Man2k

Policing & Crime Bill Published

125 posts in this topic

Its actually a very small section of the Bill and in my mind could be pulled very easily by the Lords. Alternatively, amendments swing both ways, and we COULD end up with a complete ban.

Interesting to note that you could still be charged if you punt abroad!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its actually a very small section of the Bill and in my mind could be pulled very easily by the Lords. Alternatively, amendments swing both ways, and we COULD end up with a complete ban.

Interesting to note that you could still be charged if you punt abroad!

I was thinking the same, illegal for someone from England to visit legal brothel in Germany, Netherlands etc.

pg. 13-14

The following are irrelevant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that there is no mention whatsoever of trafficking in this document. Wasn't that the reason for this change in the law? "Controlled for gain" is wide open to interpretation any way the PC Plod feels he wants to.

Can we have an election now please, I'm fed up with this lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting that there is no mention whatsoever of trafficking in this document. Wasn't that the reason for this change in the law? "Controlled for gain" is wide open to interpretation any way the PC Plod feels he wants to.

Can we have an election now please, I'm fed up with this lot.

I read it as sex oncounter venue as any place where anything like sex is on offer... so strip club to massage parlours will come under this and need licence... did I understand this right? that will close them all if the licence is 30 grand... ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's go back to basics :

Wasn't the idea of 'massage parlours' a place where you went for a massage and were then asked (unknown to the managament of course ! ) if you wanted 'extras' - so you tipped the girl accordingly. Alternatively the price was such that you paid for an rather expensive massage and got H/R , sex or whatever for free? Basically it was a work-around the law as it stood at that time. You wern't paying for the sex as that would mean the place was a brothel and was therefore illegal under the current laws anyway.

Of course we all know that nowadays 'massage parlour = brothel'. But go back a few years before very explicit adverts were posted on the internet etc and most [clean living] folks wouldn't know that a massage parlour provided anything more than a massage. For sure, there were always the nudge nudge, wink wink rumours that more was on offer but unless you had been in such a place you were'nt really sure.

Running a brothel had been illegal for a long time so when and if we get a change in the law are all parlours going to re-brand themselves as 'speed dating agncies' , friendship clubs' , 'photographic clubs' etc of some other name so that they will still operate in the same sort of way as the early massage parlours ?

I.e. an advert might read : "Divine Photographic Agency" New models every week, costumes provided, lighting and make-up provided etc etc etc...

I arrive and pay £60 for 30 minutes modelling and inserad of the girl asking if I want talc or baby oil she asks what costume and what poses do you want me in ? I snap a few photos of her with her face hidden (even with my camera - phone would be ok ) and then she lets me shag her for free as part of the deal.

I've paid for her modeling skills, not for her massage skills ( ha ! ) and not for sex.

Have I done anything wrong ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's go back to basics :

Wasn't the idea of 'massage parlours' a place where you went for a massage and were then asked (unknown to the managament of course ! ) if you wanted 'extras' - so you tipped the girl accordingly. Alternatively the price was such that you paid for an rather expensive massage and got H/R , sex or whatever for free? Basically it was a work-around the law as it stood at that time. You wern't paying for the sex as that would mean the place was a brothel and was therefore illegal under the current laws anyway.

Of course we all know that nowadays 'massage parlour = brothel'. But go back a few years before very explicit adverts were posted on the internet etc and most [clean living] folks wouldn't know that a massage parlour provided anything more than a massage. For sure, there were always the nudge nudge, wink wink rumours that more was on offer but unless you had been in such a place you were'nt really sure.

Running a brothel had been illegal for a long time so when and if we get a change in the law are all parlours going to re-brand themselves as 'speed dating agncies' , friendship clubs' , 'photographic clubs' etc of some other name so that they will still operate in the same sort of way as the early massage parlours ?

I.e. an advert might read : "Divine Photographic Agency" New models every week, costumes provided, lighting and make-up provided etc etc etc...

I arrive and pay £60 for 30 minutes modelling and inserad of the girl asking if I want talc or baby oil she asks what costume and what poses do you want me in ? I snap a few photos of her with her face hidden (even with my camera - phone would be ok ) and then she lets me shag her for free as part of the deal.

I've paid for her modeling skills, not for her massage skills ( ha ! ) and not for sex.

Have I done anything wrong ???

No that will not work nor did it ever work.... Studio 118 and hundreds of others tried that one... they got knicked.... you only have to prove that sex acts are taking place... not that they are offered as part of the legit business... and even sexy pole dancing seems to be getting included.

And I think the need to licence sex encounter places will make a licence needed for photstudios where girls are employed as models if clothes come off...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No that will not work nor did it ever work.... Studio 118 and hundreds of others tried that one... they got knicked.... you only have to prove that sex acts are taking place... not that they are offered as part of the legit business... and even sexy pole dancing seems to be getting included.

And I think the need to licence sex encounter places will make a licence needed for photstudios where girls are employed as models if clothes come off...

Just did a search........ must be Lionels brother in Canada...

http://www.studio118massage.com/index2.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just hysterical. There's no way this will get passed by the commons, let alone the lords. Dominic Grieve (conservative home secretary) has already made it clear he doesn't like it as it'll drive the whole thing underground. The lib dems aren't fans either, and now they add a clause that'll make it an offence even if you're in another country!!! Just how psychotically deranged are HH and JS to think this won't be thrown back in their faces. As others have said it doesn't actually mention the word trafficked, simply controlled for gain - which has nothing to do with forced or coerced women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is just hysterical. There's no way this will get passed by the commons, let alone the lords. Dominic Grieve (conservative home secretary) has already made it clear he doesn't like it as it'll drive the whole thing underground. The lib dems aren't fans either, and now they add a clause that'll make it an offence even if you're in another country!!!

Depends if the govt. put a three-line whip under it - then it won't matter a jot what Dominic Grieve or the LibDems think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Depends if the govt. put a three-line whip under it - then it won't matter a jot what Dominic Grieve or the LibDems think.

depends on the lords.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Depends if the govt. put a three-line whip under it - then it won't matter a jot what Dominic Grieve or the LibDems think.

Nope - there's 3 main parties, even if all the Labour MPs back it (which they won't) there's plenty of other MPs to kick it out. The conservatives are just looking for an excuse to bloody JS and HH's nose after the Damien Greene affair; and this is the perfect issue with is being so important to both of them, whilst also being very easy to fight against since there's so many obvious holes in the issue. Also the Lords slung the 42 day detention bill back in their faces, with such a resounding defeat the govt admitted they'll never pass it; and that was far more important to the govt in general than this is. Obviously you can argue the opposition was also more mobilised in that case, but the point is that outside of HH and JS (and a couple of minor ministers) there's no one who's really that fussed about it. Most people see it for what it is "feminist garbage". After all the talk of trafficking etc. the fact that the proposal doesn't mention the word will be seized upon. Then there's the strict liability issue which most people agree is ridiculous. The head of the police anti trafficking unit reckons it's unenforceable for some reason. I haven't read any opinion outside of feminists etc. who support it. It's a goner and HH and Js just can't admit it. If it wasn't for the fact that the two main supporters are the Home Secretary and deputy PM, it would have died already with all the negative press and criticism from other MPs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's nice to see that "controlled for gain" has been nailed down as

Makes it an awful lot clearer.

I read it, so does my friend that, A is any person; a woman or a man who promises to or does pay for any sexual service. So you dont have to do it, just promise to do it.

Promise is an interesting word... Many of the men who phone me say they will be along in ten minutes but they almost never promise they will come. Its also interesting that you no longer have the definition of "common prostitute" just now a person is substituted for that term. So any woman or man can be included under this section.

It seems that any person who runs any kind of brothel or as they prefer to call them parlours... will be person C and that makes any punter visiting a parlour quilty and he will also be guilty if he just promised to visit.

As most people will not understand this my friend thinks it will get passed because the MP's are just ordinary people who will not understand it either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that to be C you just need to run a parlour... book adverts open the door, answer the phone for or have any link to the working of the girls or men.

So all people other than B who have something to do with B's working will be C. If C exists A is committing an offense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems that to be C you just need to run a parlour... book adverts open the door, answer the phone for or have any link to the working of the girls or men.

So all people other than B who have something to do with B's working will be C. If C exists A is committing an offense.

IMO, JS & HH are a pair of stupid C's who should shove it up their A's and B off! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read it, so does my friend that, A is any person; a woman or a man who promises to or does pay for any sexual service. So you dont have to do it, just promise to do it.

Promise is an interesting word... Many of the men who phone me say they will be along in ten minutes but they almost never promise they will come. Its also interesting that you no longer have the definition of "common prostitute" just now a person is substituted for that term. So any woman or man can be included under this section.

It seems that any person who runs any kind of brothel or as they prefer to call them parlours... will be person C and that makes any punter visiting a parlour quilty and he will also be guilty if he just promised to visit.

As most people will not understand this my friend thinks it will get passed because the MP's are just ordinary people who will not understand it either.

It wasn't the alphabet that I was commenting on, it was the fact that the definition/explanation/interpretation of "controlled for gain" is mere repetition, which IMHO is, not to put a too finer point on it, a cop out. It is analogous to Poster X asking Poster Y to explain a post and Poster Y replying "Read my post again" with no attempt at clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It wasn't the alphabet that I was commenting on, it was the fact that the definition/explanation/interpretation of "controlled for gain" is mere repetition, which IMHO is, not to put a too finer point on it, a cop out. It is analogous to Poster X asking Poster Y to explain a post and Poster Y replying "Read my post again" with no attempt at clarification.

Yes but they will need to prove the controlled bit first... wont they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes but they will need to prove the controlled bit first... wont they?

Having first decided what "controlled" means, which IMHO repetition does not adequately provide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Having first decided what "controlled" means, which IMHO repetition does not adequately provide.

Yes controlled is defined, but that does not stop the need to prove it to the court... magistrates most likely as its not looking like an either way offence. So they need to show B is a person controlled by C and A either promised to or did engage in some act of sex with B who in turn is controlled by C. Or am I drunk this early in the day. The News of the World will have a field day on the first case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The News of the World will have a field day on the first case.

They sure will, and most punters will not want to be the guineau pig for it, even if they can stand on the courtroom steps afterwards and say to the waiting media "See? - I knew you she wasn't pimped!"

Edited by Vin DaLoo
Editing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes controlled is defined

Is it? could you show me the definition relating to "controlled for gain" please. The only one I have seen is :-

(3) An activity is "controlled for gain" by C if it is controlled by C for or in the expectation of gain for C or another person (apart from A or :rolleyes:.

Which to my mind is not a definition of "controlled" but merely a repetition/re-wording of :-

53A Paying for sexual services of a prostitute controlled for gain

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The law has prolly been kept vague for a reason: the Government are attempting to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt, and the main purpose of the law is to deter punters rather than prosecute them:

Anti-prostitution measures contained in the policing and crime bill will deter potential sex buyers, Home Office minister Vernon Coaker has claimed.

The bill, laid before parliament yesterday, would make sex buyers vulnerable to prosecution for paying for sex with a prostitute who is "controlled to gain".

Mr Coaker told journalists sex buyers would face prosecution whether or not they knew the prostitute was controlled for gain or not.

But he denied this presented legal challenges and insisted the alternative - outlawing prostitution completely - would not have the same impact.

"All you've done is try and push it underground," he said, referring to countries where an outright ban has been introduced.

"With any law, there's always a legal debate - but that doesn't alter the fact it's a brave and right thing for the government to do… [to prevent exploitation]."

Mr Coaker suggested the primary impact of the law would be to act as a deterrent rather than result in a large number of prosecutions.

"At the moment the law simply doesn't act as a deterrent in the way we want it to," he added.

"The law as it stands needs to be tougher. We think it will work as an effective deterrent on the streets."

(Emphasis added.)

Sounds like a bad, unenforceable law and gesture politics at its worst. But we knew that. :rolleyes:

Link: Sex buyers targeted under anti-prostitution plans

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quoting from the above article :

"And brothel closure orders will allow police to shut down brothels for a three-month period. "

So presumably they can then re-open ??

Let me get this straight........... on the one hand running a brothel is already illegal but the law will allow it to re-open after 3 months ?

Is it illegal or not ?? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it? could you show me the definition relating to "controlled for gain" please. The only one I have seen is :-

Which to my mind is not a definition of "controlled" but merely a repetition/re-wording of :-

I think it will only have to be shown that C took any money from B that B took from A. That could be a share of her earnings, money taken as door money or any money C gets from the benefit of B being paid by A. That to me is a cover all. Anything C gets from B that is derived from B seeing A. That could even be rent money or VAT or Income Tax or Nat Insurance. I would think any money from A given to B would make the then recipient a C. or even C*NT.... as we called pimps.

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