Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Uncle Pokey

'right-Thinking' Punter

12 posts in this topic

I'd like to explore views about the concept of a 'right-thinking' punter

.

My discussion is specifically targeted towards a deconstruction of the legislation introduced by Labour which criminalises the punter who purchases sex from another who acts against their will.

I understand that, presently, the legislation involved has brought forward tiddly squat in terms of convictions or cautions. But in sense that is precisely why the legislation involved is, I believe, essentially counterproductive, or likely to be, in terms of what, at first blush, it was said to achieve.

Right-thinking punters would no more go to see a provider that was coerced to so provide than to consume a bowl of spuke.

The legislation I object to has little (only by a sidewind) of itself the chance of deterring a punter from seeing a service provider of any kind, but what it achieves in spades is that a punter will decidedly NOT report, ex -post-facto suspicions, that the SP in question was acting contrary to their will.

 

The right-thinking punter would, I believe, in any event 'walk' the moment that there was any evidence of coercion. However, it remains that a punter is much less likely to report suspicion of coertion ex-post-facto in the presence of the current law.

 

So what I'm saying is simply this: Let the legislation encourage the idea that not all punters are horrible and let existing legislation deal with them. And importantly, hugely importantly, let Parliament please look with all sympathy and urgency at the means to protect SPs from harm.

 

There are loads of right-thinking punters out there

aren't there?

 

Uncle Pokey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are - but the morons who legislate view ALL punters as abusers of women. They cannot comprehend for one second that there are many ladies who are totally happy being escorts. It's this denial of consent that politicians and the media continue to promote (using statistics that they've invented) so the general public believe what they read in the papers.

What you are suggesting is to have one rule for "nice" punters and another for "evil" punters. It's a good idea in theory except that lunatics like Harriet Harridan and Mary Honeyball believe all punters are evil full stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't for a minute think I'm suggesting different rules for different punters. What I'm trying to get over to the politicos is that there are right-thinking punters and that the legislation should stop trying to target any punter that in any way discourages the reporting of the suspicion of coertion.

If my earlier post suggested otherwise I will aplogise now.

UP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see where you are coming from - but sadly HH and Honeyball cannot believe that there are right thinking punters - we're all bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Ted. Sadly you may well be right about HH et al. But this is exactly why I'm trying to garner opinion about a contrary view.

In particular is there an appetite generally to accept the concept of a 'right-thinking' punter. I believe in this day and age there may well be.

 

UP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real problem is when it comes to sex this country is still mixed up over the 'love' thing. Until that is dealt with we are all evil in their eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respect the opinions expressed, amd largely agree with them. There is one major obstacle to influencing politicians : it is that they will not pass unpopular legislation unless it's absolutely vital. They always have an eye ro the next election, which is never more than five years away. Whatever the views of HH and her ilk, politicians with common sense, assuming they exist, will not rock the boat. An opinion poll on what you are suggesting would be massively defeated : the male vote would be divided, but the female vote would be almost 100% against, and they represent more than half the electorate. My eyes were opened by a recent thread quoting Mumsnet, and the intensity of the reactions of the posters there quite surprised me. So, whilst the majority won't support it, and many of those who do won't speak out in that support, you are, I am afraid, urinating against the wind. I wish it were not so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also you need some very brave male punters to become "champions" of the right-thinking attitude in the media - a bit like Laura Lee and Brooke Magnanti have done - the problem is that in doing so they could risk their jobs, reputations and families because of the stigma that the anti's would attach to them. Not sure there are many who would be willing to do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also you need some very brave male punters to become "champions" of the right-thinking attitude in the media - a bit like Laura Lee and Brooke Magnanti have done - the problem is that in doing so they could risk their jobs, reputations and families because of the stigma that the anti's would attach to them. Not sure there are many who would be willing to do this.

That's because the vast majority of punters are either married or in steady relationships. The antis true goal is to save the institution of the fairy tale 'marriage' that has never existed and probably never will. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'right-thinking' person is a nebulous concept, but imv the idea of the 'right-acting' pimp has already been established. That's when a good madam, agent or brothel manager gets taken to court and the jury says 'Not guilty' even though they clearly are. Cooperation with the workers, taking a sensible cut, and respecting their wishes for time off / flexible working. Juries seem to be onside wrt these things.

 

Regarding the law forbidding punters to have paid sex with a trafficked WG - I like it. It does mean you have to have at least some legal concern that you're not raping the WG. Before the change there were very few punters making nonymous ( what's the opposite of anonymous? ) reports of trafficking anyway, and it's easy enough to phone redline or crimestoppers and explain enough for the authorities to act.

 

The new law also makes it harder for a Labour administration to revisit Harriet's favourite issue.

 

So far no punters have been prosecuted under the new law, but I'm confident that if you didn't deserve to be prosecuted and pleaded not guilty all the way, and did come to a jury trial by your peers ( sooo unlikely ) , they would decide if you were 'right-acting' or not, and probably get it right.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the law forbidding punters to have paid sex with a trafficked WG - I like it. It does mean you have to have at least some legal concern that you're not raping the WG.

If that was what the anti-trafficking law was about, then prostitutes' campaigning groups would be in favour of the new law, but going by this article by the International Collective of Prostitutes anyway, that isn't the case. Point 4 is the most relevant part for this discussion:

http://prostitutescollective.net/2012/04/12/anti-trafficking-a-justification-for-an-increase-in-deportations-and-a-moralistic-crusade-against-prostitution-3-2/

Edited by TheCrow7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm grateful indeed for the responses to my original post. In particular I'm grateful to bongo for bringing me back to earth and reminding me that there are anonymous means for the, as I term him, right-thinking punter to alert authorities to a suspicion of a coerced sex worker.

 

I still retain contempt for legislation which, as matters stand currently is nugatory for all practical purposes, but which, were the 'anonymous means' not available to the punter, would likely have the complete opposite effect to that intended but that, again, only if ever enforced.

 

This is without doubt Alice in Wonderland legislation. "You couldn't make it up" one might think. Fact is Labour did.

Uncle Pokey

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