Options
"...with prostitutes..."
![[Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/86e4f6c75d1774ee457a88d6d914b41f.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 12,830 Forum Member
✭✭
They say this guy, that lord, he was being investigated on allegations of "taking drugs with prostitutes", but wot have the prostitutes to do with it ? Surely, the crime is, the indictment would be for "taking drugs", with or without prostitutes. The prostitutes should be irrelevant.
0
Comments
Yes, exactly. Even if he thought it was coke, it might well not have been but he didn't know (bicarb of soda? chalk dust??) so he could admit to a crime he hasn't actually committed - in theory!
Needs locking up for his own safety for being so naive that he though he'd never be subject to a sting!
A lot of people think paying for prostitutes is sad and immoral, especially when you're married.
Most of the lords and MP's will be regular users of cocaine, and probably prostitutes too.
'Politician uses cocaine' is not news.
Quite.
Such an undue amount of attention is being given to this story (it is literally the main story on everywhere from the BBC to Mail Online) it makes me wonder what they are trying to stop us from paying attention to.
Not if you are a tabloid news editor. "Drugs" and "prostitutes" in the same story make for a better headline.
Soliciting prostitutes is illegal too.
Yet prostitution is not, so again I don't see what that's got to do with it.
Neither is picking your nose the day after a cocaine binge. The point is, snorting coke and soliciting prostitutes are both crimes committed my Lord Sewel, which is why the newspapers reported it. Is this difficult to understand?
Well yes considering paying for sex isn't illegal. Touting in a public place is, organised (brothel) prostitution is, and curb crawling is. Though he'd done none of that had he? It's like saying he was caught doing blow with bob from KFC. It's irrelevant.
They weren't his roommates.
1-if any if my friends had been him and he was caught with me doing drugs, it would be the same story.
2- if he contacted them via a private site for sex he's still not breaking the law. The laws there to protect the public in public spaces, private hire isn't illegal.
If he was having Christmas dinner with his wife and children it wouldn't be the same story either. Obviously nobody can prove that he solicited these prostitutes, and he could say they were friends of his who, like him, enjoyed snorting talcum powder of an evening. This is the reason he hasn't been arrested, but Occam's Razor would suggest he paid to have sex with them whilst high on cocaine.
Please read my post again.
You mean the part where you said, "if any if my friends had been him and he was caught with me doing drugs, it would be the same story"? To be honest I found it a little confusing. Perhaps you could re-phrase it?
if any of my friends had been him and he was caught with me doing drugs, it would be the same story.
Sorry my phone hates the word of for some reason. The point is you said "they weren't his room mates". Well I've a lot of friends I hang out with not for work, had they been him and been doing drugs whilst with me it would still say "with a prostitute". Why list that job? As I said it's like saying "with KFC workers". But that wouldn't sell the story as much would it.
Are you saying that you are a prostitute?
[Edit] I think what you are trying to say is that they (the prostitutes) might have been his friends, and not there in their capacity as prostitutes. If that is what you're saying I think you're being more than a little naïve.
Well done, you're now up to speed. Also I've no issue stating this as unlike a lot of people who struggle to find "gainful employment" I'm doing what I can not to be on benefits.
I can't wait to see your evidence for this claim.
No it wouldn't have the same impact and for good reason.