The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Pandaemonium wrote:
>
> I might be totally on the wrong track here, but don't you have to be
> formally charged with something before little words like
> "evidence" can be used?
Why would people say that "there isn't enough evidence to proceed" then?
Evidence is evidence whether you're charged or not.
>
> I might be totally on the wrong track here, but don't you have to be
> formally charged with something before little words like
> "evidence" can be used?
Why would people say that "there isn't enough evidence to proceed" then?
Evidence is evidence whether you're charged or not.
Hedfix wrote:
> Are
> you saying that that is a fair and reasonable safeguard?
>
> To a point.
So where do you draw the line? What happens the other side of the line?
> Are
> you saying that that is a fair and reasonable safeguard?
>
> To a point.
So where do you draw the line? What happens the other side of the line?
Your Honour wrote:
> But that's the point - they are talking about holding someone without
> charging them.
I know, so using words like "evidence" is a bit misleading. "Unfounded suspicion" is far better.....
> But that's the point - they are talking about holding someone without
> charging them.
I know, so using words like "evidence" is a bit misleading. "Unfounded suspicion" is far better.....
Light wrote:
> "bang on" is rather an unfortunate turn of phrase in the
> light of our hugely successful shoot to kill policy...
Just a phrase that is used around here.
> That the law is too lenient is a matter of opinion; tell that to the
> 17 year old now doing life for the manslaughter of a chap who bullied
> him.
Perhaps I should have said inconsistent.
> Fact is, preachers who condone such attacks can be arrested for
> Incitement. Why would we need 90 days for that?
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.
> I'm guessing that you, like me, are white and middle class? I say that, > because that's the social group that usually dismisses concerns about > human rights as "whining". Curiously, you've not actually given your
> reasons for such a belief. All you've done is given your opinion...
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.
> "bang on" is rather an unfortunate turn of phrase in the
> light of our hugely successful shoot to kill policy...
Just a phrase that is used around here.
> That the law is too lenient is a matter of opinion; tell that to the
> 17 year old now doing life for the manslaughter of a chap who bullied
> him.
Perhaps I should have said inconsistent.
> Fact is, preachers who condone such attacks can be arrested for
> Incitement. Why would we need 90 days for that?
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.
> I'm guessing that you, like me, are white and middle class? I say that, > because that's the social group that usually dismisses concerns about > human rights as "whining". Curiously, you've not actually given your
> reasons for such a belief. All you've done is given your opinion...
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.
But that's the point - they are talking about holding someone without charging them.
Hedfix wrote:
> If there is enough evidence to prolong a suspect's incarceration then
> yes I would say so.
I might be totally on the wrong track here, but don't you have to be formally charged with something before little words like "evidence" can be used?
> If there is enough evidence to prolong a suspect's incarceration then
> yes I would say so.
I might be totally on the wrong track here, but don't you have to be formally charged with something before little words like "evidence" can be used?
Light wrote:
>
> And the police have access to that evidence. The suspect's defence
> lawyer would not, and would be utterly unable to contradict it.
Until it went to trial. This is about preventing terrorist attacks.
Are
> you saying that that is a fair and reasonable safeguard?
To a point.
Or are you
> saying that evidence/suspicion is sufficient grounds for 90 days
> detention?
If there is enough evidence to prolong a suspect's incarceration then yes I would say so.
>
> And the police have access to that evidence. The suspect's defence
> lawyer would not, and would be utterly unable to contradict it.
Until it went to trial. This is about preventing terrorist attacks.
Are
> you saying that that is a fair and reasonable safeguard?
To a point.
Or are you
> saying that evidence/suspicion is sufficient grounds for 90 days
> detention?
If there is enough evidence to prolong a suspect's incarceration then yes I would say so.
I'm saying this:
Hedfix wrote:
> 90 days should be the absolute maximum BUT the police should be able
> to show a judge sufficient evidence of the detainee being involved in
> terrorism at regualr intervals.
>
> In the early days this proof has to be minor, perhpas grounds for
> suspicion but the longer they are incarcerated a higher level of
> evidence should be needed to keep them detained.
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.
Hedfix wrote:
> 90 days should be the absolute maximum BUT the police should be able
> to show a judge sufficient evidence of the detainee being involved in
> terrorism at regualr intervals.
>
> In the early days this proof has to be minor, perhpas grounds for
> suspicion but the longer they are incarcerated a higher level of
> evidence should be needed to keep them detained.
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.
Hedfix wrote:
> The evidence has to be there in the first place.
>
> This about preventing terrorist attacks not preparing for a person's
> trial.
And the police have access to that evidence. The suspect's defence lawyer would not, and would be utterly unable to contradict it. Are you saying that that is a fair and reasonable safeguard? Or are you saying that evidence/suspicion is sufficient grounds for 90 days detention?
> The evidence has to be there in the first place.
>
> This about preventing terrorist attacks not preparing for a person's
> trial.
And the police have access to that evidence. The suspect's defence lawyer would not, and would be utterly unable to contradict it. Are you saying that that is a fair and reasonable safeguard? Or are you saying that evidence/suspicion is sufficient grounds for 90 days detention?
Smedlos wrote:
> My opinion on here is influenced a bit due to the fact that one of my
> previous jobs was in law and it was so depressing and frustrating
> seeing people go free on technicalities or getting off lightly for
> the crimes they had been convicted of.
Snap; I was a solicitor. And what was even more frustrating was seeing that justice is incidental. What will make it more of a lottery is a worthless nod in the direction of "being tough on terror" without actually acknowledging;
A - That such measure would be unnecessary if the police had enough resource, and
B - The cause of such terrorism in the first place.
>
> In general laws in this country are far too lenient and favour
> criminals instead of victims and if you couple that with people who
> bang on about human rights it shows just what a sham the legal system
> is in this country.
"bang on" is rather an unfortunate turn of phrase in the light of our hugely successful shoot to kill policy...
That the law is too lenient is a matter of opinion; tell that to the 17 year old now doing life for the manslaughter of a chap who bullied him.
What I'm saying is that people who try to ignore the fact that we're not offering the police enough resources, are saying that Money is more important than People and People's liberty.
>
> The police won't arrest any person they think might be
> involved in terrosism as that will distract them from the real
> terrorists they will go for the ones that show strong signs of being
> involved - these preachers who openly condone terrorist attacks and
> say that things like hurricanes are gods way of showing he's
> displeased with us and we deserve them.
Again; I'm intrigued to know how that spirited defence of what the police will do meshes with their murder of an innocent man and subsequent farcical attempts at covering up that murder.
Fact is, preachers who condone such attacks can be arrested for Incitement. Why would we need 90 days for that?
>
> Assuming this 90 day law is well and truly buried I just hope that
> when suspects come before courts they're remanded in custody for a
> sufficient period of time in order that the police can do their jobs
> without constantly being blocked by people who wine on about human
> rights being violated.
Spoken like a man who has never been in the position of being a victim of baseless suspicion...I'm guessing that you, like me, are white and middle class? I say that, because that's the social group that usually dismisses concerns about human rights as "whining". Curiously, you've not actually given your reasons for such a belief. All you've done is given your opinion...
> My opinion on here is influenced a bit due to the fact that one of my
> previous jobs was in law and it was so depressing and frustrating
> seeing people go free on technicalities or getting off lightly for
> the crimes they had been convicted of.
Snap; I was a solicitor. And what was even more frustrating was seeing that justice is incidental. What will make it more of a lottery is a worthless nod in the direction of "being tough on terror" without actually acknowledging;
A - That such measure would be unnecessary if the police had enough resource, and
B - The cause of such terrorism in the first place.
>
> In general laws in this country are far too lenient and favour
> criminals instead of victims and if you couple that with people who
> bang on about human rights it shows just what a sham the legal system
> is in this country.
"bang on" is rather an unfortunate turn of phrase in the light of our hugely successful shoot to kill policy...
That the law is too lenient is a matter of opinion; tell that to the 17 year old now doing life for the manslaughter of a chap who bullied him.
What I'm saying is that people who try to ignore the fact that we're not offering the police enough resources, are saying that Money is more important than People and People's liberty.
>
> The police won't arrest any person they think might be
> involved in terrosism as that will distract them from the real
> terrorists they will go for the ones that show strong signs of being
> involved - these preachers who openly condone terrorist attacks and
> say that things like hurricanes are gods way of showing he's
> displeased with us and we deserve them.
Again; I'm intrigued to know how that spirited defence of what the police will do meshes with their murder of an innocent man and subsequent farcical attempts at covering up that murder.
Fact is, preachers who condone such attacks can be arrested for Incitement. Why would we need 90 days for that?
>
> Assuming this 90 day law is well and truly buried I just hope that
> when suspects come before courts they're remanded in custody for a
> sufficient period of time in order that the police can do their jobs
> without constantly being blocked by people who wine on about human
> rights being violated.
Spoken like a man who has never been in the position of being a victim of baseless suspicion...I'm guessing that you, like me, are white and middle class? I say that, because that's the social group that usually dismisses concerns about human rights as "whining". Curiously, you've not actually given your reasons for such a belief. All you've done is given your opinion...
Page: