MarcoPolo

London raids

13 posts in this topic

It's been a while since we heard from DI Kevin Hyland, but his unit has just had a little blitz in North London. We get the usual soundbites, though in this case it does appear that this may have been a genuine coercion/trafficking operation.

An intriguing point is that two customers were arrested for suspected immigration offences.

http://www.met.police.uk/pressbureau/bur22/page4.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... DI Kevin Hyland, but his unit has just had a little blitz in North London. We get the usual soundbites, though in this case it does appear that this may have been a genuine coercion/trafficking operation.

An intriguing point is that two customers were arrested for suspected immigration offences.

http://www.met.police.uk/pressbureau/bur22/page4.htm

Odd that there were any "customers" still at a knocking shop at 04.00 hrs? During WW2, the only place where you could spend the night in Germany or German occupied territory without producing an Ausweiss (ID Card) was a brothel, and I slightly wonder whether in today's London IIs think the same applies?

I do, also, rather snobbishly, wonder where (if anywhere) Kevin went to school!

"Women who are made to work as prostitutes face an horrendous ordeal on a daily basis. We will do all we can to ensure their safety."

As his English teacher should have told him, you only change "a" to "an" before a vowel, or a silent aitch! With the hard aitch in horrendous (correct word in this case, I think) just the simple "a" would be correct.

(Yes, I suppose this marks me as a pedant and pompous ass, but that's me!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As his English teacher should have told him, you only change "a" to "an" before a vowel, or a silent aitch! With the hard aitch in horrendous (correct word in this case, I think) just the simple "a" would be correct.

Maybe he was speaking in Estuary English: :cool:

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A further two men, believed to have been customers of the brothels, were arrested at the premises on suspicion of immigration offences and possession of an offensive weapon."

I suspect that this is a case of foreign girls catering for foreign customers.

Pretty silly to take an offensive weapon to a brothel though. Unless of course he fancied a bit of domination and took his own cane, whip or paddle....in which case he was unlucky.

As well as the Newham case (1 April) I did come across another case of an arrest under the new section 53A offence.

http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/content/towerhamlets/advertiser/news/story.aspx?brand=elaonline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsela&itemid=WeED21%20Apr%202010%2014%3A17%3A37%3A750

"Arrest made at Bethnal Green brothel after new sex law comes into force

21 April 2010

COPS arrested a man under new sex offences legislation when they raided a brothel in Bethnal Green.

Officers raided the flat in Bethnal Green Road after they received letters of complaint from neighbours and found two Romanian women in their mid-20s believed to be working as prostitutes as well as a middle aged woman who they believe was running the brothel.

They arrested a 45-year-old man at the address on Thursday, April 8 using new legislation which came into force on April 1 under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

He was arrested on suspicion of committing a new offence, paying for sexual services of a prostitute subject to force and has been released on police bail pending further enquiries.

The woman believed to be managing the property was served with a closure notice by the courts after police provided strong evidence that the flat had been operating as a brothel and had become a nuisance to neighbours.

Officers seized evidence including hundreds of 'prostitute postcards' often placed in telephone boxes as 'adverts'.

Tower Hamlets police's safer neighbourhoods' Insp Stephen Manger said: "The issues surrounding prostitution and why men pay for sex are very, very complex.

"Tower Hamlets Police works with various local agencies in assisting girls who can sometimes become victims but we are robustly tackling those that cause problems to the local community.

"It's not just a couple of working girls in the borough, it's organised crime. There's several premises like this in tower hamlets and the safer neighbourhoods teams are cracking down on these brothels to make the area safe for people who live here."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"A further two men, believed to have been customers of the brothels, were arrested at the premises on suspicion of immigration offences and possession of an offensive weapon."

I suspect that this is a case of foreign girls catering for foreign customers.

Pretty silly to take an offensive weapon to a brothel though. Unless of course he fancied a bit of domination and took his own cane, whip or paddle....in which case he was unlucky.

As well as the Newham case (1 April) I did come across another case of an arrest under the new section 53A offence.

http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/content/towerhamlets/advertiser/news/story.aspx?brand=elaonline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsela&itemid=WeED21%20Apr%202010%2014%3A17%3A37%3A750

"Arrest made at Bethnal Green brothel after new sex law comes into force

21 April 2010

COPS arrested a man under new sex offences legislation when they raided a brothel in Bethnal Green.

Officers raided the flat in Bethnal Green Road after they received letters of complaint from neighbours and found two Romanian women in their mid-20s believed to be working as prostitutes as well as a middle aged woman who they believe was running the brothel.

They arrested a 45-year-old man at the address on Thursday, April 8 using new legislation which came into force on April 1 under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

He was arrested on suspicion of committing a new offence, paying for sexual services of a prostitute subject to force and has been released on police bail pending further enquiries.

The woman believed to be managing the property was served with a closure notice by the courts after police provided strong evidence that the flat had been operating as a brothel and had become a nuisance to neighbours.

Officers seized evidence including hundreds of 'prostitute postcards' often placed in telephone boxes as 'adverts'.

Tower Hamlets police's safer neighbourhoods' Insp Stephen Manger said: "The issues surrounding prostitution and why men pay for sex are very, very complex.

"Tower Hamlets Police works with various local agencies in assisting girls who can sometimes become victims but we are robustly tackling those that cause problems to the local community.

"It's not just a couple of working girls in the borough, it's organised crime. There's several premises like this in tower hamlets and the safer neighbourhoods teams are cracking down on these brothels to make the area safe for people who live here."

once again it appears from the limited information available that the police are headed for a fall with the new legislation. They arrested the man on suspicion that the women were forced, coerced etc. but the woman there was only served with a closure notice. On what basis was the man arrested? if they had evidence to arrest him they surely should have had evidence to arrest someone else for trafficking or kidnap or SOMETHING. It was the same in the initial arrests on day 1 - the men were arrested but the woman was only arrested on the bog standard "assisting in the management of a brothel". Someone's going to query their grounds for arrest at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
once again it appears from the limited information available that the police are headed for a fall with the new legislation. They arrested the man on suspicion that the women were forced, coerced etc. but the woman there was only served with a closure notice. On what basis was the man arrested? if they had evidence to arrest him they surely should have had evidence to arrest someone else for trafficking or kidnap or SOMETHING. It was the same in the initial arrests on day 1 - the men were arrested but the woman was only arrested on the bog standard "assisting in the management of a brothel". Someone's going to query their grounds for arrest at some point.

I expect that the CPS will review the evidence and ask the Police to see if he is mug enough to accept a Caution.

I can just see it now:

PC Plod: " It's your lucky day my friend. I've had a word with my Super and he has decided that we can let you off with a Caution. That way you won't have a fine or go to Court. You're happy with that aren't you? I'll just go and get the paperwork for you to sign and then you can be on your way."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I expect that the CPS will review the evidence and ask the Police to see if he is mug enough to accept a Caution.

I can just see it now:

PC Plod: " It's your lucky day my friend. I've had a word with my Super and he has decided that we can let you off with a Caution. That way you won't have a fine or go to Court. You're happy with that aren't you? I'll just go and get the paperwork for you to sign and then you can be on your way."

well technically they're supposed to offer a caution only when they have sufficient to go to court and have a reasonable chance of conviction, although they don't need to prove you knew anything about the girl's situation, they still need evidence that there is a "situation" in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well technically they're supposed to offer a caution only when they have sufficient to go to court and have a reasonable chance of conviction, although they don't need to prove you knew anything about the girl's situation, they still need evidence that there is a "situation" in the first place.

Er, yes! What you say is, er, as you put it, technically true, but who is going to waste time on mere technicalities, if they can tick off a case "cleared up"?

"Er, BTW, Sir, just before you go, you have to sign the, er, Visitors' Book, here!

(...and there you are, a registered Sex Offender, although once back in Albania no one is going to worry about that.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(...and there you are, a registered Sex Offender, although once back in Albania no one is going to worry about that.)

I don't think that any of the brothel keeping/ controlling offences ( including section 53A) are subject to the notification requirements of the Violent and Sex Offenders Register ( see Schedule 3, SOA2003).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that any of the brothel keeping/ controlling offences ( including section 53A) are subject to the notification requirements of the Violent and Sex Offenders Register ( see Schedule 3, SOA2003).

For once I am delighted to be wrong!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Er, yes! What you say is, er, as you put it, technically true, but who is going to waste time on mere technicalities, if they can tick off a case "cleared up"?

"Er, BTW, Sir, just before you go, you have to sign the, er, Visitors' Book, here!

Sadly there appears to be more than a ring of truth about this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/10557250.stm

"A Norfolk police officer who tricked innocent people into accepting cautions and warnings to improve his detection rates has been jailed for three years.

Pc Dominic de Souza, 31, was found guilty of nine counts of misconduct in a public office at Norwich Crown Court.

He was cleared of two crimes and jurors failed to reach a verdict on another.

De Souza handed out cautions for drug or offensive weapon possession. The case "exposed the shortcomings" of target-driven policing, the judge said.

'Wholesale damage'

Judge Peter Jacobs said de Souza, of Millers Square, Attleborough, who committed the offences while working near Norwich, had "criminalised" innocent people and was guilty of a "pervasive abuse of power".

He said it had done "wholesale damage" to public confidence in the police.

The judge also said a sergeant and an inspector who managed de Souza "had not enjoyed their finest hour".

De Souza will stay in jail for at least 18 months before being eligible for release on licence.

The judge said de Souza, who was based in Wymondham, Norfolk, targeted "young men who were hanging around" and had been trying to meet targets and boost promotion prospects.

The Pc questioned and searched teenagers, then conned them into accepting cautions for drug offences and possession of offensive weapons, the court was told.

Jurors heard that he forged a signature and falsified dates of birth to make youngsters appear older than they were and therefore eligible to be cautioned.

"Detected crimes" were then recorded against de Souza's name in lists of crime statistics.

Judge Jacobs said two youngsters were given cautions when "plainly innocent of any offence whatsoever".

'Corrupt behaviour'

"Some years ago the Home Office laid down targets for detection of crime, which were passed to police forces," said the judge.

"These were transferred into targets for particular divisions and particular officers."

Speaking after the case, Acting Deputy Chief Constable Kevin Wilkins said: "During the trial the officer said he didn't feel under pressure... I don't believe he was put under pressure, it was just a question of corrupt and dishonest behaviour in this case."

Passing a sentence of three years in prison, Judge Jacobs said: "Wholesale damage is done to public confidence in the police force in this county.

"He has to be dealt with severely."

Norfolk Police said it would review De Souza's position within the force next week.

He has been suspended since 2008."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe of interest something concerning our 'friend' DI Kevin Hyland.

http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/priorities_and_how_we_are_doing/corporate/co14_policing_plan_2009_2010.pdf

Some extracts of interest below:-

YTD..........................No............Value....................Incentivisation Pts

No. of investigations....13

Confiscation Orders......10............£932,612.52...........39

Restraint Orders...........5.............£65,000.................15

Cash Detention Orders..24.............£263,202...............25

Cash Forfeiture Orders..16.............£58,450.07............21

Money Laundering Charges.5...........0.........................5

OBJECTIVE: Respond to requests re nuisance brothels 100% of the time.

RESULTS: All 35 requests responded to, 33 brothels closed.

(Notice the discrepancy and the failure in the money laundering area. Not forgetting the dangerous use of scores. Trafficked victim 50pts?)

CO14 BUDGET FIGURES:

Feb.......................Allowed spend..............YTD Actual

Supplies & Services..£77,043.00..................£101,775.00

Transport Services...£41,249.00..................£79,641.00

External Training......£5,518.00....................£5,454.00

Overseas Travel.......£10,703.00.................£4,703.00

Expenses................£18,330.00.................£18,303.00

Nice gravy train.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

76 targeted vists, i.e. undertaken because of information received that led them to suspect trafficking. Numbers of collars:2. 'Nuff said.

Number of brothels also closed down, but only as result of nuisance complaints.

Funds confiscated lumped together so sums relating to prostitution not separately identifiable.

Slim pickings but enough to finance the unit's continued existence, other than payroll of course. We pay that.

Next year's equivalent will be interesting when we see exactly how many collars felt under the new laws, if any.

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