The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
For some reason that line made me chuckle - but behind the titters there's something seriously wrong here.
Even with the tip-off police got and I can appreciate the nervousness around a "chemical weapons" factory (despite the evidence suggesting the actual odds of someone doing this are akin to winning the lottery, twice if you never play it) we've had a man shot - not for resisting arrest or threatening a policeman - but shot.
We've had a grudging apology from the Police (although to an extent how much they're individually to blame I don't know - they're just enforcing government policy). The government are as per usual high and mighty over this.
Of course, on one hand I could be flippant - I'm not a Muslim, not asian and I don't have along beard. I'm never going to have my house ripped apart or my family threatened - so why should I be bothered ?
Like it or not - these are our fellow British citizens. Their human rights appear to have gone out of the window - and I don't like the idea of living in what is slowly becoming an American style "democracy" where you can be shot by the Police simply for running away. I *like* living in a country where the Police aren't armed and that you have a presumed innocence until proven guilty.
My solution ?
Well certainly not this. We've now had 2 shootings, both of innocent people and no "big wins" against the terorrists. Its clear its not working - in fact its having the opposite effect, alienating areas of the community and fanning the flames of Daily Mail-esque hysteria. What next ? Soldiers on the streets ? Checkpoints ?
I'm sure lots of people disagree with me - but we seem to be following the US's external and internal policies quite closely. Curtail freedom of speech, curtail the right to demonstrate, dismiss all opposing views and of course, invade any foreign powers who aren't towing your preffered line.
As opposed to building bridges or admitting mistakes we're actively burning them. Its about time that the administration admitted their mistakes (as they finally did over the Irish issue) and tried a less agressive approach. The current approach is heavy handed, devisive (I'm remiss to use the term Police State just yet) and isn't going to win us any favours on the international field.
Even with the tip-off police got and I can appreciate the nervousness around a "chemical weapons" factory (despite the evidence suggesting the actual odds of someone doing this are akin to winning the lottery, twice if you never play it) we've had a man shot - not for resisting arrest or threatening a policeman - but shot.
We've had a grudging apology from the Police (although to an extent how much they're individually to blame I don't know - they're just enforcing government policy). The government are as per usual high and mighty over this.
Of course, on one hand I could be flippant - I'm not a Muslim, not asian and I don't have along beard. I'm never going to have my house ripped apart or my family threatened - so why should I be bothered ?
Like it or not - these are our fellow British citizens. Their human rights appear to have gone out of the window - and I don't like the idea of living in what is slowly becoming an American style "democracy" where you can be shot by the Police simply for running away. I *like* living in a country where the Police aren't armed and that you have a presumed innocence until proven guilty.
My solution ?
Well certainly not this. We've now had 2 shootings, both of innocent people and no "big wins" against the terorrists. Its clear its not working - in fact its having the opposite effect, alienating areas of the community and fanning the flames of Daily Mail-esque hysteria. What next ? Soldiers on the streets ? Checkpoints ?
I'm sure lots of people disagree with me - but we seem to be following the US's external and internal policies quite closely. Curtail freedom of speech, curtail the right to demonstrate, dismiss all opposing views and of course, invade any foreign powers who aren't towing your preffered line.
As opposed to building bridges or admitting mistakes we're actively burning them. Its about time that the administration admitted their mistakes (as they finally did over the Irish issue) and tried a less agressive approach. The current approach is heavy handed, devisive (I'm remiss to use the term Police State just yet) and isn't going to win us any favours on the international field.
Page:
AFC Aussie wrote:
> It may seem small minded of myself, but this is by far not the
> worst way to go about things. When that guy was shot dead during
> the bombings in london last year, he ran from the police during a
> time when the whole country was nervous.
He didn't run, infact all of the allegations of him running away, hopping barriers and the like (even the 'padded jacket' that could've been used to conceal explosives) were false.
When I first heard about the shooting, I thought the police should get the benefit of the doubt. When it was announced the guy was shot not once, not twice, but seven times in the head, I wondered. SHooting someone seven times indicates the officer(s) who pulled the trigger(s) were jumpy or trigger-happy or something. They weren't in a sound state to be holding a gun. If you shoot someone once in the head, they're lucky if their still alive. Twice and it's a miracle. So it's completely unnecessary to unload seven rounds into a persons head. Yes, the country was nervous and you have to assume so were the police. But they're supposed to be trained for these extreme situations, and shooting someone seven times indicates they were not in control.
> These guys must have caught the attention of the law somehow, so
> for that reason they should be treated as suspects.
>
> Its nothing to do with Rascism, its that I'd rather have
> somebody shot when there is suspision over them and they turn
> out to be innocent, than not shoot somebody who turns out to be
> a terrorist who kills hundreds.
The police are just as fallable as anyone else. Just because someone attracted the attention of the police does not mean they've done something wrong. That's why we have judges and juries. And the assumption of innocence. If you're going to carry out an armed raid you should really need a fair bit of evidence to indicate something is going on.
And are you sure you'd prefer someone to be shot dead based on suspicion rather than attempt to arrest or incapacitate them? What if it was you or a member of your family or a friend? Someone shot dead for simply arousing the suspicion of a fallable police force, perhaps based on some anonymous tip-off from someone who just thought they saw or heard something they didn't, or mistook someone acting suspiciously for someone else...
The assumption of innocence and the lack of a death penalty in this country means even if we get something wrong in our justice system, it can be rectified. It's far from perfect, but it's better than killing someone when there's doubt over his guilt. You seem to be saying that you'd prefer an assumption of guilt and the death penalty for suspected terrorists... Which is worrying, we've already seen one innocent man shot dead for no good reason other than vague suspicions...
> It may seem small minded of myself, but this is by far not the
> worst way to go about things. When that guy was shot dead during
> the bombings in london last year, he ran from the police during a
> time when the whole country was nervous.
He didn't run, infact all of the allegations of him running away, hopping barriers and the like (even the 'padded jacket' that could've been used to conceal explosives) were false.
When I first heard about the shooting, I thought the police should get the benefit of the doubt. When it was announced the guy was shot not once, not twice, but seven times in the head, I wondered. SHooting someone seven times indicates the officer(s) who pulled the trigger(s) were jumpy or trigger-happy or something. They weren't in a sound state to be holding a gun. If you shoot someone once in the head, they're lucky if their still alive. Twice and it's a miracle. So it's completely unnecessary to unload seven rounds into a persons head. Yes, the country was nervous and you have to assume so were the police. But they're supposed to be trained for these extreme situations, and shooting someone seven times indicates they were not in control.
> These guys must have caught the attention of the law somehow, so
> for that reason they should be treated as suspects.
>
> Its nothing to do with Rascism, its that I'd rather have
> somebody shot when there is suspision over them and they turn
> out to be innocent, than not shoot somebody who turns out to be
> a terrorist who kills hundreds.
The police are just as fallable as anyone else. Just because someone attracted the attention of the police does not mean they've done something wrong. That's why we have judges and juries. And the assumption of innocence. If you're going to carry out an armed raid you should really need a fair bit of evidence to indicate something is going on.
And are you sure you'd prefer someone to be shot dead based on suspicion rather than attempt to arrest or incapacitate them? What if it was you or a member of your family or a friend? Someone shot dead for simply arousing the suspicion of a fallable police force, perhaps based on some anonymous tip-off from someone who just thought they saw or heard something they didn't, or mistook someone acting suspiciously for someone else...
The assumption of innocence and the lack of a death penalty in this country means even if we get something wrong in our justice system, it can be rectified. It's far from perfect, but it's better than killing someone when there's doubt over his guilt. You seem to be saying that you'd prefer an assumption of guilt and the death penalty for suspected terrorists... Which is worrying, we've already seen one innocent man shot dead for no good reason other than vague suspicions...
Not naive, but you need to get the facts right.
He wasn't running from anything at the time. He went on the bus, made his way to the train like normal before the police made their prescence felt. Those allegations of him running through the station, jumping over the ticket turntables were all false and unfounded, but were played up by the media when they heard alleged eyewitnesses' accounts.
> These guys must have caught the attention of the law somehow, so
> for that reason they should be treated as suspects.
>
He caught their attention by living in the same council estate as someone the police had been monitoring. He left the estate in the morning, and because of gross incompetence and probably emotions carried over from 7/7, were eager to seek revenge on someone. Unfortunately through their lack of research they killed an innocent man.
He wasn't running from anything at the time. He went on the bus, made his way to the train like normal before the police made their prescence felt. Those allegations of him running through the station, jumping over the ticket turntables were all false and unfounded, but were played up by the media when they heard alleged eyewitnesses' accounts.
> These guys must have caught the attention of the law somehow, so
> for that reason they should be treated as suspects.
>
He caught their attention by living in the same council estate as someone the police had been monitoring. He left the estate in the morning, and because of gross incompetence and probably emotions carried over from 7/7, were eager to seek revenge on someone. Unfortunately through their lack of research they killed an innocent man.
It may seem small minded of myself, but this is by far not the worst way to go about things. When that guy was shot dead during the bombings in london last year, he ran from the police during a time when the whole country was nervous.
These guys must have caught the attention of the law somehow, so for that reason they should be treated as suspects.
Its nothing to do with Rascism, its that I'd rather have somebody shot when there is suspision over them and they turn out to be innocent, than not shoot somebody who turns out to be a terrorist who kills hundreds.
Or is that just me being Naieve?
These guys must have caught the attention of the law somehow, so for that reason they should be treated as suspects.
Its nothing to do with Rascism, its that I'd rather have somebody shot when there is suspision over them and they turn out to be innocent, than not shoot somebody who turns out to be a terrorist who kills hundreds.
Or is that just me being Naieve?
pb wrote:
> Why can't everyone just get along...
Because there is always one idiot with world domination on their mind, Hitler, Bush, Pinky and the Brain!
> Why can't everyone just get along...
Because there is always one idiot with world domination on their mind, Hitler, Bush, Pinky and the Brain!
Why can't everyone just get along...
Ah a name of cunning proportions. Added
Obviously you can't stop a million people demonstrating.
Edit: I'm thinking more of the small groups that turned up to boo Bush on his first 'victory' parade, when it was raining and such. I think under the new laws they could quickly move those people away.
[email protected]
Edit: I'm thinking more of the small groups that turned up to boo Bush on his first 'victory' parade, when it was raining and such. I think under the new laws they could quickly move those people away.
[email protected]
Hedfix wrote:
> So while they're not blatantly taking away people's right to
> demonstrate they are trying to lessen the impact of such
> demonstrations.
Well if that's true they're not doing a very good job of it considering the march, almost a million strong, in Los Angeles went past City Hall and alot of other cities had their marches around theirs.
The one in Brooklyn also went over the Bridge stopping traffic for over 3 hours.
How exactly is that curtailing demonstration and lessening the impact of them? If they were being curtailed there's no way they'd be allowed to protest around political buildings or halt traffic.
Anyway, Hedfix, are you on msn? I'd like to add you to ask you a couple of things, if you don't want to give out your addy i'll put mine up. Just off to have my dinner though so it'll be around 2 before i put it up
> So while they're not blatantly taking away people's right to
> demonstrate they are trying to lessen the impact of such
> demonstrations.
Well if that's true they're not doing a very good job of it considering the march, almost a million strong, in Los Angeles went past City Hall and alot of other cities had their marches around theirs.
The one in Brooklyn also went over the Bridge stopping traffic for over 3 hours.
How exactly is that curtailing demonstration and lessening the impact of them? If they were being curtailed there's no way they'd be allowed to protest around political buildings or halt traffic.
Anyway, Hedfix, are you on msn? I'd like to add you to ask you a couple of things, if you don't want to give out your addy i'll put mine up. Just off to have my dinner though so it'll be around 2 before i put it up
Kawada wrote:
> Well if you must know what i said i was merely disagreeing with
> your penultimate paragraph that stated the US discourages
> freedom of speech, right to demonstrate, dismisses opposing
> views and invades any nation that doesn't tow the line.
>
> Either you didn't see the countless anti-war protests and huge
> immigration reform marches or are choosing to ignore them.
But they have passed laws that set specific areas where people can demonstrate (ie confining demonstrations) and I think there's something about applying for permission beforehand etc etc.
So while they're not blatantly taking away people's right to demonstrate they are trying to lessen the impact of such demonstrations.
It doesn't help that the media are utter gimps with regards to trying to discredit qualified hecklers (CIA dudes, oh yes) calling on Rumsfeld/Cheney (bit interchangeable aren't they?) to explain themselves over "WOMD".
> Well if you must know what i said i was merely disagreeing with
> your penultimate paragraph that stated the US discourages
> freedom of speech, right to demonstrate, dismisses opposing
> views and invades any nation that doesn't tow the line.
>
> Either you didn't see the countless anti-war protests and huge
> immigration reform marches or are choosing to ignore them.
But they have passed laws that set specific areas where people can demonstrate (ie confining demonstrations) and I think there's something about applying for permission beforehand etc etc.
So while they're not blatantly taking away people's right to demonstrate they are trying to lessen the impact of such demonstrations.
It doesn't help that the media are utter gimps with regards to trying to discredit qualified hecklers (CIA dudes, oh yes) calling on Rumsfeld/Cheney (bit interchangeable aren't they?) to explain themselves over "WOMD".
biglime wrote:
> I don't think its necessarily a question of ethnicity - more of
> the word "terrorist". For which we have the current
> administration and the media to thank. If you look at the cold
> hard evidence regarding a chemical attack its vastly unlikely.
> The nearest anyone has ever come is a certain group in Japan -
> and despite having huge resources and funding they failed.
I believe the tokyo serin gas attacks in the underground had been their undoing. Apprently they were testing it first in the underground before finally proceding with taking out government. The japanese authorities did have a rough idea that AUM was producing something and didn't raid their premises until the attacks. Had they not done so things might have been different.
But to your point yeah, the chances of it succeeding are low, but they were working on a "tip off" and were simply acting upon that info. a massive disaster but then the police would have been critisied for not taking action if it really did take place.
> I don't think its necessarily a question of ethnicity - more of
> the word "terrorist". For which we have the current
> administration and the media to thank. If you look at the cold
> hard evidence regarding a chemical attack its vastly unlikely.
> The nearest anyone has ever come is a certain group in Japan -
> and despite having huge resources and funding they failed.
I believe the tokyo serin gas attacks in the underground had been their undoing. Apprently they were testing it first in the underground before finally proceding with taking out government. The japanese authorities did have a rough idea that AUM was producing something and didn't raid their premises until the attacks. Had they not done so things might have been different.
But to your point yeah, the chances of it succeeding are low, but they were working on a "tip off" and were simply acting upon that info. a massive disaster but then the police would have been critisied for not taking action if it really did take place.
Page: