That is the way the Metropolitan Police claim that it has cost them some 10 million pounds or something equally ridiculous, over the last 3 years to keep an eye on the Ecuadorian Embassy, where of course Mr. Assange currently resides.
I have never heard so much drivel.
Where exactly do they get these people from and just quite what mind altering substance are they actually on?
Let's say a Met. Policeman is on £30,000 a year.
True, as they have had someone stationed outside the embassy 24 hours a day, presumably in rotation of three 8 hour shifts, that would require a total of 3 Policemen.
If the said Policemen were indeed on £30,000 a year, that would be an annual cost of £90,000 over 3 years, giving a somewhat more realistic and credible actual cost of £270,000.
Well, £10,000,000 is slightly different to £270,000.
Of course we all know, or rather, some of us realize the (political) reasons of exactly how and why they're costing it like they have.
The Police have their own budget and are busy pretending to be a business.
Therefore they are simply acting, as a business and adopting their accountancy principles.
What they basically do is add up the total cost of running the Met. Police for a year, divide it by the number of warranted officers they have, to give a man hour cost.
So for example and ease of maths; if you had a Police force that cost £10,000,000 a year to run and you had 100 Policemen, you could say each officer costs £100,000 a year.
This is despite the fact that, given the actual Police salary may be say £30,000 of that, the rest are what's known as standing costs or liabilities.
Private business account like that in order to achieve a rental or supply cost per unit which they then add a profit margin on to. Or simply for tax reasons.
Which is fine if you are a business and are entirely profit driven and solely orientated to that objective, but not if you're actually a publicly run and funded, statutory service, founded by an act of parliament.
However, by apparently adopting this mentality they have the means by which to charge for, 'contract' out, or employ outside services.
That's what it's all about.
Trying to make money, in order to make the Police self-funding.
And indeed to justify any cuts to the service by way of using the statistics produced. (See Statistics, under 'Article' at top of homepage).
Of course the costing is all nonsense, it's simply smoke and mirrors.
Think about it.
When the aforementioned 3 Policemen are on duty for their 8 hour shift outside the Ecuadorian Embassy, it's not really costing anything more than simply their wages.
Indeed, it could be said that it's not even costing the Met. anything at all really,
That's because the Policemen are employed, as full time staff in spite of, not because of their duties and are in fact a standing cost, no matter what.
So if they weren't on duty outside the Embassy, they would still be on duty regardless.
They'd still be on the payroll when they clocked in, except they would be doing something different, somewhere else.
After all, they didn't take on 3 extra Policemen specifically to cover the job.
The same goes for all the other liabilities the Met. ludicrously account for, I.E. basically everything; stationary, vehicles, equipment, uniform, the lot.
That's all there, as an absolute and statutory cost whether or not any Police ever actually leave a Police station.
To put that in to context, if there were no crime whatsoever for a year and the Police were not needed at all, for anything, the policing bill for that year would still be the same.
Apart from slightly smaller diesel fuel bill because they'd not actually driven anywhere, granted.
We've touched on some of the reasons why government departments are given their own budgets before; (see blog, Junior Doctors Pay (cut) 8/11/15) together with some of the entirely intentional and desired, adverse results it can effect.
The inherent, almost symbiotic relationship between budgets and statistics is also alluded to under the heading of Statistics, in the 'Article' section at the top of the homepage and will be elaborated on under the heading entitled Privatization, also in the 'Article' section. in due course.
So why's it happening?
Because of the Tory ideological dogma of privatization, government departments, services and 'agencies' are given their own budget to look and act like a private company, in what is basically a surreptitious prelude to privatization.
By having a direct budget they can make every minutia they can claim figures for accountable and therefore by definition, the results become comparable.
This is then the yardstick by which they can measure the cost against the private sector.
Thus, the the tool by which any service can be abolished, withdrawn, sold off or contracted out can be justified, as apparently too expensive.
The subsequent market for private tender in the public sector this creates, is thereby conveniently defended by this premise and consequently recommended; thus the foundation for the introduction of private business is laid.
It's happening at the DVLC, VOSA and the NHS right now.
Like we've said before, simple when you know how they do it.
That's why it's so annoying.