Hots on Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Don't lie about what I said, it does nothing other than prove you're trolling. Well you definitely said that the L A police have better things to do than prevent people masturbating in public toilets. Forget about sexuality, masturbating in a public place is an act of public indecency and should be stopped. You hold some pretty wild views on a number of things but this takes the biscuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 In January 1952, Turing met Arnold Murray outside a cinema in Manchester. After a lunch date, Turing invited Murray to spend the weekend with him at his house, an invitation which Murray accepted although he did not show up. The pair met again in Manchester the following Monday, when Murray agreed to accompany Turing to the latter's house. A few weeks later Murray visited Turing's house again, and apparently spent the night there.[46] After Murray helped an accomplice to break into his house, Turing reported the crime to the police. During the investigation, Turing acknowledged a sexual relationship with Murray. Homosexual acts were illegal in the United Kingdom at that time,[47] and so both were charged with gross indecency under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, the same crime for which Oscar Wilde had been convicted more than fifty years earlier.[48] Turing was given a choice between imprisonment or probation conditional on his agreement to undergo hormonal treatment designed to reduce libido. He accepted chemical castration via oestrogen hormone injections. Turing's conviction led to the removal of his security clearance, and barred him from continuing with his cryptographic consultancy for GCHQ. At the time, there was acute public anxiety about spies and homosexual entrapment by Soviet agents,[50] because of the recent exposure of the first two members of the Cambridge Five, Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean, as KGB double agents. Turing was never accused of espionage but, as with all who had worked at Bletchley Park, was prevented from discussing his war work. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Tu...for_indecency] A brilliant man who probably helped end World War Two went through hideous privations because of a stupid, illogical law. The relevant point is that he was committing a criminal act. No matter what anyone agreed or disagreed at the time the fact is that he was aware that he was committing a criminal act and was punished for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 In an MTV interview, George Michael stated: "I got followed into the restroom and then this cop — I didn't know it was a cop, obviously — he started playing this game, which I think is called, 'I'll show you mine, you show me yours, and then when you show me yours, I'm going to nick you!" The copper later tried to sue Michael for $10million, claiming he'd been ridiculed in the Outside video. Policemen propositioning gay men and then arresting them are not making the streets safer. It's still going on: Police are allegedly using handsome young undercover cops to cruise middle-aged gay men, offering to go home with them for consensual sex. As they leave the store together, the cop offers to pay the man for the sex, confusing the victims who can't imagine why the younger man would make such a proposal. Then, as they walk out of the store, the victim, despite never having agreed to any exchange of money, is surrounded by undercover cops, handcuffed and charged with prostitution. Gay activists and civil libertarians see the arrests as part of a continuing effort to shut down porn operations in the city and a tendency by the police department to criminalize gay sexual behavior. http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/20090202/202/2813 The "crime" wouldn't exist without the police creating it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordonb Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Certainly some of the posts on this thread seem to have an ulterior motive about expressing views on homo-sexuality rather than answering the OP's question. Surely we live in a society which is constantly evolving. Certain books were banned, certain records were banned some films were banned. Don't forget that most pornography was pretty much unavailable to the majority until the internet. As a society we move forward to change the laws as we became more enlightened. But the law is enforced at a point in time not at a future point in time. The convictions should stand as "Spent" but stay on record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamrocker Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Mr Michael wasn't having sex with anyone, he was masturbating. In Los Angeles I think the cops probably had better things to do. Err he propositioned another person,who just happened to be a cop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Don't forget that most pornography was pretty much unavailable to the majority until the internet. . How do you work that out? Pornography has existed for hundreds of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 How do you work that out? Pornography has existed for hundreds of years. Sure its existed, but it hasn't always been legal and so easily accessible (in the UK)to absolutely everyone as it has been since the advent of the Internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 In an MTV interview, George Michael stated: "I got followed into the restroom and then this cop — I didn't know it was a cop, obviously — he started playing this game, which I think is called, 'I'll show you mine, you show me yours, and then when you show me yours, I'm going to nick you!" The copper later tried to sue Michael for $10million, claiming he'd been ridiculed in the Outside video. Policemen propositioning gay men and then arresting them are not making the streets safer. It's still going on: Police are allegedly using handsome young undercover cops to cruise middle-aged gay men, offering to go home with them for consensual sex. As they leave the store together, the cop offers to pay the man for the sex, confusing the victims who can't imagine why the younger man would make such a proposal. Then, as they walk out of the store, the victim, despite never having agreed to any exchange of money, is surrounded by undercover cops, handcuffed and charged with prostitution. Gay activists and civil libertarians see the arrests as part of a continuing effort to shut down porn operations in the city and a tendency by the police department to criminalize gay sexual behavior. http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/20090202/202/2813 The "crime" wouldn't exist without the police creating it. Do you honestly beleive these things. George Michael was probably trying to excuse his behaviour by shifting the blame. Inciting a crime to be committed would be grounds for a prosecution to be disallowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Do you honestly beleive these things. George Michael was probably trying to excuse his behaviour by shifting the blame. Inciting a crime to be committed would be grounds for a prosecution to be disallowed. Targeting people based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation is a violation of state law. Have you seen Milk? It's been going on for years. In this day and age something any undercover operations have to have a justification other than tamping down sexual activity. When they are simply designed to attract gay men, and if they are using young handsome police officers as bait, it does raise questions. http://www.edgesanfrancisco.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc3=&id=109678&pf=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Apologies, I meant to say it kind of follows. The actual conviction was always secondary to what you rightly refer to as the other potential repercussions. Disgrace. The outrage of society. Susceptibility to blackmail. The same is true of the absurd laws around divorce where farcical court hearings were heard to prove something or other had taken place. Once the law starts getting involved in consensual bedroom stuff it loses all credibility. Ah, yes,i see what you mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.