midlandsmaidens

Doom and Gloom Punting Legislation and its REAL Effects

21 posts in this topic

There have been many threads in this forum just lately regarding the outlawing of the industry in general. Doom and gloom merchants and those quoting exact statements of the law who still go ahead and book an escort regardless of whether its legal or illegal is in itself a pointer that any legislation will have no effect at all on the industry as a whole, at least as far as those contributing to threads in this forum anyway, otherwise why would they be members here? The 'escape clause' is already built in to those in the industry that have websites, whereby its stated in plain view that 'companionship' is the only thing on offer, and that anything other is a choice between consenting adults. However accessible those providers choose to make themselves via home visits, incalls, published addresses at which they can be raided etc, is a matter of personal choice. The walkup girls and newspaper ad girls will obviously find this a little harder to get around, as there isnt an obvious way to state the 'companionship only' aspect, but if it becomes a neccessity to find such an escape clause, one will no doubt be found. This industry has been going since the year dot, and noone but noone will stop it regardless of which party they represent or whichever liberal nanny state they affilliate to. All that will happen at most is that it will be driven underground, but even then there will be a copious amount of outlets, both web and newspaper, in which to advertise the services on offer. It is typical of any government to mask their own failings in economical management by trying to outlaw those people trying to make a success of their own economical affairs, especially as those that are actually making a success of it are doing a better job than the government at shagging their customers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with much if not all of the above.

Put simply, I believe all of us on this Board want to see girls, who are willing participants in the commercial activity in point, able to do so and with clients who are themselves respectful and well behaved. I also believe that we wish to see the individuals who are violent (in the widest sense) towards women brought to book for their activities.

It is towards the prosecuction of this latter category that public funds need to be deployed. The legislation is, I think, already there to achieve this. The funding clearly is not.

So I have to say that I find all this business from the Government a mere bit of 'New Labour' window-dressing.

I do however add that in respect of 'street prostitution' I personally applaud anything that will get rid of this and, in particular, help the girls who are driven to same for whatever reason.

Uncle Pokey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do however add that in respect of 'street prostitution' I personally applaud anything that will get rid of this and, in particular, help the girls who are driven to same for whatever reason.

Uncle Pokey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There have been many threads in this forum just lately regarding the outlawing of the industry in general. Doom and gloom merchants and those quoting exact statements of the law who still go ahead and book an escort regardless of whether its legal or illegal is in itself a pointer that any legislation will have no effect at all on the industry as a whole, at least as far as those contributing to threads in this forum anyway, otherwise why would they be members here? The 'escape clause' is already built in to those in the industry that have websites, whereby its stated in plain view that 'companionship' is the only thing on offer, and that anything other is a choice between consenting adults.

A disclaimer such as you describe, assuming it is the ubiquitous T&C disclaimer, is only relevant if there is something to disclaim, however the practical use of such a disclaimer can only really be tested if and when it is necessary to disprove that sexual services were exchanged for gain.

Let's take an example, Thelma of Thurrock has a web site and on that web site she has the T&C disclaimer, quite why she has it on her web site I have no idea because exchanging sexual services for gain is not illegal and therefore the T&C disclaimer is redundant, but that is neither here nor there for the moment; now for what ever reason a punter finds himself in the dock and as part of his defence he denies that sexual services were exchanged for gain, if it can be proved that sexual services were exchanged for gain then the T&C disclaimer can be ignored because it will have been proved to be incorrect, if it cannot be proved that sexual services were exchanged for gain then the T&C disclaimer will be redundant because there would be nothing to disclaim.

Let's assume that it is proved that sexual services were exchanged for gain and the punter tries one last forlorn hope at defence, he says to the judge "But it quite clearly states on Thelma's web site that ...............", now what do you think are the chances that the judge will say "Well Mr Punter why didn't you say so in the first place?, case dismissed, next!"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So therefore, dont punt. Sheesh, its like The Sunday Times Supplement of Boringness aint it? If it worries you to punt, dont punt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with much if not all of the above.

Put simply, I believe all of us on this Board want to see girls, who are willing participants in the commercial activity in point, able to do so and with clients who are themselves respectful and well behaved. I also believe that we wish to see the individuals who are violent (in the widest sense) towards women brought to book for their activities.

It is towards the prosecuction of this latter category that public funds need to be deployed. The legislation is, I think, already there to achieve this. The funding clearly is not.

So I have to say that I find all this business from the Government a mere bit of 'New Labour' window-dressing.

I do however add that in respect of 'street prostitution' I personally applaud anything that will get rid of this and, in particular, help the girls who are driven to same for whatever reason.

Uncle Pokey

Hi Pokey

I know that some girls on the street scene are there through desperation drugs etc same as indi/parlour/agency girls, is that not discriminating against those independant clean streetwalkers that choose to earn their living that way?

S x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thelma of Thurrock has a web site

What is it with you and Thelma? I'm beginning to suspect blatant advertising here Sas. Do you get freebies from her? Worse still, are you her pimp?

I suppose soon we'll be seeing disclaimers along the lines of "Not pimped & not trafficked, honestly gov", and these too will be equally worthless :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Uncle, I agree with most of what you say - if it sorts out the street scrubbers, who are mostly feeding a drugs habit - who also cause the people who live near them lots of problems, then yes...sorting them out will be a good thing.

Perhaps we should look on the good, honest working girls a bit like we do a good Electrician (my trade) or a good Plumber etc......If they provide a good honest service, then recomend them highly & give them lots of work yourself!. - on the other hand, if they turn out not to be up to the job (a Cowboy), then trading standards need to be notified.......I want to be the first trading standards officer to check out my local ladys of working variety!

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So therefore, dont punt. Sheesh, its like The Sunday Times Supplement of Boringness aint it? If it worries you to punt, dont punt

It doesn't worry me to punt as you put it, what is of concern to me is that people might rely on a T&C disclaimer that is, for all practical purposes, totally worthless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is it with you and Thelma? I'm beginning to suspect blatant advertising here Sas. Do you get freebies from her? Worse still, are you her pimp?

I do worry sometimes that there is a real Thelma of Thurrock out there and that she is going to get a bit miffed at some point LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't worry me to punt as you put it, what is of concern to me is that people might rely on a T&C disclaimer that is, for all practical purposes, totally worthless.

The T/C disclaimer is only worthless if the provider considers it in that way. Its quite obvious that any provider of worth will take note of what the client is asking for when working out which girl will be best suited to their companionship date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose soon we'll be seeing disclaimers along the lines of "Not pimped & not trafficked, honestly gov", and these too will be equally worthless :eek:

You can view the T&C disclaimer to somewhat silly way, a viewer sees a disclaimer that says that sexual services are not exchanged for money, but all he sees are things that relate to sexual services, now to some this can seem a trifle confusing but to those of a more simple nature like myself then it is indeed simple, if you work on the principle of turning the situation on its head and the viewer asks himself "why doesn't the site owner have a disclaimer denying that she sells cabbages?", the answer is more than likely to be that she doesn't sell cabbages therefore she has no need to deny it, after all there is no evidence to support the fact that she sells cabbages, so the viewer now asks himself "why doesn't the site owner have a disclaimer denying that she sells fan-belts?", the answer is more than likely to be that she doesn't sell fan-belts therefore she has no need to deny it ……… and so on …………. until the viewer finally reaches sexual services, he now recalls that site owner does have a disclaimer denying that she sells sexual services, so working on the principle that she does not disclaim what she does not do, logic would dictate that she does disclaim what in fact she does do. In short I think it would not be unreasonable to say that the T&C disclaimer is no more or less than an advertisement for the exchange of sexual services for gain, but perhaps I'm looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope and just confusing myself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The T/C disclaimer is only worthless if the provider considers it in that way.

Ah I see, so as a provider can you tell me the actual worth of the T&C disclaimer please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do worry sometimes that there is a real Thelma of Thurrock out there and that she is going to get a bit miffed at some point LOL.

hehe.

I've done several googles for thelma of thurrock, and if she is there, she isnt visible (yet). Some entrepreneurial Lady should stake the claim, and she'll be instantly famouSaS.

Try googling an existing Lady, say katya of leeds (not affiliated to me, just a very good provider that I havnt seen for well over a year now...) and 9 out of 10 google-hits will indeed yield her phone nr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(yanks thread back on topic - more or less)

I was under the impression that exising legislation was already in place to combat the street-scene. And to help the victims of drugs and trafficking.

This additional piece of jacqui-ego is, IMHO, not needed, and just serves to make a fool out of british legislation, not to mention all the wasted resources on it so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those that are actually making a success of it are doing a better job than the government at shagging their customers.

In that case they are doing a damn fine job! It is barely (sic) possible!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Pokey

I know that some girls on the street scene are there through desperation drugs etc same as indi/parlour/agency girls, is that not discriminating against those independant clean streetwalkers that choose to earn their living that way?

S x

If such women exist.

The sad part of street prostitution is that it will never go away whatever laws or passed or whatever schemes there are in place.

Those women who need money for drugs will never find work in better class brothels or parlours and cannot earn enough to pay for their habit anywhere else, so they will always go on the street.

And there will always be men who want a really cheap fuck and are prepared to risk the dangers, or men who are turned on by the danger and the degradation, what the French call 'the pull of the mud.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we'll see a new disclaimer:

"Legal sexual services provided. I am a free agent. I'm not a drug addict or trafficked and do not have a pimp"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose soon we'll be seeing disclaimers along the lines of "Not pimped & not trafficked, honestly gov", and these too will be equally worthless :eek:

You are not wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If such women exist.

The sad part of street prostitution is that it will never go away whatever laws or passed or whatever schemes there are in place.

Those women who need money for drugs will never find work in better class brothels or parlours and cannot earn enough to pay for their habit anywhere else, so they will always go on the street.

And there will always be men who want a really cheap fuck and are prepared to risk the dangers, or men who are turned on by the danger and the degradation, what the French call 'the pull of the mud.'

Sadly you are absolutely correct. The point is the Police know exactly the locations of Street activety, have CCTV and still cant (or dont want to) eradicate it. How are they going to deal with less blatant forms of prostitution if these new laws are passed and where will the huge amounts of money required come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(yanks thread back on topic - more or less)

I was under the impression that exising legislation was already in place to combat the street-scene. And to help the victims of drugs and trafficking.

This additional piece of jacqui-ego is, IMHO, not needed, and just serves to make a fool out of british legislation, not to mention all the wasted resources on it so far.

Not needed and it's simply another unwanted distraction to refocus the media attention away from the current financial problems of this devious govt.

Result is to scare many punters away from well run parlours even though the legislation is far from becoming law and this is affecting the livelihood of many genuine WG's.

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