Have Your Say - Prostitute users face clampdown
Have Your Say - Prostitute users face clampdown
Author
Discussion

superkartracer

Original Poster:

8,959 posts

252 months

Wednesday 19th November 2008
quotequote all
Some Jem posts that made my laff

Any sexual activity outside marriage is a very serious sin against oneself and against the true God. Prostitutes only encourage adultery and is a terrible example to our precious young ones. In Bible times, adultery was punishable by death. Make no mistake , God is coming with His reward for all according to our deeds. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Sex is a wonderful gift to us humans and the results of improper use are disease, heartbreak and unwanted pregnancy

Lucy Ingham, Richmond

Most men pay for sex. I paid for it between 1975 and 1985 but then it was called marriage. In fact bearing in mind that, through no fault of my own, I was booted out of my luxurious 4 bedroom detached house with a tiny mortgage into a two bedroom flat with a significant one, I am still paying for it.

Bill, Epsom

Does include people that marry for money (the worst form of prostitution of all)??

studsramrod, shanghai

tricky69

1,696 posts

272 months

Wednesday 19th November 2008
quotequote all
all wes at the end of the day... just got to learn to sort the not so bad ones from the life sucking ones....

I was thinking about this new law, i always thought a brothel gave a girl some protection as a prostitute ? Isn't this going to encourage them to try and go it along and maybe face more danger ?

Or am i missing the point as useual ?

Slagathore

6,225 posts

222 months

Wednesday 19th November 2008
quotequote all
laugh

Crazy religous types!


collateral

7,238 posts

248 months

Wednesday 19th November 2008
quotequote all
Jem?

10 Pence Short

32,880 posts

247 months

Wednesday 19th November 2008
quotequote all
Without punters, prostitutes will be f*cked. But perhaps not as much as before.

tank slapper

7,949 posts

313 months

Wednesday 19th November 2008
quotequote all
Interesting that most of the comments are against this proposal.

This one sums it up pretty well:

Let me get this straight. If a man has sex with a prostitute that is controlled by a pimp, he will face criminal charges.

In order to prosecute, it will obviously need to be proved that said prostitute is indeed controlled by a pimp.

So my question is this...

If the prosecution have this proof, why not arrest and charge the pimp to begin with? Then no need to criminalise men who pay for sex.

Eric Mc

125,676 posts

295 months

Wednesday 19th November 2008
quotequote all
If the changes to the law are passed, they will be basically unenforceable. Essentially,, it will still not be illegal to use a protitute - enless the protitute is "controlled" in some way by a third party.

How the punter is supposed to know this in advance is not made clear.

superkartracer

Original Poster:

8,959 posts

252 months

Wednesday 19th November 2008
quotequote all
collateral said:
Jem?
Are you Lucy Ingham

fido

18,915 posts

285 months

Wednesday 19th November 2008
quotequote all
superkartracer said:
Sex is a wonderful gift to us humans and the results of improper use are disease, heartbreak and unwanted pregnancy

Lucy Ingham, Richmond
Whilst i agree with the first bit, surely hookers can potentially reduce heartbreak (it's contractual) and unwanted pregnancy, needless to say why.

tank slapper

7,949 posts

313 months

Wednesday 19th November 2008
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
How the punter is supposed to know this in advance is not made clear.
But that is the whole point - it is intended as a bully tactic because they won't ever get an outright ban on the books.

collateral

7,238 posts

248 months

Wednesday 19th November 2008
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
If the changes to the law are passed, they will be basically unenforceable. Essentially,, it will still not be illegal to use a protitute - enless the protitute is "controlled" in some way by a third party.

How the punter is supposed to know this in advance is not made clear.


scratchchin

LukeBird

17,170 posts

239 months

Wednesday 19th November 2008
quotequote all
superkartracer said:
Most men pay for sex. I paid for it between 1975 and 1985 but then it was called marriage. In fact bearing in mind that, through no fault of my own, I was booted out of my luxurious 4 bedroom detached house with a tiny mortgage into a two bedroom flat with a significant one, I am still paying for it.

Bill, Epsom
roflrofl

Soovy

35,829 posts

301 months

Wednesday 19th November 2008
quotequote all
LukeBird said:
superkartracer said:
Most men pay for sex. I paid for it between 1975 and 1985 but then it was called marriage. In fact bearing in mind that, through no fault of my own, I was booted out of my luxurious 4 bedroom detached house with a tiny mortgage into a two bedroom flat with a significant one, I am still paying for it.

Bill, Epsom
roflrofl
Awesome post!

rofl

collateral

7,238 posts

248 months

Wednesday 19th November 2008
quotequote all
superkartracer said:
collateral said:
Jem?
Are you Lucy Ingham
Oh you meant gem...sorry, I thought Jem was a hooker review website or something because you capitalised it

superkartracer

Original Poster:

8,959 posts

252 months

Wednesday 19th November 2008
quotequote all
collateral said:
superkartracer said:
collateral said:
Jem?
Are you Lucy Ingham
Oh you meant gem...sorry, I thought Jem was a hooker review website or something because you capitalised it
Play on words, or me being dumb... you decide LOL

speedchick

5,288 posts

252 months

Wednesday 19th November 2008
quotequote all
Like everything else, they are going after the easy option, why try and catch the pimps and trafficers when you can charge the poor unsuspecting client instead.

What's stupid is, if these clueless men (as they are making them out to be) know where to go to find the prostitutes, then why the heck don't the police? Just go in and get the pimps/trafficers/bad guys.

Or is it fact that 'pimp' is a little fuzzy to define? I mean if I went out on the streets and then gave my boyfriend a bit of my earnings,(as payment for babysitting) does that make him my pimp?

eccles

14,384 posts

252 months

Wednesday 19th November 2008
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
If the changes to the law are passed, they will be basically unenforceable. Essentially,, it will still not be illegal to use a protitute - enless the protitute is "controlled" in some way by a third party.

How the punter is supposed to know this in advance is not made clear.
Perhaps they could be like pubs. If they are independent they could have a sign saying the equivelant of 'free house', if they are pimp controlled they could have the equivelant of a 'green king' sign...

Carpie

1,119 posts

225 months

Wednesday 19th November 2008
quotequote all
superkartracer said:
In Bible times, adultery was punishable by death.

Lucy Ingham, Richmond
I like how these types use the phrase 'bible times', as if it is a separate and distinct time from the present. Surely if it's no longer the bible times, we don't have to obey it anymore.

What's more, if we are going to use history as a measure to live by, as religious sorts like to do, we should be grabbing women by the hair and giving them one in the street. That's what would have happened before the idea of civilisation came along.

speedchick

5,288 posts

252 months

Wednesday 19th November 2008
quotequote all
Adding to the biblical reference, wasn't a prominent woman in the new testament supposed to be a prostitute, and she had friends in high places!

schmalex

13,616 posts

236 months

Wednesday 19th November 2008
quotequote all
Lucy Ingham sounds like needs to take a back door delivery to help her chill out a little