sexinthepark

Parties And Wgs

11 posts in this topic

There have been numerous threads here recently about what constitutes a brothel which I now understand in terms of parlours, flats etc. How does this translate across to the numerous parties that are advertised on PN? They never seem to get raided or are visited by police less often? One I went to last year asked me to pay the entry fee on leaving and the doorman said it was to "avoid legal problems". Clearly the girls inside are paid at the end and they are offering full sex, so how does paying on departure make anything legal? Perhaps one of the experts on here can advise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are brothels. The case law on brothels is very wide.

Here's what the CPS Legal Guidelines say:

"...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."

"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)."

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/prostitution_and_exploitation_of_prostitution/#a18

The organisers may believe that in the unlikely event that the party is raided they can argue that there has been no element of "payment" and that the women are not "prostitutes" within the meaning of section 51 SOA 2003. This could mean that the premises would not constitute a "brothel used for prostitution", as opposed to just an ordinary "brothel". The penalties are higher for the former.

I think that they're wrong in their assumption because clearly there is a "promise of payment" as referred to in section 51(2).

I imagine that it may make them feel slightly more comfortable. The fact is though that parties such as this are at little risk of being raided because of their transitory nature and the lack of fixed premises.You chances of being caught up in a raid on a flat or parlour are IMHO very low. The chances of a party being raided are even less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are brothels. The case law on brothels is very wide.

Here's what the CPS Legal Guidelines say:

"...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."

"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)."

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/prostitution_and_exploitation_of_prostitution/#a18

The organisers may believe that in the unlikely event that the party is raided they can argue that there has been no element of "payment" and that the women are not "prostitutes" within the meaning of section 51 SOA 2003. This could mean that the premises would not constitute a "brothel used for prostitution", as opposed to just an ordinary "brothel". The penalties are higher for the former.

I think that they're wrong in their assumption because clearly there is a "promise of payment" as referred to in section 51(2).

I imagine that it may make them feel slightly more comfortable. The fact is though that parties such as this are at little risk of being raided because of their transitory nature and the lack of fixed premises.You chances of being caught up in a raid on a flat or parlour are IMHO very low. The chances of a party being raided are even less.

Excellent information and facts as usual. Most London parties do have fixed premises though, its the exception to be transitory rather than the rule and a couple have two fixed premises. To my mind the risk of a raid is the same as any other brothel but assuming the police do some groundwork they would know there was likely to be more people in the premises than most brothels.

What some say is its like a swingers club and not a brothel but the paying aspect which is most usually at the start like most punting makes it a brothel. Only 1 or 2 London providers ask you to pay on the way out and perhaps it is for the reason stated but under any kind of police pressure at least some are going to admit whats going on i would of thought.

Sacred Rose Parties now gone was raided and closed although i dont know if it was as a direct result of the raid, they were very quiet when i went and the host was saying it was not busy enough. :)

Edited by smiths

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most London parties do have fixed premises though, its the exception to be transitory rather than the rule and a couple have two fixed premises.

Thanks for that Smiths. That's interesting.

Never having been to a party, I'd always assumed that they moved around a bit.

I guess also that if the party is raided and the punters haven't paid then there's going to be very little for the police to seize under POCA !!! They won't like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are brothels. The case law on brothels is very wide.

Here's what the CPS Legal Guidelines say:

"...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."

"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)."

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/prostitution_and_exploitation_of_prostitution/#a18

The organisers may believe that in the unlikely event that the party is raided they can argue that there has been no element of "payment" and that the women are not "prostitutes" within the meaning of section 51 SOA 2003. This could mean that the premises would not constitute a "brothel used for prostitution", as opposed to just an ordinary "brothel". The penalties are higher for the former.

I think that they're wrong in their assumption because clearly there is a "promise of payment" as referred to in section 51(2).

I imagine that it may make them feel slightly more comfortable. The fact is though that parties such as this are at little risk of being raided because of their transitory nature and the lack of fixed premises.You chances of being caught up in a raid on a flat or parlour are IMHO very low. The chances of a party being raided are even less.

Thanks for this summary - it's kind of what I thought but great to have it confirmed by an expert.

Since a brothel exists even without payment, then I presume that all swingers clubs at, at least technically, also defined brothels?

I wonder whether any swingers club has ever been raided (for sex-related offences rather than drugs)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Plod will raid where he "receives information suggesting that" trafficked women, drugs, or the laundering of external money is taking place, and otherwise he will, just occasionally, at random, raid perfectly respectable "brothels" as defined in law, to show that he is up to speed.

One just has to accept the risk that as one walks from car to parlour, one might be hit by a bit of ice dislodged from a high flying jet, and that once inside, one might be interrupted by a police raid. Each about as likely as the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a party raided in Bury St Edmunds a few years back. The guy running was said to have rented the premises from the council and it was close to the Cathedral and Cop Shop sot this may have had something to do with it. I do however wonder about some of the parties that are run on a regular basis from the same premises and feel sure that they must be in line for a raid to boost the POCA fund as after all the Old Bill rarely get much cashback if they raid an eastern European flat or a lone working Chinese lass even if the girls are working under duress or are trafficked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do however wonder about some of the parties that are run on a regular basis from the same premises and feel sure that they must be in line for a raid to boost the POCA fund as after all the Old Bill rarely get much cashback if they raid an eastern European flat or a lone working Chinese lass even if the girls are working under duress or are trafficked.

Legally though, cash may only be seized if it is obtained through unlawful conduct (s.294 POCA 2002). In many of these cases the ladies will be working perfectly legally and so plod shouldn't be seizing their cash.

Furthermore the minimum amount that can be seized is currently £1,000. So anything less than that should in theory be safe.

In practice though it often doesn't work like that. No surprises there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legally though, cash may only be seized if it is obtained through unlawful conduct (s.294 POCA 2002). In many of these cases the ladies will be working perfectly legally and so plod shouldn't be seizing their cash.

Furthermore the minimum amount that can be seized is currently £1,000. So anything less than that should in theory be safe.

In practice though it often doesn't work like that. No surprises there.

The amount of cash raised by a party would probably be too low for the police to be tempted. A few hundred pounds, even £1000 isn't going to be worth it.

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