punter992005

Cheeky blackmailing buggers!!!

27 posts in this topic

As you may know I complained to the PCC regarding The Sun's recent article claiming that brothels were now effectively illegal and visiting one was akin to kerb crawling, and that the prostitute working in a cramped brothel would get you arrested......got a response from the PCC who said they'd received an email from the editor as follows

Thank you for your letter of April 9 regarding a complaint from Mr xxxxx xxxxx about an article on The Sun’s website first published on April 7. The article did not appear in the newspaper.

I have discussed this story and the points raised by Mr xxxxx with our Crime Reporter Anthony France.

Detective Inspector Kevin Hyland, the officer who took us on the raid, is of the view that almost all prostitution is forced, i.e. no one would be doing it if they had choice.

Mr Hyland explained that Scotland Yard’s Vice Squad will be arresting men if a woman they paid for sex has been threatened (even if that is a verbal threat).

The law applies, he says, if a woman was deceived (promised more money that she actually got paid or made to work in cramped conditions).

The evidence would come from the woman herself or something the police witnessed for themselves during surveillance or a raid, according to Mr Hyland.

In fact, he adds that the offence carries strict liability, so it doesn't matter whether or not a person knew the woman had been forced into prostitution.

Following publication, Mr Hyland and Scotland Yard contacted The Sun to make clear they felt the article was accurate and helpful in drawing attention to the new laws designed to protect vulnerable women reduced to selling their bodies for sex.

I do not believe our story was a breach of the Code.

However, under the spirit of the Code, I would be willing to amend the online article by including some comments from Mr xxxxx, if he can provide some extra biographical details such as his job and an explanation as to why he has taken such an interest in the law surrounding brothels.

I propose to add the following:

However, opponents of the new law say visiting a brothel remains legal.

(my full name), (need details of his job), of Watford, Herts (need details of his interest in the new laws) said: ‘Visiting a brother [obviously they've copied and pasted my typo] is still legal. It is misleading to believe that visiting any brothel will get someone arrested for something as simple as a cramped bedroom.

‘Brothels are not illegal for a client. They never have been and the new law doesn’t change that.’

If we can agree on a wording, I will arrange for the online article to be amended.

I look forward to hearing your response to my suggestion.

Yours sincerely,

GRAHAM DUDMAN

As I said cheeky blackmailing thingumys.

Have already sent a response - told them that outing me is not a fair trade off for correcting basic errors of fact in their articles (along with seemingly willfully printing quotes from a DI who has a very clear personal agenda/vendetta)

Told them that saying deception could include not mentioning that the brothel is cramped is a joke. It would be laughed out of court to suggest that an otherwise willing prostitute who simply thought/was told the brothel would be bigger would now be illegal to visit.

In any case the law says that she would have to be deceived into "providing" her services. So if she was willing to be a prostitute and be paid by the client for sex, but simply thought the brothel would be bigger it's not covered.

Told them they should print....

"The law, as the artice said at the beginning, makes it illegal to pay for sex a person who is 'forced, threatened, deceived or otherwise coerced' into providing their services. If the person is not 'forced etc.' then visiting a brothel and paying them for sex is not and never has been illegal. Brothels are only illegal for the people running them."

Wrote quite a long repsonse in all. Can't go into it all here, may copy it onto here after I've got a response from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As you may know I complained to the PCC regarding The Sun's recent article claiming that brothels were now effectively illegal and visiting one was akin to kerb crawling, and that the prostitute working in a cramped brothel would get you arrested......got a response from the PCC who said they'd received an email from the editor as follows

Thank you for your letter of April 9 regarding a complaint from Mr xxxxx xxxxx about an article on The Sun's website first published on April 7. The article did not appear in the newspaper.

I have discussed this story and the points raised by Mr xxxxx with our Crime Reporter Anthony France.

Detective Inspector Kevin Hyland, the officer who took us on the raid, is of the view that almost all prostitution is forced, i.e. no one would be doing it if they had choice.

Mr Hyland explained that Scotland Yard's Vice Squad will be arresting men if a woman they paid for sex has been threatened (even if that is a verbal threat).

The law applies, he says, if a woman was deceived (promised more money that she actually got paid or made to work in cramped conditions).

The evidence would come from the woman herself or something the police witnessed for themselves during surveillance or a raid, according to Mr Hyland.

In fact, he adds that the offence carries strict liability, so it doesn't matter whether or not a person knew the woman had been forced into prostitution.

Following publication, Mr Hyland and Scotland Yard contacted The Sun to make clear they felt the article was accurate and helpful in drawing attention to the new laws designed to protect vulnerable women reduced to selling their bodies for sex.

I do not believe our story was a breach of the Code.

However, under the spirit of the Code, I would be willing to amend the online article by including some comments from Mr xxxxx, if he can provide some extra biographical details such as his job and an explanation as to why he has taken such an interest in the law surrounding brothels.

I propose to add the following:

However, opponents of the new law say visiting a brothel remains legal.

(my full name), (need details of his job), of Watford, Herts (need details of his interest in the new laws) said: 'Visiting a brother [obviously they've copied and pasted my typo] is still legal. It is misleading to believe that visiting any brothel will get someone arrested for something as simple as a cramped bedroom.

'Brothels are not illegal for a client. They never have been and the new law doesn't change that.'

If we can agree on a wording, I will arrange for the online article to be amended.

I look forward to hearing your response to my suggestion.

Yours sincerely,

GRAHAM DUDMAN

As I said cheeky blackmailing thingumys.

Have already sent a response - told them that outing me is not a fair trade off for correcting basic errors of fact in their articles (along with seemingly willfully printing quotes from a DI who has a very clear personal agenda/vendetta)

Told them that saying deception could include not mentioning that the brothel is cramped is a joke. It would be laughed out of court to suggest that an otherwise willing prostitute who simply thought/was told the brothel would be bigger would now be illegal to visit.

In any case the law says that she would have to be deceived into "providing" her services. So if she was willing to be a prostitute and be paid by the client for sex, but simply thought the brothel would be bigger it's not covered.

Told them they should print....

"The law, as the artice said at the beginning, makes it illegal to pay for sex a person who is 'forced, threatened, deceived or otherwise coerced' into providing their services. If the person is not 'forced etc.' then visiting a brothel and paying them for sex is not and never has been illegal. Brothels are only illegal for the people running them."

Wrote quite a long repsonse in all. Can't go into it all here, may copy it onto here after I've got a response from them.

Interesting stuff. What has the job you do got anything to do with it though, i dont understand why they wanted that information, obviously fair enough to want to know why you have an interest in the laws surrounding brothels.

It seems clear to me that the actual new law is not the message that Inspector Hyland is interested in putting out, his agenda and i daresay he is told and briefed by those more senior in what to say, is to twist things to suit the purposes of the police as they wish it to be seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting stuff. What has the job you do got anything to do with it though, i dont understand why they wanted that information, obviously fair enough to want to know why you have an interest in the laws surrounding brothels.

They want to know which brothel punter992005 manages so they can liberate all those trafficked foreign girls he's got locked up in the garden shed. :(:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They want to know which brothel punter992005 manages so they can liberate all those trafficked foreign girls he's got locked up in the garden shed. :(:D

The same garden shed these ladies were locked up in during Operation Pentameters 1 and 2 no doubt.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Detective Inspector Kevin Hyland, the officer who took us on the raid, is of the view that almost all prostitution is forced, i.e. no one would be doing it if they had choice.
Following publication, Mr Hyland and Scotland Yard contacted The Sun to make clear they felt the article was accurate and helpful in drawing attention to the new laws designed to protect vulnerable women reduced to selling their bodies for sex.

Assuming that the above quotes are accurate and that they truly represent the views of DI Hyland, one is tempted to ask how many working brothels are there on DI Hyland's patch and why are they open?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Assuming that the above quotes are accurate and that they truly represent the views of DI Hyland, one is tempted to ask how many working brothels are there on DI Hyland's patch and why are they open?

Well, the DI has to get his jollies somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. It seems clear to me that the actual new law is not the message that Inspector Hyland is interested in putting out, his agenda and i daresay he is told and briefed by those more senior in what to say, is to twist things to suit the purposes of the police as they wish it to be seen.

May or may not be so. Is he being quoted accurately?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

very interesting,did'nt think the pcc would do anything

i too shall write in and complain, i complained to the asa about labours slogan a future fair for all,as it excludes sex workers from any sense of fairness but the asa said that this was out of their remit as political advertising is exempt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sent complaint to pcc,await response

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting response to an interesting application to the PCC. Well done punter992005.

I can't help having a feeling that DI Hyland is simply a "fluffie" wishing to be seen as a modern-day knight in shining armour. He'll never be brought to task, even when we all discover he's set up a cosy love-nest with a girl he's reformed/saved from the awful life of a prostitute.

As for his statement that "almost all prostitution is forced", perhaps he could be asked to clarify this and explain how it is possible for the very few prostitutes that act legally (in his view) go about their lawful business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who oversees the PCC? I suggest a complaint to them about the tactics used by the PCC in order to intimidate people away from complaints would be in order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely shocking. I'm now looking around my house for this 'person' or 'persons' who MUST be forcing me to be in this line of work.....can't see anyone at all. Don't even have a boyfriend or husband (never did the latter), no debts to anyone bar the credit card bill I pay off in full every month and that's usually only about £20!

I'll carry on looking.

I suspect DI Hyland is going to be [wasting] spending a lot of time finding who is 'forcing' these women? Punishing them too?

Think not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole theme of this thread seems to be Police Force dislike of punters, they having the attitude that all punters are criminals, if the Police stance is this, why do they not use the existing law which makes it illegal to the run a brothel (Massage Parlour) and close them all down, why do they need to goad those who purchase sexual services from prostitutes who operate from brothels, it is cynical and vindictive, emulating the threat aspect of the new law, surely it is safer for the girls to work in a clean and safe environment instead of hanging around on street corners. One aspect of the new law which has been misquoted, in that it is the first time punters can be criminalised for seeking sexual services, it is already illigal for the punter to (kerb crawl) pick up a girl off the street. Like many laws and one could write a novel on the number and how obscure they are, outlawing one thing which can be taken to criminalise many others activities. The aspect of so called verbal threats in this new law, goes to the extreme of obscurity, if you work somewhere and are not towing the line, your manager WILL "tick" you off, why should this be different when working in a brothel, all business needs discipline in the workforce to operate efficiently. The UK is drifting into a sinister era of Police power, the recent acqittal of the Sargeant who assulted the girl at the G20 protests underlines of the closing of ranks between the Judiciary, Executive and Police. Along with paedophiles it seems punters are now in the sights of the Authoities and are seen as pariahs of the puritancal Society that seems to be the new concensus of the minority moralistic elite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absolutely shocking. I'm now looking around my house for this 'person' or 'persons' who MUST be forcing me to be in this line of work.....can't see anyone at all.

How do we know someone didn't force you to write that??? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this is the thing. Last week I banged my arm on the side of the swimming pool doing backstroke and this week I've grazed myself with a razor mid making body smooth in shower. Both times I've thought "Bet that mark could be construed or make me look like I've been attacked or 'forced' in some manner".

What is the world coming to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Last week I banged my arm on the side of the swimming pool doing backstroke

Always swim forwards. It's easier. Doggy paddle and front crawl is the way forward, literally and figuratively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As you may know I complained to the PCC regarding The Sun's recent article claiming that brothels were now effectively illegal and visiting one was akin to kerb crawling, and that the prostitute working in a cramped brothel would get you arrested......got a response from the PCC who said they'd received an email from the editor as follows

Thank you for your letter of April 9 regarding a complaint from Mr xxxxx xxxxx about an article on The Sun's website first published on April 7. The article did not appear in the newspaper.

I have discussed this story and the points raised by Mr xxxxx with our Crime Reporter Anthony France.

Detective Inspector Kevin Hyland, the officer who took us on the raid, is of the view that almost all prostitution is forced, i.e. no one would be doing it if they had choice.

Mr Hyland explained that Scotland Yard's Vice Squad will be arresting men if a woman they paid for sex has been threatened (even if that is a verbal threat).

The law applies, he says, if a woman was deceived (promised more money that she actually got paid or made to work in cramped conditions).

The evidence would come from the woman herself or something the police witnessed for themselves during surveillance or a raid, according to Mr Hyland.

In fact, he adds that the offence carries strict liability, so it doesn't matter whether or not a person knew the woman had been forced into prostitution.

Following publication, Mr Hyland and Scotland Yard contacted The Sun to make clear they felt the article was accurate and helpful in drawing attention to the new laws designed to protect vulnerable women reduced to selling their bodies for sex.

I do not believe our story was a breach of the Code.

However, under the spirit of the Code, I would be willing to amend the online article by including some comments from Mr xxxxx, if he can provide some extra biographical details such as his job and an explanation as to why he has taken such an interest in the law surrounding brothels.

I propose to add the following:

However, opponents of the new law say visiting a brothel remains legal.

(my full name), (need details of his job), of Watford, Herts (need details of his interest in the new laws) said: 'Visiting a brother [obviously they've copied and pasted my typo] is still legal. It is misleading to believe that visiting any brothel will get someone arrested for something as simple as a cramped bedroom.

'Brothels are not illegal for a client. They never have been and the new law doesn't change that.'

If we can agree on a wording, I will arrange for the online article to be amended.

I look forward to hearing your response to my suggestion.

Yours sincerely,

GRAHAM DUDMAN

As I said cheeky blackmailing thingumys.

Have already sent a response - told them that outing me is not a fair trade off for correcting basic errors of fact in their articles (along with seemingly willfully printing quotes from a DI who has a very clear personal agenda/vendetta)

Told them that saying deception could include not mentioning that the brothel is cramped is a joke. It would be laughed out of court to suggest that an otherwise willing prostitute who simply thought/was told the brothel would be bigger would now be illegal to visit.

In any case the law says that she would have to be deceived into "providing" her services. So if she was willing to be a prostitute and be paid by the client for sex, but simply thought the brothel would be bigger it's not covered.

Told them they should print....

"The law, as the artice said at the beginning, makes it illegal to pay for sex a person who is 'forced, threatened, deceived or otherwise coerced' into providing their services. If the person is not 'forced etc.' then visiting a brothel and paying them for sex is not and never has been illegal. Brothels are only illegal for the people running them."

Wrote quite a long repsonse in all. Can't go into it all here, may copy it onto here after I've got a response from them.

I understand your pain, you should hear my story...:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand your pain, you should hear my story...:rolleyes:

Care to share ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newspapers... even quality ones... being full of factual errors is far from being confined to punting.

I first came across the phenomena when the Times published a lengthy article on Bob Dylan. Cut it out, and took it to a friend who's a real fan of Uncle Bobs. He read it, laughed, then got out a marker pen. He handed it back to me with several sections highlighted.

"Good bits?" I asked.

"No, some of the factual errors", he replied

He was right. And since... whenever I've read a lengthy article on a subject I know well... I've noticed a fair number of errors.

I won't say the idea of journalists diligently striving to get it right is a complete myth. But when they get it frequently wrong on non controversial areas (where for example there's no real reason for somebody giving them a biased view)... there's no reason to put complete trust in them. I now believe that on most complex subjects they tend to accept what an "expert" tells them without careful verification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Assuming that the above quotes are accurate and that they truly represent the views of DI Hyland, one is tempted to ask how many working brothels are there on DI Hyland's patch and why are they open?

2,400 according to The Sun, given that the whole Met area is CO14's patch. We must assume they quoted this figure with DI Hyland's approval.

But as noted elsewhere, there appears to have been a rather dramatic rise recently, given the official Met estimate of a mere 400 just nine months ago. And this on DI Hyland's watch…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Newspapers... even quality ones... being full of factual errors is far from being confined to punting.

Not only newspapers - TV as well. I take everything I read or see with a pinch of salt. Generally newspaper hacks and TV reporters have little time to investigate fully and often plaguerise other dubious info or only print/view what will make a good story or programme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that complaints should (must?) be firstly addressed the Polices own professional standards department.

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