PDA

View Full Version : Speeding and Prostiution



bros400
22nd June 2004, 12:22
So the goverment desided to make prostituion leagal because it happens any way..... But they havent made speeding Leagal because it happens any way????



Or is it that by makeing prostitution leagal they colect more revinuew from taxing! and by keeping speeding illegal they make money from the speeding tickits......... . so its all about the money???


*i personaly think having a speed limit is important, but there is situwations that rasing it would be good*

Daniel

750Y
22nd June 2004, 12:27
Speeding and Prostitution??
nothing better than snorting a few lines of goey & heading down the knock shop.

Hitcher
22nd June 2004, 12:30
Some simplistic conspiracy theories at play here.

Prostitution is legal because society is prepared to tolerate it -- after all it is hard to criminalise something that has no victim -- as long as people don't get their faces rubbed in it.

Speeding is about road safety. It is a crime that can have victims and dire consequences. Society demands that something is done to address this.

Without wanting to get the "tight sphincter" brigade from the religious ravings thread into a foam, the same argument advanced above for prostitution also applies to homosexuality.

Hitcher
22nd June 2004, 12:31
Speeding and Prostitution??
nothing better than snorting a few lines of goey & heading down the knock shop.

"Goey"?? Is that anything like viagra??

Deano
22nd June 2004, 12:34
They also considered lowering the age of consent, because so many little shaggers were doing it anyway.

But that argument has also come up with cannabis smoking, yet its still illegal.

Sort of ties in with similar debates in here about consistency in law, and whether a conviction and penalty are a deterrant.

And the cop recently done for 118kmh - "do as I say, not as I do".

JIm2 is right - the justice system is not entirely just is it ?

vifferman
22nd June 2004, 12:44
They also considered lowering the age of consent, because so many little shaggers were doing it anyway.
Unlikely to go ahead, especially given the effect lowering the drinking age has had.


JIm2 is right - the justice system is not entirely just is it ?
Well, that would be because it's not a justice system - it's a legal system.
It's not about being just - it's about upholding the law.

James Deuce
22nd June 2004, 12:45
They also considered lowering the age of consent, because so many little shaggers were doing it anyway.



Not quite - that whole thing was managed really badly by the media in general. What they were doing was making sure that consenting participants below the legal age, with no more than a 2 year age gap, and between the ages of 12 and 16 didn't end up with a criminal record if caught. They'd be in deep schtum, but not deep legal schtum.

750Y
22nd June 2004, 12:45
"Goey"?? Is that anything like viagra??

only if you're a dick-head. 8-)

Deano
22nd June 2004, 12:51
Well, that would be because it's not a justice system - it's a legal system.
It's not about being just - it's about upholding the law.

I disagree entirely with this.

Court system comes under the Ministry of LEGAL ?:spudwhat: ?

Jackrat
22nd June 2004, 13:22
I disagree entirely with this.

Court system comes under the Ministry of LEGAL ?:spudwhat: ?
Come on man it's a word play.Ministry of fudge would work just as well.
When I did my PI Training in OZ we had a lecture from a judge,He told us in no uncertain terms that he would let a proven murderer walk if the paper work wasn't up to scratch.It is about up holding the law,not about justice,he admitted that as well and had no problem with at all.
Fire stormer has that much right.

vifferman
22nd June 2004, 13:36
Fire stormer has that much right.
Am I being damned with faint praise? :Pokey:

Ms Piggy
22nd June 2004, 13:48
I disagree entirely with this.

Court system comes under the Ministry of LEGAL ?:spudwhat: ?
What the Justice system is supposed to do and what is does are 2 conflicting things I think.
Partly b/c the people within the "system" are human and partly b/c they're mostly white middle class, middle aged men! I'm talking about the judiciary here, the guys that interpret the law.

riffer
22nd June 2004, 13:50
they're mostly white middle class, middle aged men!
Not in family court they aren't CSL...

Hitcher
22nd June 2004, 14:10
They also considered lowering the age of consent, because so many little shaggers were doing it anyway.

No, that's not quite right. Under the current law, if you are 15 and your girlfriend is 14, you are able to root each other senseless until you turn 16. At this juncture you then have to cease and desist from senselessly shagging the aforementioned object of your desire, until such stage as she turns 16. Do not pass "Go", go directly to jail.

James Deuce
22nd June 2004, 14:14
What the Justice system is supposed to do and what is does are 2 conflicting things I think.
Partly b/c the people within the "system" are human and partly b/c they're mostly white middle class, middle aged men! I'm talking about the judiciary here, the guys that interpret the law.

They won't be mostly male in 10 years time. I don't think you will find very many middle class judges either. They have, or came from, more money than that. The judges in any western judiciary reflect various eras in the Law school education system, and we are about to see the judiciary taken over by women over the next 10-30 years. Don't believe me? Have a look at how many female law graduates there are now.

Hitcher
22nd June 2004, 14:15
What the Justice system is supposed to do and what is does are 2 conflicting things I think.
Partly b/c the people within the "system" are human and partly b/c they're mostly white middle class, middle aged men! I'm talking about the judiciary here, the guys that interpret the law.

And the Chief Justice of New Zealand is a...?
And the Prime Minister of New Zealand is a...?
And the Governor General of New Zealand is a...?
And the constitutional monarch of New Zealand is a...?

This argument is a bit like saying that if women were in charge, that there would be no wars... The riposte to which is: Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher, Helen Clark...

James Deuce
22nd June 2004, 14:18
And the Chief Justice of New Zealand is a...?
And the Prime Minister of New Zealand is a...?
And the Governor General of New Zealand is a...?
And the constitutional monarch of New Zealand is a...?

This argument is a bit like saying that if women were in charge, that there would be no wars... The riposte to which is: Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher, Helen Clark...
Nancy Reagan, Hilary Clinton. They weren't elected you say? Neither was George Bush and it hasn't stopped him.

jrandom
22nd June 2004, 14:24
No, that's not quite right. Under the current law, if you are 15 and your girlfriend is 14, you are able to root each other senseless until you turn 16. At this juncture you then have to cease and desist from senselessly shagging the aforementioned object of your desire, until such stage as she turns 16. Do not pass "Go", go directly to jail.

Aha! Not quite.

Crimes Act 1961 (as amended), part 7 s134:

"(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who has or attempts to have sexual intercourse with any girl of or over the age of 12 years and under the age of 16 years, not being his wife."

Right. So, starting position is, shag a chick under 16 and you're buggered. Figuratively speaking.

Now, the section continues:

"(3) It is a defence to a charge under this section if the person charged proves that the girl consented and that he is younger than the girl:"

So, if she's between 12 and 15, but you're younger, shag away, baby!

"Provided that proof of the said facts shall not be a defence if it is proved that such consent was obtained by a false and fraudulent representation as to the nature and quality of the act."

... but not if she only did it because you told her you wanted to play Doctors and Nurses.

"(4) It is a defence to a charge under this section if the person charged proves that the girl consented, that he was under the age of 21 years at the time of the commission of the act, and that he had reasonable cause to believe, and did believe, that the girl was of or over the age of 16 years"

And it might also be OK if you're under 21, and she had these ENORMOUS, you know... tracts of land, right, and she can hold two dozen Lion Reds without falling down, and... and... well, your Honour, let's face it - do YOU think she looks under 16?

"(7) No one shall be prosecuted for any offence against this section, except under paragraph (a) of subsection (2) thereof, unless the prosecution is commenced within 12 months from the time when the offence was committed."

Well, just look at you, you pimply little git. She wasn't exactly going to BRAG about it to everyone the NEXT DAY, now, was she?

Deano
22nd June 2004, 15:55
Well I hate spin doctoring 'wordplay', political correctness gone mad, and the facade that central and local Govt use to justify (legalfy?) their existence and placate the voters/ratepayers.

Viva la revolution.

James Deuce
22nd June 2004, 16:36
Well I hate spin doctoring 'wordplay', political correctness gone mad, and the facade that central and local Govt use to justify (legalfy?) their existence and placate the voters/ratepayers.

Viva la revolution.

Hola!

You can use my wall. I will supply the blindfolds compadre.

Hitcher
22nd June 2004, 16:51
Well I hate spin doctoring 'wordplay', political correctness gone mad, and the facade that central and local Govt use to justify (legalfy?) their existence and placate the voters/ratepayers.

Viva la revolution.

Give us some examples. I could use a good laugh...

Gixxer 4 ever
22nd June 2004, 17:40
after all it is hard to criminalise something that has no victim -- as long as people don't get their faces rubbed in it.

Speeding is about road safety. It is a crime that can have victims and dire consequences. Society demands that something is done to address this.

.
Hmmm... I see a victims in prostitution. Victims from marriages, young people forced in to it to continue their studies and developing drug habits, Aids and all other manner of bugs and stuff. Young Asian woman put to work in this country because they have been lied to and it goes on and on. Very serious consequences as I see them.

I think we are victims of societies demand. I hate the fines. they do not stop me speeding just make me careful about when and where. And to all the traffic cops out there I know you have a job to do and good on you but I get pissed off when there is no other traffic on the road dry and clear and you hide in the bushes to skin me. I would hope if I ever see you in trouble I still want to help. The down side is, all enforcement officers are being tagged with the same label and I wounder why people would help when the officers need it on the ground? Another question....When the traffic cop does the big U turn and starts to chase an offender do you all pull to the left so he/she can catch the vehicle they are chasing?? Why should we?? Anyway enough. That should get me flamed for the next few days>>>>>> :bash: <<<<<<<<

Deano
22nd June 2004, 17:57
Give us some examples. I could use a good laugh...

Well, without mentioning names, but you may be able to guess.....

Business Excellence and the Baldridge Award. An organisation I know has been applying for this award for the past few years. Staff got to review the application last year, and there were several items mentioned that supposedly occurred in the organisation, which showed how they were achieving Business Excellence.

There were at least half a dozen points that staff new were not occuring - hence my comment about the facade that is out out there, simply to please the award scrutineers. These points were not picked up on by the award auditors.

Auditing of HS&E and ISO systems. Staff are prewarned about a pending audit, so as to ensure that they are up to speed on what should be occurring in the organisation (correct answers etc) all year round.

Auditors were also steered well clear of those staff who had issues with the 'facade' put forward by management, for fear the bullshit would be exposed.

spudchucka
22nd June 2004, 19:01
What the Justice system is supposed to do and what is does are 2 conflicting things I think.
Partly b/c the people within the "system" are human and partly b/c they're mostly white middle class, middle aged men! I'm talking about the judiciary here, the guys that interpret the law.
I think that the conflict comes from the publics expectations that justice will be done and the Court / Legal systems limitations in terms of proper legal function and due process.

As for the judiciary, they are pretty much all from a defence lawyer background and have been sticking up for shitheads for the bulk of their working life. Doesn't matter whether they are middle aged men or not, they all stink of lawyer and thats the overriding conection to the conflict between justice done and due process. In my opinion at least.

What?
22nd June 2004, 19:17
But they havent made speeding Leagal because it happens any way????
Well, actually they did. Sort of. About sixteen years ago.
Highway limit went from 80 to 100K because that was what everyone was doing, but in those days you would not have been ticketed for it, so it was legalised.
Maybe one day the limit will go up to 120, but we will all be racing mobility scooters by then... :apint:

wkid_one
22nd June 2004, 19:44
but we will all be racing mobility scooters by then... :apint:
Man - I already have plans for mine. I am going to put higher voltage batteries in it, tub the rear, put some low profile slicks on it, a momo steering handle, Sparco race seat, and a chopper flag...

And I am going to paint it black with red tribal flames:bleh: :bleh:

MikeL
22nd June 2004, 20:59
I think that the conflict comes from the publics expectations that justice will be done and the Court / Legal systems limitations in terms of proper legal function and due process.

As for the judiciary, they are pretty much all from a defence lawyer background and have been sticking up for shitheads for the bulk of their working life. Doesn't matter whether they are middle aged men or not, they all stink of lawyer and thats the overriding conection to the conflict between justice done and due process. In my opinion at least.

It would certainly be a lot more efficient to do away with all this due process and legal niceties. Just let the police get on with the job. After all, they know when someone's guilty. Why bother with an expensive trial, an overpaid judge and defense lawyers who abuse the system by getting their clients acquitted on some piddling technicality. There are much better ways. I can certainly appreciate your frustration, Spud!

Posh Tourer :P
22nd June 2004, 21:44
Aha! Not quite.

Crimes Act 1961 (as amended), part 7 s134:

"(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who has or attempts to have sexual intercourse with any girl of or over the age of 12 years and under the age of 16 years, not being his wife."

Right. So, starting position is, shag a chick under 16 and you're buggered. Figuratively speaking.

Now, the section continues:

"(3) It is a defence to a charge under this section if the person charged proves that the girl consented and that he is younger than the girl:"

So, if she's between 12 and 15, but you're younger, shag away, baby!

"Provided that proof of the said facts shall not be a defence if it is proved that such consent was obtained by a false and fraudulent representation as to the nature and quality of the act."

... but not if she only did it because you told her you wanted to play Doctors and Nurses.

"(4) It is a defence to a charge under this section if the person charged proves that the girl consented, that he was under the age of 21 years at the time of the commission of the act, and that he had reasonable cause to believe, and did believe, that the girl was of or over the age of 16 years"

And it might also be OK if you're under 21, and she had these ENORMOUS, you know... tracts of land, right, and she can hold two dozen Lion Reds without falling down, and... and... well, your Honour, let's face it - do YOU think she looks under 16?

"(7) No one shall be prosecuted for any offence against this section, except under paragraph (a) of subsection (2) thereof, unless the prosecution is commenced within 12 months from the time when the offence was committed."

Well, just look at you, you pimply little git. She wasn't exactly going to BRAG about it to everyone the NEXT DAY, now, was she?
That's a disturbingly thorough knowledge you have on the subject JR...

dirty engineers.. would you like a first year in a fluffy white miniskirt? :bleh: :killingme

Posh Tourer :P
22nd June 2004, 21:50
Well, without mentioning names, but you may be able to guess.....

Business Excellence and the Baldridge Award. An organisation I know has been applying for this award for the past few years. Staff got to review the application last year, and there were several items mentioned that supposedly occurred in the organisation, which showed how they were achieving Business Excellence.

There were at least half a dozen points that staff new were not occuring - hence my comment about the facade that is out out there, simply to please the award scrutineers. These points were not picked up on by the award auditors.

Auditing of HS&E and ISO systems. Staff are prewarned about a pending audit, so as to ensure that they are up to speed on what should be occurring in the organisation (correct answers etc) all year round.

Auditors were also steered well clear of those staff who had issues with the 'facade' put forward by management, for fear the bullshit would be exposed.

Some of this could mean that an audit maintains knowledge and standards, even if it isnt quite to the standards that the auditors expect. Its not all bad. However, random unnanounced audits would be much better.

If an organisation does not have in place all the schemes it claims to have in the application, then it is lying. If the schemes have been put in place my management but the staff are not complying, the organisation is not lying, the managers are just out of touch. If the organisation has the schemes in place but hasnt properly resourced them and knows it, again the organisation is lying. That isnt a perfect system by any means, but neither is it corrupt.

There is also, related to this, the tendering system. Competitive tender has led to routine underquoting of true cost and subsequent budget blowouts, as to quote the true cost would be to lose the tender.

Ms Piggy
22nd June 2004, 23:42
And the Chief Justice of New Zealand is a...?
And the Prime Minister of New Zealand is a...?
And the Governor General of New Zealand is a...?
And the constitutional monarch of New Zealand is a...?

This argument is a bit like saying that if women were in charge, that there would be no wars... The riposte to which is: Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher, Helen Clark...

Yeah, yeah but I did say "mostly" Mr H and women in leadership is a fairly new concept here and one that a lot of men find difficult to handle b/c the prime minister isn't some blonde bombshell with a great rack! :sly:

SPman
23rd June 2004, 00:36
Yeah, yeah but I did say "mostly" Mr H and women in leadership is a fairly new concept here and one that a lot of men find difficult to handle b/c the prime minister isn't some blonde bombshell with a great rack! :sly:
She Isn't!!! :shit: Bugger, perhaps I should start watching the news more often.....when people said we had a women prime minister I sort of assumed.........well...y know.................

bluninja
23rd June 2004, 05:46
[QUOTE=jrandom]Aha! Not quite.

Crimes Act 1961 (as amended), part 7 s134:

"(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who has or attempts to have sexual intercourse with any girl of or over the age of 12 years and under the age of 16 years, not being his wife."/QUOTE]

Hmmmm....so can you get married in NZ before the age of 16?? :cold:

bluninja
23rd June 2004, 05:53
Interesting post....however I disagree with the poster that said that speeding is not a victimless crime....speeding is victimless.....having an accident has victims...whether excessive speed is involved or not...they are different things.

Deano
23rd June 2004, 08:57
Interesting post....however I disagree with the poster that said that speeding is not a victimless crime....speeding is victimless.....having an accident has victims...whether excessive speed is involved or not...they are different things.

There are some fast bikers who sit at Kaitoke awaiting unsuspecting victims.......then blast past them up the Taka's.

vifferman
23rd June 2004, 09:12
Yeah, yeah but I did say "mostly" Mr H and women in leadership is a fairly new concept here and one that a lot of men find difficult to handle b/c the prime minister isn't some blonde bombshell with a great rack! :sly:
A luggage rack? Like Ventura, or Givi, or like that there?
So she'd be, like, a motorcyclist then?

Bandito
23rd June 2004, 09:26
Some simplistic conspiracy theories at play here.

Prostitution is legal because society is prepared to tolerate it -- after all it is hard to criminalise something that has no victim -- as long as people don't get their faces rubbed in it.

Speeding is about road safety. It is a crime that can have victims and dire consequences. Society demands that something is done to address this.

Without wanting to get the "tight sphincter" brigade from the religious ravings thread into a foam, the same argument advanced above for prostitution also applies to homosexuality.

I beg to differ that prostitution is a victimless crime! What percentage of the illegel drug industrie's turnover is supported by prostitution .ie. people who are forced into prostitution as result of an addiction they did not want but was forced or manipulated upon them in the first place? Something our revenue hungry government would have (conviniently) overlooked in there quest for more dollars, NOT in the interests of the nation's social well being. I'm with bros400 onthis one.

Hitcher
23rd June 2004, 10:12
I beg to differ that prostitution is a victimless crime! What percentage of the illegel drug industrie's turnover is supported by prostitution .ie. people who are forced into prostitution as result of an addiction they did not want but was forced or manipulated upon them in the first place? Something our revenue hungry government would have (conviniently) overlooked in there quest for more dollars, NOT in the interests of the nation's social well being. I'm with bros400 onthis one.

Prostitution itself isn't the issue here.

I guess that I should define "prostitution" for the purposes of this debate, which I see as the willing exchange of cash for sexual favours. Willing buyer, willing seller, therefore "victimless" in its purist sense. Yes, people can get ripped off, just like any commercial transaction. Yes people may do it behind the backs of their partners (some people reading this have probably bought all manner of goods and services which they have concealed from their partners) but that is a moral or personal conscience issue. There is a significant difference between legal and moral issues and discussion of this could fill a thread to rival the "religious ravings" next door!

There are countless examples of exploitation and where one group of people is "forced" into a situation that furthers the interests of others. There are laws to deal with exploitation -- that's one of the reasons civilised developed nations have labour laws and laws about slavery, etc.

Legalising prostitution helps expose a lot of the shady practices about gangs, drugs, illegal Thai immigrants that existed because it was illegal! Prostitution itself does no harm, which is why I support its legalisation; as opposed to marijuana and other mind-altering substances which do do harm, and why I believe should remain criminalised.

James Deuce
23rd June 2004, 10:13
I beg to differ that prostitution is a victimless crime! What percentage of the illegel drug industrie's turnover is supported by prostitution .ie. people who are forced into prostitution as result of an addiction they did not want but was forced or manipulated upon them in the first place? Something our revenue hungry government would have (conviniently) overlooked in there quest for more dollars, NOT in the interests of the nation's social well being. I'm with bros400 onthis one.

Ahhh, the old "it's not my fault I'm a prostitute/drug addict/convicted child killer argument."

Get real. We have a crime industry/lifestyle in this country because of the lack of personal responsibility.

Skyryder
23rd June 2004, 10:15
The so called conflict, of justice and the law, can be better understood when the function of the two componets (justice/law) are known. Justice is not about guilt or innocent. It is the end product of due process (law) that will result in either guilt or innocent. The difference is subtle to be sure. The law on the other hand is concerned with the protection of the innocent. To put this in simple terms if the collection of evidence and its presentation is legal then Justice should prevail. Get it wrong and Justice should still prevail. The guilty will walk free but so will the innocent. The real problem with our justice system is the lopsided resources that is available to each side. The crown versus Joe Blogs. Take this into the civil area where you are up against say a corperation and even if you win the corperation will bury you through the appeal process.

Skyryder

spudchucka
23rd June 2004, 11:18
It would certainly be a lot more efficient to do away with all this due process and legal niceties. Just let the police get on with the job. After all, they know when someone's guilty. Why bother with an expensive trial, an overpaid judge and defense lawyers who abuse the system by getting their clients acquitted on some piddling technicality. There are much better ways. I can certainly appreciate your frustration, Spud!
While I'm all for locking up the bad guys I wouldn't suggest that due process should be chucked in the bin. From reading your reply I think you have somewhat jumped the gun here. I wasn't suggesting that police should be the start and finish of the justice system as your post seems to imply. I was suggesting that their is a link between the publics / victims dissatisfaction as to the outcomes and the limitations of the justice system because of due process.

spudchucka
23rd June 2004, 11:26
Legalising prostitution helps expose a lot of the shady practices about gangs,
It also gives gangs a legitimate business in which to launder their dirty drug money.

The act of one person exchanging $$$ for a shag is in itself pretty harmless. However prostitution is directly linked to the underworld of organised crime and drug trafficing. I'm not saying that they are all dodgy but there is a very real connection to organised crime in many of them.

Hitcher
23rd June 2004, 11:39
It also gives gangs a legitimate business in which to launder their dirty drug money.

There are all sort of ways that money can be "laundered" other than through brothels. Casinos are one -- and all you need is access to one, ownership is not a requirement. Similarly the TAB, particularly now you can have an on-line account. From a societal point-of-view, casinos and legalised gambling (such as pokies) are more of a crime than prostitution can ever be, particularly their ability to take money off people who can least afford to lose it...

MikeL
23rd June 2004, 11:40
Prostitution itself does no harm, which is why I support its legalisation; as opposed to marijuana and other mind-altering substances which do do harm, and why I believe should remain criminalised.

I agree with your definition of prostitution as a victimless crime. Whether it does harm is a more difficult question to answer. Certainly the major negative effects socially come from the indirect consequences and these have more likely than not been the result of its illegality. Therefore I view decriminalisation as a logical and commonsense approach to the problem, and can only wonder why it took so long... From a moral perspective (in terms of individual behaviour) there is no clear answer. The reduction of sex to a commercial transaction may be distasteful and psychologically it may well lead to low self-respect but I can't see how, objectively, it is any different from many other negative behaviours. From the point of view of the client the social, moral and psychological issues involved are, to my mind, less connected to the question of payment for sex than to matters of monogamy, fidelity etc. It is hard to see how a single, unattached man is harmed by paying money for sex. In many societies (including our own, in the past, albeit with much hypocrisy involved) a prostitute was considered a necessary and desirable way for a young man to gain sexual experience so that when he got married his wife was spared some awkward and inept fumblings...

Your comparison with marijuana and other mind-altering substances is altogether more contentious. I have an open mind on the question of the harm caused (I don't deny that there can be undesirable consequences) but I am also aware of the hypocrisy involved. It seems clear to me that marijuana, for instance, which was perfectly legal until I think the early 1920s, was criminalized largely due to the lobbying of the American pulp and paper industry that feared the competition from hemp growers. And for people to preach about personal responsibility while at the same time using the state to restrict the freedom of others to explore their inner space through psychotropic substances strikes me as inconsistent to say the least.

Hitcher
23rd June 2004, 11:55
Your comparison with marijuana and other mind-altering substances is altogether more contentious.

I accept what you say, particularly given the "double standards" governments have had historically with other mind-altering or largely unhealthful substances such as alcohol and tobacco. I believe that the use of all such products should be regulated, as a minimum to protect the innocent. Defining "the innocent" takes some effort. However such an even-handed regulatory environment is unlikely while the government continues to pocket shitloads of dosh from excise and other taxes...

Gixxer 4 ever
23rd June 2004, 17:35
A luggage rack? Like Ventura, or Givi, or like that there?
So she'd be, like, a motorcyclist then? So what?....you want to ride it now :sick: :puke:

Gixxer 4 ever
23rd June 2004, 17:42
Prostitution itself isn't the issue here.

I guess that I should define "prostitution" for the purposes of this debate, which I see as the willing exchange of cash for sexual favours. Willing buyer, willing seller, therefore "victimless" in its purist sense. .
Come on this is the real world. Purist just will not cut it in the real world.. Like saying " Yes I had a few beers but the beer did not crash the car."

Lou Girardin
23rd June 2004, 21:22
[QUOTE=spudchucka
As for the judiciary, they are pretty much all from a defence lawyer background and have been sticking up for shitheads for the bulk of their working life. Doesn't matter whether they are middle aged men or not, they all stink of lawyer and thats the overriding conection to the conflict between justice done and due process. In my opinion at least.[/QUOTE]

Well that settles it, kill all the lawyers and judges and replace them with retired cops.
Then we'll have the brave new world we all secretly want and won't have to bother with 'due process'. (The Police can make all the mistakes they want without consequence) Are you listening, Arthur Alan Thomas?

spudchucka
23rd June 2004, 23:17
Well that settles it, kill all the lawyers and judges and replace them with retired cops.
Then we'll have the brave new world we all secretly want and won't have to bother with 'due process'. (The Police can make all the mistakes they want without consequence) Are you listening, Arthur Alan Thomas?

Are you looking for a new job Lou? Opps sorry not qualified, you were never a cop were you!


As for the judiciary, they are pretty much all from a defence lawyer background and have been sticking up for shitheads for the bulk of their working life. Doesn't matter whether they are middle aged men or not, they all stink of lawyer and thats the overriding conection to the conflict between justice done and due process. In my opinion at least

Thats what I said. Funny but I don't see anything about doing away with Judges, lawyers or due process.

It seems to me that you have a tendancy to read something and decide its meaning based on your own twisted disfunctional outlook. If you are going to quote me at least read it before you blow it out of all proportion.

Lou Girardin
24th June 2004, 06:36
Thats what I said. Funny but I don't see anything about doing away with Judges, lawyers or due process.
It seems to me that you have a tendancy to read something and decide its meaning based on your own twisted disfunctional outlook. If you are going to quote me at least read it before you blow it out of all proportion.

You write a paragraph of low - level abuse of lawyers and Judges. Then get very disengenous, saying " I don't want to do away with them".
Make up your mind Spud. Are you a reactionary 'hang 'em all' type cop or is there a little bit of PC still trying to work it's way out?

spudchucka
24th June 2004, 09:21
You write a paragraph of low - level abuse of lawyers and Judges. Then get very disengenous, saying " I don't want to do away with them".
Make up your mind Spud. Are you a reactionary 'hang 'em all' type cop or is there a little bit of PC still trying to work it's way out?

You can abuse the police and LTSA all day and it makes you some sort of road users saviour but if I offer some criticism of judges and lawyers then that makes me a "hang em all" type cop?

Call me insincere if you want but I don't see how commenting that judges, lawyers and due process are part of the issue of public / victim dissatisfaction with judicial outcomes makes me so. I've never said that we should get rid of them, YOU are the one that suggested that.

The way you can take things out of context as you have in this thread and others shows that your opinions are unreliable because you take from the written word whatever you want to, regardless of whether the meaning was there or not.

750Y
24th June 2004, 13:32
lou, stop winding spud up, the last thing we need is a grumpy cop on the road, especially one with a sig like that 8-)

Lou Girardin
24th June 2004, 21:20
lou, stop winding spud up, the last thing we need is a grumpy cop on the road, especially one with a sig like that 8-)

Sorry. I should resist, but it's just so damn easy.

spudchucka
24th June 2004, 23:24
Sorry. I should resist, but it's just so damn easy.
Are you saying you actually don't believe all this crap you keep posting and are just doing it in an attempt to wind me up???

Awwwww, shucks, you shouldn't have. :hug:

spudchucka
24th June 2004, 23:27
lou, stop winding spud up, the last thing we need is a grumpy cop on the road, especially one with a sig like that 8-)
My life ambition now is to give Lou a ticket for speeding. Everyone else can relax though, Lou's special.

Lou Girardin
25th June 2004, 06:37
My life ambition now is to give Lou a ticket for speeding. Everyone else can relax though, Lou's special.

I'll let you know when I'm next coming through the Manawatu, don't hold your breath though. I'll be on the Bandit doing 5 km/h under the limit. Although that probably won't help, will it?

bluninja
26th June 2004, 05:43
I'll let you know when I'm next coming through the Manawatu, don't hold your breath though. I'll be on the Bandit doing 5 km/h under the limit. Although that probably won't help, will it?

So how accurate is your speedo Lou? I guess if you do get ticketed you could legally prostitute yourself to cover the fine :stupid:

scumdog
26th June 2004, 07:56
Man - I already have plans for mine. I am going to put higher voltage batteries in it, tub the rear, put some low profile slicks on it, a momo steering handle, Sparco race seat, and a chopper flag...

And I am going to paint it black with red tribal flames:bleh: :bleh:

Man, that's exactly what I was going to do when I end up with one except maybe with minor chages like spoked pram wheels at the front, '39 Ford tail-lights and fuzzy dice :rockon:

scumdog
26th June 2004, 08:07
Quote"And for people to preach about personal responsibility while at the same time using the state to restrict the freedom of others to explore their inner space through psychotropic substances strikes me as inconsistent to say the least."

Yeah, but the reason there ARE people out there to "restrict the freedom of others" is exactly because so many people do not take personal responsibility :msn-wink:

scumdog
26th June 2004, 08:10
How does prostitution get past the Fair Trading Act? - they've got something, they sell it, they still got it - how many other businesses can get away with THAT? :sneaky2:

Ghost Lemur
26th June 2004, 09:19
How does prostitution get past the Fair Trading Act? - they've got something, they sell it, they still got it - how many other businesses can get away with THAT? :sneaky2:

Because Prostitution is a service based industry, not a product based one. All service based industries aren't selling something tangible that you keep.

scumdog
26th June 2004, 10:20
Ah, hmm, thanks for the advice GL but I was being facetious, like kidding man, still good to know that somebody cares that somebody has the wrong end of the stick.

Now, if only somebody could make tyres out of the stuff that pussy is made from they would outlast the rest of the bike......

Lou Girardin
27th June 2004, 13:21
How does prostitution get past the Fair Trading Act? - they've got something, they sell it, they still got it - how many other businesses can get away with THAT? :sneaky2:

They're not selling the producer of the service. They're selling the benefit of using it. Heard of renting/leasing?

scumdog
27th June 2004, 14:12
They're not selling the producer of the service. They're selling the benefit of using it. Heard of renting/leasing?

Benefit? benefit? hmmm, dunno if I could tell Mrs S.D that I was only seeing the hooker for my "benefit". :whistle:
Anyway, before I get more advice on the Fair Trading Act people, - I was just kidding (but provoking thought too!) :mellow: