porker paul

I'm no Lawyer but...

23 posts in this topic

if an Indie's web site states very clearly that the lady concerned works from her own flat (which could be her home or rented for business) and has no controller (pimp) and has not been trafficked, then could this be used in evidence, once these silly laws come into effect.

I have met a good number of Indies in such flats and houses and felt perfectly safe there. It seems that may be the safest way to punt in due course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ta for the tip. I've just added this to my website :eek:

Please note, I am not a slave trafficked Working Girl. I do not have a pimp nor a drug habit to fund. I have made an independent informed choice to entertain men as my line of work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if an Indie's web site states very clearly that the lady concerned works from her own flat (which could be her home or rented for business) and has no controller (pimp) and has not been trafficked, then could this be used in evidence, once these silly laws come into effect.

I have met a good number of Indies in such flats and houses and felt perfectly safe there. It seems that may be the safest way to punt in due course.

A disclaimer is of no use as evidence it is merely a statement like any other and would be subject to scrutiny, if it can be proved that a person does something that a disclaimer says that they do not do then the disclaimer will have been proved to be incorrect and thus totally useless as evidence, if the person does not do something that the disclaimer says that they do not do then there is nothing to disclaim and is thus redundant.

As a comfort blanket a disclaimer is fine, but not as evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A disclaimer is of no use as evidence it is merely a statement like any other and would be subject to scrutiny, if it can be proved that a person does something that a disclaimer says that they do not do then the disclaimer will have been proved to be incorrect and thus totally useless as evidence, if the person does not do something that the disclaimer says that they do not do then there is nothing to disclaim and is thus redundant.

As a comfort blanket a disclaimer is fine, but not as evidence.

hm, SaS is probably correct (unless proven otherwise, which rarely 'appens)

But the customer could use the disclaimer as additional evidence that he acted in good faith.

... took every reasonable precaution ?

Before every visit, I will create a logbook of gathered information and how my decisions were based upon the information available...

Edited by ptrleeds
logbook... ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But the customer could use the disclaimer as additional evidence that he acted in good faith.

... took every reasonable precaution ?

Of course he could, however I don't think it would do much good, and I say this for 2 reasons. One is that as the proposed legislation stands it doesn't matter what evidence of good faith a punter produces to prove that he made all efforts to satisfy himself that the prostitute was not "controlled for gain" and/or "trafficked" if it turns out that the prostitute is "controlled for gain" and/or trafficked, he is guilty, and thus the disclaimer will not be worth the screen it is displayed on. Secondly if the proposed legislation was a bit more sensible and made allowance for the punter having made all efforts to prove to himself that the prostitute was not "controlled for gain" and/or "trafficked", the disclaimer would only have relevance if the prostitute is "controlled for gain" and/or "trafficked" and in that case just the disclaimer itself would not constitute very compelling evidence without the punter having made further investigations that it was not produced by the "controller" and/or "trafficker" etc.

Its only real use would be as a last forlorn hope or a final plea for mitigation, but I put it in the same class as the ubiquitous T&C disclaimer, worthless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hm, SaS is probably correct (unless proven otherwise, which rarely 'appens)

But the customer could use the disclaimer as additional evidence that he acted in good faith.

... took every reasonable precaution ?

Before every visit, I will create a logbook of gathered information and how my decisions were based upon the information available...

It will be of no use as a defence. The law, as it is outlined, is an 'absolute offence'. That means that no matter how much the punter investigates the background he is committing an offence if the WG he is with has been trafficked, has a pimp etc even if she has told him she has not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it also aplly to rent boys, in which case certain of out masters in Westminster might need to be careful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then surely this law will fall down the first time it comes to court, because how can you possibly act on knowledge that you have no reasonable means of possessing ?!

What are you supposed to do - obtain a signed affidavit off the wg before a punt ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Precisely. They want you to stop punting, simple as that. They using the FEAR factor, how can you be 100% sure. You can't so the government are hoping you'll stop altogether.

All that will happen is the 'industry' will be moved further underground out of the public eye, the same as drug dealing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Precisely. They want you to stop punting, simple as that. They using the FEAR factor, how can you be 100% sure. You can't so the government are hoping you'll stop altogether.

All that will happen is the 'industry' will be moved further underground out of the public eye, the same as drug dealing.

Spot on, this is designed to spread fear and doubt and therefore discourage men from punting in the hope they will reduce trafficking as a bi-product of reducing demand. The Home Office press release and the attached report says as much as does all the avoidance of any kind of answer when they have been asked repeatedly in interviews how a man should go about assuring himself that a lady is legimate.

What it will need is for someone to take it on should it ever become law. Given the nature of the business though it won't be easy to find someone to do so. It will take a pretty blinkered cop to take this to court if both the lady and punter are willing to stand up and say that there was no coercion invloved and they will drop it I guess meaning we won't get any guideline cases to follow.

Most guys will probably take a caution if offered though I guess which has its own potential downside and is probably what will suit the police best in terms of the amount of effort to get a "result".

What happened to innocent until proven guilty in the UK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then surely this law will fall down the first time it comes to court, because how can you possibly act on knowledge that you have no reasonable means of possessing ?!

What are you supposed to do - obtain a signed affidavit off the wg before a punt ?

Even if you did get a signed affidavit, it would not contribute to your defence, if it was subsequently proven that the girl was trafficked or controlled for gain, although if offered in mitigation, it might reduce the fine..... but nor the publicity!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does it also aplly to rent boys, in which case certain of out masters in Westminster might need to be careful.

I haven't read a draft yet but unless there is a logical reason for it not being so, all legislation is gender neutral, so I expect that the words "person" and "someone" will figure highly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spot on, this is designed to spread fear and doubt and therefore discourage men from punting in the hope they will reduce trafficking as a bi-product of reducing demand. The Home Office press release and the attached report says as much as does all the avoidance of any kind of answer when they have been asked repeatedly in interviews how a man should go about assuring himself that a lady is legimate.

What it will need is for someone to take it on should it ever become law. Given the nature of the business though it won't be easy to find someone to do so. It will take a pretty blinkered cop to take this to court if both the lady and punter are willing to stand up and say that there was no coercion invloved and they will drop it I guess meaning we won't get any guideline cases to follow.

Most guys will probably take a caution if offered though I guess which has its own potential downside and is probably what will suit the police best in terms of the amount of effort to get a "result".

What happened to innocent until proven guilty in the UK?

Without doubt this is the fear factor. Simply black or white, no shades of grey. Typical Labour.

I am yet exchange words with a friendly peer on this, but has anyone checked on where Human Rights legislation pitches in all this? Right to a private life, etc?

Given that there are loads of cheap flights abroad, I am considering doing my punting in POland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trafficking seems top be an urban myth as I don't bel;eive anyone has been prosecuted for trafficking yet. In my opinion it is just an emotive term coined by the government to justify sending home mainly Eastern European women without having to go through lenghty court procedures and at the same time cracking down on the sex industry.

The sex industry seems to be the only industry where this govermment is actively discriminating in favour of local workers over foreign workers. It is good to see this concern but is alas about thirty years too late to save other sectors of our economy, notably manufacturing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trafficking seems top be an urban myth as I don't bel;eive anyone has been prosecuted for trafficking yet.

A local parlour was recently raided. A police spokesperson said it was because of trafficking but all the local newspaper could report was that they found a woman "of asian appearance". so perhaps 'looking foreign' is all it takes for a girl to fit the definition of 'trafficked'??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ta for the tip. I've just added this to my website :eek:

Please note, I am not a slave trafficked Working Girl. I do not have a pimp nor a drug habit to fund. I have made an independent informed choice to entertain men as my line of work.

Wotcha Mrs Smith

You are a total star. I am fortified in my lustful wish to visit you again by the sensible, truthful and helpful info you are putting on your website.

I would like you to sign, as per pen and ink, on my next visit, a print of your web pages containing this new text.

I'm sure this would not be a problem as respects a mutually helpful commercial relationship such as we have had and, speaking personally, would wish to continue.

Your friend and client

Uncle Pokey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what happens if you hire a "porn star" for the purpose of "making a porn film" she is not a prostitute. Or does this law cover porn stars as well. Do we see all the girls calling themselves porn stars now? Or does the law mean the collapse of the porn industry as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People have been convicted of trafficking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

smith said on today that there were 80,000 prostitutes. but they had onloy found 200 suspects under pentameter.

crap hit rate!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smith said on today that there were 80,000 prostitutes. but they had only found 200 suspects under pentameter.

crap hit rate!

I totally distrust such round figures. They simply indicate that no proper thorough survey was made and all is pure guesswork or, more likely some figure pulled out of thin air, for how come the number came to 80,000 and not, say, 78,230 or 81,302 as one would expect of a proper survey?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad that this topic has generated such debate. Not sure where it will end up, but it's got to be good for "democracy". The sooner this stupid idea bites the dust the better.

I read, earlier this week, that the fuzz are getting fewer than ever convictions for violent crime. Surely chasing random punters will only divert their time even more.

Jaqui Smith must be an even bigger disaster at the Home Office than Blunket or Charlie Clarke!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A local parlour was recently raided. A police spokesperson said it was because of trafficking but all the local newspaper could report was that they found a woman "of asian appearance". so perhaps 'looking foreign' is all it takes for a girl to fit the definition of 'trafficked'??

Any new law may well be a more serious threat to those of us who favour Orientals, since rightly or wrongly these operations are perceived as more likely to have trafficked or debt-bonded women. It can be difficult to be sure with the cheaper places, which is why I tend to rely on just one establishment where I am rock-solid certain the girls are all entirely free agents.

But the police are supposed to be targeting the more dodgy ones anyway; the only thing that changes is that the unaware punter will be criminalised.

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