The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Finally, the trial of Slobodan Milosovic beings at The Hague.
This is going to last a long, long time and will fall from the news for a few months, but this is the 1st day that attempts are made to bring him to justice for the slaughter of almost 2 million Ethnic Serbs.
This is going to last a long, long time and will fall from the news for a few months, but this is the 1st day that attempts are made to bring him to justice for the slaughter of almost 2 million Ethnic Serbs.
Page:
misterhappy wrote:
Can't you see that this attitude
> only perpetuates the problems that the world faces. Does bombing a country to
> pieces really solve the terrorist problem. No. It just creates another batch of
> fundamentalists.
Whilst I can see your point of view on this I don't see the logic. Terrorists, by definition, are engaged in illegal acts and as such do not negotiate. It is every western country's policy to NEVER negotiate with terrorists. Sure, negotiations have been used to buy time but never have they resulted in the terrorists getting their demands. Military action is the only way to stop them, and if it comes down to bombing then so be it. In Afghanistan the Taliban had 1 whole month to negotiate before Enduring Freedom began and did they ? No. Terrorists like Al Queda and the IRA want things which are not sane or logical and as such cannot be negotiated with either. To a degree action does create more terrorists but not always - its a common argument. Events in Afghanistan suggest otherwise as in most populations it is a minority which form the terrorist element. The majority of people, whether they live in London, NYC, Paris or Kabul just want peace and ot be able to go about their lives without fear of violence.
>The most moral way to end the threat of fundamentalism would
> be through diplomacy, but this might prove a lond and at times ineffective
> process.
Exactly my point. Once an individual or group is proved to pose a threat then a strike can end that threat there and then. Whether it be a cruise missile, B2 or a delta team they all work.
>Do you know what would really work though? If we sent McDonalds over
> there, and Pop Idol and the glut of other substanceless corporate non-entities
> that pervade all aspects of Western society. Because then the Muslim nations
> would becomes just as listless, valueless and Godless as our nations are. End of
> Problem.
I don't think the West's really all that bad. Godless ? Most people beleive in some kind of religion but just don't show it overtly like those in the East. Valueless ? Maybe, but since the end of WW2 the West has worked hard to get what many of us enjoy today. Many nations fought together to stop the axis powers and they suffered, but they learned from it and recovered. That recovery over 50 odd years has been rapid and aided with vast sums of money bought through hard work. So sure, it may seem valueless, but the freedom of todays society was bought over 50 years ago with the blood of many. That freedom must be protected and if that means getting using decisive tactics then thats perfectly valid. Sure, theres the argument of if you neutralise one person another takes their place, but why not neutralise them as well, and keep on until the terror and violence ends. If they won't negotiate properly then whats the alternative ? sit back and watch innocents die ?
You seem to be singling out Muslims, but they have nothing to do with terrorists ! Bin Laden and his cronies would love people to beleive otherwise but Islam is a tolerant faith. Terrorist pervert perfectly good and peaceful religions towards their own aims as a means of justifying that which has no justification. If its ok with god then no one has the right to stop you..... Nearly all muslims have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism at all !
>And I'm not getting at you on a personal level, just the views you
> express and I do respect what you have to say, even if I don't necessarily
> agree.
Sorry if you took any of what I said personally, again Im just disagreeing with what you said, its not like a personal attack or anything !
Can't you see that this attitude
> only perpetuates the problems that the world faces. Does bombing a country to
> pieces really solve the terrorist problem. No. It just creates another batch of
> fundamentalists.
Whilst I can see your point of view on this I don't see the logic. Terrorists, by definition, are engaged in illegal acts and as such do not negotiate. It is every western country's policy to NEVER negotiate with terrorists. Sure, negotiations have been used to buy time but never have they resulted in the terrorists getting their demands. Military action is the only way to stop them, and if it comes down to bombing then so be it. In Afghanistan the Taliban had 1 whole month to negotiate before Enduring Freedom began and did they ? No. Terrorists like Al Queda and the IRA want things which are not sane or logical and as such cannot be negotiated with either. To a degree action does create more terrorists but not always - its a common argument. Events in Afghanistan suggest otherwise as in most populations it is a minority which form the terrorist element. The majority of people, whether they live in London, NYC, Paris or Kabul just want peace and ot be able to go about their lives without fear of violence.
>The most moral way to end the threat of fundamentalism would
> be through diplomacy, but this might prove a lond and at times ineffective
> process.
Exactly my point. Once an individual or group is proved to pose a threat then a strike can end that threat there and then. Whether it be a cruise missile, B2 or a delta team they all work.
>Do you know what would really work though? If we sent McDonalds over
> there, and Pop Idol and the glut of other substanceless corporate non-entities
> that pervade all aspects of Western society. Because then the Muslim nations
> would becomes just as listless, valueless and Godless as our nations are. End of
> Problem.
I don't think the West's really all that bad. Godless ? Most people beleive in some kind of religion but just don't show it overtly like those in the East. Valueless ? Maybe, but since the end of WW2 the West has worked hard to get what many of us enjoy today. Many nations fought together to stop the axis powers and they suffered, but they learned from it and recovered. That recovery over 50 odd years has been rapid and aided with vast sums of money bought through hard work. So sure, it may seem valueless, but the freedom of todays society was bought over 50 years ago with the blood of many. That freedom must be protected and if that means getting using decisive tactics then thats perfectly valid. Sure, theres the argument of if you neutralise one person another takes their place, but why not neutralise them as well, and keep on until the terror and violence ends. If they won't negotiate properly then whats the alternative ? sit back and watch innocents die ?
You seem to be singling out Muslims, but they have nothing to do with terrorists ! Bin Laden and his cronies would love people to beleive otherwise but Islam is a tolerant faith. Terrorist pervert perfectly good and peaceful religions towards their own aims as a means of justifying that which has no justification. If its ok with god then no one has the right to stop you..... Nearly all muslims have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism at all !
>And I'm not getting at you on a personal level, just the views you
> express and I do respect what you have to say, even if I don't necessarily
> agree.
Sorry if you took any of what I said personally, again Im just disagreeing with what you said, its not like a personal attack or anything !
Belldandy wrote:
> "the pen is mightier than the sword" is a quote no
> longer relevant to today's world.
Can't you see that this attitude only perpetuates the problems that the world faces. Does bombing a country to pieces really solve the terrorist problem. No. It just creates another batch of fundamentalists.
The most moral way to end the threat of fundamentalism would be through diplomacy, but this might prove a lond and at times ineffective process. Do you know what would really work though? If we sent McDonalds over there, and Pop Idol and the glut of other substanceless corporate non-entities that pervade all aspects of Western society. Because then the Muslim nations would becomes just as listless, valueless and Godless as our nations are. End of Problem.
And I'm not getting at you on a personal level, just the views you express and I do respect what you have to say, even if I don't necessarily agree. Come on though, argue with me!
> "the pen is mightier than the sword" is a quote no
> longer relevant to today's world.
Can't you see that this attitude only perpetuates the problems that the world faces. Does bombing a country to pieces really solve the terrorist problem. No. It just creates another batch of fundamentalists.
The most moral way to end the threat of fundamentalism would be through diplomacy, but this might prove a lond and at times ineffective process. Do you know what would really work though? If we sent McDonalds over there, and Pop Idol and the glut of other substanceless corporate non-entities that pervade all aspects of Western society. Because then the Muslim nations would becomes just as listless, valueless and Godless as our nations are. End of Problem.
And I'm not getting at you on a personal level, just the views you express and I do respect what you have to say, even if I don't necessarily agree. Come on though, argue with me!
So basically you believe you are not biased then ? You're quote from a "neutral" site is pretty much worthless- a site cannot claim to be neutral, nothing and nobody is neutral or unbiased.
My beliefs may not match yours misterhappy but at least I'm not fencesitting.... Still I suppose the next time there's a conflict we could all just sit back and watch- remain neutral I guess.
The great thing is that whilst many in the West tie themselves in knots rangling over neutraility and human rights and all the other stuff the rogue nation, or "bad guys" don't care. They'll kill regardless. The only defence is force of arms and not words. "the pen is mightier than the sword" is a quote no longer relevant to today's world.
My beliefs may not match yours misterhappy but at least I'm not fencesitting.... Still I suppose the next time there's a conflict we could all just sit back and watch- remain neutral I guess.
The great thing is that whilst many in the West tie themselves in knots rangling over neutraility and human rights and all the other stuff the rogue nation, or "bad guys" don't care. They'll kill regardless. The only defence is force of arms and not words. "the pen is mightier than the sword" is a quote no longer relevant to today's world.
I'm sorry Mr.bellandy but I beg to differ. I do not seek to say that Milosovic is not guilty or in anyway undermine his trial because we are talking about a man who invented the utterly abhorrant practice of ethnic cleansing. However, there are others in this world of ours who are guilty of crimes too and if we want to have a valid war crimes court then we must not just prosecute the losing side because that is not justice, it can resemble a victory parade.
To say that the winning side is the winning side is "the one that is morally right" is a fundamental misconception. There are numerous wars where the winning side has won by devious and illegal means. You only have to read Machiavelli to know that being evil is actually a valid war-winning tactic ('Art of War' and 'The Prince'). By your skewed logic we would assume that the Nazi expansion into Eastern Europe and occupation of France made the Nazis "morally right" because they won. The side that wins invariably sets up its own war trials, as this is a legitimate way of punishing those responsible for leading the opposing side. At the moment we see those "morally right" Americans subjecting Taliban prisoners to inhumane conditions and refusing to acknowledge their status as Prisoners of War. While I do concede that Al Quaeda terrorists are a different prospect, the way the Americans are treating those prisoners is sending out all the wrong signals to the Muslim world. How do they perceive us? Righteous upholders of international freedoms or arrogant, Islam-hating war-mongers? The answer probably lies in between the two, but America's actions have done little to persuade the rest of the world that she has any moral authority.
The point where I absolutely disagree with you is about the Israeli-Palistinian conflict. Israel has pioneered some of the most savage weaponary on the planet, the Uzi for instance, all created for the specific purpose of posing a military threat to Palistine. You say that the Palistinians are unwilling to negotiate, well exactly the same applies to the Israelis. All it would take is for one side not to respond to the attack of the other and the cycle of violence would be broken, but both persist in t**-for-tat attacks. Attacks in which Israel frequently kills innocent civilians and even children with its gunships and tanks. Is it any wonder that there is a fundamentalist element in Palistine if they are being constantly blown up and forced out of their homes by Israeli bulldozers and tanks?
And Ariel Sharon is just as much a War Criminal as Slobodan Milosovic. I quote from a neutral site about Sharon:
"The U.S. government should investigate and pursue evidence that Sharon is responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Such investigations should review the evidence that Sharon as defense minister in 1982 directly ordered the deliberate bombardment of residential neighborhoods of Beirut, Sidon and other cities in Lebanon during the Israeli invasion, killing thousands of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians; directly ordered the siege of west Beirut, deliberately depriving civilian residents of food, water, safe passage and access to medical care; and that Sharon and other Israeli officers and officials were responsible for arming, training and protecting the perpetrators of the massacres of Palestinian and Lebanese refugees in Sabra and Shatila camps in September 1982, including providing protection and illumination so that the butchers could carry out their work more easily."
That's just the tip of the iceberg. Sharon deliberately provokes the Palistinians, for instance his visit to Temple Mount, a Muslim shrine, at a time of relative peace. This reignited the conflict again. Sharon should have been tried as a War Criminal but the UN said that while their buddy was a serving minister he could not be tried and Belgium was forced to drop its demands for a war crimes tribunal.
And this is the problem. We neglect to look at the faults of our own administrations before criticising others. We are locked into our own perspectives, believing that we are right and they are wrong, and the other side believes exactly the opposite for exactly the same reasons. The West is not perfect in reality. But semantically its perfect and you know why? Because America never backs terrorists in a foreign country they back "freedom fighters" and civilians are never killed there's just "collateral damage" and as we bomb the hell out of some other unfortunate heathen despot we fail absolutely to realise that maybe our moral imperative is just a veneer. Maybe underneath all the pontificating politicians and axis's of evil, we fail to stand back and be introspective for a moment. Maybe we fail to realise that our own institutions are just as corrupt and worthy of being condemned as those which we ersecute so strongly ourselves.
To say that the winning side is the winning side is "the one that is morally right" is a fundamental misconception. There are numerous wars where the winning side has won by devious and illegal means. You only have to read Machiavelli to know that being evil is actually a valid war-winning tactic ('Art of War' and 'The Prince'). By your skewed logic we would assume that the Nazi expansion into Eastern Europe and occupation of France made the Nazis "morally right" because they won. The side that wins invariably sets up its own war trials, as this is a legitimate way of punishing those responsible for leading the opposing side. At the moment we see those "morally right" Americans subjecting Taliban prisoners to inhumane conditions and refusing to acknowledge their status as Prisoners of War. While I do concede that Al Quaeda terrorists are a different prospect, the way the Americans are treating those prisoners is sending out all the wrong signals to the Muslim world. How do they perceive us? Righteous upholders of international freedoms or arrogant, Islam-hating war-mongers? The answer probably lies in between the two, but America's actions have done little to persuade the rest of the world that she has any moral authority.
The point where I absolutely disagree with you is about the Israeli-Palistinian conflict. Israel has pioneered some of the most savage weaponary on the planet, the Uzi for instance, all created for the specific purpose of posing a military threat to Palistine. You say that the Palistinians are unwilling to negotiate, well exactly the same applies to the Israelis. All it would take is for one side not to respond to the attack of the other and the cycle of violence would be broken, but both persist in t**-for-tat attacks. Attacks in which Israel frequently kills innocent civilians and even children with its gunships and tanks. Is it any wonder that there is a fundamentalist element in Palistine if they are being constantly blown up and forced out of their homes by Israeli bulldozers and tanks?
And Ariel Sharon is just as much a War Criminal as Slobodan Milosovic. I quote from a neutral site about Sharon:
"The U.S. government should investigate and pursue evidence that Sharon is responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Such investigations should review the evidence that Sharon as defense minister in 1982 directly ordered the deliberate bombardment of residential neighborhoods of Beirut, Sidon and other cities in Lebanon during the Israeli invasion, killing thousands of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians; directly ordered the siege of west Beirut, deliberately depriving civilian residents of food, water, safe passage and access to medical care; and that Sharon and other Israeli officers and officials were responsible for arming, training and protecting the perpetrators of the massacres of Palestinian and Lebanese refugees in Sabra and Shatila camps in September 1982, including providing protection and illumination so that the butchers could carry out their work more easily."
That's just the tip of the iceberg. Sharon deliberately provokes the Palistinians, for instance his visit to Temple Mount, a Muslim shrine, at a time of relative peace. This reignited the conflict again. Sharon should have been tried as a War Criminal but the UN said that while their buddy was a serving minister he could not be tried and Belgium was forced to drop its demands for a war crimes tribunal.
And this is the problem. We neglect to look at the faults of our own administrations before criticising others. We are locked into our own perspectives, believing that we are right and they are wrong, and the other side believes exactly the opposite for exactly the same reasons. The West is not perfect in reality. But semantically its perfect and you know why? Because America never backs terrorists in a foreign country they back "freedom fighters" and civilians are never killed there's just "collateral damage" and as we bomb the hell out of some other unfortunate heathen despot we fail absolutely to realise that maybe our moral imperative is just a veneer. Maybe underneath all the pontificating politicians and axis's of evil, we fail to stand back and be introspective for a moment. Maybe we fail to realise that our own institutions are just as corrupt and worthy of being condemned as those which we ersecute so strongly ourselves.
MaxNaiN wrote:
The Palestinians are
> only trying to get land back that orginnally belonged to them.
True. But no country will negotiate with anyone who uses terror to achieve its aims, especially not Israel. Nor should they. The Palestinians seem to specialise in attacking civilians - at least Israel targets militants.
Going back to the original topic of this point, does anyone think that, whilst it seemed a great idea to arrest Milosovic and bring him to the Hague, the trial itself is developing into some kind of gross comedy with Milosovic calling all kinds of remote witnesses, like Bill Clinton. Basically it has just given him a worldwide talking spot. Someone earlier said he should not get a death penalty, but if he goes to jail then eventually, in 10 or so years many will have forgotten what he did, and he'll be released. It happened to many at Nuremburg and it's probably going to happen again here..... what will it say about the West then ?
People like Milosovic, Saddam, Bin Laden, theyaren't going to see capture as anything to fear. NATO waited ages to capture Milosovic and even then it was virtually just a handover, delayed because of politics. It would have been better to just send in Special Forces and grab him, this was entirely feasable and was actually proposed many times by US commander's and the British.
Its still good though that Milosovic is behind bars, but I find it hard not to want to see him receive the death penalty. Why ? If he goes to prison for life then he loses his freedom, but he can still laugh, love, enjoy,breathe, live, watch tv, listen to music, eat.....his victims can do none of these and their names will mostly be passed by in history as just a statistic. Maybe it would have been better if the same had happened to Milosovic....simply disappearing rather than the focus of the media ? What does anyone think ?
The Palestinians are
> only trying to get land back that orginnally belonged to them.
True. But no country will negotiate with anyone who uses terror to achieve its aims, especially not Israel. Nor should they. The Palestinians seem to specialise in attacking civilians - at least Israel targets militants.
Going back to the original topic of this point, does anyone think that, whilst it seemed a great idea to arrest Milosovic and bring him to the Hague, the trial itself is developing into some kind of gross comedy with Milosovic calling all kinds of remote witnesses, like Bill Clinton. Basically it has just given him a worldwide talking spot. Someone earlier said he should not get a death penalty, but if he goes to jail then eventually, in 10 or so years many will have forgotten what he did, and he'll be released. It happened to many at Nuremburg and it's probably going to happen again here..... what will it say about the West then ?
People like Milosovic, Saddam, Bin Laden, theyaren't going to see capture as anything to fear. NATO waited ages to capture Milosovic and even then it was virtually just a handover, delayed because of politics. It would have been better to just send in Special Forces and grab him, this was entirely feasable and was actually proposed many times by US commander's and the British.
Its still good though that Milosovic is behind bars, but I find it hard not to want to see him receive the death penalty. Why ? If he goes to prison for life then he loses his freedom, but he can still laugh, love, enjoy,breathe, live, watch tv, listen to music, eat.....his victims can do none of these and their names will mostly be passed by in history as just a statistic. Maybe it would have been better if the same had happened to Milosovic....simply disappearing rather than the focus of the media ? What does anyone think ?
misterhappy wrote:
Never forget though, it always tends to be the
> winning side that prosecutes.
This is because, thankfully, the winning side is the one that is morally right and has been since the first war crimes courts.
> The UN forces certainly have their own crimes to
> answer for.
Rubbish. If Milosovic hadn't started it then the UN would never have been there.
The example that springs to mind is
> of the Dutch troops that deserted a safe haven and allowed Serbs to massacre the
> Croats (I think) that had flocked there for protection.
Not a war crime. The Dutch were ordered back by their command. The real problem was that the politicians stopped lives from being saved - a problem with the UN since it began. Politics was behind them withdrawing and not getting involved.
>Maybe one day Robert
> Mugabe and Ariel Sheron will face the same treatment because there are always
> leaders who abuse there power and murder and kill, yet face little sanction
> while in the favour of the West. If there really is an international impetus to
> rid the world of these people then it should be universal, not just targeted
> against people that the West doesn't like.
Sheron only hits the Palestinians back when they hit Israel, thats defence not a war crime. The problem is that if you target EVERYONE then you're pretty close to WW3 kicking off- plus teh pressure put on the worlds governments over the years means that no one - not even the whole of NATO - has the resources to take on that many operations. I mean lets look at where you'd need to go;
Iraq
Iran
Libya
Parts Of Africa
Israel/Palestine
Kazakhstan + numerous other ex russian territories
China
Korea
Thats lots just off the top of my head. Each one would need at least 3 carrier groups and tons of backup. Plus the moment one place is hit all the various "peace" groups like CND jump on the bandwagon and call for negotiating. Negotiating has left the world what it is today - a mess. Why doesn't the West have civil wars anymore or fight amongst itself ? Because we've realised that war isn't profitable or all that great for business. We negotiate between each other and know that we're not going to start a shooting war over minor disagreements. Its not a total peace but it works. In my opinion many parts of the world haven't learnt this lesson - negotiations are just a way of buying time for them - which is why I suport anything the US and NATO does to continue the war against terrorism. Okay so maybe many potential targets arent all that active - but can anyone seriously argue places like Iraq do not need various people knocking out of power ? Is democracy all that bad a thing to want to spread ?
Never forget though, it always tends to be the
> winning side that prosecutes.
This is because, thankfully, the winning side is the one that is morally right and has been since the first war crimes courts.
> The UN forces certainly have their own crimes to
> answer for.
Rubbish. If Milosovic hadn't started it then the UN would never have been there.
The example that springs to mind is
> of the Dutch troops that deserted a safe haven and allowed Serbs to massacre the
> Croats (I think) that had flocked there for protection.
Not a war crime. The Dutch were ordered back by their command. The real problem was that the politicians stopped lives from being saved - a problem with the UN since it began. Politics was behind them withdrawing and not getting involved.
>Maybe one day Robert
> Mugabe and Ariel Sheron will face the same treatment because there are always
> leaders who abuse there power and murder and kill, yet face little sanction
> while in the favour of the West. If there really is an international impetus to
> rid the world of these people then it should be universal, not just targeted
> against people that the West doesn't like.
Sheron only hits the Palestinians back when they hit Israel, thats defence not a war crime. The problem is that if you target EVERYONE then you're pretty close to WW3 kicking off- plus teh pressure put on the worlds governments over the years means that no one - not even the whole of NATO - has the resources to take on that many operations. I mean lets look at where you'd need to go;
Iraq
Iran
Libya
Parts Of Africa
Israel/Palestine
Kazakhstan + numerous other ex russian territories
China
Korea
Thats lots just off the top of my head. Each one would need at least 3 carrier groups and tons of backup. Plus the moment one place is hit all the various "peace" groups like CND jump on the bandwagon and call for negotiating. Negotiating has left the world what it is today - a mess. Why doesn't the West have civil wars anymore or fight amongst itself ? Because we've realised that war isn't profitable or all that great for business. We negotiate between each other and know that we're not going to start a shooting war over minor disagreements. Its not a total peace but it works. In my opinion many parts of the world haven't learnt this lesson - negotiations are just a way of buying time for them - which is why I suport anything the US and NATO does to continue the war against terrorism. Okay so maybe many potential targets arent all that active - but can anyone seriously argue places like Iraq do not need various people knocking out of power ? Is democracy all that bad a thing to want to spread ?
Milosovic will be convicted becase the evidence against him is enormous and he has made absolutely no effort to ingratiate himself with the court whatsoever (a tactic that worked wonders for Albert Speer at Nuremberg). However, it is equally vital to make sure that those around him, who were complicit in his actions are also put on trial.
Never forget though, it always tends to be the winning side that prosecutes. The UN forces certainly have their own crimes to answer for, and while they may pale into relative indignificance in comparison to Milosovic's they must still be punished. The example that springs to mind is of the Dutch troops that deserted a safe haven and allowed Serbs to massacre the Croats (I think) that had flocked there for protection.
Maybe one day Robert Mugabe and Ariel Sheron will face the same treatment because there are always leaders who abuse there power and murder and kill, yet face little sanction while in the favour of the West. If there really is an international impetus to rid the world of these people then it should be universal, not just targeted against people that the West doesn't like.
On the subject of Milosovic's fate, I don't think death is the answer. He should be forced to live out he rest of his days in captivity and maybe one day the bravado will cease and he will realise the scale of his crimes. Watching his arrogant denial of his actions makes them all the worse.
Never forget though, it always tends to be the winning side that prosecutes. The UN forces certainly have their own crimes to answer for, and while they may pale into relative indignificance in comparison to Milosovic's they must still be punished. The example that springs to mind is of the Dutch troops that deserted a safe haven and allowed Serbs to massacre the Croats (I think) that had flocked there for protection.
Maybe one day Robert Mugabe and Ariel Sheron will face the same treatment because there are always leaders who abuse there power and murder and kill, yet face little sanction while in the favour of the West. If there really is an international impetus to rid the world of these people then it should be universal, not just targeted against people that the West doesn't like.
On the subject of Milosovic's fate, I don't think death is the answer. He should be forced to live out he rest of his days in captivity and maybe one day the bravado will cease and he will realise the scale of his crimes. Watching his arrogant denial of his actions makes them all the worse.
Goatboy wrote:
"A name and shame if nothing else."
Yeah, if only they cared. Half the population, the armchair swilling critics, the terrifying skateboarding when's dinner children, and the are the ones I pass my life to safe I'm at work no time to play parents. People we really could do without, and they don't read it because they can't get that far into a newspaper. Start printing pictures of charred bodies and crying children and they'll be chatting about it in the staff room, I bet.
"A name and shame if nothing else."
Yeah, if only they cared. Half the population, the armchair swilling critics, the terrifying skateboarding when's dinner children, and the are the ones I pass my life to safe I'm at work no time to play parents. People we really could do without, and they don't read it because they can't get that far into a newspaper. Start printing pictures of charred bodies and crying children and they'll be chatting about it in the staff room, I bet.
It's a hard one.
I think this trial is more to prove to the world that you will be held responsible eventually.
A name and shame if nothing else.
I think this trial is more to prove to the world that you will be held responsible eventually.
A name and shame if nothing else.
Page: