Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
coin

Police and Crime Bill 2008

37 posts in this topic

I have spent a long time scruninising this Bill and also the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The 2003 Act has two interesting clauses which are indicators as to how the current Bill may pan out. In the earlier Act buried deep in the text are a some interesting and important changes made relating to prostitution; keeping a brothel and more importantly controlling prostiutes for gain, this clause speaks volumes. The other and less relevent to prostitution was the Act relating to "indecent images", the Government taking the view that 16 and 17 year old girls doing "Page3" was child abuse; this really does show how out of touch with the real world they are.

Referring back to the 2003 Acts' severe changes to prostitution, IMO is a precurser to the current Bill, I think it will go through unchanged and thus making it almost impossible for punting to continue in it's present relaxed, affordable and free way. The Act will carte blanche by default, outlaw all Massage Parlours (brothels) and Escort Agencies. This is a rich man's charter, because it will be he who will be able to afford buy the only High Class independent Courtesans, that will be left and only visiting Hotels etc. Why do I say this, because the punter will not risk visiting even independent prostitutes, for fear that are "controlled", most by a pimp, (boyfriend etc). All in all this Government have and are enacting laws that take away tittlation and sexual enjoyment for the ordinary man ....... some socialists!

The second reading of the Police and Crime Bill is tomorrow, before it goes to the Committee Stage, where even more draconian clauses could be included. Don't rely on the well healed punters in Parliament to come to our rescue, they know when this in they have sole access to the only fun that will be available. Hypocrites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have spent a long time scruninising this Bill and also the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The 2003 Act has two interesting clauses which are indicators as to how the current Bill may pan out. In the earlier Act buried deep in the text are a some interesting and important changes made relating to prostitution; keeping a brothel and more importantly controlling prostiutes for gain, this clause speaks volumes. The other and less relevent to prostitution was the Act relating to "indecent images", the Government taking the view that 16 and 17 year old girls doing "Page3" was child abuse; this really does show how out of touch with the real world they are.

Referring back to the 2003 Acts' severe changes to prostitution, IMO is a precurser to the current Bill, I think it will go through unchanged and thus making it almost impossible for punting to continue in it's present relaxed, affordable and free way. The Act will carte blanche by default, outlaw all Massage Parlours (brothels) and Escort Agencies. This is a rich man's charter, because it will be he who will be able to afford buy the only High Class independent Courtesans, that will be left and only visiting Hotels etc. Why do I say this, because the punter will not risk visiting even independent prostitutes, for fear that are "controlled", most by a pimp, (boyfriend etc). All in all this Government have and are enacting laws that take away tittlation and sexual enjoyment for the ordinary man ....... some socialists!

The second reading of the Police and Crime Bill is tomorrow, before it goes to the Committee Stage, where even more draconian clauses could be included. Don't rely on the well healed punters in Parliament to come to our rescue, they know when this in they have sole access to the only fun that will be available. Hypocrites.

I also think it is going to get through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're being slightly paranoid. The 2003 acts you're referring to have little relevance to how this will pan out. "controlling prostituion for gain" was basically a replacement for the "living off immoral earnings"; the point being that this law was to make sure that the person accused was actually helping the prostitute in some way. The old offence merely required you to get money off them, or live in a house where they helped with the rent or martgage. Likewise "keeping a brothel" was just a rewrite of older laws. I have no idea what you're talking about re: 16 and 17 year olds and page 3. The SOA 2003 doesn't mention page 3, it simply says that the age for pornography i.e indecent images is 18. You are correct that since this legislation 16 and 17 year olds have been banned from page 3 but I don't think that's a bad thing do you? I remember the Sport newspaper having Lindsey Dawn McKenzie aged 15 in a bikini, and saying we'll show you her topless when she's 16, make sure you buy our paper etc etc.....Now that was taking the piss and needed sorting out, don't you agree?

As regards the new proposals - I suggest you read the section on legislation on this site for numerous in-depth arguments about this. Suffice to say there's virtually no chance of it getting through untouched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the thread's been moved here already

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think the momentum is to push this awful legislation through as it is at all costs, the Government know they are running out of time and will be defeated the next election, this is such an emotive issue that any opposition to it by MP's will be embarrassing for them and label them as supporting prostitution. Regarding the 2003 legislation making it illegal to possess a topless photograph of a 16 or 17 year old girl, I do not agree this a good move, when the age of consent is 16, with a proposal discussed by Governement and on the recommendation of the GMC, in 2007, to lower the age of consent to 15 years.

This though goes further than just being a misdemeanour, if a man is found in possession of a so called "indecent image" of a 16 or 17 year old girl, is deemed to be a paedophile, and required to sign the sex offenders register and thus ruining his life, this cannot be right when it is not illegal to have a full sexual relationship with a girl in this age group, the law contradicts itself and the punishment is totally out of proportion. IMO both the "Indecent Images Act 2003" and the new "Police and Crime Bill 2008" is bad legislation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The second reading of the Police and Crime Bill is tomorrow

Actually, its the 19th January.

http://www.parliament.uk/what_s_on/hoc_forthcomingbusiness.cfm

It is not clear cut that this Bill will get passed unamended, there is a good chance the clause will get pulled completely or amended to something less sinister! When a prostitution clause was last included in a Bill (Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008) the clause was pulled by the Lords. The strict liability aspect will not be liked by the Lords at all; I and many others feel this section will be at least altered.

This Government is however very anti-sex, and if they remain in power I hate to think what other draconian legistlation they will try to pass!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Government is however very anti-sex, and if they remain in power I hate to think what other draconian legistlation they will try to pass!

I agree that this government is very very very anti-sex, mostly cause they have religious beliefs and are more loyal to those then to the public. This country is supposed to be a secular country meaning that religion should have no place in law making. Imagine if the tories get in, it will be alot worse considering they are more anti-sex than labour. I always thought the whole point of a democracy is for a governemnt to listen what the people want and they can vote for it whether to make something law or not, looks like it's now a myth. :mad:

This government is giving into two groups, there are the religious fundamentalists in one group and the other group are radical feminists (notice they never mention women paying women for sex, women paying men for sex and even men paying men for sex on their campaigns?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, its the 19th January.

http://www.parliament.uk/what_s_on/hoc_forthcomingbusiness.cfm

It is not clear cut that this Bill will get passed unamended, there is a good chance the clause will get pulled completely or amended to something less sinister! When a prostitution clause was last included in a Bill (Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008) the clause was pulled by the Lords. The strict liability aspect will not be liked by the Lords at all; I and many others feel this section will be at least altered.

This Government is however very anti-sex, and if they remain in power I hate to think what other draconian legistlation they will try to pass!

Sorry got my weeks mixed up. You are so right about this lot being anti-sex.

Coin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally think the momentum is to push this awful legislation through as it is at all costs, the Government know they are running out of time and will be defeated the next election, this is such an emotive issue that any opposition to it by MP's will be embarrassing for them and label them as supporting prostitution. Regarding the 2003 legislation making it illegal to possess a topless photograph of a 16 or 17 year old girl, I do not agree this a good move, when the age of consent is 16, with a proposal discussed by Governement and on the recommendation of the GMC, in 2007, to lower the age of consent to 15 years.

This though goes further than just being a misdemeanour, if a man is found in possession of a so called "indecent image" of a 16 or 17 year old girl, is deemed to be a paedophile, and required to sign the sex offenders register and thus ruining his life, this cannot be right when it is not illegal to have a full sexual relationship with a girl in this age group, the law contradicts itself and the punishment is totally out of proportion. IMO both the "Indecent Images Act 2003" and the new "Police and Crime Bill 2008" is bad legislation

Name one person who has been prosecuted for possession of topless pictures of 16 and 17 year olds. That they hadn't taken themselves. The police tend not to prosecute in those cases, as if the girl is believed to be 16 or 17 then it's too close to 18 to be beyond reasonable doubt. If they KNOW the girl is 16 or 17 then they still don't prosecute most of the time as there's no strict liability and it's difficult to argue the accused knew the image was of a person under 18. Prosecutions for child pornography CAN include images of 16 and 17 year olds but in reality it's extremely rare. The only real change has been in the production i.e page 3 etc, and I think there's a difference between being able to consent to sex in private, and being able to consent to having nude or sexually graphic pictures taken and published worldwide. Just as there's a difference between consenting to sex for fun and consenting to sex for payment.

To answer the other point you make, the only people of any importance pushing this legislation are Jacqui Smith and Harriet Harman. The PM spoke in general favour on one ot two occasions but has been largely silent. The conservatives are definitely against - Dominic Grieve who is their Home Secretary has voiced concerns that it will drive the business underground and indicated that he's against it - no one has accused him of being pro prostitution. The lib dems have been asking awkward questions too. Plenty of Labour MPs are against it. As are many in The Lords. All the prostitution groups like the ECP are against it. Everyone outside of JS, HH and a few minor ministers and feminists, agrees that strict liability is ludicrous. They are all also becoming aware that the proposal criminalises sex with women "controlled for gain". Which has nothing to do with small minority who are trafficked or forced or coerced and actually covers >90% of women in prostitution. This is a long way from getting on the statute books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They may be anti sex but i am furious that as a life long labour voter they now want to criminalise my hobby.

I do not wanttobe made a criminal when I harm no-one.

They have no mandate for this move.

It was not in the manifesto.

Liberalising prostitution should be the role of new Labour.

It is backward governments that try and control sexual behaviour whether gay or paid.

HIV and the underground mafia will thrive with draconian measures being used.

HH would not have strict liability she would like absolute liability - the certain sign of a mad woman foaming at the mouth!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Name one person who has been prosecuted for possession of topless pictures of 16 and 17 year olds. That they hadn't taken themselves. The police tend not to prosecute in those cases, as if the girl is believed to be 16 or 17 then it's too close to 18 to be beyond reasonable doubt. If they KNOW the girl is 16 or 17 then they still don't prosecute most of the time as there's no strict liability and it's difficult to argue the accused knew the image was of a person under 18. Prosecutions for child pornography CAN include images of 16 and 17 year olds but in reality it's extremely rare. The only real change has been in the production i.e page 3 etc, and I think there's a difference between being able to consent to sex in private, and being able to consent to having nude or sexually graphic pictures taken and published worldwide. Just as there's a difference between consenting to sex for fun and consenting to sex for payment.

To answer the other point you make, the only people of any importance pushing this legislation are Jacqui Smith and Harriet Harman. The PM spoke in general favour on one ot two occasions but has been largely silent. The conservatives are definitely against - Dominic Grieve who is their Home Secretary has voiced concerns that it will drive the business underground and indicated that he's against it - no one has accused him of being pro prostitution. The lib dems have been asking awkward questions too. Plenty of Labour MPs are against it. As are many in The Lords. All the prostitution groups like the ECP are against it. Everyone outside of JS, HH and a few minor ministers and feminists, agrees that strict liability is ludicrous. They are all also becoming aware that the proposal criminalises sex with women "controlled for gain". Which has nothing to do with small minority who are trafficked or forced or coerced and actually covers >90% of women in prostitution. This is a long way from getting on the statute books.

My whole approach to this subject and to all other aspects of life, is that of freedom and choice. To me censorship is a word I abhor. The issue of 16 and 17 year old girls or boys doing glamour modelling, whether explicit or coy, is a question of censorship. A person in this age group leaving school does not have the choice to pursue a career in glamour modelling if they so wish. If there is a majority view and desire to have the age of consent set at 18 then that should be so. But do not have a completely muddled set of rules saying you can do this but you cannot do that, clarity is the watchword of law. In todays world when youngsters are maturing younger it seems the age criteria is being raised. Go back to Victorian times when kids were so immature, the age of consent was 14 years. Afterall the age of consent is 15 years in France and 13 years in Spain, with none of this mixed rule nonsense, I thought we were in the EU!! On a final point, nudity is not pornography, and to equate simply nudity whether proffessionally and artistically produced or just innocent family photos, with the decadence of actual child pornography just neuters it's absolute wrongfulness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They may be anti sex but i am furious that as a life long labour voter they now want to criminalise my hobby.

I do not wanttobe made a criminal when I harm no-one.

They have no mandate for this move.

It was not in the manifesto.

Liberalising prostitution should be the role of new Labour.

It is backward governments that try and control sexual behaviour whether gay or paid.

HIV and the underground mafia will thrive with draconian measures being used.

HH would not have strict liability she would like absolute liability - the certain sign of a mad woman foaming at the mouth!

I totally agree with you. I used to be a lifelong Labour supporter 40 years, but no more, and because I loathe the Tories I do not now bother voting. Gordon Brown is as bad M H Thatcher, it seems this lot are hell bent on control and censorship, "right wing socialists" should read "left wing communists". They just want the people with their noses to the grindstone, paying their taxes and silently existing with a barren life, a slave to the Executive, this incarnation of Government taking shape under Brown is very troubling, I fear that they will get in again and the landscape over the next few years could be very scary, with many early morning knocks across the country from the State Police. This could never happen; could it? They would never ban punting would they? Also with extension of working life legislated for and imposed, will have the "worker" slaving until the grave. Not what I thought life would be like as I approach my 60th birthday, I vividly remember the Stalinist era in Russia!! Next step Brown converting to a Muslim and the introduction of a Islamic State - joke!!!!!!! but pertinent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My whole approach to this subject and to all other aspects of life, is that of freedom and choice.

Have you two considered moving to another country ?

You dont have to put up with whatever gov you are under, you can move...

US: hm...

South America: large culture gap.

Dubai : Interesting, but has its own challenges and long-term risks.

France or Spain: an OK life most of the time !

Oz or NZ : Yes! Probably easiest option for a UK citizen.

btw: I this thread started off quite interestingly.

Can someone yank (no pun) it back on topic:

The Legal Issues around the bill, and possible ways to help block it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liberalising prostitution should be the role of new Labour.

As a party set up to support the working people in this country I agree 100%!

Of late I have been sick to death of the so called Labour party. If it wasn't for the large amount of real Labour people at branch level, I would have quit ages ago!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My whole approach to this subject and to all other aspects of life, is that of freedom and choice. To me censorship is a word I abhor. The issue of 16 and 17 year old girls or boys doing glamour modelling, whether explicit or coy, is a question of censorship. A person in this age group leaving school does not have the choice to pursue a career in glamour modelling if they so wish. If there is a majority view and desire to have the age of consent set at 18 then that should be so. But do not have a completely muddled set of rules saying you can do this but you cannot do that, clarity is the watchword of law. In todays world when youngsters are maturing younger it seems the age criteria is being raised. Go back to Victorian times when kids were so immature, the age of consent was 14 years. Afterall the age of consent is 15 years in France and 13 years in Spain, with none of this mixed rule nonsense, I thought we were in the EU!! On a final point, nudity is not pornography, and to equate simply nudity whether proffessionally and artistically produced or just innocent family photos, with the decadence of actual child pornography just neuters it's absolute wrongfulness.

Yes I know they don't have the choice - that's kind of the point because they're too young. The school leaving age is now 18 for those entering secondary school this year. You're talking complete crap. Whilst I can't confirm or deny the ages of consent you give, the statement that there is "none of this mixed rule nonsense" is gibberish. Whatever the age of consent in Spain they don't allow 13 year olds to star in porn movies and don't show them topless in the newspapers and don't allow them to work as prostitutes. They have to be 18, just as everywhere else in the Western world. As for going back to victorian times, that's just silly. Why not go back even further when there was no age of consent. Or back to caveman times when you could hit them over the head and drag them back to your cave. Just cos it used to be OK doesn't mean they were right. Anyone can make a mistake regarding the decision to pose nude or do porn or go into prostitution and the younger you are the more likely it is. 18 is a sensible age limit. As I said before, no one gets busted for possessing pictures of 16/17 year olds except in very exceptional circumstances. The poeople done for child porn have much younger than that, so stop trying to muddy the waters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The school leaving age has not been raised to 18 years, the legislation is written that is;- a 16 year old who leaves school with no employment to take up, is invited to stay at school, or to take futher education, this is not compulsory, it is a way of curbing youngsters roaming the streets. How would a married 16 year old with a child be able to attend school?

I do NOTcondone 13 14 15 16 17 or even 18 year old's doing pornography, pornaography at any age IMO is demeaning. I am arguing that nudity is NOT pornography and if a 16 or 17 year old person wants to have their naked body photographed, and artistically displayed then I personally do not see that it is; firstly child abuse as written into the legislation, and secondly this new direction moves away from the status quo that has existed for many many years without complaint.

Some of your remarks are extremely rude and not the language of resonable arguement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes I know they don't have the choice - that's kind of the point because they're too young. The school leaving age is now 18 for those entering secondary school this year. You're talking complete crap. Whilst I can't confirm or deny the ages of consent you give, the statement that there is "none of this mixed rule nonsense" is gibberish. Whatever the age of consent in Spain they don't allow 13 year olds to star in porn movies and don't show them topless in the newspapers and don't allow them to work as prostitutes. They have to be 18, just as everywhere else in the Western world. As for going back to victorian times, that's just silly. Why not go back even further when there was no age of consent. Or back to caveman times when you could hit them over the head and drag them back to your cave. Just cos it used to be OK doesn't mean they were right. Anyone can make a mistake regarding the decision to pose nude or do porn or go into prostitution and the younger you are the more likely it is. 18 is a sensible age limit. As I said before, no one gets busted for possessing pictures of 16/17 year olds except in very exceptional circumstances. The poeople done for child porn have much younger than that, so stop trying to muddy the waters.

Just out of interest do you punt 18 year old girls?

I personally haven't punted for donkey's years, mainly due to ill health, and at my age I haven't the energy, I have now more money in the bank than I will ever spend, and would love to travel on sex holidays, the mind is willing but the flesh is weak, so I do not, cannot. It is nice to read what goes on here though, I can still dream. my best years were late 70's when it was virtually all massage and HR, it seems people are looking hard for this type of service nowadays, back then it was the norm and most enjoyable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a scenario.

The Bill gets passed more or less as it is proposed at the moment. A WG of EU origin or outside EU but legally residing in the UK sets herself up for business using a web site and provides her mobile phone number as a contact number- so she is effectively an Indie. She works at various locations on different days of the week as the only WG available that day. She pays a daily rent to the person who either owns the property or the person who rents it from the owner. She pays a fixed daily wage to the Maid or person who sits in the property for security purposes. The Maid ansers the WGs mobile phone number in the WGs name.

Now who is controlling who? This would be quite simple to set up and the only expense would be for the web site. Can any of our legal gents shoot this one down?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The school leaving age has not been raised to 18 years, the legislation is written that is;- a 16 year old who leaves school with no employment to take up, is invited to stay at school, or to take futher education, this is not compulsory, it is a way of curbing youngsters roaming the streets. How would a married 16 year old with a child be able to attend school?

I do NOTcondone 13 14 15 16 17 or even 18 year old's doing pornography, pornaography at any age IMO is demeaning. I am arguing that nudity is NOT pornography and if a 16 or 17 year old person wants to have their naked body photographed, and artistically displayed then I personally do not see that it is; firstly child abuse as written into the legislation, and secondly this new direction moves away from the status quo that has existed for many many years without complaint.

Some of your remarks are extremely rude and not the language of resonable arguement.

well you claimed that other countries didn't have such out of synch laws and gave examples of countries with ages of consent much lower than ours. That suggested you meant they had different opinions on nude photos which isn't true. Nudity is not pornography. Elton John's photographic art collection was held to be legal after being displayed in a gallery. But the point is that page 3 is not art. It's there for one purpose and that's for men to go "phwoar". That's porn. Very low level porn but still.....It's designed to arouse sexual thoughts. Just as nude does not equal porn, fully clothed does not equal not porn. It's what was intended by the photographer or person displaying the images etc. Your argument is redundant as children have and do pose for nude photos in certain circumstances - and displaying the pictures is theoretically legal as long as their is nothing sexual in the pose or gratuitous in how it's photographed or displayed.

In any case this was not the topic that we started with, and it's getting silly. Back to the prostitution legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well you claimed that other countries didn't have such out of synch laws and gave examples of countries with ages of consent much lower than ours. That suggested you meant they had different opinions on nude photos which isn't true. Nudity is not pornography. Elton John's photographic art collection was held to be legal after being displayed in a gallery. But the point is that page 3 is not art. It's there for one purpose and that's for men to go "phwoar". That's porn. Very low level porn but still.....It's designed to arouse sexual thoughts. Just as nude does not equal porn, fully clothed does not equal not porn. It's what was intended by the photographer or person displaying the images etc. Your argument is redundant as children have and do pose for nude photos in certain circumstances - and displaying the pictures is theoretically legal as long as their is nothing sexual in the pose or gratuitous in how it's photographed or displayed.

In any case this was not the topic that we started with, and it's getting silly. Back to the prostitution legislation.

Back to fighting this awful Bill as a united front, there is a further reading of the Police and Crime Bill next Monday, it will be an interesting debate, and hopefully will give some hint of the direction it is going. Keep fighting the Bill!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a scenario.

The Bill gets passed more or less as it is proposed at the moment. A WG of EU origin or outside EU but legally residing in the UK sets herself up for business using a web site and provides her mobile phone number as a contact number- so she is effectively an Indie. She works at various locations on different days of the week as the only WG available that day. She pays a daily rent to the person who either owns the property or the person who rents it from the owner. She pays a fixed daily wage to the Maid or person who sits in the property for security purposes. The Maid ansers the WGs mobile phone number in the WGs name.

Now who is controlling who? This would be quite simple to set up and the only expense would be for the web site. Can any of our legal gents shoot this one down?

In that scenario, A would be the girl, B the landlord, C any person who rentls the property off the landlord & then receives money for the use of it from the girl & D the maid/security person.

As the law is interpreted in such a way that anyone receiving any kind of payment for facilitating a sex worker going about their business, then B, C & D could be deemed to be guuilty of controlling for gain & face up to 7 years in prison, with all their assets siezed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In that scenario, A would be the girl, B the landlord, C any person who rentls the property off the landlord & then receives money for the use of it from the girl & D the maid/security person.

In fact C would contravene Section 36 (Tenant permitting premises to be used for prostitution) of The Sexual Offences Act 1956.

As the law is interpreted in such a way that anyone receiving any kind of payment for facilitating a sex worker going about their business, then B, C & D could be deemed to be guuilty of controlling for gain & face up to 7 years in prison, with all their assets siezed.

Although there is no definition of "controlled" in "controlled for gain" (other than in an explanatory notes document which is not legally binding in any shape or form) I really do find it very hard to believe that anybody could possibly find a way of working "facilitating" into a definition of "controlled". Do you have any links to cases showing an interpretation of "controlled" where "facilitation" was involved please?

........................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the explanations to the bill on the parliamentary site, the following is given:

551. Clauses 13 and 14 create an offence of paying for the sexual services of a prostitute controlled for gain by inserting a new section 53A into the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Subsection (2)(:mad: expressly provides for the offence to be committed regardless of whether the payer is, or ought to be, aware that any of the prostitute's services are controlled for gain. In this respect, the offence is one of strict liability. The House of Lords in R v G [2008] UKHL 37 made clear that Article 6 (right to a fair trial) is concerned with procedural protections rather than the substantive law and therefore the Article cannot be regarded as preventing the formulation of this offence as one of strict liability. Similarly, Article 7 (legal certainty) is concerned with legal rather than factual certainty and therefore any difficulty that a payer may have in deciding whether a prostitute is controlled for gain does not render this offence incompatible with Article 7 as the offence itself is clearly expressed. The Government does not consider that Article 8 (right to family life) will be engaged as it has not been established that Article 8 includes a right to pay for sexual relations. Even if it does, the Government believes that any interference with this right can be justified under Article 8.2 as necessary for the protection of health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

They seem to have thought long and hard to prevent 'strict liability' to be challenged. This is an extremely defensive write-up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the explanations to the bill on the parliamentary site, the following is given:

They seem to have thought long and hard to prevent 'strict liability' to be challenged. This is an extremely defensive write-up.

Make no mistake, this "Socialist" anti social Government is hell bent on stamping out sexual plesures outside Marriage/Relationships. We are going backwards in this country to the bad old days, when sex was considered a "dirty" activity. The direction Labour are taking is so, so worrying, Brown handing money like confetti to buy the next Election, what will be next on the draconian agenda, if, and I think Labour will, win the next Election. Gawd help us all. Looks like "1984" will be the next Labour manifesto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the explanations to the bill on the parliamentary site, the following is given:

They seem to have thought long and hard to prevent 'strict liability' to be challenged. This is an extremely defensive write-up.

hmmm, The part that says it can be justified on the grounds of protection of health and morals is suspect to me since there is no intrinsic victim. No force, no coercion, no trafficking. The women could get on the stand in defence of the punter and he's still sunk.

Also none of what they've written gets them out the fact that punters picking up underage girls by accident are in the clear. Persons downloading child porn by accident are in the clear. A Rapist who argues he was suffering Sexsomnia and was therefore unaware he was raping someone......is in the clear. If they want to talk about morals - bring it on. Legal challenges are one thing but MPs are going to vote along lines other than whether it's legally possible.

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