[guitarbill]

> His continued residence at the embassy and bringing him to justice had cost taxpayers £16m, she [Judge Deborah Taylor] added.

Disgracefully dishonest in multiple ways. Not to mention, the police force's continued incompetence should have no bearing (maybe it didn't).

[Veen]

You haven't said what is dishonest? Did they do their sums wrong? Did it not cost £16m?

[guitarbill]

To imply he was responsible or even warranted such an expensive operation is ludicrous. Second, it's bad - but not unexpected - that the US' secret arrest warrant, which it turns out did exist, was not factored in.

[foldr]

Assange is not responsible for deliberately skipping bail?

I'm somewhat shocked by the idea that people should be allowed to get away with breaking the law just because it would be expensive to catch them. I don't think many British people would agree with that attitude.

[guitarbill]

I imagine a few people a year skip bail, and I think it's fair to say most of them don't have a 16 million police operation thrown at them.

People also seem to be happy to forget the UN has found he has been arbitrarily detained [0]. The judge could have factored that in, she did not, probably to save face in light of a ridiculous 16 million pound police operation and pandering to US relations.

[0] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...

[foldr]

>I imagine a few people a year skip bail, and I think it's fair to say most of them don't have a 16 million police operation thrown at them.

So? It's only to be expected that more money will be spent on enforcing the law when it's being flagrantly violated in the public eye.

I think in reality you object to any attempt to hold Assange to account for skipping bail, and you'd be no happier if only, say, £10,000 had been spent in attempting to do so. If you don't object to the law being enforced, I don't think you can really object that "too much" money is being spent. It's up to the relevant authorities to figure out when enough is enough, financially speaking.

The UN finding was daft, as Assange was not detained at all, and hence obviously not arbitrarily detained. If you look into that in more detail, you'll find a dissenting view by one member of the relevant panel - presumably the only person with his or her head screwed on:

> The finding in Assange’s case is a surprising one. As a dissent by the working group’s Ukrainian member, Vladimir Tochilovsky, points out, there is a thin basis upon which to argue that Assange is detained in the Ecuadorean embassy. “Mr. Assange fled the bail in June 2012 and since then stays at the premises of the embassy using them as a safe haven to evade arrest,” Tochilovsky wrote. “Indeed, fugitives are often self-confined within the places where they evade arrest and detention.”

[effie]

> "I don't think you can really object that "too much" money is being spent."

If you are UK taxpayer, you can.

> "It's up to the relevant authorities to figure out when enough is enough, financially speaking." It is, but when they spend more than seems appropriate for the offense, then questions and doubts about the incentives pop up.

[saalweachter]

I will note that the "secret arrest warrant" (grand jury indictment) appears to have only existed for a little over a year; there is currently no evidence that one existed for the majority of Assange's residence in the embassy.

[mothsonasloth]

Yea, £16m for a lucrative posting for a bobby just to stand around.

The courts could have been forward thinking and left his bail-skipping as a misdemeanor.