Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
starman

Lords Report 3 Nov

15 posts in this topic

Some Lords objected to the request for leave to withdraw the amendment, so it was not granted.

The Chairman decided on a show of voices that Amendment 20 was disagreed.

Consideration on Report adjourned.

House adjourned at 10.59 pm.

the amendment in question was:

20: Clause 14, page 17, leave out lines 33 and 34 and insert—

“© A is aware, or ought to be aware, that C has engaged in exploitative conduct of that kind”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting the debate on Strict Liability

Have to say the archbishop of York was profoundly idiotic in his arguments. He kept saying a man ought to know a woman is forced. He said a man shouldn't assume all women are happy and that a man should ask......as if she was likely to turn round and say "Oh no I'm being forced", What a pillock.

He them rambles on about car boot sales and buying stolen goods.....er, hello!!! there is no strict liability on handling stolen goods. If you didn't know and bought them in good faith then you're in the clear.

"If I bought an electrical good that short-circuited and ended up injuring someone, I could not say, "I was not aware, I was not so sure that the goods were not of the right quality"."

(sigh) Yes - you could actually. It would generally be the manufacturer who was responsible and in any case it's very easy to get an electrician to check a device and be 100% certain of its safety.

Typical clergy. Speaking with authority on things they know f-all about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I am not wrong, Jack Straw was looking to legalise Brothels when he was home secretary, unfortunaely that Jacky Smith or whatever her name is went totally the opposite route, to the detriment of the women involved in the industry!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I am not wrong, Jack Straw was looking to legalise Brothels when he was home secretary, unfortunaely that Jacky Smith or whatever her name is went totally the opposite route, to the detriment of the women involved in the industry!

It was David Blunkett actually, but you are right that there has been a 180 degree change of approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I am not wrong, Jack Straw was looking to legalise Brothels when he was home secretary, unfortunaely that Jacky Smith or whatever her name is went totally the opposite route, to the detriment of the women involved in the industry!

David Blunkett.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Full marks to Chris Davies. Nice to see some politicians have the courage to stand against the tidalwave of propaganda, disimformation &, Government sponsored, lobbying.

Good bloke Chris. I knew him at uni. He was always a politico then and a Liberal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bodes quite well for the law either never being used or being killed off by case law. They might have won the battle but they'll lose the war. They can pass any law they like, but if it goes against legal principles it won't be applied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0