The EU debate - Part III

The Criminal Law amendment act 1885 sounds especially liberal.
Thing is, he then said he isn't saying Victorians were more liberal, so if he isn't saying that, then what is he saying?
This whole thing started because I said British society is more liberal now than it was 200 years ago.
If he is saying Victorians were not more liberal than present day, then he agrees with me, so why is this argument even happening?

 

Because Dull will take more twists and turns than a helter-skelter to deflect the topic away from his original **** up of a statement.

It's a game we've all played with him from time to time. We all know what his game is.

I play when I can be arsed. Otherwise I just let him ramble on, talking bollocks.

 

Which nicely ignores the liberal attitude to drugs, prostitution, immigration.....which makes it your usual wriggle.

However, as you've claimed that as a standard, can you put up a similar list from say the 1950's to the 1980's to see how they compare? Bearing in mind the second list includes the swinging 60's.

 

Someone latched on to just one of a number of elements of Victorian Society that I raised to show that things are not always as clear cut as you were implying.

Even then, they focussed on the legal elements t, and how it related to one individual.

The attitude in wider society to drugs, prostitution border control and homosexuality were quite liberal in those days.

 

There was no liberal attitude to those things at all. It was all happening underground. If you were caught, you were punished severely.

Prostitution was a necessary way of life for many working class women. It was that or starve. That's the reason there were so any prostitutes then. The authorities knew it and turned a blind eye to an extent to mitigate a potentially worse problem from people starving to death on the streets.

As for the 1950's and 60's. They certainly didn't hang any homosexuals to start with.
Prostitution was still legal, as it is today.

 

And still he tries to argue black is white

All driven by his initial google search in his attempt to be a clever ****. How many more pages can he continue to flog this dead horse for?

 

I think the point he might have been trying to make is that it was far more liberal, in terms of tolerance, than many people might have thought.
But my assertion was that the UK is more liberal now than it was then, which is most certainly is, making his point irrelevant.

 

If you stop commenting, it would have finished 3 pages ago. So time for you to keep quiet.

 

If no one replied to anyone ever it would be a thread full of Mail articles and clips from Hull's often questionable sources. Perhaps that's the end goal.

 

That will be on his headstone.

 

Have they cancelled the court case now that Kustard's declared it redundant?

 

I'll lump you together, as the answer is pretty much the same, and you seem to be lumping in one element of the wider point I raised, and trying to use it as an answer to all.

Stumpy, I didn't google before the first reply. You repeatedly claiming that doesn't magically make it true, it just shows your limited mind set.

The quotes and pictures I posted in later replies show a liberal attitude existed, so the claim that "There was no liberal attitude to those things at all" is dead before the rest of the reply carries on. I'll grant you that poverty and inequality played a huge part in the situation though.

As for more or less liberal then, it's a moot argument, as it depends on which area of life and society you're focussing on, but the attitude to the borders was more liberal, and the attitude to drugs was. The Court files seem to show more arrests in the 1950's and the 1960's than there were in the 1850's and 1860's for homosexuality or prostitution. Nicking a loaf of bread was probably a far worse crime.

I'd argue that in general terms, there was generally a more liberal attitude to free speech back then too. These days, the thought police try to find reasons to be offended about so many things, they've become caricatures. They're akin to the God botherers of the Victorian Temperance Movement, that some seem to be getting their quotes from.



As an aside, and no doubt this will be seen as a diversion. It's interesting that homosexuality is seen as a natural state for some, and I wouldn't argue with that, but it begs the questions of when and why in human history it became seen as unnatural. I don't know the answer, but would guess that it stems from early religions and a need to keep procreation as high as possible to keep the power of numbers...I could be very wrong on that though.

 

Fixed.

 

Probably because it is.

 

This is one for @The Zlatan

You two could have an "interesting" debate about it

Kustard will watch and drool

 

One of our regulars may go missing for a while

Man arrested over threats to Brexit case's Gina Miller

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38237517

 

I found this conversation about driverless cars between you two fascinating. It's good to read two well informed opposing views on an emerging technology that could be about to revolutionise our lives - or that could turn out to be the transport version of CB Radio. Time will tell which, if either, of your predictions comes closest to reality. Maybe you'll both be right, or both be wrong, but I have followed your discussion with interest, and for the most part you have both kept the argument civilised (not something you could say for most of this thread).

 

No they didn't at all, the pictures were a complete red herring and denote nothing in relation to the mindset of that era, which was largely prudish, uptight, patriarchal, somber, and class-dominated

“On November 13th, 1895, I was brought down here from London. From two o’clock till half-past two on that day I had to stand on the centre platform of Clapham Junction in convict dress, and handcuffed, for the world to look at. I had been taken out of the hospital ward without a moment’s notice being given to me. When people saw me they laughed. Each train as it came up swelled the audience. Nothing could exceed their amusement. That was, of course, before they knew who I was. As soon as they had been informed, they laughed still more. For half an hour I stood there in the grey November rain surrounded by a jeering mob.
For a year after that was done to me I wept every day at the same hour and for the same space of time." — Oscar Wilde

 

Aye, we've mentioned that individual cause celebre.

 

Its the relentless crap thats not needed.