secretpunter

How does this legislation effect parlours?

23 posts in this topic

At the moment, as I understand it, if plod&co visited a parlour and caught me having a good 'ole time, as long as the girl was not under age then neither her or myself are commiting any crime though the parlour owner is.

Am I right?

What would be my legal status if I'm in a parlour that gets raided whilst I'm shagging a second year media studies student when this new law comes into play? Is she 'controlled' because the parlour owner is taking a cut and so I'm engaging in funtime with a controlled girl?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At the moment, as I understand it, if plod&co visited a parlour and caught me having a good 'ole time, as long as the girl was not under age then neither her or myself are commiting any crime though the parlour owner is.

Am I right?

Yes

What would be my legal status if I'm in a parlour that gets raided whilst I'm shagging a second year media studies student when this new law comes into play? Is she 'controlled' because the parlour owner is taking a cut and so I'm engaging in funtime with a controlled girl?

If they decided to charge you with an offence (most unlikely) they would have to prove that you knew the girl was controlled ---that would be almost impossible.

**************

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is no one knows yet, this is a proposal not a law as such and needs to get passed into law by our glourious leaders at the Houses of Parliament.

The hints are though that PC Plod could shove you in the back of a police car, no doubt with flashing blue light going to attract anyone with a camera phone to take a few pics, and take you to the local Nick to be fingerprinted, DNA'd and interrogated at length on the suspicion that someone at the Parlour was trafficked/under coercion/controlling the said media student.

Because this is likely to be a "strict liability" offence you will have little to no defence to offer should that be the case. If it turns out that PC Plod was wrong no doubt he will let you go with an apology after a night in the cells leaving you to head home to explain your whereabouts to your wife/partner/work colleagues as you see fit.

Guilty until proven innocent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If they decided to charge you with an offence (most unlikely) they would have to prove that you knew the girl was controlled ---that would be almost impossible."

Not true. If this is gets through as a "strict liability" offence, they will not have to prove you knew the girl was controlled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"If they decided to charge you with an offence (most unlikely) they would have to prove that you knew the girl was controlled ---that would be almost impossible."

Not true. If this is gets through as a "strict liability" offence, they will not have to prove you knew the girl was controlled.

You could be right, the events of the last week have proved we are slowly edging towards a police state if the police can enter the offices of a Member of Parliament without a search warrant -------- if they can treat MP's like that what chance would mere peasants have. :eek::(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If they decided to charge you with an offence (most unlikely) they would have to prove that you knew the girl was controlled ---that would be almost impossible.

That's not accurate. The proposed legislation would make the offence one of "strict liability". There's no burden of proof, and even if a punter took all reasonable steps, and was unaware of committing an offence, he could still be convicted.

Many people consider "strict liability" unjust, because of the risk of convicting innocent people, but that's the nuts and bolts of how it works.

However, who knows how it will be implemented by the police, if it comes to pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not true. If this is gets through as a "strict liability" offence, they will not have to prove you knew the girl was controlled.

True, however they would have to prove "control for gain" in order for you to have any liability, strict or otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True, however they would have to prove "control for gain" in order for you to have any liability, strict or otherwise.

As stated many times here, the unwritten aim of this is to scare punters off in the hopes of reducing demand and therefore reducing the perceived problem of trafficking. This was actually pretty clearly stated by our dear Home Secretary during the various announcements and interviews when this was proposed.

If this gets through as outlined I fully expect a burst of high profile raids a few ordinary people's lives ruined as a warning to the rest and then this to get quietly shelved in the same way the existing laws in this area of society are seldom actually applied. The police will be too busy frogmarching MPs down the police station for doing their jobs to worry for long about punters having consentual sex with prostitutes.

I guess the trick will be to not be one of the people that gets caught while the initial burst of publicity is on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True, however they would have to prove "control for gain" in order for you to have any liability, strict or otherwise.

Well I think if you're visiting a girl in a parlour or booking a girl through an agency then with or without strict liability you're in trouble. You can't really claim that you didn't realise that the people running the joint were making money out of it. They'll have no trouble prosecuting you even without strict liability. Obviously with girls from that site we dare not mention, or girls out of newspaper ads it would be next to impossible without strict liability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I think if you're visiting a girl in a parlour or booking a girl through an agency then with or without strict liability you're in trouble. You can't really claim that you didn't realise that the people running the joint were making money out of it. They'll have no trouble prosecuting you even without strict liability.

Not if you are lucky enough to be brought up in front of the same judge who presided over the Silk & Lace case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's say they'd decide to keep an eye on a place for quite some time before raiding it, photograph and identify those who visits.

Once they finally raid and eventually, in due coarse, convict the managers etc. they could have several hundred punters on file.

Maybe it wouldn't be possible to prove so much unless caught with their pants down, but they could at least call them in for questioning - maybe even bring them to court.

There'd be huge media attention and it would, no doubt, scare the shit out of most punters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for bringing this up. Important question.

I think parlours will have to move to a model where girls pay to use facilities but are independent within them like the German FKK system... but how can you know the exact financial arrangements of a parlour?

Would paying the maid rather than paying the girl be an indication of control?

Just spent a lovely 30 minutes with a lovely lady in a not quite so lovely parlour. First time for me, UK wise, in a few months. Was fun, I'm sitting here with a smile on my face, nice sex, got on well with the girl, she was paid well ... yet the government wants to stamp this out. :eek::):(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the official Home office review, published last week

Case study: Controlling for gain

The Metropolitan police uncovered an escort agency in North London conducting its operations through the internet. The website contained the profiles of between 40 and 45 escorts. The prices ranged from an 'incall' at £150 per hour to overnight at £1000. The 'gallery' pages for each escort indicated which extra sexual services she would provide.

There was the opportunity to view, via a link, reports on

previous visits by clients, which contained graphic descriptions of the sexual

services being provided.

There was an average of 30 bookings per day, which equated to a minimum daily turnover of £4500.

It is a 'cash only' business and it was ascertained that the

agency took at least half the earnings of each prostitute.

Following undercover investigations the person responsible for the agency was arrested and pleaded guilty to controlling prostitution for gain.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"If they decided to charge you with an offence (most unlikely) they would have to prove that you knew the girl was controlled ---that would be almost impossible."

Not true. If this is gets through as a "strict liability" offence, they will not have to prove you knew the girl was controlled.

i think they will have to prove the girl was controlled though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's say they'd decide to keep an eye on a place for quite some time before raiding it, photograph and identify those who visits.

Once they finally raid and eventually, in due coarse, convict the managers etc. they could have several hundred punters on file.

Maybe it wouldn't be possible to prove so much unless caught with their pants down, but they could at least call them in for questioning - maybe even bring them to court.

There'd be huge media attention and it would, no doubt, scare the shit out of most punters.

unless caught with their pants down quite, I had a nice massage m'lud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From the official Home office review, published last week

Case study: Controlling for gain

The Metropolitan police uncovered an escort agency in North London conducting its operations through the internet. The website contained the profiles of between 40 and 45 escorts. The prices ranged from an 'incall' at £150 per hour to overnight at £1000. The 'gallery' pages for each escort indicated which extra sexual services she would provide.

There was the opportunity to view, via a link, reports on

previous visits by clients, which contained graphic descriptions of the sexual

services being provided.

There was an average of 30 bookings per day, which equated to a minimum daily turnover of £4500.

It is a 'cash only' business and it was ascertained that the

agency took at least half the earnings of each prostitute.

Following undercover investigations the person responsible for the agency was arrested and pleaded guilty to controlling prostitution for gain.

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

This "case study" illustrates in so many ways the malignant hypocrisy of Stabvest Smith and her cronies.

It is embedded in a section making vague and unsubstantiated claims of "trafficking", and is presented as an illustration of the "range of exploitative practices" which are allegedly used to coerce trafficked women against their will. But read it - it is nothing of the sort. Nothing in the detail of the "case study" suggests anything other than fully consensual involvement by the girls.

The nature of the evidence assembled by plod (including that lovely phrase "a cash only business") would be far more appropriate for an investigation by HM Revenue & Customs than for a "control for gain" criminal conviction.

And then there's the money shot: "pleaded guilty to controlling prostitution for gain"... As any fool knows, that almost certainly means that plod leaned hard on the owner and told him it would go easier on him if he didn't put everybody to the trouble of a contested trial. Which, of course, means yet another Home Office statistic obtained without any attempt to put the matter to proper judicial inspection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From the official Home office review, published last week

Case study: Controlling for gain

The Metropolitan police uncovered an escort agency in North London conducting its operations through the internet. The website contained the profiles of between 40 and 45 escorts. The prices ranged from an 'incall' at £150 per hour to overnight at £1000. The 'gallery' pages for each escort indicated which extra sexual services she would provide.

There was the opportunity to view, via a link, reports on

previous visits by clients, which contained graphic descriptions of the sexual

services being provided.

There was an average of 30 bookings per day, which equated to a minimum daily turnover of £4500.

It is a 'cash only' business and it was ascertained that the

agency took at least half the earnings of each prostitute.

Following undercover investigations the person responsible for the agency was arrested and pleaded guilty to controlling prostitution for gain.

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

This is getting funnier by the minute - just had a quick leaf through it, and it claims a max of 4,000 trafficked for sexual exploitation (which doesn't mean forced or coerced in any case) and then says it's likely to be higher now but doesn't give any actual figures to back it up. Where have all these figures re:18,000 or 25,000 come from then? Are they admitting they're just made up? The opening foreword gives away it's a biased prejudiced report since it alludes to women "often" being the victims of violence or coercion but gives no info to back that up. 822 premises raided, an unknown number of women dealt with, but likely in the low thousands and 172 victims identified from these raids. How is that "often". It sounds fairly rare to me esp. since these raids were focused on premises they had the greatest suspicions over. It then says that sex buyers are not targeted and "it's time for this to change". Well that's an unbiased, objective review then. Jacqui Smith, who commissioned the review is quite clear as to what she wants so it's no surprise those who were commissioned/paid by her will give her what she wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RECOMMENDATION 1

The Government should consider a specific strict liability offence of paying

for sex with someone who is controlled for another person's gain. This will

aim to protect vulnerable individuals, for example those who have been

trafficked or exploited by any other means.

Why not make it an offence to pay someone who is forced or coerced? Then you know there's a definite victim. "controlled for gain" covers 90% of women and simply means "works via an agency" or similar. The only reason to criminalise that is because you're not interested in trafficked, you just want the Swedish model by the back door. These people fuck me off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is getting funnier by the minute - just had a quick leaf through it, and it claims a max of 4,000 trafficked for sexual exploitation (which doesn't mean forced or coerced in any case) and then says it's likely to be higher now but doesn't give any actual figures to back it up. Where have all these figures re:18,000 or 25,000 come from then? Are they admitting they're just made up? The opening foreword gives away it's a biased prejudiced report since it alludes to women "often" being the victims of violence or coercion but gives no info to back that up. 822 premises raided, an unknown number of women dealt with, but likely in the low thousands and 172 victims identified from these raids. How is that "often". It sounds fairly rare to me esp. since these raids were focused on premises they had the greatest suspicions over. It then says that sex buyers are not targeted and "it's time for this to change". Well that's an unbiased, objective review then. Jacqui Smith, who commissioned the review is quite clear as to what she wants so it's no surprise those who were commissioned/paid by her will give her what she wants.

Of course it's a biased report; the title alone is a bit of a clue to this.

What's really disturbing is the fact that a, self-proclaimed, journalist, political activist & advocate of the Swedish Model was allowed to set the terms of reference for the review; thus automatically giving extra weight to proponents of her favoured policy.

Then there's the fact that thtere are only 3 referenced sources that are said to have contributed to the research:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Damn, caught the tab by mistake & posted before I'd finished typing)

1. The discredited Big Brothel report, produced for Poppy Project, which is presented as being the ultimate in research into the indoor sex markets; largely because one of the co-authors was also the one who set the terms of reference.

This report only came out at the time of the Labour Party Conference; when Smith first announced the proposed legislation; legislation that was supposedly based upon the findings of the review, 3 weeks prior to the deadline for submissions of evidence to said review.

This begs the question, what the hell were they studying for the previous 5 months of the review?

2. An American piece which sings the praises of "John's Schools"; despite the fact that every police force that has tried these in the UK reports that they are a waste of effort & resources;

3. An unpublished study of clients, by Huddersfield University, that provided the estimate of the percentage of the male population that had paid for sex.

There is no explanation of English & Welsh law, as it stands & no review of the different possible approaches to the issue (e.g. regulation, decriminalisation, abolition). We also see a great emphasis on the, oft claimed, benefits of criminalising the client; with no assessment of the reported disadvantages, whilst the coverage of the Dutch approach is all negative.

No evidence submitted by academics, NGO's or sex workers/sex worker's rights organisations who opposed such legislation is presented (they were allowed to submit evidence, but only at very short notice & after being disparaged in Parliament by the supporters of criminalisation).

The list of stakeholders contributing to the review lists SW5 as being the only pro-criminalisation organisation consulted.

Basically, the report of the review wouldn't have passed marking as a piece of work by an A-Level student, something Smith; as an ex-head teacher, should be well aware of.

There is a response being compiled by UKNSWP, with others, but it is more likely than not that it will receive exactly as much attention from our Home Secretary as every other such document; i.e. bugger all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real problem is ...

who can afford the risk of going to trial?

consequences both socially and professionally.

Who can afford to bleat to it and plead guilty?

still the press may expose you.

Those who drafted this know that middle class man dare not risk a charge.

They will put off the behaviour they seek to control by the threat alone...

It is after all only in backward countries that governments try and control the moral behaviour of it's citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The real problem is ...

who can afford the risk of going to trial?

consequences both socially and professionally.

Who can afford to bleat to it and plead guilty?

still the press may expose you.

Those who drafted this know that middle class man dare not risk a charge.

They will put off the behaviour they seek to control by the threat alone...

It is after all only in backward countries that governments try and control the moral behaviour of it's citizens.

Sex is a big driver. It will only stop a few. Most will continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(Damn, caught the tab by mistake & posted before I'd finished typing)

1. The discredited Big Brothel report, produced for Poppy Project, which is presented as being the ultimate in research into the indoor sex markets; largely because one of the co-authors was also the one who set the terms of reference.

This report only came out at the time of the Labour Party Conference; when Smith first announced the proposed legislation; legislation that was supposedly based upon the findings of the review, 3 weeks prior to the deadline for submissions of evidence to said review.

This begs the question, what the hell were they studying for the previous 5 months of the review?

2. An American piece which sings the praises of "John's Schools"; despite the fact that every police force that has tried these in the UK reports that they are a waste of effort & resources;

3. An unpublished study of clients, by Huddersfield University, that provided the estimate of the percentage of the male population that had paid for sex.

There is no explanation of English & Welsh law, as it stands & no review of the different possible approaches to the issue (e.g. regulation, decriminalisation, abolition). We also see a great emphasis on the, oft claimed, benefits of criminalising the client; with no assessment of the reported disadvantages, whilst the coverage of the Dutch approach is all negative.

No evidence submitted by academics, NGO's or sex workers/sex worker's rights organisations who opposed such legislation is presented (they were allowed to submit evidence, but only at very short notice & after being disparaged in Parliament by the supporters of criminalisation).

The list of stakeholders contributing to the review lists SW5 as being the only pro-criminalisation organisation consulted.

Basically, the report of the review wouldn't have passed marking as a piece of work by an A-Level student, something Smith; as an ex-head teacher, should be well aware of.

There is a response being compiled by UKNSWP, with others, but it is more likely than not that it will receive exactly as much attention from our Home Secretary as every other such document; i.e. bugger all.

this blogger has some additional good points, eg. the figures regarding sweden they mention in the report, scroll down to:

The Swedish Experience - A Systematic Fraud.

http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/11/21/british-blowjobs-for-british-johns/

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