Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Inna

How booking a cab can make you a uk sex slave driver

16 posts in this topic

http://stephenpaterson.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/ipswich-is-this-a-real-sex-slave-driver/

"...The Crown Prosecution Service had to add the human trafficking offence as well, because she'd arranged the taxi!

The arrangement of a taxi, then (maximum sentence 14 years) is deemed twice as serious as running a brothel. Do consider this next time you book one: in UK criminal justice terms, you could open two brothels for the price."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The important part in this case is that there was a third party involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The woman in the picture looks as if she has been beaten up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a conviction is obtained this will count towards the trafficking stats although clearly not the case. One wonders how many of the other convictions/rescues are of the same nature and to what extent the actuals are overstated. Since Pentameter the Met has had a number of Pentameter days where they carried out dozens of raids with nary a collar felt. Stats from Poppycock suggest they actually re-house very few victims. Stats on 'rescued' victims suggest that 2/3 have chosen to go back under the radar, again suggesting that they had not originally wanted to be 'rescued'.

It's an important point because these are the traffic stats that are then crudely extrapolated by factors of as much as ten to arrive at trafficking estimates. The whole thing is ridiculously over-stated but desperately in need of real research concentrating on post-conviction traffickers and post-rescue victims. Only then will we see where we really are and be able to plan strategies to combat it.

Harman's agenda is not to stop the trafficking. It never was. I don't suggest that she is seeking to increase their number of victims, but that is the effect that her criminalisation plan will have. Her agenda, at the moment, apart from advancing her own career, is to stop men from having the option to buy sex, so that to get it they have to beg. I'm not sure whether she realises that for that act of anti-male spite, many more women will have horrible lives, or that, if she does, whether she figures it's an acceptable price to pay (after all these women will mostly be foreign), or indeed whether she cares about them at all.

I never ever saw myself voting for the Bullingdon Blues but Harman has put me off Labour for life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The important part in this case is that there was a third party involved.

How and why is that important regarding the "trafficking" that didn't involve deceit, coercion or crossing a border?

All the women involved knew what was going on, so if anything this was a pandering/pimping issue but by using the magic, mean whatever you want it to mean, word "trafficking" it becomes part of the moral panic and prostitution harm mythology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The third party, in this case the taxi, involved in the transportation of the alleged victim arranged by the defendant, meant that, under UK Law as it stands, there was sufficient evidence of trafficking having taken place, that a charge should be placed. The CPS will decide subsequently, on the plus 50% basis, whether prosecution to go ahead on that charge.

Crazy in the circumstances I know, but that's the law and if local plod want to interpret it strictly they can. Most forces take a more commonsense view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://stephenpaterson.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/ipswich-is-this-a-real-sex-slave-driver/

"...The Crown Prosecution Service had to add the human trafficking offence as well, because she'd arranged the taxi!

The arrangement of a taxi, then (maximum sentence 14 years) is deemed twice as serious as running a brothel. Do consider this next time you book one: in UK criminal justice terms, you could open two brothels for the price."

The author of this piece seems not to be concerned about that fact that, immediately on arrival, one of the women saw eight men for £160 plus £40 in tips? That's what I call exploitation....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The author of this piece seems not to be concerned about that fact that, immediately on arrival, one of the women saw eight men for £160 plus £40 in tips? That's what I call exploitation....

As a matter of interest, at what price/time-point do you see it as no longer exploitative, bearing in mind that we don't know how much time they spent with each client, and other relevant economics such as who is paying for what travel/living costs, the £/rennimbi x rate, equivalent earnings in China, and comparative time/prices in, say, Soho walkups, the rents of which have to be paid for out of earnings and are astronomical?

These girls calculated all of that, Soho comparatives excepted, and took the economic decision to make the journey. They were not trafficked. Have they been exploited? Perhaps they are their own best judges of that.

Not that simples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it funny how unemployment stats are played down by cleverly defining it as "claiming unemployment benefit" (so rules out those who can't claim income related due to savings, or because they live with a partner who is earning OK, along with those who are ill), yet trafficking stats are over played by lax rules.

By the way, the clever unemployment manipulation was started in the '80s by the Conservative government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, is it in the public interest to go ahead with this prosecution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a matter of interest, at what price/time-point do you see it as no longer exploitative, bearing in mind that we don't know how much time they spent with each client, and other relevant economics such as who is paying for what travel/living costs, the £/rennimbi x rate, equivalent earnings in China, and comparative time/prices in, say, Soho walkups, the rents of which have to be paid for out of earnings and are astronomical?

These girls calculated all of that, Soho comparatives excepted, and took the economic decision to make the journey. They were not trafficked. Have they been exploited? Perhaps they are their own best judges of that.

Not that simples.

I am sorry, and I know you didn't intend it as such, but that almost sounds like a trafficker's charter. Bring them in from China and pay them Chinese wages? Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably linked to the Triads. I'd stay well away

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am sorry, and I know you didn't intend it as such, but that almost sounds like a trafficker's charter. Bring them in from China and pay them Chinese wages? Really?

I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to dignify that cheap remark with an answer.

If you know anything of my posts you will know my feelings on this subject.

Trafficking is about abduction, coercion and deception. Go back and read the facts of the case again, and this time apply those tests before you accuse me of drawing up a traffickers charter.

You are confusing trafficking with exploitation which is an entirely separate question and you made a value-judgement wherein you felt that they had been exploited. My question, which BTW you didn't answer, is at what earnings point do you feel that they were no longer being exploited, that being the point where presumably you would feel happy to punt with them yourself.

My point was that, low as they seemed, their UK earnings were not a million miles from those received by other non-street girls in the UK such as at the walk-ups. It's actually a reasonably efficient market in terms of price competition. I would also suspect that they are many times higher than equivalent earnings back in China which was why they made the free-will decision to ply their trade over here, rather than back there.

Did you not read or understand any of my post?

I have to presume that, in the absence of this :rolleyes:emoticon, that HM was being sarcastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My yesterday post was perhaps a trifle intemperate. I appreciate that you realise it wasn't intended as a traffickers charter. But with so many guest lurkers at the moment one is a little wary of having one's name associated in any way with such a vile activity.

As for exploitation it carries a pejorative tone. But in truth we all to some degree exploit others and are, willingly, exploited by them. Whether that exploitation is excessive or not depends on one's point of point, and society and the law also has its say on such matters.

This case does however raise a curious aspect of law. The woman is charged with trafficking because she made travel arrangments for the girls with a third party. This is something UK employers frequently do when they wish to bring key staffers to the UK. The reason it is there on the statute book as an offence is because it is a useful evidential tool to enable police forces to secure the convictions of genuine traffickers. But in this case is being used by an over-zealous Suffolk Plod to put away an innocent woman. They must be bloody desperate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My yesterday post was perhaps a trifle intemperate. I appreciate that you realise it wasn't intended as a traffickers charter. But with so many guest lurkers at the moment one is a little wary of having one's name associated in any way with such a vile activity.

As for exploitation it carries a pejorative tone. But in truth we all to some degree exploit others and are, willingly, exploited by them. Whether that exploitation is excessive or not depends on one's point of point, and society and the law also has its say on such matters.

This case does however raise a curious aspect of law. The woman is charged with trafficking because she made travel arrangments for the girls with a third party. This is something UK employers frequently do when they wish to bring key staffers to the UK. The reason it is there on the statute book as an offence is because it is a useful evidential tool to enable police forces to secure the convictions of genuine traffickers. But in this case is being used by an over-zealous Suffolk Plod to put away an innocent woman. They must be bloody desperate.

Glad you realise I wasn't saying anything dergatory to you. :D And I agree about exploitation. I just thought that this case sounded as if the women concerned were being unfairly exploited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://stephenpaterson.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/ipswich-is-this-a-real-sex-slave-driver/

"...The Crown Prosecution Service had to add the human trafficking offence as well, because she'd arranged the taxi!

The arrangement of a taxi, then (maximum sentence 14 years) is deemed twice as serious as running a brothel. Do consider this next time you book one: in UK criminal justice terms, you could open two brothels for the price."

thats nuts and and very silly

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