct policing costs were £7.3m, with £1.8m spent on overtime, police said.



            Scotland Yard confirmed the cost of the operation to UK taxpayers in the first 28 months, until 31 October last year, had reached £9m.



            ...



            The cost of a further three months policing is now expected to have taken the total bill to about £10m.



            The figures - which equate to more than £10,000 a day - were obtained by LBC radio under the Freedom of Information Act.




            This obviously does not contain the total amount spent, as these numbers were current as of early 2015, but is well within the range of "millions and millions of dollars".






            share|improve this answer




















            • 1





              Can the downvoter please explain what they found incorrect in my answer?

              – DenisS
              Apr 12 at 1:42






            • 2





              I didn't downvote but probably because you have answered the question correctly but are ignoring the context as covered in the other answer which shows that depending on how you read the question the answer is also zero.

              – Tim B
              Apr 12 at 8:16






            • 1





              The higher that normal level of monitoring you describe was discontinued four years ago

              – RedGrittyBrick
              Apr 12 at 15:40






            • 1





              @RedGrittyBrick doesn't change the fact that millions of dollars/pounds were spent on monitoring him. And that didn't mean that they stopped monitoring him after that

              – DenisS
              Apr 12 at 15:55






            • 2





              @RedGrittyBrick i think it might just be a salty downvoter, three of the four answers all have downvotes despite a lack of actual criticism of the answers.

              – DenisS
              Apr 12 at 16:09















            6














            According to the BBC, the cost was over £10 Million as of February 2015.




            Per this BBC report from 6 February 2015




            Scotland Yard has spent about £10m providing a 24-hour guard at the Ecuadorean embassy in London since Wikileaks founder Julian Assange claimed asylum there, figures show.



            ...



            Between June 2012 and October 2014, direct policing costs were £7.3m, with £1.8m spent on overtime, police said.



            Scotland Yard confirmed the cost of the operation to UK taxpayers in the first 28 months, until 31 October last year, had reached £9m.



            ...



            The cost of a further three months policing is now expected to have taken the total bill to about £10m.



            The figures - which equate to more than £10,000 a day - were obtained by LBC radio under the Freedom of Information Act.




            This obviously does not contain the total amount spent, as these numbers were current as of early 2015, but is well within the range of "millions and millions of dollars".






            share|improve this answer




















            • 1





              Can the downvoter please explain what they found incorrect in my answer?

              – DenisS
              Apr 12 at 1:42






            • 2





              I didn't downvote but probably because you have answered the question correctly but are ignoring the context as covered in the other answer which shows that depending on how you read the question the answer is also zero.

              – Tim B
              Apr 12 at 8:16






            • 1





              The higher that normal level of monitoring you describe was discontinued four years ago

              – RedGrittyBrick
              Apr 12 at 15:40






            • 1





              @RedGrittyBrick doesn't change the fact that millions of dollars/pounds were spent on monitoring him. And that didn't mean that they stopped monitoring him after that

              – DenisS
              Apr 12 at 15:55






            • 2





              @RedGrittyBrick i think it might just be a salty downvoter, three of the four answers all have downvotes despite a lack of actual criticism of the answers.

              – DenisS
              Apr 12 at 16:09













            6












            6








            6







            According to the BBC, the cost was over £10 Million as of February 2015.




            Per this BBC report from 6 February 2015




            Scotland Yard has spent about £10m providing a 24-hour guard at the Ecuadorean embassy in London since Wikileaks founder Julian Assange claimed asylum there, figures show.



            ...



            Between June 2012 and October 2014, direct policing costs were £7.3m, with £1.8m spent on overtime, police said.



            Scotland Yard confirmed the cost of the operation to UK taxpayers in the first 28 months, until 31 October last year, had reached £9m.



            ...



            The cost of a further three months policing is now expected to have taken the total bill to about £10m.



            The figures - which equate to more than £10,000 a day - were obtained by LBC radio under the Freedom of Information Act.




            This obviously does not contain the total amount spent, as these numbers were current as of early 2015, but is well within the range of "millions and millions of dollars".






            share|improve this answer















            According to the BBC, the cost was over £10 Million as of February 2015.




            Per this BBC report from 6 February 2015




            Scotland Yard has spent about £10m providing a 24-hour guard at the Ecuadorean embassy in London since Wikileaks founder Julian Assange claimed asylum there, figures show.



            ...



            Between June 2012 and October 2014, direct policing costs were £7.3m, with £1.8m spent on overtime, police said.



            Scotland Yard confirmed the cost of the operation to UK taxpayers in the first 28 months, until 31 October last year, had reached £9m.



            ...



            The cost of a further three months policing is now expected to have taken the total bill to about £10m.



            The figures - which equate to more than £10,000 a day - were obtained by LBC radio under the Freedom of Information Act.




            This obviously does not contain the total amount spent, as these numbers were current as of early 2015, but is well within the range of "millions and millions of dollars".







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Apr 11 at 16:01

























            answered Apr 11 at 15:54









            DenisSDenisS

            13.2k45462




            13.2k45462







            • 1





              Can the downvoter please explain what they found incorrect in my answer?

              – DenisS
              Apr 12 at 1:42






            • 2





              I didn't downvote but probably because you have answered the question correctly but are ignoring the context as covered in the other answer which shows that depending on how you read the question the answer is also zero.

              – Tim B
              Apr 12 at 8:16






            • 1





              The higher that normal level of monitoring you describe was discontinued four years ago

              – RedGrittyBrick
              Apr 12 at 15:40






            • 1





              @RedGrittyBrick doesn't change the fact that millions of dollars/pounds were spent on monitoring him. And that didn't mean that they stopped monitoring him after that

              – DenisS
              Apr 12 at 15:55






            • 2





              @RedGrittyBrick i think it might just be a salty downvoter, three of the four answers all have downvotes despite a lack of actual criticism of the answers.

              – DenisS
              Apr 12 at 16:09












            • 1





              Can the downvoter please explain what they found incorrect in my answer?

              – DenisS
              Apr 12 at 1:42






            • 2





              I didn't downvote but probably because you have answered the question correctly but are ignoring the context as covered in the other answer which shows that depending on how you read the question the answer is also zero.

              – Tim B
              Apr 12 at 8:16






            • 1





              The higher that normal level of monitoring you describe was discontinued four years ago

              – RedGrittyBrick
              Apr 12 at 15:40






            • 1





              @RedGrittyBrick doesn't change the fact that millions of dollars/pounds were spent on monitoring him. And that didn't mean that they stopped monitoring him after that

              – DenisS
              Apr 12 at 15:55






            • 2





              @RedGrittyBrick i think it might just be a salty downvoter, three of the four answers all have downvotes despite a lack of actual criticism of the answers.

              – DenisS
              Apr 12 at 16:09







            1




            1





            Can the downvoter please explain what they found incorrect in my answer?

            – DenisS
            Apr 12 at 1:42





            Can the downvoter please explain what they found incorrect in my answer?

            – DenisS
            Apr 12 at 1:42




            2




            2





            I didn't downvote but probably because you have answered the question correctly but are ignoring the context as covered in the other answer which shows that depending on how you read the question the answer is also zero.

            – Tim B
            Apr 12 at 8:16





            I didn't downvote but probably because you have answered the question correctly but are ignoring the context as covered in the other answer which shows that depending on how you read the question the answer is also zero.

            – Tim B
            Apr 12 at 8:16




            1




            1





            The higher that normal level of monitoring you describe was discontinued four years ago

            – RedGrittyBrick
            Apr 12 at 15:40





            The higher that normal level of monitoring you describe was discontinued four years ago

            – RedGrittyBrick
            Apr 12 at 15:40




            1




            1





            @RedGrittyBrick doesn't change the fact that millions of dollars/pounds were spent on monitoring him. And that didn't mean that they stopped monitoring him after that

            – DenisS
            Apr 12 at 15:55





            @RedGrittyBrick doesn't change the fact that millions of dollars/pounds were spent on monitoring him. And that didn't mean that they stopped monitoring him after that

            – DenisS
            Apr 12 at 15:55




            2




            2





            @RedGrittyBrick i think it might just be a salty downvoter, three of the four answers all have downvotes despite a lack of actual criticism of the answers.

            – DenisS
            Apr 12 at 16:09





            @RedGrittyBrick i think it might just be a salty downvoter, three of the four answers all have downvotes despite a lack of actual criticism of the answers.

            – DenisS
            Apr 12 at 16:09











            3














            Just to bring the information in the other answers together ...



            In the UK the phrase "UK Government" is taken to mean the Prime-minister and their cabinet members (including the home secretary responsible for policing in England and Wales - but not in Scotland or Northern Ireland).



            The police forces, not politicians, choose how to allocate their resources to individual investigations. In operational matters the UK police forces are independent of government



            These distinctions are very important in the UK.




            Did the UK government pay “millions and millions of dollars” to try to snag Julian Assange?




            No, as I understand it, the UK Government did not allocate any funds specifically for this purpose.



            Yes, from 2012 until 2015 the Metropolitan police chose to spend several million pounds of their policing budget, attempting to execute an arrest warrant on Assange. After 2015 they spent very little, relatively speaking.



            Note that neither the UK government nor the Metropolitan police issue arrest warrants (AFAIK that is the job of the judiciary, it is they who wished to snag Mr Assange)






            share|improve this answer





























              3














              Just to bring the information in the other answers together ...



              In the UK the phrase "UK Government" is taken to mean the Prime-minister and their cabinet members (including the home secretary responsible for policing in England and Wales - but not in Scotland or Northern Ireland).



              The police forces, not politicians, choose how to allocate their resources to individual investigations. In operational matters the UK police forces are independent of government



              These distinctions are very important in the UK.




              Did the UK government pay “millions and millions of dollars” to try to snag Julian Assange?




              No, as I understand it, the UK Government did not allocate any funds specifically for this purpose.



              Yes, from 2012 until 2015 the Metropolitan police chose to spend several million pounds of their policing budget, attempting to execute an arrest warrant on Assange. After 2015 they spent very little, relatively speaking.



              Note that neither the UK government nor the Metropolitan police issue arrest warrants (AFAIK that is the job of the judiciary, it is they who wished to snag Mr Assange)






              share|improve this answer



























                3












                3








                3







                Just to bring the information in the other answers together ...



                In the UK the phrase "UK Government" is taken to mean the Prime-minister and their cabinet members (including the home secretary responsible for policing in England and Wales - but not in Scotland or Northern Ireland).



                The police forces, not politicians, choose how to allocate their resources to individual investigations. In operational matters the UK police forces are independent of government



                These distinctions are very important in the UK.




                Did the UK government pay “millions and millions of dollars” to try to snag Julian Assange?




                No, as I understand it, the UK Government did not allocate any funds specifically for this purpose.



                Yes, from 2012 until 2015 the Metropolitan police chose to spend several million pounds of their policing budget, attempting to execute an arrest warrant on Assange. After 2015 they spent very little, relatively speaking.



                Note that neither the UK government nor the Metropolitan police issue arrest warrants (AFAIK that is the job of the judiciary, it is they who wished to snag Mr Assange)






                share|improve this answer















                Just to bring the information in the other answers together ...



                In the UK the phrase "UK Government" is taken to mean the Prime-minister and their cabinet members (including the home secretary responsible for policing in England and Wales - but not in Scotland or Northern Ireland).



                The police forces, not politicians, choose how to allocate their resources to individual investigations. In operational matters the UK police forces are independent of government



                These distinctions are very important in the UK.




                Did the UK government pay “millions and millions of dollars” to try to snag Julian Assange?




                No, as I understand it, the UK Government did not allocate any funds specifically for this purpose.



                Yes, from 2012 until 2015 the Metropolitan police chose to spend several million pounds of their policing budget, attempting to execute an arrest warrant on Assange. After 2015 they spent very little, relatively speaking.



                Note that neither the UK government nor the Metropolitan police issue arrest warrants (AFAIK that is the job of the judiciary, it is they who wished to snag Mr Assange)







                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited Apr 12 at 16:07

























                answered Apr 12 at 15:50









                RedGrittyBrickRedGrittyBrick

                23.8k291105




                23.8k291105













                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Sum ergo cogito? 1 nng

                    419 nièngy_Soadمي 19bal1.5o_g

                    Queiggey Chernihivv 9NnOo i Zw X QqKk LpB