smoothballs

Wonderlounge And Buntys Both Closed In Manchester

46 posts in this topic

both parlours have been visited and closed by the authorities recently, a legal notice or similar has been posted outside the premises of each which are sister parlours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

both parlours have been visited and closed by the authorities recently, a legal notice or similar has been posted outside the premises of each which are sister parlours.

There is a thread running on this on the LBB - and indeed another thread has been opened here on the "Manchester" forum. The parlour rep has promised to report when able. Perhaps until there are some definite answers we should wait until adding to these threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a thread running on this on the LBB - and indeed another thread has been opened here on the "Manchester" forum. The parlour rep has promised to report when able. Perhaps until there are some definite answers we should wait until adding to these threads.

something similar was posted on the lbb, but no one in authority from buntys or WL has yet replied with any concrete info as such .

it does not look good to be honest ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it does not look good to be honest ..

From what I read on LBB it sounds as though the police served a closure notice. The police then have to appy to the Magistrates court for a closure order within 48 hours after service of the notice.

I agree that it doesn't look good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gmp have a facebook page, i wonder if its worth asking on there for info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I read on LBB it sounds as though the police served a closure notice. The police then have to appy to the Magistrates court for a closure order within 48 hours after service of the notice.

I agree that it doesn't look good.

Section 136 of the 2003 Act has been quoted. Is this likely to be a regular occurrence now - presumably just by producing evidence of the website the police could show grounds for closure. Perhaps our resident legal experts might like to comment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting, a notice has been put on the wonderlounge shutters that says: closed due to refurbishment,try geminis at radcliffe, phone.

la maison is just round the corner! mind you not every punter goes on the forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting, a notice has been put on the wonderlounge shutters that says: closed due to refurbishment,try geminis at radcliffe, phone.

la maison is just round the corner! mind you not every punter goes on the forums.

never tried gemini's but la maison is more than ok !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the notice has now gone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According the LBB site, the closure order is being appealed tommorrow. Let's hope common sense prevails and these exemplary well run and long established parlours are let continue!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According the LBB site, the closure order is being appealed tommorrow.

There are conflicting comments on LBB. One poster said that the closure order expires today. I find it difficult to believe that the magistrates would grant an order that expires after a week or so. What would the point be? There hasn't exactly been a glut of closure orders over the last 2 years, but I'm not aware of any having been granted for such a short period of time.The maximum period of closure is 3 months, although that can be extended for a further 3 months.

The comment about the appeal was made by a poster first registered in April who's only made that one post. Any appeal would be to the Crown Court, and the court listings for Manchester Crown Court do show a listing tomorrow for "Review of Order". I suppose that it could be that case.

Let's hope common sense prevails and these exemplary well run and long established parlours are let continue!

It would appear that GMP are changing their approach. IMHO there have been too many raids, closures and convictions in Manchester for people to continue to say that GMP are tolerant of brothels.

Even if GMP get a bruising in an appeal I doubt that they'll take it on the chin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wouldn't surprise me if this man (and apparently two alter-egos) have some responsibility for things there.

I really have no idea about wanker and what he's up to.

It seems that Ian Barnett is stirring things up:

"3 May 2012

The Jewish brothel owner who was jailed for prostitution activities and ordered to forfeit £5 million in immoral earnings is suing the police and Crown Prosecution Service for damages.

Ian Barnett, who was given a three-year prison sentence in 2008 after admitting running brothels in Manchester, is involved in a number of legal appeals aimed at clearing his name.

He claims his convictions are invalid because the police allowed his brothels to operate in exchange for providing information and ensuring his businesses did not involve drugs or trafficking. The CPS is also answering a claim of pursuing his conviction "maliciously".

The court action could have ramifications for dozens of sex industry convictions nationwide because it calls into question how some police forces operated under Home Office guidance issued in 2000, which suggested greater leniency for brothel owners.

On Wednesday, Mr Barnett was due to appear in court for the first time since launching his civil action. But District Judge Sunil Iyer postponed the hearing, requesting further time to address court documents. Greater Manchester Police and the CPS have asked the judge at Manchester's Civil Justice Centre to refuse Mr Barnett permission to continue his civil case, partly because he has already been convicted by another court. The legal block, known as a "strike-out action", would stop the civil case reaching a full court hearing, in which details of how the police conducted its dealings with the sex industry could be revealed.

In December, Mr Barnett won a judgment in the Court of Appeal in London, which reduced his confiscation order by £4.2 million. The judges then said that Mr Barnett's prostitution businesses, "whilst not condoned by the local police, did receive a measure of tacit approval over a period of time" and have noted that the case could have further legal ramifications.

A CPS spokesperson said: "The Crown Prosecution Service has instructed lawyers to apply to have a court strike off Ian Barnett's claim that the CPS acted inappropriately and maliciously while prosecuting him, as we believe that his civil claim is in essence an attempt to undermine the guilty verdict reached by the Crown Court during his criminal trial."

Greater Manchester Police refused to comment on the case, saying it was "an ongoing matter".

http://www.thejc.com...-clear-his-name

I wouldn't be surprised if GMP were adopting a tougher policy in order to refute any potential future claims of "abuse of process". This may be a contributory factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shame as I have fond memories of Buntys (my ever first punt - with MILF Charlene & a lovely young Naomi) - and one of my finest ever punts was at TWL with the irrepressible Amy (long since a true SuperStar at Sandys). Happy memories.

hope they get back up and running soon.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really have no idea about wanker and what he's up to.

It seems that Ian Barnett is stirring things up:

"3 May 2012

The Jewish brothel owner who was jailed for prostitution activities and ordered to forfeit £5 million in immoral earnings is suing the police and Crown Prosecution Service for damages.

Ian Barnett, who was given a three-year prison sentence in 2008 after admitting running brothels in Manchester, is involved in a number of legal appeals aimed at clearing his name.

He claims his convictions are invalid because the police allowed his brothels to operate in exchange for providing information and ensuring his businesses did not involve drugs or trafficking. The CPS is also answering a claim of pursuing his conviction "maliciously".

The court action could have ramifications for dozens of sex industry convictions nationwide because it calls into question how some police forces operated under Home Office guidance issued in 2000, which suggested greater leniency for brothel owners.

On Wednesday, Mr Barnett was due to appear in court for the first time since launching his civil action. But District Judge Sunil Iyer postponed the hearing, requesting further time to address court documents. Greater Manchester Police and the CPS have asked the judge at Manchester's Civil Justice Centre to refuse Mr Barnett permission to continue his civil case, partly because he has already been convicted by another court. The legal block, known as a "strike-out action", would stop the civil case reaching a full court hearing, in which details of how the police conducted its dealings with the sex industry could be revealed.

In December, Mr Barnett won a judgment in the Court of Appeal in London, which reduced his confiscation order by £4.2 million. The judges then said that Mr Barnett's prostitution businesses, "whilst not condoned by the local police, did receive a measure of tacit approval over a period of time" and have noted that the case could have further legal ramifications.

A CPS spokesperson said: "The Crown Prosecution Service has instructed lawyers to apply to have a court strike off Ian Barnett's claim that the CPS acted inappropriately and maliciously while prosecuting him, as we believe that his civil claim is in essence an attempt to undermine the guilty verdict reached by the Crown Court during his criminal trial."

Greater Manchester Police refused to comment on the case, saying it was "an ongoing matter".

http://www.thejc.com...-clear-his-name

I wouldn't be surprised if GMP were adopting a tougher policy in order to refute any potential future claims of "abuse of process". This may be a contributory factor.

Thanks for the information, very interesting, i have been waiting to see a brothel owner use this perfectly obvious to me reasoning. Why let me operate when you knew and indeed visited me while i was running but werent bothered about closing me down then, but you did later on.

Potentially this could be very bad news for brothels, seeing as i go to some although not in Manchester i hope not though. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to todays GMP Twitter:

"Two premises were closed today by Bury Magistrates Court order under the Sexual Offences Act. One in Bury East the other was in Prestwich".

Assuming that's totally accurate, the closure orders were only made today (and not last week, as some suggested) and the hearing referred to on the LBB by one poster wasn't an appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a notice at wonder lounge that states the closure order is until sat 6 oct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

somebody in the know on the lbb has posted both are closed for good, it looks like NOT a change in GMP policy but some other matter, quite a few girls have already moved to other parlours already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

somebody in the know on the lbb has posted both are closed for good, it looks like NOT a change in GMP policy but some other matter, quite a few girls have already moved to other parlours already.

I don't know how anyone can say for certain at this stage whether or not it's a change in GMP's policy. It's certainly a change in tactics.That's for sure.

We're told that it's down to "malicious activity by certain individuals". If that's correct then those individuals have been remarkably successful, and you've got to wonder who they'll target next.

Both Buntys and TWL were members of S.A.F.E NorthWest. On LBB S.A.F.E. say that they have a "rapport with the Home Office, Crown Prosecution Service and Law Enforcement to tell an exciting story of a group of responsible people in the sex industry who are improving standards to prevent trafficking and exploitation and to offer greater protection to those who work in or are customers of the sex industry."

A lot of use that rapport did for Buntys and TWL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how anyone can say for certain at this stage whether or not it's a change in GMP's policy. It's certainly a change in tactics.That's for sure.

We're told that it's down to "malicious activity by certain individuals". If that's correct then those individuals have been remarkably successful, and you've got to wonder who they'll target next.

Both Buntys and TWL were members of S.A.F.E NorthWest. On LBB S.A.F.E. say that they have a "rapport with the Home Office, Crown Prosecution Service and Law Enforcement to tell an exciting story of a group of responsible people in the sex industry who are improving standards to prevent trafficking and exploitation and to offer greater protection to those who work in or are customers of the sex industry."

A lot of use that rapport did for Buntys and TWL.

Quite, if was a brothel owner in the area i would be worried about this. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite, if was a brothel owner in the area i would be worried about this. :)

According to GMP's Twitter today:

"2x women have been arrested for managing a brothel after police conducted a warrant on Chester Rd. One also arrested for money laundering."

http://twitter.com/gmpstretford

Speculation on LBB that this is Fingertips, the first parlour to be S.A.F.E. North West certified.

It doesn't look good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From today's bury times

The police chiefs have stressed their action was not a reflection on such businesses generally, but was instead related to allegations that people were using the premises for other purposes.

Officers arrested 12 people at the wonder lounge and two people at buntys. They were aged between 19 and 62 thirteen where female and one was male.

Ten of those arrested were freed after questioning and told no further action would be taken against them. The other 4 were a 48 year old man and a 49 year old woman from Middleton and a 44 year old woman and a 55 year old woman from Rochdale. All four have been bailed until tomorrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how anyone can say for certain at this stage whether or not it's a change in GMP's policy. It's certainly a change in tactics.That's for sure.

No thats far from for sure, in fact as I happen to really know why I would say that the action taken in the initial raid was compleatly in keeping with police recations and procedures. The subsiquent closure notice is a different issue but given the size of the operation and that no other issues came up during the raid it is probable that its to try and demonstrate that the cost of the action was partly justified and not a compleate waste of time.

According to GMP's Twitter today:

"2x women have been arrested for managing a brothel after police conducted a warrant on Chester Rd. One also arrested for money laundering."

http://twitter.com/gmpstretford

Speculation on LBB that this is Fingertips, the first parlour to be S.A.F.E. North West certified.

It doesn't look good.

All I will add to this is to make it clear that some of the places that are involved in SAFE had existing action ongoing PRIOR to their joining or even the formation of SAFE and if anyone cares to speak to the owners of those places I think you'll find that they are VERY happy with the work and support of SAFE on their behalf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No thats far from for sure, in fact as I happen to really know why I would say that the action taken in the initial raid was compleatly in keeping with police recations and procedures. The subsiquent closure notice is a different issue but given the size of the operation and that no other issues came up during the raid it is probable that its to try and demonstrate that the cost of the action was partly justified and not a compleate waste of time.

There have been quite a few brothel raids, arrests and convictions in the Greater Manchester area over the last few years. Certainly too many for me to remember. This year alone: Dallias, TWL, Buntys and now Fingertips, all raided. So far as I can recall (unless you know differently) the closure of TWL and Buntys were the first using [brothel] closure orders introduced just over 2 years ago by the Policing and Crime Act 2009. If that is the case then it does represent a change in tactics.

All I will add to this is to make it clear that some of the places that are involved in SAFE had existing action ongoing PRIOR to their joining or even the formation of SAFE and if anyone cares to speak to the owners of those places I think you'll find that they are VERY happy with the work and support of SAFE on their behalf.

I don't think that anyone (and certainly not me) is denigrating SAFE NW, or its aims, in any way. SAFE say that they have a good rapport with the Home Office, CPS and GMP, and have regular meetings. Yet, three of the member-parlours have been raided by GMP in the last 2 months, and two of them had closure orders made in the Magistrates Court under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. We could be forgiven for thinking that GMP are not quite as supportive of the parlours as we're lead to believe.

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