London Escorts

Sex Proposal evolution, Facts over fiction

22 posts in this topic

To be perfectly honest and looking at the facts (that im aware of and to the best of my ability), the original statement to outlaw 'paying for it' never made it off the ground. (and gossip mentions it was squashed due to the public being opposed to it).

It was then followed up with the new proposal 'to outlaw those who pay for it with trafficked girls', which is also just a proposal. Which was all the more scarry to punters having been published into every home in the uk by the BBC. (sudden down turn in punting results)

So, the facts are... its a proposal that is still being researched, looking for evidence and material to kick start the long process of passing a law.

(The W.I. are invloved searching for trafficking evidence. Who by the way have also created the mobile brothel and them selves created and sold their own naked calendar, and related naked wi material (includes a play) and the wi's trek to amsterdam in their review of britians sex laws to "resolution to the existing muddle of Britain's sex laws and safer conditions for prostitutes". All of it still on the ground searching for support for what HH, in reality is wriggling to achieve in law. (which we wont discover until this story unfolds completely)

So far - there is no green paper, no white paper, no bill yet being passed through parliment and finally nothing cleared through the house of lords. After all that has been done the police can then start upholding it as law.

Anything to remove trafficking or reduce it is genuinely a good thing, but is this proposal genuinely going to "make safer conditions for prostitutes", or has it a different agenda? It has definately twisted into several different animals since its start.

It started off as a improving conditions for sex workers, to a ban on paying for it, and now its morphed into stopping trafficked women by attacking the punters. Will the proposals evolve again? Surely thats certainty.

All we know right now, is that today (2nd december 08) nothing has changed for punters who want to punt, and in fact punters should make an effort to avoid bad agencies, or girls who they have concerns about, new agencies that spring up. Really you should stick to what you know and use your own buying power to support the good guys and shun the bad.

Are we missing any facts to that stands out from the fiction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Self promote your already established but badly hit by the rescission agency!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We shall see if there are any proposals in the Queen's speech later today.

One of the arguments that new legislation is unnecesary is that coercion is already illegal and that punters can be charged with rape. Has a conviction actually taken place?

Claims that there are thousands of sex slaves in the UK are not supported by the the numbers of convictions for trafficking for sexual expolitation. Since May 2004 there have been 90 -

2004 3, 2005 21, 2006 32, 2007 23, 2008 11

Would the figures be falling if the number is as large as they claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to have to break this to you, but the Government Review, upon which these proposals are supposed to be based, was released on 19 November:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/tackling-demand?view=Binary

This is despite the fact that Jacqui Smith was able to announce these proposals as being based upon its findings, at the Labour Party Conference, in Manchester, approximately 3 weeks before the closure date for submissions of evidence for consideration by the commitee.

The report itself, can only be described as interesting reading, in that it demonstrates how one should not go about writing an A-Level essay.

Additionally, these proposals have been included in the Queen's Speech today, as part of the Policing and Crime Bill:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/dec/03/queens-speech-justice

Yes, these clauses will require being debated, in both the Commons; where botht the main opposition parties have expressed their intention to oppose them, & Lords; where it is known, from the CJIB debates, earlier this year, that there are many who would oppose such measures, but Smith has kept to her intention of including it in the legisaltive program for this session of Parliament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According that Guardian piece:

"The Conservatives have already indicated they are likely to oppose this, making tackling prostitution one of the more unlikely flashpoints in politics over the coming months"

Fascinating - they've been keeping that quiet, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be perfectly honest and looking at the facts (that im aware of and to the best of my ability), the original statement to outlaw 'paying for it' never made it off the ground. (and gossip mentions it was squashed due to the public being opposed to it).

It was then followed up with the new proposal 'to outlaw those who pay for it with trafficked girls', which is also just a proposal. Which was all the more scarry to punters having been published into every home in the uk by the BBC. (sudden down turn in punting results)

So, the facts are... its a proposal that is still being researched, looking for evidence and material to kick start the long process of passing a law.

(The W.I. are invloved searching for trafficking evidence. Who by the way have also created the mobile brothel and them selves created and sold their own naked calendar, and related naked wi material (includes a play) and the wi's trek to amsterdam in their review of britians sex laws to "resolution to the existing muddle of Britain's sex laws and safer conditions for prostitutes". All of it still on the ground searching for support for what HH, in reality is wriggling to achieve in law. (which we wont discover until this story unfolds completely)

So far - there is no green paper, no white paper, no bill yet being passed through parliment and finally nothing cleared through the house of lords. After all that has been done the police can then start upholding it as law.

Anything to remove trafficking or reduce it is genuinely a good thing, but is this proposal genuinely going to "make safer conditions for prostitutes", or has it a different agenda? It has definately twisted into several different animals since its start.

It started off as a improving conditions for sex workers, to a ban on paying for it, and now its morphed into stopping trafficked women by attacking the punters. Will the proposals evolve again? Surely thats certainty.

All we know right now, is that today (2nd december 08) nothing has changed for punters who want to punt, and in fact punters should make an effort to avoid bad agencies, or girls who they have concerns about, new agencies that spring up. Really you should stick to what you know and use your own buying power to support the good guys and shun the bad.

Are we missing any facts to that stands out from the fiction?

Just been talking to a police friend of many years..... He said that the main reason for the changes in the law and why it will help him is this......

The police can raid an agency, arrest the girls owners and also the punters when the new law comes in if it does come in.

Arresting the punters and the girls will he says make it very easy to prosecute because in the past it was not often possible to bring in the punters for questioning and now it will be easy. So with Punters Prostitutes and the agency owners all down the nick... they will sing like the birds.. and the prosecutions will be simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just been talking to a police friend of many years..... He said that the main reason for the changes in the law and why it will help him is this......

The police can raid an agency, arrest the girls owners and also the punters when the new law comes in if it does come in.

Arresting the punters and the girls will he says make it very easy to prosecute because in the past it was not often possible to bring in the punters for questioning and now it will be easy. So with Punters Prostitutes and the agency owners all down the nick... they will sing like the birds.. and the prosecutions will be simple.

Summed up in two words.... "police state".

Next thing they'll be arresting MPs for daring to publish information which the Government don't want to see in the public domain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Self promote your already established but badly hit by the rescission agency!!!

self promoting? good god does that mean you think we should have made up a fake punter login and voiced our opinion that way.

we tend to think its better not to hide the fact that that we are an agency and say what it is.. At this point a proposal, a long way off from being law. and may change or not even make it into law. either way it does mean today, now is the same as it always was. unchanged.

i feel your a bit harsh, and no we are not that badly hit to be honest just responding to questions asked of us by punters.

glad that at least you have an opinion, even it didnt like the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just been talking to a police friend of many years..... He said that the main reason for the changes in the law and why it will help him is this......

The police can raid an agency, arrest the girls owners and also the punters when the new law comes in if it does come in.

Arresting the punters and the girls will he says make it very easy to prosecute because in the past it was not often possible to bring in the punters for questioning and now it will be easy. So with Punters Prostitutes and the agency owners all down the nick... they will sing like the birds.. and the prosecutions will be simple.

this post on the police having it easy to arrest agency, girls and punters misses one vital point it is still only when "trafficked".

isnt it? the proposal section reads the bill is for those trafficked or those pimped. so really its the interpretation of who is a pimp that is the section to watch for. otherwise if the new law makes it in, those that are free of pimps and trafficking are ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Summed up in two words.... "police state".

Next thing they'll be arresting MPs for daring to publish information which the Government don't want to see in the public domain.

--------------------

no, no, thats been done already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the interpetation of the word "controlled" that will make fortunes for the learned friends. My dictionaries are rather old but they all give a wide usage to the word both as a verb & a noun. Depending on context (& what is acually being described), the word can apply to any situation from complete domination an manipulation to simply organising & co-ordinating the actions of willing volunteers. It therefore would seem to apply equally to both the archetypal "trafficker/pimp" and the benign agent who simply provides the advertising & booking functions (at a price) for otherwise completely autonomous individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this post on the police having it easy to arrest agency, girls and punters misses one vital point it is still only when "trafficked".

isnt it? the proposal section reads the bill is for those trafficked or those pimped. so really its the interpretation of who is a pimp that is the section to watch for. otherwise if the new law makes it in, those that are free of pimps and trafficking are ok.

The gloss, the advertising is to say its for trafficked women. The proposed wording is controlled for gain which the present interpretation includes most agencies and brothels.

Now a Labour MP John McDonnell has already been asking what controlled for gain actually mean. He has asked some very sensible questions.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration she has given to the application of the definition of a prostitute as controlled for another person's gain to male and female prostitutes in circumstances where the prostitute has voluntarily entered into a working relationship with another person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, the only link that I can get to work is the BBC one, and that refers to the PC Victoria Thorne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
self promoting? good god does that mean you think we should have made up a fake punter login and voiced our opinion that way.

we tend to think its better not to hide the fact that that we are an agency and say what it is.. At this point a proposal, a long way off from being law. and may change or not even make it into law. either way it does mean today, now is the same as it always was. unchanged.

i feel your a bit harsh, and no we are not that badly hit to be honest just responding to questions asked of us by punters.

glad that at least you have an opinion, even it didnt like the truth.

Any fool should be able to see how long you have been registered here..... no pleasing some on here.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Criminal gangs thrive where there are shadows in society.

Whether that is for the supply of alcohol during the prohibition in america, here where drugs are illegal and in the future when whoring is illegal.

Bring the matter out into the light and you can regulate and tax the industry.

The criminal gangs then go elsewhere.

With licensed brothels trafficking to any great extent would be virtually wiped out overnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Criminal gangs thrive where there are shadows in society.

Whether that is for the supply of alcohol during the prohibition in america, here where drugs are illegal and in the future when whoring is illegal.

Bring the matter out into the light and you can regulate and tax the industry.

The criminal gangs then go elsewhere.

With licensed brothels trafficking to any great extent would be virtually wiped out overnight

I agree, why can't the goverment see this is the way forward. They're just on some stupid moral crusade, they dont give F**k about the proffesion really. This proposal will give the traffickers an open ticket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, why can't the goverment see this is the way forward. They're just on some stupid moral crusade, they dont give F**k about the proffesion really. This proposal will give the traffickers an open ticket.

I think they believe they can get away with conning the public. They would really like to introduce a total ban but realise that this could not be achieved. They have therefore come up with the current proposal which is portrayed as solely concerning trafficking/coercion, hoping that controlled, as in 'controlled for gain', will be misunderstood.

In other words they think they are pulling a fast one, relying on public ignorance. Invent or overstate a problem, introduce legislation and then claim to have tackled and solved the problem. In this case they will have introduced legislation which could severly affect the business and which could be amended later to make all payment illegal. It also enables them to foster the illusion that they are tackling trafficking by reducing demand. If tackling trafficking is their genuine objective, there are far better ways to go about it.

Their problem is that we have seen far too much spin in the last 11 years and many people no longer trust government claims and figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be perfectly honest and looking at the facts (that im aware of and to the best of my ability), the original statement to outlaw 'paying for it' never made it off the ground. (and gossip mentions it was squashed due to the public being opposed to it).

It was then followed up with the new proposal 'to outlaw those who pay for it with trafficked girls', which is also just a proposal. Which was all the more scarry to punters having been published into every home in the uk by the BBC. (sudden down turn in punting results)

So, the facts are... its a proposal that is still being researched, looking for evidence and material to kick start the long process of passing a law.

(The W.I. are invloved searching for trafficking evidence. Who by the way have also created the mobile brothel and them selves created and sold their own naked calendar, and related naked wi material (includes a play) and the wi's trek to amsterdam in their review of britians sex laws to "resolution to the existing muddle of Britain's sex laws and safer conditions for prostitutes". All of it still on the ground searching for support for what HH, in reality is wriggling to achieve in law. (which we wont discover until this story unfolds completely)

So far - there is no green paper, no white paper, no bill yet being passed through parliment and finally nothing cleared through the house of lords. After all that has been done the police can then start upholding it as law.

Anything to remove trafficking or reduce it is genuinely a good thing, but is this proposal genuinely going to "make safer conditions for prostitutes", or has it a different agenda? It has definately twisted into several different animals since its start.

It started off as a improving conditions for sex workers, to a ban on paying for it, and now its morphed into stopping trafficked women by attacking the punters. Will the proposals evolve again? Surely thats certainty.

All we know right now, is that today (2nd december 08) nothing has changed for punters who want to punt, and in fact punters should make an effort to avoid bad agencies, or girls who they have concerns about, new agencies that spring up. Really you should stick to what you know and use your own buying power to support the good guys and shun the bad.

Are we missing any facts to that stands out from the fiction?

NO, it seems the point is to make it possible to arrest any punter who visits or is visited by a person who has been promised money for any kind of sex where person C exists.

Person C will be the people involved other than person B and person A.

It will enable the police to close all places where that sex can take place.

That should be fun if they try to close the Dorchester or Hilton. But it will close many parlours in my view. Anything to take our minds of the greedy banks and energy companies.

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