Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
elrond

Lord blog

15 posts in this topic

Some good arguments, and some support so far. Hope baronesssmurphy makes an effort to be in the chamber.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good find, elrond.

thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can any WGs be persuaded to post on the Lords Blog? It has lots of the academic & statistical, little of the the personal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not enough Lords in the House, the amendment on 14 was lost the Bill as it stands goes through with "strict liability" in it. ;):D

The only way I can clearly see to solve the problem is to state to punter or on website that no coercion or force is used to any WG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not enough Lords in the House, the amendment on 14 was lost the Bill as it stands goes through with "strict liability" in it. ;):D

The only way I can clearly see to solve the problem is to state to punter or on website that no coercion or force is used to any WG.

perhaps you're not understanding strict liability - if the website lies, tough titty.

Ridiculous that it has got through but I'm not overly worried. It'll be killed off by case law, that's assuming the police ever try using it which I doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably still a chance that Clause 14 and (more importantly 20/21) go to a direct vote at 3rd reading?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only way I can clearly see to solve the problem is to state to punter or on website that no coercion or force is used to any WG.

God forbid that we get another disclaimer to add to the T&C one.

Let's just look at what possible use a coercion & force (C&F) disclaimer could be to Mr Punter. Mr Punter is charged with whatever Section of whatever Act this proposed legislation is eventually filed, and we have 2 possible scenarios :-

1. There is insufficient evidence (or the evidence is not sound etc.) to convince the Magistrate(s) that the prostitute has been/is being forced or coerced etc. the C&F disclaimer is not required.

2. There is sufficient sound evidence to convince the Magistrate(s) that the prostitute has been/is being forced or coerced etc. Mr Punter will not be given any chance to produce the C&F disclaimer (not that it would do him the slightest good anyway because it has been disproved by the evidence) because he is guilty by dint of the offence being a strict liability.

Now let's look at what possible use a coercion & force (C&F) disclaimer could be to the prostitute :-

The proposed legislation does nothing to alter the legal status of the prostitute and it will not be an offence to be coerced or forced, so legally it will have no use whatsoever. It might get you some custom though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
God forbid that we get another disclaimer to add to the T&C one.

Let's just look at what possible use a coercion & force (C&F) disclaimer could be to Mr Punter. Mr Punter is charged with whatever Section of whatever Act this proposed legislation is eventually filed, and we have 2 possible scenarios :-

1. There is insufficient evidence (or the evidence is not sound etc.) to convince the Magistrate(s) that the prostitute has been/is being forced or coerced etc. the C&F disclaimer is not required.

2. There is sufficient sound evidence to convince the Magistrate(s) that the prostitute has been/is being forced or coerced etc. Mr Punter will not be given any chance to produce the C&F disclaimer (not that it would do him the slightest good anyway because it has been disproved by the evidence) because he is guilty by dint of the offence being a strict liability.

Now let's look at what possible use a coercion & force (C&F) disclaimer could be to the prostitute :-

The proposed legislation does nothing to alter the legal status of the prostitute and it will not be an offence to be coerced or forced, so legally it will have no use whatsoever. It might get you some custom though.

should die in case law if the police ever try a prosecution - might require someone to appeal to a higher court thought.

Lord Pannick mentioned in a previous debate that there was an appeal on human rights grounds re: strict liability for sex with under 13s. I've read a couple of cases where the prosecution has agreed the girl looked and acted older and that the guy was reasonable in thinking she was 16+ but the prosecution stood.

Anyway the appeal was rejected, but only because the people they were protecting i.e millions of children under 13 were more important than the human rights issues brought up. Also it was a serious charge (rape).

Lord Pannick's point was that in this case we're talking about a very minor offence, so that probably wouldn't outweigh the human rights issues which the appeal court DID recognise.

Also whereas with sex with a child under 13 you can ask for ID if you're worried, and the police can establish a person's age absolutely, in this case you've no way to establish a girl's status. In fact it's virtually guaranteed that if you do ask a girl she'll say she's fine. Even the police will only know if the girl tells them.

Only 5 women were found during the period of operation pentameter who were genuinely trafficked in the traditional sense. There's been a total of around 125 traffickers prosecuted since 2004 but the vast majority were traffickers in the "helped to travel" sense.

Also a few of the women who have been found to be genuinely trafficked were located by tip offs from punters.....that would definitely cause problems if they tried a prosecution.

So in conclusion you've very few "forced" girls who'll come to the police's attention and there may not be a punter present when they raid or he'll be the one who tipped the police off. Liberty and other organisations will be looking out (I would hope) for that first attempt at a prosecution. They may even be able to mount a legal challenge without a defendent since they're debating general principles rather than specific points pretaining to an individual case.

Also I've just thought they'll also need the girl to give evidence as you have a right to face your accuser and I would think a lot of girls would probably baulk at the thought of doing that to their customer when they had no real way of knowing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the bill a concern for the punters ? Will it put them off punting in anyway ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is the bill a concern for the punters ? Will it put them off punting in anyway ?

There are many can't-happen-here types who are out of touch with reality -esp. in the NW.

But maybe that is not so strange, when the police ignore high profile brothels which operate and advertise just as if what they are doing is

perfectly legal, why would they be concerned about yet another law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can any WGs be persuaded to post on the Lords Blog? It has lots of the academic & statistical, little of the the personal.

Just posted but to be truthful im fed up with all this nonsense, Ive wrote numerous letters and visited the House of Lords with a group of ladies. I don't think anything will change any of this bull.... So I will carry on regardless in my business...wheres theres a willy there will always be a way...and anyhow I do go out I will make sure its with a bang, hopefully in front of a judge who is a punter like last time I was in court. The whole thing is hypocritical bull from lying old biddys who sit on large inheritances and dont give a shit about the real world. Will I still be around in a years time???...watch this space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and anyhow I do go out I will make sure its with a bang, hopefully in front of a judge who is a punter like last time I was in court.

Whether or not you go out with a bang, it will not be in a court charged under the proposed legislation. The proposed legislation does nothing to change the legal status of a prostitute one iota, also it does not make a prostitute who is forced/coerced etc. a criminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whether or not you go out with a bang, it will not be in a court charged under the proposed legislation. The proposed legislation does nothing to change the legal status of a prostitute one iota, also it does not make a prostitute who is forced/coerced etc. a criminal.
You are, of course, right, but I agree with the sentiment behind Vicegirl's post!

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