The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
What a simple minded argument this all is.
"Ian Huntly should die cause he killed some children. He is evil. He should die."
Interesting statement. Naturally one argument goes "killing a killer is pointless, it is a worse punishment to make them rot".
Yet you're missing the point here. What is exactly wrong with Huntly?
Come on, you, I, would never consider doing what Huntly did. Huntly clearly has a different mentality, not "mentally" ill so to speak, just a different way of thinking. 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.
Terry Pratchet used to say, those who believe themselves to be good go to heaven. I'm sure Huntly believes himself to be just.
But we don't understand, or can comprehend. We can't understand the psyche, and the answer to the braying public is to send him down for life or to kill him.
I'm not even sure he should go to prison.
Most punishments are there to help the victim... they are never there to fix the problem. The justice system is flawed and sentimental.
Huntly, out of most, should go to Prison. Certainly. But each human being has a different up bringing and a different mind and a different understanding of things. And by not obeying the norm and the legal system they get sent down.
Folk who have seen terrible things, had terrible things done to them and ended up doing bad things (acts of violence for example), are victims of their own tragedy. Some bloke had a broken nose one night cannot even begin to compare to the broken and ruined man of his attacker.
The judge condemns the tragedy.
The protection of the public is vital. But the protection of the attacker, the thief, the terrorist, the murderer... is also vital. Who are these people? I'll never understand. Terrorism helps me comprehend for a bit, I can never imagine it, but we understand they think differently to us Joe Public.
I am making no assumptions and no suggestions here. I dunno if the 90 day concept is a good one or not.
All I know is that, to me, it just doesn't seem right.
"Ian Huntly should die cause he killed some children. He is evil. He should die."
Interesting statement. Naturally one argument goes "killing a killer is pointless, it is a worse punishment to make them rot".
Yet you're missing the point here. What is exactly wrong with Huntly?
Come on, you, I, would never consider doing what Huntly did. Huntly clearly has a different mentality, not "mentally" ill so to speak, just a different way of thinking. 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.
Terry Pratchet used to say, those who believe themselves to be good go to heaven. I'm sure Huntly believes himself to be just.
But we don't understand, or can comprehend. We can't understand the psyche, and the answer to the braying public is to send him down for life or to kill him.
I'm not even sure he should go to prison.
Most punishments are there to help the victim... they are never there to fix the problem. The justice system is flawed and sentimental.
Huntly, out of most, should go to Prison. Certainly. But each human being has a different up bringing and a different mind and a different understanding of things. And by not obeying the norm and the legal system they get sent down.
Folk who have seen terrible things, had terrible things done to them and ended up doing bad things (acts of violence for example), are victims of their own tragedy. Some bloke had a broken nose one night cannot even begin to compare to the broken and ruined man of his attacker.
The judge condemns the tragedy.
The protection of the public is vital. But the protection of the attacker, the thief, the terrorist, the murderer... is also vital. Who are these people? I'll never understand. Terrorism helps me comprehend for a bit, I can never imagine it, but we understand they think differently to us Joe Public.
I am making no assumptions and no suggestions here. I dunno if the 90 day concept is a good one or not.
All I know is that, to me, it just doesn't seem right.
Lights early responses were discussions with me which were civil.
Glad you're off - goodbye!
Glad you're off - goodbye!
Smedlos wrote:
>
> No the other way round.
Nope.
Go read Light's early responses that are loaded with sarcasm.
**** it, I'm off to do something more interesting.
>
> No the other way round.
Nope.
Go read Light's early responses that are loaded with sarcasm.
**** it, I'm off to do something more interesting.
Hedfix wrote:
> I see, their argument had run out so they chose to try and provoke me
> instead.
No the other way round.
> I see, their argument had run out so they chose to try and provoke me
> instead.
No the other way round.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> Anyway, I do not wish to argue more now. Although I may be tempted :P
I'm always eager for a good sensible debate.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> Anyway, I do not wish to argue more now. Although I may be tempted :P
I'm always eager for a good sensible debate.
Dringo wrote:
>
> There is no such thing as a wrong opinion. Well actually there is, if
> the opinion is based on false information. In which case that opinion
> is obviously wrong.
Yeah, I'll go with that. :)
>
> Best to ignore those bits.
I chose to make light of them.
>
> There is no such thing as a wrong opinion. Well actually there is, if
> the opinion is based on false information. In which case that opinion
> is obviously wrong.
Yeah, I'll go with that. :)
>
> Best to ignore those bits.
I chose to make light of them.
Hedfix wrote:
> Smedlos wrote:
>
> Opinion on an opinion. Still an opinion.
>
> And a wrong one at that.
There is no such thing as a wrong opinion. Well actually there is, if the opinion is based on false information. In which case that opinion is obviously wrong.
> I see, their argument had run out so they chose to try and provoke me
> instead.
Best to ignore those bits.
> Smedlos wrote:
>
> Opinion on an opinion. Still an opinion.
>
> And a wrong one at that.
There is no such thing as a wrong opinion. Well actually there is, if the opinion is based on false information. In which case that opinion is obviously wrong.
> I see, their argument had run out so they chose to try and provoke me
> instead.
Best to ignore those bits.
Smedlos wrote:
>
> Opinion on an opinion. Still an opinion.
And a wrong one at that.
>
> Not really. Making it personal about a topic is still on the topic it
> just means you're running out of valid things to post.
I see, their argument had run out so they chose to try and provoke me instead.
>
> Opinion on an opinion. Still an opinion.
And a wrong one at that.
>
> Not really. Making it personal about a topic is still on the topic it
> just means you're running out of valid things to post.
I see, their argument had run out so they chose to try and provoke me instead.
Hedfix wrote:
> Smedlos wrote:
>
> Opinion again.
>
> No he is actually wrong. His opinion is wrong.
Opinion on an opinion. Still an opinion.
> The only goading posts came from you, you ignored them for 30
> minutes
> like you said in one of your posts and neither Light or Your Honour
> drew the discussion off topic.
>
> Wrong.
>
> If you make it personal you draw it off topic.
Not really. Making it personal about a topic is still on the topic it just means you're running out of valid things to post.
> Smedlos wrote:
>
> Opinion again.
>
> No he is actually wrong. His opinion is wrong.
Opinion on an opinion. Still an opinion.
> The only goading posts came from you, you ignored them for 30
> minutes
> like you said in one of your posts and neither Light or Your Honour
> drew the discussion off topic.
>
> Wrong.
>
> If you make it personal you draw it off topic.
Not really. Making it personal about a topic is still on the topic it just means you're running out of valid things to post.
Cycloon wrote:
>
> Anyway, I do not wish to argue more now. Although I may be tempted :P
Heh, that's what I said.
Apparently if you get involved in this discussion you have to be in it 100%.
Run, run while you can! ;)
>
> Anyway, I do not wish to argue more now. Although I may be tempted :P
Heh, that's what I said.
Apparently if you get involved in this discussion you have to be in it 100%.
Run, run while you can! ;)
Page: