SashaB

Has It Actually Made A Difference?

35 posts in this topic

There are now many threads on the recent law changes, more speculation about what may or may not happen and plenty about how to protect yourself and try to stay on the right side of the law.

It interests me, has the new law actually made a difference to any of the agencies, independents or parlours on here?

I can imagine many of these oriental or all european massage parlours might be suffering, the sort with no website and just the add in the back advertising new girls every day :o but I would have thought it would actually be a good thing for the likes of HOD etc. HOD has a proud reputation and that speaks volumes.

IMO its pretty obvious to anyone those girls are there of thier own free will and as such I would assume business would improve rather than diminish as its about as sure as you can be that a girl is not being forced (of course we have already agreed you can never be 100% sure).

Have independents of a foreign nationality seen work decrease as a result? Again I would imagine "That" sight might be taking a few less bookings for thier more dubious profiles but is it actually making a difference to the places we know and love? Are agencies doing better than independents now as clients feel they have at least have a third party to do the checking for them (assuming an agency has a good rep), as I would have thought you would be safer there than with an independent that might actually have a pimp behind the scenes? or are the English independents raking it in in the bloom of no internation independents and no agencies or parlours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HOD has a proud reputation and that speaks volumes.

With a reputation also comes the fact that the organisation is more likely to attract the attention of the authorities, and as such a "feather in the cap" of the MP or Chief Constable who closes it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With a reputation also comes the fact that the organisation is more likely to attract the attention of the authorities, and as such a "feather in the cap" of the MP or Chief Constable who closes it.

Maybe, but theres not much going for MK except Hod.. Anybody on here fancy visiting MK and spending money by NOT going to divine? Hmm thought not

Oh come on... we have, errr, concrete cows..... A large pointy cinema.... oh crap....well thats it.....

I belive the poilice are well aware of Divine and MK Angels and Madame Beckies and Ego and Shadows.

In fact I dont think theres any difference between here in Mk and Nottingham, northampton, portsmouth, blah blah blah.. until a crime is commited the poilice should look for crimes. So far none been done. I wonder why? Becuase no crime has been commited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not argue with any of the points you make, my point is that its more about a Career boost for the official as opposed to actually seeking to improve society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With a reputation also comes the fact that the organisation is more likely to attract the attention of the authorities, and as such a "feather in the cap" of the MP or Chief Constable who closes it.

But by closing such establishments, the authorities would not make up to 10 million men choose to be celibate because they can no longer visit them. Instead, many of these men would unfortunately be forced to go underground where there would be significant risks of criminality, violence, exploitation and trafficking. i.e. the authorities would be diverting demand from the safest environments for all concerned where they can monitor activities easily and cheaply. Instead, they would create massive demand for the very places they claim that they wish to eliminate (by reducing demand). It just would not make any sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are agencies doing better than independents now as clients feel they have at least have a third party to do the checking for them (assuming an agency has a good rep), as I would have thought you would be safer there than with an independent that might actually have a pimp behind the scenes? or are the English independents raking it in in the bloom of no internation independents and no agencies or parlours?

Considering agencies are technically 'pimps', I can't see how independents have more chance of having a pimp behind them ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe, but theres not much going for MK except Hod.. Anybody on here fancy visiting MK and spending money by NOT going to divine? Hmm thought not

Oh come on... we have, errr, concrete cows..... A large pointy cinema.... oh crap....well thats it.....

I belive the poilice are well aware of Divine and MK Angels and Madame Beckies and Ego and Shadows.

In fact I dont think theres any difference between here in Mk and Nottingham, northampton, portsmouth, blah blah blah.. until a crime is commited the poilice should look for crimes. So far none been done. I wonder why? Becuase no crime has been commited.

Well thank you Sasha and Overworked for stating the obvious. Our agency offers the same as any agency with a website and a number of girls working. I have lost count of the times HOD has been singled out in these endless discussions for a definate raid. There are by all accounts a few more high profile agencies then us.

Keep your fingers crossed though you never know you might get your wish;)

Perhaps the police don't know we are there. I should imagine though now they have this brand spanking law that they never had before that suddenly makes brothels illegal that never again will a man enter a brothel and that the whole of MK station will have the street light bulbs changed to red and all the girls will be on the beat by the end of the week. Because you know what prior to this law it was totally legal to run a brothel and the police never closed anyone down or arrested anyone as they didn't know they could.

Sasha did you know that before April 1st is was legal to run a Brothel I reckon you should tell someone about that:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It just would not make any sense.

I think it would make sense, and I say that because I believe that HH et al have not got the cojones to ban prostitution, which is what they really want, so they are going for the next best thing which is to remove it from their sight so that they can pretend that is isn't really happening, IMHO they showed their true colours with their approach to newspaper advertisements.

If a large proportion of newspaper advertisements offering sexual services are related to trafficking then this is good news because the adverts will contain contact information that can be used to investigate the advertiser and thus make some inroads in the area of trafficking, however that particular avenue of investigation will not be possible if adverts are discouraged, therefore they have no reason to discourage them, in fact they have a very good reason to encourage them, make them free, even pay the advertiser considerable amounts of money for providing the authorities with information; if on the other hand a large proportion of newspaper advertisements offering sexual services are not related to trafficking then there is no reason to discourage them. Either way the decision to discourage newspaper advertisements offering sexual services is illogical, and is, to use a colloquial phrase, shit for brains.

That sort of thing makes me proud to wear a dirty Mac around my shoulders, rather than a plastic Mac around my brain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did you know that before April 1st is was legal to run a Brothel (

The Basics - from May 2004

'Pimping', running an agency or brothel

All remain illegal.

But controlling another adult's prostitution is now only illegal if you gain from it (or know that someone else does). Looked at another way, gaining from someone else's prostitution is now legal: it's the control for gain that's illegal.

So sex workers' families should now be free of the risk of being charged with "living on the earnings of prostitution", however owners of escort agencies and brothels as well as 'pimps' will still be at risk.

In addition, it is specifically illegal to own or run a 'disorderly house' or brothel - anywhere more than one woman or man resorts to for non-marital sex. As this doesn't necessarily have to be at the same time, or involve sexual intercouse or, indeed, any payment, a very wide range of places are therefore 'brothels', including many hotels. (Remember that it's legal to be a sex worker at a brothel provided you don't assist in its management.)

http://www.iusw.org/node/38

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With a reputation also comes the fact that the organisation is more likely to attract the attention of the authorities, and as such a "feather in the cap" of the MP or Chief Constable who closes it.

No one said no agencies or parlours would ever get closed down, sadly it happens and is part of the industry. Your implying as are many others they will be closed as a result of this new law and that clients will as a result get caught in the cross fire and that simply isnt true.

I appreciate fear breeds irrational thought but just try for a minute to calm down and think rationaly and logically. To prosecute a client they need evidence of force in order to obtain a conviction. That takes a lot of hard police work and wont magic into thier lap before or after a raid if there was none, they cant just make it up, they need evidence.

God forbid HOD was ever to be raided, the one thing we can all be sure of is that it WONT be off the back of this new law. All the police would gain by raiding on that basis would be god only knows how many wrongfull arrest law suits.

If a girl appears happy and willing i really cant imagine she is going to come out as a closest forced victim following a raid. In order to obtain a conviction police need the girls testimony that she was forced, i.e. a girl has to stand up in court and not only admit to being a prostitute but also that she was forced by another party. That case must be complete and those responsible for said force found guilty in order for the law to even apply against a client.

As I have stated in another thread court cases cost money. Be it in magistates court or crown court these things cost cold hard cash. As do police investigations. Proceeds of crime doesnt apply against clients in this new law so how exactly is it you propose our already bankrupt government are going to afford these many thousand court cases against clients who have done thier research and have stuck to well known, well trusted establishments because they have done everything in there power to ensure a girl is not forced? It just doesnt make sense.

There is absolutely no evidence of this sort of police behavior and lets be realistic, if the government wanted to make a big impact we would have seen hundreds of places raided and shut down within minutes of the new law coming into force. That simply didnt happen.

There to the best of my knowledge has been one raid, no doubt engineered to create headlines and a handfull of arrests one of which one client accepted a caution. No force has been proven, yet if it is we should all be thankfull that one of these horendous places has been shut down. I note that none of us happen to know anything about this place, what it was called or even have noticed it is missing, so what an almighty upstanding reputation it must have had. In other words its probably just one of these many all oriental/european massage parlours were girls are so obviously trafficked we all had the good sense to stay well away from anyway.

The fact that no one on here seems to know anything about the place I think stands as pretty good testimony that if nothing else our forced girl radars are obviously working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing and forgive me Im thinking out load.

If the police were to raid a place, surely it would be on the basis that they believed the agency owners were the ones using said force and subsequently the guilty party? Otherwise why would they raid as surely if the agency owners were not responsible for the application of force they would be raiding the wrong place and arresting the wrong people?

To raid using the new law they need a reasonable suspicion of force and are we really to believe not just one but many apparently happy and willing individuals are all just pretending?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the police were to raid a place, surely it would be on the basis that they believed the agency owners were the ones using said force and subsequently the guilty party? Otherwise why would they raid as surely if the agency owners were not responsible for the application of force they would be raiding the wrong place and arresting the wrong people?

They would raid the brothel because that is where they would be more likely to find punters to arrest under the new legislation, rather than, for example, in the prostitute's house.

The police would not charge the brothel owner under the new legislation as it does not apply to them, also there is no legislation specifically making "forcing etc." a prostitute illegal (other than Sections 52 & 53 of the SOA 2003 which are about Causing or inciting, and Controlling, respectively), plus it is not illegal to be a "forced etc." prostitute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Basics - from May 2004

'Pimping', running an agency or brothel

All remain illegal.

But controlling another adult's prostitution is now only illegal if you gain from it (or know that someone else does). Looked at another way, gaining from someone else's prostitution is now legal: it's the control for gain that's illegal.

So sex workers' families should now be free of the risk of being charged with "living on the earnings of prostitution", however owners of escort agencies and brothels as well as 'pimps' will still be at risk.

In addition, it is specifically illegal to own or run a 'disorderly house' or brothel - anywhere more than one woman or man resorts to for non-marital sex. As this doesn't necessarily have to be at the same time, or involve sexual intercouse or, indeed, any payment, a very wide range of places are therefore 'brothels', including many hotels. (Remember that it's legal to be a sex worker at a brothel provided you don't assist in its management.)

http://www.iusw.org/node/38

Yes like I said. No different than prior to 1st April. There is nothing really any different in the new law for Brothel owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They would raid the brothel because that is where they would be more likely to find punters to arrest under the new legislation, rather than, for example, in the prostitute's house.

The police would not charge the brothel owner under the new legislation as it does not apply to them, also there is no legislation specifically making "forcing etc." a prostitute illegal (other than Sections 52 & 53 of the SOA 2003 which are about Causing or inciting, and Controlling, respectively), plus it is not illegal to be a "forced etc." prostitute.

Do you actually think they would go to that kind f trouble though? If it was not the brothel owners that are using force in respect of the new law it seems a vast use of police resources to raid a place just in order to get a few clients when as said before they wont gain from it through proceeds of crime as that isnt applicable to clients, more likely they will just use the powers they already had and go after those responsible for said force or whatever you want to call it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you actually think they would go to that kind f trouble though?

Well depending on the amount of political pressure applied and/or policing policy, I can't see any reason why not. Why not raid a brothel, pretty much guaranteed result, and pick up a few punters as a bonus? Where polictical pressure is concerned money is no object, and it isn't as though it is going to cost any extra money, just a diversion of human resources that are being paid no matter what they are doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well depending on the amount of political pressure applied and/or policing policy, I can't see any reason why not. Why not raid a brothel, pretty much guaranteed result, and pick up a few punters as a bonus? Where polictical pressure is concerned money is no object, and it isn't as though it is going to cost any extra money, just a diversion of human resources that are being paid no matter what they are doing.

The CPS guidance states :

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.

In all reputable parlours, women are free to come and go and are not exploited by the parlour owners. This is in marked contrast to the sex slavery undertaken by criminals in trafficking dens. The latter have been the subject of police raids which have had considerable publicity recently but they do not represent the vast majority of premises in the UK. If the police were to drive all prostitution underground (or out of sight), it would make the job of rescuing trafficked and exploited victims much more difficult and costly. It would be counter productive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The CPS guidance states :

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.

In all reputable parlours, women are free to come and go and are not exploited by the parlour owners. This is in marked contrast to the sex slavery undertaken by criminals in trafficking dens. The latter have been the subject of police raids which have had considerable publicity recently but they do not represent the vast majority of premises in the UK. If the police were to drive all prostitution underground (or out of sight), it would make the job of rescuing trafficked and exploited victims much more difficult and costly. It would be counter productive.

Is this guidance new - as in post 1/4 ? If it is it seems like a sensible approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would appear not.

There are as many FR's as ever.

And according to the ladies themselves busines is booming.

Isn't it always? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. It came into effect 1/4/2010. Originally Posted by SaSfan

CPS guidelines for Paying for sexual services

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this guidance new - as in post 1/4 ? If it is it seems like a sensible approach.

Bert, some of the post is personal opinion of the poster and not part of the Guidance. Perhaps that's why you thought that it was sensible.

Scroll down this link to see the guidance:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/prostitution_and_exploitation_of_prostitution/#aa01

"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

Thank you Silverado, I mistook personal opinion as being a quote from the CPS

Edited by Bert
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think it would be difficult to tell if its made a difference,

as this recession has made things quiet in any case,

time will tell i suppose:confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In all reputable parlours, women are free to come and go and are not exploited by the parlour owners.

As I read the new legislation one does not have to be a parlour (respectable or otherwise) owner in order to qualify as a forcer, coercer, deceiver etc. one just needs to be a person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I read the new legislation one does not have to be a parlour (respectable or otherwise) owner in order to qualify as a forcer, coercer, deceiver etc. one just needs to be a person.

True.

However, where a woman is self employed and works in a reputable parlour where the owners do not exploit and she can freely come and go, the question must be why did she not mention any exploitation by a third party either to any of her colleagues, the owners, any clients, social work visitors or to the police during routine visits. Also, she could ring the police or go to the police station at any time. Surely, any pimp would not wish to take this risk by placing any woman in any reputable parlour. Surely, he would choose to go underground instead.

Also, the offence is most likely to arise in police brothel raids against suspects controlling or exploiting prostitution. To me, this suggests raids targeting brothel owners rather than pimps. However, I confess that I have no real world knowledge of police practices in relation to action against suspected pimps, but I would have thought it more likely that they would wish to interview the suspected victim in a sympathetic environment rather than to instigate a brothel raid. The purpose of the brothel raid should be to bring to justice suspects who control or exploit prostitution, and not some random exercise undertaken in the hope of finding an exploited woman who may, or may not, then lead them to a suspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, where a woman is self employed and works in a reputable parlour where the owners do not exploit and she can freely come and go, the question must be why did she not mention any exploitation by a third party either to any of her colleagues, the owners, any clients, social work visitors or to the police during routine visits. Also, she could ring the police or go to the police station at any time. Surely, any pimp would not wish to take this risk by placing any woman in any reputable parlour. Surely, he would choose to go underground instead.

You make some very valid points, however where is the best place to hide a tree?

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