Walsingham

Yeah. I think it could be great as a steam community. but I'm a little disappointed to see there's no 'slow zombies' option. Surely that wouldn't be so hard to add in? Or too much to ask!

Corset hat! I think that would look vaguely napoleonic. You'd have to keep one hand in your jacket while wearing a corset hat.

You mean that time we captured a drifter and bled him to death in your barn?

Occasionally I consider the fetish thing on acount of girlfriends, but the longer I spend choosing what to wear the closer I wind up to body armour, and I feel this simply tells me I worry too much about mortars rather than liking fetish.

I bags Pixies' belly button fluff. It's a growing asset, mates. Yarr.

Had curry with old friends. Discussed merits of people who spit on soldiers.

Gorgon's hit on it, really. Some characters are 'known' to be important. Organisers, fixers, ideaologues etc. But there's often not much to hold them on, besides secondary evidence. The sort of thing which would not secure a conviction, but which constitutes reasonable suspicion. Building a case takes time and effort. You can't just tell them to stay put, because they'll disappear. And we're not talking about a bail jumper who might break a few windows. They might kill a few hundred people. My point is really that if a case takes time and effort, but time can't reasonably be extended, then we need to increase our 'effort'. We need more officers and better liaisons. because apart from anything else even 90 days might not be enough in some cases. But I need to think about this some more. I don't feel like my viewpoint is very deep.

It doesn'ts ay he ignored the corpse, but his general obliviousness suggests he may have done. I suspect that the owner had a mental disorder. I just realised how ironic it would be if the poor bastard died due to improperly prepared food.

I don't see why it is unreasonable to hold a suspect for a certain amount of time before levelling charges. I simply don't believe it is acceptable to hold people for more than a certain length of time. If circumstances arise (and they do) where a suspect is held on rather tenuous allegations from foreign intelligence, but we can't afford to have them running around loose, then there should be an actual trial/tribunal where just cause can be openly demonstrated. It certainly can't be put down to whichever random yahoo happens to be Home Secretary.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/7669625.stm A kebab shop owner ignored the fact that there was a corpse in his kitchen.

A much underrated game. I just wish I could run it without having to resort to all kinds of tricks. You can buy it from STEAM, with no tricks required. Even the music works. It's amazing how detailed it is. I also think the graphics are hewn directly from Fallout.

The premise that modern terrorism is complex and often covers three or more countries is no my objection. An IRA case would almost never cover more than two. However, the sacrifice required is that we spend more time and treasure and effort improving our ability to work within the time available. not to tie all concept of civil liberty in a sack and toss it out a window. Detaining people for 42 days on no more 'evidence' than the whim of the Home Secretary is either: 1. Totalitarian 2. Misguided and pointless I say this because at some point the HS will imprison someone innocent for a long time. It will either be deliberate, and totalitarian, or it will be accidental, and the entire system will be a publicity coup for the opposition and be torn down. Neither outcome is worthwhile, when we should be building raw capability that is less likely to go wrong.

Shambled around house like the living dead. Tidied. Did accounts. Blew nose a lot. Told stories to anyone who'd listen. Lost my voice to the relief of all. Played X-Com Apocalypse.

Today witnessed the UK (unelected) House of Lords standing firm against the (elected) House of Commons over detention without trial. That is 42 days detention without trial. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...ote-960249.html I agree with the assertion that the legislation was 'not just unconstitutional it was contemptible'. As soon as my cold lifts I will be celebrating this. Nice to see the 'old duffers' earning their keep.

Daaave, just say you donated it to charity. And that the guy with the tin ran off while you were still trying to get your skin through the slot. I have been sick for three days with the lurgi which is going around the UK. Day off work today, which I planned for by buying Psychonauts, and X-Com Apocalypse from Steam. I had to buy psychonauts to prevent the Zero Punctuation guy from killing me while I am vulnerable.

I always imagined Eddo as a reincarnated Orde Wingate. He used to conduct O Briefs in the nude.

I'm nursing a hangover while I ponder this, but presumably what you want are firms that do not need large capital investments to stay profitable. Thus oil becomes shady, since most new fields will need big cash inputs.

I thought it was Ben Franklin who said that men had the right and duty to break the laws of tyranny, but that there could be no possible excuse for men who broke the laws of democracy? If you have had a fair chance to say what laws govern you, then you have to abide by 'em. (I only know this from a graphic novel, so I _may_ be inaccurate)

Agreed. What is the purpose of a one sided debate? Although he really needed to structure his cases to make them easier to understand.

You don't have the right to fight democratic justice. Debate it, go through due process. But you can't lynch mob anyone who is found innocent that you don't like. Don't my honourable friends also think it's also rather odd to suggest that an internet forum, armed with a few scraps of evidence can pronounce the degree of guilt better than a jury who sat through the whole trial and listened to defence and prosecution council? Which is not to say that justice is always served. Look at the Haute de la Garenne orphanage case. This is still extant, and I recenlt met with my MP to demand action.

I am totally changing my company motto to: "Let's do something stupid"

Indeed.

The spread betting takes care of the portfolio problem.

*still hallucinating*