The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Sky News are running a report with "Claims of Government 'politicisation' of police chiefs over new anti-terror laws."
Full story can be read [URL]http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13460698,00.html[/URL]
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?
Full story can be read [URL]http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13460698,00.html[/URL]
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?
There's no-one to fool m'boy.
I've explained it enough times.
I've explained it enough times.
Hedfix wrote:
> A post demonstrating his moral and intellectual cowardice.
Seriously; do you think you're fooling anyone?
> A post demonstrating his moral and intellectual cowardice.
Seriously; do you think you're fooling anyone?
Smedlos wrote:
> Yes and like I said yesterday I don't agree with keeping the defense
> in the dark every person in connection with the trial should have the
> same access to all the information.
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?
>
> If people have done nothing wrong then they have nothing to fear.
Tell that to the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4.
> The
> police will not, like Sir Ian Blair said after the 7/7 attacks
> "be searching old ladies" and will focus their attention on
> people who they believe pose a threat to national security.
However, what have the police done to earn trust concerning that?
> Yes and like I said yesterday I don't agree with keeping the defense
> in the dark every person in connection with the trial should have the
> same access to all the information.
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?
>
> If people have done nothing wrong then they have nothing to fear.
Tell that to the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4.
> The
> police will not, like Sir Ian Blair said after the 7/7 attacks
> "be searching old ladies" and will focus their attention on
> people who they believe pose a threat to national security.
However, what have the police done to earn trust concerning that?
.
Not worth it.
Not worth it.
The one that doesn't involve much effort.
I'm off to post some stuff.
So you've written to your MP eh? Nice.
Oh, if you'd managed to stay civil, you'd have had a better chance of me answering your questions: just some food for thought.
I'm off to post some stuff.
So you've written to your MP eh? Nice.
Oh, if you'd managed to stay civil, you'd have had a better chance of me answering your questions: just some food for thought.
Hedfix wrote:
> Light:
>
> Have you written to your MP about his issue?
My local MP is Stephen Byers, and I have signed my name to the letter sent to him by the local Libdem party (of which I am a member) stating our opposition to the measure.
>
> Have you been part of a demonstration on this issue?
As yet, no I have not.
>
> Or do you simply chat about it on a forum and call people who are
> less interested in it than you are "cowards"?
I chat about it because it interests me. And, as you can see by my debate with Wookie and Smedlos, I like to discuss issues that interest me. What I find annoying is when someone starts to debate, then backs down with weak and cowardly reasoning as soon as he is challenged to provide some specific answers.
>
> Because it seems to me with all your 'rightous anger' you might
> actually be better off trying to make a difference in the real world
> rather than getting annoyed with people suggesting hypotheticals on
> here. :D
Your provocations aside, I have responded to your questions. Kindly respond to the ones I asked you yesterday.
Or, prove me right about your moral and intellectual cowardice. ~shrugs~ I'm pretty sure I know which option you'll take.
> Light:
>
> Have you written to your MP about his issue?
My local MP is Stephen Byers, and I have signed my name to the letter sent to him by the local Libdem party (of which I am a member) stating our opposition to the measure.
>
> Have you been part of a demonstration on this issue?
As yet, no I have not.
>
> Or do you simply chat about it on a forum and call people who are
> less interested in it than you are "cowards"?
I chat about it because it interests me. And, as you can see by my debate with Wookie and Smedlos, I like to discuss issues that interest me. What I find annoying is when someone starts to debate, then backs down with weak and cowardly reasoning as soon as he is challenged to provide some specific answers.
>
> Because it seems to me with all your 'rightous anger' you might
> actually be better off trying to make a difference in the real world
> rather than getting annoyed with people suggesting hypotheticals on
> here. :D
Your provocations aside, I have responded to your questions. Kindly respond to the ones I asked you yesterday.
Or, prove me right about your moral and intellectual cowardice. ~shrugs~ I'm pretty sure I know which option you'll take.
Any time :D
Oh yeah, you didn't get that, ha ha!
Thanks for reminding me. :D
Thanks for reminding me. :D
Back to the same old.
I'll just wait for a link to a completely irrelevant thread, and it will be complete.
:-P
I'll just wait for a link to a completely irrelevant thread, and it will be complete.
:-P
Page: