Thought For the Day

Gullscorer · Post by **Gullscorer** » 30 Mar 2014, 15:57

If prawn cocktail, why not cock prawntail..??

Gullscorer · Post by **Gullscorer** » 30 Mar 2014, 15:59

It's strange, my wife and I don't share the same sense of humour, yet she often laughs at the things I say..

Gullscorer · Post by **Gullscorer** » 04 Apr 2014, 17:04

We punish the petty thieves and appoint the big ones to public office.

Aesop

Glostergull · Post by **Glostergull** » 04 Apr 2014, 23:42

Despite all our moans and groans. despite all the abuse that is directed at various sections of the club. Despite our club being in deep trouble.
It's sad to see the passing away of a true and well known and respected fan.
This puts all our moans into perspective.There are more important things in life than football. That was just a medium to put us in contact with each other.
RIP Geoff Brett.

Gullscorer · Post by **Gullscorer** » 23 May 2014, 00:54

Propaganda: the art of treating the masses like mushrooms by feeding them shit and keeping them in the dark.

Gullscorer · Post by **Gullscorer** » 26 May 2014, 15:13

'Prepare to meet the King of Terrors,' cried
To prayerless Want his plunderer, ferret-eyed;
'I am the King of Terrors,' Want replied.

Ebenezer Elliott (1781 - 1849)

Gullscorer · Post by **Gullscorer** » 29 May 2014, 18:37

John F. Kennedy (at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel) on April 27, 1961:

"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence - on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.

It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed - and no nation can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why the US press was protected by the First Amendment - the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution - not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants", but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

Unfortunately, the American Press, and most of the world's media, almost completely lacks such moral strength of character.

Gullscorer · Post by **Gullscorer** » 07 Jun 2014, 22:32

Law and liberty and 'victimless' crime:

This issue was discussed on a recent BBC Radio 4 Moral Maze programme (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03y15hy) and is at the heart of two campaigns that have been attracting a lot of coverage recently.

At the moment the sale and purchase of sex is legal in Britain, but there's a growing demand to criminalise those who pay for sexual services (but not those who sell them).

We are also seeing around the world calls to legalise the use of cannabis for personal use.

The definition of a "victim" in both cases is complex and contested, but how should we use the law in these circumstances when there's a conflict between individual liberty and the policing of social norms and harms?

Since a sale and purchase is in effect an agreement between two parties, why should the purchaser of sexual services be criminalised but not the seller? If a woman was forced into prostitution that would be a good defence against any criminal charge, but many women are prostitutes by choice and are against any criminalisation except for those criminals who control prostitutes.

Alcohol in moderation is fine, but taken to excess can seriously damage health. The same can be said of cannabis, so why are the two treated differently under the law?

Since 1960 laws criminalising homosexuality, suicide and blasphemy have all been consigned to history. Is that the way it should be In a liberal progressive society? If so, why should the sale and purchase of sex, or the use of cannabis, be treated differently simply because it offends the moral sensibilities or ideological agendas of pressure groups?

Or should we and the state take a much more robust view of harm and extend principles like "hate crimes" into the law? If so, where does one draw the line?

Food for thought...

ferrarilover · Post by **ferrarilover** » 07 Jun 2014, 23:55

"Being forced" would be an appalling defence both in terms of drafting and the protection of certain legal norms.

The reason that buyers of sex are criminalised but the sellers are not is one of pure practicality.

Matt.

Gullscorer · Post by **Gullscorer** » 09 Jun 2014, 02:59

ferrarilover wrote:"Being forced" would be an appalling defence both in terms of drafting and the protection of certain legal norms.
The reason that buyers of sex are criminalised but the sellers are not is one of pure practicality.
Matt.

That sounds like BS Matt, unless I'm missing something. It's not only unjust but blatantly and ludicrously absurd that the purchaser of sexual services (or for that matter of anything else) should be criminalised but the seller of the same services should not be. We do not, for example, criminalise the purchaser of drugs while excusing the drug-pusher. And if the purchaser of sexual favours is to be charged with committing a criminal act, then the seller must also be prosecuted with aiding and abetting that criminal act (but this of course is not what the supporters of such a law want).

It's difficult to see what the impracticalities might be, and in any case the pursuit of justice should never be compromised by considerations of practicality. It's the same kind of thinking, I suspect, which has lead certain pressure groups to seek to ease the burden of proof in cases of alleged rape and sexual assault, and indeed to shift the burden from the prosecution to the defence, in order to ease the plight of the alleged victim. They may be unlikely to fully succeed in their aims, but the fact that some people are thinking along these lines should be a matter of concern. The survival of justice requires constant vigilance and protection against political and ideological expediency, and against woolly thinking in the formulation of laws.

ferrarilover · Post by **ferrarilover** » 09 Jun 2014, 15:04

Gullscorer wrote: That sounds like BS Matt, unless I'm missing something. It's not only unjust but blatantly and ludicrously absurd that the purchaser of sexual services (or for that matter of anything else) should be criminalised but the seller of the same services should not be. We do not, for example, criminalise the purchaser of drugs while excusing the drug-pusher. And if the purchaser of sexual favours is to be charged with committing a criminal act, then the seller must also be prosecuted with aiding and abetting that criminal act (but this of course is not what the supporters of such a law want).

It's difficult to see what the impracticalities might be, and in any case the pursuit of justice should never be compromised by considerations of practicality. It's the same kind of thinking, I suspect, which has lead certain pressure groups to seek to ease the burden of proof in cases of alleged rape and sexual assault, and indeed to shift the burden from the prosecution to the defence, in order to ease the plight of the alleged victim. They may be unlikely to fully succeed in their aims, but the fact that some people are thinking along these lines should be a matter of concern. The survival of justice requires constant vigilance and protection against political and ideological expediency, and against woolly thinking in the formulation of laws.

That's because you're nowhere near as well informed and intelligent as you think. :devil:

Despite what you'd like to believe about evil, nasty women and their horrible, mantrapping ways, the overwhelming majority of street prostitutes are there because their alternatives are effectively zero. In towns such as Reading and Cardiff where there are large red light districts, the police would be utterly swamped with a duty to arrest and process hookers. They would get literally nothing else done. And after all this time spent processing the girls, they'd be right back on the game the next night. They can't get jobs, they're addicted to drugs, they owe money to people who will kill them if they don't pay, the only thing they have to offer is their sex. If they're already prostituting themselves under these circumstances, how afraid do you think they're going to be of arrest? The law is no deterrent, so making it an arrestable offence won't reduce the levels of prostitution.

We aren't a draconian, religion driven society, the public would not stand for a lengthy prison sentence for fairly minor prosecution offences, so we can't ramp up the sentence to 50 years hard labour in the hope of deterring a small handful for whom that would genuinely be the less preferable option.

Man is biologically programmed to seek out sex. He will get it wherever he can. If he can't get it with a normal woman, today at least, he can visit a prostitute. If your magic bullet cures the menace of prostitution completely, then there will be a demand without supply. Do you remember a few years ago, the scenes of absolute carnage in stores selling the Teletubbies toys? If I recall, at least one man was murdered for his as he left a store. If that's what happens when demand outstrips supply in the case of a **** toy, can you imagine what'll happen when the same problem occurs with a biological imperative? The incidences of rape will go through the roof. That, in turn, will lead women's rights groups to press the government for reform in the face of (internationally normal, but visually shocking) low conviction percentages. This pressure will surely tell and lead to some reform of the law on rape to allow easier or more expedited processing of suspected rapists which, ultimately, represents everything you (rightly, in my view) despise.

Your point relating to the idea that the enforcement of law should never come down to practicality is the stupidest thing anyone has ever written on the internet and you know that. I'm not falling for your wiley ways, Mr Scorer.

Matt.

Gullscorer · Post by **Gullscorer** » 09 Jun 2014, 18:53

:~D Nope, sorry Matt but I'm not having that. Although I'm in some agreement with your penultimate paragraph regarding sex and prostitution, quite simply if it's wrong to buy sex then it's wrong to sell it. If there's no excuse for one there can be no excuse for the other. If society felt that most burglars and shoplifters were poor vulnerable people going though hard times, would burglary and shoplifting be de-criminalised? Of course not. Why should it be different for the seller and not the buyer in a transaction, or indeed for one sex and not the other? The law should apply to all equally. It's a matter of principle. If it's wrong it's wrong, and any mitigating factors should be for the judge to take into account.

ferrarilover · Post by **ferrarilover** » 09 Jun 2014, 19:14

I look forward to the day that you need the police to attend to some problem, only to find that they're all busy processing hookers.

Matt.

DerbyshireGull · Post by **DerbyshireGull** » 09 Jun 2014, 23:37

A man who visits a prostitute is not a man, he's an embarrassment and should be pitied. If you are in a relationship and are unhappy or not 'getting any' then discuss the problems. Don't just visit a whore then proclaim to the other half that they don't understand you just because you've been found out. If you are still not happy then tell her you are leaving and go and find somebody else. If you wish to remain in a relationship that is barren then masturbate. Simple as that. There are no excuses for visiting prostitutes IMO. It's the last bastion of male tragedy. Visiting a prostitute means your respect for women is zero. Well done big man.

That is my thought of the day and I made it all up by myself.

chunkygull · Post by **chunkygull** » 09 Jun 2014, 23:44

DerbyshireGull wrote:A man who visits a prostitute is not a man, he's an embarrassment and should be pitied. If you are in a relationship and are unhappy or not 'getting any' then discuss the problems. Don't just visit a whore then proclaim to the other half that they don't understand you just because you've been found out. If you are still not happy then tell her you are leaving and go and find somebody else. If you wish to remain in a relationship that is barren then masturbate. Simple as that. There are no excuses for visiting prostitutes IMO. It's the last bastion of male tragedy. Visiting a prostitute means your respect for women is zero. Well done big man.

That is my thought of the day and I made it all up by myself.

'KIN 'ELL, have you got hidden cameras spying in our house or something, thats a bit close to the bone (no pun). :-o

Torquay United Fans Forum