Soft Touch Bodyworks

Victoria's Sauna In Wellingborough Raided

10 posts in this topic

(better link) http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/crime/four_scantily_clad_women_and_array_of_sex_toys_seized_during_police_raid_of_northamptonshire_sauna_1_2720284

I think that Inspector Nick Lyall, Wellingborough sector commander, who said: “I am very pleased with the positive result of this investigation. I have committed to dealing with things that matter to the local community, and this had been reported by the local community. The suspects will now be interviewed about the relevant offences and we will continue to carry out some further inquiries. And work will now go into finding clients.” is a very bad liar!

His gang went in "under the Proceeds of Crime Acts and on suspicion of living off immoral earnings." - interesting, but, sadly, not surprising that POCA was his main incentive.

One wonders what the "scantily clad" ladies were arrested for, and exactly what he wants to find clients for! Given that most coppers will, at the drop of a hat, assert that their chief aim is to secure the health and safety of everyone, I hope that he had provided warm fleece tops to protect the ladies from the unseasonable May weather?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very poor journalism.

"One woman, thought to be the madam, was brought out of the building after being arrested under the Proceeds of Crime Acts and on suspicion of living off immoral earnings.

Four women in their twenties were also arrested for sexual crimes..."

You can't arrest someone under POCA for keeping a a brothel and there's no offence of living off immoral earnings.

Like Irgendeiner I would very much like to know what "sexual crimes" these women had committed and on what grounds they will go after clients. What a load of BS !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't arrest someone under POCA for keeping a a brothel....

My mistake. I didn't read the article correctly. It didn't actually say that.

Whoops

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what's the law on this regarding the punter?..if for instance a client was still on site when they raided the place.

There are several threads in the Legalities and Legislation forum including this one:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very poor journalism.

"One woman, thought to be the madam, was brought out of the building after being arrested under the Proceeds of Crime Acts and on suspicion of living off immoral earnings.

Four women in their twenties were also arrested for sexual crimes..."

You can't arrest someone under POCA for keeping a a brothel and there's no offence of living off immoral earnings.

Like Irgendeiner I would very much like to know what "sexual crimes" these women had committed and on what grounds they will go after clients. What a load of BS !!!

Reading about the Leeds case I guess that that the women are going to be offered a caution for "aiding and abetting" running a brothel thus clearing up four major crimes with a 100% success rate. As for the clients, they will be asking them to provide witness statements as to what went on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading about the Leeds case I guess that that the women are going to be offered a caution for "aiding and abetting" running a brothel thus clearing up four major crimes with a 100% success rate. As for the clients, they will be asking them to provide witness statements as to what went on.

They can ask me for a statement but they would't be getting one. I doubt very very much that they'll do anything in the way of contacting punters. It's just scare tactics, as used by Harriet Harman and her cronies. Besides it would be too much like hard work and a complete waste of time.

As for the 4 girls, it looks like they were expected to be released on police bail. That wouldn't happen if they accepted cautions. No mention of charges so I suspect it's going to be down to the CPS in which case my money would be on NFA. I really can't see the CPS wanting to try and prosecute 4 people for assisting in the management of a brothel when they've already got the "madam".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can ask me for a statement but they would't be getting one. I doubt very very much that they'll do anything in the way of contacting punters. It's just scare tactics, as used by Harriet Harman and her cronies. Besides it would be too much like hard work and a complete waste of time.

As for the 4 girls, it looks like they were expected to be released on police bail. That wouldn't happen if they accepted cautions. No mention of charges so I suspect it's going to be down to the CPS in which case my money would be on NFA. I really can't see the CPS wanting to try and prosecute 4 people for assisting in the management of a brothel when they've already got the "madam".

Your first para is probably right. As you know common practice nowadays to bail people whilst the CPS make a decision. I can see though after reading the Leeds case in the legalities section that going for an aid and abet case whilst offering a caution would be an opportunity to get four crimes recorded. If you were a working girl would you want your name plastered in the Northampton Chronicle & Echo - a solicitor would often advise accepting a caution rather than get to court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your first para is probably right. As you know common practice nowadays to bail people whilst the CPS make a decision. I can see though after reading the Leeds case in the legalities section that going for an aid and abet case whilst offering a caution would be an opportunity to get four crimes recorded. If you were a working girl would you want your name plastered in the Northampton Chronicle & Echo - a solicitor would often advise accepting a caution rather than get to court.

I won't comment about the Wellingborough case because it may well be ongoing.

An inexperienced duty solicitor/legal rep may suggest that it may be advisable to accept a simple caution. The fear of going to court could be a big factor in the decision. There's also the classic "Prisoner's Dilemma" and not knowing what the other girls are saying about you and your involvement.

However, once released on police bail the suspect will have a lot more time to think it over, take advice etc. They'll soon find out that accepting a caution means a criminal record which could have severe consequences for them in the future, especially if they were intending to pursue a career other than in the sex-industry. Any half-decent criminal solicitor will be able to tell them that the chances of the CPS actually prosecuting all the girls for assisting in the management of a brothel is pretty slim.

As I said before,my money would be on the CPS NFA'ing a case such as this. If I were in such a situation I'd tough it out and not accept a caution.

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