Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
armageddon

A Scenario re underage girl

32 posts in this topic

Oral Olive was working at Acacia Avenue during 2005.

Punter Peter went to see her a few times during that time.

Oral Olive left Acacia Avenue at the end of 2005.

Oral Olive returned to work at Acacia Avenue in 2008 and changed her name to Anal Annie.

Punter Peter was delighted that Oral Olive is back, but he also found out from other WGs that Oral Olive was sacked by the establishment at Acacia Avenue in 2005 because she was underage. The establishment initially had no idea that she was underage.

But at the end of 2008, Oral Olive is no longer underage and the establishment at Acacia Avenue has employed her again but just asked her to change her name to Anal Annie.

Punter Peter is now wondering whether he should go back to see Anal Annie at Acacia Avenue as he did break the law unintentionally back in 2005 for having sex with an underage girl at that establishment.

Sir SaSfan, I am waiting for your view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oral Olive was working at Acacia Avenue during 2005.

Punter Peter went to see her a few times during that time.

Oral Olive left Acacia Avenue at the end of 2005.

Oral Olive returned to work at Acacia Avenue in 2008 and changed her name to Anal Annie.

Punter Peter was delighted that Oral Olive is back, but he also found out from other WGs that Oral Olive was sacked by the establishment at Acacia Avenue in 2005 because she was underage. The establishment initially had no idea that she was underage.

But at the end of 2008, Oral Olive is no longer underage and the establishment at Acacia Avenue has employed her again but just asked her to change her name to Anal Annie.

Punter Peter is now wondering whether he should go back to see Anal Annie at Acacia Avenue as he did break the law unintentionally back in 2005 for having sex with an underage girl at that establishment.

Sir SaSfan, I am waiting for your view.

What was the actual age of Oral Olive when Peter Punter first visited her?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's never that easy, is it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oral Olive was working at Acacia Avenue during 2005.

Punter Peter went to see her a few times during that time.

Oral Olive left Acacia Avenue at the end of 2005.

Oral Olive returned to work at Acacia Avenue in 2008 and changed her name to Anal Annie.

Punter Peter was delighted that Oral Olive is back, but he also found out from other WGs that Oral Olive was sacked by the establishment at Acacia Avenue in 2005 because she was underage. The establishment initially had no idea that she was underage.

But at the end of 2008, Oral Olive is no longer underage and the establishment at Acacia Avenue has employed her again but just asked her to change her name to Anal Annie.

Punter Peter is now wondering whether he should go back to see Anal Annie at Acacia Avenue as he did break the law unintentionally back in 2005 for having sex with an underage girl at that establishment.

Sir SaSfan, I am waiting for your view.

To keep it simple, since Sasfan probably won't....... Since she was underage in 2005 and is 18+ in 2008 we can deduce that she was at least 15 so you'd be in the clear - as long as you "reasonably believed" she was 18+ at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To keep it simple, since Sasfan probably won't.......

No, he definitely won't, and the reason he won't is because the OP mentioned the word "underage" 4 times, but did not specify what "age" she was "under".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, he definitely won't, and the reason he won't is because the OP mentioned the word "underage" 4 times, but did not specify what "age" she was "under".

Punter Peter believes that Oral Olive was over 16 but under 18 back in 2005.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Punter Peter believes that Oral Olive was over 16 but under 18 back in 2005.

Did Peter Punter believe that Oral Olive was over 16 but under 18 when he paid her for sexual services back in 2005? or is this something he subsequently believes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did Peter Punter believe that Oral Olive was over 16 but under 18 when he paid her for sexual services back in 2005? or is this something he subsequently believes?

The place in Acacia Avenue is a well established parlour and Punter Peter did not suspect that they would employ girls who are under 18. (He thought they would have checked the girls' ID first) And therefore back in 2005, Punter Peter thought that Oral Olive was 18, but just looked very young for her age.

He only found out recently from another WG from the same establishment that Oral Olive was sacked in 2005 because she lied to the boss about her actual age then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The place in Acacia Avenue is a well established parlour and Punter Peter did not suspect that they would employ girls who are under 18. (He thought they would have checked the girls' ID first) And therefore back in 2005, Punter Peter thought that Oral Olive was 18, but just looked very young for her age.

He only found out recently from another WG from the same establishment that Oral Olive was sacked in 2005 because she lied to the boss about her actual age then.

I strongly suspect that Peter Punter would have to produce a better argument than "The place in Acacia Avenue is a well established parlour and Punter Peter did not suspect that they would employ girls who are under 18. (He thought they would have checked the girls' ID first)" in order to avoid being convicted under Section 47 (Paying for sexual services of a child) of The Sexual Offences Act 2003, however "but just looked very young for her age" would seem to be something of a better bet.

But to answer your original question :-

Punter Peter is now wondering whether he should go back to see Anal Annie at Acacia Avenue as he did break the law unintentionally back in 2005 for having sex with an underage girl at that establishment.

Whether or not Peter Punter broke the law (unintentionally or otherwise) in 2005 is really neither here nor there as far as I can make out, but if he does return (assuming that he is not worried about Anal Annie shopping him) I recommend that Peter Punter asks for proof of age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I strongly suspect that Peter Punter would have to produce a better argument than "The place in Acacia Avenue is a well established parlour and Punter Peter did not suspect that they would employ girls who are under 18. (He thought they would have checked the girls' ID first)" in order to avoid being convicted under Section 47 (Paying for sexual services of a child) of The Sexual Offences Act 2003, however "but just looked very young for her age" would seem to be something of a better bet.

But to answer your original question :-

Whether or not Peter Punter broke the law (unintentionally or otherwise) in 2005 is really neither here nor there as far as I can make out, but if he does return (assuming that he is not worried about Anal Annie shopping him) I recommend that Peter Punter asks for proof of age.

Thanks for all the info.

SaSfan, you are a walking encyclopedia!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for all the info.

SaSfan, you are a walking encyclopedia!

Like I said he over-complicated it. The law is clear that it's illegal to pay someone under 18 for sex, however they have to show you knew or should have known that the girl was underage (unless she's under 13 when it doesn't matter what you thought).

Given that it's now mid 2009, the police would have to have some pretty startling evidence to even consider speaking to punter peter never mind arresting or charging him. They have to prove that sex took place, punter peter paid her, and that punter peter either knew or had a good reason to suspect she was underage at the time. If the police knew or were interested they'd probably only go after the parlour given the amount of time that's passed, since that would be the easiest prosecution.

IMHO Punter Peter has nothing to worry about - just check ID next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I strongly suspect that Peter Punter would have to produce a better argument than "The place in Acacia Avenue is a well established parlour and Punter Peter did not suspect that they would employ girls who are under 18. (He thought they would have checked the girls' ID first)" in order to avoid being convicted under Section 47 (Paying for sexual services of a child) of The Sexual Offences Act 2003, however "but just looked very young for her age" would seem to be something of a better bet.

I don't think that would be the case. Definitely it would be an advantage if a specific age had been mentioned e.g the maid saying "we've got a new girl, only 18, would you like to see her" - or the girl herself saying she was 18 when asked. But reputation of establishment is perfectly valid. Acknowledging she looked younger than 18 could actually back-fire I would have thought, in the absence of any other evidence; although brothel or not a reputation for quality is still reasonable. In the same way you could argue that a girl you met in a well run, reputable bar with bouncers on the door would be expected to be 18. Anyway I'm sure Punter Peter must have asked her at some point how old she was? If she said 18 and looked close then that would be enough to get you off. I know I usually ask, just to make conversation with most WGs I see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that would be the case. Definitely it would be an advantage if a specific age had been mentioned e.g the maid saying "we've got a new girl, only 18, would you like to see her" - or the girl herself saying she was 18 when asked. But reputation of establishment is perfectly valid. Acknowledging she looked younger than 18 could actually back-fire I would have thought, in the absence of any other evidence; although brothel or not a reputation for quality is still reasonable. In the same way you could argue that a girl you met in a well run, reputable bar with bouncers on the door would be expected to be 18. Anyway I'm sure Punter Peter must have asked her at some point how old she was? If she said 18 and looked close then that would be enough to get you off. I know I usually ask, just to make conversation with most WGs I see.

By "although brothel or not a reputation for quality is still reasonable" and "But reputation of establishment is perfectly valid" you mean the same establishment that, in theory, took on the child without seeking proof of age and apparently took her word for being 18 or over?

I say "in theory" and "apparently" based on this :-

He only found out recently from another WG from the same establishment that Oral Olive was sacked in 2005 because she lied to the boss about her actual age then.

by the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like I said he over-complicated it. The law is clear that it's illegal to pay someone under 18 for sex, however they have to show you knew or should have known that the girl was underage (unless she's under 13 when it doesn't matter what you thought).

Given that it's now mid 2009, the police would have to have some pretty startling evidence to even consider speaking to punter peter never mind arresting or charging him. They have to prove that sex took place, punter peter paid her, and that punter peter either knew or had a good reason to suspect she was underage at the time. If the police knew or were interested they'd probably only go after the parlour given the amount of time that's passed, since that would be the easiest prosecution.

IMHO Punter Peter has nothing to worry about - just check ID next time.

Just out of interest, would a field report be good enough evidence to prove that paid sex took place?

Checking ID could be a problem, especially with Parlour girls.

The majority of them don't want punters to know their real name, so I doubt that they would show you IDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just out of interest, would a field report be good enough evidence to prove that paid sex took place?

Checking ID could be a problem, especially with Parlour girls.

The majority of them don't want punters to know their real name, so I doubt that they would show you IDs.

Suppose it would, but since the parlour is still running the police clearly aren't aware that she was working there whilist underage in 2005; One whiff of something like that and it would have been shut down pretty quick. The amount of time that's passed still means that the punter is pretty much safe in a situation like this. They still need to prove you had a good reason to doubt her age.

As for ID, I was thinking more about this particular girl/parlour; Given what happened before a little caution is reasonable. You could always ask her to put a piece of tape over her name. All you need to see is the photo and date of birth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well yes the reputation is now sullied - he now knows they're possibly not checking IDs. Or at least their processes are flawed. But previously it may have appeared different. It's about what he reasonably thought previously; not what he's subsequently discovered. Also, as you indicate in your post, "lied" could have meant "shown her older sister's birth certificate" or even her passport if they look similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just out of interest, would a field report be good enough evidence to prove that paid sex took place?

No. WG in the witness box saying that it did, plus the maid providing corroboration, plus proof that the field report was written by Peter Punter would probably do the trick.

Even then you'd have the Peter Punter's brief cross examining along the lines of "so you saw how many clients a day? And you expect the jury to believe that you remember a particular client from 3 years ago?"

PeterPunter also has other lines of defence. For example, if he could show that the police knew of the existence of the parlour and had not shut it down, that would suggest that it was of "good" reputation and he was therefore entitled to assume the girls were of age.

However, since an offence may have been committed (albeit inadvertently) and that offence was to an extent procured by the WG, I would say that Peter Punter would be howling, barking mad to go anywhere near that WG again. Or Acacia Avenue for that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a case of a 15 year old involved in the sex industry. The employer and not the punters got into trouble:-

http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/2004/02/02/probe-over-lap-dancer-aged-15-50002-13905742/

well that was in a lap dancing club where you're not allowed to touch the girl so there wouldn't be much to charge the clients with in any case. There was a case recently of a 15 year old up north working as an escort - it looked from the story that she was probably on "you know where", as the agency was never mentioned as being prosecuted in any of the stories. No clients were tracked down, and the story said that she had looked older and claimed to be 18. One thing that DID annoy me about the story was that the police used the proceeds of crime act to seize a good portion of the money the girl had made.......what crime was committed exactly?

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/2009/02/26/girl-15-made-14k-working-as-a-tyneside-escort-72703-23017286/

The girl didn't commit any crime as prostitution is legal, and although she could be said to have aided or abeted child prostitution she would be in a protected category i.e she is the person that law is designed to protect....so that's out the window. She had no agency so there's no crime there......the punters were never traced and even if they were they would have been in the clear since it seems they couldn't have been expected to know....so there's no crime there. In any case the money was hers and not the punters or "agency" even if there was one. She wouldn't have been paying tax obviously but then that's a matter for the tax office and in any case this money was not the "proceeds" of that crime.

Maybe Sasfan can explain how that one went through and how the police aren't thieving grasping motherf*cke*s :-p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe Sasfan can explain how that one went through and how the police aren't thieving grasping motherf*cke*s :-p

I think that it was a very strict, and harsh IMHO, application of Section 340 (3,4) (Interpretation) of The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 which explains what "criminal property" is, and explains that it is immaterial who carried out the conduct of the criminal act that the criminal property is part of, so I would guess that the thinking was that the "Agency" committed a criminal offence and thus any money obtained by any party was by definition "criminal property" and any money paid to the girl was part of that "criminal property" and thus the money that was confiscated was "criminal property" because "it is immaterial who carried out the conduct". So, in theory, it doesn't matter that the girl was not committing a criminal act by being a prostitute, she has money that was part of a criminal act (and therefore criminal property, and therefore can be confiscated) but that criminal act was committed by the Agency and not by her.

Now that is all guesswork on my part and I have no real idea if that is how it works, but if it is correct guesswork then it does raise the spectre of the possibility of a brothel being raided and the prostitutes having money confiscated because the owner/manager of the brothel is committing a criminal act and therefore any money involved is therefore criminal property even though the prostitutes have not committed a criminal act.

I've never heard of that happening so I am most probably wrong in my guesswork, however it doesn't mention that the confiscation of the money was permanent or if it was returned. In short I really don't know, but it is interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that it was a very strict, and harsh IMHO, application of Section 340 (3,4) (Interpretation) of The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 which explains what "criminal property" is, and explains that it is immaterial who carried out the conduct of the criminal act that the criminal property is part of, so I would guess that the thinking was that the "Agency" committed a criminal offence and thus any money obtained by any party was by definition "criminal property" and any money paid to the girl was part of that "criminal property" and thus the money that was confiscated was "criminal property" because "it is immaterial who carried out the conduct". So, in theory, it doesn't matter that the girl was not committing a criminal act by being a prostitute, she has money that was part of a criminal act (and therefore criminal property, and therefore can be confiscated) but that criminal act was committed by the Agency and not by her.

Now that is all guesswork on my part and I have no real idea if that is how it works, but if it is correct guesswork then it does raise the spectre of the possibility of a brothel being raided and the prostitutes having money confiscated because the owner/manager of the brothel is committing a criminal act and therefore any money involved is therefore criminal property even though the prostitutes have not committed a criminal act.

I've never heard of that happening so I am most probably wrong in my guesswork, however it doesn't mention that the confiscation of the money was permanent or if it was returned. In short I really don't know, but it is interesting.

But how far could this go?

If the brothel owner used money from the business to pay for advertising in the local paper could the Police reclaim that money back from the newspaper company as it's "dirty money" or if the brothel owner shops at Tesco, could Tesco be done under the proceeds of crime act?

Definately Interesting

JDM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But how far could this go?

If the brothel owner used money from the business to pay for advertising in the local paper could the Police reclaim that money back from the newspaper company as it's "dirty money" or if the brothel owner shops at Tesco, could Tesco be done under the proceeds of crime act?

Definately Interesting

JDM

Section 340 (3,:P regarding criminal property, says :-

the alleged offender knows or suspects that it constitutes or represents such a benefit.

so there has to be some knowledge that the money is criminal property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Section 340 (3,:P regarding criminal property, says :-

Quote:

the alleged offender knows or suspects that it constitutes or represents such a benefit.

so there has to be some knowledge that the money is criminal property.

Would not apply to Tesco's then, but surely the newspapers (such as Loot) know they are basically advertising brothels under the name of "massage parlours" and what goes on in them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would not apply to Tesco's then, but surely the newspapers (such as Loot) know they are basically advertising brothels under the name of "massage parlours" and what goes on in them?

Good point, that and the cold hard light of day makes me think that my guesswork is not exactly correct and the possibility that the Magistrate in the case in question might have got it as wrong as myself, and the money should not have been forfeited and might even have been returned (unlikely I know but it is a possibility) to the girl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good point, that and the cold hard light of day makes me think that my guesswork is not exactly correct and the possibility that the Magistrate in the case in question might have got it as wrong as myself, and the money should not have been forfeited and might even have been returned (unlikely I know but it is a possibility) to the girl.

I would doubt it was ever returned. It didn't sound like she or her parents were even there fighting the seizure order (it was described in all the stories as a brief hearing) and that the police were just riding rough-shod over everything. In any respect, the agency, even if it was a real one and she wasn't on "you know where" was not mentioned as having being prosecuted at that stage (or since for that matter) so their "crime" was not actually proven. Also there's no strict liability re: pimping an underage girl, so since they admitted she looked older during the case etc. the only offence they could proceed with would be bog standard "controlling prostitution". Which would suggest any girl in any agency could have her money taken. Since this never happens, you have to wonder what was going on here?

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