Cyclist gets off

fred2 said:

Yesterdays Times!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1454673.ece

Once again the point that I've often made here has been demonstrated to
be true. There are laws, then there are more laws for motorists. All
laws should be framed to apply only to the offending /act/, not to the
mode of transport that happens to be in use at the time.

--
Matt B

Why does the woman go to jail but the man walks free? Where is the
justice in that? Who exactly is outraging whom here?

Never mind poor old motorists (who have a choice of motoring or not), it
seems we have laws, laws for men and then laws for women.

That sucks.

(no pun intended ;-)

Tony B

Tony B said:

Why does the woman go to jail but the man walks free?

Because it wasn't her first offence?

Quoted message said:

Where is the justice in that?

None that I can see.

Tony B said:

Why does the woman go to jail but the man walks free? Where is the
justice in that? Who exactly is outraging whom here?

Never mind poor old motorists (who have a choice of motoring or not), it
seems we have laws, laws for men and then laws for women.

That sucks.

You'll tolerate the one form of discrimination, but not the other? Now
that /does/ suck.

--
Matt B

Paul George said:

Tony B said:

Why does the woman go to jail but the man walks free?

Because it wasn't her first offence?

Quoted message said:

Where is the justice in that?

None that I can see.

Using a prostitute isn't illegal.

"Tony B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Why does the woman go to jail but the man walks free? Where is the justice
in that? Who exactly is outraging whom here?

Never mind poor old motorists (who have a choice of motoring or not), it
seems we have laws, laws for men and then laws for women.

That sucks.

(no pun intended ;-)

In the same way as the title of this thread!

Matt B said:

Tony B wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Never mind poor old motorists (who have a choice of motoring or not),
it seems we have laws, laws for men and then laws for women.

Quoted message said:

You'll tolerate the one form of discrimination, but not the other? Now
that /does/ suck.

I said nor implied nothing of the sort. I was merely teeing up my point
about the woman being in prison. Seemingly for the crime of being female
(or possibly more correctly, the female half of the duo).

Still, at least she won't be getting stoned to death for getting
pregnant outside of marriage. So maybe we have some progress toward
legal equality.

Tony B

On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:37:08 +0000

Tony B said:

Never mind poor old motorists (who have a choice of motoring or not),
it seems we have laws, laws for men and then laws for women.

We are persistently told by the Politically Correct to count
bums-on-seats:

"There are more men than women MPs, therefore there is discrimination"
"There are more men than women directors of big companies, ditto"

Well, the biggest inequality of all[1] is in our prison population,
which therefore clearly discriminates massively against men.

(as for the article, sounds as if the key word in the law here
must be "persistent". Not that that excuses banging someone up
for .. erm .. banging ... unless there's more to it)

[1] Feel free to correct me if you know otherwise.

--
not me guv

in message <[email hidden]>, fred2

(') said:

Yesterdays Times!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1454673.ece

I see the poor lass got jailed, though.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Das Internet is nicht fuer gefingerclicken und giffengrabben... Ist
nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen. Das mausklicken sichtseeren
keepen das bandwit-spewin hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und
watchen das cursorblinken. -- quoted from the jargon file

fred2 said:

Yesterdays Times!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1454673.ece

Fred

Excellent thread title!
--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

Nick Kew said:

We are persistently told by the Politically Correct to count
bums-on-seats:

I'm not at all PC.

Quoted message said:

Well, the biggest inequality of all[1]

Why? Because there are 4000 women locked up but 76000 men locked up?

Do you think it would be more equitable to have the same ratio of
men/women in clink as there are in the general population?

Quoted message said:

which therefore clearly discriminates massively against men.

Does it? In what way? I guess some women get custodial sentences
commuted due to dependants' care requirements (although 66% of women are
mothers), but otherwise how is the prison system discriminatory?

ISTM that two people were caught shagging, as a result of which one got
locked up. How can that be just? Both or neither, I would have thought.
Of course, it's equally unjust if it been the man that got jail, rather
than the woman.

Tony B

BTW the subject line is very punny too.

Tony B said:

Why does the woman go to jail but the man walks free? Where is the
justice in that? Who exactly is outraging whom here?

Never mind poor old motorists (who have a choice of motoring or not), it
seems we have laws, laws for men and then laws for women.

That sucks.

It would seem that the man was an infrequent offender, and the woman a
habitual offender. I would doubt that a first time prostitute would
be sent to prison, but a habitual kerb crawler might.

Quoted message said:

(no pun intended ;-)

Tony B

Tony B said:

ISTM that two people were caught shagging, as a result of which one got
locked up. How can that be just?

The man received a Caution. The woman may well already have received a
Caution. Do you understand what a Caution is?

Cheers,
Luke

--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush

Ekul Namsob said:

The man received a Caution. The woman may well already have received a
Caution.

No mention of habitual offending in the Times report.

Quoted message said:

Do you understand what a Caution is?

Yes:

http://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q562.htm

It still sucks.

Tony B

"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

fred2 said:

Yesterdays Times!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1454673.ece

Once again the point that I've often made here has been demonstrated to be
true. There are laws, then there are more laws for motorists. All laws
should be framed to apply only to the offending /act/, not to the mode of
transport that happens to be in use at the time.

--
Matt B

I agree. The offence should be of procuring sex for money, not anything to
do with driving, cycling or walking. It just goes to show how riddled with
holes are laws are when they are written by people who can't see passed the
fact that cars are not the only mode of transport.

David Lloyd

"spindrift" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Paul George said:

Tony B said:

Why does the woman go to jail but the man walks free?

Because it wasn't her first offence?

Quoted message said:

Where is the justice in that?

None that I can see.

Using a prostitute isn't illegal.

I'll get one to clean my windows then :P Just what is illegal then?

David Lloyd

"Tony B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Matt B said:

Tony B wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Never mind poor old motorists (who have a choice of motoring or not), it
seems we have laws, laws for men and then laws for women.

Quoted message said:

You'll tolerate the one form of discrimination, but not the other? Now
that /does/ suck.

I said nor implied nothing of the sort. I was merely teeing up my point
about the woman being in prison. Seemingly for the crime of being female
(or possibly more correctly, the female half of the duo).

Still, at least she won't be getting stoned to death for getting pregnant
outside of marriage. So maybe we have some progress toward legal equality.

Tony B

Well this is getting OT, so just one quick point before I block the thread
on my mail (I have too much cycling related material to get through). Tony,
you seem to assume that the same punishment would not be levelled against a
rent boy. I would bet that if a male was caught being the sex worker, the
charge would be even greater.

David Lloyd

"Nick Kew" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:37:08 +0000

Tony B said:

Never mind poor old motorists (who have a choice of motoring or not),
it seems we have laws, laws for men and then laws for women.

We are persistently told by the Politically Correct to count
bums-on-seats:

"There are more men than women MPs, therefore there is discrimination"
"There are more men than women directors of big companies, ditto"

Well, the biggest inequality of all[1] is in our prison population,
which therefore clearly discriminates massively against men.

(as for the article, sounds as if the key word in the law here
must be "persistent". Not that that excuses banging someone up
for .. erm .. banging ... unless there's more to it)

[1] Feel free to correct me if you know otherwise.

--
not me guv

There will only be true equality when there are as many incompetant women in
company boardrooms as there are men.

David Lloyd

David Lloyd said:

you seem to assume that the same punishment would not be levelled against a
rent boy.

That's a very interesting point. I shall consider it.

OK, so... the sex worker (man or woman) bears the brunt of due legal
process. The punter, apparently, is merely cautioned.

Now, I wouldn't want to moralise over the rights and wrongs of
prostitution in any way. Besides that though, we have laws that seem
inequitable. Should not both parties in these transactions be treated in
a similar manner?

Oh, one for our legal team - what happens if a woman buys sex off
another woman? Or does that not exist in England...

confused,

Tony B