The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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.
And your only response has been
> "Yes, but I'm happy it'll work. What I'm asking is that
> you give me some detail to rebutt the counter-argument.
>
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.
> Ah yes; alas, my next paragraph answers what you imagine to be your
> withering sarcasm.
i know, however detecting your rather heavy use of sarcasm I thought I'd get in on the act. :)
> 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?
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.
As for sarcasm, you started it and I'm guilty of having played along.
*Shrugs*
> 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.
And your only response has been
> "Yes, but I'm happy it'll work. What I'm asking is that
> you give me some detail to rebutt the counter-argument.
>
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.
> Ah yes; alas, my next paragraph answers what you imagine to be your
> withering sarcasm.
i know, however detecting your rather heavy use of sarcasm I thought I'd get in on the act. :)
> 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?
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.
As for sarcasm, you started it and I'm guilty of having played along.
*Shrugs*
Hedfix wrote:
> Your Honour wrote:
> Not at all, just finding it amusing that you resort to the same old
> tactics :-)
>
> So that's a yes then? Good good.
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.
Just answer me one thing before I put you back on ignore:
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?
> Your Honour wrote:
> Not at all, just finding it amusing that you resort to the same old
> tactics :-)
>
> So that's a yes then? Good good.
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.
Just answer me one thing before I put you back on ignore:
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?
Hedfix wrote:
> Well the simplest way to do it would be to allow them to do that at
> the same time as accepting that the consequences for any police
> wrong-doing become more severe as a result of the changes.
How can you possibly get more severe than being shot 6 times in the head?
> Well the simplest way to do it would be to allow them to do that at
> the same time as accepting that the consequences for any police
> wrong-doing become more severe as a result of the changes.
How can you possibly get more severe than being shot 6 times in the head?
Hedfix wrote:
> Light wrote:
>
> Then why not take the time to clarify it further. Please; humour me.
>
> You didn't find it humorous the first time so why bother?
Because you're doing a Belldandy, and I'd like to give you the opportunity to prove me wrong in that respect.
> Light wrote:
>
> Then why not take the time to clarify it further. Please; humour me.
>
> You didn't find it humorous the first time so why bother?
Because you're doing a Belldandy, and I'd like to give you the opportunity to prove me wrong in that respect.
Hedfix wrote:
>
> More time = more chance of success.
More resources = more chance of success, and no people unjustly deprived of liberty.
> Really? Could you explain what those time issues are please? I ask
> because Blair didn't bother to do so. Therefore I'm intrigued as to
> what you know that the Commons did not.
>
> Already gone into them . I'll wait for you to find them.
Unfortunately, I've given a counter argument to everything you've put forward regarding Time issues. And your only response has been "Yes, but I'm happy it'll work. What I'm asking is that you give me some detail to rebutt the counter-argument.
So please; explain these time issue, preferably with reference to the fact that what you've put forward thus far has a perfectly reasonable counter argument.
>
>
> Mainly because the current time limits have worked so far.
>
> Yeah, no terrorist attacks on British soil so far this year...
Ah yes; alas, my next paragraph answers what you imagine to be your withering sarcasm.
>
>
> July 7th you say? Okay; explain to me when those suicide bombers
> were
> brought in for questioning but released early. Go on; I'll wait
> here.
>
> Yes let's apply one example as if it represents every possible
> eventuality...
Well, it certainly represents all of the actualities, doesn't it? Anyway, you're avoiding the question; 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.
>
> More time = more chance of success.
More resources = more chance of success, and no people unjustly deprived of liberty.
> Really? Could you explain what those time issues are please? I ask
> because Blair didn't bother to do so. Therefore I'm intrigued as to
> what you know that the Commons did not.
>
> Already gone into them . I'll wait for you to find them.
Unfortunately, I've given a counter argument to everything you've put forward regarding Time issues. And your only response has been "Yes, but I'm happy it'll work. What I'm asking is that you give me some detail to rebutt the counter-argument.
So please; explain these time issue, preferably with reference to the fact that what you've put forward thus far has a perfectly reasonable counter argument.
>
>
> Mainly because the current time limits have worked so far.
>
> Yeah, no terrorist attacks on British soil so far this year...
Ah yes; alas, my next paragraph answers what you imagine to be your withering sarcasm.
>
>
> July 7th you say? Okay; explain to me when those suicide bombers
> were
> brought in for questioning but released early. Go on; I'll wait
> here.
>
> Yes let's apply one example as if it represents every possible
> eventuality...
Well, it certainly represents all of the actualities, doesn't it? Anyway, you're avoiding the question; 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.
Your Honour wrote:
> Not at all, just finding it amusing that you resort to the same old
> tactics :-)
So that's a yes then? Good good.
> Not at all, just finding it amusing that you resort to the same old
> tactics :-)
So that's a yes then? Good good.
Light wrote:
>
> Then why not take the time to clarify it further. Please; humour me.
You didn't find it humorous the first time so why bother?
>
> Then why not take the time to clarify it further. Please; humour me.
You didn't find it humorous the first time so why bother?
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.
> 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.
Not at all, just finding it amusing that you resort to the same old tactics :-)
Your Honour wrote:
> You'll probably get a reply which consists of mainly "IRONY"
> or "COMPREHEND" back Light.
Light would've understood the rather obvious things you've failed to understand in the past.
Bitter much? :D
> You'll probably get a reply which consists of mainly "IRONY"
> or "COMPREHEND" back Light.
Light would've understood the rather obvious things you've failed to understand in the past.
Bitter much? :D
Page: