danot Posted September 12, 2011 Author Share Posted September 12, 2011 Wrong again. You'll be saying the opposite tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 You'll be saying the opposite tomorrow. No I won't. ''In the United Kingdom, prostitution itself (the exchange of sexual services for money) is not a crime,[2] but a number of related activities, including soliciting in a public place, kerb crawling, owning a brothel, pimping and pandering, are crimes.'' First couple of lines on the Wikipedia entry for Prostitution in the United Kingdom. Elementary stuff danot; you need to raise your game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 12, 2011 Author Share Posted September 12, 2011 No I won't. ''In the United Kingdom, prostitution itself (the exchange of sexual services for money) is not a crime,[2] but a number of related activities, including soliciting in a public place, kerb crawling, owning a brothel, pimping and pandering, are crimes.'' First couple of lines on the Wikipedia entry for Prostitution in the United Kingdom. Elementary stuff danot; you need to raise your game. You need to oped your eyes. If a woman uses her home as a place where her clients go to engage in sexual activity with her, what has her home become? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 You need to oped your eyes. If a woman uses her home as a place where her clients go to engage in sexual activity with her, what has her home become? Selling sex for money (prostitution) isn't a crime. You were wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 You need to oped your eyes. If a woman uses her home as a place where her clients go to engage in sexual activity with her, what has her home become? a home? ......................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 You need to oped your eyes. If a woman uses her home as a place where her clients go to engage in sexual activity with her, what has her home become? The act of prostitution, in and of itself, is not illegal. It is, however, very hard to conduct a career in prostitution without breaking numerous related laws; you cannot advertise, you cannot operate a brothel, it's illegal to "live off immoral earnings" so if you are married, and your husband relies on your income for housekeeping, he's breaking the law; and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 12, 2011 Author Share Posted September 12, 2011 The act of prostitution, in and of itself, is not illegal. It is, however, very hard to conduct a career in prostitution without breaking numerous related laws; you cannot advertise, you cannot operate a brothel, it's illegal to "live off immoral earnings" so if you are married, and your husband relies on your income for housekeeping, he's breaking the law; and so on.So it's a perfectly legal activity for someone to participate in, but due to the wording of the lawful act, will inevitably result in all other participants being prosecuted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 Subjective, what's right for some, will be wrong for others, and what's wrong for some, will be right for others. Simples. Regards Angel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 Sometimes what you're arguing about can be of secondary importance to just wanting win the argument. This happens quite often on here, 'I do it too, I'm not pointing the finger'. Some discussions are just impossible as they can't give a definitive yes or no answer to whether this argument is right or that argument is wrong. Take the tread I was contributing to this afternoon. We were debating why Niqabs (not the wearer) are generally thought to pose less of a risk to public safety and department store or corporate security than a balaclava or motorcycle helmet. The opinion was about 60/40 in favour of the Niqab posing less risk because it isn't or ever has been strongly associated with criminal activity whereas the other two have, which was claimed to be the reason why people and the police generally tend to consider it inappropriate to wear balaclava's, hoodies, goggle jackets or motorcycle helmets in certain establishments and environments. I argued that neither one posed any lesser risk than the other as the crimes committed yesteryear cannot dictate what is likely to happen tomorrow, but they were steadfast in their position, and I remain so in mine. But what I find most peculiar is the same people have argued till they were blue in the face that women have the right to dress like a whore without anyone prejudging her or comparing the way she dresses to that of a hooker despite the fact she wearing clothes that people generally tend to associate with prostitution. Which incidentally happens to be a criminal act. How bizzare. I'd love to know where those poll results came from, Afghanistan or Iraq at a guess. Regards Angel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Selling sex for money (prostitution) isn't a crime. You were wrong. Make me an offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.