coin

Will you appear in Court if ticketed for visiting a prostitute?

17 posts in this topic

The nub of Clause 14 in the Police and Crime Bill is "Strict Liability" or "Summary Conviction" Latin Law being applied to this clause. Some other common offences well known for this are Motoring Offences; Speeding and Parking, we all accept when "ticketed" for these offences, we have the choice of either paying the fine with points on our licence or contesting the charge in Court, this situation WILL apply when Summarily convicted of "paying for sex with prostitute who is forced or coerced, by a third party for their gain" . The difference between the Motoring offence and the "Carnal" offence is that the latter will carry a record of Criminal Conviction. The Police will have in their "Armory" an "open door" to convict any "Punter" who sets foot into any establishment whether collective or independent. known for prostitution, whether or not the provider is "forced or coerced by a thrid party for gain", the wording of the "offence" is irrelevent, the nub is the Summary Conviction element. A man who is "Ticketed" for this offence, has just like the afforemention Motoring Offences the option to challenge in Court. HOW MANY WILL WANT TO GO TO COURT, THE STIGMA OF THIS IS AKIN TO Paedophilia. The vast majority of Punters are either married or have a partner, work in a profession where a Court appearance for buying sex would severely affect their employment, the Police know this AND will abuse this new law to dissuade Punters using Prostitutes, just as the Authorities abused the "Paedophile" lists in Operation Ore and others, investigating perfectly innocent people, to create a climate of fear among paedophiles who seek out Children and imagery on the internet. The wording of the offence means nothing it could read "paying for sex with a prostitute wearing sky-blue knickers", it is the Strict Liability element, that is so pertinent. If placed on the Statute Book with this Latin Law slant, this new law will be used to kill prostitution stone dead in the UK at a stroke. Punters will be very wary of approaching Massage Parlours and other sexual service outlets, because of the fear of being "Ticketed" by Police abusing Strict Liability, and could spell the end for these establishments, the true aim of the Government in bringing in this awful Law. We live in very sinster times, where things mean one thing but in reality mean something completely different, similar to a Police State, where laws are abused to achieve the aims of the Excutive. This is nothing more than outright "ban" a bad law, "a wolf in sheeps clothing".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the Police know this AND will abuse this new law to dissuade Punters using Prostitutes,

I think you are being a bit hard on the Police here. The Police already have powers to close most establishments, they haven`t. Infact I do know that some Police do their best to make sure IF girls do work they do it as safely as possible. Also when robberies occur in these extablishments they take them as seriously as other robberies.

Let`s not tar everyone with the same brush that may apply to the few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We live in very sinster times, where things mean one thing but in reality mean something completely different, similar to a Police State, where laws are abused to achieve the aims of the Excutive. This is nothing more than outright "ban" a bad law, "a wolf in sheeps clothing".

I read about a man who owned a sex shop and got done for selling dodgy videos or DVDs. Because he had used some of the profits from these videos or DVDs to run the shop they did him again for 'money laundering'. The law against money laundering was never meant to be used against shop keepers but against gangsters.

Then there is the extradition arrangement that we have with America that we were told was needed because we needed to counteract terrorism. Nobody has been extradited because of terrorism but many for white collar crime and one for computer hacking.

You are right when you say we live in sinister times. Laws are debated for one purpose when people like Harriet Harman and Jacqui Smith know full well they can use them for different purposes. They knew that people did not want a ban on prostitution so they're trying to achieve it by different means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not particularly learned in the legislative process, however this does seem to strike at the heart of the British Judicial system - "innocent until proven guilty".

By paying the 'ticket' you would in effect be admitting guilt, to appeal against the 'ticket' could lead to all sorts of issues, lot least the publicity surrounding the case.

I suppose the only thing to do is visit a lady who has a number of rozzers/coppers as regulars and make some notes on them!!.

Is it me, or are we really turning into Gordon Browns (well known homosexual) Police state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What has Gordon Brown's sexuality got to do with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would certainly appear in court,its only a minority of people who dislike prostitution but they are vociferous,its a bit like the nazis who were in a minority but controlled the media to give the impression that the nazi view had public support

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even under strict liability the police will have to provide evidence that the girl was coerced etc. Considering the tiny number of forced women found by Pentameter and the even tinier proportion of these who could be refound a few months later, I hardly expect a glut of cases, bad law though it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even under strict liability the police will have to provide evidence that the girl was coerced etc. Considering the tiny number of forced women found by Pentameter and the even tinier proportion of these who could be refound a few months later, I hardly expect a glut of cases, bad law though it is.

also,how would they find a punter who'd visited the forced person previously?

they would need to catch punters as part of a raid

this is just a symbolic law designed to frighten punters & thus deprive sex workers of clients,had the law been that punters were charged with rape,then strict liability would'nt apply and punters could elect trial by jury and (i'm sure)plead succesfuly not guilty as has happened in finland.

strict liability in a magistrates court with fines is a good ruse to raise money in the same way that speed cameras raise money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What has Gordon Brown's sexuality got to do with it?

Perhaps he doesn't fully understand chaps like us. (And Bliar was another in his younger days, I'm told.)

Edited by Mr. Bloom
additional info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The nub of Clause 14 in the Police and Crime Bill is "Strict Liability" or "Summary Conviction" Latin Law being applied to this clause. Some other common offences well known for this are Motoring Offences; Speeding and Parking, we all accept when "ticketed" for these offences, we have the choice of either paying the fine with points on our licence or contesting the charge in Court, this situation WILL apply when Summarily convicted of "paying for sex with prostitute who is forced or coerced, by a third party for their gain" . The difference between the Motoring offence and the "Carnal" offence is that the latter will carry a record of Criminal Conviction. The Police will have in their "Armory" an "open door" to convict any "Punter" who sets foot into any establishment whether collective or independent. known for prostitution, whether or not the provider is "forced or coerced by a thrid party for gain", the wording of the "offence" is irrelevent, the nub is the Summary Conviction element. A man who is "Ticketed" for this offence, has just like the afforemention Motoring Offences the option to challenge in Court. HOW MANY WILL WANT TO GO TO COURT, THE STIGMA OF THIS IS AKIN TO Paedophilia. The vast majority of Punters are either married or have a partner, work in a profession where a Court appearance for buying sex would severely affect their employment, the Police know this AND will abuse this new law to dissuade Punters using Prostitutes, just as the Authorities abused the "Paedophile" lists in Operation Ore and others, investigating perfectly innocent people, to create a climate of fear among paedophiles who seek out Children and imagery on the internet. The wording of the offence means nothing it could read "paying for sex with a prostitute wearing sky-blue knickers", it is the Strict Liability element, that is so pertinent. If placed on the Statute Book with this Latin Law slant, this new law will be used to kill prostitution stone dead in the UK at a stroke. Punters will be very wary of approaching Massage Parlours and other sexual service outlets, because of the fear of being "Ticketed" by Police abusing Strict Liability, and could spell the end for these establishments, the true aim of the Government in bringing in this awful Law. We live in very sinster times, where things mean one thing but in reality mean something completely different, similar to a Police State, where laws are abused to achieve the aims of the Excutive. This is nothing more than outright "ban" a bad law, "a wolf in sheeps clothing".

Dear Coin,

I know you're a troll by nature but please stop using so many pointless quotation marks. It is very very very annoying. Also stop whittering on about comparisons with Operation Ore. The stigma of this is nothing like that of paedophilia, it's just a wee bit embarrassing that's all, although if you're married it could be a bigger problem. You won't be ticketed, as you put it, although the police may attempt to give people cautions which they may be willing to take for some of the reasons you give. But I think HH et al will want the first people arrested put through court rather than cautioned if the police insist on trying it out. However, as others have said there will be very little opportunity for the police to even think about using this law. Only 5 genuine traffickers were prosecuted during the time Operation Pentameter was running. 3 of them as a result of a woman who escaped so there was no punter to arrest, and the other two were running a brothel, but there's no stats on whether punters were present during the raid. I also read of some traffickers being caught as a result of women escaping with the aid of punters, and even HH isn't daft enough to encourage the police to try out her new law on a trafficked woman's saviour. Finally the woman, after giving evidence against the trafficker, which will of course be the priority, could also be made to give evidence against the punter. Which she may not want to do. But the defence will insist on it and the case would collapse without it.

In conclusion it's going to be used to make some headlines but I think HH and JS know that if they ever tried to use it in court they'd end up with egg on their faces because the law would be declared in breach of basic legal right and human rights, for reasons I've given in other threads. After a while it'll be forgotten about esp. since Labout will be out by May or June next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps he doesn't fully understand chaps like us. (And Bliar was another in his younger days, I'm told.)

I doubt that GB cares very much about the anti-Prostitution agenda himself, but has let the ultra-feminist wing of the Labour Party run with it, as he is desperate to cling onto any allies he still has in the Cabinet and the wider party.

I don't much care for the homophobic tone of these comments. We have much more to fear from the men-haters than the men-lovers LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't much care for the homophobic tone of these comments. We have much more to fear from the men-haters than the men-lovers LOL

What I said was homophobic? (a word I don't actually use). I thought it was just naughty gossip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In conclusion it's going to be used to make some headlines but I think HH and JS know that if they ever tried to use it in court they'd end up with egg on their faces because the law would be declared in breach of basic legal right and human rights, for reasons I've given in other threads. After a while it'll be forgotten about esp. since Labout will be out by May or June next year.

Agree -- I don't think Clause 14 (previously 13) will prove very workable, not least because they need to produce that rare bird, the forced WG. Far more serious is Clause 21, facilitating summary closure of brothels. That could be used for a blitz against massage parlours--- though whether it will by the more tolerant councils & police authorities is quite another matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree -- I don't think Clause 14 (previously 13) will prove very workable, not least because they need to produce that rare bird, the forced WG. Far more serious is Clause 21, facilitating summary closure of brothels. That could be used for a blitz against massage parlours--- though whether it will by the more tolerant councils & police authorities is quite another matter.

Agree too on 14. The issue for married guys might not so much be the fine or perhaps even a conviction. It might be explaining to the missus why one was off the radar for several hours down the station, processing the paperwork, or perhaps when one's name pops up in the local freesheet.

Re 21 as brothels are already illegal do the police not have powers to summarily close them as things stand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree -- I don't think Clause 14 (previously 13) will prove very workable, not least because they need to produce that rare bird, the forced WG. Far more serious is Clause 21, facilitating summary closure of brothels. That could be used for a blitz against massage parlours--- though whether it will by the more tolerant councils & police authorities is quite another matter.

+1. The summary closure orders have received far less attention than criminalisation, but I reckon that potentially many more brothels will be closed than punters prosecuted: indeed even the proponents of the law accept that this will be rarely used, whereas they're suspiciously quiet on the former.

Indeed a recent letter to the Guardian (and previously also linked to here) described the closure orders as 'particularly insidious' because they

...allow gross intrusion into ordinary women's lives and power to turn homeowners out of their homes on mere suspicion that sex work may take place in the future, in conjunction with the seizure of sex workers' hard-earned money.

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+1. The summary closure orders have received far less attention than criminalisation, but I reckon that potentially many more brothels will be closed than punters prosecuted: indeed even the proponents of the law accept that this will be rarely used, whereas they're suspiciously quiet on the former.

Indeed a recent letter to the Guardian (and previously also linked to here) described the closure orders as 'particularly insidious' because they

...allow gross intrusion into ordinary women's lives and power to turn homeowners out of their homes on mere suspicion that sex work may take place in the future, in conjunction with the seizure of sex workers' hard-earned money.

B

Hmmm - I see

If the police start using that power as a profit source they could close brothels when they have received nuisance complaints or just on the basis of ads in the local rags. Resourcing would no longer be an issue if it is self-financed.

That potentially could really drive them underground. They might cease to advertise in any sort of media, relying for new custmers on word-of-mouth recommendations and pm's on forums such as this. They could have networks of trusted regulars who would be advised of the frequent location changes that would become necessary. In effect they could become clubs with benefits, to avoid detection and raid.

Would provide a fertile ground for the traffickers to operate in.

Perhaps Strict Liability is the decoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on topic I guess I would rather not.

Like everyone else I await with interest how it all plays out. Do the police start closing everywhere to get the money? Do punters get outed under strict liability for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Do the girls all end up going independent?

Ultimately I believe it is a war we will win because common sense suggests the commercial imperative will win out, but there will be casualties along the way. When people want to do something, and see no reason why they should not, they tend to ignore the law if it says they can't, and go ahead anyway. They can be very resourceful and actually see getting round the law as a game and a challenge.

Connections made here will serve us well.

Tx Galahad!

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