The EU debate - Part III

[Bodinki]

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?

 

[NSIS]

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.

 

[DMD]

Victorian 'liberal attitudes' to homosexuality!....



ryEdit

• 1810 – The nineteenth century began with a wave of prosecutions against homosexual men. On 8 July, the Bow Street Runners raided The White Swan, a tumbledown pub of Tudor origin near Drury Lane. Twenty-seven men were arrested on suspicion of sodomy and attempted sodomy.[28]
• 1812 – FTM transgender James Miranda Barry graduated from the Medical School of Edinburgh University as a doctor. Barry went on to serve as an army surgeon working overseas. Barry lived as a man but was found to be female-bodied upon his death in 1865.[29]
• 1828 – The Buggery Act 1533 was repealed and replaced by the Offences against the Person Act 1828. Buggery remained punishable by death.[30]
• 1835 – The last two men to be executed in Britain for buggery, James Pratt and John Smith, were arrested on 29 August in London after being spied upon while having sex in a private room; they were hanged on 27 November.
• 1861 – The death penalty for buggery was abolished. A total of 8921 men had been prosecuted since 1806 for sodomy with 404 sentenced to death and 56 executed.[31]
• 1866 – Marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman (preventing future same-sex marriages). In the case of Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee (a case of polygamy), Lord Penzance's judgment began "Marriage as understood in Christendom is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others."[32]
• 1871 – Ernest 'Stella' Boulton and Frederick 'Fanny' Park, two Victorian transvestites and suspected homosexuals appeared as defendants in the celebrated Boulton and Park trial in London, charged "with conspiring and inciting persons to commit an unnatural offence". The indictment was against Lord Arthur Clinton, Ernest Boulton, Frederic Park, Louis Hurt, John Fiske, Martin Cumming, William Sommerville and C.H. Thompson. The prosecution was unable to prove that they had either committed any homosexual offence nor that men wearing women's clothing was an offence in English law.[33] Lord Arthur Clinton killed himself before his trial.
• 1885 – The British Parliament enacted section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, known as the Labouchere Amendment which prohibited gross indecency between males. It thus became possible to prosecute homosexuals for engaging in sexual acts where buggery or attempted buggery could not be proven.[34][35]
• 1889 – The Cleveland Street scandal occurred, when a homosexual male brothel in Cleveland Street, Fitzrovia, London, was raided by police after they discovered telegraph boys had been working there as rent boys. A number of aristocratic clients were discovered including Lord Arthur Somerset, equerry to the Prince of Wales. The Prince of Wales’s son Prince Albert Victor and Lord Euston were also implicated in the scandal.[36]
• 1895 – Oscar Wilde tried for gross indecency over a relationship with Lord Alfred Douglas, was sentenced to two years in prison with hard labour.[37]
• 1897 – George Cecil Ives organizes the first homosexual rights group in England, the Order of Chaeronea. Dr Helen Boyle and her partner, Mabel Jones, set up the first women-run General Practice in Brighton, including offering free therapy for poor women. Helen Boyle also founded the National Council for Mental Hygiene (which subsequently becomes MIND) in 1922.[29] British sexologist Havelock Ellis publishes Sexual Inversion, the first volume in an intended series called Studies in the Psychology of Sex. He argues that homosexuality is not a disease but a natural anomaly occurring throughout human and animal history, and should be accepted,not treated. The book is banned in England for being obscene; the subsequent volumes in the series are published in the US and not sold in England until 1936.[2

Not!....

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.

 

[DMD]

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?

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.

 

[NSIS]

Which nicely ignores the liberal attitude to drugs, prostitution, immigration.....

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.

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.

 

[Tobes]

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?

 

[Bodinki]

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.

 

[The Prime Minister]

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?

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

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

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.

 

[Stan]

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.

That will be on his headstone.

 

[Stan]

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

 

[DMD]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Stan]

The quotes and pictures I posted in later replies show a French bloke who lived in America.

Fixed.

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

As an aside, and no doubt this will be seen as a diversion.

Probably because it is.

 

[Stan]

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.

This is one for @The Zlatan

You two could have an "interesting" debate about it

Kustard will watch and drool

 

[Stan]

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

 

[Archers Road]

I'm going to make a final post on this and then leave it be.

This was my original post on the subject.
'Automated transport has already been rolled out in Greenwich with the GATEway project and will spread over time. I expect to see autonomous only areas appear in city centres and autonomous only lanes on motorways as the tech evolves'

I am not predicting cars driving autonomously on regular UK roads within the next 5 years. I am predicting that cars capable of autonomous driving will start to appear on roads in about 5 years time.
The major benefits to autonomous driving are safety, efficency and capacity. In the centre of London the average traffic speed is 8mph. The Major of London has committed to pedestrianising much of it starting in 2020. The gateway project is currently proving the safety of autonomous vehicles moving at up to 15mph in pedestrian areas so is the ideal replacement for buses and taxis on these roads. They are effectively upgraded Heathrow personal rapid transit pods set free. I see no reason why the expansion of areas covered by such a system wouldn't spread across central London, gradually replacing vehicles currently using bus lanes and appearing in other cities on a similar fashion.

The drivers for an autonomous motorway lane are capacity (an autonomous lane can carry 3-4 times as many vehicles as a traditional lane), efficiency ( closer proximity leads to a 20% fuel efficency) and safety ( a HGV driver using their mobile phone won't kill anyone) plus the addition savings from staff who can work in a personal space whilst moving and HGV drivers who no longer have to stop as often. This is where I see the initial use of autonomous vehicles at the start of the next decade. By the end of that decade I would not be surprised if the use of autonomous vehicles was more widespread and accepted until we are at the point I originally set out that the personal rapid transport model becomes the preference over car ownership for many.

A "good night" would have done

My boss helped design and implement the Heathrow pods (I'm assuming you're talking about the pods from the car park to terminal 5?) For that reason alone, I won't use them
For the rest of your post, time will tell. I'm happy to be proved wrong and will apologise if that's the case.
In 5 years, if the articles you linked are correct, we should have a very clear idea of where this technology is heading.

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).

 

[Tobes]

The quotes and pictures I posted in later replies show a liberal attitude existed.

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

 

[DMD]

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.

 

[The Prime Minister]

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.

Its the relentless crap thats not needed.