The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 think the majority of this thread can be summarised thus: -
debate
debate
debate
debate
debate
debate
PWNED!!!!1111
Sulk
debate
debate
debate
debate
debate
debate
PWNED!!!!1111
Sulk
Smedlos wrote:
> The concept of right and wrong is pretty much black and white here.
>
> Right = If a suspicion is valid, charge the suspect
> Wrong = Deprive them of their freedom without charge
> And I don't believe them to be evil they are evil.
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?
> The concept of right and wrong is pretty much black and white here.
>
> Right = If a suspicion is valid, charge the suspect
> Wrong = Deprive them of their freedom without charge
> And I don't believe them to be evil they are evil.
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?
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.
I hereby do so.
Smedlos et al; I'll hopefully have some time to respond a little more today.
I hereby do so.
Smedlos et al; I'll hopefully have some time to respond a little more today.
Dringo wrote:
> They are all different and live in a different frame of mind to other
> people. We should try and work them out rather than just condemn them
> to death because Smedlos believes them to be evil as they don't
> follow his concepts of right and wrong.
The concept of right and wrong is pretty much black and white here.
Right = don't blow people up
Wrong = do blow people up
And I don't believe them to be evil they are evil.
> They are all different and live in a different frame of mind to other
> people. We should try and work them out rather than just condemn them
> to death because Smedlos believes them to be evil as they don't
> follow his concepts of right and wrong.
The concept of right and wrong is pretty much black and white here.
Right = don't blow people up
Wrong = do blow people up
And I don't believe them to be evil they are evil.
True.
Hedfix wrote:
> Could the question be as simple as:
>
> What does more damage to our society: the limited incarceration of
> suspected terrorists without charge or the actions of the actual
> terrorists the measures are supposed to stop?
>
>
> Would make a good General Studies question eh? ;)
Isn't it ironic that you say General Studies there - that question is arguably more important to answer than any 'serious' subject question.
> Could the question be as simple as:
>
> What does more damage to our society: the limited incarceration of
> suspected terrorists without charge or the actions of the actual
> terrorists the measures are supposed to stop?
>
>
> Would make a good General Studies question eh? ;)
Isn't it ironic that you say General Studies there - that question is arguably more important to answer than any 'serious' subject question.
Smedlos wrote:
> Cycloon wrote:
>
> No, the human rights are inalienable. I.e, ANYone is protected. I
> don't get how you think human rights are shoved down peoples throats
> everyday - it's a shame we've got to a point where people seem to
> dislike the concept of being protected..... This isn't 'I'm a
> terrorist so I am exempt from prison', this is 'I'm a person, I have
> a FEW basic rights that have been GURANTEED by NATIONS for
> everyone'.
>
> I like honest good people to be protected. Everyone else shouldn't
> be.
>
You are arguably not a good, 'honest' person. Have you ever done something wrong? Have you lied? Then you aren't worthy of protection. Different degrees I know, but think about it. This is a blind blanket statement that means nothing and implies a vague 'good vs evil' that doesn't exist.
> Oh Christ, where did I suggest that? Please, tell me where. If
> killing people is so wrong, why is killing a killer right? I realise
> they're not innocent, but the point is you are disgusted that they
> killed - I agree, it's horrible. So why kill them back?!
>
> To put it bluntly - they're scum and do not deserve to live just like
> they've denied their victims the right to live.
They're scum for denying the right to life. Ergo, you are scum for doing it back to them? I know they killed innocent life, but that's not your point so far - your point is they killed and that is what is wrong. You're not making much sense except 'good vs evil', kill for good, because killing for evil is so much worse. It's all rather vague and easy to say.
>
> In the same media hysteria that you agreed with Wookie was all
> wrong?
> I agree that the police would have a bloody hard time, but it was a
> serious mistake, and the fact is he did not present as much of a
> target as was perhaps justified in shooting the guy dead. If this is
> the case we take, anyone acting suspiciously is warranted to be shot
> at....riiiight.
>
> Since then how many people have acted suspiciously and just been
> detained? You don't hear about them as the media want you to hear all
> the bad juicy bits rather than the good bits. People have a sick
> tendancy to love bad news rather than good news and the media play on
> that.
>
> The police could have blown the second gang of London terrorists to
> bits but detained them expertly and without loss of or danger to
> life.
Yes, I know. And? Fact is, they killed someone needlessly and with overuse of force (obviously). I find it so ironic that you point out that people love the bad bits of the media and yet you argue like this. Yeah, police detained other people.....? If they detained them with charge, and not kept them locked up for 90 days for no real reason...oh wait...
>
> Anyway, I do not wish to argue more now. Although I may be tempted
> :P
>
> I'm always eager for a good sensible debate.
me too
> Cycloon wrote:
>
> No, the human rights are inalienable. I.e, ANYone is protected. I
> don't get how you think human rights are shoved down peoples throats
> everyday - it's a shame we've got to a point where people seem to
> dislike the concept of being protected..... This isn't 'I'm a
> terrorist so I am exempt from prison', this is 'I'm a person, I have
> a FEW basic rights that have been GURANTEED by NATIONS for
> everyone'.
>
> I like honest good people to be protected. Everyone else shouldn't
> be.
>
You are arguably not a good, 'honest' person. Have you ever done something wrong? Have you lied? Then you aren't worthy of protection. Different degrees I know, but think about it. This is a blind blanket statement that means nothing and implies a vague 'good vs evil' that doesn't exist.
> Oh Christ, where did I suggest that? Please, tell me where. If
> killing people is so wrong, why is killing a killer right? I realise
> they're not innocent, but the point is you are disgusted that they
> killed - I agree, it's horrible. So why kill them back?!
>
> To put it bluntly - they're scum and do not deserve to live just like
> they've denied their victims the right to live.
They're scum for denying the right to life. Ergo, you are scum for doing it back to them? I know they killed innocent life, but that's not your point so far - your point is they killed and that is what is wrong. You're not making much sense except 'good vs evil', kill for good, because killing for evil is so much worse. It's all rather vague and easy to say.
>
> In the same media hysteria that you agreed with Wookie was all
> wrong?
> I agree that the police would have a bloody hard time, but it was a
> serious mistake, and the fact is he did not present as much of a
> target as was perhaps justified in shooting the guy dead. If this is
> the case we take, anyone acting suspiciously is warranted to be shot
> at....riiiight.
>
> Since then how many people have acted suspiciously and just been
> detained? You don't hear about them as the media want you to hear all
> the bad juicy bits rather than the good bits. People have a sick
> tendancy to love bad news rather than good news and the media play on
> that.
>
> The police could have blown the second gang of London terrorists to
> bits but detained them expertly and without loss of or danger to
> life.
Yes, I know. And? Fact is, they killed someone needlessly and with overuse of force (obviously). I find it so ironic that you point out that people love the bad bits of the media and yet you argue like this. Yeah, police detained other people.....? If they detained them with charge, and not kept them locked up for 90 days for no real reason...oh wait...
>
> Anyway, I do not wish to argue more now. Although I may be tempted
> :P
>
> I'm always eager for a good sensible debate.
me too
Could the question be as simple as:
What does more damage to our society: the limited incarceration of suspected terrorists without charge or the actions of the actual terrorists the measures are supposed to stop?
Would make a good General Studies question eh? ;)
What does more damage to our society: the limited incarceration of suspected terrorists without charge or the actions of the actual terrorists the measures are supposed to stop?
Would make a good General Studies question eh? ;)
Smedlos wrote:
> Lights early responses were discussions with me which were civil.
You're thinking of the wrong conversation/discussion in this thread then.
> Lights early responses were discussions with me which were civil.
You're thinking of the wrong conversation/discussion in this thread then.
Smedlos wrote:
> I like honest good people to be protected. Everyone else shouldn't
> be.
Why not? Because according to your mind set they are bad people?
They may believe themselves to be good people. Considered that? They have no rights because those that don't understand them say so.
What a pathetic concept. A human being is a human being. Be them mentally ill, a woman, a man, african, asian, murderer, rapist, stalker etc...
They are all different and live in a different frame of mind to other people. We should try and work them out rather than just condemn them to death because Smedlos believes them to be evil as they don't follow his concepts of right and wrong.
> I like honest good people to be protected. Everyone else shouldn't
> be.
Why not? Because according to your mind set they are bad people?
They may believe themselves to be good people. Considered that? They have no rights because those that don't understand them say so.
What a pathetic concept. A human being is a human being. Be them mentally ill, a woman, a man, african, asian, murderer, rapist, stalker etc...
They are all different and live in a different frame of mind to other people. We should try and work them out rather than just condemn them to death because Smedlos believes them to be evil as they don't follow his concepts of right and wrong.
Page: