jbx1972

Legal or not...let's be clear!!!

39 posts in this topic

Since the new law came into place on 1 April 2010, I've become very confused about the legality of prostitution in the UK, specifically England where I live and do 100% of my punting.

The key confusions for me are two-fold:

Definition of a brothel: I've read on a number of sites that a brothel is defined as an indoor establishment where two (2) or more prostitutes work and sell sex for monetary gain. Is this definition still true based on new laws of 2010?

Legality of paying for sex: is it true that under current English law, it is legal (yes, legal) to pay for sex?

So, in the following scenario, am I breaking the law or not?

I visit a house in Croydon where there is one (1) prostitute working. I have known this prostitute for nearly 7 years, and have become a regular customer. She is not being forced to do her job. I pay her to have sex with me. I leave.

Thoughts from the board, please.

JBx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since the new law came into place on 1 April 2010, I've become very confused about the legality of prostitution in the UK, specifically England where I live and do 100% of my punting.

The key confusions for me are two-fold:

Definition of a brothel: I've read on a number of sites that a brothel is defined as an indoor establishment where two (2) or more prostitutes work and sell sex for monetary gain. Is this definition still true based on new laws of 2010?

Yes, the new legislation makes no mention of "brothel"

Legality of paying for sex: is it true that under current English law, it is legal (yes, legal) to pay for sex?

Yes, paying for sexual services is not illegal, however there are certain circumstances where a crime can be committed when paying (but money does not actually have to change hands) for sexual services (but sexual services do not actually have to be supplied).

So, in the following scenario, am I breaking the law or not?

I visit a house in Croydon where there is one (1) prostitute working. I have known this prostitute for nearly 7 years, and have become a regular customer. She is not being forced to do her job. I pay her to have sex with me. I leave.

Thoughts from the board, please.

JBx

How do you know that the lady is not being forced to do her job?

Here is the new legislation, I suggest that you read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been seeing her for seven years, and she has never once demonstrated any of the typical behaviours of a captured person. Professionally, I'm a psychologist, a very good one, and I know all the signs...this girl is not doing this against her will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you know that the lady is not being forced to do her job?

Here is the new legislation, I suggest that you read it.

Or, to put it another way, we cannot be clear because the legislation is not clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since the new law came into place on 1 April 2010, I've become very confused about the legality of prostitution in the UK, specifically England where I live and do 100% of my punting.

The key confusions for me are two-fold:

Definition of a brothel: I've read on a number of sites that a brothel is defined as an indoor establishment where two (2) or more prostitutes work and sell sex for monetary gain. Is this definition still true based on new laws of 2010?

Legality of paying for sex: is it true that under current English law, it is legal (yes, legal) to pay for sex?

So, in the following scenario, am I breaking the law or not?

I visit a house in Croydon where there is one (1) prostitute working. I have known this prostitute for nearly 7 years, and have become a regular customer. She is not being forced to do her job. I pay her to have sex with me. I leave.

Thoughts from the board, please.

JBx

the definition of a brothel has not been altered by the new legislation, and in any case it makes no difference to the punter.

The law makes it an offence to pay for sex with a woman who is "forced, coerced, threatened or deceived" into providing her services. How you ascertain this is up to you. If you're wrong it's tough.

That's what the law says, although it's never been tested in court and very open to debate as to whether it's enforceable with someone who genuinely didn't and couldn't have known.

Visiting a willing prostitute is perfectly legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been seeing her for seven years, and she has never once demonstrated any of the typical behaviours of a captured person. Professionally, I'm a psychologist, a very good one, and I know all the signs...this girl is not doing this against her will.

The fact that you cannot see any signs of force, coercion, deceit etc. is not proof that she is not being forced, coerced, deceived etc. it is merely proof that you are unable to find them, you cannot prove a negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Each and every punter is no way able or responsible for a crime being committed by another.......so if we buy something off someone who doesnt pay VAT on their business, or declare all their earning to the IR, or knows its defective etc...its the buyers fault?????

It which case everyone is guilty of everything and anything!

The MPs who stole money off the taxpayer...are being allowed to step down, 4 are being taken to court...all will get off.......duplicity and hypocrisy rules in the UK!!!

Its turning into a punters hell!!

S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since the new law came into place on 1 April 2010, I've become very confused about the legality of prostitution in the UK, specifically England where I live and do 100% of my punting.

The key confusions for me are two-fold:

Definition of a brothel: I've read on a number of sites that a brothel is defined as an indoor establishment where two (2) or more prostitutes work and sell sex for monetary gain. Is this definition still true based on new laws of 2010?

Legality of paying for sex: is it true that under current English law, it is legal (yes, legal) to pay for sex?

So, in the following scenario, am I breaking the law or not?

I visit a house in Croydon where there is one (1) prostitute working. I have known this prostitute for nearly 7 years, and have become a regular customer. She is not being forced to do her job. I pay her to have sex with me. I leave.

Thoughts from the board, please.

JBx

There is no statutory definition of a brothel in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Your definition is as about as good as it gets. The new Policing and Crime Act 2009 did not alter the meaning of brothel.

It is legal to pay for sex in the UK (except for under age sex).

The new section 53A offence makes it illegal to pay or promise to pay for the sexual services of a prostitute subject to "exploitative conduct". Exploitative conduct is defined as the use of force, threats (whether or not relating to violence) or any other form of coercion, or any form of deception.

It sounds as though that you are sure as you can be that she is not subject to exploitative conduct. I think that you can carry on as you are fairly confident that your chances of being arrested are negligible. Given what you have said I would think that you have more chance of being killed in a car accident while on your way to visit her than you have of being arrested whilst visiting her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh... OK just for SASfan's benefit - a quick encore:eek:

I'm wondering how the principle of Actus Reus/Mens Rea fits into all this.

I'm no legal-eagle but a lawyer friend of mine once explained that, loosely, this principle meant that to be guilty of a crime you needed to have:

  1. carried out the actions necessary to have 'dunnit'
  2. been aware that you were doing it.

Now, I understand that Actus Reus and Mens Rea isn't quite as simple as that but if a coerced WG has told you 'in good faith' that she wasn't working against her will how on earth can the Mens Rea condition be satisfied?

Alongside all that is the (diminishing) sacrosanct principle of 'presumption of innocence'. The new law clearly states, however, that if you have sex with a coerced WG (even if you didn't know she was coerced!) you are guilty as hell!

Now I AM gonna bugger orft!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The new law clearly states, however, that if you have sex with a coerced WG (even if you didn't know she was coerced!) you are guilty as hell!

Not strictly accurate, but essentially correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The fact that you cannot see any signs of force, coercion, deceit etc. is not proof that she is not being forced, coerced, deceived etc. it is merely proof that you are unable to find them, you cannot prove a negative."

I have long held that "terror" is the province of governments; the rest is just crime.

This law, introducing the idea of a crime that is only a crime after its commission would seem to indicate that we are begining to life in a terrorist state

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets also be clear about who is in the driving seat where brothels are concerned, lets be clear who uses force, coercion and threats, it is not A, not, B or C, it is the 4th party in the equation "D"; the Police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an Ex-Labour voter in a lifetime of 60 odd years, I am apalled at what Nu Labour is about, a power crazy and controlling group of individuals who have absolutely nothing in common with the Labour Party that I once supported; Democratic Socialists who fought the corner of the ordinary man and woman. This now unrecognisable Party is more akin to a National Socialist Party where descenters are berated, Brown showed this when he made the remarks about the lady from Rochdale. If Brown returns with a new mandate I fear greatly for our freedoms, he has already taken this country well down the road to a Police State and will complete the job in spades if re-elected, a control freak who will want total control of the masses via a "Jack Booted" Police Force. Cameron is trying to do a Blair and will so disadvantage the ordinary person if re-elected. IMO the way forward is Liberal influence in Government to reform the voting system, bring in a continuous conscensus Government, hopefully reversing the draconain measures Blair/Brown have so cynically placed onto the Statute Book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone been nicked yet, i would like to see how this law stands up to a court and a jury

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has anyone been nicked yet, i would like to see how this law stands up to a court and a jury

AFAIK there have been no prosecutions, BTW the new legislation is summary conviction (Magistrates Court) only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since the new law came into place on 1 April 2010, I've become very confused about the legality of prostitution in the UK, specifically England where I live and do 100% of my punting.

The key confusions for me are two-fold:

Definition of a brothel: I've read on a number of sites that a brothel is defined as an indoor establishment where two (2) or more prostitutes work and sell sex for monetary gain. Is this definition still true based on new laws of 2010?

Legality of paying for sex: is it true that under current English law, it is legal (yes, legal) to pay for sex?

So, in the following scenario, am I breaking the law or not?

I visit a house in Croydon where there is one (1) prostitute working. I have known this prostitute for nearly 7 years, and have become a regular customer. She is not being forced to do her job. I pay her to have sex with me. I leave.

Thoughts from the board, please.

JBx

Surely, this is the whole raison d'etre of the Act. The catch 22 situation of it being impossible to be 100% sure, is what certain politicians have decided is the most effective deterrence to paying for sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AFAIK there have been no prosecutions, BTW the new legislation is summary conviction (Magistrates Court) only.

Hattie may be a bigot (sorry, Gordon, you were probably thinking of her when you spoke) but no-one has ever suggested that she is stupid! The JJ are, I'd suggest much less likely to follow the Luton jurors' example and acquit because they don't like the law!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Short story in the Evening Standard (couldn't find in online version) that Met Police Commissioner has threatened to prosecute newspapers that publish adverts for massage parloyrs/brothels. Usual guff about trafficking.

What I wonder would the charge be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Short story in the Evening Standard (couldn't find in online version) that Met Police Commissioner has threatened to prosecute newspapers that publish adverts for massage parloyrs/brothels. Usual guff about trafficking.

What I wonder would the charge be?

I had heard a few weeks ago about a meeting where the met police announced that they were intending to make advertising illegal. This was told to a rep of the IUSW. How the police can make law, I have no idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a group of friends, in no discernable way in punting, who have experience of the fact that NOBODY actually controls the Police in this country

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had heard a few weeks ago about a meeting where the met police announced that they were intending to make advertising illegal. This was told to a rep of the IUSW. How the police can make law, I have no idea?

Story here:

http://www.thelondondailynews.com/chief-london-newspapers-face-prosecution-over-prostitute-runs-p-4121.html

I thought it was the job of the CPS to decide if prosecutions were brought, not the of the Met?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sigh... OK just for SASfan's benefit - a quick encore:P

I'm wondering how the principle of Actus Reus/Mens Rea fits into all this.

I'm no legal-eagle but a lawyer friend of mine once explained that, loosely, this principle meant that to be guilty of a crime you needed to have:

  1. carried out the actions necessary to have 'dunnit'
  2. been aware that you were doing it.

Now, I understand that Actus Reus and Mens Rea isn't quite as simple as that but if a coerced WG has told you 'in good faith' that she wasn't working against her will how on earth can the Mens Rea condition be satisfied?

Alongside all that is the (diminishing) sacrosanct principle of 'presumption of innocence'. The new law clearly states, however, that if you have sex with a coerced WG (even if you didn't know she was coerced!) you are guilty as hell!

Now I AM gonna bugger orft!

Yes, quite right, but there is nothing to stop legislation excluding mens rea for a particular offence, making it an offence of strict liability, sometimes known as an absolute offence. This is normally used for regulatory matters, it is no defence to a speeding charge that you did not intend to speed. The sense of that is obvious, it would be difficult to prove intent. The same applies, perhaps slightly less justly to motor insurance, it is no defence to believe honestly that you were insured if you were not (subject to limited exception, for legal pedants!) The particularly controversial aspect to the new legislation is that it introduces strict liability into a situation where it is impossible in many cases to know whether a condition applies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, quite right, but there is nothing to stop legislation excluding mens rea for a particular offence, making it an offence of strict liability, sometimes known as an absolute offence. This is normally used for regulatory matters, it is no defence to a speeding charge that you did not intend to speed. The sense of that is obvious, it would be difficult to prove intent. The same applies, perhaps slightly less justly to motor insurance, it is no defence to believe honestly that you were insured if you were not (subject to limited exception, for legal pedants!) The particularly controversial aspect to the new legislation is that it introduces strict liability into a situation where it is impossible in many cases to know whether a condition applies.

exactly. The "limited exceptions" that you speak of with regard to insurance on a car, cover that exact situation. If you hire a car, or are given a courtesy car and it turns out that the hire company didn't have insurance then you wouldn't be prosecuted. There was an episode of police camera action or something similar where they found a guy driving a car which he'd hired but the car had been bought by the hire company on a hire/purchase scheme and that meant the insurance was invalid....none of which this guy could have known about so he was in the clear.

Yet the new law says it will be irrelevent whether you "knew or ought to have known" the girl's situation.....I'm just waiting for someone to challenge that in court. Will be fun to watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
exactly. The "limited exceptions" that you speak of with regard to insurance on a car, cover that exact situation. If you hire a car, or are given a courtesy car and it turns out that the hire company didn't have insurance then you wouldn't be prosecuted. There was an episode of police camera action or something similar where they found a guy driving a car which he'd hired but the car had been bought by the hire company on a hire/purchase scheme and that meant the insurance was invalid....none of which this guy could have known about so he was in the clear.

Yet the new law says it will be irrelevent whether you "knew or ought to have known" the girl's situation.....I'm just waiting for someone to challenge that in court. Will be fun to watch.

Hopefully the new Coalition govt in the UK is planning to do away with the strict liability nonsense as part of it's commitment to defend trial by jury mentioned as part of the new programme.http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-some-longawaited-cheer-for-liberal-hearts-1977425.html

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