The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Wow...so he lost his first parliamentary vote.
He fails to build a cross parliamentary concensus on an issue that the Tories would generally have supported if only on the principle that it'd see brown people imprisoned for no reason.
He tries to bully his own party into voting for it because "I want it".
He presents no evidence as to why the police need the 90 day detention, yet says "The need for this is clear".
He says that police having to renew it every 7 days is a safeguard, but forgets to mention that under the Anti-Terror laws, police can keep the "evidence" secret and not reveal it to the accused's legal rep.
He gets the chance to work out a compromise, but refuses to even countenance it as it means not getting his own way.
And he doesn't even acknowledge that locking people up for 3 months might radicalise otherwise moderate people.
Not forgetting the fact that he hasn't bothered to present an alternative plan of "hey, why don't we give the police more resources so that they can do their job, rather than constantly cutting back on them in order to line our own pockets".
And what is his response? Utter fury that he doesn't get his way. The squealing of a petulant child who has found that the rest of the kids in the playground won't do what he wants. Whatever your opinions of the 90 day thing, I can't be the only one who finds this hilarious, can I?
He fails to build a cross parliamentary concensus on an issue that the Tories would generally have supported if only on the principle that it'd see brown people imprisoned for no reason.
He tries to bully his own party into voting for it because "I want it".
He presents no evidence as to why the police need the 90 day detention, yet says "The need for this is clear".
He says that police having to renew it every 7 days is a safeguard, but forgets to mention that under the Anti-Terror laws, police can keep the "evidence" secret and not reveal it to the accused's legal rep.
He gets the chance to work out a compromise, but refuses to even countenance it as it means not getting his own way.
And he doesn't even acknowledge that locking people up for 3 months might radicalise otherwise moderate people.
Not forgetting the fact that he hasn't bothered to present an alternative plan of "hey, why don't we give the police more resources so that they can do their job, rather than constantly cutting back on them in order to line our own pockets".
And what is his response? Utter fury that he doesn't get his way. The squealing of a petulant child who has found that the rest of the kids in the playground won't do what he wants. Whatever your opinions of the 90 day thing, I can't be the only one who finds this hilarious, can I?
Page:
Oh dear, I was hoping you wouldn't make it pointlessly personal.
Welcome to my ignore list.
Infact, YH you can go on it too.
Welcome to my ignore list.
Infact, YH you can go on it too.
I'm all for the 90-day policy.
I'd rather lock up 10 innocent men for 90 days than let one real terrorist walk free on "human rights" issues to kill another 50 or more.
True, if the police had sufficient resources, they may not need 90 days. But they don't, so they do. As with many things in life, that's just the way it is. You do the best with what you've got.
90 days versus 50+ innocent lives. Don't see a problem myself.
As for "human rights" in general - it's a nice idea. Unfortunately it's been bastardised into a form which can be used to let people get away with murder. In some cases, literally. Once convicted of a crime, you should lose all but the most basic rights. After all, you had no consideration for the rights of the victims of your crime.
The shooting of de Menezes... a terrible and tragic accident, and one almighty balls-up - no doubt whatsoever. The fact remains, though, that had he gone back to Brazil when his visa expired in 2003, he would still be alive today.
Let me be absolutely clear - I'm not for a moment suggesting that this negates or excuses what happened, or that he somehow deserved it. Nor should this be perceived as a "bloody illegal immigrants" rant.
It's simply a fact that had he left when he was supposed to, he couldn't have been mistakenly identified as a terrorist, and the chances are that no-one would have died that day. It was his own decision to break the law in a completely unrelated area which ultimately and tragically cost him his life.
Say what you like about the police, but I don't for a second believe that they intentionally shot dead an innocent man. When capturing him on the tube, something must have happened which caused the police/special forces (whichever they were) to believe that he posed a threat to them and the surrounding public, causing them to make that split-second decision to open fire.
I don't think we will ever know exactly what that something was. If they believed him to be a suspect, I'm sure that they would have much preferred to keep him alive in the hope of gaining information about others.
We expect to be protected by the police, but as soon as something goes wrong people want them hung out to dry. Accidents happen, and some are more costly than others. Until we have Robocop on patrol, human error will always be a factor, no matter how highly trained people are. Had de Menezes actually turned out to be one of the bombers, we'd all be hailing these officers as heroes and demanding that they receive medals for a job well done.
For me, the issue is not that they shot dead a suspect, but that - for whatever reason - they apparently tried to cover it up. It makes it seem that much more sinister. If they'd just put their hands up immediately and said "we made a mistake", I don't think - with all due respect to de Menezes - it would be as big a deal.
Unfortunately, all this furore may just cause officers involved in future incidents to hesitate - by which time it may be too late, and another 50 people may be dead as a result.
I'd rather lock up 10 innocent men for 90 days than let one real terrorist walk free on "human rights" issues to kill another 50 or more.
True, if the police had sufficient resources, they may not need 90 days. But they don't, so they do. As with many things in life, that's just the way it is. You do the best with what you've got.
90 days versus 50+ innocent lives. Don't see a problem myself.
As for "human rights" in general - it's a nice idea. Unfortunately it's been bastardised into a form which can be used to let people get away with murder. In some cases, literally. Once convicted of a crime, you should lose all but the most basic rights. After all, you had no consideration for the rights of the victims of your crime.
The shooting of de Menezes... a terrible and tragic accident, and one almighty balls-up - no doubt whatsoever. The fact remains, though, that had he gone back to Brazil when his visa expired in 2003, he would still be alive today.
Let me be absolutely clear - I'm not for a moment suggesting that this negates or excuses what happened, or that he somehow deserved it. Nor should this be perceived as a "bloody illegal immigrants" rant.
It's simply a fact that had he left when he was supposed to, he couldn't have been mistakenly identified as a terrorist, and the chances are that no-one would have died that day. It was his own decision to break the law in a completely unrelated area which ultimately and tragically cost him his life.
Say what you like about the police, but I don't for a second believe that they intentionally shot dead an innocent man. When capturing him on the tube, something must have happened which caused the police/special forces (whichever they were) to believe that he posed a threat to them and the surrounding public, causing them to make that split-second decision to open fire.
I don't think we will ever know exactly what that something was. If they believed him to be a suspect, I'm sure that they would have much preferred to keep him alive in the hope of gaining information about others.
We expect to be protected by the police, but as soon as something goes wrong people want them hung out to dry. Accidents happen, and some are more costly than others. Until we have Robocop on patrol, human error will always be a factor, no matter how highly trained people are. Had de Menezes actually turned out to be one of the bombers, we'd all be hailing these officers as heroes and demanding that they receive medals for a job well done.
For me, the issue is not that they shot dead a suspect, but that - for whatever reason - they apparently tried to cover it up. It makes it seem that much more sinister. If they'd just put their hands up immediately and said "we made a mistake", I don't think - with all due respect to de Menezes - it would be as big a deal.
Unfortunately, all this furore may just cause officers involved in future incidents to hesitate - by which time it may be too late, and another 50 people may be dead as a result.
Ok, I wanted to be ignored anyway.
Moving on, Light, Smedlos, very sorry for your thread being hijacked.
You were having a discussion that was very interesting to read. Please continue.
Christ, how condescending does that sound? Sorry.
Moving on, Light, Smedlos, very sorry for your thread being hijacked.
You were having a discussion that was very interesting to read. Please continue.
Christ, how condescending does that sound? Sorry.
Smedlos wrote:
> No I'm just siting back and enjoying travelling towards the
> inevitable Hedfix inplosion.
Heh. I've been away a while; I take it that Hedfix the current snivelling whiner of the forums?
>
> Just didn't want my post to disappear off the page which it was fast
> doing even though it was only posted 20 minutes previously or so.
Mm, fair enough. I have answered it but;
A - It may have disappeared in the flurry, and
B - It was a rather ill-humour answer due to being in the midst of Hedfix's mental disentigration (sorry).
I'm sure he used to be a fairly decent poster, but I guess he's began to take himself ridiculously seriously...
> No I'm just siting back and enjoying travelling towards the
> inevitable Hedfix inplosion.
Heh. I've been away a while; I take it that Hedfix the current snivelling whiner of the forums?
>
> Just didn't want my post to disappear off the page which it was fast
> doing even though it was only posted 20 minutes previously or so.
Mm, fair enough. I have answered it but;
A - It may have disappeared in the flurry, and
B - It was a rather ill-humour answer due to being in the midst of Hedfix's mental disentigration (sorry).
I'm sure he used to be a fairly decent poster, but I guess he's began to take himself ridiculously seriously...
A well put forward argument Wookiee, but I point you in the direction of this sentence:
90 days versus 50+ innocent lives. Don't see a problem myself.
Would you still not see a problem if it was you, or a member of your family, or close friend that was locked up?
90 days versus 50+ innocent lives. Don't see a problem myself.
Would you still not see a problem if it was you, or a member of your family, or close friend that was locked up?
I'm off now but will hopefully be back later tonight as I have quite a few replies to make.
Till then.......
Till then.......
Locking people up without trial. Tsk Tsk
I'm annoyed it has been put up to 28 days nevermind 14.
I'm annoyed it has been put up to 28 days nevermind 14.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> Stuff
Good lord; a well reasoned argument...
Okay, but the thing is (as I was saying to Hedfix), a 90 day policy would not have stopped July 7th, so why therefore would it stop another such attack?
You also say "Once convicted of a crime, you should lose all rights" (a paraphrasing, but you see what I mean). Those detained for 90 days are innocent. They have been convicted of no crime. What about their rights?
Finally (for now), if you accept that the shooting was an accident (or even if you don't), what is to stop another such accident and attempted cover-up?
> Stuff
Good lord; a well reasoned argument...
Okay, but the thing is (as I was saying to Hedfix), a 90 day policy would not have stopped July 7th, so why therefore would it stop another such attack?
You also say "Once convicted of a crime, you should lose all rights" (a paraphrasing, but you see what I mean). Those detained for 90 days are innocent. They have been convicted of no crime. What about their rights?
Finally (for now), if you accept that the shooting was an accident (or even if you don't), what is to stop another such accident and attempted cover-up?
Smedlos wrote:
> I'm off now but will hopefully be back later tonight as I have quite a
> few replies to make.
>
> Till then.......
I should be around tomorrow arvo sir; we shall speak more then.
> I'm off now but will hopefully be back later tonight as I have quite a
> few replies to make.
>
> Till then.......
I should be around tomorrow arvo sir; we shall speak more then.
Light, what are your suggestions as alternatives? You say the police need more resources, but that's a bit of a blanket statement. Do they need more man power? More technology?
These could take a while to take effect, I don't know the length of a bobby's training but I imagining get up to the level of anti-terror police would take a while?
Surely an intermediate solution is needed while these new resources are put into effect? What would those intermediate solutions be?
These could take a while to take effect, I don't know the length of a bobby's training but I imagining get up to the level of anti-terror police would take a while?
Surely an intermediate solution is needed while these new resources are put into effect? What would those intermediate solutions be?
Page: