Abuse of women is morally bad and is also legally bad, rightly in my view. I do not see a good reason for legalising a form of abuse of women (which is what prostitution in reality is) because ..... well ..... it always happens and always will.
Sorry, have to disagree here. Abuse of women and prostitution are two different things. There is an overlap, but they are NOT the same. Prostitution has an intersection with, but is not a subset of abuse. The same applies to drug use and criminality in my opinion.
Quick note following up on Saturday's article where I said Rudd wouldn't have to go. I still don't think that she needed to - she's basically resigned over something she'd already apologised for and over which Labour hadn't really exacted that much pressure. The key measure is whether you're losing support on your own benches, and she wasn't.
All the same, she did resign and i called that wrong.
will you be resigning for misleading us?
No. I've misled you before and I'll no doubt mislead you again (I'll try not to though).
Sajid Javid's appointment a shrewd choice by May for Home Secretary and his John Major like rise to such a senior post now makes him a prime candidate to be next Tory leader
Miss Cyclefree, whilst not personally in favour (and I use the term broadly to include chaps being involved too), we know prostitution occurs, and always will occur. Regulation would at least allow risk to be diminished, trafficking to be more easily detected and thereby increase safety for those involved.
I'm open to alternative suggestions to improve the situation.
On drugs, I'd add the situation in Mexico, which is killing huge numbers of people.
Murder and theft occur and always will occur. That's no argument for making them legal.
I disagree that it will make trafficking more easily detectable. If prostitution is legalised why would anyone worry about trafficking? Or prioritise it? On the contrary, it will make it easier for girls, particularly young ones, to be pressurised into prostitution or to something that looks very like it e.g. sex for favours - see my landlord example which was recently reported in the Standard....
The landlord example is not directly relevant to legalisation because payment for sex between consenting individuals is not illegal now; the issue is coercion, which is (and the grey area between the two). I am not convinced that a regime of legalisation and strong regulation would not be an improvement.
And what, exactly, would strong regulation consist of? OffTart? "OfFuck"? How would coercion be ascertained and regulated against?
Closely regulated establishments with clear lists of sex workers who could be regularly interviewed for signs of abuse and coercion. Taxes on the matter could then be channelled into combatting human trafficking (which would of course be undermined anyway as trafficked women could not work in the legal brothels, which is where the punters would now go).
I think that you are naive in thinking that interviews of women working in brothels will root out abuse and coercion. Or, indeed, that men will only go to legal establishments.
On the contrary, I think signs of abuse in adults are often very visible to people sufficiently resourced. Legal brothel workers could also have regular case workers they form relationships with that regularly inundate then with guidance on how to leave the trade.
Equally, I think the vast majority of punters would use the legal trade, particularly if you ramped up punishments for going to non-sanctioned brothels.
In both cases compliance would never be 100% but it would be orders of magnitude better than the current system where the authorities can not even identify the women involved.
He sends his children to private schools. He has a taste for Havana cigars. In common with many of Thatcher’s children of his Tory generation, he is as dry as dust on economic issues and well to the right on most other subjects.
This makes his a disorientating story for many on the left because it confounds their expectations of how someone from that background ought to think and where they should end up. Rather than acknowledge that there is any cause for celebration in a self-made Asian man with a working-class background reaching the cabinet, Labour MPs have jeered at him for being rich and not being a woman.
Miss Cyclefree, whilst not personally in favour (and I use the term broadly to include chaps being involved too), we know prostitution occurs, and always will occur. Regulation would at least allow risk to be diminished, trafficking to be more easily detected and thereby increase safety for those involved.
I'm open to alternative suggestions to improve the situation.
On drugs, I'd add the situation in Mexico, which is killing huge numbers of people.
Murder and theft occur and always will occur. That's no argument for making them legal.
I disagree that it will make trafficking more easily detectable. If prostitution is legalised why would anyone worry about trafficking? Or prioritise it? On the contrary, it will make it easier for girls, particularly young ones, to be pressurised into prostitution or to something that looks very like it e.g. sex for favours - see my landlord example which was recently reported in the Standard....
The landlord example is not directly relevant to legalisation because payment for sex between consenting individuals is not illegal now; the issue is coercion, which is (and the grey area between the two). I am not convinced that a regime of legalisation and strong regulation would not be an improvement.
And what, exactly, would strong regulation consist of? OffTart? "OfFuck"? How would coercion be ascertained and regulated against?
Closely regulated establishments with clear lists of sex workers who could be regularly interviewed for signs of abuse and coercion. Taxes on the matter could then be channelled into combatting human trafficking (which would of course be undermined anyway as trafficked women could not work in the legal brothels, which is where the punters would now go).
I think that you are naive in thinking that interviews of women working in brothels will root out abuse and coercion. Or, indeed, that men will only go to legal establishments.
On the big issue of the day, I couldn't care less about taxing sugar. They can tax it at 1000%. I never eat the stuff and generally hate sweet things. Refined sugar is probably much worse for you than fat. And, anyway, you get quite enough natural sugar by eating fruit.
I think the answer to that is that any legalisation (legalising either drugs or prostitution) would have to be combined with fairly strict regulation - but not so strict as to provide a similar incentive to operate outside of the law as exists now.
It's a difficult question, and no answers are ideal, but it is surely a matter of which alternative produces the least harm ?
But too often the argument about harm focuses on the harm done to the users of the service rather than the providers.
If you normalise (and making something legal does normalise) stuff like prostitution, porn etc then don't be surprised when you find people expecting women who are not prostitutes effectively to give sex for favours or to be pressurised, more or less subtly, into doing so. Don't be surprised to find that young men think that the sex you have in porn is what sex in real life should be like or is like. And who suffers: not the punters but women.
We cannot get all outraged by abuse of actresses and waitresses etc and join "Me Too" campaigns while at the same time legalising the very attitudes to women which lead to men viewing women as pieces of flesh put on earth for men's use regardless of the wishes of the women concerned, let alone any more airy fairy issues around women's dignity.
You are not legalising attitudes by legalising acts. Did legalising adultery make adultery morally accepted in UK public opinion? I would like to think in the 21st century we have got to a level of thinking more sophisticated than "something is morally bad therefore it should be banned".
Again, a comparison of apples & oranges. Adultery is consensual.
And we do legalise attitudes by legalising acts. See the whole history of gay rights in this country which is a pretty good example of an initial legalisation of previously criminal acts leading, thankfully, over time to a very different and better attitude to homosexuality.
Abuse of women is morally bad and is also legally bad, rightly in my view. I do not see a good reason for legalising a form of abuse of women (which is what prostitution in reality is) because ..... well ..... it always happens and always will.
Prostitution is usually consensual. Gay rights became acceptable because of the force of logical argument that it didn't have negative effects. Prostitution is not like that. More equivalent to smoking.
Glad to see she has chosen Javid - I hoped that she’d do that last night, so hopefully he can deal with the problem. I agree with Nick Palmer’s earlier post that Javid has shown emotional intelligence on a range of important issues, certainly in a way that has struck me.
I’m intrigued by the suggestion earlier upthread that ‘most normal people’ think Windrush is being ‘exaggerated’ as I’ve seen no evidence of that. Last time polling was done on the issue most people supported Windrush generation by quite large majorities (like 78%).
I’m also bemused as why anyone is shocked that Corbyn supporters are already critical of Javid. They are the opposition, of course they will look for things to criticise him on. While I wouldn’t be surprised to see ‘nasty tweets’ aimed at him (unfortunately), the tweets actually posted here are not really that ‘nasty.’ I’m also unsure of the suggestion that people will be swayed against Labour by nasty tweets from Corbynistas toward Javid - I can’t see voters voting on what randoms say on Twitter as opposed to the immediate issues that affect their life. There are lots of nasty tweets aimed at Diane Abbott, but I don’t think many on here think those sway anyone to Labour.
On the big issue of the day, I couldn't care less about taxing sugar. They can tax it at 1000%. I never eat the stuff and generally hate sweet things. Refined sugar is probably much worse for you than fat. And, anyway, you get quite enough natural sugar by eating fruit.
I think the answer to that is that any legalisation (legalising either drugs or prostitution) would have to be combined with fairly strict regulation - but not so strict as to provide a similar incentive to operate outside of the law as exists now.
It's a difficult question, and no answers are ideal, but it is surely a matter of which alternative produces the least harm ?
But too often the argument about harm focuses on the harm done to the users of the service rather than the providers.
If you normalise (and making something legal does normalise) stuff like prostitution, porn etc then don't be surprised when you find people expecting women who are not prostitutes effectively to give sex for favours or to be pressurised, more or less subtly, into doing so. Don't be surprised to find that young men think that the sex you have in porn is what sex in real life should be like or is like. And who suffers: not the punters but women.
We cannot get all outraged by abuse of actresses and waitresses etc and join "Me Too" campaigns while at the same time legalising the very attitudes to women which lead to men viewing women as pieces of flesh put on earth for men's use regardless of the wishes of the women concerned, let alone any more airy fairy issues around women's dignity.
You are not legalising attitudes by legalising acts. Did legalising adultery make adultery morally accepted in UK public opinion? I would like to think in the 21st century we have got to a level of thinking more sophisticated than "something is morally bad therefore it should be banned".
Again, a comparison of apples & oranges. Adultery is consensual.
And we do legalise attitudes by legalising acts. See the whole history of gay rights in this country which is a pretty good example of an initial legalisation of previously criminal acts leading, thankfully, over time to a very different and better attitude to homosexuality.
Abuse of women is morally bad and is also legally bad, rightly in my view. I do not see a good reason for legalising a form of abuse of women (which is what prostitution in reality is) because ..... well ..... it always happens and always will.
Sajid Javid's appointment a shrewd choice by May for Home Secretary and his John Major like rise to such a senior post now makes him a prime candidate to be next Tory leader
So a Remainer might succeed May, told you that was a very strong possibility.
Sajid Javid's appointment a shrewd choice by May for Home Secretary and his John Major like rise to such a senior post now makes him a prime candidate to be next Tory leader
So a Remainer might succeed May, told you that was a very strong possibility.
Possibly though Javid was I think a closet Leaver, he was always very Eurosceptic but backed Remain out of Cabinet collective responsibility
He sends his children to private schools. He has a taste for Havana cigars. In common with many of Thatcher’s children of his Tory generation, he is as dry as dust on economic issues and well to the right on most other subjects.
This makes his a disorientating story for many on the left because it confounds their expectations of how someone from that background ought to think and where they should end up. Rather than acknowledge that there is any cause for celebration in a self-made Asian man with a working-class background reaching the cabinet, Labour MPs have jeered at him for being rich and not being a woman.
The left pretty much universally denies that Mrs Thatcher was a woman, for the purposes of debates about feminism, so believing that Mr Jarvis is not really Asian should be a doddle.
Sajid Javid's appointment a shrewd choice by May for Home Secretary and his John Major like rise to such a senior post now makes him a prime candidate to be next Tory leader
So a Remainer might succeed May, told you that was a very strong possibility.
Sajid Javid's appointment a shrewd choice by May for Home Secretary and his John Major like rise to such a senior post now makes him a prime candidate to be next Tory leader
I don't think that's true. I'd say the vast majority of prostitution in the UK is non-consensual and dependent on sex trafficking from SE Asia and Eastern Europe.
Sajid Javid's appointment a shrewd choice by May for Home Secretary and his John Major like rise to such a senior post now makes him a prime candidate to be next Tory leader
So a Remainer might succeed May, told you that was a very strong possibility.
Elsewhere it's HS don't get to be PM
make your mind up
He's a good trading bet.
Always nice when a working class kid of Pakistani heritage does good.
I thought after the Hague and IDS experience the Tories had determined never to have another bald leader?
Churchill was bald
Churchill doesn't count as an exception to the rule that 'bald men don't win' because he was up against Attlee, so the public weren't given a choice (though when Attlee was up against Baldwin or Eden, he lost).
Sajid Javid's appointment a shrewd choice by May for Home Secretary and his John Major like rise to such a senior post now makes him a prime candidate to be next Tory leader
What has he going for him ?
Ex officio the Home Secretary is a leading contender -- especially if, as expected, TM hands over in office so that the new leader is immediately Prime Minister. Forget the fantasies about JRM or Rory or Kwasi or any other rising star who could take over as Leader of the Opposition and look at the Cabinet and in particular the great offices of state.
I thought after the Hague and IDS experience the Tories had determined never to have another bald leader?
Churchill was bald
Churchill doesn't count as an exception to the rule that 'bald men don't win' because he was up against Attlee, so the public weren't given a choice (though when Attlee was up against Baldwin or Eden, he lost).
IDS never lost.
John Howard in Australia won 4 elections despite his baldness, all against those with a full head of hair
Reliable statistics about prostitution are almost impossible to come by (unsurprisingly). That leads to an innate bias towards what's talked about, whether that be high class hookers, crack junkies selling themselves or non-consensual sex trafficking. All of these exist, but their proportions are hard to establish.
The internet has made possible a much more informal form of prostitution, akin to Airbnb, with people dipping in and out according to need/desire/taste. I suspect, since few of us imagine friends and acquaintances moonlighting in this way, that this is hugely underestimated. But what do I know? I don't have statistics either.
Sajid Javid's appointment a shrewd choice by May for Home Secretary and his John Major like rise to such a senior post now makes him a prime candidate to be next Tory leader
What has he going for him ?
He has a higher approval rating with Yougov than May, Hunt, Gove, Boris and Mogg
Sajid Javid's appointment a shrewd choice by May for Home Secretary and his John Major like rise to such a senior post now makes him a prime candidate to be next Tory leader
So a Remainer might succeed May, told you that was a very strong possibility.
Elsewhere it's HS don't get to be PM
make your mind up
He's a good trading bet.
Always nice when a working class kid of Pakistani heritage does good.
Or ex-investment banker replaces ex-investment banker at the Home Office.
On the big issue of the day, I couldn't care less about taxing sugar. They can tax it at 1000%. I never eat the stuff and generally hate sweet things. Refined sugar is probably much worse for you than fat. And, anyway, you get quite enough natural sugar by eating fruit.
I think the answer to that is that any legalisation (legalising either drugs or prostitution) would have to be combined with fairly strict regulation - but not so strict as to provide a similar incentive to operate outside of the law as exists now.
It's a difficult question, and no answers are ideal, but it is surely a matter of which alternative produces the least harm ?
But too often the argument about harm focuses on the harm done to the users of the service rather than the providers.
If you normalise (and making something legal does normalise) stuff like prostitution, porn etc then don't be surprised when you find people expecting women who are not prostitutes effectively to give sex for favours or to be pressurised, more or less subtly, into doing so. Don't be surprised to find that young men think that the sex you have in porn is what sex in real life should be like or is like. And who suffers: not the punters but women.
We cannot get all outraged by abuse of actresses and waitresses etc and join "Me Too" campaigns while at the same time legalising the very attitudes to women which lead to men viewing women as pieces of flesh put on earth for men's use regardless of the wishes of the women concerned, let alone any more airy fairy issues around women's dignity.
You are not legalising attitudes by legalising acts. Did legalising adultery make adultery morally accepted in UK public opinion? I would like to think in the 21st century we have got to a level of thinking more sophisticated than "something is morally bad therefore it should be banned".
Again, a comparison of apples & oranges. Adultery is consensual.
And we do legalise attitudes by legalising acts. See the whole history of gay rights in this country which is a pretty good example of an initial legalisation of previously criminal acts leading, thankfully, over time to a very different and better attitude to homosexuality.
Abuse of women is morally bad and is also legally bad, rightly in my view. I do not see a good reason for legalising a form of abuse of women (which is what prostitution in reality is) because ..... well ..... it always happens and always will.
Prostitution is usually consensual...
Is it ?
This is when the absence of PB's foremost prostitute authority is most keenly felt.
I thought after the Hague and IDS experience the Tories had determined never to have another bald leader?
Churchill was bald
Churchill doesn't count as an exception to the rule that 'bald men don't win' because he was up against Attlee, so the public weren't given a choice (though when Attlee was up against Baldwin or Eden, he lost).
Attlee beat Churchill in 1945 and 1950. In 1951, Attlee's Labour won the popular vote but lost the election, so I'm not sure how to count that one.
Labour and the Conservatives are virtually level pegging in the poll, which has the parties standing at Tories 41 per cent (-2), Labour 40 (-2), Liberal Democrats 10 (+4), and the Greens and Ukip on two each.
Labour and the Conservatives are virtually level pegging in the poll, which has the parties standing at Tories 41 per cent (-2), Labour 40 (-2), Liberal Democrats 10 (+4), and the Greens and Ukip on two each.
Thanks for posting. So it’s still all square (which was my inclination last week), with the trend of Corbyn’s poor ratings continuing. Question is, will Labour voters overlook their misgivings about Corbyn? Depends on how badly they want the Tories out by 2022.
Labour and the Conservatives are virtually level pegging in the poll, which has the parties standing at Tories 41 per cent (-2), Labour 40 (-2), Liberal Democrats 10 (+4), and the Greens and Ukip on two each.
For comparison in the 2014 Local Elections when the wards up on Thursday were last contested Labour got 31% the Tories got 29%, UKIP got 17% and the LDs got 13%
Abuse of women is morally bad and is also legally bad, rightly in my view. I do not see a good reason for legalising a form of abuse of women (which is what prostitution in reality is) because ..... well ..... it always happens and always will.
Sorry, have to disagree here. Abuse of women and prostitution are two different things. There is an overlap, but they are NOT the same. Prostitution has an intersection with, but is not a subset of abuse. The same applies to drug use and criminality in my opinion.
usual bollox, if it is being sold freely by consent how can it be abuse PS: completely different if being forced to do it by someone
Sajid Javid's appointment a shrewd choice by May for Home Secretary and his John Major like rise to such a senior post now makes him a prime candidate to be next Tory leader
So a Remainer might succeed May, told you that was a very strong possibility.
Sajid Javid's appointment a shrewd choice by May for Home Secretary and his John Major like rise to such a senior post now makes him a prime candidate to be next Tory leader
What has he going for him ?
He has a higher approval rating with Yougov than May, Hunt, Gove, Boris and Mogg
Mr. Glenn, that's true. Likewise with Miliband eating the sarnie (although that was his own team's idea, which makes it even odder). Film anyone eating a sarnie and you could pick a number of stills that look awful.
Mr. Eagles, indeed, you've achieved great things without any need for a 'dressed like a colourblind parrot' shortlist.
Sajid Javid's appointment a shrewd choice by May for Home Secretary and his John Major like rise to such a senior post now makes him a prime candidate to be next Tory leader
What has he going for him ?
He has a higher approval rating with Yougov than May, Hunt, Gove, Boris and Mogg
Partly because no one knows him.
No one knew John Major in 1990 and he won a historic 4th term for the Tories in 1992
Abuse of women is morally bad and is also legally bad, rightly in my view. I do not see a good reason for legalising a form of abuse of women (which is what prostitution in reality is) because ..... well ..... it always happens and always will.
Sorry, have to disagree here. Abuse of women and prostitution are two different things. There is an overlap, but they are NOT the same. Prostitution has an intersection with, but is not a subset of abuse. The same applies to drug use and criminality in my opinion.
usual bollox, if it is being sold freely by consent how can it be abuse PS: completely different if being forced to do it by someone
Prostitution can be consensual, or it can be abusive. But, I don't believe for one moment that you can ever succeed in banning it. Prostitution is illegal everywhere in the US except Nevada, but no one would suggest it doesn't take place.
Sajid Javid's appointment a shrewd choice by May for Home Secretary and his John Major like rise to such a senior post now makes him a prime candidate to be next Tory leader
So a Remainer might succeed May, told you that was a very strong possibility.
ex-Remainer.
Remainers who accept the result are pretty obviously the centre ground within the Conservative Parliamentary Party (and very close to the centre ground of the country too).
I'd suggest the centre ground amongst the Tory membership is more like "Leave, but more in sorrow than anger".
I expect Rudd was close to Osborne, epecially as a follow remainer.
It is a scandal, and the Windrush stuff is more important, but it does seem just a matter of poor communication and confusion within the HO, rather than anything fundamentally corrupt.
On the big issue of the day, I couldn't care less about taxing sugar. They can tax it at 1000%. I never eat the stuff and generally hate sweet things. Refined sugar is probably much worse for you than fat. And, anyway, you get quite enough natural sugar by eating fruit.
I think the answer to that is that any legalisation (legalising either drugs or prostitution) would have to be combined with fairly strict regulation - but not so strict as to provide a similar incentive to operate outside of the law as exists now.
It's a difficult question, and no answers are ideal, but it is surely a matter of which alternative produces the least harm ?
But too often the argument about harm focuses on the harm done to the users of the service rather than the providers.
...
We cannot get all outraged by abuse of actresses and waitresses etc and join "Me Too" campaigns while at the same time legalising the very attitudes to women which lead to men viewing women as pieces of flesh put on earth for men's use regardless of the wishes of the women concerned, let alone any more airy fairy issues around women's dignity.
You are not legalising attitudes by legalising acts. Did legalising adultery make adultery morally accepted in UK public opinion? I would like to think in the 21st century we have got to a level of thinking more sophisticated than "something is morally bad therefore it should be banned".
Again, a comparison of apples & oranges. Adultery is consensual.
And we do legalise attitudes by legalising acts. See the whole history of gay rights in this country which is a pretty good example of an initial legalisation of previously criminal acts leading, thankfully, over time to a very different and better attitude to homosexuality.
Abuse of women is morally bad and is also legally bad, rightly in my view. I do not see a good reason for legalising a form of abuse of women (which is what prostitution in reality is) because ..... well ..... it always happens and always will.
Prostitution is usually consensual...
Is it ?
This is when the absence of PB's foremost prostitute authority is most keenly felt.
It has occurred to me not infrequently that many (most ?) of us have only second hand knowledge of subjects we pontificate on. This would seem to be one of them.
Labour and the Conservatives are virtually level pegging in the poll, which has the parties standing at Tories 41 per cent (-2), Labour 40 (-2), Liberal Democrats 10 (+4), and the Greens and Ukip on two each.
LDs are higher profile atm because of local-election campaigning. I expect them to do well on Thursday.
Longer term, I really can't predict what the post-Brexit political landscape will be like. Part of me thinks that it won't affect most people very much (well, at least not in the sudden, harmful ways that a few people will be affected), so the Corbyn effect will continue to squeeze the LibDems. But there's also the distinct possibility that they will do a "reverse Ukip" and take a lot of votes from Labour and the Tories at the next election.
This is where you're going wrong. Not all bad things should be banned by the government.
You have it the wrong way round. It is those arguing for prostitution to be legalised who need to make the case for this. Not those who think it a bad thing and not to be encouraged.
This is where you're going wrong. Not all bad things should be banned by the government.
You have it the wrong way round. It is those arguing for prostitution to be legalised who need to make the case for this. Not those who think it a bad thing and not to be encouraged.
On topic - promoting someone from outside Cabinet all the way to Home Sec may leave others feeling aggrieved... Bettingwise - Jeremy Hunt would be great for me.
I will chuckle if May chooses Gavin Williamson.
Has any HS ever come from outside the cabinet while the party is in government? I can't think of an example, or certainly not a recent one. Leon Brittan would be closest, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury before his appointment.
The only one May might stretch a point for is Brokenshire, unless she wants to really confuse everyone by offering it to Greening.
Edit - it's also interesting to note that for all the flak he gets on here, Williamson's constituents think very highly of him and won't hear a word said against him.
Roy Jenkins was not in the Cabinet until appointed Home Secretary by Harold Wilson at the end of 1965. Prior to that he had been Minister of Aviation.
On the big issue of the day, I couldn't care less about taxing sugar. They can tax it at 1000%. I never eat the stuff and generally hate sweet things. Refined sugar is probably much worse for you than fat. And, anyway, you get quite enough natural sugar by eating fruit.
I think the answer to that is that any legalisation (legalising either drugs or prostitution) would have to be combined with fairly strict regulation - but not so strict as to provide a similar incentive to operate outside of the law as exists now.
It's a difficult question, and no answers are ideal, but it is surely a matter of which alternative produces the least harm ?
But too often the argument about harm focuses on the harm done to the users of the service rather than the providers.
If you normalise (and making something legal does normalise) stuff like prostitution, porn etc then don't be surprised when you find people expecting women who are not prostitutes effectively to give sex for favours or to be pressurised, more or less subtly, into doing so. Don't be surprised to find that young men think that the sex you have in porn is what sex in real life should be like or is like. And who suffers: not the punters but women.
We cannot get all outraged by abuse of actresses and waitresses etc and join "Me Too" campaigns while at the same time legalising the very attitudes to women which lead to men viewing women as pieces of flesh put on earth for men's use regardless of the wishes of the women concerned, let alone any more airy fairy issues around women's dignity.
You are not legalising attitudes by legalising acts. Did legalising adultery make adultery morally accepted in UK public opinion? I would like to think in the 21st century we have got to a level of thinking more sophisticated than "something is morally bad therefore it should be banned".
Again, a comparison of apples & oranges. Adultery is consensual.
And we do legalise attitudes by legalising acts. See the whole history of gay rights in this country which is a pretty good example of an initial legalisation of previously criminal acts leading, thankfully, over time to a very different and better attitude to homosexuality.
Abuse of women is morally bad and is also legally bad, rightly in my view. I do not see a good reason for legalising a form of abuse of women (which is what prostitution in reality is) because ..... well ..... it always happens and always will.
Prostitution is usually consensual.
Hmm ..... that's what men using prostitutes like to think. They turn a blind eye or prefer not to inquire into what the unpleasant and brutal reality is.
This is where you're going wrong. Not all bad things should be banned by the government.
You have it the wrong way round. It is those arguing for prostitution to be legalised who need to make the case for this. Not those who think it a bad thing and not to be encouraged.
You think all bad things should be illegal by default, without needing evidence that banning it will help???
Again, a comparison of apples & oranges. Adultery is consensual.
And we do legalise attitudes by legalising acts. See the whole history of gay rights in this country which is a pretty good example of an initial legalisation of previously criminal acts leading, thankfully, over time to a very different and better attitude to homosexuality.
Abuse of women is morally bad and is also legally bad, rightly in my view. I do not see a good reason for legalising a form of abuse of women (which is what prostitution in reality is) because ..... well ..... it always happens and always will.
Prostitution is usually consensual...
Is it ?
This is when the absence of PB's foremost prostitute authority is most keenly felt.
It has occurred to me not infrequently that many (most ?) of us have only second hand knowledge of subjects we pontificate on. This would seem to be one of them.
It's one where few are going to admit to any first hand knowledge on either side of the transaction.
Anyway, prostitution itself is legal. There are a range of activities closely connected with prostitution that are illegal. As it happens, I think English law strikes a pretty good balance in this area.
I thought after the Hague and IDS experience the Tories had determined never to have another bald leader?
Churchill was bald
Churchill doesn't count as an exception to the rule that 'bald men don't win' because he was up against Attlee, so the public weren't given a choice (though when Attlee was up against Baldwin or Eden, he lost).
IDS never lost.
John Howard in Australia won 4 elections despite his baldness, all against those with a full head of hair
Failing to get to the starting line because your own party dumps you counts as a loss.
There are exceptions, as with Howard, but they're rare. I did an article on this 9 years ago:
Labour and the Conservatives are virtually level pegging in the poll, which has the parties standing at Tories 41 per cent (-2), Labour 40 (-2), Liberal Democrats 10 (+4), and the Greens and Ukip on two each.
LDs are higher profile atm because of local-election campaigning. I expect them to do well on Thursday.
Longer term, I really can't predict what the post-Brexit political landscape will be like. Part of me thinks that it won't affect most people very much (well, at least not in the sudden, harmful ways that a few people will be affected), so the Corbyn effect will continue to squeeze the LibDems. But there's also the distinct possibility that they will do a "reverse Ukip" and take a lot of votes from Labour and the Tories at the next election.
Where the 17% who voted UKIP in 2014 goes will be key on Thursday
Comments
The same applies to drug use and criminality in my opinion.
Finally got a betting tip right.
Equally, I think the vast majority of punters would use the legal trade, particularly if you ramped up punishments for going to non-sanctioned brothels.
In both cases compliance would never be 100% but it would be orders of magnitude better than the current system where the authorities can not even identify the women involved.
This makes his a disorientating story for many on the left because it confounds their expectations of how someone from that background ought to think and where they should end up. Rather than acknowledge that there is any cause for celebration in a self-made Asian man with a working-class background reaching the cabinet, Labour MPs have jeered at him for being rich and not being a woman.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/13/rise-of-sajid-javid-social-mobility-immigration-coalition-cabinet-david-cameron-tories
What’s happened to Matt Hancock ?
https://twitter.com/Alain_Tolhurst/status/990901350551703552
https://twitter.com/MrKRudd/status/990866357309837312
https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/990903340514111489
I’m intrigued by the suggestion earlier upthread that ‘most normal people’ think Windrush is being ‘exaggerated’ as I’ve seen no evidence of that. Last time polling was done on the issue most people supported Windrush generation by quite large majorities (like 78%).
I’m also bemused as why anyone is shocked that Corbyn supporters are already critical of Javid. They are the opposition, of course they will look for things to criticise him on. While I wouldn’t be surprised to see ‘nasty tweets’ aimed at him (unfortunately), the tweets actually posted here are not really that ‘nasty.’ I’m also unsure of the suggestion that people will be swayed against Labour by nasty tweets from Corbynistas toward Javid - I can’t see voters voting on what randoms say on Twitter as opposed to the immediate issues that affect their life. There are lots of nasty tweets aimed at Diane Abbott, but I don’t think many on here think those sway anyone to Labour.
make your mind up
It also cleverly distracted from the policy to administration and competence.
It has to be No.10. It is not in the interest of Brexit supporters to get rid of Rudd.
Always nice when a working class kid of Pakistani heritage does good.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2015/oct/07/who-told
John Howard in Australia won 4 elections despite his baldness, all against those with a full head of hair
The internet has made possible a much more informal form of prostitution, akin to Airbnb, with people dipping in and out according to need/desire/taste. I suspect, since few of us imagine friends and acquaintances moonlighting in this way, that this is hugely underestimated. But what do I know? I don't have statistics either.
Mind you, I might just laugh my head off watching Labour react to a Conservative Prime Minister of Pakistani descent. If it happens.
We don't need exclusive shortlists.
I shall post pictures of the Amber Rudd/Sajid Javid shoes later.
Tories 41
Labour 40
Lib Dems 10
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyns-ratings-dip-to-lowest-level-since-before-last-general-election-a3827051.html
Labour and the Conservatives are virtually level pegging in the poll, which has the parties standing at Tories 41 per cent (-2), Labour 40 (-2), Liberal Democrats 10 (+4), and the Greens and Ukip on two each.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyns-ratings-dip-to-lowest-level-since-before-last-general-election-a3827051.html
https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/990911105592684545
I was hoping they could win the fa cup, but top four is a must now.
PS: completely different if being forced to do it by someone
Mr. Eagles, indeed, you've achieved great things without any need for a 'dressed like a colourblind parrot' shortlist.
I'd suggest the centre ground amongst the Tory membership is more like "Leave, but more in sorrow than anger".
It is a scandal, and the Windrush stuff is more important, but it does seem just a matter of poor communication and confusion within the HO, rather than anything fundamentally corrupt.
Longer term, I really can't predict what the post-Brexit political landscape will be like. Part of me thinks that it won't affect most people very much (well, at least not in the sudden, harmful ways that a few people will be affected), so the Corbyn effect will continue to squeeze the LibDems. But there's also the distinct possibility that they will do a "reverse Ukip" and take a lot of votes from Labour and the Tories at the next election.
Whatever it is they look stupid, like a small child who's just learned to walk but has forgotten what to do next in mid-step.
Anyway, prostitution itself is legal. There are a range of activities closely connected with prostitution that are illegal. As it happens, I think English law strikes a pretty good balance in this area.
There are exceptions, as with Howard, but they're rare. I did an article on this 9 years ago:
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2009/07/01/do-bald-guys-always-lose/