psisam

1200 Brothels to close in 2009 300 punter to be arrested.

53 posts in this topic

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-crackdown-on-prostitution-expected-to-close-1200-brothels-1210067.html

Police crackdown on prostitution expected to close 1,200 brothels

By Ben Russell, Home Affairs Correspondent

Wednesday, 24 December 2008

Police expect to close up to 1,200 brothels and prosecute 300 men a year under new laws designed to crack down on prostitution. The figures are contained in official Home Office impact assessments produced to accompany the Policing and Crime Reduction Bill, due to be debated by MPs in the new year.

The Bill allows officers to close brothels and leave them sealed for up to three months. Previously, a loophole meant officers could stage a raid and make arrests but were powerless to close down the establishment.

Estimates published yesterday suggested that between 780 and 1,200 closure orders would be served each year.

The Bill contains a new offence of paying for sex with a prostitute controlled for gain, which is designed to target men by threatening them with court action if they use prostitutes who have been trafficked, are controlled by pimps or are working for drug dealers.

A six-month police operation last year identified 800 UK brothels where women were working who had been trafficked into the UK. Despite the fanfare accompanying the legislation, officials estimate that only 300 people a year would be prosecuted.

Critics say the policy will drive prostitution further underground and leave women more vulnerable to abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

before a punter can be charged,control has to be established so this will take time to investigate,enquires have to be made of the women working,how they are paid,how much is paid to others,who receives payment.

when this has all been done,its up to the cps if they prosecute the brothel owner,i imagine if the brothel owner is found guilty by a jury,then and only then will the punter(s) be charged.

by the time a punter has to go to court it'll probably be election time and hopefully labour lose!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-crackdown-on-prostitution-expected-to-close-1200-brothels-1210067.html

Police crackdown on prostitution expected to close 1,200 brothels

By Ben Russell, Home Affairs Correspondent

Wednesday, 24 December 2008

Police expect to close up to 1,200 brothels and prosecute 300 men a year under new laws designed to crack down on prostitution. The figures are contained in official Home Office impact assessments produced to accompany the Policing and Crime Reduction Bill, due to be debated by MPs in the new year.

The Bill allows officers to close brothels and leave them sealed for up to three months. Previously, a loophole meant officers could stage a raid and make arrests but were powerless to close down the establishment.

Estimates published yesterday suggested that between 780 and 1,200 closure orders would be served each year.

The Bill contains a new offence of paying for sex with a prostitute controlled for gain, which is designed to target men by threatening them with court action if they use prostitutes who have been trafficked, are controlled by pimps or are working for drug dealers.

A six-month police operation last year identified 800 UK brothels where women were working who had been trafficked into the UK. Despite the fanfare accompanying the legislation, officials estimate that only 300 people a year would be prosecuted.

Critics say the policy will drive prostitution further underground and leave women more vulnerable to abuse.

More claptrap!

Just because it sounds official doesn't mean it's going to happen, as the other poster says there will be an election before any real action can happen.

It's just the same with this business about clamping down on the workshy. That too has been mooted for years by all parties.

As people who actually want a job presently can't get one who the hell is going to want to employ someone who has been unemployed for twenty years because they're supposed to be 'ill'?

I don't know anyone who is actually claiming unemployment yet I know or know of about 25 who are not working though alleged ill health.

Actually bumped into one of them the other day - ironically in a bank paying money in! - he said he had actually just won a tribunal to be able to continue claiming disability benefits. Like so many of them there's nothing physically wrong with him, he claims he has a phobia of some sort - probabaly of work!

But more to the point he is in his early fifties and has worked no more than about five years in his entire life. As he said to me, 'Who's going to want to employ somebody like me anyway?'

These politicians really do live in a cossetted dreamworld that is a universe away from reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Police presently have powers to close down properties used for the sale or consumption of drugs - but this is seldom used and when it is only really where the house is very inappropiatly placed or the dealing has been on ahuge scale causing a massive nuisance to neighbours.

Now don't get me wrong i am not linking crackhouses and massage parlours but all i am pointing out that similar legislation is seldom used. And if some forces occasionally use it to close down a house which for whatever reason does'nt control its clientelle or causes massive nuisance to residents so be it - they should have located more sensibily in the first place. And although i confess i have never found any evidence of trafficking if an outlet does do this they should be closed down. But most Chief Constables will not have a blanket policy of imposing this legislation to well run houses.

We are in danger of making a mountain out of a molehill here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because it sounds official doesn't mean it's going to happen

Absolutely. At some point before this becomes law someone has got to come up with a workable definition of 'trafficked' and 'controlled for gain'. At that point the penny might drop that it's an impossible task.

On the other hand of course they might plough ahead anyway and we'll end up with unenforceable legislation; similar as Nik says to the laughable one about getting the work-shy into work when there are no jobs. Who cares if it's workable provided you make headlines in The Mail.

Personally I'm not concerned at this stage. But I'm not a WG, so my livelihood does not depend on it, I'm not in a relationship so not over-concerned about the prospect of police harassment, and have the phone numbers of a couple of reliable regulars should it be necessary to go underground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A merry christmas to you all.

How can the police say they expect to close 1200 brothels? Its a bit lke Alex Ferguson saying hes going to win the prem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is the glass always half full?

So the police estimate that they will prosecute 300 punters next year as a result of this legislation?

Since 1 January 2008, over 8,000 field reports have been posted on PunterNet.

Go figure.

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More claptrap!

Just because it sounds official doesn't mean it's going to happen, as the other poster says there will be an election before any real action can happen.

Absolutely. At some point before this becomes law someone has got to come up with a workable definition of 'trafficked' and 'controlled for gain'. At that point the penny might drop that it's an impossible task.

I agree this stupid law is totally unworkable ----if God forbid it ever get's passed I believe it would only be used in extreme circumstances, your chances of getting nicked in a brothel are about the same as getting a free ride in my cab. :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i hope no brothels close down.it's great to have such a range of establishments to visit to enact our diverse range of sexual fantasies.i believe many more brothels should be opened to offer employment in these hard financial times.keeping plenty of choice also keeps prices keen,which i very much appreciate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bloke I know down the pub said he only goes into a parlour (or whatever) with cash for the transaction and a couple of genuine looking docs in his otherwise empty wallet.

both these other docs are doctored one is a supposedly electricity bill to his supposed home , I didnt ought to say what the other one is but it fooled me.

I can only imagine wht he is doing may in some way be illegal (is it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
before a punter can be charged,control has to be established so this will take time to investigate,enquires have to be made of the women working,how they are paid,how much is paid to others,who receives payment.

when this has all been done,its up to the cps if they prosecute the brothel owner,i imagine if the brothel owner is found guilty by a jury,then and only then will the punter(s) be charged.

by the time a punter has to go to court it'll probably be election time and hopefully labour lose!

Yes and as long as another person other than the one girl is involved in the running of the business it will have been established. Simple. So a manager or anyone other than B the girl is part of it your going to be charged if the police want to..

Its a very simply worded law and they government are serious about implementing it as soon as possible. That is why they are getting so much publicity about it now.

It is almost certain to get through parliament in my view.

Its the same if the police see you using a mobile while driving... if you seen your nicked... and the proof will follow by the cop who saw you being in court to say they did.

The brothel will get raided, the cops will arrest the punters and by the looks of it leave the girls and manager there for the time being until they bring the closure order.

Like the rest of us I do not want this to happen, but my head is not in the sand... I see and read and the law is very simply worded.

The word ANY and CONTROL are the keys and those words should be understood by most english speaking people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is the glass always half full?

So the police estimate that they will prosecute 300 punters next year as a result of this legislation?

Since 1 January 2008, over 8,000 field reports have been posted on PunterNet.

Go figure.

B

May be 300 is a quota set by HH and JS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The bloke I know down the pub said he only goes into a parlour (or whatever) with cash for the transaction and a couple of genuine looking docs in his otherwise empty wallet.

both these other docs are doctored one is a supposedly electricity bill to his supposed home , I didnt ought to say what the other one is but it fooled me.

I can only imagine wht he is doing may in some way be illegal (is it)

That bloke down the pub is either a nutcase or someone you had a bad dream about ------- what a load of shite. :cool::rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Police presently have powers to close down properties used for the sale or consumption of drugs - but this is seldom used and when it is only really where the house is very inappropiatly placed or the dealing has been on ahuge scale causing a massive nuisance to neighbours.

Now don't get me wrong i am not linking crackhouses and massage parlours but all i am pointing out that similar legislation is seldom used. And if some forces occasionally use it to close down a house which for whatever reason does'nt control its clientelle or causes massive nuisance to residents so be it - they should have located more sensibily in the first place. And although i confess i have never found any evidence of trafficking if an outlet does do this they should be closed down. But most Chief Constables will not have a blanket policy of imposing this legislation to well run houses.

We are in danger of making a mountain out of a molehill here.

I think your right after the surge when its new and they want to make a name for themselves.

I dont take crack or other illegal drugs... partly because its illegal and partly because its something I do not want to do.

Buy I would not go to a drug dealer in a shop where it said Illegal Drugs on Sale Here... because the police would soon be watching it and I might get caught. The same would be for a Brothel if the new laws get passed... if it on the high street with a huge sign saying massage I would avoid that too.

So that is what the government hope we will do. Stop going to places that are high profile and in your face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A merry christmas to you all.

How can the police say they expect to close 1200 brothels? Its a bit lke Alex Ferguson saying hes going to win the prem.

Not true if you think about it a tiny bit. They can set 1200 as a target quota... and then stop when they get 1200 closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The bloke I know down the pub said he only goes into a parlour (or whatever) with cash for the transaction and a couple of genuine looking docs in his otherwise empty wallet.

both these other docs are doctored one is a supposedly electricity bill to his supposed home , I didnt ought to say what the other one is but it fooled me.

I can only imagine wht he is doing may in some way be illegal (is it)

The cops will still arrest him and take his dabs and dna and picture.. if he is on record these days the finger prints come back in a few minutes. They will know who he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The brothel will get raided, the cops will arrest the punters and by the looks of it leave the girls and manager there for the time being until they bring the closure order.

Like the rest of us I do not want this to happen, but my head is not in the sand... I see and read and the law is very simply worded.

The word ANY and CONTROL are the keys and those words should be understood by most english speaking people.

You seem to have a problem with brothels and parlours, no offence meant but are you a pimp for Indies because that is the way your posts appear. :cool::confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You seem to have a problem with brothels and parlours, no offence meant but are you a pimp for Indies because that is the way your posts appear. :cool::confused:

No its not that I have the problem and I am not pimping but I am amazed at the amount of people who do not understand that the government are serious about shutting them down and think that the law will never get passed and if it does the meaning of ANY or CONTROL is not clearly defined. I suppose it comes from people who do not understand English and cannot believe the law if passed will make punters who visit girls where C exists will be made criminals.

I allow for many on here not understanding English but I am surprised at some who always seem to post very sensible posts but cannot see the reality of this proposed law... You do notice that its only the same few who cannot see it. But in good time if the law is passed we will all see how serious this can be for parlours.

None of the serious parlours who post have commented on what they see as interpretation of the law.

But any fool will a modicum of intelligence should be able to understand that if the girl B has any Control from anyone that person will be classed as C by the proposed law thus making punter A guilty and liable to arrest.

It is true that in the real world the police or councils would not be able to shut down all the brothels / parlours.. but I doubt that they have pushed this law this far without intending to make a show if they manage to get the bill through to law. I honestly believe they will and it will not effect me as I only see indies... I stopped parlours years ago because I did not see the point paying more than I had to. I thought you were like that too... got the best value. I am also lucky as there are plenty of girls working in my area who dont have other girls working with them. I did think you would understand the simplistic explanation of who is going to be guilty and the explanation of what controlled means. I can PM you if you want to know more and I can even talk to you and perhaps better explain why this should be taken seriously now before it is to late.

To just say it wont happen is like putting your head in the sand. Same goes for saying the control would need to be proved and that will be difficult. Its easy if there is anyone other than B part of the working of the business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No its not that I have the problem and I am not pimping but I am amazed at the amount of people who do not understand that the government are serious about shutting them down and think that the law will never get passed and if it does the meaning of ANY or CONTROL is not clearly defined. I suppose it comes from people who do not understand English and cannot believe the law if passed will make punters who visit girls where C exists will be made criminals.

I allow for many on here not understanding English but I am surprised at some who always seem to post very sensible posts but cannot see the reality of this proposed law... You do notice that its only the same few who cannot see it. But in good time if the law is passed we will all see how serious this can be for parlours.

None of the serious parlours who post have commented on what they see as interpretation of the law.

But any fool will a modicum of intelligence should be able to understand that if the girl B has any Control from anyone that person will be classed as C by the proposed law thus making punter A guilty and liable to arrest.

It is true that in the real world the police or councils would not be able to shut down all the brothels / parlours.. but I doubt that they have pushed this law this far without intending to make a show if they manage to get the bill through to law. I honestly believe they will and it will not effect me as I only see indies... I stopped parlours years ago because I did not see the point paying more than I had to. I thought you were like that too... got the best value. I am also lucky as there are plenty of girls working in my area who dont have other girls working with them. I did think you would understand the simplistic explanation of who is going to be guilty and the explanation of what controlled means. I can PM you if you want to know more and I can even talk to you and perhaps better explain why this should be taken seriously now before it is to late.

To just say it wont happen is like putting your head in the sand. Same goes for saying the control would need to be proved and that will be difficult. Its easy if there is anyone other than B part of the working of the business.

This case show that at least the police do charge with conspiracy to control prostitutes and conspiracy to manage brothels.. They may get found not guilty... but we are talking here about being arrested and charged.. and the police can do that to any punter caught visiting a parlour if the new law comes in.

Police officer 'in escort service advert'

Monday, December 8, 2008

A police officer allegedly caught advertising herself on an escort website appeared in court today charged with misconduct in a public office.

Victoria Thorne, 28, of Washington, Tyne and Wear, was in the dock alongside four others at Newcastle Magistrates' Court today.

The Northumbria Police officer did not speak during the brief hearing, for which she wore a green parka coat and had her long dark hair in a pony tail.

Alongside her was Neil Lock, 27, of Abbotsfield Road, Galashiels, Borders, who faced a charge of procuring misconduct in a public office.

He was also charged with conspiracy to manage brothels for prostitution and conspiracy to control prostitutes for gain.

Also facing those conspiracy charges were: his wife Natalie Lock, 28, of the same address; Osher Marks, 56, of Ravenscourt Place, Gateshead and Nigel Lock, 59, of Crescent Road, Manchester.

No pleas were entered, and all five defendants were granted conditional bail.

All of them were told their cases were committed to Newcastle Crown Court to appear on December 22.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Same goes for saying the control would need to be proved and that will be difficult. Its easy if there is anyone other than B part of the working of the business.

So this "control" thing, would you say that the prostitute is controlled if the prostitute has no option/no free will/no choice but to do the bidding of the controller?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So this "control" thing, would you say that the prostitute is controlled if the prostitute has no option/no free will/no choice but to do the bidding of the controller?

Nowt to do with it. All that needs to be established is that someone else arranges such things as who they see or appointments & the sex worker is deemed to be controlled for gain; see the recent email I received from Nikki Adams, of ECP, regarding a raid in Soho:

"On 18 December, three police officers from Charing Cross Clubs and Vice Unit visited a flat in Romilly Street, Soho, London and issued a written notice against Ms Tracey Ramsey* who works as a receptionist there, that they intend charging her with "controlling prostitution for gain". Soho has been one of the safest places for women in the sex industry to work. As a receptionist, Ms Ramsey is women's first line of defence against violent attacks and exploitation. If the police are allowed to proceed against Ms Ramsey, other receptionists will be driven away and women will be forced to work alone. Why are police targeting safe premises?"

Although the receptionist was employed by the sex workers to perform a service for them, she was declared to bre controlling them.

This is what the Government statements on this issue are not saying; i.e. that it is not just a case of pimps, traffickers or drug dealers, but anyone assisting a sex worker in earning their livelihood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nowt to do with it. All that needs to be established is that someone else arranges such things as who they see or appointments & the sex worker is deemed to be controlled for gain; see the recent email I received from Nikki Adams, of ECP, regarding a raid in Soho:

"On 18 December, three police officers from Charing Cross Clubs and Vice Unit visited a flat in Romilly Street, Soho, London and issued a written notice against Ms Tracey Ramsey* who works as a receptionist there, that they intend charging her with "controlling prostitution for gain". Soho has been one of the safest places for women in the sex industry to work. As a receptionist, Ms Ramsey is women's first line of defence against violent attacks and exploitation. If the police are allowed to proceed against Ms Ramsey, other receptionists will be driven away and women will be forced to work alone. Why are police targeting safe premises?"

Although the receptionist was employed by the sex workers to perform a service for them, she was declared to bre controlling them.

This is what the Government statements on this issue are not saying; i.e. that it is not just a case of pimps, traffickers or drug dealers, but anyone assisting a sex worker in earning their livelihood.

How strange, all I have had for the past few days is this :-

Here is the dictionary on CONTROL.....

control

verb

to order, limit, instruct or rule something, or someone's actions or behaviour:

quoted to me as the definition of "Control" in relation to "Controlled for gain", now I realise that I am not the sharpest tool in the box, but I am having difficulty in tying up any of the above quote with "assisting".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This case show that at least the police do charge with conspiracy to control prostitutes and conspiracy to manage brothels.. They may get found not guilty... but we are talking here about being arrested and charged.. and the police can do that to any punter caught visiting a parlour if the new law comes in.

Police officer 'in escort service advert'

Monday, December 8, 2008

A police officer allegedly caught advertising herself on an escort website appeared in court today charged with misconduct in a public office.

Victoria Thorne, 28, of Washington, Tyne and Wear, was in the dock alongside four others at Newcastle Magistrates' Court today.

The Northumbria Police officer did not speak during the brief hearing, for which she wore a green parka coat and had her long dark hair in a pony tail.

Alongside her was Neil Lock, 27, of Abbotsfield Road, Galashiels, Borders, who faced a charge of procuring misconduct in a public office.

He was also charged with conspiracy to manage brothels for prostitution and conspiracy to control prostitutes for gain.

Also facing those conspiracy charges were: his wife Natalie Lock, 28, of the same address; Osher Marks, 56, of Ravenscourt Place, Gateshead and Nigel Lock, 59, of Crescent Road, Manchester.

No pleas were entered, and all five defendants were granted conditional bail.

All of them were told their cases were committed to Newcastle Crown Court to appear on December 22.

In my opinion, the Notorious Girl's case centres around the extremely serious charges concerning misconduct in a public office which carry a maximum life sentence.

The prostitution charges are peripheral (albeit connected) to the main case. It would therefore be wrong to extend from the particular to the general in this case. (That is, if the alleged misconduct in a public office, and associated conspiracy, had not existed the prostitution charges would not necessarily have been brought.)

A similar example would be the Abby's/Caesar's trial in Stoke on Trent a couple of years ago: the proprietor and her daughter in law were tried (and subsequently convicted) of running a brothel. In that situation the charges were only brought following police raids because of underaged girls working there: a decision was obviously taken to prosecute the lesser crime for whatever reason.

I reckon that such 'other' issues are the underlying reason for many prostitution cases. Customers of reputable establishments may therefore have little to fear from the new law.

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How strange, all I have had for the past few days is this :-

quoted to me as the definition of "Control" in relation to "Controlled for gain", now I realise that I am not the sharpest tool in the box, but I am having difficulty in tying up any of the above quote with "assisting".

Quite simple really. The way that control is interpretted in this instance is, if you are in a situation to say who they see & when, what timne they arrive & are picked up or where they will carry out their activities, then you are deemed to be in control. Hence the fact that receptionists, maids or even those who drive a sex worker to & from an appointment can be deemed to be controlling porstitiution for gain, if they are receiveing any payment for doing these activities; regardless of the fact that the sex worker is actually employing the person concerned & could be said to be controllling them or that there are no such implications applied to others, who perform a similar function in such areas as the NHS; i.e. doctor's receptionists.

The dictionary definition doesn't enter into it when it comes to charging people, simply the way that the Police want to interpret it; then the courts have to sort out whether there is a case to answer.

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