prostitute or murder

18 Dec 2006

Quote by Darkfire
... since his name has been splashed accross every tabloid in the country....

and his blog 'friends' have had their pics plastered all over the internet, by association, too
It's great how you quote that towards me but give no opinion on the tabloids themselves who printed the information or even the reason why i posted it. i for one think nobody should be publicly named unless they have at least been charged with the crime, i do hope they have caught/catch the person/s responsible.
I've now deleted the link as since im not certified on here im an open target to criticism and will not be judged for something the tabloids have done mad

18 Dec 2006

Quote by solofun
... since his name has been splashed accross every tabloid in the country....

and his blog 'friends' have had their pics plastered all over the internet, by association, too
It's great how you quote that towards me but give no opinion on the tabloids themselves who printed the information or even the reason why i posted it. i for one think nobody should be publicly named unless they have at least been charged with the crime, i do hope they have caught/catch the person/s responsible.
I've now deleted the link as since im not certified on here im an open target to criticism and will not be judged for something the tabloids have done mad

Easy Tiger.....i don't think Darkfire was having a dig at you......she was just adding to your comments!

18 Dec 2006

i was very uncomfortable too when i read headlines like "third prostitute found", and thought to myself 'Goddammit, they ain't prostitutes, they are WOMEN FFS ((( shouting at the Daily Mail i think i was at that point? confused

)))
but, yes, it is perfectly valid to say that this guy was targetting prostitutes, and to make it known all his victimes were prostitutes in the media, just as it would be valid to say "third accountant / solicitor / builder / whatever found dead!" if that was the killer's pattern?
course, some sections in the media have gone after the obvious Ripper style headline, but on the whole, in the papers i've read, the coverage has been sensitive, and appropriate. they have been at pains to highlight the point i'm making ((( yes, i'm making a second hand point, i confess. ;) )))
i do believe some lessons have been learned from the past, not least because the police have been very much more direct, to the point, restrained, sensitive and determined to catch the fecker as soon as poss. i say that as someone who remembers the Yorkshire Ripper, and other murders involving prostitutes, like Michael Sams? i think we have moved forward, and the designation 'prostitute' was entirely appropriate to this killer's modus operandi?
did anyone read the 'OMG the police are gonna arrest me' interview in the Daily Mirror yesterday? seems it's the guy they nicked? seems odd to me? i wonder who blinked first, and if this is a 'Right lads, we have to nick this bloke now cos he's put himself right in the frame, and it's expected of us' or have they got the right guy? odd?
also wondering if this is rapidly gonna become Sub Judice and if what we say here is prejudicial? anyone know if websites count as media just yet? confused

neil x x x ;)

18 Dec 2006

This web site is not read by the 'mainstream'. Is is probable that a jury can be assembled that has not been 'informed/misinformed' by this thread.
I do not think it will stop a trail going ahead.

18 Dec 2006

Quote by solofun
... since his name has been splashed accross every tabloid in the country....

and his blog 'friends' have had their pics plastered all over the internet, by association, too
It's great how you quote that towards me but give no opinion on the tabloids themselves who printed the information or even the reason why i posted it. i for one think nobody should be publicly named unless they have at least been charged with the crime, i do hope they have caught/catch the person/s responsible.
I've now deleted the link as since im not certified on here im an open target to criticism and will not be judged for something the tabloids have done mad

It wasnt a 'dig' at you - although I do think your posting of the link itself was unecessary - it was merely an expressed comment in response to yours becuase its not the first time today I've heard about his 'blog' & that paticular site , indeed it first came in an email from a mate at uni where 'that site' has a cult following and "everyone's" seen 'it' - alongside the facial pics of totally-unrelated-to-the-case people who will now be known by association to an alleged serial killer. The publishing of that blogpage spreads far wider than your post on here luv and it was thatwhich I was commenting on confused

But hey, I'm happy that you've spat your dummy and taken the decision to delete the link ... and while I'm at it, its got sod all to do with 'not being certified' and 'therefore open to criticism' ( the up-her-own-ass-bitch in me says think yourself lucky I responded to your post at all wink

that was a joke, btw, just incase you misread me again rolleyes

)

18 Dec 2006

Quote by Drewxcore
I just heard Anne Widdecomb being interviewed on BBC Southern Counties Radio about the prospect of a ban on prostitution, she addmitted it wouldnt work. Personally i think prostitution would be much safer if it was licensed, this way people would know where the women/men were at all times, this would make them less of an easy target. I could go into this in detail but i wont. I think it should be the way forward.

Does anyone have any views on my suggestion?

18 Dec 2006

Quote by Drewxcore
I just heard Anne Widdecomb being interviewed on BBC Southern Counties Radio about the prospect of a ban on prostitution, she addmitted it wouldnt work. Personally i think prostitution would be much safer if it was licensed, this way people would know where the women/men were at all times, this would make them less of an easy target. I could go into this in detail but i wont. I think it should be the way forward.

Does anyone have any views on my suggestion?
well I've already had my say about that but I guess if you had read the thread you would know about that........... wink

18 Dec 2006

To be fair it might be worth hearing some of the 'detail', but I'm having my toast and Ovaltine right now. So maybe a brief version..........
Street hookers are pretty tough cookies and don't really fit into a 'corporate' role. So they will always do their own thing.

19 Dec 2006

Quote by de_sade
I just heard Anne Widdecomb being interviewed on BBC Southern Counties Radio about the prospect of a ban on prostitution, she addmitted it wouldnt work. Personally i think prostitution would be much safer if it was licensed, this way people would know where the women/men were at all times, this would make them less of an easy target. I could go into this in detail but i wont. I think it should be the way forward.

Does anyone have any views on my suggestion?
Lots of views. But as prostitution itself is not a crime just the associated acts like kerb-crawling, pimping, soliciting, running / owning a brothel, etc perhaps we should actually be licensing the punters and pimps. Just a thought...
Licenced brothels, away from residential areas, I understand some countries do that. Do you think there will be many MPs asking to go on fact finding tours? Do you think that men will want to register at the door?
I know that many licenced brothels would wish to keep a high reputation. So trouble making women would not be welcome. Will there will always be prostitutes on the street?

20 Dec 2006

Yes because licensed brothels would have certain standards they would want to stick to, as a result they would turn some women away.

20 Dec 2006

Quote by Drewxcore
Yes because licensed brothels would have certain standards they would want to stick to, as a result they would turn some women away.

As I've mentioned earlier, there are plenty of places for girls to work if they wish to work for an establishement, there are a wide range of brothels in this country, ranging massively in price, and whilst the more exclusive places will not generally employ users, some other establishments will do. The police are generally tolerent of brothels as long as they are not causing any trouble ie employing illegal imigrants or activel dealing drugs. I know of one place in Manchester where a serving police officer actually attended the planning appeal and spoke out in favour of it.
There will always be girls who don't want to work the regular hours that working from a parlour means, and so would rather to work for themselves on the street, there is very little that can actually be done about this. Although having said that there is an area in Bolton that is a tolerence area for working girls and whilst the police do patrol the area they don't arrest girls for working, and there is help for the girls if they need or want it.
IMO the reason that the government want this indrustry legalised and licensed is due to the fact that they are missing out on a large amount of tax revenue due to it. Any working girl can set up as being self employed and pay taxes on their work (the taxman doesn't care what you do so long as you pay your taxes!) but the majority don't do so, and Mr Blair is well aware of this fact. To be honest, any talk from the government about liscencing etc to proptect the street girls is a load of rubbish........they know what the girls at the top end of the market are earning and simply want a piece of it......... :twisted:

20 Dec 2006

Quote by Drewxcore
Yes because licensed brothels would have certain standards they would want to stick to, as a result they would turn some women away.

and those ones will go and work the streets....back to square one!

20 Dec 2006

Quote by Mr-Powers
Yes because licensed brothels would have certain standards they would want to stick to, as a result they would turn some women away.

and those ones will go and work the streets....back to square one!
Now would men visit the street when there are 'safe' brothels

20 Dec 2006

Quote by
Yes because licensed brothels would have certain standards they would want to stick to, as a result they would turn some women away.

and those ones will go and work the streets....back to square one!
Now would men visit the street when there are 'safe' brothels
Safe brothels, safe for who?..the girls or the punters?....street walkers will also be cheaper!!

20 Dec 2006

Quote by Mr-Powers
Yes because licensed brothels would have certain standards they would want to stick to, as a result they would turn some women away.

and those ones will go and work the streets....back to square one!
Now would men visit the street when there are 'safe' brothels
Safe brothels, safe for who?..the girls or the punters?....street walkers will also be cheaper!!
But would it take away the criminal elimante

20 Dec 2006

Quote by felixx1416
Yes because licensed brothels would have certain standards they would want to stick to, as a result they would turn some women away.

and those ones will go and work the streets....back to square one!
Now would men visit the street when there are 'safe' brothels
Safe brothels, safe for who?..the girls or the punters?....street walkers will also be cheaper!!
But would it take away the criminal elimante
it will never take away the criminal elimante.

21 Dec 2006

Quote by Mr-Powers
Yes because licensed brothels would have certain standards they would want to stick to, as a result they would turn some women away.

and those ones will go and work the streets....back to square one!
how is it that you have a talent for writing what I want to say in one sentence whilst I ramble on for ages and never quite make the point.
I hereby announce that Mr Powers is my official spokesperson!........ lol

21 Dec 2006

Quote by Mr-Powers
Yes because licensed brothels would have certain standards they would want to stick to, as a result they would turn some women away.

and those ones will go and work the streets....back to square one!
Now would men visit the street when there are 'safe' brothels
Safe brothels, safe for who?..the girls or the punters?....street walkers will also be cheaper!!
I agree, street walker have no overheads, and the word 'safe'. I suggest it will be a matter of individual interpretation. 'Safe' from disease, safer perhaps. 'Safe' from identification, no. In depends on how you wish to be safe.

21 Dec 2006

Quote by poshkate
Yes because licensed brothels would have certain standards they would want to stick to, as a result they would turn some women away.

and those ones will go and work the streets....back to square one!
how is it that you have a talent for writing what I want to say in one sentence whilst I ramble on for ages and never quite make the point.
I hereby announce that Mr Powers is my official spokesperson!........ lol

so what will be my perks of the job? :rascal:

Are you sure?