rubens

Theresa May home secretary

44 posts in this topic

Good, bad, or doesn't matter much any more ??

I think Ken Clarke would have been better, but his name is less likely to be confused with that of a working girl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theresa May was originally quite vocal in her opposition to the prostitution clauses of the PolicCriminal Justice and Immigration Bill (2009); where the strict liability criminalisation of all payment for sexuall services was originally proposed.

Her stance seemed to have become a bit more ambivalent when the current Policing and Crime Bill was being (rather inadequately) debated.

Very much a case of waiting to see if she does a Harman, now she's Home Secretary, or makes a start on revoking some of the last lot's more draconian/gesture, legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good, bad, or doesn't matter much any more ??

I think Ken Clarke would have been better, but his name is less likely to be confused with that of a working girl.

For what it's worth, I knew Theresa May before she became an MP and she was a bit of a fox - gorgeous legs! I would still classify her as a MILF. (This probably isn't much of a contribution to a serious question about politics, is it?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Theresa May was originally quite vocal in her opposition to the prostitution clauses of the PolicCriminal Justice and Immigration Bill (2009); where the strict liability criminalisation of all payment for sexuall services was originally proposed.

Her stance seemed to have become a bit more ambivalent when the current Policing and Crime Bill was being (rather inadequately) debated.

Very much a case of waiting to see if she does a Harman, now she's Home Secretary, or makes a start on revoking some of the last lot's more draconian/gesture, legislation.

I can't see TM being in a rush to repeal or amend the new section 53A offence. By doing that she's leaving herself open to accusations (not least from HH) that she supports the exploitation of forced and coerced prostitutes.

I think that the offence will remain on the statute book for the forseeable future albeit that it'll pushed to the back of the cupboard and only used in court in exceptional circumstances.

In any event it was never going to be a major piece of legislation or solve any problems.

It may be watered down or replaced in the next major review of prostitution but I can't see that happening for some time. Reviewing the law on prostitution is akin to stirring up a hornet's nest - nothing good will come of it. I reckon that's why Tony Blair never implemented the more sensible proposals in the " Paying the Price" consultation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I communicated with Theresa May some time back. Credits in her favour were that one, she actually replied unlike anybody from the labour party and two, she was actually extremely thankful for some of the information I gave her.

So from my experience of her back then, I would give her the thumbs up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For what it's worth, I knew Theresa May before she became an MP and she was a bit of a fox - gorgeous legs! I would still classify her as a MILF. (This probably isn't much of a contribution to a serious question about politics, is it?)

No - but I like the thought!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they actually do that, I will consider an important part of a liberal agenda to have been won.

I hope they start by slapping police,CPS & the court over the Chambers case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys?

Would you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Power is such an aphrodisiac!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guys?

Would you?

Definitely, I've always had a thing for Theresa May. (A bit embarrassing for a Tory-hater to admit, but there you go.) She can come and play 'secretary' in my home anytime! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guys?

Would you?

No way!!! Yuk!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I communicated with Theresa May some time back. Credits in her favour were that one, she actually replied unlike anybody from the labour party and two, she was actually extremely thankful for some of the information I gave her.

So from my experience of her back then, I would give her the thumbs up.

Likewise--- I wrote to all the MPs on the Scrutiny Committee for the Policing & Crime Bill. She was one of only two to reply - noting positively but rather non-commitally that she 'Shared some of my concerns'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government and roll back state intrusion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8677933.stm

And, as has been said many times, strict liability has previously been applied exclusively (or almost exclusively) to offences where there is clear empirical evidence not to situations, as here, where the 'criminal' probably has no idea of whether he is committing an offenceo r not since i does not and cannot fully know the girl's background.

At the very least we should seek to argue that the offence should apply only where (a) the punter should have known the girl was forced or (:D has acted with obvious recklessness. Needless to say, if the punter does know that the girl is forced etc, it is rape and should be pusued as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government and roll back state intrusion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8677933.stm

I communicated with Theresa May some time back. Credits in her favour were that one, she actually replied unlike anybody from the labour party and two, she was actually extremely thankful for some of the information I gave her.

With the Liberal democrats generally having been most apposed of all the main political parties to the prostitution clauses in the policing and crime bill now being in the coalition government and trying to find common ground with the conservatives on as many issues as possible, and with the Claire Finch acquittal our new home secretary could prove she's in touch with how people feel now (jury being drawn from ordinary people) and not how legislators felt in 1956!!!

Also when I read the thread about the couple who transported women in a cage it makes me so cross and feel that scum like that should rot in jail for ever, but then see how Claire and SashaB are treated it came home to me what an opportunity the new home secretary has got to separate once and for all the good side of the industry (indies, parlours etc. all made legal, within certain guidelines like any industry) from the bad (forced trafficked abused under age etc.).

After all a factory in the Northwest (nothing to do with the sex industry) was shown on national BBC news a couple of years ago being raided for using illegal workers and paying them well below the minimum wage, quite rightly the owners/traffickers were prosecuted and sent to jail but no one suggested closing factories owned by Rolls Royce or B.A.E. systems in case they had similar workers (which clearly they don't!).

So let's hope she still has the information Pia sent her and she might do some good. (Maybe)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't see TM being in a rush to repeal or amend the new section 53A offence. By doing that she's leaving herself open to accusations (not least from HH) that she supports the exploitation of forced and coerced prostitutes.

I think that the offence will remain on the statute book for the forseeable future albeit that it'll pushed to the back of the cupboard and only used in court in exceptional circumstances.

In any event it was never going to be a major piece of legislation or solve any problems.

It may be watered down or replaced in the next major review of prostitution but I can't see that happening for some time. Reviewing the law on prostitution is akin to stirring up a hornet's nest - nothing good will come of it. I reckon that's why Tony Blair never implemented the more sensible proposals in the " Paying the Price" consultation.

you make some interesting points, except it still leaves us at the mercy of the police whims expect more raids around anytime that figures show that they cant catch any real criminals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For what it's worth, I knew Theresa May before she became an MP and she was a bit of a fox - gorgeous legs! I would still classify her as a MILF. (This probably isn't much of a contribution to a serious question about politics, is it?)

I'm not surprised, I've always suspected that with the right encouragement she goes like a bunny on heat! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guys?

Would you?

No, she's a Tory so against my principles.

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wuldnt mind the little midget one in the labour party

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

totally off topic

but Shami Chakrabarti is cute...........:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
totally off topic

but Shami Chakrabarti is cute...........:P

Personally I prefer (the unrelated) Reeta.

i wuldnt mind the little midget one in the labour party

You're a braver man than me daymod! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davmod, she would suck you in and blow you out like bubbles

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