The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
>
> It will take 90 days before that trial, at the very least. Are you
> saying you're comfortable with keeping someone incarcerated for 90
> days without charge, when the only safeguard is a judge looking at
> the prosecution evidence with no opportunity for the defence to
> present it.
Yep, as I say the evidence has to be strong enough to warrant further incarceration.
> Interesting. I've never come across anyone who's happy for a case
> against a person to be decided solely on the prosecution case whilst
> ignoring the defence.
No not the case or trial but the question of whether they should be further incarcerated because of strong evidence.
>
> It will take 90 days before that trial, at the very least. Are you
> saying you're comfortable with keeping someone incarcerated for 90
> days without charge, when the only safeguard is a judge looking at
> the prosecution evidence with no opportunity for the defence to
> present it.
Yep, as I say the evidence has to be strong enough to warrant further incarceration.
> Interesting. I've never come across anyone who's happy for a case
> against a person to be decided solely on the prosecution case whilst
> ignoring the defence.
No not the case or trial but the question of whether they should be further incarcerated because of strong evidence.
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?
Hedfix wrote:
> But they will at trial and proceeding up to the trial once charges
> have been brought.
It will take 90 days before that trial, at the very least. Are you saying you're comfortable with keeping someone incarcerated for 90 days without charge, when the only safeguard is a judge looking at the prosecution evidence with no opportunity for the defence to present it.
> If the case against is strong enough that he feels further detention
> and investigation is needed, then yes I do.
Interesting. I've never come across anyone who's happy for a case against a person to be decided solely on the prosecution case whilst ignoring the defence.
> But they will at trial and proceeding up to the trial once charges
> have been brought.
It will take 90 days before that trial, at the very least. Are you saying you're comfortable with keeping someone incarcerated for 90 days without charge, when the only safeguard is a judge looking at the prosecution evidence with no opportunity for the defence to present it.
> If the case against is strong enough that he feels further detention
> and investigation is needed, then yes I do.
Interesting. I've never come across anyone who's happy for a case against a person to be decided solely on the prosecution case whilst ignoring the defence.
Smedlos wrote:
> Just a phrase that is used around here.
I know; I'm being my usual unpleasantly sarcastic self.
> Perhaps I should have said inconsistent.
And 90 day detentions without charge will increase consistency?
>
> Can being the key word. What really gets to me is when the police say
> they have no evidence that they are inciting terror when it's been
> splashed all over the news.
They can, but they don't. Would you like to give reasons why being able to hold them for 90 days without charging them, when they are currently able to charge them well within existing time limits, should make a positive difference. 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.
> White and a working class upbringing although I'm now in a well paid
> job. These days people hide behind the human rights bill to try and
> worm their way out of all manner of situations or to get something
> they want whether it be compensation for their own stupidity or to
> claim they're being unfairly treated by the law.
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".
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.
> Just a phrase that is used around here.
I know; I'm being my usual unpleasantly sarcastic self.
> Perhaps I should have said inconsistent.
And 90 day detentions without charge will increase consistency?
>
> Can being the key word. What really gets to me is when the police say
> they have no evidence that they are inciting terror when it's been
> splashed all over the news.
They can, but they don't. Would you like to give reasons why being able to hold them for 90 days without charging them, when they are currently able to charge them well within existing time limits, should make a positive difference. 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.
> White and a working class upbringing although I'm now in a well paid
> job. These days people hide behind the human rights bill to try and
> worm their way out of all manner of situations or to get something
> they want whether it be compensation for their own stupidity or to
> claim they're being unfairly treated by the law.
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".
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.
Light wrote:
>
> In a bail hearing, the defence lawyer will have access to the
> evidence against his client.
>
> In Anti-Terrorism cases, they do not.
But they will at trial and proceeding up to the trial once charges have been brought.
>
> Are you seriously saying that a judge can make an informed and
> reasonable decision when all he hears is the case against a person?
If the case against is strong enough that he feels further detention and investigation is needed, then yes I do.
>
> In a bail hearing, the defence lawyer will have access to the
> evidence against his client.
>
> In Anti-Terrorism cases, they do not.
But they will at trial and proceeding up to the trial once charges have been brought.
>
> Are you seriously saying that a judge can make an informed and
> reasonable decision when all he hears is the case against a person?
If the case against is strong enough that he feels further detention and investigation is needed, then yes I do.
Hedfix wrote:
> Should it go to trial that's when defence lawyer's should get fully
> involved. Up until then it should be dealt with as bail hearings are:
> where the decision is up to the judge.
In a bail hearing, the defence lawyer will have access to the evidence against his client.
In Anti-Terrorism cases, they do not.
Are you seriously saying that a judge can make an informed and reasonable decision when all he hears is the case against a person?
> Should it go to trial that's when defence lawyer's should get fully
> involved. Up until then it should be dealt with as bail hearings are:
> where the decision is up to the judge.
In a bail hearing, the defence lawyer will have access to the evidence against his client.
In Anti-Terrorism cases, they do not.
Are you seriously saying that a judge can make an informed and reasonable decision when all he hears is the case against a person?
Your Honour wrote:
>
> Fair. But surely the extension to 90 days is to give the police more
> time to investigate, correct?
To a degree*, it's also about keeping suspected terrorists from being able to warn co-conspiritors and to prevent them completing any terrorist acts they may have planned before they can be formally charged.
*I would argue that 90 days should be the maximum and that a judge should review the police's progress at set dates with a decent level of evidence making it acceptable for the judge to order futher incarceration whilst the police investigate further.
>
> How much time will be lost by every 7 days having to go to a judge
> with a copy of all the current evidence, wait for him to go through
> it all and then decide on whether the "suspect" can be held
> for longer?
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?
>
> Fair. But surely the extension to 90 days is to give the police more
> time to investigate, correct?
To a degree*, it's also about keeping suspected terrorists from being able to warn co-conspiritors and to prevent them completing any terrorist acts they may have planned before they can be formally charged.
*I would argue that 90 days should be the maximum and that a judge should review the police's progress at set dates with a decent level of evidence making it acceptable for the judge to order futher incarceration whilst the police investigate further.
>
> How much time will be lost by every 7 days having to go to a judge
> with a copy of all the current evidence, wait for him to go through
> it all and then decide on whether the "suspect" can be held
> for longer?
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?
Hedfix wrote:
> That's why I'm suggesting it's worth having a judge decide on whether
> the incarceration should continue at set intervals.
Fair. But surely the extension to 90 days is to give the police more time to investigate, correct?
How much time will be lost by every 7 days having to go to a judge with a copy of all the current evidence, wait for him to go through it all and then decide on whether the "suspect" can be held for longer?
> That's why I'm suggesting it's worth having a judge decide on whether
> the incarceration should continue at set intervals.
Fair. But surely the extension to 90 days is to give the police more time to investigate, correct?
How much time will be lost by every 7 days having to go to a judge with a copy of all the current evidence, wait for him to go through it all and then decide on whether the "suspect" can be held for longer?
Your Honour wrote:
>
> So where do you draw the line? What happens the other side of the
> line?
That's why I'm suggesting it's worth having a judge decide on whether the incarceration should continue at set intervals.
>
> So where do you draw the line? What happens the other side of the
> line?
That's why I'm suggesting it's worth having a judge decide on whether the incarceration should continue at set intervals.
Pandaemonium wrote:
> I know, so using words like "evidence" is a bit misleading.
> "Unfounded suspicion" is far better.....
This is true.
> I know, so using words like "evidence" is a bit misleading.
> "Unfounded suspicion" is far better.....
This is true.
Page: