The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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.
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.
See, the trouble with you Heddy, you don't mind me calling you that do you? Tough. Is that you don't like not getting you're own way. You act like a petulant child.
"Yeah, well, I wanted you to ignore me anyway."
It's playground stuff, it really is Heddy.
Sits and waits for a response along the lines of "just stooping to your level" or something like that. You know what I mean anyway.
If I'm that trolling, why don't you just ignore me?
EDIT - Typo.
"Yeah, well, I wanted you to ignore me anyway."
It's playground stuff, it really is Heddy.
Sits and waits for a response along the lines of "just stooping to your level" or something like that. You know what I mean anyway.
If I'm that trolling, why don't you just ignore me?
EDIT - Typo.
I've made it personal because, frankly, Blair isn't the only one who has thrown a rattle out of the pram.
You keep saying "He started it" and "I'm just trying to have a discussion". Yet it's clear throughout the course of this thread that you're simply having a sulk and taking your ball away.
The instant I asked you to prove one of your statements (that I've avoided your quesions) or give a reasoned argument (as to why 90 days is so vital when it would have made no difference to the attacks that have already occured), you suddenly can't be bothered. That is simple cowardice on your part.
Should you wish to observe an actual debate, please do stick around to watch Smedlos and myself; both of us seem to have an understanding of how to debate without fits of self-aggrandising pique. However, if you simply wish to stomp around and get upset that someone has had the nerve to ask you some questions...well, I believe Belldandy is probably looking for some friends. You'd be an excellent candidate.
You keep saying "He started it" and "I'm just trying to have a discussion". Yet it's clear throughout the course of this thread that you're simply having a sulk and taking your ball away.
The instant I asked you to prove one of your statements (that I've avoided your quesions) or give a reasoned argument (as to why 90 days is so vital when it would have made no difference to the attacks that have already occured), you suddenly can't be bothered. That is simple cowardice on your part.
Should you wish to observe an actual debate, please do stick around to watch Smedlos and myself; both of us seem to have an understanding of how to debate without fits of self-aggrandising pique. However, if you simply wish to stomp around and get upset that someone has had the nerve to ask you some questions...well, I believe Belldandy is probably looking for some friends. You'd be an excellent candidate.
Your Honour wrote:
>
> And you call me trolling.
>
> Ha.
>
> Haha.
>
> Hahahahahaha!
As evidenced in your very own post quoted here.
Having trouble finding the ignore button are we?
>
> And you call me trolling.
>
> Ha.
>
> Haha.
>
> Hahahahahaha!
As evidenced in your very own post quoted here.
Having trouble finding the ignore button are we?
Light wrote:
> Smedlos wrote:
> Hmmmmmm I was hoping a slanging match wouldn't occur but it was
> inevitable really. Anyway.
>
> *Cough cough*
>
> Heh. True enough with Hedfix, and if it's come across that way to
> you, I apologise; I'm trying to have a serious debate with you.
No I'm just siting back and enjoying travelling towards the inevitable Hedfix inplosion.
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.
Wow yesterday Site Bugs was the top forum number of posts and now today it's Life and Everything (Fast Becoming Unintellegent Discussion) what shall we go for tomorrow? I say classic games that could do with a few posts as it's getting very lonely.
> Smedlos wrote:
> Hmmmmmm I was hoping a slanging match wouldn't occur but it was
> inevitable really. Anyway.
>
> *Cough cough*
>
> Heh. True enough with Hedfix, and if it's come across that way to
> you, I apologise; I'm trying to have a serious debate with you.
No I'm just siting back and enjoying travelling towards the inevitable Hedfix inplosion.
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.
Wow yesterday Site Bugs was the top forum number of posts and now today it's Life and Everything (Fast Becoming Unintellegent Discussion) what shall we go for tomorrow? I say classic games that could do with a few posts as it's getting very lonely.
Hedfix wrote:
>
> I just wanted to get you to ignore me again as you're a complete
> waste of space due to your inability to comprehend simple points and
> the fact that seem unable to not jump the gun expecting me to give
> Light a reply involving the word irony.
>
> You say you come on here to be entertained and sometimes acting
> childishly does that for you. Well your type of childish posting
> about my comments is unwelcome so ignore away.
>
> Good riddance.
And you call me trolling.
Ha.
Haha.
Hahahahahaha!
>
> I just wanted to get you to ignore me again as you're a complete
> waste of space due to your inability to comprehend simple points and
> the fact that seem unable to not jump the gun expecting me to give
> Light a reply involving the word irony.
>
> You say you come on here to be entertained and sometimes acting
> childishly does that for you. Well your type of childish posting
> about my comments is unwelcome so ignore away.
>
> Good riddance.
And you call me trolling.
Ha.
Haha.
Hahahahahaha!
Infact you seem to have taken a lot of what I've suggested as 'perceived facts' when I've been suggesting hypotheticals.
Maybe that's where it went wrong? Who knows.
Maybe that's where it went wrong? Who knows.
Your provocations aside, I repeat;
Hedfix wrote:
>
> God knows, I really can't be bothered. As I say you've avoided
> answering enough of my points to any degree of satisfaction that it
> really has become rather pointless discussing this any further.
>
and if you think I'm trawling through all this to further a discussion I can't be bothered with you've another thing coming.
You've made it personal, whereas I've been trying to have an interesting discussion regardless of whether my points were ultimately found to be valid or not.
Now it's gotten childish and personal and as I say: I can't be bothered.
Hedfix wrote:
>
> God knows, I really can't be bothered. As I say you've avoided
> answering enough of my points to any degree of satisfaction that it
> really has become rather pointless discussing this any further.
>
and if you think I'm trawling through all this to further a discussion I can't be bothered with you've another thing coming.
You've made it personal, whereas I've been trying to have an interesting discussion regardless of whether my points were ultimately found to be valid or not.
Now it's gotten childish and personal and as I say: I can't be bothered.
Your provocations aside, I repeat;
Point out what questions I've not answered. I will answer them.
Point out what questions I've not answered. I will answer them.
Page: