This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

£25,000 a day for Met police to provide Musharraf gun guard

I cant believe this, its an absolute disgrace, why should we 'tax payers' pay to protect the life of this dictator, when he himself can afford it, this goverment is a joke, am out of words

£25,000 a day for Met police to provide Musharraf gun guard

Former Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf is being protected by Scotland Yard at a cost to taxpayers of around £25,000 a day.

It comes after it was revealed yesterday that the former military leader has swapped the presidential palace in Islamabad for a £1 million flat surrounded by the shisha bars and kebab joints of London's Arabic quarter.

The Metropolitan Police Specialist Protection Unit, known as SO1, has now assigned a 24-hour security team, said to be made up of at least ten men and women, to protect Musharraf at his three-bedroom flat.

Musharraf has been living in the relatively modest flat, near Tony Blair's Connaught Square mansion, for the last four months and is believed to enjoy dining at top restaurants including the Dorchester Hotel.

Although the former military leader pays for a team of retired Pakistani commandos to protect him, the decision to provide further security was taken at a meeting of the Royal and VIP Executive Committee held at the Home Office.

It is thought the decision to give Musharraf the costly protection service was taken because of fears that any attempt on his life could lead to injury for innocent civilians if he is targeted in public.

The security committee is responsible for the personal protection of the Prime Minister, former prime ministers, certain government ministers, some ambassadors and “high-profile persons considered to be under threat from terrorist attack in the UK”.

The costs are said to include the provision of a car, plus security equipment such as alarms and closed-circuit television cameras fitted to his flat.

Lord Ahmed of Rotherham has written to the Home Secretary Alan Johnson urging him to stop spending taxpayers' money on protection for Musharraf.

He said: “I think the Government needs to review Mr Musharraf's security. There are people within Britain who could do with those extra police officers rather than a man who can afford private body guards.”

Musharraf is the latest in a long line of dictators and dissidents to live in London and receive government protection.

General Augusto Pinochet, the Chilean dictator, lived in London and Surrey in 1998 when detained on an extradition charge during a stopover in London. He was given protection at the State's expense.

Benazir Bhutto, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, was in exile in London from 1998 to 2007 after being ousted from office, while Nawaz Sharif, another former Pakistani Prime Minister, was in exile in London from 2006 to 2008 but it is not known whether they received security from the Met.

Earlier this year the cost of providing police protection for junior members of the Royal Family was highlighted.

It is believed the annual bill for royalty protection could be as much as £50 million a year.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23742898-details/25%2C000+a+day+for+Met+police+to+provide+Musharraf+gun+guard/article.do

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

username328860

tbh i think its needed, and its better than giving banks bonuses to idiots, and paying for the 6th house for mp's. this is something that is needed its a politicain from a outisde country and if something happened to musharraf we would have a bad reputation for not looking after important people.

Reply 2

indigoblue

Now its our job to provide security for millionaire foreign dictators? :lolwut:

Reply 3

username328860

this is a one off, if we want to be angry at something we need to get lazy lards out of the sofa and start making people actually work rather than lieing about there disability. people on the doll need to either get a job or do community work/community police so streets would be cleaner safer. Reason why this country economy is not strong (considering we are paying so much tax on every thing) is people on benefits (when they are fit to work) as most of the tax goes to them its the reason why we dont have enough for the nhs/schools.

Reply 4

CombineHarvester

This is because of his hard line stance against the Al Qaeda in Pakistan. He's been one of our strongest/most important allies in the "war on terror" and he's caught a lot of suspected members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan. This is the reason as to why he needs the security. It's not going to be as costly as covering for Salman Rushdie for years.

Reply 5

e-lover

The guy was one of our strongest allies after 9/11.

This must have been a condition when he decided to step down, which I guess the government said yes too.

Reply 6

Bagration

I don't see a problem here.

Reply 7

chidona

£25000 a day is nothing.

Reply 8

EssexDan86

Musharraf was a dude, but it's still a waste of taxpayers' money. Especially when he has his own hired goons anyway!

Reply 9

vander Beth

This is peanuts in the scheme of things.

Reply 10

numb3rb0y

Disgraceful. The respect payed to tyrannical dictators visiting or staying in the West has always deeply disturbed me.

Reply 11

Fusion

vander Beth

This is peanuts in the scheme of things.

£9m a year isn't peanuts; if he lives another ten years that's £90m. But let's not care about the taxpayer :rolleyes:

Reply 12

L i b

indigoblue

Now its our job to provide security for millionaire foreign dictators? :lolwut:

Of course. It is the job of the British police to maintain the Queen's peace, irregardless of who the potential victim of crime is. You can hardly suggest people should protect themselves when they can't even legally own a handgun in this country.

Reply 13

Bagration

L i b

You can hardly suggest people should protect themselves when they can't even legally own a handgun in this country.

Bloody good show, sir!

Reply 14

punktopia

The media have you dancing merrily, don't they? All they need to do is mention "cost to the taxpayer" and you could practically squeeze the outrage out of your little red faces.

Reply 15

G50

Retarded newspaper logic. This takes into account the salary of the personnel employed, equipment used (and many other stupid things). It's not like they wouldn't be paid the same salary/using the same equipment if they weren't there. They'd just be somewhere else. And if they needed to be somewhere more important, then they would be.

Journalism fail. Or is it a success? Journalism these days seems to be all about sensationalism, in which case the author did brilliantly.