Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
elrond

90 per cent. chance that any man who buys sex will fall foul of this law

28 posts in this topic

The Finish Law has not yet prosecuted any man for haveung sex with a controlled women, but Vera Baird says

No, I did not know that. However, I do not think that that is an inherent defect of the offence, and I am not sure that the two offences are identical. We prosecute those who control prostitutes for gain, so prosecuting people who pay for sex with a person who has been prostituted for gain goes with the grain of what we do already. We all know that a very high percentage of prostitutes are controlled for another's gain, so one might think that there is a 90 per cent. chance that any man who buys sex will fall foul of this law. We will have to design its finer points later, but we have every hope that it will make a significant difference and be a significant deterrent.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2008-11-06a.354.1&s=prostitution#g354.5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, basically, Baird appears to be confirming what has been said both here & elsewhere since Jacqui Smith announced her proposals, that this legislation is basically a catch all for prosecuting any client who pays for sex with anyone other than an independent escort.

In effect, they are introducing a virtual Swedish Model, whilst dressing it up as being legislation that is tailored to UK circumstances, by using the controlled for gain clause to catch out those who see either agency or parlour workers; thus ignoring the fact that many sex workers prefer to either have someone else take care of the administrative side of their work (i.e. advertising, provision of premesis or the booking of appointments) or that there are many who choose to work in the communal atmosphere of a parlour/brothel.

Typical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Finish Law has not yet prosecuted any man for haveung sex with a controlled women, but Vera Baird says

I guess it won't come as a surprise that Fiona is lying again:

'>

First sex purchase court case ends in acquittal in Salo

Customer found under bed at Syv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when comparing with Finland, this should be clear

Cases investigated as procurement in Finland could qualify is human trafficking elsewhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Finish Law has not yet prosecuted any man for haveung sex with a controlled women, but Vera Baird says

No, I did not know that. However, I do not think that that is an inherent defect of the offence, and I am not sure that the two offences are identical. We prosecute those who control prostitutes for gain, so prosecuting people who pay for sex with a person who has been prostituted for gain goes with the grain of what we do already. We all know that a very high percentage of prostitutes are controlled for another's gain, so one might think that there is a 90 per cent. chance that any man who buys sex will fall foul of this law. We will have to design its finer points later, but we have every hope that it will make a significant difference and be a significant deterrent.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2008-11-06a.354.1&s=prostitution#g354.5

sounds like they're acknowledging that the offence as it stands is not going to happen "design it's finer points" suggests they're going to add some extra clauses e.g that force or coercion or something similar will be required. This will also fall down since the moment they require the woman to be not 100% willing it becomes unenforceable due to the fact that no client could ever be proven to have known a girl's circumstances OTHER than the fact she works for an agency or brothel. If it could be proven that the client knew she was forced the rape or sexual assault laws are already sufficient (and have much harsher sentencing powers available). Looks like it's all falling apart nicely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sounds like they're acknowledging that the offence as it stands is not going to happen "design it's finer points" suggests they're going to add some extra clauses e.g that force or coercion or something similar will be required. This will also fall down since the moment they require the woman to be not 100% willing it becomes unenforceable due to the fact that no client could ever be proven to have known a girl's circumstances OTHER than the fact she works for an agency or brothel. If it could be proven that the client knew she was forced the rape or sexual assault laws are already sufficient (and have much harsher sentencing powers available). Looks like it's all falling apart nicely.

so in the end of the day, they'll go for a total ban on paying for sex :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sounds like they're acknowledging that the offence as it stands is not going to happen "design it's finer points" suggests they're going to add some extra clauses e.g that force or coercion or something similar will be required. This will also fall down since the moment they require the woman to be not 100% willing it becomes unenforceable due to the fact that no client could ever be proven to have known a girl's circumstances OTHER than the fact she works for an agency or brothel. If it could be proven that the client knew she was forced the rape or sexual assault laws are already sufficient (and have much harsher sentencing powers available). Looks like it's all falling apart nicely.

Without the finer points, I think she is saying that any place where there are women working for someone else, and therefore control for gain, then clients could be prsecuted at the same time. Therfore she says 90% will fall foul of the law because so many more women work in brothels and agencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Without the finer points, I think she is saying that any place where there are women working for someone else, and therefore control for gain, then clients could be prosecuted at the same time. Therefore she says 90% will fall foul of the law because so many more women work in brothels and agencies.

was my interpretation as well, ie the finer points will just be about making sure

there's no loophole

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sounds like they're acknowledging that the offence as it stands is not going to happen "design it's finer points" suggests they're going to add some extra clauses e.g that force or coercion or something similar will be required. This will also fall down since the moment they require the woman to be not 100% willing it becomes unenforceable due to the fact that no client could ever be proven to have known a girl's circumstances OTHER than the fact she works for an agency or brothel. If it could be proven that the client knew she was forced the rape or sexual assault laws are already sufficient (and have much harsher sentencing powers available). Looks like it's all falling apart nicely.

The idea is if she is working for someone else, no matter whether you know or not, then it will be illegal. This will result in men having to think twice about who they visit, and will reduce demand. That is the intent of the law

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
was my interpretation as well, ie the finer points will just be about making sure

there's no loophole

It does though leave it possible to implement the mini brothel scheme which was proposed a few years ago, and the potential new regulations on closing brothels for 3 months where the polce and council think they should be closed also leaves the door open for min brothels where they are not causing problems.

I do wonder if there is a brighter side to this story which is yet to come out from the review.

Some how I think not. But.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It does though leave it possible to implement the mini brothel scheme which was proposed a few years ago, and the potential new regulations on closing brothels for 3 months where the polce and council think they should be closed also leaves the door open for min brothels where they are not causing problems.

I do wonder if there is a brighter side to this story which is yet to come out from the review.

Some how I think not. But.....

is

you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the only way to change a bad law is by ignoring it. if enough punters ignore the law and carry on as usual the law becomes meaningless. i would say this comment by baird is scaremongering,but it will work as many punters are too timid or ashamed to stand up for themselves and wgs

we need to develop more self esteem-punter pride!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the only way to change a bad law is by ignoring it. if enough punters ignore the law and carry on as usual the law becomes meaningless. i would say this comment by baird is scaremongering,but it will work as many punters are too timid or ashamed to stand up for themselves and wgs

we need to develop more self esteem-punter pride!

Doe this explain your choice for using the 'placid' term 'ignore', instead

of simply stating ' we break the law' (pro-active if not prison):eek::P:p

I'm only joking :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doe this explain your choice for using the 'placid' term 'ignore', instead

of simply stating ' we break the law' (pro-active if not prison)

I'm only joking :eek:

Civil Disobedience is the word :)

(according to Henry David Thoreau - an argument for individual resistance to civil government in moral opposition to an unjust state)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

superego

you will see my reply on they work for you in which i say i will break the law!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
was my interpretation as well, ie the finer points will just be about making sure

there's no loophole

No - they've already ruled out the Swedish model as the police didn't want a law that criminalised all punters. They didn't see it as practical, and the govt knew the Lords would never pass it. So clearly the "loophole" has to be there otherwise it's just the Swedish model in disguise. They'll have to rewrite it in order to reduce the number of men it would criminalise, the quote that it covers 90% of clients would be absolute gold-dust for the opponents of the proposal. They can't possibly pass the proposal as outlined with that admission.

So what we're left with is 3 possibilities.

1)Proposal as is, which will be rejected as 90% is hardly a big difference from 100% which the police didn't want

2)A proposal that requires "force or coercion" which, in effect, would be a re-write of the rape laws.....just with a fine as the punishment. That's a non-starter.

3)A proposal that covers trafficked girls, but as we all know trafficked also covers most girls. If the agency provided the cab for an outcall they've trafficked her within the UK. If they pick her up from the airport on arrival.....ditto. Also they could never prosecute a client as no client could ever know what a girl's circumstances are. Even if he did, they couldn't prove the client knew - it's not something that you are going to talk about is it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed i see your comment. Well done. The more of us who make our voices heard the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An Observer article repeats the same concept:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/nov/09/harriet-harman-defence-of-provocation

The reforms are among a number of proposals to reduce violence against women likely to be highlighted in the run-up to next month's Queen's Speech. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith will shortly announce an overhaul of prostitution law, making it an offence for a man to buy sex from a prostitute if she is 'controlled for the gain' of another person. This is expected to be so widely drafted that it could cover up to nine out of 10 sex workers, not just those trafficked into the sex trade but those controlled by pimps or even by drug habits.

Ministers hope that while it will technically remain legal to pay for sex so long as a woman agrees freely, many men will be frightened off because it will be so difficult to be sure any particular prostitute falls into that category.

It seems that they want the law to be interpreted such that the onus will be on the men to prove that the prostitute is a true independent. "How could I have known?" will not be an acceptable defence.

In combination with the upcoming tracking of all mobile calls and internet activities, one call to the wrong number and you're done for!!

The dark ages definitely seem to be upon us :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An Observer article repeats the same concept:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/nov/09/harriet-harman-defence-of-provocation

It seems that they want the law to be interpreted such that the onus will be on the men to prove that the prostitute is a true independent. "How could I have known?" will not be an acceptable defence.

In combination with the upcoming tracking of all mobile calls and internet activities, one call to the wrong number and you're done for!!

The dark ages definitely seem to be upon us :)

I'm getting more confused about what this law is all about. Controlled for gain is fairly straightforward, so I think they are incorrect and being mis-led to say that it "will technically remain legal to pay for sex so long as a woman agrees freely". What are they talking about re: controlled by a drug habit???? how does the drug habit "gain" anything and how is that a person. Also they seem to be suggesting that this is a law of "strict liability" which would NEVER get passed by the lords.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm getting more confused about what this law is all about. Controlled for gain is fairly straightforward, so I think they are incorrect and being mis-led to say that it "will technically remain legal to pay for sex so long as a woman agrees freely". What are they talking about re: controlled by a drug habit???? how does the drug habit "gain" anything and how is that a person. Also they seem to be suggesting that this is a law of "strict liability" which would NEVER get passed by the lords.

Most of all, if they want to get rid of brothels and agencies, why haven't they given the cops orders to use excisting laws and close them down...

A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week.

George S. Patton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most of all, if they want to get rid of brothels and agencies, why haven't they given the cops orders to use excisting laws and close them down...

Closing down the agencies takes up a lot of time and effort by the police. When the Oriental Gems and A1 Asian agencies were closed down earlier this year, it was reported that it took a large number of policemen several months to do the necessary evidence gathering, etc.

Whereas if you scare the punters, the demand collapses and so does the industry (they hope). This is what happened in Sweden.

If the law goes through as intended, obviously the industry will not totally collapse, but it will radically change. The choice and the quality that exists in the UK at the moment will be gone. I sometimes try to find out what's available in other countries in Europe, and I'm appalled. Even Netherlands is so far behind at the moment in terms of the quality and the choice.

I personally don't think that this 90% game is sustainable in the long run. Eventually some high profile figures will be caught, and high-powered attorneys will demonstrate what a ridiculous law this is. Then it will either be 100% as in Sweden, or it will become something else. But in the meantime we'll end up losing several valuable years...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm getting more confused about what this law is all about. Controlled for gain is fairly straightforward, so I think they are incorrect and being mis-led to say that it "will technically remain legal to pay for sex so long as a woman agrees freely". What are they talking about re: controlled by a drug habit???? how does the drug habit "gain" anything and how is that a person. Also they seem to be suggesting that this is a law of "strict liability" which would NEVER get passed by the lords.

What they mean is that the drug dealers are able to make a profit by selling drugs to her, and she is working in the industry to be able to pay for the drugs. According to their logic, if she weren't working in the industry, she wouldn't have been able to buy drugs. She is driven ("controlled") to work as a prostitute by her drug habit.

As a result, if you visit a genuine independent who also happens to use drugs, tough luck. Since you can't in general tell for sure, you'll be scared of visiting anyone. With plummeting demand, agencies, parlours and even genuine independents leave the industry of leave these shores. That's the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What they mean is that the drug dealers are able to make a profit by selling drugs to her, and she is working in the industry to be able to pay for the drugs. According to their logic, if she weren't working in the industry, she wouldn't have been able to buy drugs. She is driven ("controlled") to work as a prostitute by her drug habit.

As a result, if you visit a genuine independent who also happens to use drugs, tough luck. Since you can't in general tell for sure, you'll be scared of visiting anyone. With plummeting demand, agencies, parlours and even genuine independents leave the industry of leave these shores. That's the idea.

I'm thinking they're talking about a guilty until proven innocent type of offence. i.e that you're guilty on the basis that you were caught with a prostitute who works for an agency, BUT if you can prove she's not forced you're in the clear. I really can't see the stuff about drugs getting through if your interpretation is correct. In fact I think with the number of people writing to their MP's and to The Lords the whole thing is going to collapse. Men would still be living in fear of arrest and exposure even if they were confident the girl was willing. They're targeting 90% of prostitution to help <1% of women who are trafficked as sex slaves.

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