GetDotted Domains

Viewing Thread:
"Tony Blair throws rattle from pram"

The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.

Thu 10/11/05 at 08:59
Regular
"Wanking Mong"
Posts: 4,884
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?
Fri 11/11/05 at 12:33
Regular
"8==="
Posts: 33,481
monkey_man wrote:
> Any thread where Hedfix gets involved turns into a "I pwn joo
> haha lol" fest, I figured this out months ago (he almost shot
> lightning out his hands when I was made notable instead of him),

Well that's a bit of a tradition now, you, Snuggly, Stryke etc. Makes the election a bit more interesting really. IM GOLD!!!1111 Yeah... :D

> which is why he goes on and off ignore. Sometimes it's funny to
> watch, but then that's what he wants - any response.

It's always funny to watch from this side. :)

>
> This isn't the trolling thread so I'll stop here.

Hmmm, I'll go have a look at that one then. :D
Fri 11/11/05 at 12:31
Regular
"8==="
Posts: 33,481
Pandaemonium wrote:

> debate
> debate
> debate
> debate
> debate
> debate
> PWNED!!!!1111
> Sulk

If you say so, hypotheticals are hypotheticals. :D
Fri 11/11/05 at 12:30
Regular
"8==="
Posts: 33,481
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
Fri 11/11/05 at 12:24
Regular
"8==="
Posts: 33,481
Light wrote:
> Having read through this thread, it is all to easy to dismiss Hedfix
> as a wailing, cowardly troll who reverts to Belldandy "I know
> you are but what am I" mode the very instant he's asked to
> comment on something specific that he's made hasty and unsupported
> claims on.

It's called discussing hypotheticals you idiot.

I've explaied it to you a good 3/4 times so far.

I'll sign you up for a Mensa award then...
Fri 11/11/05 at 12:02
Regular
"Wanking Mong"
Posts: 4,884
Smedlos wrote:

> They are scum and good honest people must be protected. We should not
> bow into them but at the minute we live in fear and a lot more could
> be done to try and alleviate some of that fear.

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? 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?
Fri 11/11/05 at 12:01
Regular
"Wanking Mong"
Posts: 4,884
Smedlos wrote:

> Containment. You can't stop all the attacks that have / will happen
> but if you can prevent some that's something at least.

Which takes me back to the original point; a 90 day limit wouldn't have contained the attacks that have already taken place. We've no evidence to say that it would in future beyond some pretty transparent fearmongering on the part of the government. So how can one say that the 90 day limit would prevent some, if all the evidence thus far indicates it will actually inflame the situation for no appreciable benefit?

> Their tactics are working at the minute. The question is how do we
> move forward to find a solution?

I would suggest that giving in to them is not a way forward. And detaining people without charge is certainly giving into them.
Fri 11/11/05 at 12:00
Regular
"@RichSmedley"
Posts: 10,009
Cycloon wrote:
> Smedlos I don't understand you.
>
> On one hand you're calling them scum, evil bla bla, the good honest
> people must win and be protected. On the other you're saying 'yup,
> I'm cowed by them, so yeah, I think we should bow into the fear they
> give us'
>
> ?

They are scum and good honest people must be protected. We should not bow into them but at the minute we live in fear and a lot more could be done to try and alleviate some of that fear.
Fri 11/11/05 at 11:53
Regular
"gsybe you!"
Posts: 18,825
Smedlos I don't understand you.

On one hand you're calling them scum, evil bla bla, the good honest people must win and be protected. On the other you're saying 'yup, I'm cowed by them, so yeah, I think we should bow into the fear they give us'

?
Fri 11/11/05 at 11:43
Regular
"@RichSmedley"
Posts: 10,009
Light wrote:

> If that is the case, and their does seem to be a certain fatalism
> about what you're saying, then what on earth is the point of 90 day
> detentions? It's always going to be around, it would have made no
> difference to past attacks on the UK, and the only case I've seen for
> it to be put in place revolves around "This might happen".
> So why do it?

Containment. You can't stop all the attacks that have / will happen but if you can prevent some that's something at least.

> So we've seen our society become more fearful. And your (well...the
> Government's solution) is simply to compound that sense of fear and
> mistrust? Which would certainly encourage the terrorists, as they can
> see that their tactics are working, would it not?

Their tactics are working at the minute. The question is how do we move forward to find a solution?
Fri 11/11/05 at 11:33
Regular
"Wanking Mong"
Posts: 4,884
Your Honour wrote:
> However, you can't let attacks like
> that change the way you live, otherwise they've won.

I entirely agree. This whole 90 day thing smacks of "To defeat the terrorists, we will do exactly what they want us to do".

Freeola & GetDotted are rated 5 Stars

Check out some of our customer reviews below:

Many thanks!
You were 100% right - great support!
My website looks tremendous!
Fantastic site, easy to follow, simple guides... impressed with whole package. My website looks tremendous. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to set this up, Freeola helps you step-by-step.
Susan

View More Reviews

Need some help? Give us a call on 01376 55 60 60

Go to Support Centre
Feedback Close Feedback

It appears you are using an old browser, as such, some parts of the Freeola and Getdotted site will not work as intended. Using the latest version of your browser, or another browser such as Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, or Opera will provide a better, safer browsing experience for you.