The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 you really are a bitter old sod Light.
Simply because I can't be bothered with another mammoth post argument you've got to resort to childish provocation.
Comparing me to Belldandy? Dear oh dear.
Simply because I can't be bothered with another mammoth post argument you've got to resort to childish provocation.
Comparing me to Belldandy? Dear oh dear.
Actually, forget that; I'll settle for your pointing out which of your questions I've ignored.
Your Honour wrote:
> Thanks for completely proving my point and justifying my use of the
> ignore feature.
>
> Goodbye.
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.
> Thanks for completely proving my point and justifying my use of the
> ignore feature.
>
> Goodbye.
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.
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.
> 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.
Hedfix wrote:
> Light wrote:
>
> More resources = more chance of success, and no people unjustly
> deprived of liberty.
>
> Time issues.
>
> Unfortunately, I've given a counter argument to everything you've
> put
> forward regarding Time issues.
>
> Which haven't covered all the possibilities. I've suggested the 'for'
> and you've suggested the 'against' but neither of our conclusions have
> produced anything satisfactory.
So lets see if I've got this straight;
- You keep saying "Time issues".
- I say I've answered those Time Issues you refer to
- You say "No, you haven't".
- I ask you for more details to overcome my objections
- You say "shan't". And keep referring to these mythical time issues (which, as I've said, the Commons weren't made aware of but you seem to feel you know all about)
- Repeat until bored
> I don't feel you've really approached my points very well to be
> honest and I didn't find your answers satisfactory as you haven't
> found mine satisfactory. I don't actually see much point in
> continuing since you've skirted round a few things and no doubt I
> have aswell.
Point out what I've skirted round; I'll cheerfully answer it.
> i know, however detecting your rather heavy use of sarcasm I thought
> I'd get in on the act. :)
How very droll of you.
>
>
> Well, it certainly represents all of the actualities, doesn't it?
> Anyway, you're avoiding the question;
>
> Well two can play at that can't they?
Point out a question I've ignored and I'll answer it.
Jesus, this is exactly like a Belldandy argument;
Me - You're avoiding the questions
Bell - I know you are, but what am I?
>
> if the current limits have
> worked so far, and 90 day detention would have no difference
> whatsoever when it comes to preventing the attacks that have taken
> place, could you explain to me why 90 detention is so vital?
>
> Preferably without the 6th form sarcasm if you wouldn't mind.
>
> 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.
What a surprise; you back down as soon as you're challenged on a concrete point, and you say "I can't be bothered". Yet you could be bothered when you thought you had a case. Funny that...
Y'know, I'll never tire of arguing with cowards such as yourself.
>
> As for sarcasm, you started it and I'm guilty of having played
> along.
Ah yes; the last gasp of the 6th former; "He started it Miss!"
In all seriousness; point out what questions I've avoided. I promise you an answer. I would then like you to extend me the same courtesy.
> Light wrote:
>
> More resources = more chance of success, and no people unjustly
> deprived of liberty.
>
> Time issues.
>
> Unfortunately, I've given a counter argument to everything you've
> put
> forward regarding Time issues.
>
> Which haven't covered all the possibilities. I've suggested the 'for'
> and you've suggested the 'against' but neither of our conclusions have
> produced anything satisfactory.
So lets see if I've got this straight;
- You keep saying "Time issues".
- I say I've answered those Time Issues you refer to
- You say "No, you haven't".
- I ask you for more details to overcome my objections
- You say "shan't". And keep referring to these mythical time issues (which, as I've said, the Commons weren't made aware of but you seem to feel you know all about)
- Repeat until bored
> I don't feel you've really approached my points very well to be
> honest and I didn't find your answers satisfactory as you haven't
> found mine satisfactory. I don't actually see much point in
> continuing since you've skirted round a few things and no doubt I
> have aswell.
Point out what I've skirted round; I'll cheerfully answer it.
> i know, however detecting your rather heavy use of sarcasm I thought
> I'd get in on the act. :)
How very droll of you.
>
>
> Well, it certainly represents all of the actualities, doesn't it?
> Anyway, you're avoiding the question;
>
> Well two can play at that can't they?
Point out a question I've ignored and I'll answer it.
Jesus, this is exactly like a Belldandy argument;
Me - You're avoiding the questions
Bell - I know you are, but what am I?
>
> if the current limits have
> worked so far, and 90 day detention would have no difference
> whatsoever when it comes to preventing the attacks that have taken
> place, could you explain to me why 90 detention is so vital?
>
> Preferably without the 6th form sarcasm if you wouldn't mind.
>
> 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.
What a surprise; you back down as soon as you're challenged on a concrete point, and you say "I can't be bothered". Yet you could be bothered when you thought you had a case. Funny that...
Y'know, I'll never tire of arguing with cowards such as yourself.
>
> As for sarcasm, you started it and I'm guilty of having played
> along.
Ah yes; the last gasp of the 6th former; "He started it Miss!"
In all seriousness; point out what questions I've avoided. I promise you an answer. I would then like you to extend me the same courtesy.
Hmmmmmm I was hoping a slanging match wouldn't occur but it was inevitable really. Anyway.
*Cough cough*
Smedlos wrote:
> Light wrote:
>
> And 90 day detentions without charge will increase consistency?
>
> Not if all terror suspects are held for 90 days.
>
> If you're saying that they need 90 days in order to read some
> newspapers, then that doesn't really gel with your high opinion of
> the police.
>
> I have a high opinion of the police and a low opinion of people who
> do their best to obstruct the course of justice.
>
> People also hide behind the blanket "these days the law is too
> soft" statement as an excuse to worm their way out of actually
> thinking about what the best course of action may be to deal with
> terrorism, rather than the current approach of "Shoot or lock
> up
> the ethnics".
>
> The best way to deal with it is to hit it head on. Talking does
> nothing.
>
> I would agree when you say human rights can be used as an excuse. I
> wholly disagree with your attempt to dismiss any and all concerns on
> these grounds because of a combination of a few bad apples coupled
> with your own seemingly authoritarian opinions.
>
> I respect authority when it's right and question it when it's wrong.
> The lack of this is why the country is sliding into anarchy.
*Cough cough*
Smedlos wrote:
> Light wrote:
>
> And 90 day detentions without charge will increase consistency?
>
> Not if all terror suspects are held for 90 days.
>
> If you're saying that they need 90 days in order to read some
> newspapers, then that doesn't really gel with your high opinion of
> the police.
>
> I have a high opinion of the police and a low opinion of people who
> do their best to obstruct the course of justice.
>
> People also hide behind the blanket "these days the law is too
> soft" statement as an excuse to worm their way out of actually
> thinking about what the best course of action may be to deal with
> terrorism, rather than the current approach of "Shoot or lock
> up
> the ethnics".
>
> The best way to deal with it is to hit it head on. Talking does
> nothing.
>
> I would agree when you say human rights can be used as an excuse. I
> wholly disagree with your attempt to dismiss any and all concerns on
> these grounds because of a combination of a few bad apples coupled
> with your own seemingly authoritarian opinions.
>
> I respect authority when it's right and question it when it's wrong.
> The lack of this is why the country is sliding into anarchy.
Thanks for completely proving my point and justifying my use of the ignore feature.
Goodbye.
Goodbye.
Your Honour wrote:
>
> See, it's this and comments such as: You didn't find it humorous the
> first time so why bother? that you made to Light which makes it
> completely impossible to have a discussion with you.
Oh I couldsee it swaying off before then. Things haven't been answered to my satisfaction.
> Just answer me one thing before I put you back on ignore:
Oh good, less trolling and pickyness from you then? Lovely.
> Do you actually have an opinion on anything, or do you just
> say whatever you can to try and infuriate the person trying to
> discuss with you?
Haha!
Do you fail to comprehend a lot of things on a day to day basis?
>
> See, it's this and comments such as: You didn't find it humorous the
> first time so why bother? that you made to Light which makes it
> completely impossible to have a discussion with you.
Oh I couldsee it swaying off before then. Things haven't been answered to my satisfaction.
> Just answer me one thing before I put you back on ignore:
Oh good, less trolling and pickyness from you then? Lovely.
> Do you actually have an opinion on anything, or do you just
> say whatever you can to try and infuriate the person trying to
> discuss with you?
Haha!
Do you fail to comprehend a lot of things on a day to day basis?
Smedlos wrote:
> Light wrote:
>
> And 90 day detentions without charge will increase consistency?
>
> Not if all terror suspects are held for 90 days.
Wouldn't that just be "Consistently unfair" in that case?
> I have a high opinion of the police and a low opinion of people who
> do their best to obstruct the course of justice.
Being as how the police made up a tissue of lies to cover up their murder of an innocent man, why don't you have an equally low opinion of them?
> The best way to deal with it is to hit it head on. Talking does
> nothing.
And putting people in prison for 90 days with no evidence...that's hitting it head on? COuld you explain why it is, and why it's the only option available?
> I respect authority when it's right and question it when it's wrong.
> The lack of this is why the country is sliding into anarchy.
You'll pardon me, but I find that statement to be laughable. If you want to find some reasons for the erosion of law and order in this country, why aren't you screaming from the rooftops and the constant cutbacks in funding to public services?
And if you question if it's wrong, why have you asked remarkably few questions about the ability of the police to put together fair evidence based on their current performance with regards to anti-terrorism measures?
> Light wrote:
>
> And 90 day detentions without charge will increase consistency?
>
> Not if all terror suspects are held for 90 days.
Wouldn't that just be "Consistently unfair" in that case?
> I have a high opinion of the police and a low opinion of people who
> do their best to obstruct the course of justice.
Being as how the police made up a tissue of lies to cover up their murder of an innocent man, why don't you have an equally low opinion of them?
> The best way to deal with it is to hit it head on. Talking does
> nothing.
And putting people in prison for 90 days with no evidence...that's hitting it head on? COuld you explain why it is, and why it's the only option available?
> I respect authority when it's right and question it when it's wrong.
> The lack of this is why the country is sliding into anarchy.
You'll pardon me, but I find that statement to be laughable. If you want to find some reasons for the erosion of law and order in this country, why aren't you screaming from the rooftops and the constant cutbacks in funding to public services?
And if you question if it's wrong, why have you asked remarkably few questions about the ability of the police to put together fair evidence based on their current performance with regards to anti-terrorism measures?
Light wrote:
>
> How can you possibly get more severe than being shot 6 times in the
> head?
7 times I guess.
>
> How can you possibly get more severe than being shot 6 times in the
> head?
7 times I guess.
Page: