Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
MrPunt

New Prostitution Law - Trafficking And Coersion

12 posts in this topic

I support any new legislation to protect women from human traffickers and pimps that coerce or force women against their will into prostitiution. I just wanted to make that very clear before I make this small point...

This new law "that's already been enacted from the house of lords" means that punters will now be arrested for having sex with working girls that have been coerced by a third party with or without the punters knowledge. A "strict liability offence" meaning that prosecutors would not have to prove that a man knew that the prostitute they had hired was trafficked or pimped. Prosecutors would simply have to show that the prostitute was trafficked or coerced and that cash changed hands.

People convicted under the new law would face a fine of up to £1,000 and receive a criminal record – which would most likely affect their chances of getting sensitive jobs. Ministers are also looking at strengthening the law on kerb-crawling, to allow men to be prosecuted for a first offence. At present, kerb-crawlers must act persistently before they will be hauled before the courts.

The Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, wants to push the legislation through Parliament as soon as possible. A Bill is likely to be included in next month's Queen's Speech. Ministers are planning to give police new powers to close brothels and are looking at a national campaign to highlight trafficking and exploitation of prostitutes as well as a fresh anti-kerb crawling campaign.

Now... As I said before I support any legislation that protects women from being forced into prostitution, however this law is extremely unfair to punters that are completely oblivious that the prostitute has been forced or is willing working as a prostitute. I think this is a clever move to stop punter's buying sex full stop because you don't really know who you are buying sex from... so the punter would always be on the look out if he / she is breaking the law when buying sex.

You thoughts please...

MrPunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This new law "that's already been enacted from the house of lords" means that punters will now be arrested for having sex with working girls that have been coerced by a third party with or without the punters knowledge. A "strict liability offence" meaning that prosecutors would not have to prove that a man knew that the prostitute they had hired was trafficked or pimped. Prosecutors would simply have to show that the prostitute was trafficked or coerced and that cash changed hands.

The Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, .....

For me the answer (which co-incides with my preferances, so no great problem) has to be to stick to British ladies, and for the most part to Indies and Ladies of Quality. Asking the girl won't help anyone, but I'd say that at the bottom end of the market the girls are more likely to be co-erced, and if she can't speak much English there is every reason that she might have thought that she was indeed coming to a great job as a waitress in my sister-in-law's restaurant!

PS - I thought that Jacqui had been given her P45?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I support any new legislation to protect women from human traffickers and pimps that coerce or force women against their will into prostitiution. I just wanted to make that very clear before I make this small point...

This new law "that's already been enacted from the house of lords" means that punters will now be arrested for having sex with working girls that have been coerced by a third party with or without the punters knowledge. A "strict liability offence" meaning that prosecutors would not have to prove that a man knew that the prostitute they had hired was trafficked or pimped. Prosecutors would simply have to show that the prostitute was trafficked or coerced and that cash changed hands.

People convicted under the new law would face a fine of up to £1,000 and receive a criminal record - which would most likely affect their chances of getting sensitive jobs. Ministers are also looking at strengthening the law on kerb-crawling, to allow men to be prosecuted for a first offence. At present, kerb-crawlers must act persistently before they will be hauled before the courts.

The Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, wants to push the legislation through Parliament as soon as possible. A Bill is likely to be included in next month's Queen's Speech. Ministers are planning to give police new powers to close brothels and are looking at a national campaign to highlight trafficking and exploitation of prostitutes as well as a fresh anti-kerb crawling campaign.

Now... As I said before I support any legislation that protects women from being forced into prostitution, however this law is extremely unfair to punters that are completely oblivious that the prostitute has been forced or is willing working as a prostitute. I think this is a clever move to stop punter's buying sex full stop because you don't really know who you are buying sex from... so the punter would always be on the look out if he / she is breaking the law when buying sex.

You thoughts please...

MrPunt

Umm where have you been, this is been through parliament and the lords, and has royal ascent.

The point is it has not been enacted as law. This will happen in the Spring. At the moment guidelines for the laws implementation is being drawn up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This new draconian legislation gives the pigs open season on Punters, in Police State UK 2010. What a miserable hole this country has become. I have lived nearly 61 years and thought by now we would have a more relaxed, freeer and open Society. Society today is less free and less relaxed that it was in the 1950's, and it will only get worse. Kids today are brainwashed to accept living in a "Big Brother" Society, the fight has been knocked out of protest and opposition. Suppression is the order of the day. I dispair for the future and live in the solace that I have had the best years this country had to offer during my younger days, the future looks bleak, draconian and Orwellian, with the Excutive being more akin to dictatorship than collective democracy and the Police more akin to the Stazi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This new draconian legislation gives the pigs open season on Punters, in Police State UK 2010. What a miserable hole this country has become. I have lived nearly 61 years and thought by now we would have a more relaxed, freeer and open Society. Society today is less free and less relaxed that it was in the 1950's, and it will only get worse. Kids today are brainwashed to accept living in a "Big Brother" Society, the fight has been knocked out of protest and opposition. Suppression is the order of the day. I dispair for the future and live in the solace that I have had the best years this country had to offer during my younger days, the future looks bleak, draconian and Orwellian, with the Excutive being more akin to dictatorship than collective democracy and the Police more akin to the Stazi.

You could always move abroad if you feel that desperate....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NO!

The police should all be sat in a quiet room and given an opportunity to read & consider Robert Peel's principles for a permanent police force

"Sir Robert Peel's Nine Principles

The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.

Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Umm where have you been, this is been through parliament and the lords, and has royal ascent.

The point is it has not been enacted as law. This will happen in the Spring. At the moment guidelines for the laws implementation is being drawn up.

Yes I know this has been through the house of commons, house of lords and has royal ascent... your basically repeating what I had previously written...

My main point was that A "strict liability offence" meaning that prosecutors would not have to prove that a man knew that the prostitute they had hired was trafficked or pimped. Prosecutors would simply have to show that the prostitute was trafficked or coerced and that cash changed hands.

This was the emphasise of the discussion... not whether I was keeping up with modern trends with the law...

I was hoping for more of a debate on this point...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes I know this has been through the house of commons, house of lords and has royal ascent... your basically repeating what I had previously written...

My main point was that A "strict liability offence" meaning that prosecutors would not have to prove that a man knew that the prostitute they had hired was trafficked or pimped. Prosecutors would simply have to show that the prostitute was trafficked or coerced and that cash changed hands.

This was the emphasise of the discussion... not whether I was keeping up with modern trends with the law...

I was hoping for more of a debate on this point...

it's been debated hundreds of times if you look through the other posts....in fact it's been pretty much the sole topic of conversation for the past 18 months in this section of the board.

The concensus seems to have been that it's highly unlikely that the police will have more than a handful of opportunities to use this law each year, and if and when they do it's going to be very interesting to see what happens re: strict liability since it's never been used in this way before, and pretty much means it's impossible to visit prostitutes (which is legal) without an inherent and unmitigatable risk of being randomly arrested. Read the other threads for more detailed analysis by me and other amateur barristers :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For me the answer (which co-incides with my preferances, so no great problem) has to be to stick to British ladies, and for the most part to Indies and Ladies of Quality. Asking the girl won't help anyone, but I'd say that at the bottom end of the market the girls are more likely to be co-erced, and if she can't speak much English there is every reason that she might have thought that she was indeed coming to a great job as a waitress in my sister-in-law's restaurant!

PS - I thought that Jacqui had been given her P45?

avoiding foreign women means nothing. She could still be forced, coerced, threatened or deceived by a third party. That's one of the things I would have thought will be brought up in the inevitable legal challenges....there's nothing you can do to directly check whether you're likely to be breaking the law.

Every other strict liability offence has a way to avoid it. You can check the speedo in your car, you can take it to a garage to ensure the speedo is working, you can contact an insurance company to be sure you're insured, you can open your eyes and check what colour the traffic lights are. You can check a girl's ID to make sure she's old enough, and inspect it thoroughly to make sure it's not a fake ID. But there's nothing you can do to directly check whether the girl is even independent, and even if it IS clear that someone else is involved, you can't do anything to check whether he or she is using force, deception, threats or coercion - other than ask the girl which is obviously only ever going to get one answer. They're not going to admit to anything which will make the client do a runner and p*ss of the guy threatening them or their family.

You can avoid foreign girls, but all that guarantees is that the girl isn't foreign. It has no direct (or even indirect as far as I'm concerned) bearing on force, coercion etc.

You can avoid girls who openly work in parlours and via agencies, but she could still have a piece of shit boyfriend putting pressure on her.

You therefore can't go about your legal business without risk of random and therefore arbitrary arrest. You're unable to defend yourself from prosecution. And all so they can give you a £1000 fine. Doomed to failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it's been debated hundreds of times if you look through the other posts....in fact it's been pretty much the sole topic of conversation for the past 18 months in this section of the board.

The concensus seems to have been that it's highly unlikely that the police will have more than a handful of opportunities to use this law each year, and if and when they do it's going to be very interesting to see what happens re: strict liability since it's never been used in this way before, and pretty much means it's impossible to visit prostitutes (which is legal) without an inherent and unmitigatable risk of being randomly arrested. Read the other threads for more detailed analysis by me and other amateur barristers :-)

Sorry... never been in this section before... Thanks for your input

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the late 90's, I worked for 6 months in two parlours in Sheffield.

In the first parlour there were two girls out of five of us who were pimped by boyfriends. Both were quite young girls who's boyfriends had got them into the business by making them feel they had to do it to prove that they loved them etc...

These boyfriends would be constantly phoning the girls to see how much money they'd got and frequently coming to pick it up (for safe keeping!) The girls were always under pressure to earn more. One of them was in the early stages of pregnancy, but had to continue working for fear of the boyfriend making her terminate the pregnancy because of lack of money.

In the second parlour there were two girls out of 4 who were in a similar position. One of them was an 18 year old asian girl who's uncle had got her hooked on heroin and gone on to pimp her. He used to pick her up when the parlour closed at 10pm. If he decided that she hadn't made enough that day, he'd take her to the RLD for a few hours to earn some more.

I can honestly say that in my last 10 years of working as an independent, I only ever came across one other independent who was coerced. For years her boyfriend pimped her until he was sent to prison for drug offences. But, instead of packing it in and starting a new life, she changed her working name, started advertising on ** and one of her ex's mates took over pimping duties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the anti-sex league (religious groups and radical feminist groups) knows that the pro-sex league (which is us of course) are 100% against people being forced into the sex industry but if they do know they don't care cause they want to destroy sexual freedoms which is why they will abuse the new law at every opportunity. The radical feminists are of course misandry mostly with a bit of misogyny while the religious groups have the opposite of hatred that the radical feminists have.

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