lancelot

Just seen this on BBC - end of brothels?

43 posts in this topic

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7735908.stm

If it is to become illegal to pay for sex, resulting in profit for a third party - is this not going to make life difficult for those who visit brothels?

I think the line

" if they pay for sex with someone who has been controlled or exploited "

is the key, but who knows how they intend to interpret it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7735908.stm

If it is to become illegal to pay for sex, resulting in profit for a third party - is this not going to make life difficult for those who visit brothels?

It will make life difficult for those who visit brothels of any kind where the punter does not pay the Wg the money personally into her hand. The Government seem to want to ensure that no third party like a pimp or madam etc are involved in the transaction. If this is all they want to ensure then brothels will have to change their present arrangements or risk being prosecuted. If the Government are wanting to put the onus on the punter to ensure the money paid is not then passed to a third party, and if it is proven to have done so, then punters could then start being prosecuted. Obviously after we pay the Wg we do not know what happens to the money for a fact, so i hope the Government also realise this. This could also be true of paying any Wg from Street Girls to Independents, we as punters do not know as a fact in most cases where the money goes or who may be profiting out of it, boyfriends, pimps etc. I shall continue to punt as usual with a up yours attitude to the Government and if i get arrested etc its my bad luck. The Controlled and Exploited part is crucial and it remains to be seen how this will be put into practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just been listening to this on the Today program on the way into work.

For me the most worrying aspect of this is that the client will not be able to claim that he didn't know the lady's "circumstances".

Therefore it impossible for a client visiting even the most reputable establishments or even independents to tell if the lady is working out of choice.

Coercion covers a wide spectrum from organised criminals locking somebody in a room and taking their passport all the way to very subtle emotional blackmail by a partner or spouse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this smacks a little of desperation on the part of Smith, Harman, MacTaggart et al. What they'd really like is to outlaw prostitution entirely but they've realised that won't be acceptable so they've moderated their demands by saying it's really only to save trafficked women who are forced into it.

I suspect (hope) it gets shot to bits in the Lords: it certainly seems like a very ill-thought-out proposal (no surprises there!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've just been listening to this on the Today program on the way into work.

For me the most worrying aspect of this is that the client will not be able to claim that he didn't know the lady's "circumstances".

Therefore it impossible for a client visiting even the most reputable establishments or even independents to tell if the lady is working out of choice.

Coercion covers a wide spectrum from organised criminals locking somebody in a room and taking their passport all the way to very subtle emotional blackmail by a partner or spouse.

Very true and very worrying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The report I heard said it was aiming to make it illegal for traffiking and also for a 3rd party to make any profit --- that opens many grey areas such as reputable brothels who for example charge the ladies to 'rent a room' which on the face of it means the landlord is profiting from sex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it the end of agencies too ?

I dont think so . As I see it the illegality comes for paying for sex with girls who are coerced into the business.

As for ignorance being no defence, I agree. It would be a massive loophole otherwise.

If in doubt stick with your friendly local neighbourhood indy !

P.S. Third parties profiting- what about those who take and profit from advertising for perfectly legal independant wg's I.E. here and the other less upmarket board :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this smacks a little of desperation on the part of Smith, Harman, MacTaggart et al. What they'd really like is to outlaw prostitution entirely but they've realised that won't be acceptable so they've moderated their demands by saying it's really only to save trafficked women who are forced into it.

I suspect (hope) it gets shot to bits in the Lords: it certainly seems like a very ill-thought-out proposal (no surprises there!)

The BBC news at 8 this morning cut Smith short while she was speaking... you could see her seething...She does want to ban sex altogether I think.

But it will mean the police can arrest punters anywhere they suspect... so all parlours will be a high risk area... as controlled can simply mean working for a madam in a parlour... as I only see ladies who work alone it will not be such a problem for me. Others who love the parlour atmosphere will be at higher risk.

Once they arrest you they take photo dna and prints...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this smacks a little of desperation on the part of Smith, Harman, MacTaggart et al. What they'd really like is to outlaw prostitution entirely but they've realised that won't be acceptable so they've moderated their demands by saying it's really only to save trafficked women who are forced into it.

I suspect (hope) it gets shot to bits in the Lords: it certainly seems like a very ill-thought-out proposal (no surprises there!)

Completely agree. Worse than the BBC R4 interview this morning with the risibly thick Jacqui Smith, was something I head on the World Service around 5am today. Carrie Miller (or Mitchell?) from the English Collective of Prostitutes was arguing with Fin something or other from the Feminists Coalition against Prostitution (FCP). Carrie was lucid in her rationale that women's interests need to be protected first and foremost, and the response from the FCP woman was simply that prostitution was wrong, women shouldn't do it, or have to do it, and that's that. No light and shade to the FCP position, just a badly thought out, dogmatic, morally-based, single-issue crusade (like so many others this dumb-ass government endorses).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the line

" if they pay for sex with someone who has been controlled or exploited "

is the key, but who knows how they intend to interpret it?

It doesnt involve interpretation Steve. You are either guilty or not guilty. Its black or white. Simple. or thats what the lawmakers believe, Imagine the huge costs and investigation involved in proving or disproving that a girl is coerced. Even if she was coerced she may not want to involve those who have coerced her. How could she prove she wasnt coerced ?How could I prove it. I couldn't.

Any case could run into hundreds of thousands of pounds and months of legalities.

Its lipservice again. Paying tribute to the blue rinse holier than thou bi-annual missionary position brigade who seem to think non procreational sex is an evil that should be stamped out- especially for those pooor wretches that must be forced by someone otherwise they wouldnt do it.

This is a law designed not with victims in mind but with middle england psudo-philanthropical voters in mind.

I honestly cant see it benifiting a single trafficked or pimped lady or I and most of us would support it to the hilt

I can see it victimising perfectly normal innocent men out for a bit of fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that they know that the thing is full of holes and don't care. The burden of proof regarding coersion would be hard to meet but the key fact is that it takes paying for sex from being technically legal to being potentially illegal. I think they are betting that that fact alone should be enough to scare off many punters and curtail business at many of the more visible flats and parlours. They can then claim to have dealt with some of the more visible symptoms.

Is this a bad thing? I, like many, prefer incall and the ladies I know prefer to work in flats even though it means giving up a significant chunk of their earnings rather than having to organise their own premises etc etc. Can anyone say that they are coerced. Not a chance. Can anyone say someone else is profiting from our meetings - sure, but only in return for use of the premises' facilities. I also know of supposedly well run and reputable parlours where allegedly 'Czech' or 'Polish' girls are actually from further East and are dropped off and picked up by their 'drivers' and not allowed to leave the premises other than with said 'drivers'. Trafficked? Coerced? I don't know enough to say for sure but I do know that I wouldn't willingly pay to see one of them no matter how friendly or beautiful they may be.

Will it change my approach. Yes. But only to the extent that from now on I'll arrange to see ladies at a hotel or my place. I rather suspect that the truly independent Indies will do rather nicely from it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A cunning plan, but methinks the devil will be in the detail.

I suppose I better not book the holiday I was treating my girlfriend to, in case it is assumed the hotel is exploiting her!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it the end of agencies too ?

I dont think so . As I see it the illegality comes for paying for sex with girls who are coerced into the business.

As for ignorance being no defence, I agree. It would be a massive loophole otherwise.

If in doubt stick with your friendly local neighbourhood indy !

P.S. Third parties profiting- what about those who take and profit from advertising for perfectly legal independant wg's I.E. here and the other less upmarket board :(

As usual the government dont think everything through, and come up with half hatched plans. Its such a grey area about who else is gaining. This means all brothels, parlours and agencies fall into this category. I guess we will just have to wait and see if there is any further clarification. In the meantime its independents for me as I dont want to take the chance of being caught in raid. Even with the indies, it will fall into the grey area if 2 or 3 are sharing a flat for eg and only one is responsible for the rent, so takes a cut from every transaction - Does this constitute gain?

I think this will all die down within a couple of days because there are a lot of other issues that everyone needs to worry about, like the looming recession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7735908.stm

If it is to become illegal to pay for sex, resulting in profit for a third party - is this not going to make life difficult for those who visit brothels?

so, which planet have you been on if you didn't know this already?

there's a massive amount of TV, Radio coverage from Sky news , BBC etc

http://news.sky.com/skynews/video?videoSourceID=1694389

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7736965.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7736917.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7736838.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7737000/7737010.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/01/2008_47_wed.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that they know that the thing is full of holes and don't care. The burden of proof regarding coersion would be hard to meet but the key fact is that it takes paying for sex from being technically legal to being potentially illegal. I think they are betting that that fact alone should be enough to scare off many punters and curtail business at many of the more visible flats and parlours. They can then claim to have dealt with some of the more visible symptoms.

Is this a bad thing? I, like many, prefer incall and the ladies I know prefer to work in flats even though it means giving up a significant chunk of their earnings rather than having to organise their own premises etc etc. Can anyone say that they are coerced. Not a chance. Can anyone say someone else is profiting from our meetings - sure, but only in return for use of the premises' facilities. I also know of supposedly well run and reputable parlours where allegedly 'Czech' or 'Polish' girls are actually from further East and are dropped off and picked up by their 'drivers' and not allowed to leave the premises other than with said 'drivers'. Trafficked? Coerced? I don't know enough to say for sure but I do know that I wouldn't willingly pay to see one of them no matter how friendly or beautiful they may be.

Will it change my approach. Yes. But only to the extent that from now on I'll arrange to see ladies at a hotel or my place. I rather suspect that the truly independent Indies will do rather nicely from it all.

Very good post and i agree with you. We all await developments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I believe it's a lot of fuss about nothing. As the saying goes "Where there's a will, there's a way", and I don't see any problems that can't be overcome with a little thought and imagination.

Stop worrying gents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesnt involve interpretation Steve. You are either guilty or not guilty. Its black or white. Simple. or thats what the lawmakers believe, Imagine the huge costs and investigation involved in proving or disproving that a girl is coerced. Even if she was coerced she may not want to involve those who have coerced her. How could she prove she wasnt coerced ?How could I prove it. I couldn't.

Any case could run into hundreds of thousands of pounds and months of legalities.

Its lipservice again. Paying tribute to the blue rinse holier than thou bi-annual missionary position brigade who seem to think non procreational sex is an evil that should be stamped out- especially for those pooor wretches that must be forced by someone otherwise they wouldnt do it.

This is a law designed not with victims in mind but with middle england psudo-philanthropical voters in mind.

I honestly cant see it benifiting a single trafficked or pimped lady or I and most of us would support it to the hilt

I can see it victimising perfectly normal innocent men out for a bit of fun.

I am of the opinion that the punter should not be wary of just the legal aspect and ramifications of the proposed legislation, but should also take into account the fairly obvious "benefits" that can be taken by the criminal fraternity when and if the sale of sexual services remains not illegal but for all intents and purposes the purchase of same will be illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally I believe it's a lot of fuss about nothing. As the saying goes "Where there's a will, there's a way", and I don't see any problems that can't be overcome with a little thought and imagination.

Stop worrying gents.

I am of the opinion that the punter should not be wary of just the legal aspect and ramifications of the proposed legislation, but should also take into account the fairly obvious "benefits" that can be taken by the criminal fraternity when and if the sale of sexual services remains not illegal but for all intents and purposes the purchase of same will be illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole approach seems to be a curious one.

As I see it, it is tilting the playing field in such a way that Street prostitution will be more favoured :(

Is this evidence of joined up Government?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it the end of agencies too ?

I dont think so . As I see it the illegality comes for paying for sex with girls who are coerced into the business.

As for ignorance being no defence, I agree. It would be a massive loophole otherwise.

If in doubt stick with your friendly local neighbourhood indy !

P.S. Third parties profiting- what about those who take and profit from advertising for perfectly legal independant wg's I.E. here and the other less upmarket board :(

Their intention is that this is the end of the agencies, parlours, saunas and even the genuine independents, as their custom dries up due to punters being scared.

The critical term they use is controlled for another's gain. That control doesn't have to be coercion; it may be as simple as a person taking the bookings, as they are then controlling the transaction. Agencies, parlours, etc all fall into this category, even if there is no real coercion at all.

As for the genuine independents, Jacqui Smith said herself this morning that even if the WG says herself that she is effectively an independent, that will not be an admissible defense if she turns out not to be a genuine one. Therefore, the punters will never be 100% sure, they'll be scared, and the demand will plummet. That's the idea anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The report I heard said it was aiming to make it illegal for traffiking and also for a 3rd party to make any profit --- that opens many grey areas such as reputable brothels who for example charge the ladies to 'rent a room' which on the face of it means the landlord is profiting from sex

The law essentially makes it a crime to see somebody from any agency, parlour or sauna. There's no doubt about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it will be good for independents.

Do many women work in brothels on a self employed basis, i.e they are renting the services of the owners? If so this shouldnt affect them either really should it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am of the opinion that the punter should not be wary of just the legal aspect and ramifications of the proposed legislation, but should also take into account the fairly obvious “benefits” that can be taken by the criminal fraternity when and if the sale of sexual services remains not illegal but for all intents and purposes the purchase of same will be illegal.

Yes, I think I understood that.

I still don't see any big difference in the proposed legislation and the present laws except that maybe, and it's a big maybe that a punter is more likely to have plod to deal with. And quite frankly I just don't see that happening on any large scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it will be good for independents.

Do many women work in brothels on a self employed basis, i.e they are renting the services of the owners? If so this shouldnt affect them either really should it?

The problem is, soon most everyone will claim to an independent. Even the agencies will present their girls on their individual websites as independents. And when you ask them, they'll tell you they're independents. Then how will you know if they are genuine independents or not? Jacqui Smith said today that not knowing will not be a defense.

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