The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Aggressive tw*ts, drunks who just won’t listen, I can handle them
Immature kids who shout “pig’s”, I can put up with.
People who argue over tickets “I’ve only been here I minute”, I can deal with.
These are all everyday occurrences and ones that although they can be slightly irritating, do not make my job nasty.
A 16-year-old who is pregnant with her second kid and has been slapped around.
Indecent pictures of children.
Elderly people who’ve been robbed.
These are the things that get me down.
Immature kids who shout “pig’s”, I can put up with.
People who argue over tickets “I’ve only been here I minute”, I can deal with.
These are all everyday occurrences and ones that although they can be slightly irritating, do not make my job nasty.
A 16-year-old who is pregnant with her second kid and has been slapped around.
Indecent pictures of children.
Elderly people who’ve been robbed.
These are the things that get me down.
Page:
Twistid wrote:
> I agree with your way of thinking, ie a sex offender should have his
> balls cut off, but the trouble is innocent people are still
> convicted, and I think this would take us back to the times when
> innocent people were hanged for murder
So by the same logic a drunk should have his tongue cut out, shoplifers have hands chopped off... heh we'll keep on going until the UN sanctions our economy to dust...
> I agree with your way of thinking, ie a sex offender should have his
> balls cut off, but the trouble is innocent people are still
> convicted, and I think this would take us back to the times when
> innocent people were hanged for murder
So by the same logic a drunk should have his tongue cut out, shoplifers have hands chopped off... heh we'll keep on going until the UN sanctions our economy to dust...
its all about 'believing your telling the truth' or something like that? Or spary anti perspirant on your finger tips like the sure advert
what if someone believed they were guilty,they'd be screwed
Flockhart wrote:
> Peter Venkman wrote:
> So, your saying if every crime was solved using DNA and all the
> methods that we have available to us, there would be mistakes. Maybe
> 1 in a 1000 might be a mistake. The pros outway the cons by far.
>
> no, i think killing innocent people might be a rather large con.i'm
> only in favour in cases where there is absolutely no doubt
I understand that 100 years ago there would be mistakes made but with all the techology available now, the mistakes would be neglible and possibly non-existent.
And if these Laws were brought in, it would be more of a deterrent than a sentencing system.
> Peter Venkman wrote:
> So, your saying if every crime was solved using DNA and all the
> methods that we have available to us, there would be mistakes. Maybe
> 1 in a 1000 might be a mistake. The pros outway the cons by far.
>
> no, i think killing innocent people might be a rather large con.i'm
> only in favour in cases where there is absolutely no doubt
I understand that 100 years ago there would be mistakes made but with all the techology available now, the mistakes would be neglible and possibly non-existent.
And if these Laws were brought in, it would be more of a deterrent than a sentencing system.
Peter Venkman wrote:
> Twistid wrote:
> There are always mistakes, nothing can be perfect. And the chance
> of
> 1 in a 1000 might be low ubtil you become that 1.
>
> Well, don't be that 1 :P
>
> I'm sure if they used a lie detector as well that would prove your
> innocence.
lie detectors are easy to deceive if you know how
> Twistid wrote:
> There are always mistakes, nothing can be perfect. And the chance
> of
> 1 in a 1000 might be low ubtil you become that 1.
>
> Well, don't be that 1 :P
>
> I'm sure if they used a lie detector as well that would prove your
> innocence.
lie detectors are easy to deceive if you know how
even lie detector tests arnt perfect, thats why you are allowed to refuse to take them and that they are not common practice (well not on the Bill anyway)
Flockhart wrote:
> Peter Venkman wrote:
> So, your saying if every crime was solved using DNA and all the
> methods that we have available to us, there would be mistakes. Maybe
> 1 in a 1000 might be a mistake. The pros outway the cons by far.
>
> no, i think killing innocent people might be a rather large con.i'm
> only in favour in cases where there is absolutely no doubt
or it might be a rather large con killing people,but it's not his fault if hes overweight.
> Peter Venkman wrote:
> So, your saying if every crime was solved using DNA and all the
> methods that we have available to us, there would be mistakes. Maybe
> 1 in a 1000 might be a mistake. The pros outway the cons by far.
>
> no, i think killing innocent people might be a rather large con.i'm
> only in favour in cases where there is absolutely no doubt
or it might be a rather large con killing people,but it's not his fault if hes overweight.
Twistid wrote:
> There are always mistakes, nothing can be perfect. And the chance of
> 1 in a 1000 might be low ubtil you become that 1.
Well, don't be that 1 :P
I'm sure if they used a lie detector as well that would prove your innocence.
> There are always mistakes, nothing can be perfect. And the chance of
> 1 in a 1000 might be low ubtil you become that 1.
Well, don't be that 1 :P
I'm sure if they used a lie detector as well that would prove your innocence.
Peter Venkman wrote:
> So, your saying if every crime was solved using DNA and all the
> methods that we have available to us, there would be mistakes. Maybe
> 1 in a 1000 might be a mistake. The pros outway the cons by far.
no, i think killing innocent people might be a rather large con.i'm only in favour in cases where there is absolutely no doubt
> So, your saying if every crime was solved using DNA and all the
> methods that we have available to us, there would be mistakes. Maybe
> 1 in a 1000 might be a mistake. The pros outway the cons by far.
no, i think killing innocent people might be a rather large con.i'm only in favour in cases where there is absolutely no doubt
Sorry, am I going blind?
There's a... a....
Fairly intelligent, nay, *intelligent* discussion...occuring in Gen Chat!
IT'S A MIRACLE!
Why can't it always be like this?
There's a... a....
Fairly intelligent, nay, *intelligent* discussion...occuring in Gen Chat!
IT'S A MIRACLE!
Why can't it always be like this?
Page: