Max Gentle

Policing and Crime Bill - an alternative view

51 posts in this topic

So it's gone through and now paying, or offering to pay, for sexual services with someone who has been subjected to "...force, threats (whether or not relating to violence) or any other form of coercion, or...any form of deception" is now a strict liability offence.

Leaving aside the question of how (un)likely a punter is to get caught and charged, I don't think it's such a bad thing. I wouldn't want to support forced prostitution and I don't think any of the posters on this board would either. So, making it a criminal offence doesn't worry me. I only punt with WGs who are obviously in the business of their own free will - British indies for the most part in my case, just because that's the kind of WG I like!

Also leaving aside the question of whether or not it should be strict liability - it's something I haven't really thought much about, as it really doesn't affect me.

What interests me is the fact that this whole thing started off as an attempt by the antis to outlaw paid sex completely, in the style of the Swedish model. That attempt has obviously failed! What we've got is in fact a law that outlaws paying for sex with a forced victim - not really a bad thing, IMO.

Along the way, a lot of facts and opinions have come out to show that the antis' statements and statistics are complete shite and the whole question has had quite a good airing, so the public is perhaps now more aware of what's been going on and have had a chance to form a reasonable view.

I think that now this law has been passed, it's very unlikely that any parliament will be ready to revisit this question soon, especially as a General Election is coming.

So, I'm inclined to think that the antis may have shot their bolt! They've got a law that is far, far less draconian than they originally wanted and given that HH and the rest of them are likely to be out of power shortly, the chances that anything further will happen on this in the foreseeable future are pretty minimal.

What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you think?

Agree on your assessment re. Clause 14. The real hazard lies with the increased powers to close brothels, which could be used for a blitz on massage parlours---- whether they will be is another issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree on your assessment re. Clause 14. The real hazard lies with the increased powers to close brothels, which could be used for a blitz on massage parlours---- whether they will be is another issue.

From memory, the police have to consult the local authority first so one could assume that areas that have tolerated brothels to date will continue to do so.

However, where there has been local opposition to a particular establishment in such areas, one could envisage community activists lobbying their local councillors etc.

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From memory, the police have to consult the local authority first so one could assume that areas that have tolerated brothels to date will continue to do so.

However, where there has been local opposition to a particular establishment in such areas, one could envisage community activists lobbying their local councillors etc.

B

I wonder about soho. Westminister has always had Soho in its sight. There were amendements made to ensure magistrates were involved. We also await what guidence the home office provide to the police in the duties.

Back to 14. One complaint with it is it devalues abuse to a maximun £1000 fine, the price of an overnight. I would far more have supported a regime where prison sentences for rape were mandated where the punter was reckless and should have know better.

I agree with Max that the clause 14 is not going to make a great deal of difference, because like him I am unaware of meeting any women who has been forced into this work other than to earn money to make ends meet after husbands and boyfriends have walked out. And as we have always said the amount of coersion is less than what the antis say. They tend to belive their own bull shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

prepare yourself, the fascist fems will soon start saying that the law doesn't work, there must be a universal ban on paying for sex because so few punters are caught

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
prepare yourself, the fascist fems will soon start saying that the law doesn't work, there must be a universal ban on paying for sex because so few punters are caught

but by then the tories will be in power, and it'll be dead in the water as they seem against this law, never mind an outright ban. Remember that's what JS and HH were after in the beginning but polls showed there was no public desire for it. Also they'd have to start campaigning again from scratch with all the bullshit statistics exposed. Without all the claims of 25000 and 18000 etc they'd never have got this law through - never mind a total ban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that won't stop them from trying, and they still have a chance in Scotland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that won't stop them from trying, and they still have a chance in Scotland

I doubt they could have such a major difference in law between the two borders if that's what you mean. Although before you say it I know kerb crawling used to be legal over the border when it was illegal here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but by then the tories will be in power, and it'll be dead in the water as they seem against this law, never mind an outright ban. Remember that's what JS and HH were after in the beginning but polls showed there was no public desire for it. Also they'd have to start campaigning again from scratch with all the bullshit statistics exposed. Without all the claims of 25000 and 18000 etc they'd never have got this law through - never mind a total ban

It ain't over until the fat lady sings, especially if Gordon is replaced:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/14/last-hard-choice-for-labour

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It ain't over until the fat lady sings, especially if Gordon is replaced:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/14/last-hard-choice-for-labour

B

Short of Gordon Brown jumping into a phone box and slipping into his Superman outfit, I think Labour is doomed at the next election. It's probably true that the Tories won't be any better but the simple fact that they're not this Labour government will be more than enough to get them elected with a handsome majority, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So it's gone through and now paying, or offering to pay, for sexual services with someone who has been subjected to "...force, threats (whether or not relating to violence) or any other form of coercion, or...any form of deception" is now a strict liability offence.

Leaving aside the question of how (un)likely a punter is to get caught and charged, I don't think it's such a bad thing. I wouldn't want to support forced prostitution and I don't think any of the posters on this board would either. So, making it a criminal offence doesn't worry me. I only punt with WGs who are obviously in the business of their own free will - British indies for the most part in my case, just because that's the kind of WG I like!

Also leaving aside the question of whether or not it should be strict liability - it's something I haven't really thought much about, as it really doesn't affect me.

What interests me is the fact that this whole thing started off as an attempt by the antis to outlaw paid sex completely, in the style of the Swedish model. That attempt has obviously failed! What we've got is in fact a law that outlaws paying for sex with a forced victim - not really a bad thing, IMO.

Along the way, a lot of facts and opinions have come out to show that the antis' statements and statistics are complete shite and the whole question has had quite a good airing, so the public is perhaps now more aware of what's been going on and have had a chance to form a reasonable view.

I think that now this law has been passed, it's very unlikely that any parliament will be ready to revisit this question soon, especially as a General Election is coming.

So, I'm inclined to think that the antis may have shot their bolt! They've got a law that is far, far less draconian than they originally wanted and given that HH and the rest of them are likely to be out of power shortly, the chances that anything further will happen on this in the foreseeable future are pretty minimal.

What do you think?

I agree, I think the final legislation could have been so much worse. In no way do I support trafficking or any form of force, threats or even coercian to get women into prostitution. I only want to meet with women who are escorting of their own free will.

The next set of hurdles is going to see how the Police go about enforcing the new law, how the Courts interpret the legislation (not forgetting that they can only convict where the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt), and finally good old Ministerial regulation (what other little gems will the Minister add in as subordinate legislation to the act).

If anything, I do feel that the new legislation could turn out to be another white elephant which this Government has invented out of its own paranoia. The Police have powers to enforce and prosecute under the already long established legislation but to date there has been little evidence that this has been taking place. Because they do have the powers. Or is it the case that the problem is not as great as perceived HH? Remember that newsnight interview with Jeremy Paxman and that odious MP who was given a real grilling and rightly so over the numbers of women being trafficked.

All that we can do is take care and assess the risk when making a booking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strict liability is a time bomb waiting to explode, if not in relation to punting then in other areas. Once it is accepted as a proper way of legislating, it will be treated as a precedent and become the thin end of the wedge.

It is essential for justice that strict liablity is condemned as fundamentally wrong and repealed by the next Parliament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strict liability is a time bomb waiting to explode, if not in relation to punting then in other areas. Once it is accepted as a proper way of legislating, it will be treated as a precedent and become the thin end of the wedge.

It is essential for justice that strict liablity is condemned as fundamentally wrong and repealed by the next Parliament.

a lot of traffic offences are "strict liability", it doesn't matter if it was your intention to park illegally, drive to fast or drive without insurance.

If you get caught, you would be guilty under strict liability as you "ought to have known

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a lot of traffic offences are "strict liability", it doesn't matter if it was your intention to park illegally, drive to fast or drive without insurance.

If you get caught, you would be guilty under strict liability as you "ought to have known

so is handling a gun, even if you've found it in your back garden and hand it into the police:rolleyes:

http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a lot of traffic offences are "strict liability", it doesn't matter if it was your intention to park illegally, drive to fast or drive without insurance.

If you get caught, you would be guilty under strict liability as you "ought to have known

The difference is that your speed is logged by radar, your possession of not of insurance is demonstable, and where you parked can be photographed. In every case there is objective evidence. The circumstances in which a WG became a WG, or agreed to have sex with you, can be a lot less clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The difference is that your speed is logged by radar, your possession of not of insurance is demonstable, and where you parked can be photographed. In every case there is objective evidence. The circumstances in which a WG became a WG, or agreed to have sex with you, can be a lot less clear.

In practice it will be impossible to find out from the provider whether they are forced/coerced/deceived before the booking is made ... so there is no way that you can know you are breaking the law. At least with a speeding offence you are fully aware of the speed limit. Strict liability is like removing all speed limit signs and then prosecuting you because "you should known".

This is not natural justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Short of Gordon Brown jumping into a phone box and slipping into his Superman outfit, I think Labour is doomed at the next election. It's probably true that the Tories won't be any better but the simple fact that they're not this Labour government will be more than enough to get them elected with a handsome majority, IMO.

The future is uncertain. The antis will continue to campaign against as they are in Ireland and Scotland, and will continue here. Therefore we have got to be vigilant and not allow more draconian laws to appear.

Labour said that the legislation on street work would be reviewed withing two years to check that it is working and women are being helped out of prostitution.

Who ever gets into power at the election , there will be the biggest ever change of MPs, with so many resigning over the expenses issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It still seems to me that if you either;

1. Make a call to an agency / provider and the police trace you from the call

AND / OR

2. Get caught during a raid on any establishment at all

Then you will be prosecuted.

If the police hit you with a fine etc on the basis that the lady concerned was subject to some force / coercion / deception (even if she wasn't), are you really going to challenge it in court?

For example, even if you believe the lady concerned is an indy, are you really going to go through with a court case to prove she is?

To me, the way the law is written it is not important whether the lady was actually forced / coerced / deceived. The aim is simply to scare punters away by prosecuting any that can be traced, in order to achieve a widespread fall in demand.

So to my mind it simply becomes a matter of odds - what are the odds of being either traced in some manner or caught in a raid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really think the police are going to raid every establishment, agency and indie then spend time tracing clients just to get them in court. I think the Police have better things to do, and more serious crimes to clear up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I don't think that the police will be raiding / tracing everybody - that is why I mentioned that it will become a matter of the odds of being caught. What really is the likelihood of any particular individual being traced or caught in a raid?

Maybe pretty low. But the lawmakers are relying, I think, on the fear factor of the consequences of being caught and publicly exposed.

But what I am really trying to get to the bottom of is how this new law will work - and as I see it if you are caught you will get prosecuted, regardless of the individual circumstances. I don't know if I am right on this, but I think that if a punter is caught in a flat he will get hit with a fine or other punishment and it will be up to the punter to show that the lady was not coerced / deceived / forced.

Also, with technology as it now is, I don't think it would be very hard to link a mobile number to an individual, or to listen in on and record all calls to an agency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you really think the police are going to raid every establishment, agency and indie then spend time tracing clients just to get them in court. I think the Police have better things to do, and more serious crimes to clear up.

I hope the police will use the new law in the cases were necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you really think the police are going to raid every establishment, agency and indie then spend time tracing clients just to get them in court. I think the Police have better things to do, and more serious crimes to clear up.

It could be cost-effective to do so as they now get to keep a substantial portion of the Proceeds of Crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It could be cost-effective to do so as they now get to keep a substantial portion of the Proceeds of Crime.

This is true and is very disheartening if it turns out that it would be their motivation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, I think the final legislation could have been so much worse. In no way do I support trafficking or any form of force, threats or even coercian to get women into prostitution. I only want to meet with women who are escorting of their own free will.

The next set of hurdles is going to see how the Police go about enforcing the new law, how the Courts interpret the legislation (not forgetting that they can only convict where the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt), and finally good old Ministerial regulation (what other little gems will the Minister add in as subordinate legislation to the act).

If anything, I do feel that the new legislation could turn out to be another white elephant which this Government has invented out of its own paranoia. The Police have powers to enforce and prosecute under the already long established legislation but to date there has been little evidence that this has been taking place. Because they do have the powers. Or is it the case that the problem is not as great as perceived HH? Remember that newsnight interview with Jeremy Paxman and that odious MP who was given a real grilling and rightly so over the numbers of women being trafficked.

All that we can do is take care and assess the risk when making a booking.

From my very limited knowledge of law there is much les burden of proof on the prosecution in a magistrates court than a crown court. Magistrates may decde on the balance of pobability and don't forget that last year having common sense wasno longer a requirement for becoming a JP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No I don't think that the police will be raiding / tracing everybody - that is why I mentioned that it will become a matter of the odds of being caught. What really is the likelihood of any particular individual being traced or caught in a raid?

Maybe pretty low. But the lawmakers are relying, I think, on the fear factor of the consequences of being caught and publicly exposed.

But what I am really trying to get to the bottom of is how this new law will work - and as I see it if you are caught you will get prosecuted, regardless of the individual circumstances. I don't know if I am right on this, but I think that if a punter is caught in a flat he will get hit with a fine or other punishment and it will be up to the punter to show that the lady was not coerced / deceived / forced.

Also, with technology as it now is, I don't think it would be very hard to link a mobile number to an individual, or to listen in on and record all calls to an agency.

Look, the only way the police will be arresting anybody is if you're caught in a random raid where the girl turns out to be forced or coerced etc. Even if they then find the maid's phone and start tracing calls they can't prove that you turned up or paid or anything. The girl herself is unlikely to remember individual clients when she's seeing god knows how many every day.

THIS LAW ONLY APPLIES TO FORCED/COERCED GIRLS.

They've found a handful over the last few years and at least half escaped themselves or with the help of a client so there was no client to prosecute (yes they could prosecute the client who helped - in theory - but that would be as good as tearing the bill up and flushing it down the toilet)

You have to be there with a forced girl at the exact time the police decide to boot the door in. Just carry on punting as normal and stop worrying.

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