Did the UK government pay “millions and millions of dollars” to try to snag Julian Assange? ...
Is it okay to consider publishing in my first year of PhD?
How to charge AirPods to keep battery healthy?
Cooking pasta in a water boiler
Button changing its text & action. Good or terrible?
Is an up-to-date browser secure on an out-of-date OS?
Worn-tile Scrabble
Deal with toxic manager when you can't quit
Can withdrawing asylum be illegal?
Can you cast a spell on someone in the Ethereal Plane, if you are on the Material Plane and have the True Seeing spell active?
What does Linus Torvalds mean when he says that Git "never ever" tracks a file?
How can I add encounters in the Lost Mine of Phandelver campaign without giving PCs too much XP?
What is the most efficient way to store a numeric range?
Did Scotland spend $250,000 for the slogan "Welcome to Scotland"?
What to do when moving next to a bird sanctuary with a loosely-domesticated cat?
Keeping a retro style to sci-fi spaceships?
Can there be female White Walkers?
Is bread bad for ducks?
What could be the right powersource for 15 seconds lifespan disposable giant chainsaw?
Why can't devices on different VLANs, but on the same subnet, communicate?
How did passengers keep warm on sail ships?
Kerning for subscripts of sigma?
What was the last CPU that did not have the x87 floating-point unit built in?
Why couldn't they take pictures of a closer black hole?
A female thief is not sold to make restitution -- so what happens instead?
Did the UK government pay “millions and millions of dollars” to try to snag Julian Assange?
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InDid NATO instruct anti-government neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine on conducting diversions and waging guerilla?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 millions of illegal immigrants vote in the 2016 USA election?Did the Syrian government use chemical weapons in Khan Shaykhun?Did the Syrian government use Sarin (or other chemical weapons) in the 2017 Khan Shaykhun attack?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?
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
add a comment |
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
10
Although the answer is probably 'yes', attributing the responsibility of the expense to Assange is a little unfair. It was the government's decision how actively to pursue the 'stakeout', and they could have spent less or much more.
– kbelder
13 hours ago
12
No. They spent millions and millions of pounds.
– reirab
10 hours ago
@reirab - See my answer They spent nothing...above and beyond their existing and normal budget...
– Richard
9 hours ago
add a comment |
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
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
politics united-kingdom
edited 3 hours ago
Barry Harrison
2,42411038
2,42411038
asked 15 hours ago
Gimme the 411Gimme the 411
16818
16818
10
Although the answer is probably 'yes', attributing the responsibility of the expense to Assange is a little unfair. It was the government's decision how actively to pursue the 'stakeout', and they could have spent less or much more.
– kbelder
13 hours ago
12
No. They spent millions and millions of pounds.
– reirab
10 hours ago
@reirab - See my answer They spent nothing...above and beyond their existing and normal budget...
– Richard
9 hours ago
add a comment |
10
Although the answer is probably 'yes', attributing the responsibility of the expense to Assange is a little unfair. It was the government's decision how actively to pursue the 'stakeout', and they could have spent less or much more.
– kbelder
13 hours ago
12
No. They spent millions and millions of pounds.
– reirab
10 hours ago
@reirab - See my answer They spent nothing...above and beyond their existing and normal budget...
– Richard
9 hours ago
10
10
Although the answer is probably 'yes', attributing the responsibility of the expense to Assange is a little unfair. It was the government's decision how actively to pursue the 'stakeout', and they could have spent less or much more.
– kbelder
13 hours ago
Although the answer is probably 'yes', attributing the responsibility of the expense to Assange is a little unfair. It was the government's decision how actively to pursue the 'stakeout', and they could have spent less or much more.
– kbelder
13 hours ago
12
12
No. They spent millions and millions of pounds.
– reirab
10 hours ago
No. They spent millions and millions of pounds.
– reirab
10 hours ago
@reirab - See my answer They spent nothing...above and beyond their existing and normal budget...
– Richard
9 hours ago
@reirab - See my answer They spent nothing...above and beyond their existing and normal budget...
– Richard
9 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
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.
5
It's worthy of mention that this money was not burned in a bonfire, neither was it sent aboard, but it was used to pay police officers who would have been paid anyway even if they were assigned to other jobs. So it's not like the country became poorer by that amount of money, as it was spent internally and it stayed in the economy.
– vsz
2 hours ago
add a comment |
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 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.
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.
Oh, and for the record, the Met didn't spend a single dollar on policing since their entire budget is in Sterling.
4
Not sure this answers the question. The fact that a budget exists doesn't mean the same funds would have been spent anyway.
– barbecue
6 hours ago
1
@barbecue And even if they had, they would have been spent on other things.
– jpmc26
2 hours ago
@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
35 mins ago
@jpmc26 - Sure. They'd have spent it hanging around multiple embassies on the same road instead of mostly outside one embassy.
– Richard
34 mins ago
I think the snarky comment about dollars vs pounds sterling is unnecessary. It’s obvious and widely understood that journalists regularly report monetary amounts in a currency familiar to their reader and not the actual currency of the location it was spent so that it’s easier to understand.
– Notts90
14 mins ago
add a comment |
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".
Can the downvoter please explain what they found incorrect in my answer?
– DenisS
5 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
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.
5
It's worthy of mention that this money was not burned in a bonfire, neither was it sent aboard, but it was used to pay police officers who would have been paid anyway even if they were assigned to other jobs. So it's not like the country became poorer by that amount of money, as it was spent internally and it stayed in the economy.
– vsz
2 hours ago
add a comment |
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.
5
It's worthy of mention that this money was not burned in a bonfire, neither was it sent aboard, but it was used to pay police officers who would have been paid anyway even if they were assigned to other jobs. So it's not like the country became poorer by that amount of money, as it was spent internally and it stayed in the economy.
– vsz
2 hours ago
add a comment |
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.
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.
edited 7 hours ago
answered 14 hours ago
GiterGiter
7,99863030
7,99863030
5
It's worthy of mention that this money was not burned in a bonfire, neither was it sent aboard, but it was used to pay police officers who would have been paid anyway even if they were assigned to other jobs. So it's not like the country became poorer by that amount of money, as it was spent internally and it stayed in the economy.
– vsz
2 hours ago
add a comment |
5
It's worthy of mention that this money was not burned in a bonfire, neither was it sent aboard, but it was used to pay police officers who would have been paid anyway even if they were assigned to other jobs. So it's not like the country became poorer by that amount of money, as it was spent internally and it stayed in the economy.
– vsz
2 hours ago
5
5
It's worthy of mention that this money was not burned in a bonfire, neither was it sent aboard, but it was used to pay police officers who would have been paid anyway even if they were assigned to other jobs. So it's not like the country became poorer by that amount of money, as it was spent internally and it stayed in the economy.
– vsz
2 hours ago
It's worthy of mention that this money was not burned in a bonfire, neither was it sent aboard, but it was used to pay police officers who would have been paid anyway even if they were assigned to other jobs. So it's not like the country became poorer by that amount of money, as it was spent internally and it stayed in the economy.
– vsz
2 hours ago
add a comment |
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 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.
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.
Oh, and for the record, the Met didn't spend a single dollar on policing since their entire budget is in Sterling.
4
Not sure this answers the question. The fact that a budget exists doesn't mean the same funds would have been spent anyway.
– barbecue
6 hours ago
1
@barbecue And even if they had, they would have been spent on other things.
– jpmc26
2 hours ago
@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
35 mins ago
@jpmc26 - Sure. They'd have spent it hanging around multiple embassies on the same road instead of mostly outside one embassy.
– Richard
34 mins ago
I think the snarky comment about dollars vs pounds sterling is unnecessary. It’s obvious and widely understood that journalists regularly report monetary amounts in a currency familiar to their reader and not the actual currency of the location it was spent so that it’s easier to understand.
– Notts90
14 mins ago
add a comment |
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 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.
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.
Oh, and for the record, the Met didn't spend a single dollar on policing since their entire budget is in Sterling.
4
Not sure this answers the question. The fact that a budget exists doesn't mean the same funds would have been spent anyway.
– barbecue
6 hours ago
1
@barbecue And even if they had, they would have been spent on other things.
– jpmc26
2 hours ago
@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
35 mins ago
@jpmc26 - Sure. They'd have spent it hanging around multiple embassies on the same road instead of mostly outside one embassy.
– Richard
34 mins ago
I think the snarky comment about dollars vs pounds sterling is unnecessary. It’s obvious and widely understood that journalists regularly report monetary amounts in a currency familiar to their reader and not the actual currency of the location it was spent so that it’s easier to understand.
– Notts90
14 mins ago
add a comment |
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 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.
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.
Oh, and for the record, the Met didn't spend a single dollar on policing since their entire budget is in Sterling.
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 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.
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.
Oh, and for the record, the Met didn't spend a single dollar on policing since their entire budget is in Sterling.
edited 10 hours ago
answered 11 hours ago
RichardRichard
1,20311121
1,20311121
4
Not sure this answers the question. The fact that a budget exists doesn't mean the same funds would have been spent anyway.
– barbecue
6 hours ago
1
@barbecue And even if they had, they would have been spent on other things.
– jpmc26
2 hours ago
@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
35 mins ago
@jpmc26 - Sure. They'd have spent it hanging around multiple embassies on the same road instead of mostly outside one embassy.
– Richard
34 mins ago
I think the snarky comment about dollars vs pounds sterling is unnecessary. It’s obvious and widely understood that journalists regularly report monetary amounts in a currency familiar to their reader and not the actual currency of the location it was spent so that it’s easier to understand.
– Notts90
14 mins ago
add a comment |
4
Not sure this answers the question. The fact that a budget exists doesn't mean the same funds would have been spent anyway.
– barbecue
6 hours ago
1
@barbecue And even if they had, they would have been spent on other things.
– jpmc26
2 hours ago
@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
35 mins ago
@jpmc26 - Sure. They'd have spent it hanging around multiple embassies on the same road instead of mostly outside one embassy.
– Richard
34 mins ago
I think the snarky comment about dollars vs pounds sterling is unnecessary. It’s obvious and widely understood that journalists regularly report monetary amounts in a currency familiar to their reader and not the actual currency of the location it was spent so that it’s easier to understand.
– Notts90
14 mins ago
4
4
Not sure this answers the question. The fact that a budget exists doesn't mean the same funds would have been spent anyway.
– barbecue
6 hours ago
Not sure this answers the question. The fact that a budget exists doesn't mean the same funds would have been spent anyway.
– barbecue
6 hours ago
1
1
@barbecue And even if they had, they would have been spent on other things.
– jpmc26
2 hours ago
@barbecue And even if they had, they would have been spent on other things.
– jpmc26
2 hours ago
@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
35 mins ago
@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
35 mins ago
@jpmc26 - Sure. They'd have spent it hanging around multiple embassies on the same road instead of mostly outside one embassy.
– Richard
34 mins ago
@jpmc26 - Sure. They'd have spent it hanging around multiple embassies on the same road instead of mostly outside one embassy.
– Richard
34 mins ago
I think the snarky comment about dollars vs pounds sterling is unnecessary. It’s obvious and widely understood that journalists regularly report monetary amounts in a currency familiar to their reader and not the actual currency of the location it was spent so that it’s easier to understand.
– Notts90
14 mins ago
I think the snarky comment about dollars vs pounds sterling is unnecessary. It’s obvious and widely understood that journalists regularly report monetary amounts in a currency familiar to their reader and not the actual currency of the location it was spent so that it’s easier to understand.
– Notts90
14 mins ago
add a comment |
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".
Can the downvoter please explain what they found incorrect in my answer?
– DenisS
5 hours ago
add a comment |
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".
Can the downvoter please explain what they found incorrect in my answer?
– DenisS
5 hours ago
add a comment |
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".
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".
edited 14 hours ago
answered 14 hours ago
DenisSDenisS
13.1k45462
13.1k45462
Can the downvoter please explain what they found incorrect in my answer?
– DenisS
5 hours ago
add a comment |
Can the downvoter please explain what they found incorrect in my answer?
– DenisS
5 hours ago
Can the downvoter please explain what they found incorrect in my answer?
– DenisS
5 hours ago
Can the downvoter please explain what they found incorrect in my answer?
– DenisS
5 hours ago
add a comment |
10
Although the answer is probably 'yes', attributing the responsibility of the expense to Assange is a little unfair. It was the government's decision how actively to pursue the 'stakeout', and they could have spent less or much more.
– kbelder
13 hours ago
12
No. They spent millions and millions of pounds.
– reirab
10 hours ago
@reirab - See my answer They spent nothing...above and beyond their existing and normal budget...
– Richard
9 hours ago