The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
> 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.
> 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.
Light wrote:
> Hedfix wrote:
>
> Well for starters 90 days doesn't equal 6 months.
>
> Everyone serves half their time in a sentence of less than 4 years.
> So barring extraordinarily bad behaviour, yes. It does.
90 days incarceration doesn't equal 6 months of incarceration.
> Hedfix wrote:
>
> Well for starters 90 days doesn't equal 6 months.
>
> Everyone serves half their time in a sentence of less than 4 years.
> So barring extraordinarily bad behaviour, yes. It does.
90 days incarceration doesn't equal 6 months of incarceration.
Hedfix wrote:
> Well for starters 90 days doesn't equal 6 months.
Everyone serves half their time in a sentence of less than 4 years. So barring extraordinarily bad behaviour, yes. It does.
>
> If the evidence were to become available after the 90 days/lower
> figure and found by the defence to be flawed then the police would be
> answerable: this would prevent the police from pushing flawed evidence
> as they would be liable for lawsuits/re-structuring/dismissals/etc.
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?
> Well for starters 90 days doesn't equal 6 months.
Everyone serves half their time in a sentence of less than 4 years. So barring extraordinarily bad behaviour, yes. It does.
>
> If the evidence were to become available after the 90 days/lower
> figure and found by the defence to be flawed then the police would be
> answerable: this would prevent the police from pushing flawed evidence
> as they would be liable for lawsuits/re-structuring/dismissals/etc.
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?
Light wrote:
>
> And, of course, if the police had sufficient resources to actually
> complete a thorough investigation within existing time
> limits...presumably that doesn't matter as it's covered by your
> "wider issues"?
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.
It's not just about the money. There are time issues.
>
> I'm intrigued as to why you feel the erosion of liberty in this
> country and the setting up of a police state isn't covered as a
> "wider issue".
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.
>
> And, of course, if the police had sufficient resources to actually
> complete a thorough investigation within existing time
> limits...presumably that doesn't matter as it's covered by your
> "wider issues"?
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.
It's not just about the money. There are time issues.
>
> I'm intrigued as to why you feel the erosion of liberty in this
> country and the setting up of a police state isn't covered as a
> "wider issue".
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.
Hedfix wrote:
> I didn't say 7 days. I'm sure a higher number would be more
> practical, 28 for instance: isn't that what was recently agreed to as
> the maximum extension?
I know you didn't. Mr Blair himself did. Taken from Lights first post:
He says that police having to renew it every 7 days is a safeguard
> I didn't say 7 days. I'm sure a higher number would be more
> practical, 28 for instance: isn't that what was recently agreed to as
> the maximum extension?
I know you didn't. Mr Blair himself did. Taken from Lights first post:
He says that police having to renew it every 7 days is a safeguard
Light wrote:
>
> Shouldn't that read "whether they should be incarcerated for the
> equivalent of a 6 month sentence (co-incidentally, the maximum that
> can be imposed by a Magistrate's Court) on the strength of evidence
> presented by one side, with no opportunity for the other side to
> expose that evidence as flawed"?
Well for starters 90 days doesn't equal 6 months.
If the evidence were to become available after the 90 days/lower figure and found by the defence to be flawed then the police would be answerable: this would prevent the police from pushing flawed evidence as they would be liable for lawsuits/re-structuring/dismissals/etc.
>
> Shouldn't that read "whether they should be incarcerated for the
> equivalent of a 6 month sentence (co-incidentally, the maximum that
> can be imposed by a Magistrate's Court) on the strength of evidence
> presented by one side, with no opportunity for the other side to
> expose that evidence as flawed"?
Well for starters 90 days doesn't equal 6 months.
If the evidence were to become available after the 90 days/lower figure and found by the defence to be flawed then the police would be answerable: this would prevent the police from pushing flawed evidence as they would be liable for lawsuits/re-structuring/dismissals/etc.
Light wrote:
>
> The evidence which is presented solely by the prosecution? Do you
> know, I suspect it just might be strong enough....every time. What
> with it being presented by the people who want to keep that suspect
> there in the first place. I admire your faith in a one sided legal
> system, I really do. But the idea that the evidence presented by one
> side is always unimpeachably true is, regrettably, not always the
> case.
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.
>
> The evidence which is presented solely by the prosecution? Do you
> know, I suspect it just might be strong enough....every time. What
> with it being presented by the people who want to keep that suspect
> there in the first place. I admire your faith in a one sided legal
> system, I really do. But the idea that the evidence presented by one
> side is always unimpeachably true is, regrettably, not always the
> case.
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.
Hedfix wrote:
> Probably because there are wider issues such as preventing terrorist
> attacks by not letting suspects with strong evidence against them
> free after a short period of time/to warn other co-conspiritors that
> the police may be investigating.
And, of course, if the police had sufficient resources to actually complete a thorough investigation within existing time limits...presumably that doesn't matter as it's covered by your "wider issues"?
I'm intrigued as to why you feel the erosion of liberty in this country and the setting up of a police state isn't covered as a "wider issue".
> Probably because there are wider issues such as preventing terrorist
> attacks by not letting suspects with strong evidence against them
> free after a short period of time/to warn other co-conspiritors that
> the police may be investigating.
And, of course, if the police had sufficient resources to actually complete a thorough investigation within existing time limits...presumably that doesn't matter as it's covered by your "wider issues"?
I'm intrigued as to why you feel the erosion of liberty in this country and the setting up of a police state isn't covered as a "wider issue".
Hedfix wrote:
> Yep, as I say the evidence has to be strong enough to warrant further
> incarceration.
The evidence which is presented solely by the prosecution? Do you know, I suspect it just might be strong enough....every time. What with it being presented by the people who want to keep that suspect there in the first place. I admire your faith in a one sided legal system, I really do. But the idea that the evidence presented by one side is always unimpeachably true is, regrettably, not always the case.
> No not the case or trial but the question of whether they should be
> further incarcerated because of strong evidence.
Shouldn't that read "whether they should be incarcerated for the equivalent of a 6 month sentence (co-incidentally, the maximum that can be imposed by a Magistrate's Court) on the strength of evidence presented by one side, with no opportunity for the other side to expose that evidence as flawed"?
> Yep, as I say the evidence has to be strong enough to warrant further
> incarceration.
The evidence which is presented solely by the prosecution? Do you know, I suspect it just might be strong enough....every time. What with it being presented by the people who want to keep that suspect there in the first place. I admire your faith in a one sided legal system, I really do. But the idea that the evidence presented by one side is always unimpeachably true is, regrettably, not always the case.
> No not the case or trial but the question of whether they should be
> further incarcerated because of strong evidence.
Shouldn't that read "whether they should be incarcerated for the equivalent of a 6 month sentence (co-incidentally, the maximum that can be imposed by a Magistrate's Court) on the strength of evidence presented by one side, with no opportunity for the other side to expose that evidence as flawed"?
Light wrote:
> And how come no-one has yet commented on why the Police are starved of
> resources; resources that would negate the need for a 90 day
> detention?
Probably because there are wider issues such as preventing terrorist attacks by not letting suspects with strong evidence against them free after a short period of time/to warn other co-conspiritors that the police may be investigating.
> And how come no-one has yet commented on why the Police are starved of
> resources; resources that would negate the need for a 90 day
> detention?
Probably because there are wider issues such as preventing terrorist attacks by not letting suspects with strong evidence against them free after a short period of time/to warn other co-conspiritors that the police may be investigating.
Page: