pooter

Brothel Case In The Courts. Edinburgh

28 posts in this topic

Local paper covering the case of a brothel that operated in Grosvenor st. The lady is charge with earning 600k, spent alas in Harvey nichols etc. Its curiously random who gets charged with this sort of thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers for the head-ups pooter; there must be some brave witnesses due in court later this week if organised crime is linked to the case.

Time will tell. Link to story here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link! This seems to illustrate the problem with Scots Criminal Law, much of which is still common law, rather than statute. How, however, spending £0.5m chez Louis Vuilleton is a crime is beyond me (insane, yes, but criminal?) unless, perhaps, she turns her ill gotten gains into hand bags, which are then sold on in, say, China, at a premium price, thereby laundering?

 

I'll await the next thrilling installment, but in the meantime, has anyone visited this establishment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember having a conversation with a brothel manager in Manchester. Basically the gist of what she said was the police don't mind as long as the boss is a women and that the owner doesn't make too much money(not to fussed about the wgs). Not forgetting under age, drugs, coerced and ASB. I remember she quoted £15K per annum so £500K will thoroughly piss off plod. I know they look at turnover but shopping at Harvey Nicks not a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like the links to the trial of Margaret Paterson plus the others have been pulled from the scotsman and the scottish sun web-sites. We're not allowed to have read them, it seems.

Putting together the words 'Scottish' and 'sun' to make a newspaper name should never have been allowed either, but for a different reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHile not directly related to brothels, I once lived opposite a guy who regularly went to France and Belgium as a courier, bring home shedloads of beer and ciggies which were sold and earnt him a nice profit.

 

He got complacent and blase, and upset someonne in a local pub,as within a week his house was raised by Customs & Excise (as they were then). His car, 6 months old,  was impounded and sold, they found underage porn on a laptop, and to cap it all he got jailed for evading an estimated £90k in duty.

 

All it takes for brothels is a jealous rival............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like the links to the trial of Margaret Paterson plus the others have been pulled from the scotsman and the scottish sun web-sites.

 

Most intriguing! It was a bad report by a journalist who (I guess) had no court experience, and, I think, confused the charges, and probably took the prosecution's opening address as evidence, so it could be (but I doubt it) that it has been pulled by the Editor to save embarassment. I think that there must be a dodgier reason - perhaps pulled at the Crown Office' behest?

 

I did print a copy to .pdf, so if anyone needs to be prejudiced, so she can't get a fair trial, PM me with an e-mail address!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most intriguing! It was a bad report by a journalist who (I guess) had no court experience, and, I think, confused the charges, and probably took the prosecution's opening address as evidence, so it could be (but I doubt it) that it has been pulled by the Editor to save embarassment. I think that there must be a dodgier reason - perhaps pulled at the Crown Office' behest?

 

I did print a copy to .pdf, so if anyone needs to be prejudiced, so she can't get a fair trial, PM me with an e-mail address!

Where is the case being held?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is the case being held?

 High Court in Edinburgh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mentioned lady and gent (Margaret and Robert) are familiar to most punters (and WG's) in Scotland, just different names! Dont get me wrong, they werent loved by many but in no way did they "control hookers" as stated. They simply pissed off a WG who then sought revenge. Nasty. This silly  girl has drawn negative attention to our hobby, giving the do gooders more ammunition. 

 

Anyway, Trisha and Stuart ring any bells, folks? xx   :eek:  :eek: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 High Court in Edinburgh.

I popped in the day after the story was in the papers, and no sign of it, wasted 10 minutes listening to a forensic scientist explaining blood stains, before I could sneak out, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Daily Mail has covered the story, in rather more lurid detail than the State. Then again, you'd expect them to do so, they have papers to sell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"An Edinburgh woman who made hundreds of thousands of pounds running a national prostitution racket has been found guilty of living off immoral earnings."

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-22840767

I'd love to have a shufti at the charge-sheet, indictment or whatever we call it here! "living off the immoral earnings" was IIRR a sexist offence in England, which could only be committed by a man in respect of a woman, and has long been repealed. Does it survive in Scotland, or is there a common law offence which a journalist can be forgiven for calling it by its English name?

 

Interestingly Sturgeon, the dolly who is fronting the SNP's "Yes" campaign yesterday said that Scotland's FoI regime was the most transparent in Europe, yet when I made an FoI(S) request to the Lord Advocate for her policy on prostitution offences, I was turned down flat!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Daily Mail has covered the story, in rather more lurid detail than the State. Then again, you'd expect them to do so, they have papers to sell.

 

The first two paragraphs of the story:

 

"A 'vice queen' and her two male accomplices are facing jail after being convicted of operating a lucrative prostitution racket that ran for nine years.

Margaret Paterson, 61, Robert Munro, 61, and Ian Goalen, 59, operated a brothel and escort business from Edinburgh, but were today found guilty of proceeds of crime and immoral earnings."

 

So in para 1 it's a prostitution racket, and in para 2 a brothel and escort business. Later on in the article it becomes a lucrative scam, and then a money-spinning venture.  Did nobody in the office think they needed to decide what language to use rather than amble aimlessly from one kind of terminology to another? All the same, it does suggest that journos are finding it harder and harder to keep up a pretence that a crime is involved in cases like this. They would hardly be able to call it a  business if it was a protection racket or they were a bunch of con-men.

Readers' comments overwhelmingly on the right side, by the way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evening new has plenty of coverage, including a few pics, case was incidentally at the sheriff court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Police Scotland web site has a self congratulatory report at:  http://www.scotland.police.uk/whats-happening/news/2013/June/174304/

from which I quote:

 

Detective Superintendent David Gordon, of Police Scotland's Specialist Crime Division, said: "Margaret Paterson, Ian Goalen and Robert Munro were involved in a criminal conspiracy that saw them make significant profits through the sex trade over a period spanning ten years.

"They enjoyed a luxurious lifestyle through these profits, which were made as a result of controlling a network of girls throughout Scotland.  Paterson and Munro managed the criminal business, which was organised, planned and used specialist resources to make significant criminal profits. The serious organised crime aggravator was included in these charges and it acknowledges the nature of the business in which they were involved.

"Police Scotland aims to minimise the impact of prostitution through reducing or eliminating the harm experienced by people working within the sex industry, or those who are exploited for sexual purposes.

"We will aim to disrupt and dismantle organised crime groups engaged in sexual exploitation, identify offenders and bring them to justice, while supporting work to reduce demand through enforcement, education and prevention."

 

I'm intrigued by the "aggravator" - were this curious pair real mafiosi? Were they part of "organised crime"? (The photograph of her flat suggests, to the contrary, that they were remarkably disorganised!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how reliable this article from the Herald is but I'm prepared to believe these snips from it:

 

With 65 working girls on their books and over a thousand bookings "Officers found no evidence of trafficking"

That's one in the eye for those who claim stupendous %s for trafficking in this industry.

 

And they didn't run a brothel from 2A Grosvenor Street - that was the address from where the convicted ran the agency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Sanctimonious" sums it up well. It's a pity that the accused don't get a right of reply.

 

"You have also sought to portray yourselves as some kind of protectors of the women involved and have maintained that none of them were compelled to ply this trade. And in the strict sense, this is true" the Judge says,

 

followed a little later by

 

"These women may not have been compelled by you but they were driven by circumstance"

 

I'd like to ask Judge O'Grady what the word 'may' was doing in that last sentence when he'd already established earlier in his summing that there was no maybe about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is the funniest story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2264651/Man-ran-1m-year-brothel-City-traders-paid-500-hour-cocaine-fuelled-sex-sessions-Eastern-European-prostitutes.html

 

When the police busted the place, supposedly making 1 million per annum, they found ONE sex toy, presumably shared between the three girls on the premises. Wow, a whole vibrator! Talk about re-investing in your business!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest when I read what she had spent the money on, 300 handbags etc all still in their wrapping, a couple of hundred pairs of shoes assorted rubbish form harvey nicks, I wondered if she had mental health probs. I reckon these cases actually encourage, girls to enter the sex trade, they hear of the easy money, and think I will have some of that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-23313518

 

I'm sorry, as one who usually respects the judiciary, but I find Judge O'Grady's comments to be self righteous, sanctimonious drivel.

 

A mugger doesn't often get five years!

 

 

Whilst some judges are renowned for their sanctimonious drivel; the sentencing guidelines for this sort of case would suggest a custodial sentence in the four-seven years bracket and I'm not surprised at what they received.  In respect of Pooter's comments, this was obviously a cash-in-hand business and it looks as if the main defendant spent on luxury goods just to get rid of it.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst some judges are renowned for their sanctimonious drivel; the sentencing guidelines for this sort of case would suggest a custodial sentence in the four-seven years bracket and I'm not surprised at what they received.  In respect of Pooter's comments, this was obviously a cash-in-hand business and it looks as if the main defendant spent on luxury goods just to get rid of it.     

Much of britain is cash in hand, most find a more intelligent way of laundering their money. She possibly suffers from the "madam Bovary syndrome".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they could keep the saunas open. They said that it kept the ladies off the streets as a prior reasoning for them being left alone before, but I suppose it doesn't halt all crimes that could still be a factor. This could lead to more issues, however, should they shut all the venues down. Less testings for diseases will mean more chances of getting HIV, etc. So not good! But I have no idea what they'll do about private brothels in flats, because usually they never get found out unless an incident is reported and that means more pimping, and brutality towards women going on. At least the saunas let the women get business and they were safer to an extent. No longer would that be the case with the saunas gone. I don't like the choices they made. This will only signal more danger and crime.

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