6upxxx

Hypothetical question - re underage girls.

33 posts in this topic

Suppose a sixteen year old girl got work for a few weeks at a parlour. She convinced the bosses and maybe showed them false ID to "prove" she was nineteen.

During those weeks lets say she had seen 20 guys.

Question.... if it became known, what would be the criminal liability for the owner and for the clients? How likely is it that the police would follow it up.

The girl is working of her own free will no question of being controlled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope that this is not a troll.......

Anyways in answer to your question, The guys are guilty of having sex with an underage girl, not knowing her age is not an excuse. And as such the police would if the punters were identified charge them with having sex with an underage girl.

Ignorance isnt an excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hope that this is not a troll.......

Anyways in answer to your question, The guys are guilty of having sex with an underage girl, not knowing her age is not an excuse. And as such the police would if the punters were identified charge them with having sex with an underage girl.

Ignorance isnt an excuse.

You may well be right, but how exactly would the police identify and trace the guilty men -------- a total waste of police resources. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suppose a sixteen year old girl got work for a few weeks at a parlour. She convinced the bosses and maybe showed them false ID to "prove" she was nineteen.

During those weeks lets say she had seen 20 guys.

Question.... if it became known, what would be the criminal liability for the owner and for the clients? How likely is it that the police would follow it up.

The girl is working of her own free will no question of being controlled.

I would think that Sections 47 - 50 (inclusive) of The Sexual Offences Act 2003 would cover most of the ground you have described, however all the above offences contain the phrase "B is under 18, and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over", as to whether the police would follow it up would depend, I suspect, on how much publicity the situation attracted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would think that Sections 47 - 50 (inclusive) of The Sexual Offences Act 2003 would cover most of the ground you have described, however all the above offences contain the phrase "B is under 18, and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over", as to whether the police would follow it up would depend, I suspect, on how much publicity the situation attracted.

Didnt this actually happen this year?

Im sure I remember seeing this pop up on the news or this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hope that this is not a troll.......

Anyways in answer to your question, The guys are guilty of having sex with an underage girl, not knowing her age is not an excuse. And as such the police would if the punters were identified charge them with having sex with an underage girl.

Ignorance isnt an excuse.

Section 47 (Paying for sexual services of a child) of The Sexual Offences Act 2003 states "B is under 18, and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over", so if the punter did reasonably believe that the girl was 18 or over then it is unlikely that he will be found guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would think that Sections 47 - 50 (inclusive) of The Sexual Offences Act 2003 would cover most of the ground you have described, however all the above offences contain the phrase "B is under 18, and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over", as to whether the police would follow it up would depend, I suspect, on how much publicity the situation attracted.

Well my reading of that is provided B (the punter) reasonably believes she is over 18 no offence has occured. So if she was younger but had convinced people through false ID that she was older, no offence has occured. (unless she is under 13). Bearing in mind 16 is legal for consentual sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well my reading of that is provided B (the punter) reasonably believes she is over 18 no offence has occured. So if she was younger but had convinced people through false ID that she was older, no offence has occured. (unless she is under 13). Bearing in mind 16 is legal for consentual sex.

That is not a million miles away from the truth. However I think you mean "A (the punter)".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, hypothetical, and, may I assume, happened in England & Wales?

The offence, I think, (for the punters) is under s47 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Curious, this one, very!

If not punting, there are the two offences, viz, under 13, for which liability is absolute, and under 16, where Police & CPS have and use a very wide discretion, and in any case there is the "young man's defence", viz "I'm under 25, have never been charged with the like offence (highly technical meaning to "charged"), and I reasonably thought she was over 16."

This new offence is NOT absolute!

47 Paying for sexual services of a child

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a) he intentionally obtains for himself the sexual services of another

person (:(,

(:( before obtaining those services, he has made or promised payment for

those services to B or a third person, or knows that another person has

made or promised such a payment, and

© either—

(i) B is under 18, and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or

over, or

(ii) B is under 13.

(2) In this section, “payment” means any financial advantage, including the

discharge of an obligation to pay or the provision of goods or services

(including sexual services) gratuitously or at a discount.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section against a person under 13,

where subsection (6) applies, is liable on conviction on indictment to

imprisonment for life.

(4) Unless subsection (3) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section

against a person under 16 is liable—

(a) where subsection (6) applies, on conviction on indictment, to

imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years;

(:D in any other case—

(i) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not

exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory

maximum or both;

(ii) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not

exceeding 14 years.

(5) Unless subsection (3) or (4) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this

section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6

months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

(:) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding

7 years.

(6) This subsection applies where the offence involved—

(a) penetration of B’s anus or vagina with a part of A’s body or anything

else,

(B) penetration of B’s mouth with A’s penis,

© penetration of A’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body or by B with

anything else, or

(d) penetration of A’s mouth with B’s penis.

(7) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland, subsection (4) has effect

with the substitution of “17” for “16”.

So there you have it (all)!

The punters do NOT have to be under 25 and never before charged, etc, but they do have to have a reasonable belief that she is over 18. So, my advice is that unless you are actively into children (in which case, Go to Jail, Go directly to Jail, Do not pass GO, Do not collect £200!) you should be careful whenever visiting a parlour to see a girl with given age under 25, to print a copy of the relevant web page, complete with description, and age specified, to keep as potential defence evidence, remembering that if the plod can produce her to give evidence, they'll scrub her face clean of paint, and dress her as a child!

The parlour owner's offence is under s48, and he, again, can escape if he shows a reasonable belief.

Edited by Irgendeiner
Add owner's offence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well my reading of that is provided B (the punter) reasonably believes she is over 18 no offence has occured.

Your defence could be that you assumed that the parlour owner would not employ an underage girl.

You would not be able to use that excuse if you picked up a 16 year old from a red light area. :(:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would the parlour know the truth if the girl used her older sister's passport/id and they looked similar to each other when they both had their passport renewed when they were 13 years old?

Might there be other ways of assessing age, perhaps like the counting of rings on a tree :( :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothetical answer - sounds like you are in the clear and can stop worrying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, hypothetical, and, may I assume, happened in England & Wales?

The offence, I think, (for the punters) is under s47 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Curious, this one, very!

If not punting, there are the two offences, viz, under 13, for which liability is absolute, and under 16, where Police & CPS have and use a very wide discretion, and in any case there is the "young man's defence", viz "I'm under 25, have never been charged with the like offence (highly technical meaning to "charged"), and I reasonably thought she was over 16."

This new offence is NOT absolute!

47 Paying for sexual services of a child

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its OK, I am not interested in punting with girls younger than 19. Merely curious.

Something sparked my interest to ask the question but I'd rather not divulge that, or test the law in this area either! Before people think I am referring to my regular parlours I AM NOT!

It has actually happened.....

http://www.punternet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15588

Dont know what happened afterwards to whether any clients were investigated or what happened to the place she worked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most parlours dont employ girls directly so dont have to carry out the check that employers have to do, check right to work in the UK, like the attorney general didnt.

Having an NI number doesnt prove age. and anyone gan get a birth cert. It says on birth certs (Actually certified copy of entry in birth register' that this is not a proff of identity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think most parlours dont employ girls directly so dont have to carry out the check that employers have to do, check right to work in the UK, like the attorney general didnt.

Agreed (mainly for VAT reasons) parlours don't "employ" girls (whether directly, or indirectly) but I think that an honest, mainstream parlour operator who doesn't make reasonably prudent enquiry as to age, immigration status and coercion is asking for an opportunity to explore cellular confinement!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a working flat in Redditch a few years ago that was discussed a lot on this messageboard. If I remember the thread correctly, the woman who ran the place used to openly tell people ringing up that she had a 15 year old girl working there. The girl was very young looking with braces on her teeth. But then someone posted on here that he actually knew the girl and she had 2 kids so she was probably in her early 20's. It was just a ploy by the parlour to pull in loads of dodgy punters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think most parlours dont employ girls directly so dont have to carry out the check that employers have to do, check right to work in the UK, like the attorney general didnt.

Agreed (mainly for VAT reasons) parlours don't "employ" girls (whether directly, or indirectly) but I think that an honest, mainstream parlour operator who doesn't make reasonably prudent enquiry as to age, immigration status and coercion is asking for an opportunity to explore cellular confinement!

I wholeheartedly agree but i can imagine a scenario where all this was checked but they were false documents. The ex Pornstar Tracy Lords nearly brought the whole US Porn business down in the 80s due to actually being 15 when her I.D. said she was of age. Her agent and some fellow actors were charged intially with some charges being dropped and of course the films she made were banned. If someone is determined enough there is no way of being 100% sure IMO.

When you punt with an Indie they dont show you I.D. as most wouldnt want a punter to know there real name etc, so you go on her word ultimately. The only safe option is to punt with those that clearly look in their 20s or above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think most parlours dont employ girls directly so dont have to carry out the check that employers have to do, check right to work in the UK, like the attorney general didnt.

I wholeheartedly agree but i can imagine a scenario where all this was checked but they were false documents. The ex Pornstar Tracy Lords nearly brought the whole US Porn business down in the 80s due to actually being 15 when her I.D. said she was of age. Her agent and some fellow actors were charged intially with some charges being dropped and of course the films she made were banned. If someone is determined enough there is no way of being 100% sure IMO.

When you punt with an Indie they dont show you I.D. as most wouldnt want a punter to know there real name etc, so you go on her word ultimately. The only safe option is to punt with those that clearly look in their 20s or above.

An indie showed me her ID once, she was 18 and a half and stil at school

retired at 19 lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think most parlours dont employ girls directly so dont have to carry out the check that employers have to do, check right to work in the UK, like the attorney general didnt.

Having an NI number doesnt prove age. and anyone gan get a birth cert. It says on birth certs (Actually certified copy of entry in birth register' that this is not a proff of identity

You are of course correct, parlours to not actually "employ" the girls however most parlour owners would not want to risk an underage girl or illegal immigrant being found on the premises ---- they should make basic enquiries at the very least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
however most parlour owners would not want to risk an underage girl or illegal immigrant being found on the premises ---- they should make basic enquiries at the very least.

But do they all ?

I've known lots of parlour girls who've told me that there's absolutely no way that they would want any parlour owner to know their real name or address. Presumably in a proportion of these cases no ID was shown.

I've also seen girls in parlours who've told me that they've worked in other parlours whilst under 18. I've seen girls who've told me that they've had concerns that underage girls were working at the parlours in the past.These things have a habit of only coming out after the event.

Looking back on it all I can't honestly put my hand on my heart and say with 100% certainty that I've never (albeit unknowingly) seen a 17 year old in a parlour who I assumed to be in her early-20's.

This was all prior to the enactment of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But do they all ?

I've known lots of parlour girls who've told me that there's absolutely no way that they would want any parlour owner to know their real name or address. Presumably in a proportion of these cases no ID was shown.

Most girls do not want to reveal their real name and address because they are on benefits ------- nothing to do with being underage. :(

If the girl looks very young then "most" parlour owners would investigate further. It is not worth being closed down because of one underage girl, they have too much to lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most girls do not want to reveal their real name and address because they are on benefits ------- nothing to do with being underage.

Benefits would be a good reason for not revealing their real name and address.

If I was a young girl working in a parlour claiming benefits and not paying tax then I wouldn't want a parlour owner to know my real name and address because if I fell out with them I wouldn't want any anonymous letters being sent to family, DWP or HMRC.

But if I were underage then I definitely wouldn't want the parlour to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Benefits would be a good reason for not revealing their real name and address.

If I was a young girl working in a parlour claiming benefits and not paying tax then I wouldn't want a parlour owner to know my real name and address because if I fell out with them I wouldn't want any anonymous letters being sent to family, DWP or HMRC.

But if I were underage then I definitely wouldn't want the parlour to know.

Most 18-19 year olds i have punted with have been Indies not Parlour ladies so as i said earlier i am reliant on there honesty solely, you can bet Adultw0rk doesnt scrutinize the ladies I.D. and even if it did it isnt difficult to supply false documents when there is big money to be made.

I havent knowingly punted with an underage lady but i cant guarantee i havent and neither can any punter who likes punting with this age group. There simply is no way of being 100% sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Benefits would be a good reason for not revealing their real name and address.

If I was a young girl working in a parlour claiming benefits and not paying tax then I wouldn't want a parlour owner to know my real name and address because if I fell out with them I wouldn't want any anonymous letters being sent to family, DWP or HMRC.

But if I were underage then I definitely wouldn't want the parlour to know.

Let me explain the difference.

If you were underage there is a reasonable chance that you would LOOK underage.

If you were on benefits there would be no way of the parlour owner knowing, or caring. :(:rolleyes:

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