Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Athene Metis

Sex work and the law

18 posts in this topic

I have read in a lot of the threads of late that everyone refers to laws, by laws, legislation ect and if I am honest it is the same argument time and again.

You all argue over points of law and it has become a common "cop out" on the board. The law states this the law states that, the law is worded as such.

I just wanted to point out that the law is not about justice (as a few threads have come down to subject interpretation) vindication or who is right or wrong.

The Law is about the Law.

I just wanted to say that because the way it reads on some of the threads is really about who is right and who can come up with the best interpritation of the words and how you can "get round" this wording or that wording.

The Law is not subject to interpretation as if you have read this...

http://www.sw5.info/law.htm

... Somewhere in there there is a line that states if you advertise that all payments are for your companionship only and that anything that happens after that is betwen two consenting adults you will still be held accountable for prostitution.

( I am being lazy here because I just can't be bothered to find the actual quote from all that reading)

Anyway my point is that the Law is about the Law nothing else.

Enjoy your day x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have read in a lot of the threads of late that everyone refers to laws, by laws, legislation ect and if I am honest it is the same argument time and again.

You all argue over points of law and it has become a common "cop out" on the board. The law states this the law states that, the law is worded as such.

I just wanted to point out that the law is not about justice (as a few threads have come down to subject interpretation) vindication or who is right or wrong.

The Law is about the Law.

I just wanted to say that because the way it reads on some of the threads is really about who is right and who can come up with the best interpritation of the words and how you can "get round" this wording or that wording.

The Law is not subject to interpretation as if you have read this...

http://www.sw5.info/law.htm

... Somewhere in there there is a line that states if you advertise that all payments are for your companionship only and that anything that happens after that is betwen two consenting adults you will still be held accountable for prostitution.

( I am being lazy here because I just can't be bothered to find the actual quote from all that reading)

Anyway my point is that the Law is about the Law nothing else.

Enjoy your day x

Much of what you say is correct here IMHO...

However 'we still have to get over the hurdle' what do you mean the Law is teh law and nothing else??

Is not the laws merely words on paper, devised by a cretain class of individual to fulfil a certain function...

And again the 'function' aspect will be argued by a certain class of people that we call 'Judges'

One thing is would say just because a Judge may make his/her own assessment does not make it right

I think it was Martin Luther King who suggested that unjust laws are in fact no laws at all

Just a few thoughts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... Somewhere in there there is a line that states if you advertise that all payments are for your companionship only and that anything that happens after that is betwen two consenting adults you will still be held accountable for prostitution.

What is this "held accountable for prostitution" of which you post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... Somewhere in there there is a line that states if you advertise that all payments are for your companionship only and that anything that happens after that is betwen two consenting adults you will still be held accountable for prostitution.

Not sure what you mean by being "held accountable" ---- in this country it is not illegal for a woman to offer sexual services for cash. :)

Why they even bother to put that "companionship" clause on their web-site is a mystery to me. :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Much of what you say is correct here IMHO...

However 'we still have to get over the hurdle' what do you mean the Law is teh law and nothing else??

Is not the laws merely words on paper, devised by a cretain class of individual to fulfil a certain function...

And again the 'function' aspect will be argued by a certain class of people that we call 'Judges'

One thing is would say just because a Judge may make his/her own assessment does not make it right

I think it was Martin Luther King who suggested that unjust laws are in fact no laws at all

Just a few thoughts

"The law is not about Justice it's about the law"

How many times have you or someone you know uttered the words miscarrige of justice... or said that it was wrong???

As I say the law is not about anything but the law!!!

What is this "held accountable for prostitution" of which you post?

Meaning you can still be procecuted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meaning you can still be procecuted

Prosecuted for what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

read the text on those pages and you will see what I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meaning you can still be procecuted

No, you can't, it is not illegal to be a prostitute, it is of course illegal if you try to solicit on the street, there is nothing illegal about working on your own from private premises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
read the text on those pages and you will see what I mean.

Is this the text you are refering to --------------

Working alone indoors, or for an agency or in a brothel

All remain legal. Provided the worker is at least 18, buying sex from them is also legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
read the text on those pages and you will see what I mean.

And what has any of that got to do with "held accountable for prostitution"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this the text you are refering to --------------

Working alone indoors, or for an agency or in a brothel

All remain legal. Provided the worker is at least 18, buying sex from them is also legal.

No that is not the quote.

And what has any of that got to do with "held accountable for prostitution"?

and this is the quote i was refering too... sorry I have a really bad cold and my head is rather fuzzy...

ESCORT AGENCIES

Working for

It is legal to work for escort agencies, whether or not you are offering sexual services.

Some agencies rip you off and offer no protection whatsoever. Shop around for agencies which look out for your safety and offer reasonable terms and conditions. Try to work for places that have been recommended by other workers.

Running

Escort agencies where the staff are only providing 'social escort' services, rather than sexual services, are legal.

As everyone knows, these are in a very small minority and the vast majority of escort agencies involve the owners operating illegally. What stops them being raided and closed down is that agencies tend to be much lower down the list of police priorities than streetwork or brothels.

However if the police do decide to take an interest in you, they have repeatedly demonstrated they are quite prepared to pose as clients and potential workers in order to prove you know what's really going on, despite disclaimers like "Any fees paid to our escorts are for time and companionship only and anything else that may occur is a matter of personal choice between two consenting adults only". Nice try, but it won't save you.

The law in this area was changed completely, so we await some prosecutions to see just what the effect will be, but you almost certainly do not want to be the test case!

So there you go Sasfan sorry for the wait

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So there you go Sasfan sorry for the wait

Ah, I see, thank you, so we are not discussing prostitutes and prostitution as such, we are in fact discussing Agencies, the ubiquitous T&C disclaimer and presumably Section 53 (Controlling prostitution for gain) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, is that correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am talking about the whole industry and it's many facets, But yes that quote was talking about the Agency/parlour side of the industry.

Sorry to have caused you confusion, not my intent, but as I have a really fuzzy head full of cold, what sounds good in my head is what I am typing at the moment... so may not sound that great when read from another POV.

But yes the general jist of what I was saying you got I just did not articulate it very well...

oh and I never did learn how to spell either... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am talking about the whole industry and it's many facets, But yes that quote was talking about the Agency/parlour side of the industry.

Sorry to have caused you confusion, not my intent, but as I have a really fuzzy head full of cold, what sounds good in my head is what I am typing at the moment... so may not sound that great when read from another POV.

But yes the general jist of what I was saying you got I just did not articulate it very well...

oh and I never did learn how to spell either... :)

Ok, well if we deal with the only one that is of any real interest as it covers not just Agencies/brothels but with the paid sex scene in general, and that is Section 53 (Controlling prostitution for gain) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, what is the problem with it?

As regards the T&C, I'm afraid that the mind that thinks that a disclaimer stating that something is not done when there is incontrovertible evidence to prove otherwise, is any form of defence, is beyond my comprehension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Law is not subject to interpretation as if you have read this...

http://www.sw5.info/law.htm

... Somewhere in there there is a line that states if you advertise that all payments are for your companionship only and that anything that happens after that is betwen two consenting adults you will still be held accountable for prostitution.

If I may say so, I think you have completely misunderstood what the legal expert at SW5 is saying.

This statement from their website is not about escorts working for agencies (as they say that is perfectly legal whether or not sexual services are offered); it is about running escorts agencies:

However if the police do decide to take an interest in you, they have repeatedly demonstrated they are quite prepared to pose as clients and potential workers in order to prove you know what's really going on, despite disclaimers like "Any fees paid to our escorts are for time and companionship only and anything else that may occur is a matter of personal choice between two consenting adults only". Nice try, but it won't save you.

The point is that if the police take an interest in an escort agency they may pose as potential clients, in order to show that the agency owners and managers are controlling prostitution for gain. And the police are not going to be impressed by the agency's disclaimer if the facts clearly show the agency knows what is going on.

Working as an escort, whether as an independent or through an agency, is legal. Running an agency is probably illegal, but there hasn't (so far as I know) been a prosecution yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Running an agency is probably illegal, but there hasn't (so far as I know) been a prosecution yet.

Section 53 (Controlling prostitution for gain) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was given an airing in the Silk and Lace case, the result was no case to answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Section 53 (Controlling prostitution for gain) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was given an airing in the Silk and Lace case, the result was no case to answer.

Thank you. I see Mr Drew was acquitted of controlling prostitution and money laundering, but was convicted of possessing a cannister of CS gas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you. I see Mr Drew was acquitted of controlling prostitution and money laundering, but was convicted of possessing a cannister of CS gas.

Yes, I suspect that the CPS tossed the Section 53 pebble in the water just to see what ripples it made, however all-in-all it was not their finest hour.

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