SaSfan

Disclaimers

24 posts in this topic

With the advent of the new legislation (Section 53A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) I have no doubt that over the next few weeks and months there will be quite a crop of "disclaimers" springing up all over the place, these will take many forms but the core message will be roughly the same, "I/they/we are not forced, coerced, deceived etc.", the content and objective of such a disclaimer is entirely a matter for the publisher and is none of my business, however what is my business is to draw a few relevant points to the attention of members of this board.

1. As we post the new legislation has yet to be given an outing in court, so whilst the publisher of such a disclaimer can take some reasonable guesses as to how words like "forced, coerced, deceived etc." will be interpreted by Magistrates, unless and until the new legislation is given an outing in court, reasonable guesses is all they will be, so my first point is that as we post such a disclaimer is not wholly based on knowledge.

2. As it is not possible to prove a negative and bearing in mind point No 1 above, what the disclaimer is actually saying is "To the best of my/their/our belief, I/they/we are not forced, coerced, deceived etc.", that is not proof of anything, that is just saying that I/we/they have not found evidence of "force, coercion, deceit etc.", that does not prove that "force, coercion, deceit etc." does not exist, just that it has not been found.

3. A disclaimer is not going to deter the police from investigating possible "force, coercion, deceit etc." if they feel that have good cause to do so.

4. A disclaimer does not confer immunity from prosecution.

5. As the new legislation is "strict liability" any disclaimer is going to be disregarded by the court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5. As the new legislation is “strict liability” any disclaimer is going to be disregarded by the court.

If my friend could just hang on a mo' ?

The s53A offence is only "strict liability" as to the prosecution not having to prove any mens rea as to the punter's knowlege or recklessness as to her being coerced, etc., - they still, surely, have to prove the actus which is

(a) A makes or promises payment for the sexual services of a

prostitute (:D,

(:) a third person © has engaged in exploitative conduct of a kind

likely to induce or encourage B to provide the sexual services

for which A has made or promised payment, and

© C engaged in that conduct for or in the expectation of gain for C

or another person (apart from A or :).

How easy is it going to be to prove both C's exploitative conduct and his "expectation"?

Massey's "partner" was known only as "Diane", but she was in Court to give evidence. I think that there may be difficulty in showing that "Juicy Lucy" with whom the punter punted, and Olga Tumbelovna who probably will be an unenthusiastic witness, are the same person.

In reality I fear that none of us (save our somewhat alarmed Soho frequenting new member?) is going to be given the opportunity to put this provision to the test, simply because we don't frequent "that sort of place & girl". Those who do have their collars felt will probably take their caution swiftly, and run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How easy is it going to be to prove both C's exploitative conduct and his "expectation"?

I have no idea, that is a problem for the prosecution and not for me, however I can see no way that a disclaimer is going to assist or otherwise the prosecution in that endeavour, irrespective of evidence of "force, coercion, deceit etc." the disclaimer will be disregarded, if evidence of "force, coercion, deceit etc." can be proved then the disclaimer will be factually incorrect, if evidence of "force, coercion, deceit etc." cannot be found then there would be no case to answer, thus the disclaimer would be redundant. But more to the point, and for the reasons given above and the "strict liability" nature of the offence, the disclaimer will be of no practical use to the accused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With the advent of the new legislation (Section 53A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) I have no doubt that over the next few weeks and months there will be quite a crop of "disclaimers" springing up all over the place, these will take many forms but the core message will be roughly the same, "I/they/we are not forced, coerced, deceived etc.", the content and objective of such a disclaimer is entirely a matter for the publisher and is none of my business, however what is my business is to draw a few relevant points to the attention of members of this board.

1. As we post the new legislation has yet to be given an outing in court, so whilst the publisher of such a disclaimer can take some reasonable guesses as to how words like "forced, coerced, deceived etc." will be interpreted by Magistrates, unless and until the new legislation is given an outing in court, reasonable guesses is all they will be, so my first point is that as we post such a disclaimer is not wholly based on knowledge.

2. As it is not possible to prove a negative and bearing in mind point No 1 above, what the disclaimer is actually saying is "To the best of my/their/our belief, I/they/we are not forced, coerced, deceived etc.", that is not proof of anything, that is just saying that I/we/they have not found evidence of "force, coercion, deceit etc.", that does not prove that "force, coercion, deceit etc." does not exist, just that it has not been found.

3. A disclaimer is not going to deter the police from investigating possible "force, coercion, deceit etc." if they feel that have good cause to do so.

4. A disclaimer does not confer immunity from prosecution.

5. As the new legislation is "strict liability" any disclaimer is going to be disregarded by the court.

I can see where you are coming from here, a disclaimer would not be of much use in a criminal case but do you think it would be any use in a civil case against the police for unlawful arrest?

At the moment the CPS guidelines seem to suggest that the police can arrest and charge anyone they catch in a brothel raid, regardless of whether they have any suspicion that the WGs are forced/coerced/deceived. Surely that isn't correct and you would have cause for complaint if they did arrest/charge you without good reason?

I would have thought that, if you then do start a civil case against the police, you could use the disclaimer as supporting evidence that the police should have had no reason to suspect the WG was forced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can see where you are coming from here, a disclaimer would not be of much use in a criminal case but do you think it would be any use in a civil case against the police for unlawful arrest?

Not so much in a criminal case where it might be of some use in claiming mitigating circumstances or "to the best of your belief" etc., but in a "strict liability" case it will be of no use whatsoever. As to a civil case against the police for unlawful arrest, then I have no idea.

At the moment the CPS guidelines seem to suggest that the police can arrest and charge anyone they catch in a brothel raid, regardless of whether they have any suspicion that the WGs are forced/coerced/deceived. Surely that isn't correct and you would have cause for complaint if they did arrest/charge you without good reason?

Quite possibly, it would be an intereesting case to say the least.

I would have thought that, if you then do start a civil case against the police, you could use the disclaimer as supporting evidence that the police should have had no reason to suspect the WG was forced.

Why would the police believe a disclaimer? It is their job to look for evidence and proof of "force etc.", what possible reason would they have for taking any notice of a disclaimer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would have thought that, if you then do start a civil case against the police, you could use the disclaimer as supporting evidence that the police should have had no reason to suspect the WG was forced.

Just to expand a little on my previous answer, let us take a look at a hypothetical scenario, the police receive information (how or what that information is, is of no real interest) that prostitute(s) in Bloggo Brothel are "forced etc.", before they investigate this claim they take a look at the Bloggo Brothel website, they see a disclaimer that states, among other things, that the prostitutes working there are not subject to "force etc.", do you really think that the police are going to say "Well that's alright then, no need to investigate"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of these so-called disclaimers will be worth the paper they are written on.

1. Lots of forced girls will, no doubt, be forced to sign such disclaimers by their pimps/drug dealers etc.

2. It's a strict liability offence so you can't defend yourself by saying 'they told me they were not forced.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and for the reasons given above and the "strict liability" nature of the offence, the disclaimer will be of no practical use to the accused.

(turning away) There, M'Lud, I am in complete agreement with my friend! While the only effect of the disclaimer, which is on the mind of the accused, is to be disregarded, in consequence of s.53A(2), I would submit that that hardly helps him, because he has completely failed to show that .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to expand a little on my previous answer, let us take a look at a hypothetical scenario, the police receive information (how or what that information is, is of no real interest) that prostitute(s) in Bloggo Brothel are "forced etc.", before they investigate this claim they take a look at the Bloggo Brothel website, they see a disclaimer that states, among other things, that the prostitutes working there are not subject to "force etc.", do you really think that the police are going to say "Well that's alright then, no need to investigate"?

You are right again but I was thinking of a slightly different hypothetical situation...

Lets say the police have no prior information on whether there are "forced etc" girls at Bloggo Brothel but they decide (for whatever other reason) to conduct a raid and arrest any punters they find, even though they find no evidence of "forced etc" girls at the premises.

I was thinking that in this case the punters would have a case for unlawful arrest and that they could use any disclaimer as supporting evidence in a civil case.

The more I think about it though, I presume it would be on record that the police raided the place for a different reason and found no other evidence of "force etc", so this would be enough for an unlawful arrest case if this hypothetical situation does indeed count as unlawful arrest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are right again but I was thinking of a slightly different hypothetical situation...

Lets say the police have no prior information on whether there are "forced etc" girls at Bloggo Brothel but they decide (for whatever other reason) to conduct a raid and arrest any punters they find, even though they find no evidence of "forced etc" girls at the premises.

I was thinking that in this case the punters would have a case for unlawful arrest and that they could use any disclaimer as supporting evidence in a civil case.

The more I think about it though, I presume it would be on record that the police raided the place for a different reason and found no other evidence of "force etc", so this would be enough for an unlawful arrest case if this hypothetical situation does indeed count as unlawful arrest.

Well that is slightly different I agree, however there is no need for the police to be acting on any information received because if they believe, for whatever reason, that 21 Acacia Avenue is a brothel then that is all that is required in order to raid it because running a brothel is illegal, any additional "collars" will be accepted with thanks I have no doubt.

I really have no idea what use a disclaimer would be in a civil case for unlawful arrest. My gut feeling is that it would hardly be needed if it can be proved that the offence for which the punter was arrested was not in fact committed by the punter, but that is pure guesswork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
None of these so-called disclaimers will be worth the paper they are written on.

1. Lots of forced girls will, no doubt, be forced to sign such disclaimers by their pimps/drug dealers etc.

2. It's a strict liability offence so you can't defend yourself by saying 'they told me they were not forced.'

So the only disclaimer the court will ever accept ,is for the WG in person ,with her own words in an open court ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a little disclaimer on our website for months, wether its any use or not is another matter. I have been in the business for many years and know only too well the police will do what they want, when they want, how they want, and to who they want. I know my rights but I also know when I'm in the wrong and I know one thing is for sure never rub the police up the wrong way in this business, take the piss and your done for...As for punters, like i've said before, punt carefully, stay away from EE girls, badly run places, high profile places (I really think some of these places will get a pull.!!) Like venues with lots of ladies on offer...think about it, more girls more cash floating around, more cash in the back pocket, more proceeds of crime and lets face it a lot of raids with be in this bracket. The police like to get a result and whats more of a result than 25% of any proceeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With the advent of the new legislation (Section 53A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) I have no doubt that over the next few weeks and months there will be quite a crop of "disclaimers" springing up all over the place, these will take many forms but the core message will be roughly the same, "I/they/we are not forced, coerced, deceived etc.", the content and objective of such a disclaimer is entirely a matter for the publisher and is none of my business, however what is my business is to draw a few relevant points to the attention of members of this board.

1. As we post the new legislation has yet to be given an outing in court, so whilst the publisher of such a disclaimer can take some reasonable guesses as to how words like "forced, coerced, deceived etc." will be interpreted by Magistrates, unless and until the new legislation is given an outing in court, reasonable guesses is all they will be, so my first point is that as we post such a disclaimer is not wholly based on knowledge.

2. As it is not possible to prove a negative and bearing in mind point No 1 above, what the disclaimer is actually saying is "To the best of my/their/our belief, I/they/we are not forced, coerced, deceived etc.", that is not proof of anything, that is just saying that I/we/they have not found evidence of "force, coercion, deceit etc.", that does not prove that "force, coercion, deceit etc." does not exist, just that it has not been found.

3. A disclaimer is not going to deter the police from investigating possible "force, coercion, deceit etc." if they feel that have good cause to do so.

4. A disclaimer does not confer immunity from prosecution.

5. As the new legislation is "strict liability" any disclaimer is going to be disregarded by the court.

You are correct but some providers will have a disclaimer in an attempt to either reassure punters, or to attract punters who see their disclaimer but dont see one on the site of a rival provider, and some would have one for both reasons in my view. As long as they are aware it wont help them in court no problem, but if plod establish the lady was coerced it would possibly look worse that they had cynically put a disclaimer up, as it may be viewed by plod.

The thing is even the provider cant know for sure even though they may be convinced, that a lady they offer work to isnt coerced. The provider could be in for a nasty shock along with the punter if the lady tells plod she is being coerced by her partner for example.

Personally i would now only be completely happy punting with ladies who post on here and have been doing so for a long while, or who i know from punting with them before. Even in this scenario i could be wrong, who knows. I will however continue as before and hope i am not around when plod come a calling.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Had a little disclaimer on our website for months, wether its any use or not is another matter. I have been in the business for many years and know only too well the police will do what they want, when they want, how they want, and to who they want. I know my rights but I also know when I'm in the wrong and I know one thing is for sure never rub the police up the wrong way in this business, take the piss and your done for...As for punters, like i've said before, punt carefully, stay away from EE girls, badly run places, high profile places (I really think some of these places will get a pull.!!) Like venues with lots of ladies on offer...think about it, more girls more cash floating around, more cash in the back pocket, more proceeds of crime and lets face it a lot of raids with be in this bracket. The police like to get a result and whats more of a result than 25% of any proceeds.

Informative post but why have you singled out EE ladies rather than Orientals for example. I am not having a go, but any insight into who to avoid is very welcome, but i like to know for what specific reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With the advent of the new legislation (Section 53A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) I have no doubt that over the next few weeks and months there will be quite a crop of "disclaimers" springing up all over the place, these will take many forms but the core message will be roughly the same, "I/they/we are not forced, coerced, deceived etc.", the content and objective of such a disclaimer is entirely a matter for the publisher and is none of my business, however what is my business is to draw a few relevant points to the attention of members of this board.

1. As we post the new legislation has yet to be given an outing in court, so whilst the publisher of such a disclaimer can take some reasonable guesses as to how words like "forced, coerced, deceived etc." will be interpreted by Magistrates, unless and until the new legislation is given an outing in court, reasonable guesses is all they will be, so my first point is that as we post such a disclaimer is not wholly based on knowledge.

2. As it is not possible to prove a negative and bearing in mind point No 1 above, what the disclaimer is actually saying is "To the best of my/their/our belief, I/they/we are not forced, coerced, deceived etc.", that is not proof of anything, that is just saying that I/we/they have not found evidence of "force, coercion, deceit etc.", that does not prove that "force, coercion, deceit etc." does not exist, just that it has not been found.

3. A disclaimer is not going to deter the police from investigating possible "force, coercion, deceit etc." if they feel that have good cause to do so.

4. A disclaimer does not confer immunity from prosecution.

5. As the new legislation is "strict liability" any disclaimer is going to be disregarded by the court.

Would a disclaimer be counter productive. As a client of a brothel which has a discalimer, and I am prosecuted. Would I be able to sue the brothel owner for misrepresentation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are correct but some providers will have a disclaimer in an attempt to either reassure punters, or to attract punters who see their disclaimer but dont see one on the site of a rival provider, and some would have one for both reasons in my view.

That is why I put "the content and objective of such a disclaimer is entirely a matter for the publisher and is none of my business" in my post, you and others may make of it what you will, my only concern is to make what I hope are salient points concerning the core message contained within such a disclaimer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would a disclaimer be counter productive. As a client of a brothel which has a discalimer, and I am prosecuted. Would I be able to sue the brothel owner for misrepresentation.

Whether or not a disclaimer is perceived to be counter-productive is a matter for the publisher, suing the brothel owner for misrepresentation based on a disclaimer might make an interesting case, should it ever come to court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whether or not a disclaimer is perceived to be counter-productive is a matter for the publisher, suing the brothel owner for misrepresentation based on a disclaimer might make an interesting case, should it ever come to court.

i wonder if a punter convicted of sex with a trafficked person could sue the immigration & borders authority for not preventing the trafficked person arriving in the uk in the first place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i wonder if a punter convicted of sex with a trafficked person could sue the immigration & borders authority for not preventing the trafficked person arriving in the uk in the first place

Another interesting case, should it ever come to court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If my friend could just hang on a mo' ?

The s53A offence is only "strict liability" as to the prosecution not having to prove any mens rea as to the punter's knowlege or recklessness as to her being coerced, etc., - they still, surely, have to prove the actus which is

(a) A makes or promises payment for the sexual services of a

prostitute (:mad:,

(:P a third person © has engaged in exploitative conduct of a kind

likely to induce or encourage B to provide the sexual services

for which A has made or promised payment, and

© C engaged in that conduct for or in the expectation of gain for C

or another person (apart from A or :D.

How easy is it going to be to prove both C's exploitative conduct and his "expectation"?

What does (:D mean, specifically?

If a a woman owes me money, and I say, "hey, I want that back now", (or if i'm the landloard and say "ahem, rent is due") and her solution to the dilemma is to sell some sex... am I that person C? or do I have to actively coach how she solves her money probem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What does (:mad: mean, specifically?

If a a woman owes me money, and I say, "hey, I want that back now", (or if i'm the landloard and say "ahem, rent is due") and her solution to the dilemma is to sell some sex... am I that person C? or do I have to actively coach how she solves her money probem?

Of course not.

There was a thread about this a month ago.

The example used there was HMRC chasing for unpaid tax.

A similar example would be a streetgirl owing fines to HM Courts Service in respect of soliciting offences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What does (:mad: mean, specifically?

If a a woman owes me money, and I say, "hey, I want that back now", (or if i'm the landloard and say "ahem, rent is due") and her solution to the dilemma is to sell some sex... am I that person C? or do I have to actively coach how she solves her money probem?

(:P and © go together!

If you, the greedy landlord say "Hey, Hattie, two months rent is over due - unless you pay me, I'll throw you and all your kit out onto the road! (cracks knuckles significantly) then add, "You are quite good looking - I'm sure you could earn enough on your back if you gave a little thought to it. Have you ever looked at another well known web site?", I think you probably qualify! The fact that you are legally entitled to your rent, is, I think, irrelevant! Getting what you might not have got, or not losing what you might have lost, are both going to be regarded as "gain" in court, I think. (I'm remembering the definitions in "getting a pecuniary advantage by deception" here.)

Personally, as a prosecutor (retired) I'd prefer to go for harassing a tenant, but, today, CPS probably are expected to score points by using HH's new garbage.

Anyway, I wish everybody, even Hattie & CPS, a very happy Easter!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Informative post but why have you singled out EE ladies rather than Orientals for example. I am not having a go, but any insight into who to avoid is very welcome, but i like to know for what specific reason.

Oversight, sorry. At the forefront of my mind at the time was EE ladies. Lady K's of Abbey Street leicester was raided mid March of this year and now closed. The police found one EE girl there who although not trafficked was certainly here illigally. We have had an influx of oriental places open in the past year or so and Leicester police have been very active around them. I know of one place where when the police paid them a visit the copper showed one of the girls his Id card, she ushered him into a room then proceeded to ask him for 60 pounds over and over again...:mad: The oriental venues are a closed shop and we dont get to hear too much about them, thus probably why some of them could be on the watch list. As been said in an earlier thread, here the 3 tier system has been adopted, those venues that more than likely will be closed, those that will be watched and those that will be left until such time they overstep the mark. I have got no idea whose at the top and who's at the bottom of the list I'm afraid...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oversight, sorry. At the forefront of my mind at the time was EE ladies. Lady K's of Abbey Street leicester was raided mid March of this year and now closed. The police found one EE girl there who although not trafficked was certainly here illigally. We have had an influx of oriental places open in the past year or so and Leicester police have been very active around them. I know of one place where when the police paid them a visit the copper showed one of the girls his Id card, she ushered him into a room then proceeded to ask him for 60 pounds over and over again...:mad: The oriental venues are a closed shop and we dont get to hear too much about them, thus probably why some of them could be on the watch list. As been said in an earlier thread, here the 3 tier system has been adopted, those venues that more than likely will be closed, those that will be watched and those that will be left until such time they overstep the mark. I have got no idea whose at the top and who's at the bottom of the list I'm afraid...

Thanks for that clarification.:P

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