Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
janus17

Possible loophole in new legislation...

23 posts in this topic

Just a thought, but it occurs to me that, at least as far as escort agencies and clients thereof are concerned, there may be something of a loophole in the proposed legislation.

To get round this whole 'controlled for gain' argument, all an escort agency would have to do would be to be seen as a promoter of wholly independent girls. Northern Angels, and many other sites on the web, already seem to act in this capacity. Imagine it works like this: the girls pay a monthly fee to the 'agency' in question which covers their advertising and promotion on the site (plus they would possibly have to pay an upfront fee to cover their photography), but essentially they are operating independently, using their own email addresses and phone numbers and handling their own bookings. Sure, the agency may provide 'incall' facilities for them to use, but as long as they pay a fee each time they use the premises and there aren't more than 1 girl using the place at any one time, then there wouldn't seem to be any grounds for prosecution, under existing law or anything forthcoming.

Client side, as long as there are plenty of disclaimers on the site stating that all girls are working independently, of their own free will and that no-one has been forced, coerced, trafficked or exploited for financial gain, the law (as proposed) would serve about as much purpose as an ashtray on a motorbike.

Vera Baird may be wallowing in self-congratulation at the moment, but neither her nor her feminazi cronies seem to be blessed with anything like the degree of guile or intelligence hey seem to believe they are. If agencies change their tactics slightly, they can easily de-fang this legislation, and their clients will have little or nothing to worry about. All it would take would be a slight change in operating procedure and the girls taking a little more control of their bookings and meetings.

Anyone else got any comments or ideas on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agencies arrange the escort's appointments & accept a fee for doing so, therefore they are perceived as controlling prostitution for gain; even a maid who works for a single sex worker, in a private flat, who receives payment, can be charged with this.

The only get out, based on the way the proposals have been laid out at present, is to only use the services of independents who don't make use any third party services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would the independents be found??.... because proposed law seems so wide that paid adverts, etc could for example be interpreted as benefitting other parties.

I'd be happy if I believed that the "government" at heart accepted that there was nothing wrong with consenting adults taking part in paid sex.... and was looking for a balanced framework to allow that, while protecting both parties to the transaction. Unfortunately, I'm not confident that key decision makers want that balanced framework... I think a significant number of the key players deep down want to make paying for sex illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

only a matter of time before one was found

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

loopholes? we don't know what exactly will be proposed until tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agencies arrange the escort's appointments & accept a fee for doing so, therefore they are perceived as controlling prostitution for gain; even a maid who works for a single sex worker, in a private flat, who receives payment, can be charged with this.

The only get out, based on the way the proposals have been laid out at present, is to only use the services of independents who don't make use any third party services.

I posted this on another thread, and I think there is more to control than taking the money.

For outcall agencies they would have to prove control of prostitution for gain. I don't think just taking bookings is control. In the case or Oriental Gems, there was control, a large debt bond that had to be worked off, and lack of freedom. Just a thought and I have asked my MP about this.

Another post pointed to a ruling on control. Control does not require force, but is does require some intimidation and or house style on services.

A brothel could be closed because of the law on brothels, but again would there be control for gain. I looked up the reports on an Oxford brothel which was closed this year and the owner sentenced for one year. She was not charged or convicted on 'control of prostitution for gain; but on brothel keeping and money laundering. Again silk and Lace owner was charged but was not convicted on control of prostitution for gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I posted this on another thread, and I think there is more to control than taking the money.

For outcall agencies they would have to prove control of prostitution for gain. I don't think just taking bookings is control. In the case or Oriental Gems, there was control, a large debt bond that had to be worked off, and lack of freedom. Just a thought and I have asked my MP about this.

Another post pointed to a ruling on control. Control does not require force, but is does require some intimidation and or house style on services.

A brothel could be closed because of the law on brothels, but again would there be control for gain. I looked up the reports on an Oxford brothel which was closed this year and the owner sentenced for one year. She was not charged or convicted on 'control of prostitution for gain; but on brothel keeping and money laundering. Again silk and Lace owner was charged but was not convicted on control of prostitution for gain.

(sigh)This has been debated ad infinitum. Control of prostitution for gain is very simple - If you are involved in getting clients and prostitutes together and make money out of that you are guilty. End of. The silk and lace trial fell apart because the jury believed that it was possible the agency wasn't selling sex. Just escorting platonically. That was the issue at hand, the verdict had nothing to do with the definition of control. Don't know about the Oxford case but she COULD have been charged with "controlling......".

Control is not total

Control is not "girl has no choice"

Case law has clearly established that ANY agency taking calls from clients and arranging that they meet a prostitute is "controlling". Same goes for brothels. The prostitution of the girl with the client happens as a direct result of the management/direction of the agency/brothel. Too many people are seeing the word control and going to the most extreme definition of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I posted this on another thread, and I think there is more to control than taking the money.

For outcall agencies they would have to prove control of prostitution for gain. I don't think just taking bookings is control. In the case or Oriental Gems, there was control, a large debt bond that had to be worked off, and lack of freedom. Just a thought and I have asked my MP about this.

Another post pointed to a ruling on control. Control does not require force, but is does require some intimidation and or house style on services.

A brothel could be closed because of the law on brothels, but again would there be control for gain. I looked up the reports on an Oxford brothel which was closed this year and the owner sentenced for one year. She was not charged or convicted on 'control of prostitution for gain; but on brothel keeping and money laundering. Again silk and Lace owner was charged but was not convicted on control of prostitution for gain.

isn't the case online somewhere so you can see why they weren't convicted?

this should be useful

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Court_case_results_to_be_put_online&in_article_id=318897&in_page_id=34&in_a_source=

this is what SW5 says:

control prostitution for gain:

The control aspect of 'Controlling prostitution for gain' almost certainly includes, for example, telling someone where to go, i.e. what escort agencies do when sending staff to clients. Looked at another way, if you couldn't control it, i.e. send someone, no-one would call you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(sigh)This has been debated ad infinitum. Control of prostitution for gain is very simple - If you are involved in getting clients and prostitutes together and make money out of that you are guilty. End of. The silk and lace trial fell apart because the jury believed that it was possible the agency wasn't selling sex. Just escorting platonically. That was the issue at hand, the verdict had nothing to do with the definition of control. Don't know about the Oxford case but she COULD have been charged with "controlling......".

Control is not total

Control is not "girl has no choice"

Case law has clearly established that ANY agency taking calls from clients and arranging that they meet a prostitute is "controlling". Same goes for brothels. The prostitution of the girl with the client happens as a direct result of the management/direction of the agency/brothel. Too many people are seeing the word control and going to the most extreme definition of it.

Do you have link(s) to this case law please?

BTW the result of the Silk and Lace case with regards to "controlling prostitution for gain" charge was "No case to answer" so I very much doubt that the jury had any say in the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the case or Oriental Gems, there was control, a large debt bond that had to be worked off, and lack of freedom. Just a thought and I have asked my MP about this.
You probably know more about this case than I do but where did 'lack of freedom' come into play, and how was it documented or proven? I know that quite a few of the OG girls had paid off their initial loans but remained with OG afterward quite voluntarily, but how were the newer girls who still owed OG further payments on their loans actually denied their freedom?:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you have link(s) to this case law please?

BTW the result of the Silk and Lace case with regards to "controlling prostitution for gain" charge was "No case to answer" so I very much doubt that the jury had any say in the matter.

can't find the link now. It was a recent case where someone was targeted as they were allegedly a violent pimp, however they were cleared of rape and the other offences involving violence and he appealed on the grounds that he wasn't controlling her since she had the right to walk away etc. The Judge said that control did not have to be total, and the making of money was the primary sin that the offence was aimed at.

Basically any agency can be done for controlling prostitution. Abra girls were found guilty of it even though the prosecution barrister agreed the police had found no evidence of trafficking or force or coercion. It was simply an agency that hooked the girls up with clients. The girls got their clients from the agency - they were in "control". The fact the girls could say no, take days off or get clients themselves independently etc was not relevant. Look up the word control in the dictionary. Control is managing or directing something, which is exactly what every agency does.

Also irrespective of whether it was judge or jury the primary point being debated in the silk and lace case was whether the agency were selling sex. It was decided that they weren't. Point being the case collapse was nothing to do with defining control. It was to do with the old time and companionship debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
can't find the link now. It was a recent case where someone was targeted as they were allegedly a violent pimp, however they were cleared of rape and the other offences involving violence and he appealed on the grounds that he wasn't controlling her since she had the right to walk away etc. The Judge said that control did not have to be total, and the making of money was the primary sin that the offence was aimed at.

Basically any agency can be done for controlling prostitution. Abra girls were found guilty of it even though the prosecution barrister agreed the police had found no evidence of trafficking or force or coercion. It was simply an agency that hooked the girls up with clients. The girls got their clients from the agency - they were in "control". The fact the girls could say no, take days off or get clients themselves independently etc was not relevant. Look up the word control in the dictionary. Control is managing or directing something, which is exactly what every agency does.

Also irrespective of whether it was judge or jury the primary point being debated in the silk and lace case was whether the agency were selling sex. It was decided that they weren't. Point being the case collapse was nothing to do with defining control. It was to do with the old time and companionship debate.

Silk and Lace were charged under Section 53 (Controlling prostitution for gain) of The Sexual Offences Act 2003, that section is worded such as both "control" and "gain" have to be proved in order to produce a contravention. Gain was never denied by any person charged, the sale of sex as you put it was never denied, the money laundering charges were based on gains made from selling sex as you put it, the defence lawyer stated that the agency was a "50/50 mutually beneficial' operation", no denial whatsoever that money (gain) was being made, therefore the only factor left was "control", that resulted in "No case to answer".

IIRC the conviction in the Abra case was as the result of a guilty plea rather than as the result of a proven case, or have I got that wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you spend a lot of time and energy discussing this, now answer this instead -

what if the agency is located in another country but but they make bookings for girls in England, an outsourced call center sort of, and the owner and those who work there aren't even British citizens.(only the WGs are)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the only loophole that will be left will be allowing the punters to see the independents. This is what has been intimated so far. Seeing girls from agencies or parlours will potentially get you in trouble. Therefore the punters will be scared, demand will plummet, these establishments will go out of business.

The only growth area will be the independents. The agency web sites will close down, but the girls will be presented on their individual web sites as independents even if there's a 'controlling' outfit behind the scenes. I think off-the-street parlours and saunas will have to disappear.

As discussed before, the crucial issue is that the punter will have supposedly committed a crime if the independent WG turns out not be a genuine independent, but a 'controlled' WG. As it's virtually impossible for a punter to tell one way or the other, I really do not understand how this law can be passed. I don't know of any other law where it's impossible to tell whether you've committed a crime or not. Maybe somebody else does?

Suppose I want to see WG A, who claims to be an independent. I can go and ask a lawyer whether it's OK for me to see her. Or I can go to the police and ask the same question. If they can't answer me before I do it, how can I make sure that I avoid committing a crime? A law is not a fair law if it's so difficult to abide by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
can't find the link now. It was a recent case where someone was targeted as they were allegedly a violent pimp, however they were cleared of rape and the other offences involving violence and he appealed on the grounds that he wasn't controlling her since she had the right to walk away etc. The Judge said that control did not have to be total, and the making of money was the primary sin that the offence was aimed at.

Basically any agency can be done for controlling prostitution. Abra girls were found guilty of it even though the prosecution barrister agreed the police had found no evidence of trafficking or force or coercion. It was simply an agency that hooked the girls up with clients. The girls got their clients from the agency - they were in "control". The fact the girls could say no, take days off or get clients themselves independently etc was not relevant. Look up the word control in the dictionary. Control is managing or directing something, which is exactly what every agency does.

Also irrespective of whether it was judge or jury the primary point being debated in the silk and lace case was whether the agency were selling sex. It was decided that they weren't. Point being the case collapse was nothing to do with defining control. It was to do with the old time and companionship debate.

That was the link Starman put up.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2007/2664.html

This was the summing up and I highlight a few words.

"Over a period of years thereafter you controlled her activities. She worked as a prostitute from your home, and in your home. It was you who made all the arrangements to ensure maximum use of the services she could provide. You maintained her diary; she accounted to you for all earnings; you took her appointments and away from Plymouth; you kept an eye on her all the time. You had no other means of support except State benefits, and you lived off her for years.

I have already referred during the course of submissions to your gambling activities. All the documentation that was put before the jury during the course of trial demonstrated conclusively that your gambling activities had been entirely unsuccessful; it was her earnings that were funding your unsuccessful gambling activities.

The threat of violence was subtle, but ever-present, and there is no doubt she felt intimidated by you. Although the particular assault occasioning actual bodily harm resulted in a verdict of not guilty, having heard the evidence in the case I am quite satisfied that you did regularly use violence towards her. You were, as the prosecution alleged you were, a violent pimp, taking advantage of a damaged and vulnerable individual. It may be when you relaxed your approach to Diane working; however, there remained present the threat even during those periods; and as time went on, and towards the end of the period concerned in this case, Diane felt more and more under greater compulsion to work for fear of the consequences of refusing to do so."

That to me smacks of control and he was guilty.

Working in many brothels that type of control may not there. I have worked in a brothel as a photographer and watched the interactions between the owner, maids and escorts.

As I mentioned the Oxford brothel keeper was charged on brothel keeping, not on control. I believe there is another one due in the Oxford High Court in December.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you spend a lot of time and energy discussing this

That is correct, and the reason for spending a lot of time discussing "control" is because "control" is a, nay the, keystone to both the current and proposed legislation.

I have no idea what the position would be regarding an offshore agency other than to say that getting their cut might be a bit complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you spend a lot of time and energy discussing this, now answer this instead -

what if the agency is located in another country but but they make bookings for girls in England, an outsourced call center sort of, and the owner and those who work there aren't even British citizens.(only the WGs are)

Jacqui Smith had used the expression controlled for another's gain. Shouldn't matter where that another is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jacqui Smith had used the expression controlled for another's gain. Shouldn't matter where that another is.

I would have thought that someone had to be convicted for controlling... before you can get a punter convicted for the new offense. What came first, the chicken or the egg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silk and Lace were charged under Section 53 (Controlling prostitution for gain) of The Sexual Offences Act 2003, that section is worded such as both "control" and "gain" have to be proved in order to produce a contravention. Gain was never denied by any person charged, the sale of sex as you put it was never denied, the money laundering charges were based on gains made from selling sex as you put it, the defence lawyer stated that the agency was a "50/50 mutually beneficial' operation", no denial whatsoever that money (gain) was being made, therefore the only factor left was "control", that resulted in "No case to answer".

IIRC the conviction in the Abra case was as the result of a guilty plea rather than as the result of a proven case, or have I got that wrong?

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2007/2664.html

found the link!!!

Now before you state the obvious, as I said before he was accused of being a violent domineering bastard, however, he was cleared of those charges and appealed using the EXACT SAME LOGIC that you're using. She wasn't being forced, she was able to turn clients away etc.etc. The judge said despite the not guilty verdict he DID believe that he was a violent pimp, but in point 20 of the Judgment he said the following......

"In our judgment, "control" includes but is not limited to one who forces another to carry out the relevant activity. "Control" may be exercised in a variety of ways. It is not necessary or appropriate for us to seek to lay down a comprehensive definition of an ordinary English word. It is certainly enough if a defendant instructs or directs the other person to carry out the relevant activity or do it in a particular way. There may be a variety of reasons why the other person does as instructed. It may be because of physical violence or threats of violence. It may be because of emotional blackmail, for example, being told that "if you really loved me, you would do this for me". It may be because the defendant has a dominating personality and the woman who acts under his direction is psychologically damaged and fragile. It may be because the defendant is an older person, and the other person is emotionally immature. It may be because the defendant holds out the lure of gain, or the hope of a better life. Or there may be other reasons. "

He also said that section 49 of the SOA 2003 which deals with controlling minors in prostitution has an explanatory note as to what control may be......

"The explanatory note to section 53 states that it requires the same behaviour as section 49, and the same phrase must plainly bear the same meaning in both sections. The explanatory note to section 49 includes this statement:

"An example of the behaviour that might be caught by this offence is where A requires or directs B to charge a certain price, or to use a particular hotel for her sexual services, or to pose for a certain photographer, and B complies with this request or direction."

Now I would have to say that an agency will definitely suggest accommodation and prices for it's escorts, and will also suggest photographers for their pictures. They clearly make money from the resulting prostitution. Case closed as I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2007/2664.html

found the link!!!

Now before you state the obvious, as I said before he was accused of being a violent domineering bastard, however, he was cleared of those charges and appealed using the EXACT SAME LOGIC that you're using. She wasn't being forced, she was able to turn clients away etc.etc. The judge said despite the not guilty verdict he DID believe that he was a violent pimp, but in point 20 of the Judgment he said the following......

"In our judgment, "control" includes but is not limited to one who forces another to carry out the relevant activity. "Control" may be exercised in a variety of ways. It is not necessary or appropriate for us to seek to lay down a comprehensive definition of an ordinary English word. It is certainly enough if a defendant instructs or directs the other person to carry out the relevant activity or do it in a particular way. There may be a variety of reasons why the other person does as instructed. It may be because of physical violence or threats of violence. It may be because of emotional blackmail, for example, being told that "if you really loved me, you would do this for me". It may be because the defendant has a dominating personality and the woman who acts under his direction is psychologically damaged and fragile. It may be because the defendant is an older person, and the other person is emotionally immature. It may be because the defendant holds out the lure of gain, or the hope of a better life. Or there may be other reasons. "

He also said that section 49 of the SOA 2003 which deals with controlling minors in prostitution has an explanatory note as to what control may be......

"The explanatory note to section 53 states that it requires the same behaviour as section 49, and the same phrase must plainly bear the same meaning in both sections. The explanatory note to section 49 includes this statement:

"An example of the behaviour that might be caught by this offence is where A requires or directs B to charge a certain price, or to use a particular hotel for her sexual services, or to pose for a certain photographer, and B complies with this request or direction."

Now I would have to say that an agency will definitely suggest accommodation and prices for it's escorts, and will also suggest photographers for their pictures. They clearly make money from the resulting prostitution. Case closed as I see it.

Now its the customer who might suggest the hotel. Some agencies allow the women to set the price, Bunnies has multiple rates. Again the photo one could be got around by asking the women to bring her own. I have highlight lots of places where it suggests some low level coercion needs to be applied to show control. I also posted the link of this with the summing up where the judge condemened the man for the violence. He did get 4-5 years, were the most the OG people got was 2.5 years.

Case not proved to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2007/2664.html

found the link!!!

Now before you state the obvious, as I said before he was accused of being a violent domineering bastard, however, he was cleared of those charges and appealed using the EXACT SAME LOGIC that you're using. She wasn't being forced, she was able to turn clients away etc.etc. The judge said despite the not guilty verdict he DID believe that he was a violent pimp, but in point 20 of the Judgment he said the following......

"In our judgment, "control" includes but is not limited to one who forces another to carry out the relevant activity. "Control" may be exercised in a variety of ways. It is not necessary or appropriate for us to seek to lay down a comprehensive definition of an ordinary English word. It is certainly enough if a defendant instructs or directs the other person to carry out the relevant activity or do it in a particular way. There may be a variety of reasons why the other person does as instructed. It may be because of physical violence or threats of violence. It may be because of emotional blackmail, for example, being told that "if you really loved me, you would do this for me". It may be because the defendant has a dominating personality and the woman who acts under his direction is psychologically damaged and fragile. It may be because the defendant is an older person, and the other person is emotionally immature. It may be because the defendant holds out the lure of gain, or the hope of a better life. Or there may be other reasons. "

He also said that section 49 of the SOA 2003 which deals with controlling minors in prostitution has an explanatory note as to what control may be......

"The explanatory note to section 53 states that it requires the same behaviour as section 49, and the same phrase must plainly bear the same meaning in both sections. The explanatory note to section 49 includes this statement:

"An example of the behaviour that might be caught by this offence is where A requires or directs B to charge a certain price, or to use a particular hotel for her sexual services, or to pose for a certain photographer, and B complies with this request or direction."

Now I would have to say that an agency will definitely suggest accommodation and prices for it's escorts, and will also suggest photographers for their pictures. They clearly make money from the resulting prostitution. Case closed as I see it.

What you say is, and always has been, very clear, however the overall picture is not clear, on the 19th of October 2007 you point out that a judge gave a decision on "control" and based on that decision an appeal against a conviction under Section 53 was lost, I point out that on the 26th of October 2007 a case under Section 53 was judged as being "No case to answer".

Both cases disregarded gain as that was self-evident and never denied, so both cases were decided solely on "control", one for and one against, now with the best will in the world that does not make for a clear cut situation, I couldn't care less which decision was right or wrong, all I am interested in is retaining an open mind until the waters become clear, and with 2 diametrically opposed decisions on the self-same point, I am of the opinion that the waters are still very muddy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now its the customer who might suggest the hotel. Some agencies allow the women to set the price, Bunnies has multiple rates. Again the photo one could be got around by asking the women to bring her own. I have highlight lots of places where it suggests some low level coercion needs to be applied to show control. I also posted the link of this with the summing up where the judge condemened the man for the violence. He did get 4-5 years, were the most the OG people got was 2.5 years.

Case not proved to me.

well Vera Baird and Jacqui smith themselves have said the legislation will apply to 9 out of ten women involved in prostitution. Also those were mere examples of control. The Judge was fairly plain about control not having to be force, and about it being "making suggestions which are followed for one reason or another" (I've paraphrased). Bunnies to take your example, will obviously suggest prices, will recommend photographers and will do SOMETHING that constitutes control. "Here's a client for you at 6 pm" "sounds great - send him over". Doesn't that fit in with control as they seemed to define it? "A" making a request or direction and "B" complying with it. "For the lure of financial gain"

Face facts that controlling prostitution for gain could be used against ANY agency.

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