Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
bottom liner

North London Trafficking Of Hungarians

15 posts in this topic

 

don't know anything about it but curious as to who the 33yo British man is...possibly a punter arrested under the new offence? I don't think Hungarian traffickers would have worked alongside Brits. But then again with several addresses raided I would be surprised if there was only one punter in all of them

Edited by punter992005

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
don't know anything about it but curious as to who the 33yo British man is...possibly a punter arrested under the new offence? I don't think Hungarian traffickers would have worked alongside Brits. But then again with several addresses raided I would be surprised if there was only one punter in all of them

The opening line is Four men have been arrested on suspicion of trafficking women into the UK to be sexually exploited, assuming they have their facts right that would imply they are all involved in the trafficking offence and not bystanding punters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
don't know anything about it but curious as to who the 33yo British man is...possibly a punter arrested under the new offence? I don't think Hungarian traffickers would have worked alongside Brits. But then again with several addresses raided I would be surprised if there was only one punter in all of them

I don't follow your logic. £3 Hungarians and 1 Brit arrested and held in custody sounds to me like the organisers of a trafficking ring. It is highly likely that any punter unlucky enough to be there at the time of the raid would have been allowed to dress and disappear with trembling knees.

 

These sort of raids generally take place around 05.00 to 06.00, so punters being present would be unusual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't know anything about this but another news article on it here http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/court-crime/isle_of_dogs_address_raided_as_part_of_sex_trafficking_clampdown_1_1832810

 

What do they do with punters if they are caught in these premises and they dont know that the girls are being trafficked?

I don't know, but the consensus on a recent thread, was that Mr Plod is really looking for the perpetrators of the trafficking and would probably let any punters disappear with, perhaps, a bollocking.

 

Since the raids took place at 06.00 I would think the presence of any punters is pretty unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good link Thanks Barry. It's useful to get the best info available.  Having read it, it seems the 4 guys held were all held in connection with trafficking and not for being punters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't follow your logic. £3 Hungarians and 1 Brit arrested and held in custody sounds to me like the organisers of a trafficking ring. It is highly likely that any punter unlucky enough to be there at the time of the raid would have been allowed to dress and disappear with trembling knees.

 

These sort of raids generally take place around 05.00 to 06.00, so punters being present would be unusual.

 

My logic was that the BBC article suggests they were "proper" trafficked women, and not just trafficked in the legal sense i.e. helped to travel in order to run a prostitution business. Therefore, arresting the punters could be justified under the 2009 laws - obviously the BBC article suggested they were all arrested as traffickers but sometimes details get confused, but the MET police website seems to clarify things; and as it turns out there was an arrest for perjury too....strange one that. But it also says the raid was at 6am so that would explain why there were no punters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the traffickers get life imprisonment, if found guilty!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope the traffickers get life imprisonment, if found guilty!

 

Trafficking itself has a maximum term of 14 years. But then trafficking does not require force/threats etc. Obviously if there's evidence of kidnap, false imprisonment etc. then they could get longer, as those would be the appropriate charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My logic was that the BBC article suggests they were "proper" trafficked women, and not just trafficked in the legal sense i.e. helped to travel in order to run a prostitution business. Therefore, arresting the punters could be justified under the 2009 laws - obviously the BBC article suggested they were all arrested as traffickers but sometimes details get confused, but the MET police website seems to clarify things; and as it turns out there was an arrest for perjury too....strange one that. But it also says the raid was at 6am so that would explain why there were no punters.

Would you care to explain in full the difference between the two and then what differing laws might have been breached?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would you care to explain in full the difference between the two and then what differing laws might have been breached?

 

The legal offence of trafficking simply requires that you have facilitated a person's travel in order to commit another offence under part one of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. A Brothel owner who picks up one of the WGs in the morning, as her own car has broken down, is guilty of trafficking within the UK for sexual exploitation, as he facilitated her travel in order to be able to commit the offence of managing a brothel. Similarly if you operate an escort agency and provide a taxi for a girl to go to a client's address you are also guilty as you are committing the offence of controlling prostitution for gain. There is no separate offence of trafficking in UK law which requires force etc. However when the term is used in newspapers most people interpret it as meaning that the girls are sex slaves, when as I said the police don't need to worry about that. The offence of kidnap/false imprisonment/making threats are all there to be used in the event that they DO find evidence of "real" trafficking. As I said this article says the girls were tricked into coming here as receptionists etc. and then forced into sex work...which is trafficking in the EU/worldwide legal sense, rather than the UK offence I explained earlier.

Edited by punter992005

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The legal offence of trafficking simply requires that you have facilitated a person's travel in order to commit another offence under part one of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. A Brothel owner who picks up one of the WGs in the morning, as her own car has broken down, is guilty of trafficking within the UK for sexual exploitation, as he facilitated her travel in order to be able to commit the offence of managing a brothel. Similarly if you operate an escort agency and provide a taxi for a girl to go to a client's address you are also guilty as you are committing the offence of controlling prostitution for gain. There is no separate offence of trafficking in UK law which requires force etc. However when the term is used in newspapers most people interpret it as meaning that the girls are sex slaves, when as I said the police don't need to worry about that. The offence of kidnap/false imprisonment/making threats are all there to be used in the event that they DO find evidence of "real" trafficking. As I said this article says the girls were tricked into coming here as receptionists etc. and then forced into sex work...which is trafficking in the EU/worldwide legal sense, rather than the UK offence I explained earlier.

In the highlighted section the mode of transport is irrelevant. The offence of "managing a brothel" has been committed by the owner regardless of how the escort arrived for work. If he/she has two or more girls working under the same roof then he is guilty of managing a brothel, whether they arrived by bike, limousine, bus or on an elephant.    Or am I being thick?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the highlighted section the mode of transport is irrelevant. The offence of "managing a brothel" has been committed by the owner regardless of how the escort arrived for work. If he/she has two or more girls working under the same roof then he is guilty of managing a brothel, whether they arrived by bike, limousine, bus or on an elephant.    Or am I being thick?

 

Yes he's committed the offence of managing a brothel, just as I'm sure the men arrested in the BBC article are probably guilty of that and/or controlling prostitution for gain....but he's also guilty of trafficking within the UK for sexual exploitation.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/trafficking

 

As you can see. He is managing a brothel - that's a given. But he's facilitated her travel within the UK in order for her to be able to work in his brothel....and this is a "relevant offence", which means that he can ALSO be arrested on suspicion of trafficking. Two offences. And the girl is a trafficked prostitute, even though she was totally willing and being paid.

Edited by punter992005

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