Assange embassy stand-off costs London police $4.5 million < br />

2013-02-17 09:39:32 GMT+7 (ICT)

LONDON, ENGLAND (BNO NEWS) -- The full cost of preventing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange from escaping the Ecuadorian embassy in London has surpassed 2.9 million pounds ($4.5 million), British police said on Saturday, almost nine months after he sought refuge there to prevent extradition to Sweden.

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), which is better known as Scotland Yard, said the estimated cost of policing the Ecuadorian embassy between June 19, 2012, when Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy to request political asylum from the Ecuadorian government, and January 31, 2013, is 2.9 million pounds ($4.5 million).

A police spokesman described approximately 2.3 million pounds ($3.5 million) of the total figure as "opportunity costs," which is normal salary for the officers who have been stationed outside the embassy in west London's Knightsbridge district. The additional 600,000 pounds ($931,000) is police overtime as a direct result of deployment outside the mansion block housing the embassy.

The officers are stationed outside the embassy round the clock in case Assange, who received political asylum from the Ecuadorian government in August 2012, emerges from the diplomatic compound. He is wanted by British police who want to extradite him to Sweden to face allegations of sexual molestation, unlawful coercion and rape.

A London court dismissed Assange's appeal in November 2011 and the UK Supreme Court in June 2012 rejected his bid to reopen the case. Scotland Yard has said Assange will be arrested once he leaves the embassy compound, but officers are unable to enter the Ecuadorian embassy as it is diplomatic territory.

The accusations in Sweden are unrelated to Assange's work for the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks which brought diplomatic earthquakes to the United States when it began releasing classified documents it had obtained. Assange has claimed the cases have been politically-linked, arguing that the sexual encounters with the two women in Sweden were consensual.

Wikileaks' first big scoop was on April 5, 2010, when it released a classified video which showed a 2007 U.S. helicopter attack in Iraq which left several civilians killed, including two unarmed Reuters journalists. Assange previously said he had been told to expect 'dirty tricks' from the Pentagon, including 'sex traps' to ruin his reputation.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2013-02-17

Spending so much time and effort on someone who is only wanted for questioning . . . add to this the threat of storming the embassy and breaking diplomatic sanctity.

Yes, they'd do that for anyone wanted for questioning

I'm sure that the Met would do the same for any suspected criminal hiding out in an embassy in London.

If Assange is as innocent as he claims, why doesn't he go to Sweden and face his accusers?

What has he got to hide?

There is no threat of British authorities 'storming the embassy.'

They didn't storm the Libyan embassy after WPC Yvonne Fletcher was shot and murdered by someone from within; despite she and her collegues being there to protect the embassy from protesters outside!

The only time they have ever done so is when the Iranian embassy was occupied by terrorists who were holding Iranian diplomats, and others, hostage.

He's wanted for more than questioning. Now he is wanted by British authorities for jumping bail.

The only time they have ever done so is when the Iranian embassy was occupied by terrorists who were holding Iranian diplomats, and others, hostage.

Correction.

In 1988 an order was made under the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises (Cambodia) Order 1988, so that legal action could be taken to remove squatters who had moved in in 1978 after the embassy was left empty when the Cambodian government was overthrown by Pol Pot. The action was taken because once the squatters had been in the property for 12 years they would have gained legal title to it.

If the Met, or any other British authority, decided to enter the Ecuadorian embassy to remove Assange then a similar order would first have to be made by Parliament to allow them to do so.

Edited February 17, 201313 yr by 7by7

Spending so much time and effort on someone who is only wanted for questioning . . . add to this the threat of storming the embassy and breaking diplomatic sanctity.

Yes, they'd do that for anyone wanted for questioning

Amazing isn't it?

All it would take to stop wasting all this British taxpayers money is a simple reassurance by Sweden and the UK that I'm sure both countries are capable of working out together that he will not be sent to USA.

Britain can hardly afford to be wasting money like this and I doubt if they would do so willingly unless there was some outside influences putting some considerable duress on them?

I am not sure if such an assurance, if obtainable, would be enforceable under international law.

The UK will not extradite persons who may be subject to torture, may have evidence obtained by torture used against them or may be subject to the death penalty if found guilty.

As far as i am aware, Sweden has similar rules.

None of the above applies to Assange, so there is no legal reason why he cannot be extradited to Sweden; as the Supreme Court in the UK has ruled he should be.

If he has broken US law and the USA then apply to Sweden to have him extradited then that is a matter between Sweden and the USA.

But, as far as I can discover, the USA have never made any extradition request.

They wouldn't need to do to much to put this farce to an end once and for all. Give an assurance that he will not receive the Victor Booth treatment. End !

I am not sure if such an assurance, if obtainable, would be enforceable under international law.

The UK will not extradite persons who may be subject to torture, may have evidence obtained by torture used against them or may be subject to the death penalty if found guilty.

As far as i am aware, Sweden has similar rules.

None of the above applies to Assange, so there is no legal reason why he cannot be extradited to Sweden; as the Supreme Court in the UK has ruled he should be.

If he has broken US law and the USA then apply to Sweden to have him extradited then that is a matter between Sweden and the USA.

But, as far as I can discover, the USA have never made any extradition request.

The way the USA would get their hands on him has already been covered many times in previous threads.

There would be no extradition because there is a totally unique

extradition treaty between USA and Sweden which would allow USA to essentially " borrow " him from Sweden. He explains this on his own web site Sweden versus Assange

by now the whole world knows what's really going on. He would be locked up in America and given the Bradley Manning treatment. Very, very unfair

Edited February 17, 201313 yr by midas

I'm sure that the Met would do the same for any suspected criminal hiding out in an embassy in London.

If Assange is as innocent as he claims, why doesn't he go to Sweden and face his accusers?

What has he got to hide?

Nothing. When he is aquitted in Sweden he will then be handed over to the world's self appointed 'watchdog' so he can face charges that carry a possible death sentence.

For some crimes there is a statute of limitations. Avoid the authorities long enough and you are free. Maybe they need to have a spend limit too. It could be a side business for some countries. They could sell rooms in their embassies to fugitives with enough money.

The way the USA would get their hands on him has already been covered many times in previous threads.

There would be no extradition because there is a totally unique

Extradition treaty between USA and Sweden which would allow USA to essentially borrow him. He explains this on his own web site Sweden versus assange

Do you have an independent source to back up his, no doubt extremely biased, account?

by now the whole world knows what's really going on.

The whole world may now his version; but is that the truth?

For some crimes there is a statute of limitations. Avoid the authorities long enough and you are free. Maybe they need to have a spend limit too. It could be a side business for some countries. They could sell rooms in their embassies to fugitives with enough money.

There is no 'statute of limitation' in the UK for sex crimes; don't know about Sweden.

It only cost 600k extra, 2.3M was their normal wages that they would have paid no matter where the police were working.

An off-topic post and replies have been deleted.

It only cost 600k extra, 2.3M was their normal wages that they would have paid no matter where the police were working.

True, but other officers would have had to cover their duties.

Shame there is no way of extracting payment of these costs from either Assange or the Ecuadorian government.

BTW, odd that someone who believes so much in freedom of all information, no matter the concequences, should have imposed a gagging order on his own staff!

The only time they have ever done so is when the Iranian embassy was occupied by terrorists who were holding Iranian diplomats, and others, hostage.

Correction.

In 1988 an order was made under the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises (Cambodia) Order 1988, so that legal action could be taken to remove squatters who had moved in in 1978 after the embassy was left empty when the Cambodian government was overthrown by Pol Pot. The action was taken because once the squatters had been in the property for 12 years they would have gained legal title to it.

If the Met, or any other British authority, decided to enter the Ecuadorian embassy to remove Assange then a similar order would first have to be made by Parliament to allow them to do so.

It takes a week's notice before they give themselves the right to storm the embassy . . . which they won't because then every British High Comm, Embassy and Consulate would be fair game. Yet more empty posturing by the British government - all for a guy wanted for questioning.

A clearer picture of the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act:

http://www.headoflegal.com/2012/08/15/julian-assange-can-the-uk-withdraw-diplomatic-status-from-the-ecuadorian-embassy/

Have you actually read the history of these alleged crimes? It makes for interesting reading

It only cost 600k extra, 2.3M was their normal wages that they would have paid no matter where the police were working.

True, but other officers would have had to cover their duties.

Shame there is no way of extracting payment of these costs from either Assange or the Ecuadorian government.

BTW, odd that someone who believes so much in freedom of all information, no matter the concequences, should have imposed a gagging order on his own staff!

Quite misleading of you . . .

BTW, odd that someone who believes so much in freedom of all information, no matter the concequences, should have imposed a gagging order on his own staff!

Quite misleading of you . . .

Why misleading?

Are you saying that he did not impose such a gagging order?

As for the history of the case; the two women concerned, through their lawyers, claim he did sexually assault them; he, surprise surprise, denies it; claiming it was consensual.

If he is so confident about his case, why did he flee Sweden just before the Swedish police arrested him and why has he prolonged this for so long?

Return to Sweden, prove his case, end of story.

Remember, the USA have, so far, made no extradition request to anyone.

"The accusations in Sweden are unrelated to Assange's work for the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks which brought diplomatic earthquakes to the United States when it began releasing classified documents it had obtained"

Kind of makes you wonder what is the end-game for all parties concerned here. Seems like a stalemate without an end. I used to live on that small street (Hans Crescent) across from that Embassy, and I imagine together with Harrods must make a nice tourist attraction now. Go see political asylum-seeker Assange waive to the crowd then go shopping and for lunch.

Edited February 17, 201313 yr by keemapoot

A conspiracy theory post has been removed. This thread is about the cost related to the police at the embassy. Stay on topic.

I'm sure that the Met would do the same for any suspected criminal hiding out in an embassy in London.

If Assange is as innocent as he claims, why doesn't he go to Sweden and face his accusers?

What has he got to hide?

I don't know how many women would accuse you of having sex with them without condom? Probably none. Poor DNA shows in one's statements.

Well now is the time to send him the Checkbin,he most certainly can afford it.

It only cost 600k extra, 2.3M was their normal wages that they would have paid no matter where the police were working.

It doesn't work like that Tommo,1.7m would need to have been paid in Police overtime to cover their other duties.i.e a shortage of Police cover in other areas!

BTW, odd that someone who believes so much in freedom of all information, no matter the concequences, should have imposed a gagging order on his own staff!

Quite misleading of you . . .

Why misleading?

Are you saying that he did not impose such a gagging order?

As for the history of the case; the two women concerned, through their lawyers, claim he did sexually assault them; he, surprise surprise, denies it; claiming it was consensual.

If he is so confident about his case, why did he flee Sweden just before the Swedish police arrested him and why has he prolonged this for so long?

Return to Sweden, prove his case, end of story.

Remember, the USA have, so far, made no extradition request to anyone.

One thing certainly stands out in this whole story - the disproportion between what he is charged with (lesser rape allegations) and the measures taken to "get him".

Also I take the following from Wikipedia - I guess this is the truth and can be verified in official Swedish documents:

The EAW contained four complaints from two different women: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held plaintiff 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" plaintiff 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with plaintiff 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" plaintiff 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body.^[259][260]

An extradition hearing took place on 7–8 and 11 February 2011 before the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court.^[261][262] At the hearing, Assange's defence raised a variety of objections, including mismatches between the EAW and the original accuser statements to the Swedish police^[263][264] that exaggerated the nature of the complaints.^[265][266] In particular they argued the original police reports showed - contrary to the EAW - absence of alleged rape; absence of alleged force or injury; admission in both cases of consensual sex on the same occasions as the allegations; and splitting of a condom used with plaintiff 1 rather than failure to use one.

The defence also highlighted evidence that: plaintiff 2 had later admitted to being "half asleep" after consensual sex, rather than "asleep"; that the plaintiffs had originally been seeking to compel Assange to take an STD test rather than prosecution;^[267] and that plaintiff 1 had thrown a Crayfish party for Assange at her home the evening after the alleged incidents, from which she tweeted: "Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world's coolest, smartest people! It's amazing!" and invited Assange to stay in her room afterwards.^[268][269]

Reading the above, if it is true - and the Swedish prosecutors nor the allegedly raped women didn't say it wasn't - I don't see any reason why they uphold the arrest warrant.

Raising other charges after someone has been taken in custody is a common ploy, already used in Sweden against Gottfrid Svartholm when he recently returned to Sweden.

Two conclusions:

- The two women were somehow "conviced" to change their stories in order to charge Assange

- Swedish authorities obviously want to charge Assange with something else once he is in custody in Sweden.

Given the level of "cooperation" between UK and the USA, I wouldn't be surprised if the pending additional charges in Sweden were indeed USA-related, which would also explain the amount of resources put into this case by the UK.

So I guess it's up to the UK taxpayers to decide if they want to continue to promote the USA's political agenda with their money.

Edited February 17, 201313 yr by manarak

Please stay on the topic of the OP, which centers on the cost of the stand-off.

It is great for Julian that Rafael Correa won another term

Please stay on the topic of the OP, which centers on the cost of the stand-off.

In my opinion, the readiness of UK police institutions to shoulder such costs can be explained by a hidden agenda which I tried to explain.

And there will be even more costs, since they UK police wants to monitor the Embassy to arrest Assange when he sets foot outside.

Edited February 18, 201313 yr by manarak

" Swedish Supreme Court chairman Justice Stefan Lindskog says Mr Assange may be safe from extradition even if he returns to Sweden."

But many still believe " may " is not good enough ....?

Swedish Judge says Assange has little to fear

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-04/top-swedish-judge-backs-assange/4608854

'May'. What a quaint legal term . . .