Man2k

What will happen if Bill remains unamended

33 posts in this topic

I know it will be impossible to stop the paid for sex scene in this country, but has anyone thought about what will happen to the UK punting/escorting scene if this law goes through unamended? I am guessing for starters we will see more Independents.

For example, will we still see girls advertising on the web? using sites like @w? Would research on girls pre-punt become harder to do?

I will of course stick with my regular.

I will be cautious, but will continue to punt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Becoming an indie will certainly be an option for some parlour girls but then those that do may not all be able to offer incall appointments due to whatever living arrangements they have. Additionally guys that frequent parlours may not have suitable living arrangements to accomodate an outcall. There is certainly a proportion of the current trade that will deminish unless parlours can find a way of staying open.

Let's face it though brothels have been illegal for perhaps the last 50 or more years yet the authorities haven't exactly gone round and systematically closed them all. Maybe a name change is all that is needed ? 30 or 40 years ago "massage parlour" didn't specifically mean "brothel" to most people like it does now. Maybe parlours will become speed dating agencies or friendship clubs ??

I'm not saying the new law won't create some high profile arrests / busts etc but after things calm down it could well be business as normal.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's face it though brothels have been illegal for perhaps the last 50 or more years yet the authorities haven't exactly gone round and systematically closed them all. Maybe a name change is all that is needed ? 30 or 40 years ago "massage parlour" didn't specifically mean "brothel" to most people like it does now. Maybe parlours will become speed dating agencies or friendship clubs ??

The crucial point about the proposed change to the law is the criminalisation of punters. People running brothels have presumable gone into the business with both eyes open, but have chosen it as a business over other legal options.

Punters however have not been threatened with being criminalised before, and I suspect that a significant number (although by no means all) will consider the mere possibility of arrest - however remote, and however unlikely the chance of actually being charged or convicted of anything - as too much of a risk to take just to satisfy their sexual urges.

I would therefore foresee a significant decline in the number of men willing to pay for sex, and in this respect the feminists pushing for this change will have achieved their objective.

I would also foresee as a consequence an increase in the divorce rate, as men in sex-starved relationships, denied of a discreet and legal outlet for their desires, either decide to throw the towel in and find another partner that has a matched libido, or go down the route of having an affair, which is much more likely to be discovered by their spouse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of proof would they need to arrest you? No matter how obvious it looks, if im in a parlour and the girl starts off with giving me a massage and the police burst in, there isnt anything technically wrong with what ive done is there?

Wouldnt they need to see the money change hands before they can act?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wouldnt they need to see the money change hands before they can act?

The proposed legislation does not stipulate that payment has to change hands, the promise of payment is good enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The proposed legislation does not stipulate that payment has to change hands, the promise of payment is good enough.

To get around current laws parlours say you pay for a massage or the girls company, and anything after that is up to you 2. If sex is never explicitly mentioned wouldnt this get around the issue?

Maybe im being naive but im sure there will be ways around it. There has been up until now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm with marksmith on this.

once any law is passed,it needs to be scrutinized by people with legal expertise to work out a way of getting around the law.

these oxbridge graduates don't think of everything!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big whopper here is strict liability.

If a punter visits a girl, unaware that she is in fact trafficked/forced/whatever, he can still be charged. That's the gist of it, right?

So, many punters will try to avoid that mstake, and start to look for reliable reassurance that the WGs free will is in fact not tampered with. (Many already do for personal ethical reasons, but find it difficult to know for sure.)

Maybe some industry self-regulatory measure? Like a "Green List" run by someone like IUSW, a database of vetted non-controlled workers? Wouldn't be fool proof of course, but better than random guess-work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To get around current laws parlours say you pay for a massage or the girls company, and anything after that is up to you 2. If sex is never explicitly mentioned wouldnt this get around the issue?

Maybe im being naive but im sure there will be ways around it. There has been up until now

That is what is described by our colonial friends as a duck, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck then there is very probable that it is a duck. I'm afraid that the T&C disclaimer is about as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike, it has never been successful in a court in a country where prostitution is illegal, it just will not wash. Just put yourself in the position of a juror, you are being asked to believe that Fred Bloggs was in a known brothel and the last thing on his mind was paying for sexual services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If a punter visits a girl, unaware that she is in fact trafficked/forced/whatever, he can still be charged. That's the gist of it, right?

You are right, that is the gist of it, but, and it is a big but, you must replace "trafficked/forced/whatever" with "controlled for gain" and "charged" with "guilty", now the gist of the gist is exactly what "controlled for gain" means, don't ask me please, I have not a clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The core purpose of this new law is to dissuade the puchase of sexual services: - men being the target. A vast majority of men who purchase sex from a prostitute are either married or are in a steady relationship, and it is this group by far that will not risk being caught (found out) by virtue of arrest, single men will think twice or be very wary, fearing arrest, and this will completely destroy the relaxed pleasure that this activity now offers and make the experience tense and unenjoyable, with the dread of the place where you are with the prostitute being raided by plod, at the back of the mind. To be frank; this Bill is designed to completely and utterly destroy the paid for sex scene in the UK.

There will be no closure of Brothels (Massage Parlours), there will be no need, Police will visit arrest all the punters, these measures will be in waves or so called clampdowns, as plod do now with speeding and other offences. The only action the Police will take against Brothels is if they uncover, when raiding, that girls ARE trafficked. Independents, Escorts will all fall into the these sweeps by plod, and ONLY the men will be targetted, any other ciminallity that plod stumbles will be a bonus. The Punting playground will become a a very scary no go arena, the providers being starved of custom will just fade away - job done, and not a forced closure enacted.

There will then be a murky crime fuelled underground, where premises are either in the "pockets" of the local plod or "guarded" by thugs with early warnig to Punters of a raid, similar to the old porn cinema's in Soho suring the 1970's. What a mess!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are right, that is the gist of it, but, and it is a big but, you must replace "trafficked/forced/whatever" with "controlled for gain" and "charged" with "guilty", now the gist of the gist is exactly what "controlled for gain" means, don't ask me please, I have not a clue.

So take a place like Sandy's for example. The girls there are working of their own free will (you can tell when a girl is being forced from the way she acts) but are being controlled in a way by the manager of the place. So if i booked a girl and paid for sex, i would be breaking this new law as she is being controlled even tho she is willing to do what she does?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So take a place like Sandy's for example. The girls there are working of their own free will (you can tell when a girl is being forced from the way she acts) but are being controlled in a way by the manager of the place. So if i booked a girl and paid for sex, i would be breaking this new law as she is being controlled even tho she is willing to do what she does?

A lawyer, Mr Peter Lodder, from the Bar Council gave evidence last wk

Julie Kirkbride summarize what he said:

Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove) (Con): I have concerns about the phrase “controlled for gain” because, from what we have heard in previous evidence, there will be circumstances in which women in a brothel would be happy with that arrangement, because it is a safer way of operating their trade. Technically, they are in control of the gain, because there is someone there answering the telephone and sorting it all out. So, while the Government’s intention to tackle trafficking is entirely laudable and desirable, the catch-all “controlled for gain” will be more likely to attack or cause a problem for the better forms or organisation of prostitution. Is there another phrase that could be used, Mr. Lodder, other than “controlled for gain”, which could get the traffickers rather than the blanket?

(nobody has come up with another phrase yet)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They probably never will as they cant understand that alot of women choose to do this job and arent being controlled by some nasty pimp.

Was speaking to a friend other day about this new law. He didnt know about it but couldnt understand that a girl would choose to do this job, instead assuming that they're all being forced into it by someone. He then called me naive for thinking otherwise. Where has this stereotype come from? The movies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So take a place like Sandy's for example. The girls there are working of their own free will (you can tell when a girl is being forced from the way she acts) but are being controlled in a way by the manager of the place. So if i booked a girl and paid for sex, i would be breaking this new law as she is being controlled even tho she is willing to do what she does?

That is not a million miles away from the reality, just a couple of points; you don't have to actually pay or indeed actually be supplied with any sexual services, just the promise of payment will suffice, and secondly it all depends upon what "controlled for gain" means, the term "controlled for gain" has been incorporated in existing legislation (SOA 2003) without any definition and/or explanation and judicial opinion as to its meaning is, to say the very least, divided. There is a load of discussion going on in the committee stage of the proposed legislation relating to "controlled for gain" and the intention of the relevant clause, but as we post little or nothing has actually been resolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is not a million miles away from the reality, just a couple of points; you don't have to actually pay or indeed actually be supplied with any sexual services, just the promise of payment will suffice, and secondly it all depends upon what "controlled for gain" means, the term "controlled for gain" has been incorporated in existing legislation (SOA 2003) without any definition and/or explanation and judicial opinion as to its meaning is, to say the very least, divided. There is a load of discussion going on in the committee stage of the proposed legislation relating to "controlled for gain" and the intention of the relevant clause, but as we post little or nothing has actually been resolved.

Controlled for gain such a vague term as it stands. Im controlled for gain in my job if you want to take the term further. I get paid just like a WG does, but im also earning money for my employer just like a working girl does

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is not a million miles away from the reality, just a couple of points; you don't have to actually pay or indeed actually be supplied with any sexual services, just the promise of payment will suffice, and secondly it all depends upon what "controlled for gain" means, the term "controlled for gain" has been incorporated in existing legislation (SOA 2003) without any definition and/or explanation and judicial opinion as to its meaning is, to say the very least, divided. There is a load of discussion going on in the committee stage of the proposed legislation relating to "controlled for gain" and the intention of the relevant clause, but as we post little or nothing has actually been resolved.

I've not studied the transcript of last Thursday's Committee discusions, but from what I understood of the live broadcast that I listened to the government is not prepared to accept any of the amendments relating either to controlled for gain or strict liability.

In answer to Dr Harris' questions, Mr Campbell answered that controlled for gain was not covered by the role of a receptionist, driver or security person.

Not sure whether that assurance will be included in any guidelines that are appararently provided with legislation.

In response to Dr Harris' question about a madam, he said he would look into it and report back at a later date.

I can't be optimistic, but, to me, the key point in the legislation and its subsequent implementation by the police and courts is whether it affects well-run, safe establishments like Sandy's in Manchester or whether they will remain as now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the Government actually understand that places like Sandys dont force the girls into anything and they're there of there own free will? Or are they just that stupid to think any brothel/parlour must have girls being forced into it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does the Government actually understand that places like Sandys dont force the girls into anything and they're there of there own free will? Or are they just that stupid to think any brothel/parlour must have girls being forced into it

I think you need to review your thinking in relation to the proposed legislation, it has, IMHO, nothing whatsoever to do with coercion, abduction or slavery, it is all to do with a need to stop the act of paying for sexual services, as an aside strangely enough it has nothing to do with the act of supplying of sexual services which my poor little brain cell gets rather confused over, but that is by-the-by; the proposed legislation is, once again IMHO, the result of a crusade by certain people who wish to eliminate the paid sex trade but haven't quite got the "cojones" to be upfront about it and produce legislation to restrict both the buying and selling of sexual services I don't understand why they don't do it but there are lots of things I don't understand, now because it is a crusade it is, by definition, not subject to any normal rule of common sense or understanding, so I think you are on a loser if you try to understand the thought processes of those involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does the Government actually understand that places like Sandys dont force the girls into anything and they're there of there own free will? Or are they just that stupid to think any brothel/parlour must have girls being forced into it

1. some do

2. The Feminist jihaddists might or might not, but that doesn't matter

since they want to ban £4 sex no matter what.

3. there's a lot of useful idiots, and those are the ones it could be

possible to convince

did you read this?

http://www.punternet.com/forum/showthread.php?p=239502#poststop

in addition the following excerpts from last debate should explain where we are at now:

James Brokenshire (Hornchurch) (Con): I have one narrow point of qualification. If there is a prostitute whose activities are in part controlled for gain although not wholly and exclusively, how would the clause operate? Is it captured because of the wording surrounding any of the activities relating to the provision of those services or, in specific circumstances, would the court need to be satisfied that the prostitute was controlled for gain in that individual case?

Mr. Campbell: I am not sure of the answer to that question. Again, I will look at it. To some extent, this will be defined by the individual circumstances of the case, and the courts will have a part in framing the answer that the hon. Gentleman seeks. I am not sure whether he had a particular example in mind of how a prostitute could at some point be controlled for gain while not controlled for gain at some other point when she is plying her trade.

Dr. Harris: The hon. Member for Hornchurch makes a useful point. I thought that was covered. Suppose a woman works for herself as a call girl some of the time, but in a brothel the rest of the time. The brothel circumstances would be such that they would be controlled for gain and we would all agree that they were because Column number: 266there was an aggressive, intimidating pimp there. I understood that the reference in proposed new section 53A(1)(:P to

"any of B's activities relating to the provision of those services"

refers to those specific services that have just been paid for or for which payment has been promised rather than those general services that they are buying. That is probably the point that needs to be clarified. It is possibly ambiguous.

Mr. Campbell: I thank the hon. Gentleman because he more or less did my job for me there in clarifying that point. I was going to make the point, but I will take guidance on this, about the circumstances when the payment and the act took place. There may well be a difference between the two, but let me come back to him on that because it is a good point.

later he said

Mr. Campbell: I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on that point before I conclude my remarks. I recognise the concerns that have motivated these amendments and welcome the constructive attempts to clarify the definition of "controlled for gain", albeit a difficult task. I hope that my remarks have provided clarity and that hon. Members will not feel that they have to push these amendments.

later on

Mr. Ruffley: I take the point that the Minister is to take this away, so my question seeks not to dwell on that, but rather to understand the offence of aiding and abetting. What is the source in law for that offence, as it is not in the Bill?

Mr. Campbell: That can be part of our coming back to the Committee.

I appreciate and understand the need to be clear about the circumstances covered by the term "controlled for gain". I hope that in our lengthy deliberations, where we have had useful discussion backwards and forwards, I have sufficiently persuaded hon. Members of the advantages of the term that we are proposing to use over their amendments. I also hope that I have stressed the importance we place on the strict liability aspect of the offence and the need to retain the ability to prosecute, even where sexual services are obtained outside England and Wales. I hope that hon. Members, in accepting that reasoning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They probably never will as they cant understand that alot of women choose to do this job and arent being controlled by some nasty pimp.

Yes - Nail, Head, Hit.

Was speaking to a friend other day about this new law. He didnt know about it but couldnt understand that a girl would choose to do this job, instead assuming that they're all being forced into it by someone. He then called me naive for thinking otherwise. Where has this stereotype come from? The movies?

Movies, TV, newspapers....it's a stereotype that I suppose makes for good drama. I have my own pet conspiracy theory about the media's portrayal of prostitution, but I won't bore you with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you need to review your thinking in relation to the proposed legislation, it has, IMHO, nothing whatsoever to do with coercion, abduction or slavery, it is all to do with a need to stop the act of paying for sexual services, as an aside strangely enough it has nothing to do with the act of supplying of sexual services which my poor little brain cell gets rather confused over, but that is by-the-by; the proposed legislation is, once again IMHO, the result of a crusade by certain people who wish to eliminate the paid sex trade but haven't quite got the "cojones" to be upfront about it and produce legislation to restrict both the buying and selling of sexual services I don't understand why they don't do it but there are lots of things I don't understand, now because it is a crusade it is, by definition, not subject to any normal rule of common sense or understanding, so I think you are on a loser if you try to understand the thought processes of those involved.

That's the essence of the proposed law in a nutshell, mixed up with classic FUD tactics to scare the majority of punters away based on a belief that demand for paid sex is allegedly soft.

This isn't about facts, or evidence but ideology. Those looking for a reasoned argument on the pros and cons of the legislation are therefore barking up the wrong tree.

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you need to review your thinking in relation to the proposed legislation, it has, IMHO, nothing whatsoever to do with coercion, abduction or slavery, it is all to do with a need to stop the act of paying for sexual services, as an aside strangely enough it has nothing to do with the act of supplying of sexual services which my poor little brain cell gets rather confused over, but that is by-the-by; the proposed legislation is, once again IMHO, the result of a crusade by certain people who wish to eliminate the paid sex trade but haven't quite got the "cojones" to be upfront about it and produce legislation to restrict both the buying and selling of sexual services I don't understand why they don't do it but there are lots of things I don't understand, now because it is a crusade it is, by definition, not subject to any normal rule of common sense or understanding, so I think you are on a loser if you try to understand the thought processes of those

.

That's the essence of the proposed law in a nutshell, mixed up with classic FUD tactics to scare the majority of punters away based on a belief that demand for paid sex is allegedly soft.

This isn't about facts, or evidence but ideology. Those looking for a reasoned argument on the pros and cons of the legislation are therefore barking up the wrong tree.

B

It has never been about finding the best solution, but a solution in search of a problem.

Years ago, when it was first suggested that it should be illegal to pay for sex (in the UK), trafficking wasn't even mentioned.

That is just a heaven sent excuse that feminists and Christians realized would be more useful than their traditional tired old arguments, they only had to inflate the numbers and make it sound like a serious problem rather than the rare crime that it is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It has never been about finding the best solution, but a solution in search of a problem.

Years ago, when it was first suggested that it should be illegal to pay for sex (in the UK), trafficking wasn't even mentioned.

That is just a heaven sent excuse that feminists and Christians realized would be more useful than their traditional tired old arguments, they only had to inflate the numbers and make it sound like a serious problem rather than the rare crime that it is...

But I think the Government do see a problem.

In a 2000 survey of 11,000 men, one in ten admitted to using prostitutes. This was up from one in 20 in 1990. Also, there was an article in December's Scientific American on why men buy sex which claimed that 16% of men pay for sex in the US, so a not vastly different figure there. These sorts of figures are, I'm sure, one of the reasons why those with a moral agenda in Government want to see, and try and enforce, change. As SaSfan says, it has nothing to do with coercion, abduction or slavery.

Now, I'm certain the driver for this increase in prostitution has been the internet where it has become easier and easier for providers to promote their wares and users to buy those wares. This proposed legislation is an attempt by Government to somehow put the genie back in the bottle, but in its present form it will almost certainly fail.

Of course, in the short term many men will become reticent about seeing a prostitute for fear of being arrested on suspicion of being involved with a person "controlled for gain", but unless significant arrests are made and cases brought before the courts and proven, the law will fall into disrepute. The CPS will be reluctant to bring cases to trial if the evidence is flimsy and the police will be reluctant to make arrests which don't proceed to trial.

Given the propensity for men to buy sex, and the ease with which this can now be done, things will gradually slip back to as they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The core purpose of this new law is to dissuade the puchase of sexual services: - men being the target. A vast majority of men who purchase sex from a prostitute are either married or are in a steady relationship, and it is this group by far that will not risk being caught (found out) by virtue of arrest, single men will think twice or be very wary, fearing arrest, and this will completely destroy the relaxed pleasure that this activity now offers and make the experience tense and unenjoyable, with the dread of the place where you are with the prostitute being raided by plod, at the back of the mind. To be frank; this Bill is designed to completely and utterly destroy the paid for sex scene in the UK.

There will be no closure of Brothels (Massage Parlours), there will be no need, Police will visit arrest all the punters, these measures will be in waves or so called clampdowns, as plod do now with speeding and other offences. The only action the Police will take against Brothels is if they uncover, when raiding, that girls ARE trafficked. Independents, Escorts will all fall into the these sweeps by plod, and ONLY the men will be targetted, any other ciminallity that plod stumbles will be a bonus. The Punting playground will become a a very scary no go arena, the providers being starved of custom will just fade away - job done, and not a forced closure enacted.

There will then be a murky crime fuelled underground, where premises are either in the "pockets" of the local plod or "guarded" by thugs with early warnig to Punters of a raid, similar to the old porn cinema's in Soho suring the 1970's. What a mess!

You're right in your initial assertion, coin, but not, I believe, in your apocalyptic conclusion!

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