The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
I can't see him letting this lie. OK he got 28 days but it's still a big defeat for him and I bet it'll be forced through pretty much like the foxhunting ban was.
I enjoyed seeing "Tony" get stiffed. The mere sight of him makes me feel sick.
Smedlos wrote:
> I think the 90 day detention is correct as long as there's sufficient
> grounds to suspect the person is conncected to terrorism.
But usually when there's sufficient grounds for suspection, there will be evidence to back it up arriving soon after.
> I think the 90 day detention is correct as long as there's sufficient
> grounds to suspect the person is conncected to terrorism.
But usually when there's sufficient grounds for suspection, there will be evidence to back it up arriving soon after.
Smedlos wrote:
> If they knew they were being monitored they'd probably just bring
> forward their attack. They'd know that the police have something on
> them and would want to make sure they got an attack in before they
> got arrested.
"if" "probably"
All speculation.
I'm sure all naughty terrorists are on the verge of an attack, just waiting for the pesky police to throw a spanner in the works.
> If they knew they were being monitored they'd probably just bring
> forward their attack. They'd know that the police have something on
> them and would want to make sure they got an attack in before they
> got arrested.
"if" "probably"
All speculation.
I'm sure all naughty terrorists are on the verge of an attack, just waiting for the pesky police to throw a spanner in the works.
If they knew they were being monitored they'd probably just bring forward their attack. They'd know that the police have something on them and would want to make sure they got an attack in before they got arrested.
Smedlos wrote:
> Keeping people in prison for 90 days would allow the police to
> monitor the people who were close to the suspect and see the
> activites they do in order to build a stronger case against them or
> to realise they pose no threat.
So people close to someone locked up are going to continue their evil terrorist ways without any worry that police may have been alerted to their activities?
Come on.
> Keeping people in prison for 90 days would allow the police to
> monitor the people who were close to the suspect and see the
> activites they do in order to build a stronger case against them or
> to realise they pose no threat.
So people close to someone locked up are going to continue their evil terrorist ways without any worry that police may have been alerted to their activities?
Come on.
Light wrote:
> Even if that "caution" provides a cause for more radicals,
> who can say "Look; they're locking people up without charge just
> for being Muslim! The West DOES hate us!"
>
> Also, would you be opposed to giving the police more resources so
> that they can investigate within the current limits?
I don't think the 90 day thing will create more radicals as the US has done more than enough over the past 4 years with Guantanamo Bay.
The more resources the police have the better in this day and age but throwing twice the manpower and halving the time investigating an individual/group probably wouldn't get the same results as half the manpower having twice the time. The police need to monitor suspects over a period of time to get a good picture of them and what they are doing.
Keeping people in prison for 90 days would allow the police to monitor the people who were close to the suspect and see the activites they do in order to build a stronger case against them or to realise they pose no threat.
> Even if that "caution" provides a cause for more radicals,
> who can say "Look; they're locking people up without charge just
> for being Muslim! The West DOES hate us!"
>
> Also, would you be opposed to giving the police more resources so
> that they can investigate within the current limits?
I don't think the 90 day thing will create more radicals as the US has done more than enough over the past 4 years with Guantanamo Bay.
The more resources the police have the better in this day and age but throwing twice the manpower and halving the time investigating an individual/group probably wouldn't get the same results as half the manpower having twice the time. The police need to monitor suspects over a period of time to get a good picture of them and what they are doing.
Keeping people in prison for 90 days would allow the police to monitor the people who were close to the suspect and see the activites they do in order to build a stronger case against them or to realise they pose no threat.
Smedlos wrote:
> I'd rather air on the side of caution than risk letting a terrorist
> roam free.
Even if that "caution" provides a cause for more radicals, who can say "Look; they're locking people up without charge just for being Muslim! The West DOES hate us!"
Also, would you be opposed to giving the police more resources so that they can investigate within the current limits?
> I'd rather air on the side of caution than risk letting a terrorist
> roam free.
Even if that "caution" provides a cause for more radicals, who can say "Look; they're locking people up without charge just for being Muslim! The West DOES hate us!"
Also, would you be opposed to giving the police more resources so that they can investigate within the current limits?
Light wrote:
> Fair enough.
>
> So you're saying that you trust a police force that shoots dead a
> Brazilian and then lies about it like a spastic Hitler to present
> reliable evidence as to someone's involvement in terrorism?
I'd rather air on the side of caution than risk letting a terrorist roam free.
> Fair enough.
>
> So you're saying that you trust a police force that shoots dead a
> Brazilian and then lies about it like a spastic Hitler to present
> reliable evidence as to someone's involvement in terrorism?
I'd rather air on the side of caution than risk letting a terrorist roam free.
Fair enough.
So you're saying that you trust a police force that shoots dead a Brazilian and then lies about it like a spastic Hitler to present reliable evidence as to someone's involvement in terrorism?
So you're saying that you trust a police force that shoots dead a Brazilian and then lies about it like a spastic Hitler to present reliable evidence as to someone's involvement in terrorism?
Page: