The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
>
> Shouldn't we look at doing that before allowing them to detain people
> for 90 days without charge?
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.
>
> Shouldn't we look at doing that before allowing them to detain people
> for 90 days without charge?
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.
You'll probably get a reply which consists of mainly "IRONY" or "COMPREHEND" back Light.
Light wrote:
>
> Supposing they fail to gather it in 90 days? Doesn't that render your
> entire argument invalid?
More time = more chance of success.
>
> It's not just about the money. There are time issues.
>
> 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.
>
> Mainly because the current time limits have worked so far.
Yeah, no terrorist attacks on British soil so far this year...
>
> 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...
>
> Supposing they fail to gather it in 90 days? Doesn't that render your
> entire argument invalid?
More time = more chance of success.
>
> It's not just about the money. There are time issues.
>
> 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.
>
> Mainly because the current time limits have worked so far.
Yeah, no terrorist attacks on British soil so far this year...
>
> 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...
Hedfix wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Hedfix wrote:
>
> If that's the case they may as well have the secret service do it
> and
> start going after people for treason. Hell if the plice want to fit
> somone up for terrorism charges they can do it without going to all
> this trouble of asking for extra incarceration time for suspects.
>
> Aside from petulance at being asked to think about what you're
> saying, I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make.
>
> Thought it was rather clear myself.
Then why not take the time to clarify it further. Please; humour me.
> Light wrote:
> Hedfix wrote:
>
> If that's the case they may as well have the secret service do it
> and
> start going after people for treason. Hell if the plice want to fit
> somone up for terrorism charges they can do it without going to all
> this trouble of asking for extra incarceration time for suspects.
>
> Aside from petulance at being asked to think about what you're
> saying, I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make.
>
> Thought it was rather clear myself.
Then why not take the time to clarify it further. Please; humour me.
Hedfix wrote:
> Yes, exactly.
>
> /sarcasm
>
>
> They need to be more answerable for any wrong-doing which is what I
> was suggesting.
Shouldn't we look at doing that before allowing them to detain people for 90 days without charge?
> Yes, exactly.
>
> /sarcasm
>
>
> They need to be more answerable for any wrong-doing which is what I
> was suggesting.
Shouldn't we look at doing that before allowing them to detain people for 90 days without charge?
Light wrote:
> Hedfix wrote:
>
> If that's the case they may as well have the secret service do it
> and
> start going after people for treason. Hell if the plice want to fit
> somone up for terrorism charges they can do it without going to all
> this trouble of asking for extra incarceration time for suspects.
>
> Aside from petulance at being asked to think about what you're
> saying, I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make.
Thought it was rather clear myself.
> Hedfix wrote:
>
> If that's the case they may as well have the secret service do it
> and
> start going after people for treason. Hell if the plice want to fit
> somone up for terrorism charges they can do it without going to all
> this trouble of asking for extra incarceration time for suspects.
>
> Aside from petulance at being asked to think about what you're
> saying, I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make.
Thought it was rather clear myself.
I don't know what it is about Tony Blair's face (and that of the horrid cow-creature he keeps for a wife), but I always half-expect him to pull it off to reveal a slug underneath.
Hedfix wrote:
> And if the police had plenty of resources but failed to gather enough
> evidence on a terrorist group to stop them because that group was
> warned by a member the police were unable to detain for any longer
> that'd be great too.
Supposing they fail to gather it in 90 days? Doesn't that render your entire argument invalid?
>
> It's not just about the money. There are time issues.
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.
> I'm intrigued as to why you think the current time-limits will be
> enough to enable the police to stop organised terror attacks in this
> country.
Mainly because the current time limits have worked so far.
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.
> And if the police had plenty of resources but failed to gather enough
> evidence on a terrorist group to stop them because that group was
> warned by a member the police were unable to detain for any longer
> that'd be great too.
Supposing they fail to gather it in 90 days? Doesn't that render your entire argument invalid?
>
> It's not just about the money. There are time issues.
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.
> I'm intrigued as to why you think the current time-limits will be
> enough to enable the police to stop organised terror attacks in this
> country.
Mainly because the current time limits have worked so far.
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.
Light wrote:
> Aside from petulance at being asked to think about what you're
> saying, I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make.
That's his tactic. He does it all the time.
EDIT - Couldn't resists, sorry.
Besides I'm not being 100% serious.
> Aside from petulance at being asked to think about what you're
> saying, I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make.
That's his tactic. He does it all the time.
EDIT - Couldn't resists, sorry.
Besides I'm not being 100% serious.
Light wrote:
>
> Is that in the same way that they've been answerable for the murder
> and attempted coverup of a man who made the mistake of looking a bit
> foreign?
Yes, exactly.
/sarcasm
They need to be more answerable for any wrong-doing which is what I was suggesting.
>
> Is that in the same way that they've been answerable for the murder
> and attempted coverup of a man who made the mistake of looking a bit
> foreign?
Yes, exactly.
/sarcasm
They need to be more answerable for any wrong-doing which is what I was suggesting.
Page: