The Righteous in full flood….
We seem to be having a ‘prostituion special’ today.
OXFORD’S “most prolific” prostitute has been banned from selling sex on the streets and in her home for five years.
It is not illegal to sell sex – why has this woman been ‘banned’ from carrying out a legal activity? It is not illegal to accept money for a sex act carried out in your home – why has this woman been banned from carrying out a legal activity in her own home?
Drug addict Nicola Harris worked seven days a week along Cowley Road, East Oxford, and Oxford Road, Cowley, as well as seeing clients at her home in Costar Close in Littlemore.
‘Seven days a week’ – a hard working girl then, who has avoided the temptations of raising money to feed her drug habit illegally. Like stealing or shop-lifting. Now she has been banned from raising the money legally, guess what will happen next?
The 33-year-old, who had been subject to an interim Anti Social Behaviour Order since July 9, failed to turn up at Oxford Magistrates’ Court yesterday to hear the city council’s successful application for a full order.
She was probably at work.
Complaints from local residents began last winter, and Harris was cautioned twice in December and arrested for soliciting in March.
Soliciting is different, that is illegal. What happened to the soliciting charge? Did you not manage to make it stick?
When out on the streets she would take men to Cowley Marsh Park and Agnes Court, off Oxford Road, where police and residents would frequently find used condoms, the court heard.
‘Used condoms’? A girl who was mindful of her own health and that of her customers.
Pc Mike Dix told magistrates the mother-of-one lived a “very chaotic and complicated lifestyle” and would be out on the streets between about 9pm and 3am every night.
Doesn’t sound a very chaotic lifestyle to me. Hard working, a caring attitude towards her customers – and gets to work on time on a regular basis.
He said: “She would be walking down the street, openly looking around, often carrying a garment over her arm, which, I’m informed, is a sign to customers that she’s working.
A discrete trade sign, which even the local policeman needed to have decoded for him – hardly openly soliciting, is it?
“She rarely denied being a prostitute, but often said ‘prove it’ or ‘catch me in the act’.
Here the rub – you couldn’t could you? She had no more need to deny being a prostitute than you had to deny being a policeman. It is a perfectly legal occupation – heavens, you’ll be complaining that she paid her tax on time next.
“Offences of prostitution are quite complicated because it’s not actually illegal to have sex for money, although the soliciting side of it is, and that can often be hard to prove.
Once again – you couldn’t prove it could you?
“She said even if she didn’t necessarily have a drug problem she would continue to solicit with her current customers because it’s a lifestyle choice and she will always need the money.”
As is being a policeman a lifestyle choice. Your choice of words, I’ll bet not hers – ‘solicit with her customers’.
Asked about prostitution, Pc Dix replied: “It’s definitely not just Nicola. She is perhaps the most prolific and well known – her and one other, and we are dealing with the other.”
So you thought you’d make an example of her and prove to the other girls that when you decide that something is against the law, even if it isn’t, you’ll find a way to stop it……
Naeem Chudry, the council’s antisocial behaviour investigator, said: “I won’t go so far as to say this is Oxford’s red-light area. There are other sex workers in Oxford, a handful, and this is the main area in which they operate.”
A handful of girls, carrying out a legal activity in a discrete and caring manner –can’t have that can we? Is your name a clue as to why you want to stop Nicola being independent?
Asked why Harris was specifically targeted, Pc Andrew Reid said: “There are probably about half a dozen other women in the area, but Nicola Harris is by far the most prolific.”
See above –
The court heard Harris lived with her drug-addict partner but her child was taken into care.
I bet you tried to get him on a pimping charge – and failed.
Chair of magistrates Stephen Eeley banned Harris from leaving her home between 9pm and 7am, selling sex at her home and going within a designated area around East Oxford and Cowley, except while travelling on a bus, until 2015.
A bansturbation special – Nicola is now banned from legitimately earning money. Unless she chooses to work from the back seat of the bus – and I hope she does!
Outside court, Saj Malik, the council’s board member for safer communities, said Harris would be given access to drug rehabilitation and advice on housing, money and family matters.
And another one – is your name a clue Saj Malik? How is Nicola making the community unsafe? She already had access to drug rehabilitation if she wanted it – working seven days a week she could no doubt afford to finance it herself. She already has a house – the one you have just sought to ban her from working in. She did have money, she was working seven days a week, remember? What are the family matters you want to intervene in – you’ve already done that, her child is in care, remember?
Grrr!
August 29, 2010 at 10:58
-
“At last
- August 29, 2010 at 10:50
-
My last post was in reply to this, it didn’t line up for some reason
Ian R Thorpe August 14, 2010 at 18:38
-
August 18, 2010 at 09:06
-
Just looked at her home address, using street view on Google Earth and it’s
a nice little close of tidy modern houses.
Safe enough for her and her
clients.
- August 17, 2010 at 21:11
-
Nicked yer stuff.
- August 15, 2010 at 06:31
-
I shan’t comment on the legal or moral aspects of this case since there
seems to be something to said for both sides.
I would rather hope that
someone is trying to help her get out of this horrid situation.
Yes, I
know, there are always people who are only too willing to inflict their morals
on other people, but this carry on can hardly be good for her.
All rather
yucky if you ask me.
- August 15,
2010 at 06:04
-
Hmmm, the police may be on a collision course with the councils and disabled
pressure groups if they keep this up…
*gets popcorn*
*settles down to the Victimhood Poker World Series*
- August 15, 2010 at 12:36
-
I wish I’d read your comment before I posted mine
- August 15, 2010 at 12:37
-
JuliaM: I wish I’d read your comment before I posted mine
- August 15, 2010 at 12:37
-
JuliaM: I wish I’d read your comment before I posted mine earlier
- August 29, 2010 at 10:44
-
He he, popcorn it is
- August 15, 2010 at 02:08
-
- August 15, 2010 at 08:45
-
A bit like so many things in life, really?
Sister Eva
-
August 15, 2010 at 22:42
-
No thats marriage!
- August 15, 2010 at 00:42
-
EV,
I left another message, but the comments system appears to be going
haywire.
//I would give my last breath in exchange for happy, healthy future for my
daughter. Or my sons. I fear it will be breathed in vain, due to the immoral
swamp which deluges the nation.//
I said in my missing comment that I am sure that if you have raised your
children well, then it will not matter what filth surrounds them, they will
reject it. I believe that children are mostly the product of their upbringing,
therefore if someone has raised their children correctly, they will turn out
ok. I am sure that you have raised your children well, therefore it seems
likely that they will stand above the corruption of the world. Out of idle
curiosity, do your children share your religious convictions?
//If, as humanity,we subscribe to the
- August 14, 2010 at 23:29
-
And here’s the opposite reaction……………
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/7945785/Councils-pay-for-prostitutes-for-the-disabled.html
- August 14, 2010 at 22:45
-
EV,
//I would give my last breath in exchange for happy, healthy future for my
daughter. Or my sons. I fear it will be breathed in vain, due to the immoral
swamp which deluges the nation.//
Well, I am someone that believes that children are largely products of
their upbringing. Therefore, I am certain that if you have raised your
children to be happy and healthy, then they will be. It does not matter what
corruption and immorality surrounds them, they will not succumb to it, because
you have shaped their character to reject it.
Out of idle curiosity, do your children share your religious
convictions?
-
August 15, 2010 at 00:22
-
Indigo,
I attempt a reply. but have no idea where it will end up.
My children have been told the truth, as I see it. I cannot live their
lives for them; they must decide.
I have been most careful NOT to
indoctrinate. False conversions are worse than no conversions.
To answer your question, 2 appear to believe the truths expounded in The
Bible, not because they feel that they ought to, but because they have made
an informed decision. One is wavering; I would much rather he state himself
an Atheist than pretend, merely to please me.
-
August 14, 2010 at 22:32
-
Comment at 35 should be at 52.
I give up. Good night and God bless you all, wherever this comment finally
appears.
-
August 14, 2010 at 22:31
-
Comments are in a cocked hat (AGAIN, please sort it out, it ruins the
thread).
The above comment is a reply to Indigomyth, the following is a reply to
AaTA.
Actually, Satan means ‘adversary’ in Arabic. In Hebrew, it means accuser.
I do use the KJV. That the Devil has suceeded in planting doubt in your
mind as to what God himself has said, just as he did in Genesis 3, is not a
reason to dismiss all translations. Look for Formal Equivalence in a Bible,
not a Dynamic Translation.
The rest of your post descended into waffle. Sorry, you lost me at
‘universally applicable tests’, as if you really knew what you were talking
about, when you’ve already proven that you have no understanding of Biblical
languages, of which Arabic is not.
-
August 14, 2010 at 19:23
-
[1] Judge not, that you may not be judged, [2] For with what judgment you
judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be
measured to you again. [3]And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s
eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? [4] Or how sayest thou to
thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy
own eye? [5] Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then
shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
Mathew
Chapter 7
Amen
Gildas the Monk
-
August 14, 2010 at 19:38
-
John 7:24, … but judge with righteous judgement.
The prohibition on judging is not a blanket ban on disagreeing with a
persons sinful behaviour. If it was, Christ would not have been able to say
‘Repent’.
The verses you quote from Matthew 7 apply to a person who is
pointing out a lesser crime (a mote) when they themselves are committing a
greater one (a beam). The scripture then proceeds to exhort those who have
removed the beams from their own eyes to cast out the motes in others, as
they can now see clearly.
Context is everything when reading the Bible.
I can see the Abbott needing a word in your shell-like.
- August 14, 2010 at 19:54
-
I think I am acutely aware of the meaning, EV. But thank you for your
reply.
Gildas the Monk
-
August 14, 2010 at 19:18
-
Ian R Thorpe,
It is true that the Bible does not call Mary Magdelene a prostitute, and
that the woman at the well was not her but another woman who had numerous men,
including one which ‘was not her own’, but it is clear from the Bible that
they are two different people. It is also clear that Christ was referring to
her sexual behaviour, and frowning on it, rather than condemning her for not
having a father, brother, etc. John 4 makes this clear. She was a harlot in
the sense that she slept around, often with men who were married to someone
else.
It is merely ‘tradition’ that MM was a prostitute, and perhaps we do her a
great disservice. What is clear is that Christ was not averse to telling
people who were living immoral lives to stop doing so and to repent. The woman
caught in adultery was told to ‘Go, and sin no more’, for example.
- August 14, 2010 at 17:27
-
She’s a girl? That sounds worrying, as under- aged sex is definitely
illegal. Or, perhaps she’s a WOMAN?
- August 14, 2010 at 15:58
-
Has there been any research done to determine if the presence of licenced
brothels in an area has an effect on the number of rapes committed?
- August 14, 2010 at 15:30
-
I can’t imagine what business it is of the police to enforce some puritan
morals upon us. What I find even more disturbing is that there is tacit and
active support among the public for this nonsense.
If an actual crime is committed, then please do something useful, but
criminalising something that has caused no-one harm, has been voluntarily
exchanged, really is none of the police’s business.
-
August 14, 2010 at 16:14
-
…but criminalising something that has caused no-one harm…
Except her kid, eh?
- August 14, 2010 at 15:09
-
The solution to prostitution is to legalise, regulate and tax it as you
would any other form of income. The whole issue is a minefield for feminazis
as on the one hand they want to defend a woman’s right to do what she wants (
and be financially independent from MEN) but at the same time it means that
men get sex ( that they enjoy and men must be banned from doing anything that
they enjoy according to feminazi doctrine) . Not only that , if men can get
sex from prostitutes , they will have even less incentive to be in commited
relationships with women and that women will have no men to support them so
they can have their “lifestyle choice” and so they will have to go out to work
instead of sitting at home doing F*** all except watching Deadenders and
Jeremy Vile.
- August 14, 2010 at 14:17
-
I assume the many customers who have been using these services have been
arrested or at least a couple of them. Since the girl is under so much police
and council camers during their many hours of overtime spying on hookers at
work. Legalise a woman’s right to use her body and get them off the streets.
No pimps. Anyone who is willing to blow some one for money should be allowed
to keep the full amount.
I noted a statistic that Westminster had 10 times more hookers and rent
boys than any other area of the UK. No invoices for small expenses at the
government. Hypocracy is the basis of the law.
- August 16, 2010 at 14:18
-
That’s why the Government’s official rate of inflation is so low, because
it is based on the cost of a rent boy and a gram of coke.
-
August 14, 2010 at 13:46
-
‘He said:
- August 14, 2010 at 13:58
-
English Viking,
The police are not there to enforce morals. That is
the religeous police, from several muslim countries, you are thinking of. Is
that something you want to see in england?
- August 14, 2010 at 14:20
-
I fear we will see the infliction of Islamic law in England all too
soon, whether I like it or not, but this is not the point.
The Police are there to enforce the law (which in itself is simply the
formalisation of a moral code) and the law of the land is now, and has
been for decades, if not centuries, that it is illegal to solicit a man
(or woman) for sex. She was soliciting, so therefore she was committing a
crime, so therefore she should be arrested, tried and punished.
You conflate the civilising effect of basing a country’s laws and
standards on the moral code outlined in The Bible (just like the UK did)
with the savagery of Islam, under the catch-all of religion.
- August 14, 2010 at
14:43
-
English Viking,
“She was soliciting, so therefore she was
committing a crime, so therefore she should be arrested, tried and
punished”.
I’m sorry, I didn’t understand your point. You would appear to be
saying that she was soliciting, and fullfilling the
requriements of that crime, and that the police ignored this evidence
and instead asked for an ASBO?
There was me assuming, with my touching faith in the police, that
they had been unable to nick her for soliciting!
- August 14, 2010 at 15:01
-
My point (and previously your point too, although it appears to
have changed) is not to do with the punishment for the crime i.e. an
ASBO, it is to do with whether she has committed a crime, and she
clearly has committed numerous crimes. That the Police are inept and
the Courts inadequate is not in dispute, that she is an upstanding,
tax-paying, well adjusted business woman is.
PS They did nick her for soliciting. We don’t know from the info in
the post what had happened to this case, it could still be pending,
although I suspect that, due to already high-lighted shortcomings of
the Justice system in the UK, she was probably either just warned or
on-the-spot fined.
- August 14, 2010 at
14:44
-
Surely Sharia Law is merely the ‘civilising’ efect of basing a
country’s laws and standards on the moral code outlined in The
Koran?
- August 14, 2010 at 15:09
-
You are entirely correct, apart from the civilising thing. It
should be immediately apparent upon a comparison of Western,
post-Christian (sadly) nations and any number of Islamic nations,
which are the most advanced, humane, decent and civilised. You could
also look at the clamour to claim ‘asylum’ from the Islamic nations,
into Western nations, which is not replicated in the opposite
direction, to see that people all over the world would rather live
under a Christian (post or not) based legal system than an Islamic
one.
Your subtle attempt at equating the two does not work.
- August 14, 2010 at 15:28
- August 14, 2010 at 14:22
-
EV – she could be funding her addiction by burgling, claiming benefits,
etc but instead she’s been working to do it.
Not my choice of employment either but why you are so upset about her
working in the oldest profession I don’t know. To me the whole way she’s
been treated does sound like an abuse of process at least. Maybe she wasn’t
prepared to offer the traditional uniform discount?
- August 14, 2010 at 15:22
-
The corrosive effect on society is my main objection. I would still
tell her she is wrong to behave how she does if she chose to conduct her
‘business’ legally, which the current laws allow her to do, but I accept
that what goes on in her home is between her, the customer and God. She
will answer to Him for moral defects, not me and not the Courts. However,
she should answer to the Courts for her criminal behaviour, which
includes, at the risk of repetition, soliciting, public lewdness,
performing a sexual act in public, gross indecency and last least,
littering. I also suspect that ‘her own home’ is quite probably no such
thing, and is likely to be some form of ‘community housing’. I object to
having my wages robbed by the Gov to subside drug addicted prostitutes’
housing.
I have already offered Anna 10-1 that she is on benefits, you can have
the same deal.
That she chooses to fund her other criminal habit by committing the
above crimes instead of burglary is not sufficient grounds for her
beatification.
- August 14, 2010 at
15:31
-
Englis Viking,
Do you give your wife money – or is she entirely
self sufficient.
Did the availability of sex within marriage form any
part of your decision to marry?
- August 14, 2010 at 16:00
-
I support my wife in all ways possible, including financially.
I was able to form sexual relationships before I met wife. It may
seem hard to believe, but I am still capable of doing so now, even
though I am married, although I choose not to because I realise that
this is wrong. So to answer your question, I do not think that
availability of sex had a bearing on my decision to marry.
If you are trying to equate the sanctity of marriage with grubby
fumblings for a tenner, you are not only being rude, but childish too.
As a married lady yourself, do you just ‘perform’ in exchange for your
husbands’ cash?
- August 14, 2010 at 16:10
-
No I don’t ‘perform’ in exchange for cash – but I recognise that
there would have been no marriage without the availability of sex.
What makes you think that there are no grubby fumblings within a
marriage? Many women would disagree with you.
I am trying to
establish at what point you think sex, marriage, and the exchange of
money, change their nature.
Does marriage sanctify all grubby
fumblings? Is all sex within marriage duly sancitfied, no matter how
fleeting, whether indoors or outdoors. If the marriage doesn’t last,
how long do you have to be married before whatever grubby fumblings
with the marital bed are graced with your approval?
Since you had
sexual relationships before marriage, how long did they have to last
before they avoided your tag of ‘degrading”?
- August 14, 2010 at
17:11
-
I’m not entirely sure the entire history of my sex-life is any
of your business, but I’ll do my best to answer. You’ll understand
that I am giving you my opinion, not asking you why you think I’m
wrong or for a dissertation on the evils of Christianity.
…No I don
- August 14, 2010 at 17:21
-
Thereby hangs our difference – you see I don’t see that
anybody else’s choice of manner of sex or venue, entitles me to
describe it as ‘degrading’. Your belief in the ‘sanctity’ of
Christian marriage apparently bestows you with a belief that you
can now pronounce on other peoples sex lives as being above or
below your own in the morality stakes.
My morality concerns
what I do, not what others do, where sex is concerned. I don’t
believe that the state has any more business legislating on the
manner in which we fornicate than on the manner in which we
defacate. They should be soley concerned with ensuring our
safety – and for the benefit of doubt, that includes the
physical safety of our children, thus I can condemn paedophilia
within those guidelines.
- August 14, 2010 at 17:30
- August 14, 2010 at
17:53
-
It is very difficult to debate these matters in this way,
not face to face. You put words in my mouth and make
statements that are not true, but it would take forever to
write rebuttals, and this is a comment box, not an essay box.
I did start the comment with the statement that what I was
offering was my opinion, not a request for a dissertation on
the evils of Christianity or a list of reasons why I’m wrong.
You asked me some questions, I answered them, you get on your
high horse and attempt to trump morality (not mine, BTW,
God’s) with amorality and then complain that I dare expound my
views whilst you appear to think yourself free to expound
yours. Ironic.
The State has similar rules on defecating as fornicating;
one is not allowed to earn a living from doing it in the
street. With regard to the State’s duty to keep it’s citizens
safe, removing criminals from the streets is just one of the
ways they do this.
You are correct in thinking that I believe the moral code
that is at the core of The Bible is superior to all others,
and I shall say so at every available opportunity.
-
August 15, 2010 at 02:13
-
Reminds me of the Woody Allen joke: “Is sex dirty? Only if it’s
done right” .
- August 14, 2010 at 15:48
-
If she was committing benefit fraud I suspect they would have charged
her with it. I certainly don’t like the sound of her lifestyle, I doubt
she does deserve to be sainted.
I like even less the idea that, without being convicted of anything,
others can restrict her choices as the same could easily happen to me,
or you. Afterall, we both post somewhat right of centre things on blogs
for one. I don’t doubt lots of PC types object to that too. Does being
named, shamed and ASBO’d for that sound attractive to you?
- August 14, 2010 at 16:13
-
The fact that she has not been convicted is not evidence of her
fine character, merely the inadequacies of the Criminal Justice
system.
Drug possession and child-neglect are just two more crimes she has
committed without being charged.
I agree that the ASBO should only be issued as a result of a
conviction, but that fact does not hide neither her own criminality in
general nor the depravity of prostitution in particular.
The PC types will come for me (and maybe you) one day, I don’t
doubt that. Unless I go for them first.
- August 14, 2010 at 16:18
-
English Viking,
Again you are making presumptions – that her
child is in care because of neglect. We don’t know that. Her child
may be in care becasue it is not possible to provide the care that
it needs in any normal home. There are many children born every year
– yes, even to fine upstanding bible reading women – who suffer from
deformities of mind or body which means that they would be unlikely
to live in a ‘home’ environment.
Would you make the same
assumption of ‘neglect’ if she wasn’t a prostitute?
- August 14, 2010 at
17:15
-
Not sure this post will appear in the correct space, they
appear to have gone haywire…again. This is a reply to Anna @
16:18.
The child is not being ‘given’ care, in a hospital or
care-home, for example. It has been taken ‘into’ care, i.e. foster
parents or a children’s home.
No, I would not assume this to be the case if she were not a
drug addled prostitute and her so called ‘partner’ were not
equally drug addicted and feckless.
- August 14, 2010 at 17:24
-
‘Into care’ can apply equally to a hospital or specialised
care home.
By the way, didn’t I read somewhere that Mary
Magdalene was a prostitute?
Does Christianity condemn her as
a degraded person, no doubt avoiding her tax burden, living in
subsidised housing, and neglecting her children?
- August 14, 2010 at
18:00
-
Mary WAS a prostitute, she repented when Christ showed her
the error of her ways. Note that he didn’t stroke her hand and
tell her ‘Now, now dear, don’t worry about all this immoral
stuff, just so long as you are happy, eh? At least you are
earning good money, and can afford your own drugs.’
Anna @
17:24
Christianity does not condemn. It speaks the truth and
warns that there is coming one who most certainly will
condemn, who will judge, who will execute punishment.
I believe that Christ most certainly would tell this girl
to stop, to repent, to earn her bread the old-fashioned way
(with a job) and to stop wasting the resources of the State
and to look after her child herself.
- August 14, 2010 at
18:38
-
You read it somewhere Anna but it was wrong in many ways. I
once wrote an article on this to piss off American
fundamentalists.
The “woman at the well” in the New Testament to whom Jesus
says “go womand and sin no more” (or something like that, is
not Mary Magdalen but simply a ‘harlot’. At the time the King
James Bible was written harlot meant something different to
its present meaning, a vagabond, pikey, whatever.
According to Robert Graves, of I Claudius fame, who was a
classicist and translator, the word describing her in the
ancient Grek texts means ‘loose woman’ rather that harlot.
Graves explains (in The White Goddess) that a loose woman then
would not have meant a lady of negotiable affection but an
unattached woman, a woman without husband, father or brother
to control her.
So it seems the Pharisees were into issuing ASBOs to women
for simply not being the property of a man. Which brings us
back to certain people involved in this case.
- August 29, 2010 at 10:47
-
At last….well put.
Pharisees.
- August 14, 2010 at
17:42
-
That’s as may be, EV, but there are plenty of non-feckless
prostitutes who merely offer the service to make ends meet and
help feed their children. It’s a very bad thing to make general
principles from a single bad instance.
And further to that, the fact that a perfectly reasonable
activity is criminalised is much more likely to lead to
instances like this woman in Oxford. If being a prostitute was
as well-regarded as, say, a banker, then what would the issue
be?
- August 14, 2010 at
18:15
-
Thad@ 17:42
There is a reason that it is not well-regarded Thad, and
it’s nothing to do with the Labour party or the
‘righteous’.
I suppose you’re another one who would be perfectly happy
for his daughter to turn tricks for few quid?
BTW Banker was a really, really bad choice for a moral
comparison with a prostitute.
- August 14, 2010 at 21:22
-
EV,
Personally, I would much prefer to see destitute women
becoming prostitutes to earn money, rather than taking money
from the taxpayer, through Benefits (I grant that this woman
may be on Benefits, I am just remarking on the general
principle that prostitution is better than taking
Benefits).
Would you consider it more Just for someone to become a
prostitute, and get money through consenting exchange,
rather than to take handouts of cash from the State?#
//Whoring is no more
-
August 14, 2010 at 21:40
-
You attempt to explain YOUR understanding of words in the
bible – but which one? King James’s or any of the multitude
of other versions. I wager you, in common with many, hold a
mental picture of ‘Satan’. Nasty piece of work, eh? Actually
the word simply means ‘adversary’ in Hebrew. ‘Adam’ merely
means ‘man’ in the same language.
The suggestion that the
Bible is lacking a scientific foundation is nothing less
than a colossal understatement. The Bible has failed fair,
impartial, and universally applicable tests in multiple
fields of science. If God truly is the inspiration behind
this purportedly divine declaration to the world, he shows
absolutely no interest in its understandability or accuracy
in astronomy, cosmology, zoology, botany, anthropology,
geology, ecology, geography, physiology, and several other
disciplines not covered in this chapter. In fact, the Bible
handicaps those who use their
-
August 16, 2010 at 14:13
-
@English Viking: I need some help.
I understand that people enjoy
certain things. Having a good meal prepared and served to them, using
some ones car and race track to do some racing, learning tennis, getting
a massage, having sex. But WHY is only the last one on that list morally
wrong?
Also, I understand that if you work in a shop or an office, or you
teach tennis, or you drive a taxi or you sell sex you are doing things
for people that they want, and are prepared to pay for, and hurt no one
in the process. So WHY is the last one on the list morally wrong.
I
- August 16, 2010 at 16:51
-
See the comments on ‘Religious Intolerance’.
-
August 14, 2010 at 22:15
-
“Whoring is no more
- August 14,
2010 at 13:12
-
“She had no more need to deny being a prostitute than you had to deny
being a policeman.”
She had much less need, actually, now that the latter profession is so
debased…
-
August 14, 2010 at 12:46
-
Brief point from a baffled monk
If what she is doing in the street is
not unlawful, how is there a power to stop her doing it?
- August
14, 2010 at 13:13
-
Because that’s exactly what ASBOs do – criminalise that which isn’t
illegal in the first place.
- August 14, 2010 at 13:39
-
If they had been used correctly, and the rest of the Criminal Justice
system further up the chain had not become worse than useless in the last
50 years, they would have been a very good way of stopping all sorts of
criminality that has now become so commonplace that it is near impossible
to police.
The rule of Law is dependent on those being ruled to be largely in
agreement with the arrangement. In numerous places in the UK, this
agreement is missing and lives are being utterly blighted by moronic, yet
technically legal behaviour.
I admit that the administration of ASBO’s has been woefully inadequate
and that they have been used as an instrument of spite on no small number
of occasions though.
-
August 14, 2010 at 13:27
-
Because Anna is wrong. It is illegal to loiter with intent to solicit,
which is exactly what she was doing. It is also illegal to live off immoral
earnings, ‘earn’ money that is not declared to either the Benefits Office
(please don’t try to convince me she is not receiving Benefits) or the Tax
Office, as is committing an act of a sexual nature in public, public
lewdness and gross indecency, all of which she was doing when she had sex
with a stranger in return for cash in the nearby park.
- August 14, 2010 at 14:28
-
I know that tax offices (& Tax Inspectors) have long targeted
suspected prostitutes for tax enquiry. I understand that the prostitutes
were amenable to paying tax, providing they were assessed as ‘models’,
‘secretaries’ etc.
- August 15, 2010 at 11:59
-
I heard of a prostitute who refused to pay tax on the grounds that
she would be aiding and abetting the government in living off her
immoral earnings, which of course is illegal. WS
- August 14, 2010 at 13:54
-
Gildas – you might like to refer to my previous post about a girl who was
issued with an ASBO for trying to commit suicide – which is also not ilegal.
The ASBO is the last refuge of the bansturbating scoundrel.
Re: ASBOs for non illegal acitivities.
- August 14, 2010 at 15:02
-
Thank you Anna! I have never really thought about it before. Mea
culpa!
-
August 14, 2010 at 12:41
-
In three years living there I never saw her. And I was also out at those
times.
Just my luck I guess.
- August 14, 2010 at 12:37
-
-
August 14, 2010 at 22:15
-
As I have never spoken in defense of prostitution, I would be most grateful
if you did not imply that my children would be engaged on an honourable career
if they were to have sex with strangers.
I would give my last breath in exchange for happy, healthy future for my
daughter. Or my sons. I fear it will be breathed in vain, due to the immoral
swamp which deluges the nation.
Benefit payments exist (or used to) as a safety net to ensure that people
did not resort to whoring, body-snatching, theft, etc, etc. They are not
designed to supplement these activities. There is nothing wrong with a person
using the Welfare System to help themselves through a rough patch. It becomes
wrong when a person considers it a life-style choice, a permanent way of life.
You cut a little too close to the bone, really. I thought we had smoked a
peace-pipe. Perhaps I was mistaken.
- August 14, 2010 at 22:35
-
EV,
//You cut a little too close to the bone, really. I thought we had smoked a
peace-pipe. Perhaps I was mistaken.//
Sorry, I did not mean to imply that any of your children were engaged in
that form of activity. I was merely trying to establish an idea of the moral
hierarchy that you work with, while expressing my own moral beliefs on these
matters, in relation to a general principle, not a specific instance. In that
sense, I was only asking what you would consider the more moral course of
action, were your children to be in such a situation (as I think you did
something similar with Kingbingo). I meant no offence.
// There is nothing wrong with a person using the Welfare System to help
themselves through a rough patch. It becomes wrong when a person considers it
a life-style choice, a permanent way of life.//
Indeed. However, I would still consider it a more moral course of action
for someone to voluntarily resort to prostitution, rather than to accept
handouts from the State.
And, to be honest, I have little concern for her kids. Given that I am
someone whose heart remains un-melted by UNICEF appeals that use starving
African children, it would be a great stretch for me to go all gooey over the
offspring of a drug-addled whore. Perhaps I manifest what you perceive to be a
callous Libertarian heart? The argument you use about the tax-payer having to
pay for the care of her kids, is not an argument against prostitution, but
rather an argument against State subsidised child care and social services.
The results and consequences of her own inferior lifestyle (drug addiction,
disease etc) are entirely her own fault. Indeed, it is the ultimate justice to
allow these people to suffer the effects of their own idiocy. In that respect,
there is no need for the law to punish them – they will die in their own time
(a far better, more permanent and more fitting punishment than any the law
imposes). In that respect, the tree of the human population prunes its own
diseased branches.
-
August 15, 2010 at 00:00
-
Indigo, (don’t be surprised if this comment appears here, there and
everywhere)
Forgive the abbreviation; I find myself replying to so many that I really
need to find a way to save time.
If you meant no offense, then I will take none.
The difference between myself and Kingbingo is that I do not speak in
defence of prostitution, whilst he does, therefore it would be strange that he
should take umbrage at his daughter becoming a whore, whilst I would be
mortified.
I do not see it a more moral course to claim on the insurance policy one
has paid into than to become a whore.
We are in agreement that TV shots of wide-eyed, begging children in Africa
are far from a good reason to give a remote person your bank details –
sometimes giving cash will make things worse. However, I do have a concern for
‘my own people’ (I know I’m making it worse for myself, that I open myself up
to all sorts of accusations). I am concerned that a child must grow up, not
with a loving father, for all his faults, not with a mother that cries with
fear for what may be for her children, (I’ve seen it, don’t fisk me). I fear
for children that are hardened to the world, and it’s wicked ways, even before
they make double digits.
I am not so hard that I wish to see prostitutes die in the gutter, either.
They should be helped to see the error of their ways, like I was mine. They
will not see their error if ‘normal’ people sing their praises.
I have kept friendly company with all-sorts.
Most people would have, at
one point, considered me ‘all-sorts’. I do not hate these people; I hate what
they have become, I hate that others encourage them.
If, as humanity,we subscribe to the ‘survival of the fittest’, the ‘dog eat
dog’ ideology you appear to espouse, then the bleeding victims of knife
attacks or car accidents would be left to rot by persons like yourself,
whereas I ( I hope I would live up to this) would risk, and even perhaps give,
my own life, in exchange for a whore’s.
That is why I will not be shouted down by Libertarians, when I speak on the
matter.
- August 15, 2010 at 10:00
-
August 15, 2010 at 11:29
-
It is not arrogance to speak the truth.
Smoking is a choice, being ethnically Jewish is not, therefore your logic
is no such thing, merely an attempt at emotive point scoring. Have a
gold-star.
Am I not allowed criticise the life-style choices of others, and those who
encourage their criminality, because I am not one of them?
Your morality is relative, therefore it is no morality at all.
- August 15, 2010 at 11:32
-
August 15, 2010 at 22:00
-
The can be only one truth. It cannot be raining and not raining at the same
time in the same place.
You appear to confuse a moral with an opinion, then think that opinion
moral because it is yours.
{ 81 comments }