punter992005

The stupidity of the Lords

11 posts in this topic

I wrote an email to Lord McColl of Dulwich regarding his comments in the House of Lords where he said strict liability was justified and mentioned that it also existed in other offences e.g. sex with a child under 13 + drink driving.

Here's the letter I sent to him.....

Dear Lord McColl of Dulwich,

I read with interest your comments in The House regarding the strict

liability aspect of clause 14, where you gave two examples of other

strict liability offences which you claimed were comparable to the

proposed offence. I believe you were missing several vital points in

your comparison.

If you have sex with someone you can request and insist on ID to prove

that they're of age. The police, without any assistance from the child

can prove, absolutely, that child's age.

If you visit a prostitute who is being forced you have no method

whatsoever to establish whether she is being forced. You could ask, but

doubtless she will smile and say no I'm fine, because the alternative

would lose a client and enrage the trafficker.

Men visiting prostitutes very often don't even know the girl's real

name, let alone her immigration status and even if she's English or in

the country with a valid passport and visa, she could still be being

"forced or coerced etc."

Even the police themselves with all the resources and access to

warrants and to databases abroad can't really go to court and prove an

allegation of force unless they have the girl with them to give

evidence. And she may still deny being forced even with the trafficker

in a jail cell for fear of repercussions from his associates back in

her home country. So what chance does the client have?

Although you don't HAVE to know you're drunk or on drugs when driving,

it's pretty unlikely you'll be blissfully unaware you're affected in

some way by alcohol or other substances. Most people DO know they're

too drunk and the rest at least know there's a chance.

You said in your speech a man should make sure she's not forced before

proceeding......but made no suggestion as to how he establishes this.

The answer is it is impossible. Therefore the clause effectively means

it is impossible to visit a prostitute without risk of arrest. That is

inherently bad law. An ostensibly legal act, paying for sex, but no way

of doing it without risk of breaking the law. It is almost certain to

be challenged in the courts if anyone is ever arrested for this

offence.

The irony is, with your comparisons, it brings out the point that if I

book a 13 year old escort who claims to be 18 and appears to be 18, I

have a reasonable chance of defending myself (since strict liability

only occurs with younger children) even though I COULD have asked for

ID.

Seems a bit backwards to me.

I would urge you to reconsider your support for this clause.

And his reply? (In his defence it WAS a real letter to my post box at least)

Thany you for your letter of 4th November. I can quite understand that you think it is pretty unlikely that one would be unaware that one was drunk or on drugs but from my work in this field I have found out that some people are totally unaware who they are, where they are, or with whom they are sleeping for days on end.

The problem is that human trafficking involves millions of people and is a trade worth 44 billion dollars a year. That is why I feel something radical must be done. I am therefore delighted that Sweden, of all coutries, is leading the way.

Talk about totally missing the point and/or ignoring any of the issues I brought up. You really feel like they're just taking the p*ss, that they know they're wrong but don't care. Grrrrrr.:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

never mind, he will get a nice highly paid job in Europe soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your letter of 4th November. I can quite understand that you think it is pretty unlikely that one would be unaware that one was drunk or on drugs but from my work in this field I have found out that some people are totally unaware who they are, where they are, or with whom they are sleeping for days on end

What particular work does he undertake to meet these people? Outside of Westminster, I mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What particular work does he undertake to meet these people? Outside of Westminster, I mean?

What ARE you suggesting :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good works with fallen women, its a traditional thing for politicians and clergy to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good works with fallen women, its a traditional thing for politicians and clergy to do.

Good or God? :(

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that human trafficking involves millions of people and is a trade worth 44 billion dollars a year. That is why I feel something radical must be done. I am therefore delighted that Sweden, of all coutries, is leading the way.

I'd love to know where he got his figures from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

punter992005, I can understand your frustration especially since you have expressed your points quite clinically. Seems to be a clear cut case of evading the issue and fobbing you off.

Have you considered following this up with another communication?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
punter992005, I can understand your frustration especially since you have expressed your points quite clinically. Seems to be a clear cut case of evading the issue and fobbing you off.

Have you considered following this up with another communication?

well since the law is now passed it's a bit pointless. I may do however, just to see if he'll actually take me up on the points I'm making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They often just don't bother to read it. I wrote a letter to my MP about the hacker Gary McKinnon asking that he not be sent to America. I wrote it several years ago.

My MP responded, I know about the Nat West Three ......!!!!!!

OK give him his due, the Nat West Three were in the papers at the time, but he must just have read the word extradite and did'nt bother with the rest of the words I wrote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical politicians - if they don't like the question, they will give you the answer to a question they would like to answer!

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