Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
mirror

Only seeing independents doesn't let you off the hook

32 posts in this topic

DivineMK said in another thread, listing all the options for parlour and agency girls:

Work for the real untouchables who stick a girl in an empty flat on her own with a mobile then take 90% of her take at the end of the day. But hey the client saw her in an empty flat, on her own and she answered the phone.

This makes it clear that seeing only independents doesn't mean you can't get arrested. There is no test you can apply to tell whether or not a girl is "controlled". The best you can do is hope that the police aren't going to turn up, looking for an arrest.

But if they do turn up? Sex offenders register, goodbye to your job, your wife, your kids, your money, the respect of most of the population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DivineMK said in another thread, listing all the options for parlour and agency girls:

This makes it clear that seeing only independents doesn't mean you can't get arrested. There is no test you can apply to tell whether or not a girl is "controlled". The best you can do is hope that the police aren't going to turn up, looking for an arrest.

But if they do turn up? Sex offenders register, goodbye to your job, your wife, your kids, your money, the respect of most of the population.

What you say is correct. A policeman spoke on the BBC on Wednesday and confirmed that there is no test for a punter to apply to make sure that having sex with a particular WG is legitimate.

There is no real way to tell that an independent is a genuine one. She herself may honestly believe that she is now independent, but for example if someone had paid for her air fare from Prague when she first came to the UK , or her train fare from Solihull when she first came to London (to work), then she was trafficked and you've had it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The above posts are correct but in my opinion seeing Independents will be the "Least likely to be caught option" as the police will clamp down initially on the easier targets, Parlours, Agencies etc. After that who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The above posts are correct but in my opinion seeing Independents will be the "Least likely to be caught option" as the police will clamp down initially on the easier targets, Parlours, Agencies etc. After that who knows.

Perhaps they will have their own version of the morality police that wander round Saudi Arabia flogging and beating those who don't toe the line. :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parlours and streetgirls will be the main targets I am certain and maybe flats where a different girl works each day as these have always been the most lucrative to the authorities so far in trying to stop traffiking.

Agencies may also be a target as many foreign girls work for them (especially in London) and the Agency profits from the arrangement

Whether they will then move onto the more respectable independant ladies who work on their own through their own choice is anyones guess but I think they will be at the bottom of the list by a long way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps they will have their own version of the morality police that wander round Saudi Arabia flogging and beating those who don't toe the line. :eek:

They will probably go down the name and shame route eventually like they do in some places with convicted kerb crawlers. With CCTV they can easily track a person who uses any form of public transport and find out there name address through use of the ticket. So out of the Parlour, onto to public transport and maybe a letter arrives saying you were seen coming out of such and such Parlour. This would in my opinion scare a lot of punters off. If you drive same thing. On foot or by bicycle will be the only safe options and even then only any good if you live like me in a residential no CCTV at present area. If this law is passed in its present form i believe the above "Big Brother" scenario will happen eventually. In the meantime i shall continue to punt with a f*** you attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that the proposed legislation is coming at a time when the government is also preparing to require ISPs to make every email available, supposedly for anti-terrorist reasons. With search facilities having reached such a level of sophistication, it will hardly be difficult for the authorities to trace back the entire contact book of a given escort. This is how they identify and break up most child pornography rings, and I would guess this is how they might tackle the WG 'problem'.

Judging by yesterday's Daily Mail discussion list the legislation is remarkably unpopular even among people you would most expect to support it. Therefore, the government/police will want to demonstrate that prostitution is a far bigger and more serious problem than is recognised: they won't do this by arresting the odd punter in the occasional heist, along with the WG who happens to be there that day. It will be far more systematic than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Parlours and streetgirls will be the main targets I am certain and maybe flats where a different girl works each day as these have always been the most lucrative to the authorities so far in trying to stop traffiking.

Agencies may also be a target as many foreign girls work for them (especially in London) and the Agency profits from the arrangement

Whether they will then move onto the more respectable independant ladies who work on their own through their own choice is anyones guess but I think they will be at the bottom of the list by a long way

I think that this is absolutely right, and that this all comes down to resources. How many more resources are the Police going to be given to implement this new law? If they don't get sufficient manpower etc, then they will, naturally, target the most blatant areas, ie street girls, parlours etc. Discreet independants, especially if British, will be very low down the scale.

I don't believe the Police want this, and will go through the motions, focussing on soft targets to make it look like they're doing something.The industry will change and find its own level again, but find a good indie now is my advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They will probably go down the name and shame route eventually like they do in some places with convicted kerb crawlers. With CCTV they can easily track a person who uses any form of public transport and find out there name address through use of the ticket. So out of the Parlour, onto to public transport and maybe a letter arrives saying you were seen coming out of such and such Parlour. This would in my opinion scare a lot of punters off. If you drive same thing. On foot or by bicycle will be the only safe options and even then only any good if you live like me in a residential no CCTV at present area. If this law is passed in its present form i believe the above "Big Brother" scenario will happen eventually. In the meantime i shall continue to punt with a f*** you attitude.

Sounds like a lot of work to address a problem that doesn't really exist. Where is the budget for all this police time coming from?

Sounds like they haven't thought this through.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just cannot see The Lords letting this one through.. It is so ill thought out and vague.. Aimed to spread fear, Harriet and Jacqui must simply be loving this..

Did it spread fear after being on the news all day yesterday, did not seem to, my phone was busier than ever today..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought English law had the test of a guilty mind. i.e. you must have meant to have committed the offence, not done it by accident.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

So the law will probably not be constitutional.

Dunno about Scottish law tho.

Mebbe Sasfan can illuminate???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds like a lot of work to address a problem that doesn't really exist. Where is the budget for all this police time coming from?

Sounds like they haven't thought this through.....

This certainly has not been thought through and as you say the police costs would be huge. If it does come in as it is now proposed the police will rely on fear of being caught etc as a first step, maybe an advertising campaign outlining the consequences. Then the targeting of the visable Parlours, etc, with the Independents last and by far the hardest to police. Once all this starts if it ever does, things will go underground and make it much more dangerous for the Wgs especially, but punters too. Sheer madness in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a guy that gets lots of motorists off speeding charges. I guess we'll see his equivalent for punters. I'm know lawyer but just what will be the burden of proof. First the police will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the working girl concerned is trafficked or controlled. If they can't they can't charge the punter. And then they will have to prove that payment has been made for sex (whatever that is defined as). With the existing law they find it difficult enough to arrest kerb crawlers. Most arrests come through police women entrapping motorists into indicating they want "business". Another review website listed over 500 independents in London and some 90 agencies with names beginning with A or B alone. It'll take ten years at least to work through that lot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought English law had the test of a guilty mind. i.e. you must have meant to have committed the offence, not done it by accident.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

So the law will probably not be constitutional.

Dunno about Scottish law tho.

Mebbe Sasfan can illuminate???

People are usually only punished when they have the requisite "mens rea", Latin for guilty mind. In other words those that we don't see as morally blame worthy are not punished, if you intentionally break the law, you are seen as having a guilty mind. But, there are a handful of crimes that don't require a mens rea (guilty mind), for example selling alcohol to minors is a strict liability crime because a person who sells alcohol to minors can be convicted even if he/she believed the minors were old enough to buy alcohol. Most traffic offences are usually strict liability crimes, if you jump a red light then that is a "strict liability" offence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People are usually only punished when they have the requisite "mens rea", Latin for guilty mind. In other words those that we don't see as morally blame worthy are not punished, if you intentionally break the law, you are seen as having a guilty mind. But, there are a handful of crimes that don't require a mens rea (guilty mind), for example selling alcohol to minors is a strict liability crime because a person who sells alcohol to minors can be convicted even if he/she believed the minors were old enough to buy alcohol. Most traffic offences are usually strict liability crimes, if you jump a red light then that is a "strict liability" offence.

The trouble is, whilst it may be legal to apply strict liability, the offences for which it's currently used are ones which you should, if you're careful and exercise due diligence, be able to avoid committing. Having driving insurance, going through a red light, breaking the speed limit, various health and safety laws etc. You CAN avoid breaking them. This one, everyone seems to agree there is no way to avoid breaking the law other than to not pay for sex at all. You don't have to avoid driving to avoid going through a red light. You can avoid speeding without having to be stationary. Even the police with all their resources and ability to probe into people's background couldn't be absolutely sure. Once they lose strict liability the rest will be largely unworkable, unless they admit they're going after people who simply use girls from agencies, which would never be acceptable judging from the comments and editorials I've seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once they lose strict liability the rest will be largely unworkable

But not where an agency is concerned surely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They will probably go down the name and shame route eventually like they do in some places with convicted kerb crawlers. With CCTV they can easily track a person who uses any form of public transport and find out there name address through use of the ticket. So out of the Parlour, onto to public transport and maybe a letter arrives saying you were seen coming out of such and such Parlour. This would in my opinion scare a lot of punters off. If you drive same thing. On foot or by bicycle will be the only safe options and even then only any good if you live like me in a residential no CCTV at present area. If this law is passed in its present form i believe the above "Big Brother" scenario will happen eventually. In the meantime i shall continue to punt with a f*** you attitude.

But surely if you pay for your train ticket in cash you would be as untraceblae as if you arrived by bus or by bycicle?xx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But surely if you pay for your train ticket in cash you would be as untraceblae as if you arrived by bus or by bycicle?xx

Lots of people use Oyster cards nowadays and others often pay for tickets by card not cash. Obviously if all these proposals came in punters can make a conscious decision to pay in cash only. It would then be down to CCTV and how the police decide to use it. As a personal example i was at a cash machine of a major bank taking cash out. The police arrived and told me the CCTV operator had told them i was acting in a suspicious manner. They searched me for going equipped to steal using someone elses card. When they found nothing after searching me and my car they gave me the relevant at that time stop and search form and sent me on my way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remember that the proposed legislation is coming at a time when the government is also preparing to require ISPs to make every email available, supposedly for anti-terrorist reasons. With search facilities having reached such a level of sophistication, it will hardly be difficult for the authorities to trace back the entire contact book of a given escort. This is how they identify and break up most child pornography rings, and I would guess this is how they might tackle the WG 'problem'.

Judging by yesterday's Daily Mail discussion list the legislation is remarkably unpopular even among people you would most expect to support it. Therefore, the government/police will want to demonstrate that prostitution is a far bigger and more serious problem than is recognised: they won't do this by arresting the odd punter in the occasional heist, along with the WG who happens to be there that day. It will be far more systematic than that.[/QUOTE]

Not just the Mail, but the Indy, Times, BBC comment boards & even The Grauniad's Comment is Free (they don't publish letters to the editor online), show a marked disapproval of these proposals, from both the medai themselves & readers (though the latter has had The FWord moblising its forces & the editors acting in support).

The problem is that Harman, Smith & co don't give a sh*t about public opinion, they're the aboulitionist (many feminists have come out against this) equivalent of religious fanatics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But not where an agency is concerned surely?

How about if the agency changes tack and presents the girls on individual web sites as independents?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about if the agency changes tack and presents the girls on individual web sites as independents?

Presents them on individual web sites as independents but everything else remains the same do you mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Presents them on individual web sites as independents but everything else remains the same do you mean?

What I meant was the following:

If a punter is caught seeing a WG from an agency, it will be quite difficult for him to argue that she wasn't 'controlled for another's gain', as the agency obviously controls her bookings, and makes some money out of her.

Therefore the demand for agency girls will fall. To address the situation, I think the agencies will have to take down their public faces, i.e. the web sites, and replace them with a series of individual web sites where their girls are presented as independents.

Thus the agencies as we know them will have disappeared from public view, without their girls necessarily disappearing (at least at the beginning.) Their girls will become virtual independents (who will be very hard to discriminate from genuine independents for the punters.) Therefore the issue of the agencies will cease to exist.

Now that we've solved the issue of the agencies, we can continue discussing the independents :eek:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I meant was the following:

If a punter is caught seeing a WG from an agency, it will be quite difficult for him to argue that she wasn't 'controlled for another's gain', as the agency obviously controls her bookings, and makes some money out of her.

Therefore the demand for agency girls will fall. To address the situation, I think the agencies will have to take down their public faces, i.e. the web sites, and replace them with a series of individual web sites where their girls are presented as independents.

Thus the agencies as we know them will have disappeared from public view, without their girls necessarily disappearing (at least at the beginning.) Their girls will become virtual independents (who will be very hard to discriminate from genuine independents for the punters.) Therefore the issue of the agencies will cease to exist.

Now that we've solved the issue of the agencies, we can continue discussing the independents :eek:.

Who or what would be the point of contact with one of these "independents"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who or what would be the point of contact with one of these "independents"?

A web page which introduces her. For example on AceMassage, or as a stand-alone website. Even if she has to pay for the website, the website provider is not controlling her for gain. And if even that's objectionable, how about a website that is paid for by anonymous donors who send in money through the post office?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A web page which introduces her. For example on AceMassage, or as a stand-alone website. Even if she has to pay for the website, the website provider is not controlling her for gain. And if even that's objectionable, how about a website that is paid for by anonymous donors who send in money through the post office?

Ah, I see, so this "independent" has a web site and on that web site will be a telephone number and/or an Email address?

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