elrond

Luton court case on Monday

54 posts in this topic

I posted about this a while ago. It is going to court on Monday.

-------------

ACTION ALERT . . . ACTION ALERT . . . ACTION ALERT . . .

SUPPORT CLAIRE FINCH

SUPPORT SEX WORKERS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is where we can make a difference by showing support,either by attending or writing in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I strongly believe that women should be able to work together for safety reasons and have joined many campaigns for this Industry to be legalised . What I don't understand though is why people didn't come out with such strong support for the recent raids and arrests on Surrey and Escorts 1 to name but a few. They were taking less than 50% of the girls earnings but there was not much sympathy for them.

I am just wondering why this case is highlighted when we have people on here that are doing the same thing as this women every day and getting arrested for it. Anyone working with more than one women and taking 50% of the proceeds is surely living off immoral earnings. Whilst I agree that women should be able to work in safety, surely if it was mere companionship the women wanted then why did they have to hand over half of their earnings.

I am sure the women were all happy together and as proved harming no one and just enjoying working in pleasant surroundings for what sounds like to be a pleasant lady. The law is the law and it is something that we all fear when we decide to enter into the immoral earnings arena.

I am not being flippant but this was a brothel and one that was taking a lot of money off the women that worked for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The women were not forced. They chose to hand over 50%. That's the free market.

In other professional services businesses the employees take a lot less than 50% of the fees attributable to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The women were not forced. They chose to hand over 50%. That's the free market.

In other professional services businesses the employees take a lot less than 50% of the fees attributable to them.

Of course they were not forced just as the women that work for any escort agency or parlour are not forced. They choose to work in that way for security and the chance of regular work with minimal fuss. The fact remains the same though, it is immoral earnings. Just because it was operated from someone's home it is still a brothel and the women was charging 50% to use her home and website. Most agencies take less than that yet supply premises and extensive advertising.

I pray the women does get off with this and that everyone does offer their support as then it can be used as a test case for parlour owners all over the country that take a lot less money but get jailed for living off immoral earnings and controlling a brothel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course they were not forced just as the women that work for any escort agency or parlour are not forced. They choose to work in that way for security and the chance of regular work with minimal fuss. The fact remains the same though, it is immoral earnings. Just because it was operated from someone's home it is still a brothel and the women was charging 50% to use her home and website. Most agencies take less than that yet supply premises and extensive advertising.

I pray the women does get off with this and that everyone does offer their support as then it can be used as a test case for parlour owners all over the country that take a lot less money but get jailed for living off immoral earnings and controlling a brothel.

living off immoral earnings is no longer on the books. It was effictively repealed by the SOA 2003 and replaced with "controlling prostitution for gain". In this case she's charged with managing a brothel, so neither "immoral earnings" or "controlling" is relevant. Money doesn't come into the offence. She COULD have been doing it for free and the offence would be the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not immoral at all if the women were free to accept or not accept the deal.

There is no magic formula to tell anyone the correct price. Just supply and demand.

This is business - you agree a price or there is no deal. Like everything else in the free market - cars, houses, wages, plumbers, food, holidays, haircuts, massages etc. It was worth it for the women and it was worth it for the owner. If you don't like the pay, don't do the job.

The brothel owner's risk is considerable, as you know better than I. That risk requires a reward. In the case of the Luton owner she clearly priced the risk too low. The workers walk away and try to find other work, the owner faces jail and the confiscation of assets. Seems to me that the net position leaves the workers a lot better off than the owner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The workers walk away and try to find other work, the owner faces jail and the confiscation of assets. Seems to me that the net position leaves the workers a lot better off than the owner.

Yes, but the workers weren't breaking the law, the brothel owner was.

Whether you agree with the law or not, if you're caught breaking it, you should be punished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but the workers weren't breaking the law, the brothel owner was.

Whether you agree with the law or not, if you're caught breaking it, you should be punished.

i don't see anything wrong with breaking an unjust law

let's not forget that the police and govt often break laws themselves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i don't see anything wrong with breaking an unjust law

let's not forget that the police and govt often break laws themselves

my personal favourite was the recent case where the police decided in one area to highlight people who left their homes unsecured and were entering properties they saw were open, and putting valuables into a bag marked "swag" to make their point......didn't seem to register with them that entering a property without a warrant was trespass. Also it would have put them in a very awkward position if they'd entered a property and seen evidence of drug use or some other crime.....what could they do, given that they had no warrant? Not to mention the risk to the officers if the householder attacked them, not knowing who they were. Thick as shit most police officers. Remind me of Judge Dredd, "I am the law!!!". I can't break it. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I strongly believe that women should be able to work together for safety reasons and have joined many campaigns for this Industry to be legalised . What I don't understand though is why people didn't come out with such strong support for the recent raids and arrests on Surrey and Escorts 1 to name but a few. They were taking less than 50% of the girls earnings but there was not much sympathy for them.

I am just wondering why this case is highlighted when we have people on here that are doing the same thing as this women every day and getting arrested for it. Anyone working with more than one women and taking 50% of the proceeds is surely living off immoral earnings. Whilst I agree that women should be able to work in safety, surely if it was mere companionship the women wanted then why did they have to hand over half of their earnings.

I am sure the women were all happy together and as proved harming no one and just enjoying working in pleasant surroundings for what sounds like to be a pleasant lady. The law is the law and it is something that we all fear when we decide to enter into the immoral earnings arena.

I am not being flippant but this was a brothel and one that was taking a lot of money off the women that worked for them.

The immoral earnings legislation was repealed by the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but the workers weren't breaking the law, the brothel owner was.

Whether you agree with the law or not, if you're caught breaking it, you should be punished.

I was making a point about economics and risk pricing, not about the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but the workers weren't breaking the law, the brothel owner was.

Whether you agree with the law or not, if you're caught breaking it, you should be punished.

Law is made by the prevailing elite to suit their advantage & moral agenda. If they can make it appear to have some eternal validity from on high they will; hence the eagerness for religions.

I question the use of the word "should" and substitute "will be" if caight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but the workers weren't breaking the law, the brothel owner was.

Whether you agree with the law or not, if you're caught breaking it, you should be punished.

so those who were prosecuted for being gay in the 50s or whenever it was, were justifiably prosecuted, and deserved to go to jail? Sometimes the law is wrong y'know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I strongly believe that women should be able to work together for safety reasons and have joined many campaigns for this Industry to be legalised . What I don't understand though is why people didn't come out with such strong support for the recent raids and arrests on Surrey and Escorts 1 to name but a few. They were taking less than 50% of the girls earnings but there was not much sympathy for them.

.

I came out with support for this because the ECP asked for it. I have received letters back from the CPS.

As for Surrey, it was I who put that brothel owner in contact with the ECP and IUSW. She did not know the organization existed. Now she has been getting some support from the ECP, but presently she is in limbo.

As for Escorts1, alas the court case came up and went, though I took interest I never did know when the case occurred. The ECP did comment on the proceeds of crime, I though don't know if they were aware of the actual prosecution. At the time of the prosecution I did not realize the ECP were able to help in this way.

I agree 50% is rather alot, and that was in the letter I received from the CPS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whichever way you look at it or how you fluff it up taking money of prostitutes is in one form or another illegal. Anyone who runs a brothel or rents out rooms or whatever guise they put it under can fall foul of the law. Look what is happening in towns all over the country, Milton Keynes being a prime example. Nearly all the brothels there are either closing, or moving address and changing names etc. I guess they need to stay one step ahead of the law to avoid arrest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whichever way you look at it or how you fluff it up taking money of prostitutes is in one form or another illegal. Anyone who runs a brothel or rents out rooms or whatever guise they put it under can fall foul of the law. Look what is happening in towns all over the country, Milton Keynes being a prime example. Nearly all the brothels there are either closing, or moving address and changing names etc. I guess they need to stay one step ahead of the law to avoid arrest.

Why single out MK then if it's happening all over the country? You I note, are always putting the boot in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why single out MK then if it's happening all over the country? You I note, are always putting the boot in.

Why single out MK simple i live here and see and hear it going on.

I dont as you put it "put the boot in" unless you can prove otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whichever way you look at it or how you fluff it up taking money of prostitutes is in one form or another illegal. Anyone who runs a brothel or rents out rooms or whatever guise they put it under can fall foul of the law. Look what is happening in towns all over the country, Milton Keynes being a prime example. Nearly all the brothels there are either closing, or moving address and changing names etc. I guess they need to stay one step ahead of the law to avoid arrest.

Yeeeees! I (vaguely) see where you are coming from!

Our law comes in two styles (and the hybrid of both):

Common Law - the prejudices of the tribe, as interpreted by the Judges,

and,

Statute Law - the voice of the current Junta.

The current Luton trial deals with the hybrid situation: a brothel is defined by common law, and running one is a statutory offence.

Some may remember a famous case of a few years ago when a Warrant Officer in the RAF, half cut, said to his mates (or words to the same effect) "Come on back to my place and shaft the wife - one of her little kinks is that she really enjoys being raped!" So he and his three mates went back to the married quarter, and, in turn, availed themselves of Mrs Morgan. It was the daughter, poor child, who climbed out of the downstairs loo window and went and got help.

The case came to trial, and made headlines, with Hattie's gang jumping up and down. Morgan said "A man cannot, as a matter of law, rape his wife." The Judge instructed the jury otherwise, and this was upheld on appeal.

Morgan's drunken, but not too drunk to be able to knock off Mrs Morgan, colleagues claimed that they believed that in spite of her struggles and screams, she was really consenting. The Judge instructed the jury that if they believed this incredible story it did indeed provide a defence. The jury obviously, and rightly, IMHO, simply was unable to believe that any one could have thought that she was indulging in a little role-play, and convicted, and the whole gang went down for a long time.

Where am I going, here?

I suggest that it is time for a Judge to consider that the world has turned several times since some, now long dead, noble lord decided what amounts to a brothel, and that the term needs to be defined anew. Specifically if two prudent, sensible ladies operate together, for self protection and economy, then that does not constitute a brothel.

WANTED! JUDGE WITH GUTS TO STAND UP TO HATTIE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WANTED! JUDGE WITH GUTS TO STAND UP TO HATTIE!

Can a jury realistically refuse to accept a judge's direction and acquit? It occurs to me we also need juries to stand up and state that these laws are ridiculous and we won't convict because we can't see a victim.

I would love to be a juror on one of these cases I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I came out with support for this because the ECP asked for it. I have received letters back from the CPS.

As for Surrey, it was I who put that brothel owner in contact with the ECP and IUSW. She did not know the organization existed. Now she has been getting some support from the ECP, but presently she is in limbo.

This is correct and a point I will be eternely gratefull for. As much as Im not looking forward to the next year to 18 months I know I have a huge amount of support available to me. I would like to see us all doing far more to support the ECP and the IUSW as it is also true that until my case I had never even heard of the ECP and I cant help but think if we all knew who these people were and offered even a tiny amount of support, either financial or voluntary we could really make a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whichever way you look at it or how you fluff it up taking money of prostitutes is in one form or another illegal. Anyone who runs a brothel or rents out rooms or whatever guise they put it under can fall foul of the law. Look what is happening in towns all over the country, Milton Keynes being a prime example. Nearly all the brothels there are either closing, or moving address and changing names etc. I guess they need to stay one step ahead of the law to avoid arrest.

money has nothing to do with the charges this woman is facing. Managing a brothel is the charge. If they all worked there as a collective, with no one making any money from the other girls the charge would still apply. Whether she takes 0% or 50% or 90% it makes no difference to her guilt or innocence (although 90% would certainly make a difference to sentencing etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can a jury realistically refuse to accept a judge's direction and acquit? It occurs to me we also need juries to stand up and state that these laws are ridiculous and we won't convict because we can't see a victim.

I would love to be a juror on one of these cases I think.

Yes, indeed a jury can! Your memory probably doesn't go back to the Falklands War? A senior (and thoroughly unpleasant) civil servant leaked classified documents, and was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Acts.

The judge summed up to the effect that if the MoD said these docs were very secret (and that was debatable) then the offence was made out, and the accused's motive was irrelevant. He then sent them out to convict, and we'll come back, and I can sentence him before tea!

Alas the London jury did not like being told to convict, and swiftly returned with an acquittal!

So, yes, a jury can acquit in the face of all the evidence, if it simply doesn't want to convict, and, even with 13 years of New Labour, I don't think the prosecution can appeal a perverse virdict, can they?

Let's just hope the Luton jury has the guts!

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