The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Hedfix wrote:
> Little more than an a weak attempt at a justification for moral and >intellectual cowardice
And for yet another time (4th? 5th?), I make the simple invitation for you to prove me wrong; explain where I've avoided a question. I will answer it. And I ask the same courtesy from you. If you truly "couldn't be bothered", you wouldn't have gotten involved in the first place.
> Little more than an a weak attempt at a justification for moral and >intellectual cowardice
And for yet another time (4th? 5th?), I make the simple invitation for you to prove me wrong; explain where I've avoided a question. I will answer it. And I ask the same courtesy from you. If you truly "couldn't be bothered", you wouldn't have gotten involved in the first place.
Smedlos wrote:
> stuff
Sorry; gotta be quick...
That is interesting reading, and you make some good points. But I'd point to what I asked Wookieman; what's to stop the police simply charging as opposed to just detaining? The investigation can continue, so...
> stuff
Sorry; gotta be quick...
That is interesting reading, and you make some good points. But I'd point to what I asked Wookieman; what's to stop the police simply charging as opposed to just detaining? The investigation can continue, so...
Light wrote:
> Hedfix wrote:
> Nothing of any substance
>
> And for yet another time, I make the simple invitation for you to
> prove me wrong; explain where I've avoided a question. I will answer
> it. And I ask the same courtesy from you.
>
> Your constant evasion and attempt to mire the whole thing in a
> slanging match are good fun, but I have to wonder whom you think
> you're fooling.
I offered you an explanation as to why I'm not going to bother going into anymore detail and you refuse to accept it.
Nice one.
"Prove me wrong1111!!!"
I'm sorry if me being honest as to why I don't want to continue the discussion grates on you so much but seriously you started with the name-calling so please don't try to pretend you have even half a foot on the high-ground.
Trying to provoke someone by comparing them to Belldandy is just low and really rather sad.
I don't expect much from most of the forum users on here but I expected better from you.
> Hedfix wrote:
> Nothing of any substance
>
> And for yet another time, I make the simple invitation for you to
> prove me wrong; explain where I've avoided a question. I will answer
> it. And I ask the same courtesy from you.
>
> Your constant evasion and attempt to mire the whole thing in a
> slanging match are good fun, but I have to wonder whom you think
> you're fooling.
I offered you an explanation as to why I'm not going to bother going into anymore detail and you refuse to accept it.
Nice one.
"Prove me wrong1111!!!"
I'm sorry if me being honest as to why I don't want to continue the discussion grates on you so much but seriously you started with the name-calling so please don't try to pretend you have even half a foot on the high-ground.
Trying to provoke someone by comparing them to Belldandy is just low and really rather sad.
I don't expect much from most of the forum users on here but I expected better from you.
Light wrote:
> WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
>
> The evidence should be reviewed by a judge to see if there is
> grounds
> for detention. You can't necessarily make the reasons public,
> because
> if there is anything in it, you may alert other involved
> parties.
>
>
> Should the evidence be withheld from the suspect's defence lawyer? If
> so, doesn't that irrevocably prejudice a judge's ability to make a
> balanced decision?
As far as this argument goes it should be on a need to know basis. I agree it's wrong for the defense to be denied access to items the prosecution are allowed access to as this is quite clearly a breach of "Human Rights".
I've discussed about people trying to hide behind human rights but in this case I believe they are being breached. All I want is fairness and the prosecution, defense and police should all have access to every piece of evidence, interview, statement etc as that is the only way fairness can prevail.
The media just want to sell papers so in these very sensitive issues I believe they should be kept in the dark and any breach, however slight, should be dealt with in the harshest of ways ie inprisonment.
This then extends to any trial. Should a jury be sworn in or should it be kept out of the public eye alltogether? I believe a jury made of the general public should be sworn in and make the decision like any other trial.
> WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
>
> The evidence should be reviewed by a judge to see if there is
> grounds
> for detention. You can't necessarily make the reasons public,
> because
> if there is anything in it, you may alert other involved
> parties.
>
>
> Should the evidence be withheld from the suspect's defence lawyer? If
> so, doesn't that irrevocably prejudice a judge's ability to make a
> balanced decision?
As far as this argument goes it should be on a need to know basis. I agree it's wrong for the defense to be denied access to items the prosecution are allowed access to as this is quite clearly a breach of "Human Rights".
I've discussed about people trying to hide behind human rights but in this case I believe they are being breached. All I want is fairness and the prosecution, defense and police should all have access to every piece of evidence, interview, statement etc as that is the only way fairness can prevail.
The media just want to sell papers so in these very sensitive issues I believe they should be kept in the dark and any breach, however slight, should be dealt with in the harshest of ways ie inprisonment.
This then extends to any trial. Should a jury be sworn in or should it be kept out of the public eye alltogether? I believe a jury made of the general public should be sworn in and make the decision like any other trial.
As far as I'm concerned at the minute the laws in this country don't move with the times. The Government as a whole is too gutless and cowardice to stand up to terrorism and would rather be so to say "politically correct" than risk standing on anyones toes incase it offends them in some way.
Next time - not if but when - a tube train, London bus, British Airways jet, Eurostar train etc ends up in a thousand pieces along with all it's passengers people will demand to know why it's happened and there will be one simple answer.
It's because people failed to realise the threat that exists at the moment and would rather terrorists walk amongst among us rather than maybe a few innocent people being locked up for a relatively short period of time.
Next time - not if but when - a tube train, London bus, British Airways jet, Eurostar train etc ends up in a thousand pieces along with all it's passengers people will demand to know why it's happened and there will be one simple answer.
It's because people failed to realise the threat that exists at the moment and would rather terrorists walk amongst among us rather than maybe a few innocent people being locked up for a relatively short period of time.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> The evidence should be reviewed by a judge to see if there is grounds
> for detention. You can't necessarily make the reasons public, because
> if there is anything in it, you may alert other involved
> parties.
>
Should the evidence be withheld from the suspect's defence lawyer? If so, doesn't that irrevocably prejudice a judge's ability to make a balanced decision?
> Excuse any repetitivness or obvious errors in my last 3 posts - I've
> typed them in a bit of a rush because I've got visitors due. I'll
> check back later. :-)
No probs; I really should have been working today...
> The evidence should be reviewed by a judge to see if there is grounds
> for detention. You can't necessarily make the reasons public, because
> if there is anything in it, you may alert other involved
> parties.
>
Should the evidence be withheld from the suspect's defence lawyer? If so, doesn't that irrevocably prejudice a judge's ability to make a balanced decision?
> Excuse any repetitivness or obvious errors in my last 3 posts - I've
> typed them in a bit of a rush because I've got visitors due. I'll
> check back later. :-)
No probs; I really should have been working today...
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> Personally, I don't claim it would stop an attack. But if someone is
> suspected of having links to terrorism, it could prevent them
> from being released after a week and 'disappearing' before hard
> evidence is found, only to re-appear weeks later on a bus with a bomb
> strapped to them. To me, that's worth it.
My parenthesis; if. So far, the whole case for a 90 day detention revolves around "If this happens...". Has there actually been a shred of evidence for this happening? I don't know about anyone else, but to me the whole thing smacks of a culture of living in fear. Which, as I recall, is the objective of terrorism.
When one bears in mind that a number of suspected terrorists are already detained without charge in this country purely on the say so of the Home Sec, what is the need for an extension of this power to a police force who, by their own admission, are overstretched anyway?
> In fairness, I didn't say that in direct relation to the 90-day issue
> - it was just a general opinion on the way human rights laws are often
> used.
Ah, I see. Fair enough.
>
> However, no-one has yet been detained for 90 days (not counting
> Guantanamo Bay) because the law doesn't exist yet - so I presume
> you're speaking hypothetically.
Nope; there are a few chaps currently residing in (from memory) Belmarsh as they present "a danger to national security". I dunno if you remember the coverage earlier in the year of one of them who is appealing for release on the grounds of the damage to his mental health?
>
> So, hypothetically... we don't necessarily know that those detained
> are innocent - there would presumably be reasonable suspicion of
> intent, that's why they're being held in the first place.
>
> Strictly speaking, everyone is innocent until they actually commit
> the crime. If there is suspicion of intent, detaining them is the
> only way to prevent the actual event.
On the other hand, the prime legal right in this country is "Innocent until proven Guilty". What you're saying there is an obvious erosion of that.
The idea of suspicion being sufficient ground for action and subsequent deprivation of liberty is a one that I have huge reservations about; have a read up on the Treason trials under Domitian (among many other emperors), the McCarthy trials, and pretty much any high profile trial that takes place under a dictatorship if you have the time; it'll give a better idea of where I'm coming from (and it saves me typing...)
>
> Yes, you may occasionally detain an innocent person, but that has to
> be better than doing nothing because of "human rights" and
> letting those who are (or would be) guilty blow up a bus. It's
> surely better to hold an innocent man while you investigate, than
> risk releasing a 'guilty' man and have him kill hundreds of people?
Again; lots of if's and maybes in there. Suspicion is one thing, but it needs to have something supporting it otherwise it's just groundless fear.
>
> There is no ideal solution, but I'd prefer to follow the route that
> may save lives rather than that which will inevitably cost them.
Why "inevitably"?
>
> In general I agree with "innocent until proven guilty", but
> as is often the case, law can't always be seen as simply black and
> white. There are cases - terrorism being the current obvious example
> - where things are suspected or known about people, but take time to
> be proven.
So charge them. Investigations can be continued whilst a suspect is charged, and if you have evidence enough to justify removing someone's freedom for 90 days, what is to stop one from saying that evidence is sufficient for charge?
>
> In such cases, particularly where people are known or believed to be
> dangerous to others, I think it is common sense to hold them until
> proof is obtained one way or another. The rights of certain
> individuals should be taken away, at least temporarily, if that
> individual's release may affect the rights and/or lives of the
> population in general. I may not be explaining myself very well, but
> I'm sure you know what I mean.
I think so, yeah. But that does take me back to the previous point; why not just charge them?
>
> Well, as far as preventing the shooting, that's something we'd all
> like to know. Unfortunately I don't think you can stop it happening
> again. It's just a 'necessary risk' (for want of a better
> expression) when dealing with this particular subject.
I honestly wish I could believe that, but as more and more of the circumstance around the shooting, and more details of just how many lies were told about it are brought to light, I find that I cannot in good conscience classify that risk as an acceptible one. Not with such a trigger happy and dishonest police force behind it.
>
> As for the attempted cover-up - I have no solution, because I don't
> know the cause. I'm only certain that they wouldn't have shot an
> innocent man deliberately. All I can put it down to is a complete
> breakdown in organisation and communication. It all seems utterly
> stupid. With so many witnesses, I don't see how they could have
> intentionally tried to cover it and realistically had any hope of
> pulling it off.
Yet they did. And now we are told they should be trusted with the arbitary power of 90 day detention. Trust must be earned, and thus far they've done nothing to earn it.
On a side note, cheers to you and Smedlos for injecting a note of reasoned debate.
> Personally, I don't claim it would stop an attack. But if someone is
> suspected of having links to terrorism, it could prevent them
> from being released after a week and 'disappearing' before hard
> evidence is found, only to re-appear weeks later on a bus with a bomb
> strapped to them. To me, that's worth it.
My parenthesis; if. So far, the whole case for a 90 day detention revolves around "If this happens...". Has there actually been a shred of evidence for this happening? I don't know about anyone else, but to me the whole thing smacks of a culture of living in fear. Which, as I recall, is the objective of terrorism.
When one bears in mind that a number of suspected terrorists are already detained without charge in this country purely on the say so of the Home Sec, what is the need for an extension of this power to a police force who, by their own admission, are overstretched anyway?
> In fairness, I didn't say that in direct relation to the 90-day issue
> - it was just a general opinion on the way human rights laws are often
> used.
Ah, I see. Fair enough.
>
> However, no-one has yet been detained for 90 days (not counting
> Guantanamo Bay) because the law doesn't exist yet - so I presume
> you're speaking hypothetically.
Nope; there are a few chaps currently residing in (from memory) Belmarsh as they present "a danger to national security". I dunno if you remember the coverage earlier in the year of one of them who is appealing for release on the grounds of the damage to his mental health?
>
> So, hypothetically... we don't necessarily know that those detained
> are innocent - there would presumably be reasonable suspicion of
> intent, that's why they're being held in the first place.
>
> Strictly speaking, everyone is innocent until they actually commit
> the crime. If there is suspicion of intent, detaining them is the
> only way to prevent the actual event.
On the other hand, the prime legal right in this country is "Innocent until proven Guilty". What you're saying there is an obvious erosion of that.
The idea of suspicion being sufficient ground for action and subsequent deprivation of liberty is a one that I have huge reservations about; have a read up on the Treason trials under Domitian (among many other emperors), the McCarthy trials, and pretty much any high profile trial that takes place under a dictatorship if you have the time; it'll give a better idea of where I'm coming from (and it saves me typing...)
>
> Yes, you may occasionally detain an innocent person, but that has to
> be better than doing nothing because of "human rights" and
> letting those who are (or would be) guilty blow up a bus. It's
> surely better to hold an innocent man while you investigate, than
> risk releasing a 'guilty' man and have him kill hundreds of people?
Again; lots of if's and maybes in there. Suspicion is one thing, but it needs to have something supporting it otherwise it's just groundless fear.
>
> There is no ideal solution, but I'd prefer to follow the route that
> may save lives rather than that which will inevitably cost them.
Why "inevitably"?
>
> In general I agree with "innocent until proven guilty", but
> as is often the case, law can't always be seen as simply black and
> white. There are cases - terrorism being the current obvious example
> - where things are suspected or known about people, but take time to
> be proven.
So charge them. Investigations can be continued whilst a suspect is charged, and if you have evidence enough to justify removing someone's freedom for 90 days, what is to stop one from saying that evidence is sufficient for charge?
>
> In such cases, particularly where people are known or believed to be
> dangerous to others, I think it is common sense to hold them until
> proof is obtained one way or another. The rights of certain
> individuals should be taken away, at least temporarily, if that
> individual's release may affect the rights and/or lives of the
> population in general. I may not be explaining myself very well, but
> I'm sure you know what I mean.
I think so, yeah. But that does take me back to the previous point; why not just charge them?
>
> Well, as far as preventing the shooting, that's something we'd all
> like to know. Unfortunately I don't think you can stop it happening
> again. It's just a 'necessary risk' (for want of a better
> expression) when dealing with this particular subject.
I honestly wish I could believe that, but as more and more of the circumstance around the shooting, and more details of just how many lies were told about it are brought to light, I find that I cannot in good conscience classify that risk as an acceptible one. Not with such a trigger happy and dishonest police force behind it.
>
> As for the attempted cover-up - I have no solution, because I don't
> know the cause. I'm only certain that they wouldn't have shot an
> innocent man deliberately. All I can put it down to is a complete
> breakdown in organisation and communication. It all seems utterly
> stupid. With so many witnesses, I don't see how they could have
> intentionally tried to cover it and realistically had any hope of
> pulling it off.
Yet they did. And now we are told they should be trusted with the arbitary power of 90 day detention. Trust must be earned, and thus far they've done nothing to earn it.
On a side note, cheers to you and Smedlos for injecting a note of reasoned debate.
Smedlos wrote:
> Hopefully that won't happen but the mass hysteria that was generated
> by the media really didn't help matters one bit.
Sorry to butt in here, but if the murder of a demonstratably innocent man and attempted cover up of that murder by the police isn't a matter for mass press coverage, what is?
> Hopefully that won't happen but the mass hysteria that was generated
> by the media really didn't help matters one bit.
Sorry to butt in here, but if the murder of a demonstratably innocent man and attempted cover up of that murder by the police isn't a matter for mass press coverage, what is?
Hedfix wrote:
> Nothing of any substance
And for yet another time, I make the simple invitation for you to prove me wrong; explain where I've avoided a question. I will answer it. And I ask the same courtesy from you.
Your constant evasion and attempt to mire the whole thing in a slanging match are good fun, but I have to wonder whom you think you're fooling.
> Nothing of any substance
And for yet another time, I make the simple invitation for you to prove me wrong; explain where I've avoided a question. I will answer it. And I ask the same courtesy from you.
Your constant evasion and attempt to mire the whole thing in a slanging match are good fun, but I have to wonder whom you think you're fooling.
Light wrote:
> I entirely agree with this. But the fact is, they did try and cover
> it up. So why should they be trusted not to do the same for erroneous
> 90 day detentions?
I'd say it's inevitable that an occasional innocent would be detained. No system is foolproof, and occasional mistakes will be made. Accept that, and no cover-ups are necessary.
The evidence should be reviewed by a judge to see if there is grounds for detention. You can't necessarily make the reasons public, because if there is anything in it, you may alert other involved parties.
I'd like to believe that such suspicions don't just appear because "he's a Muslim", and there must be (one would hope) sufficient evidence for someone to be labelled a terror suspect. Granted, there was an almighty balls-up with de Menezes, but that strikes me as more a case of mistaken identity on the day than a lack of intelligence in general, and this kind of incident - while no more acceptable - is very rare.
No doubt there would be an occasional error, but it would hopefully be just as rare as the shooting. Wherever no evidence is found, there should be a public statement issued that Mr. X wasn't involved and an apology. That would remove any need for a cover-up.
I know I am greatly over-simplifying things, but I'm not a lawyer. I guess what I should have said was that in theory I agree with the 90-day detention, but that it needs some tweaking.
I'm sure there would be a lot more trust in the world if various authorities and governments would occasionally just put their hands up and say "sorry, we got it wrong".
Excuse any repetitivness or obvious errors in my last 3 posts - I've typed them in a bit of a rush because I've got visitors due. I'll check back later. :-)
> I entirely agree with this. But the fact is, they did try and cover
> it up. So why should they be trusted not to do the same for erroneous
> 90 day detentions?
I'd say it's inevitable that an occasional innocent would be detained. No system is foolproof, and occasional mistakes will be made. Accept that, and no cover-ups are necessary.
The evidence should be reviewed by a judge to see if there is grounds for detention. You can't necessarily make the reasons public, because if there is anything in it, you may alert other involved parties.
I'd like to believe that such suspicions don't just appear because "he's a Muslim", and there must be (one would hope) sufficient evidence for someone to be labelled a terror suspect. Granted, there was an almighty balls-up with de Menezes, but that strikes me as more a case of mistaken identity on the day than a lack of intelligence in general, and this kind of incident - while no more acceptable - is very rare.
No doubt there would be an occasional error, but it would hopefully be just as rare as the shooting. Wherever no evidence is found, there should be a public statement issued that Mr. X wasn't involved and an apology. That would remove any need for a cover-up.
I know I am greatly over-simplifying things, but I'm not a lawyer. I guess what I should have said was that in theory I agree with the 90-day detention, but that it needs some tweaking.
I'm sure there would be a lot more trust in the world if various authorities and governments would occasionally just put their hands up and say "sorry, we got it wrong".
Excuse any repetitivness or obvious errors in my last 3 posts - I've typed them in a bit of a rush because I've got visitors due. I'll check back later. :-)
Page: