The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
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?
Stuff.
Twice as he didn't have any kind of answer.
Now off with you, you cheeky little scamp :-)
> Won't police detaining people with no charge when the evidence
> against them is kept secret and only revealed to a judge, and when
> the suspect has an impaired Defence that is not allowed access to the
> evidence against them...won't that simply increase the fear?
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.
> It'll almost certainly increase fear among Muslims. Muslims are like > anyone else; good, honest people. What about their protection, and doing
> something to alleviate their concerns?
If people have done nothing wrong then they have nothing to fear. 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.
>
> I'm perfectly happy. I'm happy with my job, my friends, my missus -
> my life in general to be honest. Which is why I'm not the one seeking
> attention on an internet board all hours of the day.
Hedfix wrote:
>
> Great, thanks, if you didn't feel the need to defend yourself to me
> you might be a happier chappy. Now off with you. :)
> The assumption's quite amusing.
You seem to get amused awfully easily.
> Great, thanks, if you didn't feel the need to defend yourself to me
> you might be a happier chappy. Now off with you. :)
I'm perfectly happy. I'm happy with my job, my friends, my missus - my life in general to be honest. Which is why I'm not the one seeking attention on an internet board all hours of the day.
'Intellectually bankrupted '
Hah
> Right I've a few questions now since Light fails to understand a few
> basic things such as "some people don't find discussing politics
> in as much detail as him interesting".
>
> Light:
>
> Have you written to your MP about his issue?
>
> Have you been part of a demonstration on this issue?
>
> Or do you simply chat about it on a forum and call people who are
> less interested in it than you are "cowards"?
>
> 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
Almost as much fun as Belldandy's "That was just a test" method of pulling his lardy ass out of the fire.
Face facts hedfix; you've intellectually bankrupted yourself in this thread. And all you can do is squeal "It's not me, it's ALL OF YOU!" when asked to consider the possibility that you're acting like a tool.
Now please; the grown-ups are trying to have a debate. You might want to observe. It'll give you a few clues as to how to act with a little grace...
>
> I'm sure it is. Afterall, everyone finds it amusing to be found an
> annoying berk* by several people. Don't they?
The assumption's quite amusing.
> *The best I could think of without obviously skirting the swear
> filter. Plus, I haven't used it in a while and felt it deserved an
> airing.
Great, thanks, if you didn't feel the need to defend yourself to me you might be a happier chappy. Now off with you. :)
> It's always funny to watch from this side. :)
I'm sure it is. Afterall, everyone finds it amusing to be found an annoying berk* by several people. Don't they?
*The best I could think of without obviously skirting the swear filter. Plus, I haven't used it in a while and felt it deserved an airing.