MikeThePlayer

It's all over; Tories support Strict Liability

67 posts in this topic

It's all over but the shouting. Today the tories said in the committee that they support Clause 13, including strict liability. Could the last person leaving the country please turn the lights off? B):)B)

I listened to it live. Vernon Coaker said there was a 'seismic shift' in the opposition's position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's all over but the shouting. Today the tories said in the committee that they support Clause 13, including strict liability. Could the last person leaving the country please turn the lights off? B):)B)

I listened to it live. Vernon Coaker said there was a 'seismic shift' in the opposition's position.

Not till the Fat Lady sings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's all over but the shouting. Today the tories said in the committee that they support Clause 13, including strict liability. Could the last person leaving the country please turn the lights off? B):)B)

I listened to it live. Vernon Coaker said there was a 'seismic shift' in the opposition's position.

I get the distinct impression Vernon Coaker is playing for brownie points in his speeches - irrespective of the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I

I listened to it live. Vernon Coaker said there was a 'seismic shift' in the opposition's position.

I listened to parts of it and heard that bit, I was not sure if it was Vernon Coaker but it must have been.. He talked about changing history (yeah right!!) and what a moment this was and how they should all take a moment and reflect on this meeting..

What a load of drivel.

Though of what I heard I thought there was quite a lot of opposition and at the end somebody said (so difficult to work out who was who) that he was not going to support the bill if they did not make it better so it would help girls rather than make things worse for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I listened to parts of it and heard that bit, I was not sure if it was Vernon Coaker but it must have been.. He talked about changing history (yeah right!!) and what a moment this was and how they should all take a moment and reflect on this meeting..

What a load of drivel.

Though of what I heard I thought there was quite a lot of opposition and at the end somebody said (so difficult to work out who was who) that he was not going to support the bill if they did not make it better so it would help girls rather than make things worse for them.

I thought it was Alan campbell (lab) he talked most of the time, and I got the impression that Tories would support it provided control for gain was clarified and did not include maids, security, ladies working together and Madam - he said it didn't but on the issue of Madam he said he'd come to it...to be continued. The transcript will be availbable tomorrow

Alan Campbell is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State responsible for crime reduction.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/organisation/ministers1/alan-campbell/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

irrespective of what happens in these meetings the whole process is repeated in the House of Lords and VC et al will NOT be there. Then it'll be interesting to see what's said etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and VC et al will NOT be there.

Thank GOD ( your god or belief system as appropriate B) ) because as I see it he just want's to get the bill passed as originally draughted so he can lick JS's ass and score brownie points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's all over but the shouting. Today the tories said in the committee that they support Clause 13, including strict liability. Could the last person leaving the country please turn the lights off? B):)B)

I listened to it live. Vernon Coaker said there was a 'seismic shift' in the opposition's position.

I had to write this earlier message hastily, but I (unfortunately) think the main message is accurate. I have to say that I was very impressed by Dr Evan Harris's 45-minute opening presentation; everything was very eloquently expressed. I'll try to post the link to the appropriate part of the transcript later today, when it appears.

I was equally disappointed by the general stance of the Tories, led by Mr Davis Ruffley, who is Vernon Coaker's shadow. In fact, if you read or heard his comments during the 2nd reading, you'll see that his position was that they support the drive to reduce demand (big difference with Harris there). He is in general spectical that the bill will have the desired effect of reducing demand. He in fact proposed some ways to strengthen the bill even further. Ruffley and the other Tory, Brokenshire, had submitted some amendments to Clause 13, but when he spoke, Ruffley said that the Tories will not oppose the strict liability clause. I was absolutely shocked when I heard this; Vernon Coaker then made his 'seismic shift' remark. Ruffley had queries as to how effective the bill would be, but he said that they agreed that demand must be reduced.

I'll try to post the relevant bits from the transcripts later today.

I must say that I was very disappointed by the Tories; our last hope are the Lords, but I feel very pessimistic right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank GOD ( your god or belief system as appropriate B) ) because as I see it he just want's to get the bill passed as originally draughted so he can lick JS's ass and score brownie points.

The intersteing thing is that no one in the Lords is elected or relies on ministerial favour. They're not beholden to JS or HH and certainly not VC. There's been no comment from any of them in the lead up to this bill as far as I know, with the exception of Lord Faulkner who is definitely against the clauses. So it suggests that as well as JS, HH and VC not being there, there'll be no equivelant to them. It'll be a genuine open debate with no one worried that they'll miss out in govt reshuffles etc. and licking arse. I think there will be changes before it gets to them anyway re what control means, and certainly I think The Lords will have big problems with strict liability if that's still there.

Remember the 42 day detention bill got through the House of Commons......and then the Lords rejected it completely. Point being, what VC gets pushed through is no indicator of how the Lords will take to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My inderstanding was that the government as represented by Alan Campbell rejected all the amendments relating to "strict liability" and "contolled for gain".

He did however say that a maid or driver or security person working with a prostitute and arranging her bookings did not constitute "controlled for gain".

When asked by the excellent Dr Evan Harris about the role of a madam, he was unable to answer the point, and said he would have to respond at a later date.

This was the key point about prostitutes working together with a madam organizing the place.

All in all, it was not very encouraging.

The Conservatives seemed a big let-down and only Dr Harris, a Lib Dem, seemed to be fighting our corner.

The 42 day detention bill was a high profile case, and I wouldn't be optimistic that the Lords would make a stand on the clauses relating to prostitution in this Bill, particularly if the Conservative MPs continue to be so supportive of the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is still the Commons 3rd reading to go before it passes to the Lords

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to say this lads, but I told you so...........

As I have said before this is just another step on the road back to the dark days of the 1950's; I lived through this time and by the late 1970's thought this country ahd turned the corner, how wrong I was. We have regressed so so much, they will have us all attending Church compulsary at the end of the day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say that I was very disappointed by the Tories; our last hope are the Lords, but I feel very pessimistic right now.

Yeah, me to, my MP (Bercow) said he world support the bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

although clause 20 hasn't been debated yet, I'm sure that will go through if 13 does - think about it, what they are saying is that they'll make it easier for the police to close brothels, and brothels are illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's all over but the shouting. Today the tories said in the committee that they support Clause 13, including strict liability. Could the last person leaving the country please turn the lights off? B):)B)

I listened to it live. Vernon Coaker said there was a 'seismic shift' in the opposition's position.

"Could the last person leaving the country please turn the lights off"

It's no use going elsewhere in the world to Punt, when you get back here they will be nicked you for it, it is written into this awful legislation, just as if you visited Spain and legally there; shagged a 13 year old girl or France and legally; shagged a 15 year old, you get nicked here for it, the later gives you up to 10 years inside, labelled a paedophile and placed on the sex offenders register, not sure what the penalty is for foreign punting, but for sure you will named and "shamed" and dragged through the courts. Good here isn't it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't trust the house of loads one bit. Most of them have deep religious beliefs so they may be on the side of Jacqui (egomainiac don't see the truth) Smith and Harriet (hates all men on earth) Harman. I just hope that more sexual freedom groups will emerge to try to make our moronic government see the majority good side of the sex work industry and do everything possible to get rid of the minority bad side of it, I think it will be best to have more sex workers of both genders of all sexual orientations join in to show the goverment that the huge majority if sex workers are doing what they do on their own free will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi coin

as i heard it,the govt would'nt prosecute if you paid for sex in germany and the female turned out to have been controlled for gain (whatever the definition is)that would be for the german authorities.its claimed the legislation is aimed at payment here for someone controlled for gain then going abroad for sex with said person to avoid prosecution!

i am suspicious at this example,it seems to me this is a way to get the legislation through and then once on the books its there to be used.

does anyone trust this govt to keep its assurances

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Conservatives seemed a big let-down and only Dr Harris, a Lib Dem, seemed to be fighting our corner.

I don't think anyone in any major political party is fighting the punter's corner; objections to the legislation are quite rightly focused on the potential increased risk this legislation poses to sex workers (there are wider, libertarian arguments but essentially both Labour and Conservatives are for, quite different reasons, authoritarian and borderline-totalitarian in nature).

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As promised, I post some of the relevant bits of the transcript from yesterday's committee debate on Clause 13:

Ruffley (Con.):

From column no. 254 in:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmpublic/policing/090205/pm/90205s03.htm

Let me say at the outset that Her Majesty's Opposition are supportive of the general thrust of this clause. We do not intend to seek to divide the Committee on the amendments to which I am about to speak; they are probing amendments.

From column no. 276 in:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmpublic/policing/090205/pm/90205s07.htm

As Her Majesty's Opposition have made clear, we still believe that the clause should go through, because one has to start somewhere in choking off demand. I wish that to be clearly placed on the record, because the Opposition have strong views

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's all over but the shouting. Today the tories said in the committee that they support Clause 13, including strict liability. Could the last person leaving the country please turn the lights off? B):)B)

I listened to it live. Vernon Coaker said there was a 'seismic shift' in the opposition's position.

I don't think you should be surprised at any MP supporting clause 13 as it stands, after all said and done we are near enough to a general election for ALL MPs to take stock of their potential standing in the hustings. Any MP that tries to throw a spanner in the works or votes against clause 13 stands a very good chance of being described by his/her opponent as one or all of the following :-

That candidate voted for prostitution.

That candidate supports rape, abduction and slavery.

That candidate is responsible for the continued harrassment of your children by perverted men.

That candidate is responsible for .................. need I go on?

Now what MP in his/her right mind is going to weigh up in his/her mind the relative values of upsetting punters and prostitutes against retaining his/her seat, and coming to the decision that he/she should vote against clause 13?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think you should be surprised at any MP supporting clause 13 as it stands, after all said and done we are near enough to a general election for ALL MPs to take stock of their potential standing in the hustings. Any MP that tries to throw a spanner in the works or votes against clause 13 stands a very good chance of being described by his/her opponent as one or all of the following :-

That candidate voted for prostitution.

That candidate supports rape, abduction and slavery.

That candidate is responsible for the continued harrassment of your children by perverted men.

That candidate is responsible for .................. need I go on?

Now what MP in his/her right mind is going to weigh up in his/her mind the relative values of upsetting punters and prostitutes against retaining his/her seat, and coming to the decision that he/she should vote against clause 13?

.......can we have the election tomorrow? please? pretty please with sugar on top?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.......can we have the election tomorrow? please? pretty please with sugar on top?

That would be nice, however I do have a financial interest in it being May 14th, so ................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and if you look at this part, what I have underlined, I'd say that it confirms that you'll be committing an offense if you visit a brothel (unless Campbell come back and suggest they should be legalized)

Dr. Harris: What the Minister says is very helpful and I thank him for that. However, I do not think that there is a gap, because he has intimated clearly what is not covered

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this issue needs to be seen as a womens rights issue

women have the right to sell sex in a safe and secure environment.

womens safety is more important than moral judgments and flawed political ideology.

as opinion polls show,most people support decriminalisation/legalisation in spite of all the govts propaganda.

is being anti-prostitution really a vote winner? people have more important concerns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should not let this moment pass without reflecting on what is happening in Committee Room 11 today. We have seen a seismic shift. The Government are introducing a strict liability offence under clause 13, which the Opposition spokesmen have said that they will not oppose. We are debating how to make the clause effective. That is a phenomenal change, as the Government, in the broadest sense, are looking at how to deal with the problem that we have been wrestling with for decades, indeed centuries.

I do not want to over-egg matters, but when people look back they ought to reflect sometimes on moments such as this. What is happening in Committee represents a fundamental shift and change in how this country is seeking to look at the whole issue. To be fair to all members of the Committee, that deserves to be put on to the record.

Aah, so it was Coaker.. I have never heard him speak before but assumed it was him when he spoke as he has a golden and very persuasive tongue and that unfortunately is a bad thing.. It appears that he feels he is going to change history with these comments.. Go where nobody else has gone.. It is awful that if they truly do go through with this and if it is enforced some girls who are currrently in the brothels will go to the streets which will mean more violence rather than them being protected. B)

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