n you does know dat how? :)

SpamStopper is hear tings :)

SpamStopper is hear tings :)
Aww, das all rite den, for we have ta start givin spammy some serious licks up da side o he head wid da fryin pan :D

Aww, das all rite den, for we have ta start givin spammy some serious licks up da side o he head wid da fryin pan :D

nah we cant take no licks to da head right now ..
maybe another week or so. :hammer:

Most persons who frequent women of ill repute, are not looking for a loving longterm commitment..just a quick fix for a hunger:). So all the sanctimonious BS some of you folks are spouting off in here is just that bs. You folks need to get real. Most women sell front, implicitly and explicitly, and some or rather most men don't have a problem paying just as some women dont have a problem providing the service. With men it is an ego thing..with women it is a means to an end.And I still maintain that the fellows who buy it definitely are lacking some basic sensibilities.

This is the age of sexual freedom for women. If a guy is serious about getting some he can get lots without a long term commitment and without paying anything! Why? Because many women want the SAME thing! Nowadays, women are not afraid to tell a guy that they just want a "burst", and then he can be on his way. BUT they only will do that if they see that the guy has the sense to keep his mouth shut and not pester her like a hapless horn dog.

So get it right...What I'm spouting is not sanctimonious. It's plain common sense. Any dread in this country who has to pay for ***** either has money to waste, is just blatantly irresponsible or something is wrong with him to the degree that a normal woman will not want to sleep with him.

As it is obvious that the derelicts of society are the ones purchasing punany, why in the world would a decent guy who has any sense want to follow those dirty fellas up? The risk of catching something is far greater as a prostitute's punany has been around the block...over and over. Condoms don't fully stop herpes, genital warts and some other really nasty stuff that is waiting to hop onto your johnson or the area around it. Think about it man!

Sanctimonious my left nut sack...Then again, maybe some men just don't understand women and have nothing of worth to offer. That's probably why they aren't getting any, unless they pay for it.

Nevermind...

Prostitution is illegal in the Bahamas.
Indictable Sexual Offences
Prostitution and disclosure of AIDS.
8. (1) Any person who-
(a) knowingly lives wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution; or
(b) in any public place persistently solicits or importunes for immoral purposes,
is guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for five years.
I've seen the section and it's widely known to refer to pimping and pandering, and also criminal proceeds. In draftsmanship certain words are used to achieve a desired effect. If the provision wanted to prohibit prostitution then it could do so, instead what it does is prevents persons from exploiting ladies of the evening. It says 'Any person who knowingly lives wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution' that seems to indicate that the person might be a prostitute, but the reference to the 'earnings' makes it more likely that the policy of this law is to protect prostitutes rather than to prohibit the trade. Also, the legislation in England is analogous. Instead of prohibiting prostitution it prohibits persons from living on the proceeds of prostitution and what is very telling to me is the section dealing with preventing public solicitation because this is exactly what the law does in England, it prohibits women from selling on the street. The name of the case is Shaw v DPP [1962] AC 220 which analyzes the comparative English legislation on this subject. Penal legislation has to be narrowly construed in favour of the accused.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~

I dont see how people could have sex so casually in a time like this for a lil bit of money...that money could probably only buy them half of the medicine they need if they find out they are hiv positive...In he case of couples, sex should be a gift not an item to be paid for...but if ya girl giving you all you need and more it wouldn't hurt to treat her to a day to the spa, get her hair done, SHOW SOME APPRECIATION!

I've seen the section and it's widely known to refer to pimping and pandering, and also criminal proceeds.
In draftsmanship certain words are used to achieve a desired effect. If the provision wanted to prohibit prostitution then it could do so, instead what it does is prevents persons from exploiting ladies of the evening.
Instead of prohibiting prostitution it prohibits persons from living on the proceeds of prostitution and what is very telling to me is the section dealing with preventing public solicitation because this is exactly what the law does in England, it prohibits women from selling on the street. The name of the case is Shaw v DPP [1962] AC 220 which analyzes the comparative English legislation on this subject. Penal legislation has to be narrowly construed in favour of the accused.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~


It says 'Any person who knowingly lives wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution' that seems to indicate that the person might be a prostitute, but the reference to the 'earnings' makes it more likely that the policy of this law is to protect prostitutes rather than to prohibit the trade. Also, the legislation in England is analogous.
I seriously doubt that the Govt of the Bahamas drafted these laws to protect prostitutes rather than prohibit the trade. Clearly this cannot be the intention of the Parliament of the Bahamas.

The intent of the law in this particular Act regarding prostitution in the Bahamas can be interpreted to be, what it does not actually say. I would interpretate this piece of legislation using the "Mischief Rule".

Using this rule, The courts can take into account the reasons why the legislation was passed in the first place.

In Smith v Hughes [1960] 2 All E.R. 859 it was comparatively easy to apply the mischief rule as the circumstances which caused the passing of the Act were well known, in that case it was to prevent harrassment of passing persons by Prostitutes.

Parker, L.C.J., found her guilty and said: ‘I approach the matter by considering what is the mischief aimed at by this Act. Everybody (sic) knows that this was an Act intended to clean up the streets, to enable people to walk along the streets without being molested or solicited by common prostitutes. Viewed in that way, it can matter little whether the prostitute is soliciting while in the street or standing in a doorway or on a balcony". The mischief was to prevent prostitutions from soliciting or molesting.


I used Smith v Huges because I believe that this case can be compared with the way our laws regarding prostitution should be interpreted.

I am quite sure that "Golden Rule" would also surface to take away the absurdity of the wording of this act. In reading this act I would think that in order to live of the earnings of prostitution, one has to first perform the actual act in order to get paid. It would be absurd to think that, the act only speaks about living of the proceeds and will not address how one came to be, with the proceeds in the first place, even though it is not clearly spelt out.

I also believe that Section (b) deals directly with the performance of the act of prostitution. This is where the mischief Rule would be considered. The court will decide, what was the true intention of the act and sort out the mischief in it's drafting.

In Shaw v DPP the House of Lords still convicted, the publishing of the directory left no doubt, as to it's intended use, even though the directory did not clearly indicate it's purpose. Underneath the surface and in the mischief of publication it was clearly for the use of prostitution.

The "mischief rule" was applied and the intention of the act was revealed and applied to the ruling.

^^^^^:dgi:

^^^^^:dgi:

http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/10e08e10d2.jpg (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/)

I wit y on dis. tell em dude.

http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/10e08e10d2.jpg (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/)
:confused:

I fee; ya pain.
What that "LADY" of the night said was jess keeping it real. As you can see, she wasn't even ashamed. Almost made me fell like I'm sitting on ma lottery. (jess joking na)
Bol

Do not be surprise if she walks, she did say she was waiting on a ride.
It is not illegal to wear skimpy clothes and wait on a corner for a ride!!
The Magistrate probably had just read the Brothel story in the papers and was lil miffed!a miscarriage of justice if you ask me!

Come on taff be real!! The woman is hardly a woman of integrity. However she is in your face and frank about her life style. AND In that regard, she is keeping it real. But hardly is she she a woman of integrity. As to the judge not giving her bail, it is because of her frank disrespect for the court and her l purely sarcastic remarks relative to asking relatives to get her clothes appropriate for the courts. No one should disrespect the court and be treated like a king/queen.
Integrity is truth (and we all know the truth is no lie!) All I'm saying is sending ms sweeting to prison was a bit extreme and I would even say an over extended abuse of power...

Ya know what FACTS, as sad as this is I know PROFESSIONAL WOMEN who say the same thing.
Shoot, my own Aunty (Yes I shame) says it on da regular. She expect money for soap to wash her front from her Boopsy. (As if she never bought soap herself) and constantly tells her nieces "If yall let man wear out yall body with getting something for it, das yall business, but my things cost money."
WHAT AN EXAMPLE AYE (Triffling hoe!) Das suppose to be my elder jed! :jawdroop:
what became a sherry?is she back in bizness , genral you and that yard man do a scouting report tonite ad report back to me. lil goruper dis a dangerous mission so i suggest you sit out this one .