Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Nutcracker

Legislation-Independents

12 posts in this topic

Appreciate any comments to my thoughts re the proposed legislation.

1. I understand this legislation does not make prostitution illegal but only targets those " controlled for gain".

2. When would this legislation come into force if passed.

3. I presume that a true independent working out of her own premises which she owns or pays the rent for to a bona fide landlord, who takes her own bookings etc would not be affected and consequently the punter using her services would not under this legislation be doing anything illegal.

4. Is it credible that if 2 consenting adults agree to sex together in a cash transaction in the circumstances as in point 3 above, how are the police going to prove that any financial transaction took place. If 2 people meet in a pub, like each other and have a one night stand, are the police going to then prosecute a large percentage of the population, Are the police going to waste valuable police time and money pursuing such cases if both adults have confirmed they have consented.

5. I am sure with the ingenuity of the human mind, people will come up with schemes where they are selling something else ostensibly.

6. I am sure that punting is not confined to the working class. In fact probably the opposite so this will certainly put out of joint many prominent people so is it logical that this legislation will be allowed to go throught in its present form and I am sure pressure will be put on from influential sources to water it down.

7. The media will have a field day trying to root out salacious kiss and tell stories.

8. What about rich foreigners who come to the UK and indulge in such pastimes. Are they going to be arrested and are we going to have diplomatic incidents.

9. With many EU countries having legal prostitution, what is the human rights angle if a UK punter took his case to the EU human rights commission.

10 Surely to combat trafficking, there are already sufficient laws in place to control this.

11. Presumably most of the trafficking occurs in the lowest seedy establishments and surely it is not difficult for anyone to see where this is going on.

12. Maybe this legislation will push punting upmarket with the "legal" market being all independents which can be no bad thing.

All in all, it seems this legislation in its present form has not been carefully thought through and like much of this government's frenetic but empty rhetoric and promises is pure grandstanding for short term media headlines. To paraphrase one media commentator- the action of a few sweaty armpit 1970's feminists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1)That's correct, although "controlled for gain" covers 90% of women in prostitution by the govt's own estimate

2)How long's a piece of string? It depends on how long it takes to go through the processes. The policing and crime bill WILL be passed but whether this clause is there and what it says by then is unknown

3)So long as there's genuinely nobody else helping her in her work who makes any profit in any way. HOwever it'll be impossible for you to be sure that the girl's boyfriend didn't help her set up the website or ferry her to your hotel and if he benefits from her earnings then she'll be covered by the proposal. 90% illegal the other 10% shitting themselves thinking "who knows?". Maybe the woman on the phone was not this girl but an agency boss? The law is written to eradicate all prostitution. Make no mistake

4)Independants are not, and will not be illegal. They'll be raiding brothels and agency flats like they always do - only now clients will possibly be arrested.

5)Doubt it. If you're a juror and you get a case where someone boughts an after eight mint for £1000 which they got at the end of an all night fuck fest with a girl from an agency, would you be fooled as to what he was paying for?

6)The Lords are mostly older gentlemen with time and money on their hands - I think a few of them will be interested parties

7)Yes

8)Possible in theory but unlikely due to the numbers of people who will liekly be caught by this (due to police having better things to do)

9)Not sure - if the girl was not being forced or coerced and was genuinely a consenting adult working of her own free will, then as a layman I would have thought there COULD be something to argue. But I wouldn't hold your breath. The govt are doing their best to ignore the ruling on DNA that was made recently, remember.

10)Yes, and this law doesn't actually mention trafficking or coercion or force or anything similar. JS and HH claim a mandate from a MORI poll where 58% said they backed legislation if it was part of a package to combat trafficking. They didn't want prostitution outlawed in general. How does this proposal fit in with that mandate? It doesn't. 90% coverage is not targeted at the minority of trafficked/forced women.

11)The police raided 822 places they had suspicions on, yet only found 170 women. With several women per establishment it sounds like they found it difficult to find trafficked women.

12)There'll be very few of them since it's a bigger pain in the arse setting yourself up independently and riskier with noone else helping you and checking on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11)The police raided 822 places they had suspicions on, yet only found 170 women. With several women per establishment it sounds like they found it difficult to find trafficked women.

12)There'll be very few of them since it's a bigger pain in the arse setting yourself up independently and riskier with noone else helping you and checking on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11)The police raided 822 places they had suspicions on, yet only found 170 women. With several women per establishment it sounds like they found it difficult to find trafficked women.

12)There'll be very few of them since it's a bigger pain in the arse setting yourself up independently and riskier with noone else helping you and checking on you.

On 11 I would say that next time the police raid 822 places, if the law is passed those 822 places will stay closed for at least the 3 months and any punters there will be arrested, dna swabbed finger printed and photographed.

They may just be offered a caution but you can bet your life they will get arrested.

As for the indies, I have worked for myself for 20 ish years now, I have worked in other places. There will be plenty of girls trying to find a flat to work from rather than not work. The government do seem serious about the shutting down of brothels. Why are so many of you in denial of this on this board. Do you think they have gone to all the trouble they have and they do not mean it?

Delusion or what. We can hope it fails but I doubt it will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11 I would say that next time the police raid 822 places, if the law is passed those 822 places will stay closed for at least the 3 months and any punters there will be arrested, dna swabbed finger printed and photographed.

They may just be offered a caution but you can bet your life they will get arrested.

As for the indies, I have worked for myself for 20 ish years now, I have worked in other places. There will be plenty of girls trying to find a flat to work from rather than not work. The government do seem serious about the shutting down of brothels. Why are so many of you in denial of this on this board. Do you think they have gone to all the trouble they have and they do not mean it?

Delusion or what. We can hope it fails but I doubt it will.

I agree with Jenny that this awful Police State legislation will become statute. I fear also, Labour will win the next Election; the target then will be strict censorship of TV, film, printed media and Web Sites. You only have to look at the proposals to force sick and disabled people back into "harness", to measure the lengths this dreadfull Executive are prepared to go. We are heading into a puritanical, work ethic Society like that of Nazi Germany in the early 1930's, the Democratic Socialists that Labour once were are transmuting into National Socialists, echoes of, as stated; Nazi Government. This country is sleepwalking to Draconia. I'm pleased in light of events that my life is in it's "Autumn Years" but I fear greatly for my children and grandchildren.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11)The police raided 822 places they had suspicions on, yet only found 170 women. With several women per establishment it sounds like they found it difficult to find trafficked women.

12)There'll be very few of them since it's a bigger pain in the arse setting yourself up independently and riskier with noone else helping you and checking on you.

On 11 I would say that next time the police raid 822 places, if the law is passed those 822 places will stay closed for at least the 3 months and any punters there will be arrested, dna swabbed finger printed and photographed.

They may just be offered a caution but you can bet your life they will get arrested.

As for the indies, I have worked for myself for 20 ish years now, I have worked in other places. There will be plenty of girls trying to find a flat to work from rather than not work. The government do seem serious about the shutting down of brothels. Why are so many of you in denial of this on this board. Do you think they have gone to all the trouble they have and they do not mean it?

Delusion or what. We can hope it fails but I doubt it will.

Yes they seem serious, but there's only a few of them. The reason it's got this far is that Jacqui Smith is Home secretary, and Harriet Harman is Deputy PM. If one of them wasn't there in that role, the whole thing would have died. I guarantee you that JS and HH have had to work like buggery to get it this far. A lot of proposed legisaltion was dropped recently due to conserving parliamentary time for the economic crisis. These clauses, in my opinion, would have been dropped if it wasn't for JS and HH being there.

I'm sure they mean it. JS and HH are very serious. But outside of those two who is there in the govt backing it? A couple of minor MPs eg. Fiona Mactaggart, Denis MacShane who are both discredited by their refusal to back down on the 25,000 trafficked women figure which even the govt admits has no basis in fact. Vernon Coaker, a home office minister. The PM said he was in favour of doing something about trafficking but hasn't said very much about this proposal itself. I seriously doubt he'll get involved personally in any debate. Outside of those, anyone who has spoken out on it publicly has been against. The Conservatives are going to be officially against it although I have no doubt there will be some in the party who will back it. Same goes for the Lib Dems. I cannot forsee any serious debate on the strict liability aspect going JS's way. It's ludicrous in the extreme, especially when you point out that there's probably no victim. Under the proposal the prostitute could get on the stand and say "I work for an agency earning 200 p/h after agency fees, the client didn't know, I told him that I was independent. I was working voluntarily with no pressure and I approached the agency in the first instance to work for them". The guy is still guilty. He still has no defence. How could ANYONE debate that situation without agreeing it was totally outrageous?

That's been my point. They're serious. They're pig-headed. But it's inconceivable that anyone outside of a select few rad-fems etc. could vote for that clause. Once strict liability is dead, the legislation is unenforceable, by JS and HH's own admission. That will then be the death-knell for those sections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes they seem serious, but there's only a few of them. The reason it's got this far is that Jacqui Smith is Home secretary, and Harriet Harman is Deputy PM. If one of them wasn't there in that role, the whole thing would have died. I guarantee you that JS and HH have had to work like buggery to get it this far. A lot of proposed legisaltion was dropped recently due to conserving parliamentary time for the economic crisis. These clauses, in my opinion, would have been dropped if it wasn't for JS and HH being there.

I'm sure they mean it. JS and HH are very serious. But outside of those two who is there in the govt backing it? A couple of minor MPs eg. Fiona Mactaggart, Denis MacShane who are both discredited by their refusal to back down on the 25,000 trafficked women figure which even the govt admits has no basis in fact. Vernon Coaker, a home office minister. The PM said he was in favour of doing something about trafficking but hasn't said very much about this proposal itself. I seriously doubt he'll get involved personally in any debate. Outside of those, anyone who has spoken out on it publicly has been against. The Conservatives are going to be officially against it although I have no doubt there will be some in the party who will back it. Same goes for the Lib Dems. I cannot forsee any serious debate on the strict liability aspect going JS's way. It's ludicrous in the extreme, especially when you point out that there's probably no victim. Under the proposal the prostitute could get on the stand and say "I work for an agency earning 200 p/h after agency fees, the client didn't know, I told him that I was independent. I was working voluntarily with no pressure and I approached the agency in the first instance to work for them". The guy is still guilty. He still has no defence. How could ANYONE debate that situation without agreeing it was totally outrageous?

That's been my point. They're serious. They're pig-headed. But it's inconceivable that anyone outside of a select few rad-fems etc. could vote for that clause. Once strict liability is dead, the legislation is unenforceable, by JS and HH's own admission. That will then be the death-knell for those sections.

In September, GB apparently 'signalled new laws could be brought in to outlaw the "morally wrong" sex trade.'

Link: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/09/05/labour-plan-to-outlaw-sex-for-sale-115875-20724367/

With just two days to go, the media silence is deafening, and doesn't bode well, IMHO. The obvious distortion of the facts and numbers should have created more noise by now. Some good articles in the sunday papers is our last chance, but there are more serious issues to keep people occupied these days, so I don't know. The bill is so long, and the hated word 'controlled' is buried deep in it. Will its significance be noticed by enough MPs in time? I'm very worried at the moment...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes they seem serious, but there's only a few of them. The reason it's got this far is that Jacqui Smith is Home secretary, and Harriet Harman is Deputy PM. If one of them wasn't there in that role, the whole thing would have died. I guarantee you that JS and HH have had to work like buggery to get it this far. A lot of proposed legisaltion was dropped recently due to conserving parliamentary time for the economic crisis. These clauses, in my opinion, would have been dropped if it wasn't for JS and HH being there.

I'm sure they mean it. JS and HH are very serious. But outside of those two who is there in the govt backing it? A couple of minor MPs eg. Fiona Mactaggart, Denis MacShane who are both discredited by their refusal to back down on the 25,000 trafficked women figure which even the govt admits has no basis in fact. Vernon Coaker, a home office minister. The PM said he was in favour of doing something about trafficking but hasn't said very much about this proposal itself. I seriously doubt he'll get involved personally in any debate. Outside of those, anyone who has spoken out on it publicly has been against. The Conservatives are going to be officially against it although I have no doubt there will be some in the party who will back it. Same goes for the Lib Dems. I cannot forsee any serious debate on the strict liability aspect going JS's way. It's ludicrous in the extreme, especially when you point out that there's probably no victim. Under the proposal the prostitute could get on the stand and say "I work for an agency earning 200 p/h after agency fees, the client didn't know, I told him that I was independent. I was working voluntarily with no pressure and I approached the agency in the first instance to work for them". The guy is still guilty. He still has no defence. How could ANYONE debate that situation without agreeing it was totally outrageous?

That's been my point. They're serious. They're pig-headed. But it's inconceivable that anyone outside of a select few rad-fems etc. could vote for that clause. Once strict liability is dead, the legislation is unenforceable, by JS and HH's own admission. That will then be the death-knell for those sections.

I do sincerely hope you are right; tomorrow sees the second reading, and the brick bats between the Parliamentary "parasites" will be interesting, there doesn't seem to be much time alotted to this though. The Comittee stage will be the intersting part when the Bill is picked over by the toadies selected to do so, lets hope there are some members with brains. I'm pleased to see Vernon Coaker mentioned in the above text, this man is a "woman" in a mans' body, has the intelligence of a worm, the demeanour of a spive and seethes venom with every word he utters, power in the hands of such an individual is so dangerous, especially being a "minister" in the department of law and order, but then the appointment of this "Himler" type character says it all about this Government. Interesting times are ahead with this Bill, I hope against hope that the outcome will be positive, but I personally have a bad feeling about this, especially as the Governmment are doing a "Weapons Of Mass Destructions" type, misinformation regarding this proposed legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They may just be offered a caution but you can bet your life they will get arrested.

A caution is widely and wrongly portrayed as a just a slap on the wrist.

It is an admission of guilt and will create a criminal record without the need to appear before a court. A case of we will save you any embarrasing publicity if you save use time and effort taking this to court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Appreciate any comments to my thoughts re the proposed legislation.

1. I understand this legislation does not make prostitution illegal but only targets those " controlled for gain".

2. When would this legislation come into force if passed.

3. I presume that a true independent working out of her own premises which she owns or pays the rent for to a bona fide landlord, who takes her own bookings etc would not be affected and consequently the punter using her services would not under this legislation be doing anything illegal.

4. Is it credible that if 2 consenting adults agree to sex together in a cash transaction in the circumstances as in point 3 above, how are the police going to prove that any financial transaction took place. If 2 people meet in a pub, like each other and have a one night stand, are the police going to then prosecute a large percentage of the population, Are the police going to waste valuable police time and money pursuing such cases if both adults have confirmed they have consented.

5. I am sure with the ingenuity of the human mind, people will come up with schemes where they are selling something else ostensibly.

6. I am sure that punting is not confined to the working class. In fact probably the opposite so this will certainly put out of joint many prominent people so is it logical that this legislation will be allowed to go throught in its present form and I am sure pressure will be put on from influential sources to water it down.

7. The media will have a field day trying to root out salacious kiss and tell stories.

8. What about rich foreigners who come to the UK and indulge in such pastimes. Are they going to be arrested and are we going to have diplomatic incidents.

9. With many EU countries having legal prostitution, what is the human rights angle if a UK punter took his case to the EU human rights commission.

10 Surely to combat trafficking, there are already sufficient laws in place to control this.

11. Presumably most of the trafficking occurs in the lowest seedy establishments and surely it is not difficult for anyone to see where this is going on.

12. Maybe this legislation will push punting upmarket with the "legal" market being all independents which can be no bad thing.

All in all, it seems this legislation in its present form has not been carefully thought through and like much of this government's frenetic but empty rhetoric and promises is pure grandstanding for short term media headlines. To paraphrase one media commentator- the action of a few sweaty armpit 1970's feminists.

The problem is, so many girls advertise as independant when they arent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In September, GB apparently 'signalled new laws could be brought in to outlaw the "morally wrong" sex trade.'

Link: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/09/05/labour-plan-to-outlaw-sex-for-sale-115875-20724367/

With just two days to go, the media silence is deafening, and doesn't bode well, IMHO. The obvious distortion of the facts and numbers should have created more noise by now. Some good articles in the sunday papers is our last chance, but there are more serious issues to keep people occupied these days, so I don't know. The bill is so long, and the hated word 'controlled' is buried deep in it. Will its significance be noticed by enough MPs in time? I'm very worried at the moment...

well that's what the debate is for - there are plenty of MPs who will bring it to everyone's attention. The conservatives are aware of it and against it. We'll see what's said tomorrow and go from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and this is the same Daily Mirror who atarted the whole 25000 trafficked women thing. The morally wrong quote is probably something said by HH or JS, and the "sex-trade" phrase is probably to do with trafficking.

Hh and JS have specifically said that the country is not "ready for" a complete ban and that this legislation is backed by the MORI poll. I explained the flaws in that argument above. I don't think there'll be much debate on anything else. Just the prostitution clauses. That's what everyone will be aware of re: this bil.

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