sparkstar

Female Escort Living With A Man Who Pays The Bills

35 posts in this topic

If for example, i rent an apartment where both myself and the escort lady live, and she works from there as well ie provide incalls for clients.

At what point does it become illegal? From what ive read so far, its illegal if i control her (ie pimping) or take money from her... that part seems like a grey area.

So what if i want her to help pay the bills/rent? If she gives me money or i ask for a sum of money to live at my place, would that be considered illegal?

Though if she wanted to provid me with some "favours" i wouldnt mind paying all the bills myself so she dont have any bills to pay :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets say her share is £800. £400 rent, £350 food and bills. So she provideds 750/150 = 5 shags a month. Don't see how they could nab you for that. No money changes hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If for example, i rent an apartment where both myself and the escort lady live, and she works from there as well ie provide incalls for clients.

At what point does it become illegal? From what ive read so far, its illegal if i control her (ie pimping) or take money from her... that part seems like a grey area.

So what if i want her to help pay the bills/rent? If she gives me money or i ask for a sum of money to live at my place, would that be considered illegal?

Though if she wanted to provid me with some "favours" i wouldnt mind paying all the bills myself so she dont have any bills to pay :D

Surely whilst paying the bills she is merely paying her own way through life as we all have to do - escort or not.

She isn't allieviaitng your fnancial position whatsoever by paying for the electricity, rates gas telephone etc that she uses. If she wasnt there your bills would be less.

If there is a problem with a working lady paying her way through life them Im sure we'd all be happy for the government or some liberal group to dontate some nice "clean" cash to pay for the huge profits of the power companies.

Without a pimp or any control whatsoever, the only people who profit from a working girls earnings after she has fed clothed and cared for her family, are the very society that sneers at her, in the form of spending taxation and redistribution of wealth. Christ we should be lauded not sneered at!.

They can't have their cake and eat it !

What a missed opportunity by the "we know whats good for you" brigade! The "new" laws need scrapping and the present persecutive laws need replacing with real grass root protection laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If for example, i rent an apartment where both myself and the escort lady live, and she works from there as well ie provide incalls for clients.

At what point does it become illegal? From what ive read so far, its illegal if i control her (ie pimping) or take money from her... that part seems like a grey area.

So what if i want her to help pay the bills/rent? If she gives me money or i ask for a sum of money to live at my place, would that be considered illegal?

Though if she wanted to provid me with some "favours" i wouldnt mind paying all the bills myself so she dont have any bills to pay :D

Section 36 Sexual Offences Act 1956 (Tenant permitting premises to be used for prostitution).

"It is an offence for the tenant or occupier of any premises knowingly to permit the whole or part of the premises to be used for the purposes of habitual prostitution."

From what you say there would be no element of "control" so this wouldn't come within section 53 SOA 2003 (controlling prostitution for gain).

Not that it's relevant here, but the word "gain" is given a wide meaning and includes "the provision of....services (including sexual services) gratuitously or at a discount" (s.54 SOA 2003).

The old offence of a man living on the earnings of prostitution (s.30 SOA 1956) was repealed by the 2003 Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering how often this situation arises - girls?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering how often this situation arises - girls?

Probably never.

I asked because ive been seeing this WG who we get on great together, we've been clubbing, wining and dining together and on holiday together. I live near Birmingham and my work department is based in the city. Shes said she really likes it here (i thought OMG! wtf? its a crap hole here) and fancies a change of scenery and also she works in the same town as her parents lives so shes been thinking about moving to London as she'd get more clients there.

So ive been thinking up some potential ideas i can suggest to her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering how often this situation arises - girls?

I think it really depends if the police want to get you or not. They might not set out looking for this sort of situation but I wouldnt mind betting if the police tripped accross the sitation they would look into it as its the sort of thing I would imagine some might plead guilty to on the offer of a caution for a quick done and dusted rather than risk the embarresment of court.

I stand to be corrected but I recall seeing a man being prosecuted a few years back as he had facilitated a girl (independent) in getting a flat. He was a small, one man band type estate agent and had provided the girl a reference for one of the flats he had listed or something like that.

Its also well docomented the police leaning on landlords (although not so common to prosecute) in order to move girls on often quoting this law as reason to assist although (again I stand to be corrected) from memmory the penalty is only a maximum 5k fine. I know for a fact in Surrey had a big push threatening action if landlords were to allow their properties to be used for the purpose of prostitution although that was several years ago now and might have been following the introduction of the legislation (I dont think the legislation is that old?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it really depends if the police want to get you or not. They might not set out looking for this sort of situation but I wouldnt mind betting if the police tripped accross the sitation they would look into it as its the sort of thing I would imagine some might plead guilty to on the offer of a caution for a quick done and dusted rather than risk the embarresment of court.

I stand to be corrected but I recall seeing a man being prosecuted a few years back as he had facilitated a girl (independent) in getting a flat. He was a small, one man band type estate agent and had provided the girl a reference for one of the flats he had listed or something like that.

Its also well docomented the police leaning on landlords (although not so common to prosecute) in order to move girls on often quoting this law as reason to assist although (again I stand to be corrected) from memmory the penalty is only a maximum 5k fine. I know for a fact in Surrey had a big push threatening action if landlords were to allow their properties to be used for the purpose of prostitution although that was several years ago now and might have been following the introduction of the legislation (I dont think the legislation is that old?)

It's an offence that's rarely prosecuted. As you say it's more often used to move a girl on by putting the frighteners on her landlord.

All of the property related prostitution offences are contained in the 1956 Act so they're not new offences. They're all imprisonable as well.

The agent would have been prosecuted under section 2 Fraud Act 2006 ( Fraud by false representation). The maximum penalty is 10 years in Crown Court. A very risky thing to do just to earn some commission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All of the property related prostitution offences are contained in the 1956 Act so they're not new offences. They're all imprisonable as well.

They say you learn something new everyday and so far Im right on track, lol. It must have been 6 or 7 years ago now but Im sure the Surrey Ad ran a piece about landlords being prosecuted and fined 5k if they knowingly allowed a property to be used for the purpose of prostitution. It was around the time that a place was done for trafficking women and running them from a flat above a pizza place or it could have been a beauty parlour. There was little doubt that it was run to frighten any would be landlords but I confess I had no idea it was a prisonable offence although that doesnt suprise me with what I know now, it seems most imo light offences carry potential sentences yet shoplifters or burglers not only often get away with thier crimes but inevitably usually just get a slap on the wrist to go with it.

Personally I would rather see a shoplifter banged up or a common thief than someone who let someone use thier flat for a bit of nookie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Section 33, keeping a brothel;

Section 33A, keeping a brothel used for prostitution;

Section 34, a landlord letting premises for use as a brothel;

Section 35, a tenant permitting premises to be used as a brothel.

Section 36, a tenant permitting premises to be used for prostitution.

Sections 33 to 36 are summary only offences and, for an offence committed after a previous conviction, carry a maximum sentence on conviction of 6 months imprisonment, a fine not exceeding level 4 (£2,500), or both. Without a previous conviction, sentence is 3 months imprisonment, a fine not exceeding level 3 (£1,000), or both. They are all lifestyle offences within the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Schedule 2.

Section 33A is an either way offence and has a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment on indictment and for summary conviction it is 6 months imprisonment, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum ((£5,000), or both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would think I would know the answer to this but Im confused. Whats the difference between keeping a brothel and keeping a brothel used for prostitution? Surely they are the same thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would think I would know the answer to this but Im confused. Whats the difference between keeping a brothel and keeping a brothel used for prostitution? Surely they are the same thing?

Oh, no!

Here are your dear friends in CPS' (sorry I had to get that in!) description:

The difference between offences under sections 33 and 33A arises because the definition of a brothel in English law does not require that the premises are used for the purposes of prostitution since a brothel exists wherever more than one woman offers sexual intercourse, whether for payment or not. Section 33A is also capable of covering premises where people go for non-commercial sexual encounters, such as certain saunas and adult clubs. Section 33A was introduced to increase the maximum penalty for the exploitation of prostitution in circumstances where the element of control required for section 53 is difficult to prove in circumstances where the owner of a brothel puts himself at a distance from the actual running of the establishment.

A brothel is defined as "a place where people of opposite sexes (but see paragraph below) are allowed to resort for illicit intercourse, whether the women are common prostitutes or not". It is not essential to show that the premises are in fact used for the purposes of prostitution (which involves payment for services rendered); a brothel exists where women offer sexual intercourse without charging. (Winter v Woolfe [1931] KB 549).

It is this utterly daft common law definition of a brothel dating from 1931, which requires ladies to work alone at the mercy of violent robbers and perverts, if they wish to be legal (and, of course, seems to require them to be freeholders too)!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Section 35, a tenant permitting premises to be used as a brothel.

Section 36, a tenant permitting premises to be used for prostitution.

Steven Tennant decadent aristocrat?

David Tennant Dr WHo?

Tenant Tenant Tenant! Its all tennant. What would the position be should the premises be owned by or mortgaged to the person "allowing" this henious occurance or indeed an "owner operator" working from the premises who has a partner/Husband/ who also lives there but has his own income.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would the position be should the premises be owned by or mortgaged to the person "allowing" this henious occurance or indeed an "owner operator" working from the premises who has a partner/Husband/ who also lives there but has his own income.

If the partner or husband owns the freehold of the property then he won't be a tenant - so no offence. I don't think that for the purposes of this section a freehold owner would be deemed to be an "occupier" either. It seems to me that the term "occupier" is intended to cover lodgers, licensees etc.

If the partner/husband rents the premises then he will be a tenant. He could rent a house, or it could be a flat. It could be rented on a short-term tenancy or on a 999 year lease at a nominal rent. Either way he is a tenant in which case section 36 may apply.

If an escort is renting a flat and working there then she's a tenant. However, she's using it herself so she's not permitting the premises to be used for habitual prostitution. So no offence.

The sections are not very well drafted (by modern standards) and in most respects follow the wording of section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885. I've no doubt that if they were redrafted today then much of the ambiguity/uncertainty would be removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the partner or husband owns the freehold of the property then he won't be a tenant - so no offence. I don't think that for the purposes of this section a freehold owner would be deemed to be an "occupier" either. It seems to me that the term "occupier" is intended to cover lodgers, licensees etc.

If the partner/husband rents the premises then he will be a tenant. He could rent a house, or it could be a flat. It could be rented on a short-term tenancy or on a 999 year lease at a nominal rent. Either way he is a tenant in which case section 36 may apply.

If an escort is renting a flat and working there then she's a tenant. However, she's using it herself so she's not permitting the premises to be used for habitual prostitution. So no offence.

The Sections are not very well drafted by modern standards and in most respects follow the wording of section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885. I've no doubt that if they were redrafted today then much of the ambiguity/uncertainty would be removed.

With respect I must disagree with your suggestion in the last paragraph that the modern standards of drafting are particularly good. The poor standards of drafting much of the legislation over the last ten or fifteen years has been responsible for bringing the law into disrepute. Take for example (and I could quote more) such an important act as the Criminal Justice Act 2003 - The Commons Home Affairs Select Committee said of it: "It is a classic illustration of the truth of the maxim 'legislate in haste and repent at leisure'"

Edited by Moonraker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect I must disagree with your suggestion in the last paragraph that the modern standards of drafting are particularly good. The poor standards of drafting much of the legislation over the last ten or fifteen years has been responsible for bringing the law into disrepute. Take for example (and I could quote more) such an important act as the Criminal Justice Act 2003 - The Commons Home Affairs Select Committee said of it: "It is a classic illustration of the truth of the maxim 'legislate in haste and repent at leisure'"

I've never said that modern standards of drafting are particulary good. What I did say is that by modern standards the provisions of the SOA1956 are not very well drafted, and I stand by that view.

There's been a huge amount of new legislation in the last 10 to 15 years. On the whole most of it is reasonably well drafted, especially if you compare it with the standards of the 1950's. It's always going to be possible to find examples of poor drafting, even in modern statutes and statutory instruments. I've no doubt that you could find lots more examples of poor drafting in addition to Schedule 21 of the CJA 2003, referred to in the Select Committee Report.

For example, the new section 53A offence (introduced by the PCA 2009) is in my view poorly drafted in a couple of areas. It doesn't read correctly to me in a couple of places. That's a drafting problem. However, the major complaint regarding section 53A is based on the strict liabilty element in section 53A(2)b. That's not down to the draftsman, that's the fault of parliament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between offences under sections 33 and 33A arises because the definition of a brothel in English law does not require that the premises are used for the purposes of prostitution since a brothel exists wherever more than one woman offers sexual intercourse, whether for payment or not.

It is this utterly daft common law definition of a brothel dating from 1931, which requires ladies to work alone at the mercy of violent robbers and perverts, if they wish to be legal (and, of course, seems to require them to be freeholders too)!

I suppose if you take the brothel definition to the logical conclusion, most student accomodation where girls are sharing is classed as a brothel, as would be a good many family homes where there is a teenage daughter still at home. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, does any of the more law savy folk on the forum know, what laws this hypothetical situation would be breaking. If the man paying the bills, was only renting the place, would he fall foul of section 36 of the sexual offences act 1956 whereby "It is an offence for the tenant or occupier of any premises knowingly to permit the whole or part of the premises to be used for the purposes of habitual prostitution".

What if the female escort also had her name on the tenancy agreement, would that make things legal?

Also would the man fall foul of section 30 of the sexual offences act 1956 whereby "For the purposes of this section a man who lives with or is habitually in the company of a prostitute, or who exercises control, direction or influence over a prostitute’s movements in a way which shows he is aiding, abetting or compelling her prostitution with others, shall be presumed to be knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution, unless he proves the contrary".

I can assume that the answer to all of this would be yes but I was wondering if any of you legal eagles out there could confirm?

Surely all of this would make it illegal for any boyfriend/husband of an escort to allow their partner to work out of their own home without being seen to be her pimp in the eyes of the law???

many thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, does any of the more law savy folk on the forum know, what laws this hypothetical situation would be breaking. If the man paying the bills, was only renting the place, would he fall foul of section 36 of the sexual offences act 1956 whereby "It is an offence for the tenant or occupier of any premises knowingly to permit the whole or part of the premises to be used for the purposes of habitual prostitution".

Yes.

What if the female escort also had her name on the tenancy agreement, would that make things legal?

Still illegal for him. Not for her though.

Also would the man fall foul of section 30 of the sexual offences act 1956 whereby "For the purposes of this section a man who lives with or is habitually in the company of a prostitute, or who exercises control, direction or influence over a prostitute’s movements in a way which shows he is aiding, abetting or compelling her prostitution with others, shall be presumed to be knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution, unless he proves the contrary".

Section 30 was repealed by the SOA 2003.

I can assume that the answer to all of this would be yes but I was wondering if any of you legal eagles out there could confirm?

Surely all of this would make it illegal for any boyfriend/husband of an escort to allow their partner to work out of their own home without being seen to be her pimp in the eyes of the law???

Only if he is a tenant. So if they own the freehold there's no offence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Silverado. Christ! doesn't this show how stupid the current legislation is so basically the law is saying that all escorts have to live by themselves or be able to afford a freehold property (in the current economic climate) or work out our of a parlour/have a pimp/madame, otherwise their partner could go to jail. so dumb!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here is what happened in my own experience without going into too many specifics. I tried the above scenario. Even though we were very discreet, apparently someone made a complaint to the police. Police paid a few visits eventually found out the truth. The police report said we were not breaking any laws but they had to tell the landlord. Landlord served eviction notice for breach of tennancy agreement. Had to find new place to live. Moral of the story is that we werent breaking any laws but we broke the tenancy agreement. My question is how do normal independant girls manage for years without their landlords knowing or are some lucky and they have landlords that don't care as long as the rent is paid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... Police paid a few visits eventually found out the truth. The police report said we were not breaking any laws but they had to tell the landlord. Landlord served eviction notice for breach of tennancy agreement.

Assuming that you are otherwise squeaky clean (MOT up to date, never drive over limit, pay all taxes with a smile, never go over 29 m.p.h. etc) I'd challenge the Police over, "... but they had to tell the landlord" - did they so?

My question is how do normal independant girls manage for years without their landlords knowing or are some lucky and they have landlords that don't care as long as the rent is paid?

Good question! In Edinburgh and Glasgow I've often been surprised how often the Landlord is the Council! Probably the neighbours almost all of whom are claiming this benefit or that, won't complain, because they do not want to risk being questioned over their own fiddles!

I (dimly) remember a case where a Landlord claimed in his defence that the rent that he charged the lady was not increased in any way by her trade, which, while it was accepted, benefitted him not!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I (dimly) remember a case where a Landlord claimed in his defence that the rent that he charged the lady was not increased in any way by her trade, which, while it was accepted, benefitted him not!

Would the 'knowingly' give a lot of space to turn a blind eye if the landlord was ambivalent, not bothered but motivated to avoid prosecution.

Would a landlord enquiring too closely into the 'private life' of the tenant breach the Human rights act.

Edited by WykeTyke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As mentioned above, the possible offences in E&W are:

Section 33, keeping a brothel;

Section 33A, keeping a brothel used for prostitution;

Section 34, a landlord letting premises for use as a brothel;

Section 35, a tenant permitting premises to be used as a brothel.

Section 36, a tenant permitting premises to be used for prostitution.

A landlord only commits an offence if the premises are used as a brothel. Letting to a single WG is not a criminal offence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

unfortunately my landlord was outraged and didn't care that the police report clearly stated that we broke no laws. I spoke to the police officer and they didnt even mention section 36. The report did define a brothel as a place where two or more girls are working (whether on the same day or not) or where one girl and one maid worked. Police were more concerned by brothel keeping which we were clearly not guilty of but they ended up causing us to be evicted anyways:(

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