Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
punter992005

definite progress being made.

10 posts in this topic

listening to the playback of the debate this morning and the stand out comments for me were.....

1) The bar council lawyer stating it seemed that the proposal was intending to outlaw prostitution by virtue of the fact that you can't partake in it without running the risk of prosecution.

2) He then said that he didn't think it would work either as a complete ban OR as a way of targeting trafficking

3) Liberty spokesperson (Sharmi Chakrabarti) suggested that the offence could be worded in the sense of punting in a reckless or negligent way rather than full on strict liability, which sounded promising.

4) Bar council lawyer said that "control for gain" was definitely going to cast it's net too wide, and said he'd come back with an alternative suggestion that would leave women who worked together in brothels/agencies for "mutually beneficial reasons" alone and only target those being exploited. THEN he said that many people consent to work in all sorts of jobs where they feel they're being manipulated, but that's the job they'd chosen and they were paid etc. So you have to be careful to phrase it correctly.

Really looking good in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this afternoons debate James Brokenshire (Con) certainly put Vernon Croker et. al. under pressure when asking him to substantiate his claims by showing his evidence. Seems they are still collecting it.

about 52 min into the debate he even asked if they had visited any 'punters websites' to get evidence !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that all of the above "looks good".

But we have heard many good arguments against this new legislation before.

Assuming that the initiators are on a crusade, zealots, jihadists and all:

Will this actually have an impact ?

Do they Have to listen to all these arguments ?

Remember: we seem to have invaded Iraq based on "conviction", and against

lots of good advice too. Dr Kelly and a lot of other good men paid the price, while most of the decision makers still enjoy the good life.

ps: to be honest, in early 2003, I personally thought the invasion of Iraq was a good idea. Blame it on media-misguidance, propaganda or whatever. But it might give you an idea how myself and the public can be misled by (well meaning?) ideologists on a mission.

And the general public may not hold our views on this issue, and will not have our (percieved) level of inside-information (pun/t intended).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that all of the above "looks good".

But we have heard many good arguments against this new legislation before.

Assuming that the initiators are on a crusade, zealots, jihadists and all:

Will this actually have an impact ?

Do they Have to listen to all these arguments ?

Remember: we seem to have invaded Iraq based on "conviction", and against

lots of good advice too. Dr Kelly and a lot of other good men paid the price, while most of the decision makers still enjoy the good life.

ps: to be honest, in early 2003, I personally thought the invasion of Iraq was a good idea. Blame it on media-misguidance, propaganda or whatever. But it might give you an idea how myself and the public can be misled by (well meaning?) ideologists on a mission.

And the general public may not hold our views on this issue, and will not have our (percieved) level of inside-information (pun/t intended).

well Vernon Coaker has said specifically in the same debate that the govt's intention is not to outlaw prostitution by the backdoor. They are focused solely on women who are working in a non consensual way, where there is no suggestion of free will. he said that he had lawyers who had told him that control for gain meant just that i.e forced. Clearly, in my opinion, irrespective of which lawyer is right the fact that lawyers are arguing over it shows that the definition isn't clear so it seems certain that it'll be changed to something else. Strict liability also seems done for, with no one speaking out in favour of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
he said that he had lawyers who had told him that control for gain meant just that i.e forced.

Clearly his lawyers have not taken into account the Appeal Court ruling Regina v Massey :-

The meaning of "control" for the purposes of the offence of controlling prostitution for gain did not involve the words "compulsion", "coercion" or "force".
In their Lordships' judgment, "control" included, but was not limited to conduct which forced another to carry out the relevant activity and could be exercised in a number of ways. The exploitation of a prostitute for financial gain was the broad mischief at which the section was aimed, whether or not intimidation was involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well Vernon Coaker has said specifically in the same debate that the govt's intention is not to outlaw prostitution by the backdoor. They are focused solely on women who are working in a non consensual way, where there is no suggestion of free will. he said that he had lawyers who had told him that control for gain meant just that i.e forced. Clearly, in my opinion, irrespective of which lawyer is right the fact that lawyers are arguing over it shows that the definition isn't clear so it seems certain that it'll be changed to something else. Strict liability also seems done for, with no one speaking out in favour of it.

backdoor-pun aside...

I'm skeptic about this.

JS, HH and the oher radicals seem, from other quotes, quite intend on implementing "Discouragement" to customers, as well as probably a real intention of combatting "trafficking".

I can agree with a crackdown on "trafficking".

If and when trafficking or exploitation does take place it is akin to slavery and should be combatted. No disucssion there.

There are already laws in place to do that (living off immoral earnings, immigration, labour-regulations, money laundering, H and S legislation; you can pick any stick to hit the bizz, you dont need to criminalize "demand"...). Politicians and law-enforcement can also discourage and combat human-trafficking by harassing the odd pimp, restaurant owner, farmer and cockle-harvesting-lord. Illegals are not that hard to spot/track in current society.

I disagree with targeting "prostitution" per se.

But the fact that this bill is proposed, and pursued with bad-stats, defended with bad arguments and sold by ideologically outdated-feminism, that all seems to indicate a hidden anti-prostitution, anti-escorting agenda.

And this is where I think the gov is threading into an area where they dont belong: a mutually beneficial Transaction between Consenting Adults is none of their business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ps: to be honest, in early 2003, I personally thought the invasion of Iraq was a good idea. Blame it on media-misguidance, propaganda or whatever. But it might give you an idea how myself and the public can be misled by (well meaning?) ideologists on a mission.

And the general public may not hold our views on this issue, and will not have our (percieved) level of inside-information (pun/t intended).

I laughed at the "45 minute" claim when I heard it. Iraq had been barely able to hit a barn door with a banjo with its missiles in the first Gulf War and yet by 2003, after years of tight sanctions it suddenly had accurate Intercontinental missile capability. I never saw how anyone took it seriously let alone that it was a reason to go to war.

The lesson learnt from that is that this Government will say anything to get its own way and that sensible argument against it is ignored or shouted down to support whatever the case is. I fear that this stupid proposal will go the same way.

Please Mr Brown, just resign and let us vote you and your cronies into oblivion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are already laws in place to do that (living off immoral earnings, immigration, labour-regulations, money laundering, H and S legislation; you can pick any stick to hit the bizz, you dont need to criminalize "demand"...). Politicians and law-enforcement can also discourage and combat human-trafficking by harassing the odd pimp, restaurant owner, farmer and cockle-harvesting-lord. Illegals are not that hard to spot/track in current society.

Repealed by The Sexual Offences Act 2003, and ironically replaced with "Controlling prostitution for gain".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clearly his lawyers have not taken into account the Appeal Court ruling Regina v Massey :-

well yes I'm aware of that, and I've probably quoted it a hundred times on here and in letters to just about everybody. However, now he's specifically said control is not intended to include maids or "organisers" etc. and is meant to protect women who are unarguably being forced, a more robust argument which can't really be argued against is to say......

"Ok, whatever, it doesn't matter if your lawyers are ultimately right. The fact that two sets of highly paid and qualified lawyers asked to give their honest opinions are giving different definitions of "control" proves it's unclear. Men could be arrested in a "nice" brothel and lawyers could argue they fit the bill. You don't want that, so let's change the wording so there's no doubts."

With what VC has said and what the lawyer from the bar council has said I can't see how the legislation could now proceed without strict liability being removed and "control for gain" being reworded. Next step is to see what they come up with, if anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JS, HH and the oher radicals seem, from other quotes, quite intend on implementing "Discouragement" to customers, as well as probably a real intention of combatting "trafficking".

I can agree with a crackdown on "trafficking".

If and when trafficking or exploitation does take place it is akin to slavery and should be combatted. No disucssion there.

There are already laws in place to do that (living off immoral earnings, immigration, labour-regulations, money laundering, H and S legislation; you can pick any stick to hit the bizz, you dont need to criminalize "demand"...). Politicians and law-enforcement can also discourage and combat human-trafficking by harassing the odd pimp, restaurant owner, farmer and cockle-harvesting-lord. Illegals are not that hard to spot/track in current society.

I disagree with targeting "prostitution" per se.

But the fact that this bill is proposed, and pursued with bad-stats, defended with bad arguments and sold by ideologically outdated-feminism, that all seems to indicate a hidden anti-prostitution, anti-escorting agenda.

And this is where I think the gov is threading into an area where they dont belong: a mutually beneficial Transaction between Consenting Adults is none of their business.

I don't think the agenda is that hidden.

If they genuinely wished to tackle trafficking they would call on punters for help by reporting suspicions.

On more than one occasion they have referred to the purpose of this proposed legislation as 'reducing demand and sending a message that paying for sex is wrong'. Trafficking is just an excuse for its introduction. The part which criminalises the customer is is just a rehash of the failed amendment (which made no mention of trafficking) to last year's Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.

If they really believe that there are as many trafficked girls as they claim, how do they explain that such small numbers were found by Pentameter 1 & 2 operations?

They have attempted to mislead the country about the extent of trafficking and misused results of surveys to support their claims in the hope of getting this through whilst they have ignored the pitfalls and problems that would be created. This law would enable them to claim to have tackled an exaggerated problem. They would not care if there are few or no convictions as they could use that as evidence that the law has worked. The introduction of laws in this manner is very wrong indeed.

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