onlyman

proving money exchange for sex

13 posts in this topic

What I cannot understand is how one can legally prove that

the money exchange between a punter and WG was for sex.

Imagine I visited a WG, took off my coat, put an envelope next to a vase, and retreated to the bathroom.

The WG counts the money and puts it somewhere safe.

Then, I come out of bathroom, and say "sweety, you look

so sexy, would you like to get it on?". And she says "why not? After all, we

live in the world of free-sex". Then what? Are we guilty of casual sex?

Now how can it be proved that I paid for sex?

I may even drop the envelope apparently by accident. What then?

Even in Iran, people have invented "temporary marriages" to circumvent

the prostitution ban. http://www.punternet.com/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Seriously, what is this government trying achieve? http://www.punternet.com/forum/images/smilies/confused.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I cannot understand is how one can legally prove that

the money exchange between a punter and WG was for sex.

It is because of the "reasonable man" test, known in the USA as the "duck test", and it goes something like this - would a reasonable man (taken to be a man on the upper deck of a Clapham omnibus) believe that you had not payed for sex. In the USA it goes something like this - if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then the chances are that it is a duck.

In non-legal terms what is being said is "Who the fuck do you think you are trying to kid pal?".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine you're the juror. She's a prostitute, that'll be proven. The punter rang her on her punting phone (most indy girls have a separate phone for punters) or even worse he rang her agency. Then turns up at the flat with an envelope full of cash which coincidentally is the exact amount of cash required for a one hour booking. Do you have reasonable doubt as to what was going on?

People on trial come up with all sorts of dodgy defences that theoretically explain the evidence. In a current murder case I'm following the defendant has explained that his DNA and blood on the victim is because he was kidnapped by men he owed money to (he owed £16,000 to his boss at work) and forced to have sex with a girl whilst blindfolded. He was told to pay up or she would cry rape. This girl he believes now, must have been the girl who was kidnapped and raped and strangled that night. His van which was seen on CCTV at the kidnap scene and the body dump site and the dump site for her belongings was a company van, which his boss would have had keys for.

Fucker's got it all worked out. But do you believe him? Me neither.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough.

But the same test can be applied when a beautiful model is married

with an unattractive but wealthy man.

Take Anna Nicole Smith; would a reasonable man from that Clapham omnibus

think that she really married that 80+ years old man for love?

Many tax evading (not avoiding) techniques are of the same nature. I know many consultants who hire their unemployed wives as accountants and pay them £4K a year (below the tax limit). That £4K comes back to the family.

Who the fuck are they kidding? Well, it is legal, kosher, all clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I may be thinking wishfully, but I don't think it is that easy to prove that a WG is a prostitute.

There is no law stopping me from giving small amounts of money to whomever I want. And there is no law that stops women from having casual sex. Even in USA, where prostitution is banned (except a few states), acts of paid sex take place regularly.

I think a reasonably good lawyer could easily fight this case off. But which lawyer would pick up this fight for a "miserable punter".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think a reasonably good lawyer could easily fight this case off. But which lawyer would pick up this fight for a "miserable punter".

I don't think that there will be a vast number of cases brought to court concerned with "controlled for gain", in fact I don't think there will be any. Let us look at a hypothetical case, Mr Bloggs of 56 Acacia Drive, Little Wittering, age 37, occupation middle management in a bank, income £43,000, married with 3 children (all of school age), wife works part-time in the local library (income £7,000), recently moved in to No 56 (4 bed detached) with an outstanding mortgage that is manageable on joint income. For whatever reason Mr Bloggs decides that he would like to visit a prostitute called Thelma, he exchanges a couple of Emails and a telephone conversation in the course of making arrangements for a 2 hour incall, he turns up all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed 2 days later at a flat and is welcomed in by Thelma and after a couple of minutes he hands her £250 and in exchange for this Thelma supplies various sexual services. Now for what ever reason the hapless Mr Bloggs becomes embroiled with Mr Plod and the upshot is that Mr Bloggs is arrested and taken to the local police station and is subsequently charged, as luck would have it news of this is unaccountably leaked to several national newspapers and the next day headlines are "LITTLE WITTERING MAN CHARGED WITH PAYING FOR SEX WITH PIMPED PROSTITUTE - see pages 3, 4, 5-11, 16, 17".

Now whether or not there is any credible/safe evidence that sexual services were supplied in exchange for money or that there is any credible/safe evidence that Thelma is "controlled for gain" is, for the purposes of this example, neither here nor there, I would think, irrespective of whether or not the case ever came to court, that single operation would send a couple of reverberations through the punting community, cost in police time and effort (other than a possible "Oops we got it wrong" statement) would be minimal when compared to the message that it would send out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that there will be a vast number of cases brought to court concerned with "controlled for gain", in fact I don't think there will be any. Let us look at a hypothetical case, Mr Bloggs of 56 Acacia Drive, Little Wittering, age 37, occupation middle management in a bank, income £43,000, married with 3 children (all of school age), wife works part-time in the local library (income £7,000), recently moved in to No 56 (4 bed detached) with an outstanding mortgage that is manageable on joint income. For whatever reason Mr Bloggs decides that he would like to visit a prostitute called Thelma, he exchanges a couple of Emails and a telephone conversation in the course of making arrangements for a 2 hour incall, he turns up all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed 2 days later at a flat and is welcomed in by Thelma and after a couple of minutes he hands her £250 and in exchange for this Thelma supplies various sexual services. Now for what ever reason the hapless Mr Bloggs becomes embroiled with Mr Plod and the upshot is that Mr Bloggs is arrested and taken to the local police station and is subsequently charged, as luck would have it news of this is unaccountably leaked to several national newspapers and the next day headlines are "LITTLE WITTERING MAN CHARGED WITH PAYING FOR SEX WITH PIMPED PROSTITUTE - see pages 3, 4, 5-11, 16, 17".

Now whether or not there is any credible/safe evidence that sexual services were supplied in exchange for money or that there is any credible/safe evidence that Thelma is "controlled for gain" is, for the purposes of this example, neither here nor there, I would think, irrespective of whether or not the case ever came to court, that single operation would send a couple of reverberations through the punting community, cost in police time and effort (other than a possible "Oops we got it wrong" statement) would be minimal when compared to the message that it would send out.

Now this scenario I agree with. Punters have more to worry about the press than the police I suspect. It will be very interesting to see how the first "case" goes, as long as I'm not the guinea pig of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dad always gives money to my mum each month - 'housekeeping' and in return she gives him earache ( he says)

No wonder i now expect doors to be opened for me, chairs pulled back and everything paid for -and i would not be offended with being given money for taxis, clothes etc. I see it more as a gesture than an offence.

The media can manipulate anything to say whatever they want hence why i am no longer concerned with the repeative news - there was no recession until the media went on and on about it until it created panic and once again something new to sell to mr public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this new legislation outlaw paying for "companionship" via and escort agency. Would this technically not be pimping?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does this new legislation outlaw paying for "companionship" via and escort agency. Would this technically not be pimping?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "outlaw" in this context, but if by "companionship" you mean supplying sexual services in exchange for gain, and if whatever an agency does is classed as "controlling for gain", then that is the main thrust of the proposed legislation. I have yet to see a draft of the proposed legislation but based on all the flurry of interviews given by the great and the good, I believe that what I have said is not a million miles away from the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Take Anna Nicole Smith; would a reasonable man from that Clapham omnibus think that she really married that 80+ years old man for love?

If there was a law being proposed to criminalise gold-diggers, then yes, the likes of Anna Nicole Smith would be worried :eek:

Many tax evading (not avoiding) techniques are of the same nature. I know many consultants who hire their unemployed wives as accountants and pay them £4K a year (below the tax limit). That £4K comes back to the family. Who the fuck are they kidding? Well, it is legal, kosher, all clear.

Indeed, and again, if the government want to make it their mission to target this, then they will - in fact, in this year's budget they announced that they were postponing proposals to deal with this type of "income shifting", so they are well aware it goes on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now how can it be proved that I paid for sex?

Or in fact that you had sex ? in a few years time my dick may have completely dried up and / or dropped off so there would be not a hope in hell of me having sex at all. Does this mean I can't book an escort for some nice companionship from time to time ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or in fact that you had sex ? in a few years time my dick may have completely dried up and / or dropped off so there would be not a hope in hell of me having sex at all. Does this mean I can't book an escort for some nice companionship from time to time ?

Everone practice with their best "Bill Clinton" accent, " I did not have sexual relations with that girl";)

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