MikeThePlayer

How would the law be enforced in practice?

23 posts in this topic

As I've written before, they think that the clients will be scared of seeing even an independent as they can't be really sure that the WG is a genuine independent. Therefore the agencies, parlours and even genuine independents will go out of business due to lack of custom...

This will probably have the desired effect of destroying the industry as we know it. Parts of it will remain, but the quality and the choice will be gone forever.

But if it actually came to actually charging somebody for seeing someone from say an agency, how would it work?

According to the strict interpretation of the laws as are today, they should be able to close down most agencies and parlours. Why don't they do it? It takes up a lot of time, money and effort. When the Oriental Gems, A1 Asian and the Abra Girls agencies were closed down earlier, it had reportedly taken a large number of police officers several months to gather evidence. At the end, did those closures make an impact? They had a slight impact on the Asian scene, and non at all on the East European one. That's why they have to rely on the fear factor and self-destruction of the industry.

Going back to the main point, how would they charge somebody for seeing someone from say an agency? They would have to prove that the particular agency was making money on prostitution. As I wrote above, gathering that evidence takes time and effort. For how many agencies can they do this? If they could do it now, they would've already done it. And how many punters can they catch in one swoop? How many punters are seeing girls of an agency at a given point in time? Only a few... They may try to increase their haul by tracking and recording the mobile phone calls as they are also preparing to do. But will just booking an appointment be enough to charge somebody? I doubt it. They would actually have to catch the punter in or near the incall or outcall site. So I think they can only catch a small number of punters per agency.

As the new law does not (theoretically) criminalise relationships with independents, I think very soon every WG will claim to be an independent. Some will actually be, some won't. But how can we know? Even though Jacqui Smith says that not knowing won't be a defence, I doubt this can stand in high court. This is not the same as having sex with an underage person. A person's looks give an idea of that person's approximate age; whereas for a WG, their looks, or their web page may give you no information on whether they are a genuine independent or not, or how they came to this country, or whether they smoke pot.

I don't know of another example of a law where it's virtually impossible for you to tell if you've committed a crime or not. Doing something is either illegal, or it's legal. This must be one of the fundamental tenets of law.

Sorry for the long post...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read through a good deal of the threads on this subject, this smacks of another New Labour policy of making a big splash on a law change that will actually not change much in practice.

The policy of making the buying of sexual services a criminal offence will scare a few punters off at first I am sure but, as pointed out by some of the ladies, most punters (me included) don't always think with the head on top of their neck, and sooner or later, unless there are a lot of high profile convictions, things will carry on as they always have done.

As also pointed out all over the place, I am pretty sure the scale of the problem that Harriet and her cronies think they are addressing here is nothing like as big as they seem to think it is. Of all the ladies I have seen in my long career I can probably count no more than half a dozen where I felt there was any kind of whiff of a drug problem and these I just walked away from. As for trafficking, again, i would guess you would pick up a feeling that something wasn't right. Maybe I have just been lucky and not seen it?

Given all of that, what sort of resources are the Police likely to put onto following this law up I wonder? The industry has been running so long now, and the money to be made is so vast, surely even the most blinkered opponent realises that no change in the law will stop it, it will just go underground. I would imagine that most senior police officers would realise that pushing prostitution underground will make their lives more difficult, and will quietly continue to ignore the law, the same as they do most of the daft rules in place to date.

What this really needs should it come to pass is for people to challenge it in the courts and prove that the way this appears to be being drafted is rediculous. This obviously means a non-publicity shy punter and escort with a few quid taking it on having been arrested. If this does go through, maybe we should all donate to a "fighting fund" for the inevitable case that will be brought sooner or later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should this go ahead, I'm wondering if an independent escort could give clients a standard signed document asserting that she is not pimped, trafficked, or addicted to drugs? I can see problems with this, but as a starting point for discussion?

The logical conclusion I suppose would be the state licencing women to operate as sex workers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should this go ahead, I'm wondering if an independent escort could give clients a standard signed document asserting that she is not pimped, trafficked, or addicted to drugs? I can see problems with this, but as a starting point for discussion?

The logical conclusion I suppose would be the state licencing women to operate as sex workers.

that is what they are considering in the Netherlands, if you see someone

outside the licensed sector you'll be commiting a crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that is what they are considering in the Netherlands, if you see someone

outside the licensed sector you'll be commiting a crime.

Licensing of women is an absolute non starter. What women working for a few years would want paper work branding her a prostitute. In Turkey the id card is stamped prostitute making the women unemployable.

The only valid licensing is brothels and agencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the strict interpretation of the laws as are today, they should be able to close down most agencies and parlours. Why don't they do it? It takes up a lot of time, money and effort. When the Oriental Gems, A1 Asian and the Abra Girls agencies were closed down earlier, it had reportedly taken a large number of police officers several months to gather evidence.

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
As I've written before, they think that the clients will be scared of seeing even an independent as they can't be really sure that the WG is a genuine independent. Therefore the agencies, parlours and even genuine independents will go out of business due to lack of custom...

This will probably have the desired effect of destroying the industry as we know it. Parts of it will remain, but the quality and the choice will be gone forever.

But if it actually came to actually charging somebody for seeing someone from say an agency, how would it work?

According to the strict interpretation of the laws as are today, they should be able to close down most agencies and parlours. Why don't they do it? It takes up a lot of time, money and effort. When the Oriental Gems, A1 Asian and the Abra Girls agencies were closed down earlier, it had reportedly taken a large number of police officers several months to gather evidence. At the end, did those closures make an impact? They had a slight impact on the Asian scene, and non at all on the East European one. That's why they have to rely on the fear factor and self-destruction of the industry.

Going back to the main point, how would they charge somebody for seeing someone from say an agency? They would have to prove that the particular agency was making money on prostitution. As I wrote above, gathering that evidence takes time and effort. For how many agencies can they do this? If they could do it now, they would've already done it. And how many punters can they catch in one swoop? How many punters are seeing girls of an agency at a given point in time? Only a few... They may try to increase their haul by tracking and recording the mobile phone calls as they are also preparing to do. But will just booking an appointment be enough to charge somebody? I doubt it. They would actually have to catch the punter in or near the incall or outcall site. So I think they can only catch a small number of punters per agency.

As the new law does not (theoretically) criminalise relationships with independents, I think very soon every WG will claim to be an independent. Some will actually be, some won't. But how can we know? Even though Jacqui Smith says that not knowing won't be a defence, I doubt this can stand in high court. This is not the same as having sex with an underage person. A person's looks give an idea of that person's approximate age; whereas for a WG, their looks, or their web page may give you no information on whether they are a genuine independent or not, or how they came to this country, or whether they smoke pot.

I don't know of another example of a law where it's virtually impossible for you to tell if you've committed a crime or not. Doing something is either illegal, or it's legal. This must be one of the fundamental tenets of law.

Sorry for the long post...

I'm not sure whether it is by accident or design on the part of HMG, but any legislation making the purchase of sexual services illegal while leaving the sale of sexual services not illegal, is most certainly going to awaken the interest of nefarious entrepreneurs who would seek to exploit such legislation for their own ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Licensing of women is an absolute non starter. What women working for a few years would want paper work branding her a prostitute. In Turkey the id card is stamped prostitute making the women unemployable.

The only valid licensing is brothels and agencies.

I didn't suggest that either

that is why so few have registered in Germany, most pay taxes etc but they

might say they work as waitress etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't brothels just do business in the guise of specialist massage. All the girls can be trained and get qualifications. That way, the money is paid and what goes on behind close doors is just that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can't brothels just do business in the guise of specialist massage. All the girls can be trained and get qualifications. That way, the money is paid and what goes on behind close doors is just that.

I'm afraid that approach is about as much use as the ubiquitous T&C disclaimer, if it can be proved that sexual services are being exchanged for gain then it really doesn't matter what is being claimed/disclaimed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should this go ahead, I'm wondering if an independent escort could give clients a standard signed document asserting that she is not pimped, trafficked, or addicted to drugs? I can see problems with this, but as a starting point for discussion?

The logical conclusion I suppose would be the state licencing women to operate as sex workers.

Perhaps she could show a copy of her tax return. Or would that show that she is being controlled by HM Government?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my 2p worth.

The law (if it ever gets passed) will be probably be applied like that against soft drugs, specifically cannabis & ecstasy. We'll have a couple of high profile, media-friendly busts a year to keep the Daily Mail readership happy and the Old Bill will get on with doing their real job of catching rapists, murderers and other low-life.

Assuming the government's guess of 14,000 foreign WGs and Wikipedia's figure of 141,354 police officers in the UK, that's 10 officers per WG and no other crime solving at all just to catch one punter from each of the imported WGs. It just doesn't add up. The collapse of Pentameter suggests that it's way too expensive to police, so HH & FMcT have gone for the much cheaper scare the punters away by acting tough approach, as the money is needed for our recession busting tax cuts next year;).

Back to the drug analogy, legislation over the last 10 years has had no effect on the behaviour of many people I know and my opinion is that this new proposal will have similar success. I'm sure there'll be some casualties, but I don't think the Old Bill are going to put this as a top priority 3 months after the storm has died down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Jacqui Smith was just interviewed on the Today programme.

When Evan Davis asked her if it was fair that a man who had made reasonable efforts to determine if a wg was trafficked and then found himself prosecuted was fair, she replied that the purpose of the law was to send a message to men to make them think twice about paying for sex.

Just shows how ill-thought out and ideologically driven this legislation is. :(

(Oh, there's an extended interview with her on Woman's Hour later this morning too.)

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well Jacqui Smith was just interviewed on the Today programme.

When Evan Davis asked her if it was fair that a man who had made reasonable efforts to determine if a wg was trafficked and then found himself prosecuted was fair, she replied that the purpose of the law was to send a message to men to make them think twice about paying for sex.

Just shows how ill-thought out and ideologically driven this legislation is. :(

(Oh, there's an extended interview with her on Woman's Hour later this morning too.)

B

I suppose it does, but in another way it does strip away the pretense, and that cannot be a bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well Jacqui Smith was just interviewed on the Today programme.

When Evan Davis asked her if it was fair that a man who had made reasonable efforts to determine if a wg was trafficked and then found himself prosecuted was fair, she replied that the purpose of the law was to send a message to men to make them think twice about paying for sex.

Just shows how ill-thought out and ideologically driven this legislation is. :(

(Oh, there's an extended interview with her on Woman's Hour later this morning too.)

B

Do you think there's sufficient forces of reason at the House or the Lords to overturn this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just my 2p worth.

The law (if it ever gets passed) will be probably be applied like that against soft drugs, specifically cannabis & ecstasy. We'll have a couple of high profile, media-friendly busts a year to keep the Daily Mail readership happy

Actually, Daily Mail readers don't seem very impressed. Check out their comments on the Mail's running of the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the one on extreme videos is only coming into law in the new year. So it does take time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont forget that in the US for example, prostitution is illegal and yet, if you do a quick search, you will find... lots and lots of ladies still operating. I went to New York this year on tour. Yes you risk being arrested and imprisoned but you reduce the risk by having the client supply you with all manner of details to ensure he is not a cop and you check those details out thoroughly. It works both ways though, I could have been a cop too, but I doubt a cop would have spent so much time on a website or blog. Its interesting that craigslist (who had a massive section for ladies to advertise on) have this year agreed to stop accepting call girl/escort/prostitute ads (pick a name you feel comfortable with :( after pressure from the police/government- it seems that times are a changing but we will all adapt, of that I am sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't we all missing something here...

It's only illegal to pay for SEX. But how can they prove that's what you saw the woman for - maybe you saw here for a theraputic chat or a deep muscle massage.... How can they prove you've seen the woman and performed the act ? Unless they intend to go through the waste bins and DNA profile all the -- erm-- residue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know of another example of a law where it's virtually impossible for you to tell if you've committed a crime or not. Doing something is either illegal, or it's legal. This must be one of the fundamental tenets of law.

There's quite a few offences that are of "Strict Liability" where intent is irrelevant and committing the offence (no matter how unwittingly) is enough to convict you.

For example, selling alcohol to someone underage is a Strict Liability offence. The fact that the person looks of age would make no difference.

There is a "Due Diligence" defence, but it would need to be watertight and is not easy to prove. The person selling alcohol might keep written records of what s/he did to establish the age of the young person, to prove Due Diligence.

I have no idea what would constitute a 'reasonable' Due Diligence defence in the case of unwittingly paying for sex with a 'controlled' prostitute. What's 'reasonable' varies unfortunately, but (imo) you'd need to prove a great deal of foresight and planning to demonstrate that you took every step to avoid having sex with a controlled prostitute to use a defence of Due Diligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's quite a few offences that are of "Strict Liability" where intent is irrelevant and committing the offence (no matter how unwittingly) is enough to convict you.

For example, selling alcohol to someone underage is a Strict Liability offence. The fact that the person looks of age would make no difference.

There is a "Due Diligence" defence, but it would need to be watertight and is not easy to prove. The person selling alcohol might keep written records of what s/he did to establish the age of the young person, to prove Due Diligence.

I have no idea what would constitute a 'reasonable' Due Diligence defence in the case of unwittingly paying for sex with a 'controlled' prostitute. What's 'reasonable' varies unfortunately, but (imo) you'd need to prove a great deal of foresight and planning to demonstrate that you took every step to avoid having sex with a controlled prostitute to use a defence of Due Diligence.

You are absolutely right, Ailsa, as I subsequently found out when I was reading about 'strict liability'. I put my findings in another thread:

http://www.punternet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12936

In fact, Gloucestershire Chief Constable Dr Timothy Brain, who speaks for the Association of Chief Police Officers on prostitution and vice, said on the radio that there will not be a legal test for a client to use before he sees a WG to make sure that it is legitimate to see her. But he also said that said it was essential any new law was drafted in such a way that it was enforceable. "We do not want the direction of the legislation to be lost in a confusion of legal argument," he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, that's interesting reading :eek:

I should have added in my previous post that the provision of a due diligence defence might not be contained within the statute as it is with trading law.

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