Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Uncle Pokey

Prostitution - The Futility Of Repression

6 posts in this topic

I've only been on the scene for around ten years. Many here have longer 'histories'.

It does, though, seem to me completely silly to expect legal-sanction-type forces to curb prostitution effectively.

The 'trade' is wholly demand led. Blokes want a fuck - ladies want an income - the 'medium' is clearly forthcoming as is the environment for its happening.

I title 'the futility of repression'. I could have also said the danger of repression. Driving the 'trade'underground would - many girls testify - make their safety much less.

The nonsense law of a year ago appears only to have been involved in a small handful of cases. But more importantly has been totally ineffective in catching cases of girls who have been forced into prostitution against their wills. - Not least as punters will have been loath to report cases where their suspicions were aroused and disencouraged to do so as charges could have been brought. It is impossible to imagine a more badly thought out and ineffectual piece of legislation.

Uncle Pokey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only been on the scene for around ten years. Many here have longer 'histories'.

It does, though, seem to me completely silly to expect legal-sanction-type forces to curb prostitution effectively.

The 'trade' is wholly demand led. Blokes want a fuck - ladies want an income - the 'medium' is clearly forthcoming as is the environment for its happening.

I title 'the futility of repression'. I could have also said the danger of repression. Driving the 'trade'underground would - many girls testify - make their safety much less.

The nonsense law of a year ago appears only to have been involved in a small handful of cases. But more importantly has been totally ineffective in catching cases of girls who have been forced into prostitution against their wills. - Not least as punters will have been loath to report cases where their suspicions were aroused and disencouraged to do so as charges could have been brought. It is impossible to imagine a more badly thought out and ineffectual piece of legislation.

Uncle Pokey

With hindsight one does wonder if our esteemed gentlemen in the House of Lords designed it that way. After all, they need something to spend their salaries on !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a feeling the government had to be seen to be doing something on the back of war cries from the Violence Against Women's groups and the Law passed in England and Wales was a compromise as they didn't want to bring in the Swedish Model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uncle Pokey, as you suggested, I suspect the tacit intention of the legislation, actually if not explicit idea as commented at the time, was to change the law so it had a direct impact via strict liability on driving down demand by affecting the client.

The issues around the specifics of the wording were in my mind as equally relevant as the intention and impact of the bill to send a message to clients of illegaility. Many guys won't know the wording, but maybe will know the principle it wants to set.

Has it driven down demand? I'm not sure. Has it set a precident for enforcement and a principle for further legislation, probably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has it driven down demand? I'm not sure. Has it set a precident for enforcement and a principle for further legislation, probably.

I doubt very much that the new offence has decreased demand. A fair proportion of punters are ignorant or oblivious to the relevant laws. Anecdotal evidence would suggest that some punters refrained for a period following the introduction of the new law last April to see if it would be strongly enforced but I doubt that the effect was long-lived. I've no doubt that the recession has had a greater impact on demand.

There were already several examples of strict liabilty in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 - eg. section 5, and the House of Lords held that these are not inconsistent with HRA/ECHR.

A fair proportion of offences heard in the Magistrates court are strict liabilty, but the majority are dealt with on an administrative level without the need for court appearances.

As for enforcement...well it's clearly not being enforced. A handful of simple cautions, and no evidence that anyone has been charged let alone convicted of the new section 53A offence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One reason for relatively few prosecutions is that sex-trafficking is much rarer than the feminazis and Guardianistas would have us believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites