AN
You are demonstrating a poor grasp of what has been going on. For whatever reason, these women are being killing because they are prostitutes . This therefore means that the profession of these girls is integral to the story, as disturbing as that is to some people.
Bob Paisley posted:
I think the point is this:
In the context of what's happened to them their profession is irrelevant. The fact that they're prostitutes/working girls/hookers has no bearing on anything - they are murder victims - innocent young women.
In the context of what's happened to them their profession is irrelevant. The fact that they're prostitutes/working girls/hookers has no bearing on anything - they are murder victims - innocent young women.
You are demonstrating a poor grasp of what has been going on. For whatever reason, these women are being killing because they are prostitutes . This therefore means that the profession of these girls is integral to the story, as disturbing as that is to some people.
BP
You are demonstrating a poor grasp of what has been going on. For whatever reason, these women are being killing because they are prostitutes . This therefore means that the profession of these girls is integral to the story, as disturbing as that is to some people.
The initial statement someone made was that these were 'innocent young women'. Someone else replied - 'no they're not, they were hookers'. I am merely stating that in the context of what's happened to them - they are innocent young women. The fact that they were prostitutes means they were more vulnerable, more likely to be targetted, more seriously in danger - but they were still innocent in the context of being victims of crime. That was the point I was making - perhaps you can grasp it now?
all new Phil posted:
Bob Paisley posted:
I think the point is this:
In the context of what's happened to them their profession is irrelevant. The fact that they're prostitutes/working girls/hookers has no bearing on anything - they are murder victims - innocent young women.
In the context of what's happened to them their profession is irrelevant. The fact that they're prostitutes/working girls/hookers has no bearing on anything - they are murder victims - innocent young women.
You are demonstrating a poor grasp of what has been going on. For whatever reason, these women are being killing because they are prostitutes . This therefore means that the profession of these girls is integral to the story, as disturbing as that is to some people.
The initial statement someone made was that these were 'innocent young women'. Someone else replied - 'no they're not, they were hookers'. I am merely stating that in the context of what's happened to them - they are innocent young women. The fact that they were prostitutes means they were more vulnerable, more likely to be targetted, more seriously in danger - but they were still innocent in the context of being victims of crime. That was the point I was making - perhaps you can grasp it now?
CW
Charlie Wells
Moderator
For discussion relating to the Suffolk killings please use http://www.tvforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23207 or start a thread on Metropol.
GS
You are mis-quoting me, and given we are on a forum you don't have much of an excuse.
What I said was, "They were hookers, actually. "Innocent young women" paints a slightly different picture.".
The context of their abduction and murder was that they were prostitues, so my statement was entirely accurate.
If you must insist on being patronising, please try to get a better grasp of the story.
Gavin Scott
Founding member
Bob Paisley posted:
I think the point is this:
In the context of what's happened to them their profession is irrelevant. The fact that they're prostitutes/working girls/hookers has no bearing on anything - they are murder victims - innocent young women
The initial statement someone made was that these were 'innocent young women'. Someone else replied - 'no they're not, they were hookers'. I am merely stating that in the context of what's happened to them - they are innocent young women.
In the context of what's happened to them their profession is irrelevant. The fact that they're prostitutes/working girls/hookers has no bearing on anything - they are murder victims - innocent young women
The initial statement someone made was that these were 'innocent young women'. Someone else replied - 'no they're not, they were hookers'. I am merely stating that in the context of what's happened to them - they are innocent young women.
You are mis-quoting me, and given we are on a forum you don't have much of an excuse.
What I said was, "They were hookers, actually. "Innocent young women" paints a slightly different picture.".
The context of their abduction and murder was that they were prostitues, so my statement was entirely accurate.
Quote:
The fact that they were prostitutes means they were more vulnerable, more likely to be targetted, more seriously in danger - but they were still innocent in the context of being victims of crime. That was the point I was making - perhaps you can grasp it now?
If you must insist on being patronising, please try to get a better grasp of the story.
ST
Other than soliciting and prostitution, obviously.
Oh, sorry. I didn't know they'd been arrested, tried and found guilty. Now I know that I'm glad they were put to death - more room in the prisons now.
Not quite sure why you are taking this so poorly, Moz. They were prostitutes even according to the report the cap was taken from this morning.
They don't need to be convicted to make them hookers. They simply were.
I'm sure you don't for a minute infer that I think they are better off dead.
That's a rather poor retort, if you don't mind me saying.
I think you will both find that prostitution is not even illegal as such (in England & Wales anyway, not sure about Scotland).
Prostitutes/Hookers/Rent Boys can be arrested for loitering (as can anyone), but it is their "client" who is ultimately arrested and charged for "soliciting", not the woman/man offering the sexual services. Therefore, these are innocent young girls, regardless of their chosen profession.
Gavin Scott posted:
Moz posted:
Gavin Scott posted:
Moz posted:
They weren't guilty of any crime, therefore they were innocent.
Other than soliciting and prostitution, obviously.
Oh, sorry. I didn't know they'd been arrested, tried and found guilty. Now I know that I'm glad they were put to death - more room in the prisons now.
Not quite sure why you are taking this so poorly, Moz. They were prostitutes even according to the report the cap was taken from this morning.
They don't need to be convicted to make them hookers. They simply were.
I'm sure you don't for a minute infer that I think they are better off dead.
That's a rather poor retort, if you don't mind me saying.
I think you will both find that prostitution is not even illegal as such (in England & Wales anyway, not sure about Scotland).
Prostitutes/Hookers/Rent Boys can be arrested for loitering (as can anyone), but it is their "client" who is ultimately arrested and charged for "soliciting", not the woman/man offering the sexual services. Therefore, these are innocent young girls, regardless of their chosen profession.
GS
Other than soliciting and prostitution, obviously.
Oh, sorry. I didn't know they'd been arrested, tried and found guilty. Now I know that I'm glad they were put to death - more room in the prisons now.
Not quite sure why you are taking this so poorly, Moz. They were prostitutes even according to the report the cap was taken from this morning.
They don't need to be convicted to make them hookers. They simply were.
I'm sure you don't for a minute infer that I think they are better off dead.
That's a rather poor retort, if you don't mind me saying.
I think you will both find that prostitution is not even illegal as such (in England & Wales anyway, not sure about Scotland).
Prostitutes/Hookers/Rent Boys can be arrested for loitering (as can anyone), but it is their "client" who is ultimately arrested and charged for "soliciting", not the woman/man offering the sexual services. Therefore, these are innocent young girls, regardless of their chosen profession.
The law is complicated. The act of one consenting adult paying another for sex is NOT actually illegal. So, a woman who works on her own, in her own house and charges people for sex is NOT breaking the law.
But the laws that exist around it make it almost impossible to carry out prostitution legally.
Gavin Scott
Founding member
StuartPlymouth posted:
Gavin Scott posted:
Moz posted:
Gavin Scott posted:
Moz posted:
They weren't guilty of any crime, therefore they were innocent.
Other than soliciting and prostitution, obviously.
Oh, sorry. I didn't know they'd been arrested, tried and found guilty. Now I know that I'm glad they were put to death - more room in the prisons now.
Not quite sure why you are taking this so poorly, Moz. They were prostitutes even according to the report the cap was taken from this morning.
They don't need to be convicted to make them hookers. They simply were.
I'm sure you don't for a minute infer that I think they are better off dead.
That's a rather poor retort, if you don't mind me saying.
I think you will both find that prostitution is not even illegal as such (in England & Wales anyway, not sure about Scotland).
Prostitutes/Hookers/Rent Boys can be arrested for loitering (as can anyone), but it is their "client" who is ultimately arrested and charged for "soliciting", not the woman/man offering the sexual services. Therefore, these are innocent young girls, regardless of their chosen profession.
The law is complicated. The act of one consenting adult paying another for sex is NOT actually illegal. So, a woman who works on her own, in her own house and charges people for sex is NOT breaking the law.
But the laws that exist around it make it almost impossible to carry out prostitution legally.
BP
You are mis-quoting me, and given we are on a forum you don't have much of an excuse.
What I said was, "They were hookers, actually. "Innocent young women" paints a slightly different picture.".
The context of their abduction and murder was that they were prostitues, so my statement was entirely accurate.
If you must insist on being patronising, please try to get a better grasp of the story.
I wasn't patronising you - I was making an admittedly sarcastic reply to another person who was being snotty with me.
I have no intention of getting into an ongoing argument about this but I stand by what I said - I take issue with the questioning of these poor girls' 'innocence'. In terms of what happened to them - they were innocent.
Gavin Scott posted:
Bob Paisley posted:
I think the point is this:
In the context of what's happened to them their profession is irrelevant. The fact that they're prostitutes/working girls/hookers has no bearing on anything - they are murder victims - innocent young women
The initial statement someone made was that these were 'innocent young women'. Someone else replied - 'no they're not, they were hookers'. I am merely stating that in the context of what's happened to them - they are innocent young women.
In the context of what's happened to them their profession is irrelevant. The fact that they're prostitutes/working girls/hookers has no bearing on anything - they are murder victims - innocent young women
The initial statement someone made was that these were 'innocent young women'. Someone else replied - 'no they're not, they were hookers'. I am merely stating that in the context of what's happened to them - they are innocent young women.
You are mis-quoting me, and given we are on a forum you don't have much of an excuse.
What I said was, "They were hookers, actually. "Innocent young women" paints a slightly different picture.".
The context of their abduction and murder was that they were prostitues, so my statement was entirely accurate.
Quote:
The fact that they were prostitutes means they were more vulnerable, more likely to be targetted, more seriously in danger - but they were still innocent in the context of being victims of crime. That was the point I was making - perhaps you can grasp it now?
If you must insist on being patronising, please try to get a better grasp of the story.
I wasn't patronising you - I was making an admittedly sarcastic reply to another person who was being snotty with me.
I have no intention of getting into an ongoing argument about this but I stand by what I said - I take issue with the questioning of these poor girls' 'innocence'. In terms of what happened to them - they were innocent.
CH
Its Bill and the lovely Carol K in the garden!!
Aw.
I like it when she's nice and warm in the studio.
Yeh! They could let her in the studio just for Christmas Day!
James Hall posted:
Media Boy posted:
James Hall posted:
I see Bill Turnbull is doing Xmas Day Breakfast again all on his lonesome.
Who'll be doing weather? It was a bit crap last year with Kirsty McCabe.
Who'll be doing weather? It was a bit crap last year with Kirsty McCabe.
Its Bill and the lovely Carol K in the garden!!
Aw.
I like it when she's nice and warm in the studio.
Yeh! They could let her in the studio just for Christmas Day!