punter992005

worrying news story

44 posts in this topic

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8600118.stm

they've been very quick off the mark, and some poor bugger has accepted a caution. They don't mention what's happened with the other guys, but if they keep this up the law will last two minutes because someone's going to take them on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they get too many people then the number of people on the sex offender's register will probably double within a year. At which point the police will, no doubt, be unofficially told to tread more lightly.

To be honest, I'm surprised that we have not heard about a whole wave of raids today.

Does anyone know how frequent or otherwise raids were before the new law?

Of course, it is also possible that they have mounted other raids today and failed to find 'controlled' girls at those addresses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8600118.stm

they've been very quick off the mark, and some poor bugger has accepted a caution. They don't mention what's happened with the other guys, but if they keep this up the law will last two minutes because someone's going to take them on.

and the woman arrested (maid I guess) was only arrested on suspicion of managing a brothel? so on what basis are they claiming anyone was forced? who was doing the forcing? and 3 punters in the place at the same time? Don't know too many brothels with more than 2 girls working at any one time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

much as expected

shame the papers write it up along the lines that visting a WG is an offence, and dont go overboard in explaining the technicailities

wonder how this sort of 7 day wonder publicity will affect trade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and the woman arrested (maid I guess) was only arrested on suspicion of managing a brothel? so on what basis are they claiming anyone was forced? who was doing the forcing? and 3 punters in the place at the same time? Don't know too many brothels with more than 2 girls working at any one time.

A number of EE group flats have 3-6 ladies working at one time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A number of EE group flats have 3-6 ladies working at one time.

Many parlours employing only British girls also have at least 3 (and sometimes 6) girls working in them at any one time, so the number of punters is nothing exceptional (and indeed, as each girl working could have punters waiting for her them, the numbers could be far higher).

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8600118.stm

they've been very quick off the mark, and some poor bugger has accepted a caution. They don't mention what's happened with the other guys, but if they keep this up the law will last two minutes because someone's going to take them on.

CPS guidelines for Paying for sexual services.

Charging Practice

This offence has been introduced to address the demand for prostitution services and reduce all forms of commercial sexual exploitation. It has been developed, in part, to enable the UK to meet its international legal obligations to discourage the demand for sexual services in support of Conventions to suppress and prevent trafficking for sexual exploitation.

It is anticipated that this offence will be considered most often in relation to off-street prostitution. If the police apprehend someone who has paid for sexual services with a person involved in street prostitution, it is likely that soliciting (section 51(A) Sexual Offences Act 2003 - see kerb crawling) would be a more appropriate offence to pursue as this does not require proof of exploitative conduct.

The offence is most likely to arise in police brothel raids where there is enforcement against suspects controlling or exploiting prostitution for gain and where clients are apprehended in the operation. However, the offence is not limited to particular types of premises. It could therefore apply to premises which may have a legitimate business, for example a nightclub, as well as on-line internet-based services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many parlours employing only British girls also have at least 3 (and sometimes 6) girls working in them at any one time, so the number of punters is nothing exceptional (and indeed, as each girl working could have punters waiting for her them, the numbers could be far higher).

B

Agreed but i havent been to such a parlour but i have punted in a number of EE group flats.

I do however go to Parties that can have around 40-50 people at them, a good easy target for a raid i believe, time will tell.:confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The offence is most likely to arise in police brothel raids where there is enforcement against suspects controlling or exploiting prostitution for gain and where clients are apprehended in the operation. However, the offence is not limited to particular types of premises. It could therefore apply to premises which may have a legitimate business, for example a nightclub, as well as on-line internet-based services.

Interesting (but not unexpected) to note the lack of any reference to coercion or threats in connection with controlling or exploiting prostitution for gain in the above.

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed but i havent been to such a parlour but i have punted in a number of EE group flats.

You don't have to go to one... just take a look at some parlour websites. :confused:

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CPS guidelines for Paying for sexual services.

SaSfan you always seem to be the man in the know so can you clarify this for me please?

It was my understanding that the law as it stands means any person commits the offense of "controlling prostitution for gain" by simply controlling the movements of a prostitute? Although individually open for interpretation in the eyes of the law this does not have to involve coersion or force, anybody who controlls the movements of a prostitute including agencies by simply taking appointments even if the agency can show and is proven to not have coersed or controlled with any type or force or other means.

That being the case the new law that affects clients isnt only liable to the above offense of controlling the movements of prostitutes but that force or coersion has to also be proven? Or is it simply enough that a conviction may be achieved against the potential provider for controlling the movements of a prostitute in order to show the client is guilty of a crime?

I hope that made sense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the guideline is conflating two issues.

It's talking about the circumstance where punters are most likely to be apprehended. This is deemed to be brothel raids. And the purpose of a brothel raid Is for enforcement against 'people controlling prostitutes for gain.'

unfortuntately, your average plod Reading this might assume that he can arrest everyone merely for being in the brothel but the law does not confer such a law so far as I can see. I think they would need 'reasonable suspicion' that the women were forced to make an arrest of a punter. Either pre-raid intelligence or findings after they knock the door down eg battered women would, presumably suffice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SaSfan you always seem to be the man in the know so can you clarify this for me please?

It was my understanding that the law as it stands means any person commits the offense of "controlling prostitution for gain" by simply controlling the movements of a prostitute? Although individually open for interpretation in the eyes of the law this does not have to involve coersion or force, anybody who controlls the movements of a prostitute including agencies by simply taking appointments even if the agency can show and is proven to not have coersed or controlled with any type or force or other means.

That being the case the new law that affects clients isnt only liable to the above offense of controlling the movements of prostitutes but that force or coersion has to also be proven? Or is it simply enough that a conviction may be achieved against the potential provider for controlling the movements of a prostitute in order to show the client is guilty of a crime?

I hope that made sense

Hmmmmmmmmmmm, it is all very confusing (the cynic in me says that it is deliberately being made so) I admit, and some of the confusion is because there is, IMHO, a mixing & matching of several elements, "controlled for gain", "trafficking" and "force, coercion, deceit etc.", a lot of people are reading a lot of different "hobby-horses" into the various pieces of legislation for their own reasons, however let me first say that my first opinion on the CPS guidelines is that they are a very hasty and inaccurate and potentially bad (from the punter's POV) piece of work, now whether or not it is by accident or design I can't really say, but they are only guidelines and while they may be followed by the police it is the legislation that actually matters.

The "controlled for gain" has been given a bit of an airing in the courts and AFAIK it is not really set in stone, the Silk & Lace case, for example, ended up with an "Agency" having no case to answer because in theory work was only passed on and the prostitutes could accept or refuse, so in theory no "control".

The "force, coercion, deceit etc." has yet to be given an airing so I am completely in the dark as to how that will be interpreted.

As for "Trafficking", well that is being bandied about all over the place by those who do not realise the legal complexities involved.

Some of the misunderstanding has been caused by the first draft of Section 53A, "controlled for gain" was in the first draft, but was replaced by "force, coercion, deceit etc.", this little fact has been either missed by a lot of people or conveniently forgotten, and "Trafficking" was never mentioned.

To answer your question, I hope, in order for a punter to be charged and successfully prosecuted "force, coercion, deceit etc." of the prostitute in question has to be proved, not "controlled for gain", ironically there is no offence of "forcing, coercing or deceiving etc." a prostitute, so a person who has "forced, coerced, deceived etc." a prostitute can only be charged with, yes you have got it, "Controlling prostitution for gain".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. Its my understanding that the "Controlling Prostitution for Gain" legislation was changed in 2003 or therabout by MASSA or MAFFY, it sounded something like that to make the crime wider covering?

Where silk and lace had no crime to answer as they were not using force, in light of the subtle changes in legislation they would now face the same crime and potentially be found guilty for exactly what you describe simply passing appointments.

The fact however that there is no seperate crime for force or coersion could potentially still bring an argument that this is in fact what the legislation should be used for?

Sorry slightly skewed own agenda but the whole thing is so mad and everyone seems to have a different opinion. More concerning that a client could be seem to commit an offense if an agency was found guilty of conrtolling prostitution for gain when in fact there was no actual controll or coersion.

Think it should read watch this space.

Also do you know of any cases where a case can be heard other than in the local court? My example is I by rights should be appearing at Guildford crown court if they ever charge me but given the area population its not a good court for cases like this, is there any president or any chance of getting the case moved to London where these things are more widely understood? Sorry again, wholey off topic but an interesting question if I do say so myself :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks. Its my understanding that the "Controlling Prostitution for Gain" legislation was changed in 2003 or therabout by MASSA or MAFFY, it sounded something like that to make the crime wider covering?

Where silk and lace had no crime to answer as they were not using force, in light of the subtle changes in legislation they would now face the same crime and potentially be found guilty for exactly what you describe simply passing appointments.

The fact however that there is no seperate crime for force or coersion could potentially still bring an argument that this is in fact what the legislation should be used for?

Sorry slightly skewed own agenda but the whole thing is so mad and everyone seems to have a different opinion. More concerning that a client could be seem to commit an offense if an agency was found guilty of conrtolling prostitution for gain when in fact there was no actual controll or coersion.

Think it should read watch this space.

Also do you know of any cases where a case can be heard other than in the local court? My example is I by rights should be appearing at Guildford crown court if they ever charge me but given the area population its not a good court for cases like this, is there any president or any chance of getting the case moved to London where these things are more widely understood? Sorry again, wholey off topic but an interesting question if I do say so myself :-)

The Silk & Lace case was in October 2007, I have no knowledge of any changes to Sections 52 or 53 SOA 2003 post 2007, or post 2003 for that matter.

Unfortunately a lot of opinions are based on an individual's agenda, however I do suspect that the mixing of the three elements I mentioned above are more by design than accident, it is what some people want rather than what the current laws are actually capable of, it is my belief that more of this "blurring" will be seen in the very near future.

AFAIK there a very few reasons for getting a trial moved to a different venue, one is that of "Fair trial", if you consider that you would not get a fair trial in the current location then you could try and get it moved on those grounds, however I have to say that the chances of getting it moved are very slim, and that is without knowing the circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A number of EE group flats have 3-6 ladies working at one time.

All the polish flats i visited in london had more than 2 girls working ,plus a polish minder present ,who does the clock watching as well ,to let you know ,that your time is up ,by knocking on the door .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.....

To answer your question, I hope, in order for a punter to be charged and successfully prosecuted "force, coercion, deceit etc." of the prostitute in question has to be proved, not "controlled for gain", ironically there is no offence of "forcing, coercing or deceiving etc." a prostitute, so a person who has "forced, coerced, deceived etc." a prostitute can only be charged with, yes you have got it, "Controlling prostitution for gain".

Not sure I can keep up. It gets harder all the time, but as far as it's possible to form a view, would you agree that in spite of there being no offence of "forcing, coercing or deceiving etc." a prostitute, it would need to be proved to a court that someone had performed this non-offence in order to convict a punter of "paying for the sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure I can keep up. It gets harder all the time, but as far as it's possible to form a view, would you agree that in spite of there being no offence of "forcing, coercing or deceiving etc." a prostitute, it would need to be proved to a court that someone had performed this non-offence in order to convict a punter of "paying for the sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force"?

Sorry Barry, its looks like I have confused things. As it stands there are two main laws that relate to this industry as we know it (im not counting anything to do with actual trafficking or street prostitution which none of us condone) the first being brothel keeping in which it has to be proven more than one woman uses a property for the purpose of offering sexual services in exchange for money. The second is controlling prostitution for gain. The second the grey area one used to (prior 2003) require some kind of force or coersion until the law was widened to include anyone that controlled the movements of prostitutes, this could include booking appointments, this remains a grey area in the eyes of the public but as far as the letter of the law is concerned coersion or force is no longer a requirement.

The new law which makes it illegal to purchase the services of a prostitute who has been controlled does imply that coersion or force is required in order to be found guilty, weather you knew or not.

The debate starts as no examples have yet been set and in the guidelines listed above it simply states controll. My question on clarification was IF an agency was found guilty of controlling prostitution for gain, even if no force or coersion was used would the clients be at risk? The article quoted above relates to arrests where they suspect agencies or brothels to be guilty of controlling prostitution for gain which actually doesnt require force to be guilty of.

The short answer is we HOPE that force has to be proved, however knowing this government and the police as a whole it doesnt actually mean they wont go after clients where they are actually invetigating cases of controll without coersion. We hope this not to happen but it remains to be seen exactly how the new law will pan out.

As a client you would have a case to fight if there was no force, that doesnt mean to say they wont arrest you and drag you through the courts anyway.

In short, you need to be safe in the knowledge that wherever you choose to visit has no coerced girls and secondly is discrete enough to not become a target of an unjust raid to inflate figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure I can keep up. It gets harder all the time, but as far as it's possible to form a view, would you agree that in spite of there being no offence of "forcing, coercing or deceiving etc." a prostitute, it would need to be proved to a court that someone had performed this non-offence in order to convict a punter of "paying for the sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force"?

Yes, that and proof of payment/promise to pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In short, you need to be safe in the knowledge that wherever you choose to visit has no coerced girls

And that is the nub of the matter, you cannot prove a negative, and no disclaimer by the prostitute, or anybody else for that matter, will be of any practical use in this matter, a disclaimer by the prostitute, or anybody else for that matter, will either be factually incorrect (evidence of force etc.) or redundant (no evidence of force etc.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charging Practice

It has been developed, in part, to enable the UK to meet its international legal obligations to discourage the demand for sexual services in support of Conventions to suppress and prevent trafficking for sexual exploitation.

The offence is most likely to arise in police brothel raids where there is enforcement against suspects controlling or exploiting prostitution for gain and where clients are apprehended in the operation. However, the offence is not limited to particular types of premises.

The practical interpretation I would put on the CPS guidance is that the offence will merely be incidental to a raid on premises where the police believe that there is exploitation taking place by the brothel owners. This would be on all fours with the horrendous examples of sex slavery that have appeared recently in the Press, usually involving foreign nationals and usually located in London and the South East.

(I suspect that these will also have been the circumstances in the recent 1 April raid and caution).

There seems no justification for wasting limited police resources on raiding well run parlours where the women are self employed, can leave whenever they want and can decide what, if any, extras they wish to offer. Should they ever undertake such a raid, clearly they could not prove exploitation by the parlour owners.

Most of the working girls I have known have been strong, independent women who "wear the trousers" in their private relationships. However, I accept that there must be a number that are exploited by their partners etc. But if that were to come out during a raid, because of the complex nature of the relationship, would the victim want to take it any further. In particular, would she be willing to appear at Court against a punter who was just a third party i.e. no more than an innocent bystander, to the main issue. Personal relationships are a very, very difficult area for the police to get involved with. In any event, the police's main concern should be the welfare of the woman, and not a minor fine for the incidental punter.

If we stick to reputable, well established parlours, I can see no real problem in the short to medium term. Avoid at all costs non English speaking women having transient occupation in houses/flats, especially in London.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There seems no justification for wasting limited police resources on raiding well run parlours where the women are self employed, can leave whenever they want and can decide what, if any, extras they wish to offer. Should they ever undertake such a raid, clearly they could not prove exploitation by the parlour owners.

Other than MONEY, MONEY and more MONEY! Dont get me wrong, Im not looking to scare monger anyone but if you think police only raid bad places think again. They just want the money and IMO (Im having a very opnionated day today) half this legislation crap is just about more excuses to target places in order to get more money in proceeds of crime.

IMO the government or police couldnt give a hoot about trafficked women, they certainly dont give a monkies about the safey of non trafficked women working in the industry otherwise they would be listening to what they have to say, they simply dont care and would rather pretend the "problem" didnt exist! What they do care about is money and looking good to voters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sasha

My understanding is that your main area of concern is section 53 SOA2003 which states that a person commits an offence if

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sasha

My understanding is that your main area of concern is section 53 SOA2003 which states that a person commits an offence if

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I appreciate exactly what your saying however I sought clarification from this and a few lines in another thread covering the same topic in which an officer implied they would arrest anyone who visited brothels. On that basis prosecution might not be achieved but in the case of the gentleman who accepted a caution coersion or force has yet to be proven, it could simply be controlling prostitution for gain rather than with use of force yet he now has a criminal record for the offense. Regardless of the law or likelihood of prosecution it doesnt seem to affect the police's intention to arrest or not.

On the controlling the movements of, forgive me, I wasnt very articulate, it was simply that several solicitors have explained that the controlling prostitution for gain law can be applied in cases where there is no coersion and in fact it can apply when someone does as little as controll the movements of prostitutes by taking appointments for them on thier behalf.

I wont pretend I understand half of it all, its incredibly complicated and by all accounts regardless of which part of the law you look at everyone seems to have thier own interpretation. The law is the law at the end of the day, how the police interpret that law and enforce it can differ greatly from the fact itself, its really down to thier own understanding of the law as to the arrests they make

So one PC stated some time ago to another poster that it was his policy to arrest anyone who visited brothels. It's not an offence. You've read enough posts on this board to know that in most brothel raids the customers are asked to get dressed and leave quietly. In some cases names and addresses are taken.

I take what the Police say with a pinch of salt anyway. They all have their own agenda. You know all this :).

As regards the guy in Newham who accepted a caution. He was a customer so the offence would have been the new section 53A. Controlling prostitution for gain is irrelevant to him. He couldn't be charged or cautioned for that.

Of course controlling for gain can be applied where there is no element of coercion - see R v Massey.

Have you looked at the CPS guidelines for section 52 and Abuse of Process?

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