The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Ok so it says owning hard drugs, there is a difference, yes. All a dealer has to do though is keep his stuff in a lump or in one bag uncut, and if he gets raided, he just has to claim it was his personal. Thats not going to distinguish the dealers from the users unless they get caught red handed which is very unlikely. Dealers are not stupid, they know the law better than most people and know where a system can be exploited, and this has that writen all over it.
It says for OWNING any hard drugs. NOT for dealing them.
A bit of a difference really, isn't it? Or are you of the opinion that addicts should be punished? Should the police spend their time chasing addicts instead of the dealers.
A bit of a difference really, isn't it? Or are you of the opinion that addicts should be punished? Should the police spend their time chasing addicts instead of the dealers.
[URL]http://www.libdems.org.uk/media/documents/policies/LawandOrder.pdf[/URL]
If you look at the last page in this link you will see for yourself that it includes any hard drug. I hope that makes you lot happy.
If you look at the last page in this link you will see for yourself that it includes any hard drug. I hope that makes you lot happy.
We agreed to disagree in our last debate. Doesn't mean I'm going to sit back and watch whilst you make "nyuhhhhh" statements.
You initially said;
"If Lib Dems get into power it would mean anyone caught dealing smack or crack won't get banged up!"
Now you're saying
"Well as it states in there own manifesto that they'd rather concentrate police efforts on tackling drug trafickers and those drug dealers who resort to crime to feed there habits, rather than criminalising possesing canabis for there own personal smoke."
So no, it wouldn't put "people dealing smack and crack" in that category. In fact, it's considerably different, isn't it? It implies someone dealing cannabis to support their own cannabis habit, does it not? At the very most, you could say it's not 100% clear. Which is STILL quite a long way from "Libdems = any smack and crack dealers will be let off", isn't it?
You got your info from GMTV? Wow...a well known source of hard-edged journalistic reporting. You looked at the other websites? Based on our last debate, I'll be surprised if you looked at them in any detail.
You did exactly what you did in the last debate; you saw what you wanted to see, and looked only for evidence that backed up that assumption
[Edit] This seems to be a slightly differently worded version to what Sheepy just said...
You initially said;
"If Lib Dems get into power it would mean anyone caught dealing smack or crack won't get banged up!"
Now you're saying
"Well as it states in there own manifesto that they'd rather concentrate police efforts on tackling drug trafickers and those drug dealers who resort to crime to feed there habits, rather than criminalising possesing canabis for there own personal smoke."
So no, it wouldn't put "people dealing smack and crack" in that category. In fact, it's considerably different, isn't it? It implies someone dealing cannabis to support their own cannabis habit, does it not? At the very most, you could say it's not 100% clear. Which is STILL quite a long way from "Libdems = any smack and crack dealers will be let off", isn't it?
You got your info from GMTV? Wow...a well known source of hard-edged journalistic reporting. You looked at the other websites? Based on our last debate, I'll be surprised if you looked at them in any detail.
You did exactly what you did in the last debate; you saw what you wanted to see, and looked only for evidence that backed up that assumption
[Edit] This seems to be a slightly differently worded version to what Sheepy just said...
SHEEPY wrote:
> Stuff.
What I was just about to say, more or less word for word.
Hash is vastly different from crack and coke, as are the users.
> Stuff.
What I was just about to say, more or less word for word.
Hash is vastly different from crack and coke, as are the users.
You just made a wild assumption.
Their main point is focusing police effort on the larger scale of drugs rather than dealing with somebody with a joint in their pocket.
Where exactly do they say " We'll let off drug dealers as long as they don't resort to crime to feed their habit ". I just don't get what you mean.
They're saying their going to tackle drug traffickers and drug dealers whilst putting small crimes into the good of the community rather than crowd prisons.
You're so stupid
Their main point is focusing police effort on the larger scale of drugs rather than dealing with somebody with a joint in their pocket.
Where exactly do they say " We'll let off drug dealers as long as they don't resort to crime to feed their habit ". I just don't get what you mean.
They're saying their going to tackle drug traffickers and drug dealers whilst putting small crimes into the good of the community rather than crowd prisons.
You're so stupid
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/LD_uk_manifesto.pdf[/URL]
Well as it states in there own manifesto that they'd rather concentrate police efforts on tackling drug trafickers and those drug dealers who resort to crime to feed there habits, rather than criminalising possesing canabis for there own personal smoke. Then in the next section it states they will make non violent criminals such as fine defaulters, shop lifters and vandals to do tough community service rather than go to prison. Now forgive me if i'm wrong but surly that would put drug dealers in this bracket wouldn't it? After all it's a non violent crime.
And whats this about me putting my mouth before my brain? We agreed to disagree in our last debate, what I said I thought to be true, it's my view. If you would like to know where I got my information from it was from GMTV and when he said this I clicked "lib dems drug policy" on google, and there it was, there was also a load of other sites incuding one from the bbc which all mention the relaxed laws there manifesto.
Well as it states in there own manifesto that they'd rather concentrate police efforts on tackling drug trafickers and those drug dealers who resort to crime to feed there habits, rather than criminalising possesing canabis for there own personal smoke. Then in the next section it states they will make non violent criminals such as fine defaulters, shop lifters and vandals to do tough community service rather than go to prison. Now forgive me if i'm wrong but surly that would put drug dealers in this bracket wouldn't it? After all it's a non violent crime.
And whats this about me putting my mouth before my brain? We agreed to disagree in our last debate, what I said I thought to be true, it's my view. If you would like to know where I got my information from it was from GMTV and when he said this I clicked "lib dems drug policy" on google, and there it was, there was also a load of other sites incuding one from the bbc which all mention the relaxed laws there manifesto.
&*%& me kevstar, haven't you learned your lesson about unquestioningly believing what you read in whatever tabloid rag has caught your eye with front page pictures of some topless tart?
Like Pandaemonium says; lets see the links to this. Sounds like another example of engaging your mouth before allowing your brain to get into gear to me.
Like Pandaemonium says; lets see the links to this. Sounds like another example of engaging your mouth before allowing your brain to get into gear to me.
All my friends are voting Labour.
Their reasons make me sad.
" I don't care about Iraq, I just want a good economy so I can get a job when I leave Uni "
" You'll let the Tories in!! !
" Mate, we live in a Labour stronghold, Tories would NEVER win here "
" You're wasting your vote with the Lib Dems "
Not to mention our MP is a waanker
Their reasons make me sad.
" I don't care about Iraq, I just want a good economy so I can get a job when I leave Uni "
" You'll let the Tories in!! !
" Mate, we live in a Labour stronghold, Tories would NEVER win here "
" You're wasting your vote with the Lib Dems "
Not to mention our MP is a waanker
kevstar wrote:
> If Lib Dems get into power it would mean anyone caught dealing smack
> or crack won't get banged up! I don't know about you lot but I for
> one think it stinks. What next, counciling for murderers, a child
> care course for pedophiles, disgrace.
Link please. All I can find is "As Lib Dem frontbencher, Jenny Tonge MP, explained, "at the Spring Conference in Manchester this year, the Liberal Democrats did vote to legalise cannabis, when international agreements could be made to do so, and to abolish criminal sentences for personal use of all drugs." (Jenny Tonge press release, 22 April 2002). Yet this would send out the signal that hard drugs - like crack cocaine - are socially acceptable and would cause an explosion in their use."
> If Lib Dems get into power it would mean anyone caught dealing smack
> or crack won't get banged up! I don't know about you lot but I for
> one think it stinks. What next, counciling for murderers, a child
> care course for pedophiles, disgrace.
Link please. All I can find is "As Lib Dem frontbencher, Jenny Tonge MP, explained, "at the Spring Conference in Manchester this year, the Liberal Democrats did vote to legalise cannabis, when international agreements could be made to do so, and to abolish criminal sentences for personal use of all drugs." (Jenny Tonge press release, 22 April 2002). Yet this would send out the signal that hard drugs - like crack cocaine - are socially acceptable and would cause an explosion in their use."
Page: