The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I have made up my mind, after years of being Liberal I am going to vote Labour at the elections next Thursday. Reason are way to many to list but in short, since Labour took over I have bought my own home, we have a good life style we want for little and in general for me at least every thing is tickety Boo just now.
Page:
the ITV election program seems so much quicker than the BBC's coverage; yet... meh :]
You'd trust the BBC these days more though. With their, Reiable coverage of anything :D
You'd trust the BBC these days more though. With their, Reiable coverage of anything :D
Strafio wrote:
>
> Kevstar, you seem to think that the problem is the dealers in the
> streets. Most of them are harmless (heck, some of my friends could be
> classed as "dealers"), and the more dangerous ones are just
> pawns in the bigger game.
> Libs policy seems to be to put less weight on the smaller fish in
> order to concentrate on the bigger problems, cut off the major
> businesses.
>
> Small pawns are just replaced, and barely worth worrying about in
> comparison, not that they'll be immune or anything, they'll still be
> in trouble if they get caught, it's just that the main focus will be
> elsewhere.
I don't quite understand why they don't simply follow the chain up if they're serious about the problem. You don't have to arrest every small-time dealer, no point, but surely they track them, find out where it's coming from, and so on up the chain.
Only, it seems to me they don't really want to fix this problem. Drugs occupy the people, the people then don't pay attention to what's going on in parliament, and they can pass through whatever they want without a fuss...
>
> Kevstar, you seem to think that the problem is the dealers in the
> streets. Most of them are harmless (heck, some of my friends could be
> classed as "dealers"), and the more dangerous ones are just
> pawns in the bigger game.
> Libs policy seems to be to put less weight on the smaller fish in
> order to concentrate on the bigger problems, cut off the major
> businesses.
>
> Small pawns are just replaced, and barely worth worrying about in
> comparison, not that they'll be immune or anything, they'll still be
> in trouble if they get caught, it's just that the main focus will be
> elsewhere.
I don't quite understand why they don't simply follow the chain up if they're serious about the problem. You don't have to arrest every small-time dealer, no point, but surely they track them, find out where it's coming from, and so on up the chain.
Only, it seems to me they don't really want to fix this problem. Drugs occupy the people, the people then don't pay attention to what's going on in parliament, and they can pass through whatever they want without a fuss...
Mouldy Cheese wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
> All a
> dealer has to do though is keep his stuff in a lump or in one bag
> uncut,
>
> Bollards. No-one can get away with having a few ounces of weed for
> 'personal consumption' can they?
Kevstar, you seem to think that the problem is the dealers in the streets. Most of them are harmless (heck, some of my friends could be classed as "dealers"), and the more dangerous ones are just pawns in the bigger game.
Libs policy seems to be to put less weight on the smaller fish in order to concentrate on the bigger problems, cut off the major businesses.
Small pawns are just replaced, and barely worth worrying about in comparison, not that they'll be immune or anything, they'll still be in trouble if they get caught, it's just that the main focus will be elsewhere.
> kevstar wrote:
> All a
> dealer has to do though is keep his stuff in a lump or in one bag
> uncut,
>
> Bollards. No-one can get away with having a few ounces of weed for
> 'personal consumption' can they?
Kevstar, you seem to think that the problem is the dealers in the streets. Most of them are harmless (heck, some of my friends could be classed as "dealers"), and the more dangerous ones are just pawns in the bigger game.
Libs policy seems to be to put less weight on the smaller fish in order to concentrate on the bigger problems, cut off the major businesses.
Small pawns are just replaced, and barely worth worrying about in comparison, not that they'll be immune or anything, they'll still be in trouble if they get caught, it's just that the main focus will be elsewhere.
Ah, today my girlfriend decided she will vote after months of saying she probably won't. And she's going for the Libdems.
Excellent.
On another forum I vist there's a poll up and currently Libdem's are ahead with 45%.
...I still think Labour will win though (even though I'd rather they didn't).
Excellent.
On another forum I vist there's a poll up and currently Libdem's are ahead with 45%.
...I still think Labour will win though (even though I'd rather they didn't).
kevstar wrote:
All a
> dealer has to do though is keep his stuff in a lump or in one bag
> uncut,
Bollards. No-one can get away with having a few ounces of weed for 'personal consumption' can they?
All a
> dealer has to do though is keep his stuff in a lump or in one bag
> uncut,
Bollards. No-one can get away with having a few ounces of weed for 'personal consumption' can they?
kevstar wrote:
> What, so your saying because I
> missunderstood one word, that makes me talk rubbish?
Yup. Because you said that the Libdems wouldn't lock up people who deal heroin and crack cocaine. And you repeated that, even after it had been demonstrated you were wrong.
So yeah, in this instance you were talking total and complete rubbish. Now for christs sake, pick up your toys and put them back in your pram. If you're upset at being laughed at in this thread, you don't really have anyone to blame but yourself.
> What, so your saying because I
> missunderstood one word, that makes me talk rubbish?
Yup. Because you said that the Libdems wouldn't lock up people who deal heroin and crack cocaine. And you repeated that, even after it had been demonstrated you were wrong.
So yeah, in this instance you were talking total and complete rubbish. Now for christs sake, pick up your toys and put them back in your pram. If you're upset at being laughed at in this thread, you don't really have anyone to blame but yourself.
kevstar wrote:
> If I had my way I would have it in my manifesto to build more prisons!
> How would I pay for it? Drug money siezed in raids.
/golfclap.
And what do you do when those prisons are in the same state as our current prison system.
Let me guess...
Build more?
> If I had my way I would have it in my manifesto to build more prisons!
> How would I pay for it? Drug money siezed in raids.
/golfclap.
And what do you do when those prisons are in the same state as our current prison system.
Let me guess...
Build more?
kevstar wrote:
> If I had my way I would have it in my manifesto to build more prisons!
And do what with them exactly?
Waste more of your taxpayers money on storing 'criminals' in these facilities?
In my opinion, prison isn't the only bottom line answer to crime.
Locking people up and 'throwing away the key' is just a temporary storage for the problem.
> If I had my way I would have it in my manifesto to build more prisons!
And do what with them exactly?
Waste more of your taxpayers money on storing 'criminals' in these facilities?
In my opinion, prison isn't the only bottom line answer to crime.
Locking people up and 'throwing away the key' is just a temporary storage for the problem.
Pandaemonium wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
> [URL]http://simplythebest.net/sounds/MP3/sound_effects_MP3/sound_effect_MP3_files/baby_cry_1.mp3[/URL]
Bwaaaaahahahahahahahahahaaaa!!
> kevstar wrote:
> [URL]http://simplythebest.net/sounds/MP3/sound_effects_MP3/sound_effect_MP3_files/baby_cry_1.mp3[/URL]
Bwaaaaahahahahahahahahahaaaa!!
kevstar wrote:
> [URL]http://simplythebest.net/sounds/MP3/sound_effects_MP3/sound_effect_MP3_files/baby_cry_1.mp3[/URL]
> [URL]http://simplythebest.net/sounds/MP3/sound_effects_MP3/sound_effect_MP3_files/baby_cry_1.mp3[/URL]
Page: