Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
gog

Enforcing the proposed legislation

26 posts in this topic

If the proposed law is passed a major issue is how the law would be enforced. This law wilk basically make it illegal to pay for sex with women who work in parlours or escort agencies. How would the police gather evidence against punters. I will start with massage parlours. Would the police place massage parlours under surveillance and any punter seen leaving a parlour is arrested. A punter is arrested after leaving a parlour. The punter is prepared to to fight his case by arguing he only went there for a massage and did not have sex. How do the police prove otherwise? Would the punter undergo examinations to see if he had been wearing a condom? Would the police question the girls who work at the parlour? In addition the police would have to establish the exact relationship between the women who work in the parlour and the owner. Some parlours can often be very busy. What happens if large numbers of punters are seen leaving the parlour? The work involved in charging and collecting evidence against the punters would be immense. How would evidence be collected against punters who use agencies? In areas such as London the number of agencies is huge and I assume many only advertise on the internet. Would the police search the internet and take down the numbers of agencies. Lets say the police target an agency. The agency does outcall and incall appointments from an a flat they hire. Would the police monitor calls made to the agency? A punter phones the agency and makes an appointment for an outcall to a hotel. After listening to the call made by the punter, do the police note the time and location of the appointment and arrest the punter in his hotel room after the escort has arrived. Would the flat which is used for incalls be placed under surveillance and any man seen leaving the flat is arrested. As with parlours the police would have to establish the exact relationship between the women who work for the agency and the owner of the agency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a law that can't be enforced, simple as that.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a law that can't be enforced, simple as that.:D

I bet they will send in a cop, get offered sex then go back and close the place down with the closure order and may not arrest anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are quite strict laws about when they can tap phones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there are quite strict laws about when they can tap phones

No I think they can tap anything without telling us. Its only when they have to admit they did it they have to be accountable to the laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No I think they can tap anything without telling us. Its only when they have to admit they did it they have to be accountable to the laws.

Indeed - 1984

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I do mean 1984 - Orwell.

But a lot of these discussions are speculation, possibly scaremongering.

1. the law isnt here yet

2. enforcing may or may not be feasible

3. enforcing may or may not be a priority, or made a priority.

A lot will be at the discretion of the local cops, and to an extend, to the discretion of their management and targets (if it is made a target, you can count on exactly so-many arrests/cautions/convictions).

In short: total waste of money.

Money that is, IMHO, truly needed elswhere in proper law-enforcment and otherwise.

Can the UK seriously afford to spent effort on this, instead of on, say, combatting knife/gun crime, preventing benefit-fraud (recession, remember), or reducing yobbo-bullying. Even decent speed-limits and bin-waste-management will probably affect/save more lives then will the supposed combat of trafficing.

If you do write some letter to your MP: tell him (or her) that you seriously dont want them to waste too much of their, and of everybody else's valuable time on this wooly/misty matter of feminists.

Preventing this law is a good cost-saving, and quality-enhancing way to run a gov.

(I'll try not to rant on this again, but WHAT A WASTE OF potentially valuable RESOURCES - including my own time)

If anything good is to come of this, get yourself and your MP a refresh on the classics:

Tacitus was right: the less effective and the, the more corrupt the state, the more laws they make. I recently verified it: In pessima republica plurimae leges - In the most corrupt republic, the laws are most numerous.

And a few other classics:

Solitudinem fecerunt, pacem appelunt. They made a desert and called it peace. (with thanks to Caitlin!)

Sine ira et studio - Without anger or bias. (hm, this would also make a nice signature)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horror story recently posted up by the Collective of English Prostitutes about a horror story in Romilly St...

http://www.labournet.net/ukunion/0812/sexwork1.html

Interesting link May.

I had forgotten the angle of the "Proceeds of Crime Act". That could be truly bad news, but might explain a lot too. Raids may generally take place later in the day, and target large-ish, cash-rich establishments first.

Damn. "what is a government, but a legalized protection racket ?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've already given my view on this Board.

For what it's worth:

There is some considerable doubt that the legislation as written will be enacted. Certainly, as drafted, it's absurd. But even were it enacted as written, the Police could not effectively 'enforce' it as a matter of resource, neither could the CPS bring forward cogent prosecution that would stand scrutiny of the Courts without infringement of 'Human Rights' legislation.

These are (draft) 'In Terrorum' (apologies for any Latin misspelling)

provisions. Such legislation does, it's true, tend to minimise the crime quotiant, but very rarely results in a prosecution especially one that actually results in a win for the prosecutors.

Uncle Pokey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In short: total waste of money.

Money that is, IMHO, truly needed elswhere in proper law-enforcment and otherwise.

Can the UK seriously afford to spent effort on this, instead of on, say, combatting knife/gun crime, preventing benefit-fraud (recession, remember), or reducing yobbo-bullying. Even decent speed-limits and bin-waste-management will probably affect/save more lives then will the supposed combat of trafficing.

If you do write some letter to your MP: tell him (or her) that you seriously dont want them to waste too much of their, and of everybody else's valuable time on this wooly/misty matter of feminists.

Preventing this law is a good cost-saving, and quality-enhancing way to run a gov.

I totally agree, the proposed legislation represents a disgraceful waste of time and public money. No one in their right mind should support such nonsense. Jacqui Smith needs to be certified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've already given my view on this Board.

For what it's worth:

There is some considerable doubt that the legislation as written will be enacted. Certainly, as drafted, it's absurd. But even were it enacted as written, the Police could not effectively 'enforce' it as a matter of resource, neither could the CPS bring forward cogent prosecution that would stand scrutiny of the Courts without infringement of 'Human Rights' legislation.

These are (draft) 'In Terrorum' (apologies for any Latin misspelling)

provisions. Such legislation does, it's true, tend to minimise the crime quotiant, but very rarely results in a prosecution especially one that actually results in a win for the prosecutors.

Uncle Pokey

I've written to just about everybody connected with this legislation - both for and against it. As you've said I don't think it'll get through as written. One of the major points I've made recently in letters to Lord Faulkner, John McDonnel and Dominic Grieve, was that the strict liability part is the achilles heel. They absolutely NEED it for the law to have any hope of being enforceable. But there's no legal basis for it.

Paying a girl aged 13 to 17 for sex. (no strict liability)

Downloading child porn (no strict liability)

Trafficking!! (no strict liability)

RAPE!!! (no strict liability)

But paying a 25 year old English woman who works via an agency. No defence. Tough titty.

You may think I'm stretching it by saying that rape has no strict liability. How could a man get off by saying he didnt' know?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-473525/Sexsomniac-RAF-man-sobs-cleared-raping-girl-sleep.html

As you can see this man had sex with an underage girl without her consent. But since the jury accepted he was technically asleep and unaware of what he was doing they acquitted him.

Apparently he is less responsible for his actions than I would be in having consensual sex with a 25 year old who happens to work in a brothel.

I've made sure everyone involved in the decision making process is aware of this and I can't see how it could get through. Once strict liability is gone, the offence should die easily since it will be unenforceable even by JS and HH's own admission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe somebody with a legal background can clarify

I thought strict liability was usually (or only?) applied to civil offences such as traffic and parking offences and not to criminal offences.

That is where the contradiction arises - a criminal offence with strict liability - a case for the human rights law maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe somebody with a legal background can clarify

I thought strict liability was usually (or only?) applied to civil offences such as traffic and parking offences and not to criminal offences.

That is where the contradiction arises - a criminal offence with strict liability - a case for the human rights law maybe?

Strict liability is extremely contentious, however I am of the opinion that the possible loss of the "strict liability" aspect would not bother HH JS et al that much, also I don't think that they will be bothered if it is not easily enforced, and I don't think they could care less if there was never a prosecution (successful or otherwise), what they want, IMHO, is a trial by media, banner headlines along the lines of PERVERTED PUNTER PAYS PIMPED PROSTITUTE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SaSfan, I'm sure you're right - Jacqui Smith herself said when interviewed that what it is all about is "sending a message".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jacqui Smith herself said when interviewed that what it is all about is "sending a message".

And she has said it time and time again, very rare for a politician to be that truthful, a sure sign, as if one was needed, of a crusade. I am pretty much convinced that the "strict liability" aspect was put in to be (albeit "reluctantly") taken out as a means of mollification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question still is to any legal eagles out there

Is there a case where a criminal offence has strict liability in law already?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My question still is to any legal eagles out there

Is there a case where a criminal offence has strict liability in law already?

AFAIK most offences related to sales of age restricted products are strict liability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My question still is to any legal eagles out there

Is there a case where a criminal offence has strict liability in law already?

There are plenty of strict liability offences!

And there are some offences that carry a reverse burden of proof whereby you have to prove your innocence! So much for "innocent unless proven guilty".

To some extent the new law on rape is very much reverse burden. Under the current rape laws the court can make presumptions to the defendants detriment unless he can prove otherwise!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And she has said it time and time again, very rare for a politician to be that truthful, a sure sign, as if one was needed, of a crusade. I am pretty much convinced that the "strict liability" aspect was put in to be (albeit "reluctantly") taken out as a means of mollification.

I suspect that to be the case too... they'll introduce - in it's place - some "conclusive presumptions" similar to those they are entitled to make under the current rape laws... for example - if the punter can prove that he took every step possible to determine that the girl wasn't "controlled" - he'll have a valid defence... however - he'll be obliged to prove that - unless he does raise that evidence the court will be entitled to presume "he did it m'lud"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suspect that to be the case too... they'll introduce - in it's place - some "conclusive presumptions" similar to those they are entitled to make under the current rape laws... for example - if the punter can prove that he took every step possible to determine that the girl wasn't "controlled" - he'll have a valid defence... however - he'll be obliged to prove that - unless he does raise that evidence the court will be entitled to presume "he did it m'lud"!

case law will provide a procedure in time that needs to be followed to avoid liability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read so much on this subject, and really appreciate reading everyone's thoughts. We've got to hope we'll be saved by an election this year.

But, this won't mean the end of punting. There simply aren't enough police to enforce these kind of laws (assuming it gets passed as it is - which is unlikely)

I expect the police will continue to turn a blind eye to parlours which are well run and where the girls willingly work (HOD,Debbies, Silk and Stockings, The Bunny Lounge etc). But, the risk for us is an impetuous visit somewhere which is dodgy. I read some field reports recently about a place in Hanwell near Ealing, where the staff sounded under duress and where they had their own CCTV all over the place. That would be just the kind of place to be afraid of visiting.

But its difficult to say how angry all this makes me. The Big Brother nature of this government seems to know no bounds. They want to be in the bedroom of consenting adults. And the thought police tell us we can't have the freedom to assess whether a woman is controlled or not - that will be decided for you.

Think of what previous generations fought for, and then think about this.

You will be freer in Germany to pay for sex in legal clubs and parlours, without the police knocking on the door, in a country where they're not planning a giant database of emails and phonecalls, and they don't hold the records of 5 million plus citizens on a DNA database.

And yes I am thinking about how I can make a move there. I've been several times and its great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And she has said it time and time again, very rare for a politician to be that truthful, a sure sign, as if one was needed, of a crusade. I am pretty much convinced that the "strict liability" aspect was put in to be (albeit "reluctantly") taken out as a means of mollification.

I was thinking that, initially, but I've been thinking about it and to be honest without it, as I've said it'll be unenforceable. I wouldn't have thought they'd have much chance of getting it through the Commons and Lords when there's no way that a prosecution could ever take place with regards to a trafficked woman. Obviously the law is written as "controlled for gain", and they could prove that you booked through a recognisable agency or were in a brothel with a maid. But that would require JS et al admitting that the focus was not on forced or coerced women. The moment they try to mention force/coercion they'll be told no man could ever know a girl's circumstances. The moment they mention an internet agency or brothel where you're met by a maid, she'll be asked "where's the victim?". There's already people saying it's unenforceable even with strict liability. So taking it out would kill it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see we are all punters on here, and we are all focusing on the law that criminalises us.

What we should really be targeting in my view is the law that allows Brothels to be closed and shuttered on the whim of the police and council.

What happened to Blunket and the min borthel propsals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've read so much on this subject, and really appreciate reading everyone's thoughts. We've got to hope we'll be saved by an election this year.

But, this won't mean the end of punting. There simply aren't enough police to enforce these kind of laws (assuming it gets passed as it is - which is unlikely)

I expect the police will continue to turn a blind eye to parlours which are well run and where the girls willingly work (HOD,Debbies, Silk and Stockings, The Bunny Lounge etc). But, the risk for us is an impetuous visit somewhere which is dodgy. I read some field reports recently about a place in Hanwell near Ealing, where the staff sounded under duress and where they had their own CCTV all over the place. That would be just the kind of place to be afraid of visiting.

But its difficult to say how angry all this makes me. The Big Brother nature of this government seems to know no bounds. They want to be in the bedroom of consenting adults. And the thought police tell us we can't have the freedom to assess whether a woman is controlled or not - that will be decided for you.

Think of what previous generations fought for, and then think about this.

You will be freer in Germany to pay for sex in legal clubs and parlours, without the police knocking on the door, in a country where they're not planning a giant database of emails and phonecalls, and they don't hold the records of 5 million plus citizens on a DNA database.

And yes I am thinking about how I can make a move there. I've been several times and its great.

I would imagine if the police turned blind eyes to some parlours if the proposed law is enacted the parlours who were forced to close would pressure councils and the police to close the others. I could start a war like the ice cream men had.

Can you honestly imagine that those running the ones that were closed would sit still and not fight? They surely would make a fuss about being victimised?

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