The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Smedlos wrote:
> Terrorism has and always will be around. It's not like WWI and WWII
> as we don't know who we're fighting against.
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?
> At the minute that's how I feel so you could say they have partly won
> as they have succeded in doing what they set out to do - cause fear.
> People are more fearful and cautious nowadays and some people have
> changed their lifestyle for good - they won't travel on the tube for
> instance.
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?
> Terrorism has and always will be around. It's not like WWI and WWII
> as we don't know who we're fighting against.
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?
> At the minute that's how I feel so you could say they have partly won
> as they have succeded in doing what they set out to do - cause fear.
> People are more fearful and cautious nowadays and some people have
> changed their lifestyle for good - they won't travel on the tube for
> instance.
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?
Smedlos wrote:
> People are more fearful and cautious nowadays and some people have
> changed their lifestyle for good - they won't travel on the tube for
> instance.
I was a bit apprenhensive when using the tube for the first time after 7th July. But then I don't use it that often, and I don't like using it at the best of times. However, you can't let attacks like that change the way you live, otherwise they've won.
> People are more fearful and cautious nowadays and some people have
> changed their lifestyle for good - they won't travel on the tube for
> instance.
I was a bit apprenhensive when using the tube for the first time after 7th July. But then I don't use it that often, and I don't like using it at the best of times. However, you can't let attacks like that change the way you live, otherwise they've won.
Light wrote:
> War without end? Oddly, that was Hitler's solution for keeping the
> German people under control; an endless, unwinnable war. 1984 made
> much the same point.
Terrorism has and always will be around. It's not like WWI and WWII as we don't know who we're fighting against.
> Always be people to take their place? What you seem to be suggesting
> is that the constant erosion of civil rights and increasing climate
> of fear is inevitable and unavoidable. If that is the case, haven't
> the terrorists won?
At the minute that's how I feel so you could say they have partly won as they have succeded in doing what they set out to do - cause fear. People are more fearful and cautious nowadays and some people have changed their lifestyle for good - they won't travel on the tube for instance.
> War without end? Oddly, that was Hitler's solution for keeping the
> German people under control; an endless, unwinnable war. 1984 made
> much the same point.
Terrorism has and always will be around. It's not like WWI and WWII as we don't know who we're fighting against.
> Always be people to take their place? What you seem to be suggesting
> is that the constant erosion of civil rights and increasing climate
> of fear is inevitable and unavoidable. If that is the case, haven't
> the terrorists won?
At the minute that's how I feel so you could say they have partly won as they have succeded in doing what they set out to do - cause fear. People are more fearful and cautious nowadays and some people have changed their lifestyle for good - they won't travel on the tube for instance.
Smedlos wrote:
> If they are being brainwashed then we need to go for the
> "brainwashers" but unfortunately there will always be
> people to take their place. I think terrorism will be here for good
> and that there is no solution.
War without end? Oddly, that was Hitler's solution for keeping the German people under control; an endless, unwinnable war. 1984 made much the same point.
Always be people to take their place? What you seem to be suggesting is that the constant erosion of civil rights and increasing climate of fear is inevitable and unavoidable. If that is the case, haven't the terrorists won?
> If they are being brainwashed then we need to go for the
> "brainwashers" but unfortunately there will always be
> people to take their place. I think terrorism will be here for good
> and that there is no solution.
War without end? Oddly, that was Hitler's solution for keeping the German people under control; an endless, unwinnable war. 1984 made much the same point.
Always be people to take their place? What you seem to be suggesting is that the constant erosion of civil rights and increasing climate of fear is inevitable and unavoidable. If that is the case, haven't the terrorists won?
Dringo wrote:
> Bless him. Perhaps he is right.
Where's that great post gone? I clicked on reply and all I got was the above.
Anyway the thing about the train and yourself - it's about due care. The law expects us to act with due care at all times and if you are careless you are basically breaking this law.
I know you didn't mean for the barn to burn down and in your example (which I assume is based on Gary Hart) he didn't mean to career onto a railway track so I suppose you could say it's about being unlucky or not.
The current climate of suing everyone doesn't help. I myself work in a school and trips and outings are now at a bare minimum as teachers are too afraid of the consequences if anything happens.
> Bless him. Perhaps he is right.
Where's that great post gone? I clicked on reply and all I got was the above.
Anyway the thing about the train and yourself - it's about due care. The law expects us to act with due care at all times and if you are careless you are basically breaking this law.
I know you didn't mean for the barn to burn down and in your example (which I assume is based on Gary Hart) he didn't mean to career onto a railway track so I suppose you could say it's about being unlucky or not.
The current climate of suing everyone doesn't help. I myself work in a school and trips and outings are now at a bare minimum as teachers are too afraid of the consequences if anything happens.
Dringo wrote:
Somehow, in his mind, he justified what he did. He knew it was wrong, but somewhere in his brain he believed it to be right.
But everyone justifies everything they do. "I'm speeding, but I'm running late." "I've had a couple of pints, but I'll be ok to drive as I've had a big dinner". Etc etc
Terrorists justify to themselves what they are doing. Whether it's to strike back at the "Evil west" or to enhance their chances of meeting Allah when they die (or whatever) - they justfiy what they are doing.
And I think this 90 days thing is going to make it easier for them to use the "Striking back against the evil west" justification, which can't be a good thing.
No one wants terrorist attacks to happen, let's be honest. The hard part is finding a way to reduce them (I don't think it'll ever be possible to gaurantee that no more will happen). The police obviously think this 90 day thing will help, otherwise they wouldn't have asked for it.
Surely what the government should do, and should have done straight after 9/11 is work out what else can be done to help the police do their job properly and to make the police accountable for their actions. Is this actually possible?
Somehow, in his mind, he justified what he did. He knew it was wrong, but somewhere in his brain he believed it to be right.
But everyone justifies everything they do. "I'm speeding, but I'm running late." "I've had a couple of pints, but I'll be ok to drive as I've had a big dinner". Etc etc
Terrorists justify to themselves what they are doing. Whether it's to strike back at the "Evil west" or to enhance their chances of meeting Allah when they die (or whatever) - they justfiy what they are doing.
And I think this 90 days thing is going to make it easier for them to use the "Striking back against the evil west" justification, which can't be a good thing.
No one wants terrorist attacks to happen, let's be honest. The hard part is finding a way to reduce them (I don't think it'll ever be possible to gaurantee that no more will happen). The police obviously think this 90 day thing will help, otherwise they wouldn't have asked for it.
Surely what the government should do, and should have done straight after 9/11 is work out what else can be done to help the police do their job properly and to make the police accountable for their actions. Is this actually possible?
Light wrote:
> Deluded certainly. And in some cases, evil. But that blanket
> condemnation without any attempt to understand what drives them? Do
> you really think that will lead to a solution?
If they are being brainwashed then we need to go for the "brainwashers" but unfortunately there will always be people to take their place. I think terrorism will be here for good and that there is no solution.
> Deluded certainly. And in some cases, evil. But that blanket
> condemnation without any attempt to understand what drives them? Do
> you really think that will lead to a solution?
If they are being brainwashed then we need to go for the "brainwashers" but unfortunately there will always be people to take their place. I think terrorism will be here for good and that there is no solution.
Bless him. Perhaps he is right.
Another issue; Tony Blair is now saying that the MP's who voted against the measure are "out of touch with the public and public opinion".
Is this the same Tony Blair who (according to one of his former secretaries) was anxious to send troops into Iraq despite the protests of millions of people, and the public demonstrations of hundreds of thousands?
Is this the same Tony Blair who (according to one of his former secretaries) was anxious to send troops into Iraq despite the protests of millions of people, and the public demonstrations of hundreds of thousands?
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), which is why he goes on and off ignore. Sometimes it's funny to watch, but then that's what he wants - any response.
This isn't the trolling thread so I'll stop here.
This isn't the trolling thread so I'll stop here.
Page: