Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
elrond

Useful resource blog

20 posts in this topic

A useful blog full of links to all the media stories.

http://ohbastard.wordpress.com/

Yes thank you........ but I still think what ever that this will become a new law... and punters will get arrested... and it seems to me that most will plead guilty rather than challenge the meaning on Controlled.... SASfan is right... but I think for the purposes of the proposed law it is clearly enough defined and no lower court will rule against the meaning. C is anyone who does anything to help B earn money from A. Thus making A guilty and C not even need to be in court...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes thank you........ but I still think what ever that this will become a new law... and punters will get arrested... and it seems to me that most will plead guilty rather than challenge the meaning on Controlled.... SASfan is right... but I think for the purposes of the proposed law it is clearly enough defined and no lower court will rule against the meaning. C is anyone who does anything to help B earn money from A. Thus making A guilty and C not even need to be in court...

If as you say the definition of "Controlled" is clearly defined, then C will, by definition, be the "Controller" and will, by definition, have contravened Section 53 of SOA 2003, however surely it will have to be proved that C is the "Controller" and be guilty of "Control" and thus the conviction of C will have to occur before the trial of the punter, otherwise you could end up with a situation whereby the punter has been convicted and found guilty, but if the subsequent prosecution of C fails, for whatever reason, then the punter will have been wrongly convicted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If as you say the definition of "Controlled" is clearly defined, then C will, by definition, be the "Controller" and will, by definition, have contravened Section 53 of SOA 2003, however surely it will have to be proved that C is the "Controller" and be guilty of "Control" and thus the conviction of C will have to occur before the trial of the punter, otherwise you could end up with a situation whereby the punter has been convicted and found guilty, but if the subsequent prosecution of C fails, for whatever reason, then the punter will have been wrongly convicted.

That presumes that they bother convicting C.

This is scare tactics, looking to get demand down by frightening punters away from the industry, they have said as much. They already have laws under which they can tackle trafficking, brothels, controlling prostitution, etc. etc.

If it gets passed they will rely on locking guys up for a few hours and giving them a hard time, then offering a caution. 90% of guys will take that to get out of tbe station and minimise damage (despite a caution being actually a criminal record). The police get a result for their statistics and everyone is happy - not!

I agree with psisam that very few people will want to take this all the way to court to prove that they weren't doing anything wrong and probably those that do will end up walking, but having their lives ruined by the publicity. What we need is a couple of punters in a "don't care" situation who are willing to take it all the way to get case law on the books. It won't be me though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That presumes that they bother convicting C.

Yes it does, but why would they not bother to convict? there must be proof of a "Controller" and that he/she has "Controlled" otherwise there is no case against the punter, it is an open & shut case, if the punter is guilty then the Controller must also be guilty under Section 53, money for old rope surely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes it does, but why would they not bother to convict? there must be proof of a "Controller" and that he/she has "Controlled" otherwise there is no case against the punter, it is an open & shut case, if the punter is guilty then the Controller must also be guilty under Section 53, money for old rope surely?

I'm not sure whether you are not actually reading what is being said here.

If they can get a result without going to court, and a punter taking a caution is an admission of guilt, score one for the police in the statistics, but would have to work hard for a conviction for the controller who is much more likely to fight the case, why wouldn't it work exactly as I have stated it above?

Your average punter is just going to want the nightmare to end and get out of there as soon as possible in the hope to minimise damage. Fighting the case will quite likely result in it being dropped or a not guilty but would you risk it?

Police state Britain!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure whether you are not actually reading what is being said here.

If they can get a result without going to court, and a punter taking a caution is an admission of guilt, score one for the police in the statistics, but would have to work hard for a conviction for the controller who is much more likely to fight the case, why wouldn't it work exactly as I have stated it above?

Ah, I see what you are saying now, my apologies, so you think that Section 53A is more than likely to end up as a cautionary offence rather than a criminal conviction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If as you say the definition of "Controlled" is clearly defined, then C will, by definition, be the "Controller" and will, by definition, have contravened Section 53 of SOA 2003, however surely it will have to be proved that C is the "Controller" and be guilty of "Control" and thus the conviction of C will have to occur before the trial of the punter, otherwise you could end up with a situation whereby the punter has been convicted and found guilty, but if the subsequent prosecution of C fails, for whatever reason, then the punter will have been wrongly convicted.

I think you are under the impression that a magistrate is not going to believe the police.. I am not sure if you have ever been in court but if the police say that the lady works at so and so sauna with 10 other ladies and she sells sex the magistrate will believe she is controlled and convict the punters. For the life of me I cannot see why you think the magistrate will be interested in some argument about the meaning of control. Does it not say, and I have just read it again that I know you like quotes....

an activity is "controlled for gain" by C if it is controlled by C for or in the expectation of gain for C or any other person ( apart from A or B )

and

any of B's activities relating to the provision of those services are intentionally controlled by a third person C.

Now, what do you think that means. If a person runs a brothel or in this case even a single indie like me or any agency C will exist and the punter is going not only to be arrested but found guilty. To me as a lawyer friend has told me... its a clear as mud.

I would never be rude to anyone on here intentionally but can I ask why you cannot seem to understand that as its clear to me and the few people I have spoken to about this including a lawyer friend who has dealt with hundreds of prostitution cases over the years. Where do you think it is not clear, other than trying to make a point of the word controlling... as it seems to us that it is very clear if I work for anyone who gains or even expects to gain that person is going to be C and the punters can get arrested and convicted.

As I do not work for anyone I hope that my punters will be safe from this law if it does come in and I do expect it to become law soon. They have put a huge amount of effort into it and high profile bust I am sure will follow within days of it being law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If as you say the definition of "Controlled" is clearly defined, then C will, by definition, be the "Controller" and will, by definition, have contravened Section 53 of SOA 2003, however surely it will have to be proved that C is the "Controller" and be guilty of "Control" and thus the conviction of C will have to occur before the trial of the punter, otherwise you could end up with a situation whereby the punter has been convicted and found guilty, but if the subsequent prosecution of C fails, for whatever reason, then the punter will have been wrongly convicted.

I have just read this again, can I respectfully ask you why you think any other act of the law will be of any concern to the court. If you are up on a charge the other laws are nothing at all to do with it and your lawyer will get shouted down. What has the other sections got to do with it... your going to be up on the new law and not the other laws. Section 53 may have been broken too but unless that's on your charge sheet nobody will give a toss.

As I and my lawyer friend sees it, C need not be even in court... it just needs to be shown that somebody runs the place other than the girl and she can be simply asked that in court.. do you have a boss... do you work with so and so at so and so. Unless you work alone I think the punters can and some will get arrested in very high profile busts very soon after it becomes law. Time will tell, but that is my take on it right now after reading it and talking to others who do know about prostitution cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you are under the impression that a magistrate is not going to believe the police.. I am not sure if you have ever been in court but if the police say that the lady works at so and so sauna with 10 other ladies and she sells sex the magistrate will believe she is controlled and convict the punters. For the life of me I cannot see why you think the magistrate will be interested in some argument about the meaning of control. Does it not say, and I have just read it again that I know you like quotes....

an activity is "controlled for gain" by C if it is controlled by C for or in the expectation of gain for C or any other person ( apart from A or B )

and

any of B's activities relating to the provision of those services are intentionally controlled by a third person C.

Now, what do you think that means. If a person runs a brothel or in this case even a single indie like me or any agency C will exist and the punter is going not only to be arrested but found guilty. To me as a lawyer friend has told me... its a clear as mud.

I would never be rude to anyone on here intentionally but can I ask why you cannot seem to understand that as its clear to me and the few people I have spoken to about this including a lawyer friend who has dealt with hundreds of prostitution cases over the years. Where do you think it is not clear, other than trying to make a point of the word controlling... as it seems to us that it is very clear if I work for anyone who gains or even expects to gain that person is going to be C and the punters can get arrested and convicted.

As I do not work for anyone I hope that my punters will be safe from this law if it does come in and I do expect it to become law soon. They have put a huge amount of effort into it and high profile bust I am sure will follow within days of it being law.

I fail to see how the repetition is a definition of "controlled for gain", however let's take it for granted that I am the only person in the world who does not accept that repetition = definition, and furthermore that everybody in the world knows exactly what "controlled for gain" means and also that they understand it and all the implications.

So we now have a situation where a punter is brought to court and the police say that he/she payed a prostitute for sexual services and that the prostitute was "controlled for gain", the magistrate asks no questions but accepts the word of the police and convicts the punter. That's the punter dealt with, now what about the "Controller" and the prostitute? Fairly open and shut cases IMHO, the "Controller" will be guilty under Section 53 and the prostitute will be guilty of conspiring to assist another to commit a criminal offence and/or assisting another to commit a criminal offence.

BTW your "lawyer friend who has dealt with hundreds of prostitution cases over the years", did any of those cases involve "Control"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I and my lawyer friend sees it, C need not be even in court...

Of course C need not be in court, I don't recall ever saying that, what I did assume, but you have put me right now, is that some form of evidence that C does in fact exist and that C did in fact control the prostitute, would be needed in order to prove that the punter did pay a prostitute that was "controlled for gain" for sexual services, however that would not appear to be the case, because according to you and your legal friend, the magistrates would convict solely on the word of the police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anal retentive male with young girl he picked up on her being turfed out of care, hangs around in shadows with slit throat razor and promises to slash her beautiful face off if she doesn't earn for him, who she loves will all her juevenile heart. - controls her for prostitution?

What is the modern scenario?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I fail to see how the repetition is a definition of "controlled for gain", however let's take it for granted that I am the only person in the world who does not accept that repetition = definition, and furthermore that everybody in the world knows exactly what "controlled for gain" means and also that they understand it and all the implications.

So we now have a situation where a punter is brought to court and the police say that he/she payed a prostitute for sexual services and that the prostitute was "controlled for gain", the magistrate asks no questions but accepts the word of the police and convicts the punter. That's the punter dealt with, now what about the "Controller" and the prostitute? Fairly open and shut cases IMHO, the "Controller" will be guilty under Section 53 and the prostitute will be guilty of conspiring to assist another to commit a criminal offence and/or assisting another to commit a criminal offence.

BTW your "lawyer friend who has dealt with hundreds of prostitution cases over the years", did any of those cases involve "Control"?

Why do you think the police will go after the controller when they don't go after burglars and muggers? You still seem to think the police follow every trail to the very end leaving no person who can be nicked free.

The police get the desired result and move on. They may well go after the controller but they don't use this new proposed law for that do they.... This new law is only to prosecute the punters....

The whole point of thsi proposed new law is to arrest PUNTERS.... that is what is new. That is what it will be used for and to get closure orders... None of us care about the controllers we are punters. Well some of us are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do you think the police will go after the controller

Why not? after all it will be a couple of freebies for them, all the evidence they will need will be the conviction of the punter, that proves a controller and a controlled prostitute, everything else is just logical progression, buy one get two free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course C need not be in court, I don't recall ever saying that, what I did assume, but you have put me right now, is that some form of evidence that C does in fact exist and that C did in fact control the prostitute, would be needed in order to prove that the punter did pay a prostitute that was "controlled for gain" for sexual services, however that would not appear to be the case, because according to you and your legal friend, the magistrates would convict solely on the word of the police.

Do you think that magistrates do not convict on the word of the police alone... Happens everyday in most courts I would imagine, but I bet you when the first case comes to court, the police would have been watching the brothel, followed punters home, got all the details of who rents or own the property and can easily show that a third person or persons has some control over the activities of the prostitute. It says clearly any of B's activities... so any mean any in my book... ANY.... It may be that bringing her to work in a car is enough if she paid him for the petrol.

(:cool: any of B's activities relating to the provision of those services

are intentionally controlled for gain by a third person ©.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think that magistrates do not convict on the word of the police alone... Happens everyday in most courts I would imagine, but I bet you when the first case comes to court, the police would have been watching the brothel, followed punters home, got all the details of who rents or own the property and can easily show that a third person or persons has some control over the activities of the prostitute. It says clearly any of B's activities... so any mean any in my book... ANY.... It may be that bringing her to work in a car is enough if she paid him for the petrol.

(:cool: any of B's activities relating to the provision of those services

are intentionally controlled for gain by a third person ©.

I agree, any most certainly does mean any, and I expect that you are right about the amount of police work that will be involved, so why not make that work pay even better by doing the controller(s) and the prostitute?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, any most certainly does mean any, and I expect that you are right about the amount of police work that will be involved, so why not make that work pay even better by doing the controller(s) and the prostitute?

Because the stated intention of this is to reduce demand by scaring punters off. A few nice publicity peices resulting from guys who have lost jobs, families and reputations will work much better in doing that than chasing down a few pimps or madams using existing legislation in place for that purpose.

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

"...to truly tackle the problem of commercial sexual exploitation more needs to be done to target those that contribute to the demand, those that pay for sex."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because the stated intention of this is to reduce demand by scaring punters off. A few nice publicity peices resulting from guys who have lost jobs, families and reputations will work much better in doing that than chasing down a few pimps or madams using existing legislation in place for that purpose.

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

"...to truly tackle the problem of commercial sexual exploitation more needs to be done to target those that contribute to the demand, those that pay for sex."

Ah, I see, of course it is possible that it would not be expedient to prosecute the controller(s) and/or prostitute because as I understand it in the real world the magistrate will convict solely on the word of the police and thus no evidence would be needed, whereas if prosecutions where brought against the controller(s) and/or prostitute a bit of evidence might come in handy, and if in the worst case scenario the prosecution(s) failed then that would overturn the conviction of the punter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my thoughts are on the lines of sasfan,first, control has to be proven then the punter can be tried,thats obvious surely?

heres a scenario which is possible,

i pay for sex in a house where 2 females work,i'm arrested and tried for having paid sex with someone controlled for anothers gain,thing is the girl i had paid sex with is the boss,its the other girl who is "controlled for someone elses gain"

this scenario shows that control must be established and proven first before the punter is tried

i imagine that the law will be made more specific,we are all talking as if the law has been passed already!

i for one am ready to test the law,and i'm sure there are others who will be martyrs,ready to stand up for womens rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
my thoughts are on the lines of sasfan,first, control has to be proven then the punter can be tried,thats obvious surely?

heres a scenario which is possible,

i pay for sex in a house where 2 females work,i'm arrested and tried for having paid sex with someone controlled for anothers gain,thing is the girl i had paid sex with is the boss,its the other girl who is "controlled for someone elses gain"

this scenario shows that control must be established and proven first before the punter is tried

i imagine that the law will be made more specific,we are all talking as if the law has been passed already!

i for one am ready to test the law,and i'm sure there are others who will be martyrs,ready to stand up for womens rights.

Lets face it, at the moment the police have said the law will be unenforceable.

In my view the attack on brothels, and the legislation on street prostitution is far more dangerous.

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