Confuscius

Police Raid - Basildon

32 posts in this topic

I've heard that police raided Nikkis in Basildon yesterday following a tip off. It's been operating for years so I'm surprised that they've taken action now.

Wonder if this has any connection to events in MK and elsewhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder if this has any connection to events in MK and elsewhere?

This is Essex police whereas Operation Sentinel is TVP.

"A brothel, visited by more than 30 punters day, has been put out of action after it was raided by police.

Two women, both believed to be prostitutes, were arrested and one embarassed customer was led away by officers after the sex den was busted.

Police raided the tiny one-bedroom flat, which is directly behind the shops in Felmores End, Basildon, following a tip-off it was being used as a brothel called Nikki’s Massage.

On Thursday a team of police battered down the door of the sex den at around 11am.

Inside they found two women, one wearing just a basque, and a man thought to be a customer.

The living room of the tiny home - which is a privately owned property - had been turned into a makeshift sex den with a mattress on the floor, while both that room and a bedroom upstairs were littered with paraphernalia.

Officers seized various items including a “price list” outlining the various sexual acts offered by girls at the brothel and the price, sex toys, lubricants, uniforms and various racy outfits.

A female officer had to dress one of the women before both were led to the property in handcuffs.

The male customer, who was in his 50s, was not arrested but left with police to “help with their inquiries”.

While officers searched the tiny flat the phone - used by the brothel to book in their regular punters - was constantly ringing.

Sgt Simon Gray, who led the raid on the ground, hailed it a success.

He said: “This brothel has had an extremely negative impact on the local community.

“Fortunately in this case we received intelligence about this brothel and were able to act on it.

“We would urge anyone who has information about prostitution in the area to contact us and be assured that we will act on their information.”

Two women, aged 39 and 32, were arrested on suspicion of being concerned in running a brothel. Both remain in custody where they are being questioned by police."

http://www.basildonr...ided_by_police/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is Essex police whereas Operation Sentinel is TVP.

Yes I realise this.

I was wondering whether the raids by different forces were coincidental or that there is co-ordinated action nationwide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering whether the raids by different forces were coincidental or that there is co-ordinated action nationwide.

On the face of it, no. TVP's Operation Sentinel is about proceeds of crime. The Basildon raid appears to be about responding to public complaints about brothel-keeping.

Brothel-keeping and money-laundering are closely linked. If you're keeping a brothel then the money is proceeds of crime, and no matter what you do with the money, you're money-laundering, even if you keep it under the mattress.

My take on it is that Operation Sentinel is more about proceeds of crime whereas the Basildon raid is more about brothel-keeping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“We would urge anyone who has information about prostitution in the area to contact us and be assured that we will act on their information.”

I wonder how many doors of independent ladies working on their own will be smashed in as a result of that stupidly worded statement in the police and CPS's continuing efforts to keep their snouts in the trough.

My take on it is all the raids are about proceeds of crime, but Essex police are not as stupid as TVP so not stating it.

The idiot Blair and his government created a right mess with his Proceeds of Crime act. Cash-flow driven policing priorities - just what the real victims of crime don't need. I wonder how many crimes with victims might have been prevented or solved while TVP and Essex Police were counting £20 notes and stealing people's computers and financial records over the last couple of days.

What a disgusting police and justice system we now have in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many doors of independent ladies working on their own will be smashed in as a result of that stupidly worded statement in the police and CPS's continuing efforts to keep their snouts in the trough.

My take on it is all the raids are about proceeds of crime, but Essex police are not as stupid as TVP so not stating it.

The idiot Blair and his government created a right mess with his Proceeds of Crime act. Cash-flow driven policing priorities - just what the real victims of crime don't need. I wonder how many crimes with victims might have been prevented or solved while TVP and Essex Police were counting £20 notes and stealing people's computers and financial records over the last couple of days.

What a disgusting police and justice system we now have in this country.

Is there any evidence that loads of doors of independent ladies have been smashed down?

Whilst we might not like the law everyone is aware that running a brothel is illegal. In general most of the contributors on this site have confidence in the law and the justice system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many crimes with victims might have been prevented or solved while TVP and Essex Police were counting £20 notes......

I have to be honest here. I'd rather that the police were counting the £20 notes than the drug-dealers, terrorists and people traffickers were.

If brothel-keeping wasn't a crime then POCA wouldn't apply to the income earned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any evidence that loads of doors of independent ladies have been smashed down?

Whilst we might not like the law everyone is aware that running a brothel is illegal. In general most of the contributors on this site have confidence in the law and the justice system.

really?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any evidence that loads of doors of independent ladies have been smashed down?

Whilst we might not like the law everyone is aware that running a brothel is illegal. In general most of the contributors on this site have confidence in the law and the justice system.

The law is an ass as regards brothels where no women are proved to have been trafficked or been coerced in my view. I dont respect that law. WGs should be allowed to work together if they wish for safety reasons in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The law is an ass as regards brothels where no women are proved to have been trafficked or been coerced in my view. I dont respect that law. WGs should be allowed to work together if they wish for safety reasons in my opinion.

bang on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A female officer had to dress one of the women before both were led to the property in handcuffs.

My mind asks;

Who supplied the handcuffs?

Why couldn't she dress herself, or was that an "extra?"

:D

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I gather I feel that this was a contrived, tawdry and shabby exercise including a mock up of a photo. Whether it was for revenge or some kind of warped sense of duty we will never know. I notice that the lady, as she is, and who pleaded not guilty to running an agency where all the girls paid up NI and Tax got off. I am sure that if this place was run as a business where the girls also paid there way will get - with the help of a good solicitor - a fair hearing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The law is an ass as regards brothels where no women are proved to have been trafficked or been coerced in my view. I dont respect that law. WGs should be allowed to work together if they wish for safety reasons in my opinion.

I also agree. I would add that in my view the law which potentially catches the punter who innocently contracts with a coerced woman is unhelpful generally as it discourages ex post facto reporting of a punter's suspicions about coerced women.

jlm42 was banging on about independent ladies having their doors banged down. A lady working on her own would not constitute a brothel and so the law applicable to a brothel, brothel keeping etc would not apply. Nevetheless an indie might still have neighbour complaints leading to some lesser charge of disorderly conduct/breach of the peace/ or some other similar 19th/20th century origin legislation.

Uncle Pokey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also agree. I would add that in my view the law which potentially catches the punter who innocently contracts with a coerced woman is unhelpful generally as it discourages ex post facto reporting of a punter's suspicions about coerced women.

jlm42 was banging on about independent ladies having their doors banged down. A lady working on her own would not constitute a brothel and so the law applicable to a brothel, brothel keeping etc would not apply. Nevetheless an indie might still have neighbour complaints leading to some lesser charge of disorderly conduct/breach of the peace/ or some other similar 19th/20th century origin legislation.

Uncle Pokey

remember a brothel is a place where 2 or more ladies work. Complainants may say 'there are all sorts of people coming and going from there' leading plod to assume more than just her work there. How she proves the negative that no-one else works there I dont' know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had a good laugh at this......"Sgt Simon Gray, who led the raid on the ground, hailed it a success.

He said: “This brothel has had an extremely negative impact on the local community."

....er nothing to do with the local druggies and hoodie robbers who hang around the shops below the flat, just walk into the off licence and see the security, never seen an offy like it, everything is behind security screens to stop you doing a raid or getting at the staff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard that police raided Nikkis in Basildon yesterday following a tip off. It's been operating for years so I'm surprised that they've taken action now.

Wonder if this has any connection to events in MK and elsewhere?

...more like the local opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nevetheless an indie might still have neighbour complaints leading to some lesser charge of disorderly conduct/breach of the peace/ or some other similar 19th/20th century origin legislation.

If the lady is the freehold owner of her house or flat then she is probably safe, but if she is, as is more than likely, a tenant, even one with a lease, then the police are likely to go to her landlord and give heavy advice about the penalties for letting premises for use as a brothel, leading to him ending her tenancy, to save his mug shot potentially appearing in the local rag captioned as a brothel owner.

There is no one who can be quite so self righteous as a police officer, when he thinks it career enhancing!

BTW - I wonder whether there is any mileage now, whether you voted, or were too lazy and uninterested to do so, in writing to your new PCC, who sets priorities for the police, suggesting that POCA can be evil, and that co-op brothels should be left in peace?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the lady is the freehold owner of her house or flat then she is probably safe, but if she is, as is more than likely, a tenant, even one with a lease, then the police are likely to go to her landlord and give heavy advice about the penalties for letting premises for use as a brothel, leading to him ending her tenancy, to save his mug shot potentially appearing in the local rag captioned as a brothel owner.

But, as I understand it, if the tenant (WG) has the sole use of the property then it wouldn't be regarded as a brothel anyway - or have I got that wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, as I understand it, if the tenant (WG) has the sole use of the property then it wouldn't be regarded as a brothel anyway - or have I got that wrong?

If Plod/CPS are in a shitty mood they can chose from:

The following are summary offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956:

Section 33, keeping a brothel;

Section 34, a landlord letting premises for use as a brothel;

Section 35, a tenant permitting premises to be used as a brothel.

Section 36, a tenant permitting premises to be used for prostitution.

I agree that Landlord letting premises to single lady doesn't seem to be caught, but her tenancy agreement will certainly include a clause prohibiting any immoral activity! In any case WGs don't usually stay to fight eviction, partly, at least, because most of them don't want their name and face to appear on the front page of the Daily Voyeur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"permitting" suggests some kind of active approval, that would suggest ignorance of the situation, even a lack of hard proof would be a valid defence.

While letting, is simple allowing or not forbidding, much more difficult to sucessfully plead ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"permitting" suggests some kind of active approval, that would suggest ignorance of the situation, even a lack of hard proof would be a valid defence.

While letting, is simple allowing or not forbidding, much more difficult to sucessfully plead ignorance.

Not exactly.

In the case of section 34 the word "letting" is used in the context of "leasing" and not in the context of "allowing".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to be honest here. I'd rather that the police were counting the £20 notes than the drug-dealers, terrorists and people traffickers were.

If brothel-keeping wasn't a crime then POCA wouldn't apply to the income earned.

Unless its the stinkin' LONDON Met who in this case were literally counting the overtime for nothing. :mad:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/18/police-team-axed-playing-poker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Section 33, keeping a brothel;

Section 34, a landlord letting premises for use as a brothel;

Section 35, a tenant permitting premises to be used as a brothel.

Section 36, a tenant permitting premises to be used for prostitution.

Thanks for your response. I can see how a landlord could be regarded as a brothel keeper under Sections 33 and 34 (although I thought more than one lady had to have use of the premises in order for it to be considered a brothel?), but what's the logic of Sections 35 and 36 when applied to a lady who's the sole tenant and sole worker at a property? If she has sole use then it wouldn't be a brothel (S.35) and S.36 doesn't seem applicable as prostitution in itself isn't illegal. I know you know your legal stuff, so I'd be really interested in how this all works.

I find it a bit hard to get my head around the whole thing if the act of selling sexual favours (if done willingly) isn't illegal, but advertising your services or providing anywhere other than in your own non-rented property is!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had a good laugh at this......"Sgt Simon Gray, who led the raid on the ground, hailed it a success.

He said: “This brothel has had an extremely negative impact on the local community."

....er nothing to do with the local druggies and hoodie robbers who hang around the shops below the flat, just walk into the off licence and see the security, never seen an offy like it, everything is behind security screens to stop you doing a raid or getting at the staff.

:lol: Basildon is indeed a craphole :eek: How anything happening behind closed doors could have a "negative impact on the local community" is somewhat laughable ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your response. I can see how a landlord could be regarded as a brothel keeper under Sections 33 and 34 (although I thought more than one lady had to have use of the premises in order for it to be considered a brothel?), but what's the logic of Sections 35 and 36 when applied to a lady who's the sole tenant and sole worker at a property? If she has sole use then it wouldn't be a brothel (S.35) and S.36 doesn't seem applicable as prostitution in itself isn't illegal. I know you know your legal stuff, so I'd be really interested in how this all works.

I find it a bit hard to get my head around the whole thing if the act of selling sexual favours (if done willingly) isn't illegal, but advertising your services or providing anywhere other than in your own non-rented property is!

I'm long retired, and I've never prosecuted in the English jurisdiction! The problem is that most of this legislation was drafted by people who thought that sex was a duty to be got over with quickly in the marital bed, in the dark, to raise up another generation to die for King & Country (or if female to fill shells with explosives). If/when plod decides to be difficult, he cracks his knuckles, and goes out to frighten people - threatening prosecution, even if we, here, know it would probably fail, puts many people off.

As I see it, s34 deals with a freeholder who gives a tenancy to a madam,

s35 covers a mesne tenant who sub-lets to a madam, OR, simply comes as the respectable face, takes the tenancy, and then hands the keys to the madam, and waits for nice brown envelopes of used £20s,

s36 (which, to me, in today's situation, is shitty) was aimed at the Maltese who took a slew of different tatty flats, and put a single WG in each.

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