Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Chance

amendments to the bill 29/1

8 posts in this topic

The thing about trafficking into or within or out of the UK, is that that also doesn't require the woman to be forced. In theory an escort agency that provides a taxi for an outcall for one of it's girls is guilty of trafficking within the UK. Obviously that amendment is a hell of an improvement. But personally all that is needed is....

any of B's activities relating to the provision of those services are controlled by a third party through the threat or use of force aginst B or any other person, or B was in any other way providing the services against their will

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To put this in a "nutshell" does the amendment make the offence just refer to buying sex from a prostitute who is "trafficked", and "controlled" in the context as written into the Bill, to mean "trafficked" and forced to "work" for the gain of the person who "trafficked" that person. If this is the case then the law is good, and WILL stop girls being used as sex slaves by thugs who exploit them, and will not affect well run mainstream Brothels "Massage Parlours" and Escort Agencies, lets hope they go further and specifically make Brothels (Massage Parlours) and Escort Agencies legal, brought into the mainstream of commerce and Society, and end the stigma surrounding the industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's there to read for yourself. It says that the PROPOSED amendment is to define control in terms of threats or use of force, and that it will be an offence to procure someone who is "controlled" OR "trafficked"; NOT controlled BY the trafficker.

It would be better if they defined trafficking as the EU definition which I believe we are signatories to, as the definition within the SOA 2003 does not require force. If a girl arrives in this country (willingly and freely) to work for an escort agency, and the agency pick her up from the airport to take her to the agency flat, then she's trafficked; or of course if they pay for the flight or even, in theory, if they simply provide a taxi to an outcall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well it's there to read for yourself. It says that the PROPOSED amendment is to define control in terms of threats or use of force, and that it will be an offence to procure someone who is "controlled" OR "trafficked"; NOT controlled BY the trafficker.
"trafficked" would imply an element of control anyway, wouldn't it?

So "controlled" in "controlled or trafficked" would imply other types of force or threat. Like being controlled locally under threat from a classic pimp type.

I might be confusing what "trafficking" means in this context though. Isn't it to bring someone from place A to place B with the intent of exploiting them? As prostitutes, panhandlers, sweatshop workers and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"trafficked" would imply an element of control anyway, wouldn't it?

So "controlled" in "controlled or trafficked" would imply other types of force or threat. Like being controlled locally under threat from a classic pimp type.

I might be confusing what "trafficking" means in this context though. Isn't it to bring someone from place A to place B with the intent of exploiting them? As prostitutes, panhandlers, sweatshop workers and so on.

yes but exploitation doesn't mean what most people would think. If you facilitate the travel of a prostitute to come to work for your agency or brothel then you are a trafficker. You are, on her arrival, going to control her for gain. You are exploiting her prostitution for your own financial gain. So by including trafficked within the proposal you instantly bring the original definiton of control, and all it's problems, back into play. As I said there are two distinct parts......"forced or threatened" OR "traffficked"........and trafficked doesn't require force or threats or coercion. If running a brothel was legal then they wouldn't be trafficked, they're declared trafficked by virtue of the fact they're helped to enter the country in order for a criminal offence to be committed - even if that criminal offence does not involve the woman being a "victim".

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0