Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

McTaggart up to her nasty tricks again...

2 posts in this topic

Since the 'watering down' of the P4P legislation a few weeks ago, when the Government announced it was changing the wording of the offence from "controlled for gain" to "subjected to force, deception or threats", things have been pretty quiet and I assumed the law, if it were passed, would now pretty much just go ahead as it stands.

However, with Jacqui Smith on her bike, nasty little gnome-faced witch Fiona McTaggart has seen her chance and been meddling with the legislation again. Worse still, the Government has accepted a clarifying(!) amendment proposed by her. Wait until you get a load of this:

Her explanatory clause reads: "For the purposes of this section 'force' includes coercion by threats or other psychological means including exploitation of vulnerability."

During a House of Commons debate on the revised wording, Miss Mactaggart mentioned a meeting she had with Tim Brain, the Association of Chief Police Officers' lead on prostitution and sex crimes. Having initially said that the new offence would be too complex to effectively police, he now feels, according to Miss Mactaggart, that "the offence is enforceable, even in its initial wording".

And all the proof we have of this dramatic u-turn by Tim Brain is McTaggart's word after a clandestine meeting in which only herself and Brain were presumably present? She has proven time and time again that she just can`t be trusted over this issue and will use every underhanded trick in the book to realise her twisted vision, complete lies included.

But back to the wording. Seriously, how is this supposed to 'clarify' anything?:)

How could you possibly prove 'other psychological means' in a court of law? How would you define 'exploitation of vulnerability'? It could be argued that everyone is vulnerable in some way or other, and many have undoubtedly been left vulnerable as a result of this NuLabour created recession (oops, sorry, I forgot, it's a 'global problem', isn't it Gordon?). Strikes me that we've almost gone 360 degrees on this one and are once again staring the virtual equivalent of a complete ban on paying for sex in the face.:o

This is very, very bad for us...

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0