Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
BoDiddly

End of debate - it really is this simple.

17 posts in this topic

I've actually just got it and it's really simple. There are two types of sexual encounter. You either pay for it or get it for free.

If you get it for nothing the whole of society accepts that the responsibility for ensuring a woman has consented to the act lies solely with the man that wishes to have the sexual encounter.

Why would it change when you're paying for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've actually just got it and it's really simple. There are two types of sexual encounter. You either pay for it or get it for free.

If you get it for nothing the whole of society accepts that the responsibility for ensuring a woman has consented to the act lies solely with the man that wishes to have the sexual encounter.

Why would it change when you're paying for it?

I agree entirely, so why the need for new legislation when the existing offence of rape covers both scenarios?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a good point and I'm not sure I have the answer. The consent issue doesn't change but the actual rape has taken place under different circumstances. I will have to work through how and why that is relevant but I'm sure it is.

I do know this much though. There are no circumstances where the police would offer an amnesty to a rapist if it was a sexual encounter that happened outside of prostitution. A rapist who rang the police to confess would go to prison.

We agree the consent issue does not change between paid for or free sexual encounters. I am assuming that the current rape laws covers the crime that is committed when a trafficked girl has sex unwillingly because the crime is the same. Therefore I can't understand why there is a long standing amnesty in place for the punter when he reports the same crime.

How does one do time and one walk away scot free?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a good point and I'm not sure I have the answer. The consent issue doesn't change but the actual rape has taken place under different circumstances. I will have to work through how and why that is relevant but I'm sure it is.

I do know this much though. There are no circumstances where the police would offer an amnesty to a rapist if it was a sexual encounter that happened outside of prostitution. A rapist who rang the police to confess would go to prison.

We agree the consent issue does not change between paid for or free sexual encounters. I am assuming that the current rape laws covers the crime that is committed when a trafficked girl has sex unwillingly because the crime is the same. Therefore I can't understand why there is a long standing amnesty in place for the punter when he reports the same crime.

How does one do time and one walk away scot free?

Could you please supply me with a link to this "amnesty" that you post of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a good point and I'm not sure I have the answer. The consent issue doesn't change but the actual rape has taken place under different circumstances. I will have to work through how and why that is relevant but I'm sure it is.

I do know this much though. There are no circumstances where the police would offer an amnesty to a rapist if it was a sexual encounter that happened outside of prostitution. A rapist who rang the police to confess would go to prison.

We agree the consent issue does not change between paid for or free sexual encounters. I am assuming that the current rape laws covers the crime that is committed when a trafficked girl has sex unwillingly because the crime is the same. Therefore I can't understand why there is a long standing amnesty in place for the punter when he reports the same crime.

How does one do time and one walk away scot free?

But surely if one suspects trafficking one would just leave, not go through with it, and then report his suspicions afterwards? Perhaps anonymously to Crimestoppers is the best way?

I'm no authority on any of this and it's just my two pennies' worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't got a link to hand but I will research it. This is Punternet's own advice on reporting a trafficked girl.

Have you been offered an underage girl?

Do you suspect that a girl you have seen is being forced to work against her will?

Report child prostitution and sex slavery - ring Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111

I am assuming that "you have seen" includes the scenario where reporting takes place after the sexual encounter. Crimestoppers will report the identity of the suspected criminal to the police whilst protecting the identity and any contact details of the person reporting the crime. They are both the same person in this scenario.

Are crimestoppers only reporting the venue and withholding the details of the criminal (i.e punter) and therefore breaking the law by withholding evidence? Or are they reporting all the details?

I don't know of any situations where a punter has been prosecuted if it turns out that suspected trafficking is proved. Surely the police would have to go back to the punter and prosecute. Has an offence actually been committed under current law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't got a link to hand .....

But have you anything else to hand? I believe you may well have .... often .... maybe too often!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But surely if one suspects trafficking one would just leave, not go through with it, and then report his suspicions afterwards? Perhaps anonymously to Crimestoppers is the best way?

I'm no authority on any of this and it's just my two pennies' worth.

What if someone only became suspicious that the girl was unwilling as the encounter progressed or, if you consider what is taking place, only developed sufficient insight after the event ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've actually just got it and it's really simple. There are two types of sexual encounter. You either pay for it or get it for free.

If you get it for nothing the whole of society accepts that the responsibility for ensuring a woman has consented to the act lies solely with the man that wishes to have the sexual encounter.

Why would it change when you're paying for it?

Consent is, evidently, critical. I think you'll find everyone on this board agrees. I hope so. For dissenters, you should seek elsewhere, for example:

Militant feminists, who seem unable to grasp that another woman might consent for money. Some feminists seem unable to grasp that a woman may consent to sex at all.

Parts of the church which have talked of a man's rights, irrespective of consent. This view extends to other religions, I believe that a law has recently been passed in Afghanistan allowing a man to starve his wife if she doesn't consent.

The present Government, whose Policing and Crime Bill, Clause 13, will create a strict liability offence of having sex with a prostitute who was forced or coerced. The penalty is a fine of £1000. This is plain daft-- at one level a man might be fined simply because he does not know a woman's history and she lies to him; at the other he might get off with a £1000 fine for rape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The present Government, whose Policing and Crime Bill, Clause 13, will create a strict liability offence of having sex with a prostitute who was forced or coerced. The penalty is a fine of £1000. This is plain daft-- at one level a man might be fined simply because he does not know a woman's history and she lies to him; at the other he might get off with a £1000 fine for rape.

What's your solution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could you please supply me with a link to this "amnesty" that you post of.

I do not believe that there is, as such, an amnesty! What I think happens is that the prosecution authority/police make a pragmatic valuation of the relative seriousness (= likely sentence) of two offences.

If a blackmailer is threatening to reveal hard evidence that you are a murderer, I'd suggest that you either pay, or leave the country with a forged passport. On the other hand if the threat is to show that you've been fiddling the books of the bowls club, and have got away with £500, I'd advise going to the police, who would think getting a blackmailer sent down for a few years was a better deal than getting you fined, or given six months suspended and a compensation order.

After being breathalysed, and while waiting for the blood analysis to come back, I did a little, slightly worried, research. I found that quite a lot of CPS guidance is published on-line, and you might find the matter touched on there.

Rape is an interesting offence, from a technical legal view point.

Man has sex with woman - that is the actus reus, and most rapists admit that (DNA pins them down) but claim consent.

Now what if real psycho rapist has woman, thinking she doesn't consent, but, unbeknownst to him, she actually does?

What if date rapist, does the deed, and afterwards, having fought a bit, she decides that actually she liked it. Does that change the offence?

What if bloke rings police now and says that in early december 1989, he dragged a girl off her bicycle into the bushes near the railway station and raped her. Police presumably ask him to come into the station, and meanwhile check the old records. There is no record of any rape for ten miles or a month either way! What do they do? He says he was a rapist, that she couldn't have consented, could she, and he is (now) so ashamed, but the polis have no evidence from any woman atall. What do they do?

In the old days of real common law (read the speeches in Morgan, and the excellent report on the law of rape written by Heilbron J in 1975) it was necessary for the prosecution to show that the woman did not consent, and that the man knew that she did not consent, or was reckless as to whether she consented or not. Morgan's case, and in particular the matter of his colleagues, finessed that - for a man to assert that he believed the woman was consenting, he did not need to have reasonable grounds for that belief, but, quite simply, the more unreasonable his story, the less jury was less likely to believe him.

Rape, incidentally, was always "per vaginam", and only so. Non-consensual buggery was always savagely punished, as sodomy, and other sexual attacks as indecent assault. Now the new trendy, total equality, agenda, run by Stonewall, and now being carried forward by HH, has changed the law radically, partly to make a political point, and partly to tilt the scales against the man.

Rape is now defined as non consensual insertion of the penis (means that only a man can rape) into the mouth, anus, or vagina of another person, so victim can be of either sex.

Consent is now multi defined in ss 74 - 77 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. I think that it is reasonable to suggest that a man who has had a woman in circumstances when, either at the time, or with hindsight, he realises that her consent, in the complex terminology of the new statute, is dodgy, and then goes to the police, enabling them to bust the joint, and liberate the victims will not be prosecuted. Not only public policy suggests this, but also, I'd suggest, the dodgy evidence of the wretched woman, who in low lighting has been taken by several men every shift. Will she recognise the informant? (I'd love to know whether the witness can ask for an identification parade to be done in the nude. "But, officer, I didn't see his face....but only his ...."!)

Not an amnesty, but a touch of common sense, I'd say!

Edited by Irgendeiner
Improveing clarity!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we seem to be discussing that a punter would pay to commit rape.

rapists don't pay to commit rape,they just take sexual gratification without any concept of consent

the conviction rate for rape is just 6%

the labour govt seem to be sending out the message that committ rape & you've a good chance of getting away with it, whereas:

pay for consenting sex,you'll be stigmatized,prosecuted & fined or even jailed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's your solution?

Hey Bo Diddly - are you some kind of trojan horse ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's your solution?

First, as per New Zealand; complete decriminalisation of brothels. The more open and legal the prostitution, the less likely it is for anyone to unwillingly be trapped into it or for a client to go anywhere that might have unwilling women. This would also squeeze out the risk of the con artist who will take the money, then say that she is forced, knowing that the punter won't report the incident---- such clippies willl doubtless flourish in Soho near-beer bars under Clause 13.

Second, a degree of honesty and paragmatism about migration. There is an unfortanate propensity among interested politicians, Poppy et al deliberately to confuse trafficking of forced women (rare) with voluntary, if illegal, migration for the purposes of prostitution (common). Perhaps we should do what the Japanese do and issue short term 'entertainer' visas. The same appears to work, somewhat less officially, in Singapore from what the myriad freelance Thai girls in Orchard Towers consistently told last time I was there. 'Me get visa two weeks; stay here make money; go home Chiang Mai. You buy me one drink?'. It would be far better to issue such visas, at a relatively high price (effectively a tax), than have people pay a higher price to people smugglers who may entrap them in debts that cannot be repaid. The chance of getting people to go home at the end of their visa might be higher too---- and at least we'd know who was here, which is more that the Govt can presently achieve.

Third, accept that we live in a complicated imperfect world and that if is often better to leave things alone, especially when they involve adults acting of their own free will.

Last, where it is clear that a woman is forced, where the punter knows this and still proceeds, that is rape and should be tried as such, not as a 'strict liability offence with a thousand quid fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not an amnesty, but a touch of common sense, I'd say!

Thank you for that, I'm confident that BoDiddly will supply me with a link in the fullness of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for that, I'm confident that BoDiddly will supply me with a link in the fullness of time.

I have looked and can't find anything. I know I saw something recently and for the life of me I can't think where. I haven't given up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have looked and can't find anything. I know I saw something recently and for the life of me I can't think where. I haven't given up.

No problem, these things happen.

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