MikeThePlayer

Good article in the Times on the day of the 2nd reading

9 posts in this topic

interview with Vernon Coaker in today's guardian:

He (Vernon Coaker) also acknowledged that the bill's most controversial proposal, to criminalise men who pay for sex with exploited women, will prove legally fraught and will require the courts to clarify it.

The main source of contention now is the new power to criminalise men who buy sex from women who have been trafficked or otherwise exploited. The wording of the bill introduces a "strict liability" test, under which a person who pays for the sexual services of a "prostitute controlled for gain by a third person" is liable for prosecution. It says it will be irrelevant where in the world the sexual service is to be provided, or whether the man is aware that the woman is being controlled for gain.

The police have already warned this will be difficult to enforce, but Coaker said yesterday that it would be for the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts to thrash out exactly how the law will work.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/dec/19/lapdancing-clubs-legislation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
interview with Vernon Coaker in today's guardian:

He (Vernon Coaker) also acknowledged that the bill's most controversial proposal, to criminalise men who pay for sex with exploited women, will prove legally fraught and will require the courts to clarify it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/dec/19/lapdancing-clubs-legislation

He started off saying there would be no problem, while I was on holiday on early December, I remember VC saying that the courts would have the thrash out the meaning of controlled. Could I find that reference when I came home. No. Shame because I wanted to add the comment to the ABC arguments that seem to suggest that control was going to be an easy thing to determine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
interview with Vernon Coaker in today's guardian:

He (Vernon Coaker) also acknowledged that the bill's most controversial proposal, to criminalise men who pay for sex with exploited women, will prove legally fraught and will require the courts to clarify it.

The main source of contention now is the new power to criminalise men who buy sex from women who have been trafficked or otherwise exploited. The wording of the bill introduces a "strict liability" test, under which a person who pays for the sexual services of a "prostitute controlled for gain by a third person" is liable for prosecution. It says it will be irrelevant where in the world the sexual service is to be provided, or whether the man is aware that the woman is being controlled for gain.

The police have already warned this will be difficult to enforce, but Coaker said yesterday that it would be for the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts to thrash out exactly how the law will work.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/dec/19/lapdancing-clubs-legislation

The wording of the Bill actually says

'intentionally controlled'

what is un-intentional or accidental control?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He started off saying there would be no problem, while I was on holiday on early December, I remember VC saying that the courts would have the thrash out the meaning of controlled. Could I find that reference when I came home. No. Shame because I wanted to add the comment to the ABC arguments that seem to suggest that control was going to be an easy thing to determine.

Coaker and his mate, bent cop Jim Gamble the gruesome twosome of curtailing sexual freedoms in the 21st century, one making the laws and the other bending those laws to suit. It was Gamble an unelected dictat that was behind the outlawing of 16 and 17 year old girls doing Sun Page 3, and probably had more a just a whisper in pushing for the ban on prostitution. The Agencies that "spy" on us have more clout than we know. We are rapidly moving toward a draconian Society with controls on everything we wish to see and do, and power in the hands of a selected few. What a situation it has come to.....Unbelievable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... the reformed, revolutionary labour party that won the election left with mr blairs exit. With old labour jumping at the sceptre of power to bring us into the nanny state and now inching us towards a socialist state and a nazi stlye of life visible on the horizon.

(remember those who died in WWII, so that we can live in a free society today)

Heaven help us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coaker said yesterday that it would be for the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts to thrash out exactly how the law will work.

Translation: We can't be bothered to do the job we're paid to do. We'll just do something half arsed and leave it to the courts to try & figure out what we meant to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are rapidly moving toward a draconian Society with controls on everything we wish to see and do, and power in the hands of a selected few.

May I draw the attention of my honourable friend to the quotation below...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Translation: We can't be bothered to do the job we're paid to do. We'll just do something half arsed and leave it to the courts to try & figure out what we meant to say.

It's a pretty unfortunate quote from VC. It's a strict liability offence and he's admitting that, as well as men already being unable to tell a girl's circumstances, they also won't know which of the possible circumstances will land them in trouble with the police. Shambolic is the word.

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