soho lover

>>>> I think everyone on this site should read this - New Law <<<<

85 posts in this topic

I think you'll find that the law's been discussed in depth elsewhere on the site - especially in the Legalities and Legislation forum. Just so you know, like. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What if she doesn't speak any english???

Some might say that could be an indication...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some might say that could be an indication...

Lol,thats gotta be the biggest understatement this year to date.x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some might say that could be an indication...

Wot you wan?

I luv you long time.

I do agree though that they are hardly likely to admit to a punter that they are working under duress.

Seriously though, maybe the Mods could put together a check list of indications that ladies are likely to be trafficked.

I think we all agree that trafficking has to be stamped out, firstly because it is not right for the WG, and secondly because it is getting this business unwanted attention and reasons to legislate against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wot you wan?

I luv you long time.

I do agree though that they are hardly likely to admit to a punter that they are working under duress.

Seriously though, maybe the Mods could put together a check list of indications that ladies are likely to be trafficked.

I think we all agree that trafficking has to be stamped out, firstly because it is not right for the WG, and secondly because it is getting this business unwanted attention and reasons to legislate against it.

I feel that it ought to be borne in mind that the new legislation has nothing whatsoever to do with "trafficking", the word "trafficking" does not appear in the new legislation, also "trafficking" in and of itself is not a criminal offence unless it is done in conjunction with another action that would cause an offence under any Section of Part 1 of The Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel that it ought to be borne in mind that the new legislation has nothing whatsoever to do with "trafficking", the word "trafficking" does not appear in the new legislation, also "trafficking" in and of itself is not a criminal offence unless it is done in conjunction with another action that would cause an offence under any Section of Part 1 of The Sexual Offences Act 2003.

While this is strictly true, there clearly is a relationship between the 2003 Act and the new legislation, as set out, for example, on pp. 6-7 of this:

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snha-04324.pdf

Women who are controlled for gain would include those who have been trafficked (whether consensually or not) and I had always assumed that one of the principal aims of the new law had the intention set out in the link.

No doubt SasFan will tell me how wrong I am! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While this is strictly true, there clearly is a relationship between the 2003 Act and the new legislation, as set out, for example, on pp. 6-7 of this:

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snha-04324.pdf

Women who are controlled for gain would include those who have been trafficked (whether consensually or not) and I had always assumed that one of the principal aims of the new law had the intention set out in the link.

No doubt SasFan will tell me how wrong I am! :)

It all depends on how you look at it IMHO, if you state that "Women who are controlled for gain would include those who have been trafficked" then that is true, however it does not mean "Women who are controlled for gain would include all those who have been trafficked".

Also the article is completely out of date when it states "As introduced, the Bill proposed a new strict liability offence of paying for the sexual services of a prostitute who was being “controlled for gain”.", "controlled for gain" does not appear in the new legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloody hell thats a real kick in the balls to us punters this is going to make soho into a real wastelands now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first issue perhaps is whether the girl(s) at the establishment illustrated in the Home Office poster

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/prostitution-poster2835.pdf?view=Binary

are forced or not.

Regent tells us -see Soho walk-up thread- that it's in Greek St.

If the girl(s) is/are working freely and the Home office has falsely represented their workplace in a photograph published without their consent then there is a serious case to answer. Does anyone know the ladies who work there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bloody hell thats a real kick in the balls to us punters this is going to make soho into a real wastelands now

I wouldnt worry too much till we see what the police actually do. If the ladies in Soho Walk-Ups work alone and are not coerced by others then it might not be any different from now. For years Westminster Council have said they want to clear Soho up but little changes overall since i punted their in the 80s despite persistent rumours that the Albanian mafia controls some or a lot of the ladies now. Whether they do or not i dont know.

Fear of arrest or being raided while on the job or both is what HH and her ilk want to instill into punters, this is as powerful a tool as actually doing the arresting and raiding.

I would expect some high profile establishments to get raided to show the police are doing something, but they at present certainly do not have the resources in terms of money or manpower to raid everywhere. In my view they will launch targeted intelligence led purges where they are confident of getting a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While this is strictly true, there clearly is a relationship between the 2003 Act and the new legislation, as set out, for example, on pp. 6-7 of this:

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snha-04324.pdf

Women who are controlled for gain would include those who have been trafficked (whether consensually or not) and I had always assumed that one of the principal aims of the new law had the intention set out in the link.

No doubt SasFan will tell me how wrong I am! :eek:

Just to expand a little more, in the cold hard light of day the new legislation makes no mention of "trafficking" (which as described in SOA 2003 in and of itself is not a criminal offence) or "controlled for gain", many might wish it to do so, and many might interpret it as such, but in reality it does not, all the "trafficking" and/or "controlled for gain" bits have, logically, to be dealt with after the successful prosecution of a punter under the new legislation, once it has been proved (by the conviction of the punter) that the prostitute has been "forced" etc. then investigations can start along "trafficking" lines, if that can be proved then investigations can start along the lines of "control for gain" by the "trafficker", but none of these further investigation will have the slightest influence on the case against the punter. In the new legislation there is no differentiation made between a prostitute who has been "trafficked" and one who has not been "trafficked", therefore as far as the new legislation is concerned it matters not one jot whether the prostitute has been "trafficked" from Beijing to Bristol, from Bristol to Billericay or even if "trafficking" has taken place at all; and looking at it from the other end of the telescope, proof that the prostitute has been "trafficked" is not proof that the prostitute has been "forced" etc. and therefore matters not one jot under the new legislation, once again many might wish it to do so, and many might interpret it as such, but in reality it does not.

Obviously as there have been no cases to base my opinions on all this is mere guesswork on my part, and the Magistrate(s) involved in the first case might well think differently, however the real reason for my original post in this thread is to try and stop the punter from having thoughts along the lines of "If I stay away from "trafficked" prostitutes then I will be Ok" or even worse "This new legislation is only to do with "trafficked" prostitutes", this IMHO is a recipe for disaster for the following reasons, "trafficking" is irrelevant where the new legislation is concerned; bearing in mind that "trafficking" is involved with "into", within" and "out of" the UK, how is a punter going to determine that a prostitute is "trafficked"? ……… and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably, if the client refuses to accept a caution and the case proceeds to Court, hearsay would not be admissible for this strict liability offence. Either the person who had allegedly been subjected to force, deception, deceit or coercion or, alternatively, the person allegedly responsible for the force etc would have to be called to give evidence. At this stage, there would be the opportunity for an in depth cross examination to establish the facts. Unless, of course, somebody had already been convicted of using force etc in respect of the case before the Court.

If this doesn't apply, what would the normal legal process be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to expand a little more, in the cold hard light of day the new legislation makes no mention of “trafficking” (which as described in SOA 2003 in and of itself is not a criminal offence) or “controlled for gain”, many might wish it to do so, and many might interpret it as such, but in reality it does not, all the “trafficking” and/or “controlled for gain” bits have, logically, to be dealt with after the successful prosecution of a punter under the new legislation, once it has been proved (by the conviction of the punter) that the prostitute has been “forced” etc. then investigations can start along “trafficking” lines, if that can be proved then investigations can start along the lines of “control for gain” by the “trafficker”, but none of these further investigation will have the slightest influence on the case against the punter. In the new legislation there is no differentiation made between a prostitute who has been “trafficked” and one who has not been “trafficked”, therefore as far as the new legislation is concerned it matters not one jot whether the prostitute has been “trafficked” from Beijing to Bristol, from Bristol to Billericay or even if “trafficking” has taken place at all; and looking at it from the other end of the telescope, proof that the prostitute has been “trafficked” is not proof that the prostitute has been “forced” etc. and therefore matters not one jot under the new legislation, once again many might wish it to do so, and many might interpret it as such, but in reality it does not.

Obviously as there have been no cases to base my opinions on all this is mere guesswork on my part, and the Magistrate(s) involved in the first case might well think differently, however the real reason for my original post in this thread is to try and stop the punter from having thoughts along the lines of “If I stay away from “trafficked” prostitutes then I will be Ok” or even worse “This new legislation is only to do with “trafficked” prostitutes”, this IMHO is a recipe for disaster for the following reasons, “trafficking” is irrelevant where the new legislation is concerned; bearing in mind that “trafficking” is involved with “into”, within” and “out of” the UK, how is a punter going to determine that a prostitute is “trafficked”? ……… and so on.

However, if I stay away from "forced" prostitutes then I will be OK ..... can't be that hard :eek: Oh yes, it might be difficult ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, if I stay away from "forced" prostitutes then I will be OK ..... can't be that hard :eek: Oh yes, it might be difficult ...

I think "exploited" is the word now to be considered isn't it ? So we need to avoid any girl who has been expolited to provide paid for sexual services.

and the definition of exploited is .............?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this doesn't apply, what would the normal legal process be?

I really have no idea, a criminal offence of this nature that is also "strict liability" is somewhat rare, I'm guessing that the first couple of cases are going to have to be hand-picked, as doubtless will the Magistrate(s) involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and the definition of exploited is .............?

Whatever the Magistrate(s) in deepest, darkest Billericay deem it to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, if I stay away from "forced" prostitutes then I will be OK ..... can't be that hard :eek: Oh yes, it might be difficult ...

It's a tricky one for sure, I expect that the upshot will be yet another yard and a half of drivel to wander through on websites, where in addition to the T&C disclaimer there will be a "I am not forced, coerced etc." declaration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this new legislation cover the lovely girls that work through the agency websites or as independents with their own websites? If so where do we meet the girls that wish to give us chaps a happy time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think "exploited" is the word now to be considered isn't it ? So we need to avoid any girl who has been exploited to provide paid for sexual services.

and the definition of exploited is .............?

So...you go to your usual parlour which is well run, no foriegn girls,no drink, no drugs, lovely ladies who work of their own free will etc but...at the end of the day the girls have to pay a fee for working there and if they don't make that fee then they are marched to the nearest cashpoint by the boss..to me this is exploitation...but you would never know would you???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldnt worry too much till we see what the police actually do. If the ladies in Soho Walk-Ups work alone and are not coerced by others then it might not be any different from now. For years Westminster Council have said they want to clear Soho up but little changes overall since i punted their in the 80s despite persistent rumours that the Albanian mafia controls some or a lot of the ladies now. Whether they do or not i dont know.

Fear of arrest or being raided while on the job or both is what HH and her ilk want to instill into punters, this is as powerful a tool as actually doing the arresting and raiding.

I would expect some high profile establishments to get raided to show the police are doing something, but they at present certainly do not have the resources in terms of money or manpower to raid everywhere. In my view they will launch targeted intelligence led purges where they are confident of getting a result.

thank you for putting me at ease buddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So...you go to your usual parlour which is well run, no foriegn girls,no drink, no drugs, lovely ladies who work of their own free will etc but...at the end of the day the girls have to pay a fee for working there and if they don't make that fee then they are marched to the nearest cashpoint by the boss..to me this is exploitation...but you would never know would you???

I am not privvy to such occurences but it sounds shocking. Are you saying this is a widespread practice. Your you would never know would you applies to any WG who you dont know outside of punting and who you dont know well. Who knows for definate who is exploited and who isnt. As a punter you can only make your own personal judgement as to who you believe is not exploited IMO.

Apart from not punting at all which is HHs aim of course, all punters can do is try to reduce their risk of falling foul of this new law in my view if they are bothered. Most punters that i speak to at Parties have no idea about this new law as havent some to a lot of WGs that i have spoken to who are not on here or similar sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thank you for putting me at ease buddy

No worries, but if you are unfortunate and do get busted dont blame me for putting you too much at ease.:eek:;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.....to me this is exploitation...but you would never know would you???

To me, if you are so minded, you can find exploitation somewhere in anyones life, working girl or not. You cite a parlour situation, but how is one to know that an "independant" is in deed "independant", how can one be aware of what is going on behind the scenes, and be sure there is no exploitation going on ? Are we to take account of "boyfriends", should we check the lease on her flat to ensure that she is paying a market rent, and not a premium because she is a working girl, & hence being "exploited" by her landord ? No, of course these things are not practical, and they have to know that. The government does not want us to visit working girls and it seems at the moment that the fear of being caught up in an untenable criminal / legal wrangle is to be their front line weapon of choice.

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