The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
> Such a level of intellectual bankruptcy that he's reduced to copying >what I, the person he claims to be so much better than, wrote. In the >same style which I wrote it.
If you conform to the Belldandy model (which you have thus far), I would expect you to shortly start getting enraged at just how much of a joke you're regarded as, followed by a flouncing exit never to return.
2 days later, you'll return.
Anyway; you never did answer the question...can I take it that you are content to maintain your current level of gutless cowardice in lieu of returning a courtesy?
> Such a level of intellectual bankruptcy that he's reduced to copying >what I, the person he claims to be so much better than, wrote. In the >same style which I wrote it.
If you conform to the Belldandy model (which you have thus far), I would expect you to shortly start getting enraged at just how much of a joke you're regarded as, followed by a flouncing exit never to return.
2 days later, you'll return.
Anyway; you never did answer the question...can I take it that you are content to maintain your current level of gutless cowardice in lieu of returning a courtesy?
Smedlos wrote:
> Agreed to disagree!
Heh. Done!
>
> It doesn't but thankfully they're rare.
As indeed are terrorist attacks...
> Is this witholding evidence you're referring to here if so then yes
> it will increase miscarriages which is why I'm against it.
Sort of; it was a combination of that, my own personal distaste for the "It's always going to be like this" school of thought on...well, any subject.
> It is open to abuse, I just hope that the police won't. One bad apple
> spoils the whole lot which wouldn't be good.
Heh, the same could be said of Islam, but I digress...
> Agreed to disagree!
Heh. Done!
>
> It doesn't but thankfully they're rare.
As indeed are terrorist attacks...
> Is this witholding evidence you're referring to here if so then yes
> it will increase miscarriages which is why I'm against it.
Sort of; it was a combination of that, my own personal distaste for the "It's always going to be like this" school of thought on...well, any subject.
> It is open to abuse, I just hope that the police won't. One bad apple
> spoils the whole lot which wouldn't be good.
Heh, the same could be said of Islam, but I digress...
Light wrote:
> Poor trolling dressed up as intellectual conversation, as always.
> Poor trolling dressed up as intellectual conversation, as always.
Light wrote:
> Okay, fair enough. Personally, I don't think 90 days is required, but
> we can both agree on the with-holding of evidence from the defence as
> manifestly unfair. As to the rest, I think we should agree to
> disagree to be honest; I doubt we're going to change each others
> thinking!
Agreed to disagree!
> How does "Miscarriages of justice will always happen" mesh
> with "If you're innocent you have nothing to fear"?
It doesn't but thankfully they're rare.
> And isn't writing something off as "It will always happen"
> just an excuse for not actually making the effort to reduce that
> thing occurring? Isn't a 90 day detention with it's unfair burden on
> the defence going to increase those miscarriages?
Is this witholding evidence you're referring to here if so then yes it will increase miscarriages which is why I'm against it.
> 45 minutes is an acceptible delay to ones life. 90 days isn't. What
> I'm driving at is that the Police in recent times have done nothing
> to assure me that a power of detention for 90 days wouldn't be
> abused. On the other hand, they have convinced you; fair enough.
> Which takes us back to agreeing to disagree I think.
It is open to abuse, I just hope that the police won't. One bad apple spoils the whole lot which wouldn't be good.
> Okay, fair enough. Personally, I don't think 90 days is required, but
> we can both agree on the with-holding of evidence from the defence as
> manifestly unfair. As to the rest, I think we should agree to
> disagree to be honest; I doubt we're going to change each others
> thinking!
Agreed to disagree!
> How does "Miscarriages of justice will always happen" mesh
> with "If you're innocent you have nothing to fear"?
It doesn't but thankfully they're rare.
> And isn't writing something off as "It will always happen"
> just an excuse for not actually making the effort to reduce that
> thing occurring? Isn't a 90 day detention with it's unfair burden on
> the defence going to increase those miscarriages?
Is this witholding evidence you're referring to here if so then yes it will increase miscarriages which is why I'm against it.
> 45 minutes is an acceptible delay to ones life. 90 days isn't. What
> I'm driving at is that the Police in recent times have done nothing
> to assure me that a power of detention for 90 days wouldn't be
> abused. On the other hand, they have convinced you; fair enough.
> Which takes us back to agreeing to disagree I think.
It is open to abuse, I just hope that the police won't. One bad apple spoils the whole lot which wouldn't be good.
Hedfix wrote:
> Simple petulance coupled with some fairly low standard trolling
Even Belldandy showed more originality. You make me long for Forest's comparative intelligence...
Anyway, back to your palpable cowardice. Fact is, you keep insisting "He started it!", yet everyone else is queueing up to say "Uh...no, he didn't". I've also managed to debate everyone else without them throwing an epic and whining tantrum.
So please; do carry on making your oh so hilarious attempts at self-justification. I'll cheerfully respond to you, as I remain sadistic enough to enjoy a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
I shall also be carrying on a debate with people who don't expect their opinion to be treated as indisputable fact, and who don't spit the dummy when asked to explain their beliefs. By all means; watch and learn.
> Simple petulance coupled with some fairly low standard trolling
Even Belldandy showed more originality. You make me long for Forest's comparative intelligence...
Anyway, back to your palpable cowardice. Fact is, you keep insisting "He started it!", yet everyone else is queueing up to say "Uh...no, he didn't". I've also managed to debate everyone else without them throwing an epic and whining tantrum.
So please; do carry on making your oh so hilarious attempts at self-justification. I'll cheerfully respond to you, as I remain sadistic enough to enjoy a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
I shall also be carrying on a debate with people who don't expect their opinion to be treated as indisputable fact, and who don't spit the dummy when asked to explain their beliefs. By all means; watch and learn.
Smedlos wrote:
> I'm in favour of increasing the maximum time to 90 days but
> that's not saying they will be held for 90 days, it just gives the
> police the opportunity to do a completely thorough job that a shorter
> timespan will not allow.
>
> As an example say someone is arrested for a burglary they did and the
> police have 48 hours to question them and either charge or release
> them and they have to release them as they don't have time to do a
> thorough investigation. If they did have more time they would have
> got the evidence they need to charge them and keep them in custody.
> The person then goes and burgles another house which is annoying but
> nothing major.
>
> Now swap burglar for suspected terrorist and that is the reason I'm
> for the 90 day limit.
>
> Yes I am opposed to the Anti - Terror laws that make the review of
> that detention unfair. Everyone should have a fair trial from day 1
> and if one side is being given an advantage that is wrong.
Okay, fair enough. Personally, I don't think 90 days is required, but we can both agree on the with-holding of evidence from the defence as manifestly unfair. As to the rest, I think we should agree to disagree to be honest; I doubt we're going to change each others thinking!
> Miscarriages of justice will always happen it's just an unfortunate
> occurance in the course of (mis)justice. We can however be thankful
> we don't have a legal system like Bulgaria here where even though
> someone else has confessed to a crime someone else is locked up for
> it like that Liverpool fan.
How does "Miscarriages of justice will always happen" mesh with "If you're innocent you have nothing to fear"?
And isn't writing something off as "It will always happen" just an excuse for not actually making the effort to reduce that thing occurring? Isn't a 90 day detention with it's unfair burden on the defence going to increase those miscarriages?
> Security has been beefed up all over the country and I for one don't
> mind being delayed and searched to have the knowledge that my
> security is being looked after. For example last Bank Holiday I was
> in Blackpool and had to queue for 45 minutes to get into the Pleasure
> Beach as everyone was being searched but I didn't mind that knowing
> that is was for my own safety.
45 minutes is an acceptible delay to ones life. 90 days isn't. What I'm driving at is that the Police in recent times have done nothing to assure me that a power of detention for 90 days wouldn't be abused. On the other hand, they have convinced you; fair enough. Which takes us back to agreeing to disagree I think.
> I'm in favour of increasing the maximum time to 90 days but
> that's not saying they will be held for 90 days, it just gives the
> police the opportunity to do a completely thorough job that a shorter
> timespan will not allow.
>
> As an example say someone is arrested for a burglary they did and the
> police have 48 hours to question them and either charge or release
> them and they have to release them as they don't have time to do a
> thorough investigation. If they did have more time they would have
> got the evidence they need to charge them and keep them in custody.
> The person then goes and burgles another house which is annoying but
> nothing major.
>
> Now swap burglar for suspected terrorist and that is the reason I'm
> for the 90 day limit.
>
> Yes I am opposed to the Anti - Terror laws that make the review of
> that detention unfair. Everyone should have a fair trial from day 1
> and if one side is being given an advantage that is wrong.
Okay, fair enough. Personally, I don't think 90 days is required, but we can both agree on the with-holding of evidence from the defence as manifestly unfair. As to the rest, I think we should agree to disagree to be honest; I doubt we're going to change each others thinking!
> Miscarriages of justice will always happen it's just an unfortunate
> occurance in the course of (mis)justice. We can however be thankful
> we don't have a legal system like Bulgaria here where even though
> someone else has confessed to a crime someone else is locked up for
> it like that Liverpool fan.
How does "Miscarriages of justice will always happen" mesh with "If you're innocent you have nothing to fear"?
And isn't writing something off as "It will always happen" just an excuse for not actually making the effort to reduce that thing occurring? Isn't a 90 day detention with it's unfair burden on the defence going to increase those miscarriages?
> Security has been beefed up all over the country and I for one don't
> mind being delayed and searched to have the knowledge that my
> security is being looked after. For example last Bank Holiday I was
> in Blackpool and had to queue for 45 minutes to get into the Pleasure
> Beach as everyone was being searched but I didn't mind that knowing
> that is was for my own safety.
45 minutes is an acceptible delay to ones life. 90 days isn't. What I'm driving at is that the Police in recent times have done nothing to assure me that a power of detention for 90 days wouldn't be abused. On the other hand, they have convinced you; fair enough. Which takes us back to agreeing to disagree I think.
Light wrote:
> Ah, so would I be right in saying that you're in favour of the
> principle of increasing the detention limit to 90 days, but opposed
> to using the Anti-Terror laws to make the reviews of that detention
> unfair?
I'm in favour of increasing the maximum time to 90 days but that's not saying they will be held for 90 days, it just gives the police the opportunity to do a completely thorough job that a shorter timespan will not allow.
As an example say someone is arrested for a burglary they did and the police have 48 hours to question them and either charge or release them and they have to release them as they don't have time to do a thorough investigation. If they did have more time they would have got the evidence they need to charge them and keep them in custody. The person then goes and burgles another house which is annoying but nothing major.
Now swap burglar for suspected terrorist and that is the reason I'm for the 90 day limit.
Yes I am opposed to the Anti - Terror laws that make the review of that detention unfair. Everyone should have a fair trial from day 1 and if one side is being given an advantage that is wrong.
> Tell that to the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4.
Miscarriages of justice will always happen it's just an unfortunate occurance in the course of (mis)justice. We can however be thankful we don't have a legal system like Bulgaria here where even though someone else has confessed to a crime someone else is locked up for it like that Liverpool fan.
> However, what have the police done to earn trust concerning that?
Security has been beefed up all over the country and I for one don't mind being delayed and searched to have the knowledge that my security is being looked after. For example last Bank Holiday I was in Blackpool and had to queue for 45 minutes to get into the Pleasure Beach as everyone was being searched but I didn't mind that knowing that is was for my own safety.
> Ah, so would I be right in saying that you're in favour of the
> principle of increasing the detention limit to 90 days, but opposed
> to using the Anti-Terror laws to make the reviews of that detention
> unfair?
I'm in favour of increasing the maximum time to 90 days but that's not saying they will be held for 90 days, it just gives the police the opportunity to do a completely thorough job that a shorter timespan will not allow.
As an example say someone is arrested for a burglary they did and the police have 48 hours to question them and either charge or release them and they have to release them as they don't have time to do a thorough investigation. If they did have more time they would have got the evidence they need to charge them and keep them in custody. The person then goes and burgles another house which is annoying but nothing major.
Now swap burglar for suspected terrorist and that is the reason I'm for the 90 day limit.
Yes I am opposed to the Anti - Terror laws that make the review of that detention unfair. Everyone should have a fair trial from day 1 and if one side is being given an advantage that is wrong.
> Tell that to the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4.
Miscarriages of justice will always happen it's just an unfortunate occurance in the course of (mis)justice. We can however be thankful we don't have a legal system like Bulgaria here where even though someone else has confessed to a crime someone else is locked up for it like that Liverpool fan.
> However, what have the police done to earn trust concerning that?
Security has been beefed up all over the country and I for one don't mind being delayed and searched to have the knowledge that my security is being looked after. For example last Bank Holiday I was in Blackpool and had to queue for 45 minutes to get into the Pleasure Beach as everyone was being searched but I didn't mind that knowing that is was for my own safety.
Light wrote:
> Hedfix wrote:
> Evasive, gutless, honourless cowardice. Oh, and lies.
>
> I take it then, that even though I've done you the courtesy of
> responding to your requests for clarification, you're way too scared
> to return that courtesy?
It take it you care? Oh please.
Go write another letter to your MP.
> Hedfix wrote:
> Evasive, gutless, honourless cowardice. Oh, and lies.
>
> I take it then, that even though I've done you the courtesy of
> responding to your requests for clarification, you're way too scared
> to return that courtesy?
It take it you care? Oh please.
Go write another letter to your MP.
Your Honour wrote:
> Bacially it says that the Tories are suggesting "there may have
> been a link between the police support for the government and worries
> over job cuts in forces across the country".
>
> Thoughts?
Hmmm...I suppose it's a possibility, but without concrete evidence I would mark that down as political point scoring.
> Bacially it says that the Tories are suggesting "there may have
> been a link between the police support for the government and worries
> over job cuts in forces across the country".
>
> Thoughts?
Hmmm...I suppose it's a possibility, but without concrete evidence I would mark that down as political point scoring.
Hedfix wrote:
> Evasive, gutless, honourless cowardice. Oh, and lies.
I take it then, that even though I've done you the courtesy of responding to your requests for clarification, you're way too scared to return that courtesy?
> Evasive, gutless, honourless cowardice. Oh, and lies.
I take it then, that even though I've done you the courtesy of responding to your requests for clarification, you're way too scared to return that courtesy?
Page: