Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
danrogers

new law

25 posts in this topic

seems to be a lack of news of punters being caught

why is this

anyone got news on cases of when punters are caught and its gone to the courtroom etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seems to be a lack of news of punters being caught

why is this

anyone got news on cases of when punters are caught and its gone to the courtroom etc

no - only had punters arrested twice from what I've heard. Once on day one, which I'm sure we've all heard about, where one was cautioned although there was some debate on here as to whether the caution related to the new law or something else. And someone mentioned on another thread that someone had been arrested in bethnal green a few weeks later. He was bailed and no other info available.

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

The only other arrests mentioned have related to immigration/drugs offences which also lends credence to the possibility that the original guy was cautioned for drugs found after his arrest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seems to be a lack of news of punters being caught

why is this

I'm fairly sure that Ms Harman would say that it is because the new law is working, on the other hand if lots of punters were being caught then I'm fairly sure that Ms Harman would say is because the new law is working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm fairly sure that Ms Harman would say that it is because the new law is working, on the other hand if lots of punters were being caught then I'm fairly sure that Ms Harman would say is because the new law is working.

there was also the point that this raid...

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

indicates that they were fairly sure the women were victims of exploitation, yet the customers were arrested only for drugs and immigration offences. I would have thought that the new law would have been the first thing they'd have been arrested for, even before they were found to be carrying drugs, and certainly long before they had time to work out their immigration status. Either way it seems they didn't bother arresting them for the new offence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm fairly sure that Ms Harman would say that it is because the new law is working, on the other hand if lots of punters were being caught then I'm fairly sure that Ms Harman would say is because the new law is working.
Ms Who??;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm fairly sure that Ms Harman would say that it is because the new law is working, on the other hand if lots of punters were being caught then I'm fairly sure that Ms Harman would say is because the new law is working.

The new law was designed to deter prostitution

Doesnt seem to be much of a tailoff in FR's written so yaa boo sucks to mrs dromey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seems to be a lack of news of punters being caught

why is this.......

In my view it's panned out pretty much as I (and most other posters) thought it would.

If you read the relevant threads in the "Legalities and Legislation" section for the last 6 months or so then they'll explain the collective thoughts.

The Police and CPS have always said that the new section 53A offence is going to be difficult to prosecute. Combine that with the debunked myth that 80% (or whatever) of WG's are forced or coerced, and it's no wonder that the new offence has been pushed to the back of the cupboard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SO it seems the new act is primarily a deterent

is this the case because the CPS etc have concerns how it would run in court ? or some related reason

surely if it was so easy-peasy to implement and considering majority of punters are ignorant of this new law and carrying on as usual - we would see more arrests

Or have I got it wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SO it seems the new act is primarily a deterent

is this the case because the CPS etc have concerns how it would run in court ? or some related reason

surely if it was so easy-peasy to implement and considering majority of punters are ignorant of this new law and carrying on as usual - we would see more arrests

Or have I got it wrong?

There's obviously a deterrent effect in most criminal laws. The point that Kinky was making is that the new offence appears to have been enacted to deter punters from punting in all forms and not just punting with coerced girls.

No, it's not going to be an easy offence to prosecute. For a start the prosecution need evidence from a girl subject to "exploitative conduct".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's obviously a deterrent effect in most criminal laws. The point that Kinky was making is that the new offence appears to have been enacted to deter punters from punting in all forms and not just punting with coerced girls.

No, it's not going to be an easy offence to prosecute. For a start the prosecution need evidence from a girl subject to "exploitative conduct".

I don't know the answer to this question so if anyone can enlighten, for me and others, it would be useful.

Do the police also need to prove that you have paid for sex or have promised to pay for sex, AND that you have had sex?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know the answer to this question so if anyone can enlighten, for me and others, it would be useful.

Do the police also need to prove that you have paid for sex or have promised to pay for sex, AND that you have had sex?

no - promise to pay is all that's required.

The law is phrased the same as "paying for sex with a child" - obviously in that instance you can't have the situation that the police can't arrest someone because they were caught before they'd actually touched the child. It works fine because there's no strict liability, so they'd need to prove that you were aware you were offering to pay for sex with a child...

In theory it now means that, in this offence, you have broken the law as soon as you make the booking over the phone, without ever meeting the girl, and that's what some very paranoid people have asked about in the past. In practice though it's never likely to happen for a whole host of reasons. Tracing a phone call when they've knowingly booked a 12 year old is money well spent. Tracing phone calls for this...not so good value for money. Unless they could prove you did know, but then they'd be looking at conspiracy to commit rape...not this new offence. You're only likely to get prosecuted if you're on the premises and, in my opinion at least, have actually handed the money over and met the girl. Wouldn't put it past the police to arrest you and try it on with an offer of a caution if you hadn't got as far as meeting the girl, but that's another matter. Certainly if I was ever arrested for this offence I'd make them work for their money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no - promise to pay is all that's required.

In theory it now means that, in this offence, you have broken the law as soon as you make the booking over the phone, without ever meeting the girl

You're only likely to get prosecuted if you're on the premises and, in my opinion at least, have actually handed the money over and met the girl. Wouldn't put it past the police to arrest you and try it on with an offer of a caution if you hadn't got as far as meeting the girl, but that's another matter. Certainly if I was ever arrested for this offence I'd make them work for their money.

Thanks punter992005. I tend to use parlours so dont make phone bookings. I really don't see how they can prove you have promised to pay. Yes, I am in a known "brothel" but they have to prove these "offences" in a court of law. Are they really going to do DNA and fingerprint testing on wads of banknotes. Besides, that money may have been for a massage only.

Like you, I certainly wouldn't accept a caution. If the lady is british, they would also struggle to prove she is being coerced.

I really don't see any reason to change my behaviour. I prefer british ladies, over 25, and not scrawny anyhow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks punter992005. I tend to use parlours so dont make phone bookings. I really don't see how they can prove you have promised to pay. Yes, I am in a known "brothel" but they have to prove these "offences" in a court of law. Are they really going to do DNA and fingerprint testing on wads of banknotes. Besides, that money may have been for a massage only.

Like you, I certainly wouldn't accept a caution. If the lady is british, they would also struggle to prove she is being coerced.

I really don't see any reason to change my behaviour. I prefer british ladies, over 25, and not scrawny anyhow.

It will rely on the evidence of the girl herself. She'll have to testify.

As for nationality I don't think that has much to do with it. In fact if she's British it may be easier for the police since she's not going to leave the country, and will be available for a trial. British girls are probably less likely to attract the police's attention, but assuming you ARE nicked then Non-British girls in the long run will be more difficult to prove as the majority are sent back to wherever it is they come from fairly quickly, and they'll have no case without the girl's evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It will rely on the evidence of the girl herself. She'll have to testify.

Interesting stuff. Perhaps the only real danger is that the police may coerce the girl into testifying. The girl may want her family to believe her boyfriend forced her into prostitution.

The whole law is frankly ridiculous. For instance, if I were to see an independent lady every Wednesday and pay her £100 - no law broken. Over the weekend, she decides to quit but her boyfriend coerces her into carrying on. So the following Wednesday I am committing an offence! I can't see how any half decent lawyer couldn't tear this law to bits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The whole law is frankly ridiculous........... I can't see how any half decent lawyer couldn't tear this law to bits.

I quite agree. You have to remember the history. Ideally HH, JS and their cronies would have liked a complete ban on paid sex - but that was never going to happen. Instead the proposal was "controlled for gain + strict liability". That would have been very draconian. The end result was "coercion + strict liability". The offence as drafted is not " fit for purpose". It offers no more protection to exploited girls than the existing legislation at the time. Despite using best endeavours to investigate and protect themselves punters could be penalised if a girl was shown to be subject to "exploitative conduct". As already mentioned the Police and CPS have said that it will be a difficult offence to prove and prosecute.

In the grand scheme of criminal law, it's not a very serious offence. The maximum penalty is a £1,000 fine in the Magistrates Court. That's the same as for driving with a defective handbrake. Near me there are signs on the lamp-posts stating that it's an offence to feed the pigeons and gulls - maximum penalty £2,500 - 2 1/2 times as much ! The maximum penalty for trafficking within the UK is 14 years.

Penalty-wise a similar offence would be kerbcrawling. That's a really easy offence to prove. Evidence from one or two PC's that the defendant was seen to be driving around the red-light district and was seen to discuss matters with a known prostitute who then got into the car. That's all that's needed for a conviction. In fact you don't even need that. Evidence from the Police is sufficient. No need to involve the girl.

For the new section 53A offence the prosecution need to prove that the punter paid or promised to pay for sexual services, and that the girl was subject to exploitative conduct (as defined), by a third party for gain. In comparison with the kerbcrawling offence that's all pretty difficult to prove. Unless the Police actually witness the "sexual act" with their own eyes then it's all down to the punter incriminating himself, and/or testimony from the girl. You can forget DNA evidence from notes or condoms. That's never going to happen for this offence.

Another hurdle for the prosecution is getting the girl to turn up and give evidence in Court. Reports have suggested that once places are raided, girls have a habit of disappearing, either back home or change their name and move to another city. I can't see the prosecution making any effort to ensure that she turns up to give evidence.

I see this offence being reserved from clear cases of coercion/duress. These will primarily be flats/houses with foreign girls run by foreign pimps (probably the nasty and violent type) and probably with foreign punters. Sensible punters wouldn't touch these places with a barge-pole. In fact they probably won't even know of their existence. If you're caught in one of these places then the chances are you're going to be arrested. Sooner or later somebody's going to Court, but I reckon that a Caution is the most likely outcome.

If I were stupid enough to get caught kerbcrawling ( and I don't), if I were offered a Caution I would probably take it because the odds would be stacked against me in Court. I would never accept a Caution for the new offence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The offence as drafted is not " fit for purpose". It offers no more protection to exploited girls than the existing legislation at the time.

As already mentioned the Police and CPS have said that it will be a difficult offence to prove and prosecute.

In the grand scheme of criminal law, it's not a very serious offence. The maximum penalty is a £1,000 fine in the Magistrates Court.

For the new section 53A offence the prosecution need to prove that the punter paid or promised to pay for sexual services, and that the girl was subject to exploitative conduct (as defined), by a third party for gain. Unless the Police actually witness the "sexual act" with their own eyes then it's all down to the punter incriminating himself, and/or testimony from the girl.

I see this offence being reserved from clear cases of coercion/duress. These will primarily be flats/houses with foreign girls run by foreign pimps (probably the nasty and violent type)

I would never accept a Caution for the new offence.

Excellent stuff Silverado - very useful info.

It's just a shame that all the work that must have been expended on getting this new legislation through wasn't more intelligently targetted on the scum drug dealers, pimps, and traffickers that we probably despise as much as Harriet and who are culpable for forcing the weak and the vulnerable into drugs and onto the streets. I would wager that the pimps and drug dealers in Camberwell and Peckham voted for Harriet in the election.

As others have commented, this new law might have been intended as a warning to the punting community, but it seems to have failed. In a way it would be good for a test case (not involving pimps, etc) to go through and be thrown out of court. I would certainly be happy to force them to argue the legal case. I wouldn't want to lose £1,000 but its not the end of the world and for me the principle of individual freedom, for women and men equally, is worth more than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting stuff. Perhaps the only real danger is that the police may coerce the girl into testifying. The girl may want her family to believe her boyfriend forced her into prostitution.

The whole law is frankly ridiculous. For instance, if I were to see an independent lady every Wednesday and pay her £100 - no law broken. Over the weekend, she decides to quit but her boyfriend coerces her into carrying on. So the following Wednesday I am committing an offence! I can't see how any half decent lawyer couldn't tear this law to bits.

Suppose her boyfriend did force her into prostitution right from the beginning?

How would you feel when you found out that she was forced, or doesn't it matter that the girl was forced/coerced?

I've noticed on all these threads about the new laws that most of the punters have only been concerned about themselves and it doesn't even cross their minds that some of the girls they may be seeing may be coerced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suppose her boyfriend did force her into prostitution right from the beginning?

How would you feel when you found out that she was forced, or doesn't it matter that the girl was forced/coerced?

I've noticed on all these threads about the new laws that most of the punters have only been concerned about themselves and it doesn't even cross their minds that some of the girls they may be seeing may be coerced.

I would be ashamed personally, but as a punter i have no way of knowing unless the WG tells me or i believe she might be being Coerced whether she is or not.

Any WG COULD be being Coerced in my view, i can only make the best judgement i can upon meeting them, or do what HH wants, stop punting at all, which i wont be doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suppose her boyfriend did force her into prostitution right from the beginning?

How would you feel when you found out that she was forced, or doesn't it matter that the girl was forced/coerced?

I've noticed on all these threads about the new laws that most of the punters have only been concerned about themselves and it doesn't even cross their minds that some of the girls they may be seeing may be coerced.

Of course it matters - I would be mortified to be honest.

It is always something I try, as best I can, to guage. I never use street girls or flats, and I have other criteria I use. Apart from that, I only do repeat sessions with ladies that clearly enjoy their work - its not rocket science to figure it out.

Many/most of the guys that are on here do so because they wish to be part of a community that informs on the positive aspects of punting and to be made aware of any negative aspects. That is why we are keen to participate in and discuss these potential issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suppose her boyfriend did force her into prostitution right from the beginning?

How would you feel when you found out that she was forced, or doesn't it matter that the girl was forced/coerced?

As Quitetallman says, I would be mortified. Of course it matters if the girl turned out to be forced or coerced. What a strange thing to say :D.

I've noticed on all these threads about the new laws that most of the punters have only been concerned about themselves and it doesn't even cross their minds that some of the girls they may be seeing may be coerced.

I don't think that this is the case at all. I've seen no signs of this anywhere on the board. There has been much discussion about ensuring that the girls are not coerced or forced.

I have never seen a post along the lines of: "I like seeing coerced or forced girls but I'm worried about getting caught and convicted".

In at least 2 pages of punternet.com the following appears:

"PunterNet will never knowingly accept reports on underage sexworkers or anyone who has been forced into prostitution, and will cooperate fully with the authorities in any such matters.

Have you been offered an underage girl?

Do you suspect that a girl you have seen is being forced to work against her will?

Report child prostitution and sex slavery - ring Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111

You, the punters, CAN make a difference - Click here for a short film from Crimestoppers about trafficking. "

I find it rather bizarre that your interpretation of the threads about the new law is that most punters are concerned about the consequences to themselves rather than the fact that the girl is or could be coerced.

In fact I look at my last post on the thread and I see that I said as follows:

"Sensible punters wouldn't touch these places with a barge-pole. In fact they probably won't even know of their existence."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suppose her boyfriend did force her into prostitution right from the beginning?

How would you feel when you found out that she was forced, or doesn't it matter that the girl was forced/coerced?

I've noticed on all these threads about the new laws that most of the punters have only been concerned about themselves and it doesn't even cross their minds that some of the girls they may be seeing may be coerced.

Debbie--- No reasonable person wishes to have sex with anyone who has been coerced. The objection to clause 14 is that it was predicated on a moral objection to prostitution per se rather than an objective attempt to deal with unsavoury aspects and elements. It is likely to be wholly counterproductive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've noticed on all these threads about the new laws that most of the punters have only been concerned about themselves and it doesn't even cross their minds that some of the girls they may be seeing may be coerced.

And that is because the "new law" has nothing whatsoever to do with the forcing/coercion etc. of a prostitute, the fact that the prostitute is forced/coerced is the basis of prosecution proceedings, it is all about the punter, it does not attempt to address the forcing/coercion of the prostitute or the forcer/coercer for that matter, is it any wonder that the punters are only concerned about themselves when discussing a law, that is "strict liability" to boot, that is only about themselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Law represents the big failing of the Labour attitude to society. At heart Labour feels that government can and even has a duty to make us good. Hence the use of law not to deal with intent and harm but to send messages. Messages are always imprecise and fussy; as the civil servants pointed out "if you want to send a message you write a letter. You don't try to draft a law"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At heart Labour feels that government can and even has a duty to make us good. Hence the use of law not to deal with intent and harm but to send messages.QUOTE]

I agree. A reflection of 'Owing more to Methodism than Marx' do you suppose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I agree. A reflection of 'Owing more to Methodism than Marx' do you suppose?"

Yes it has roots there but add in the overbearing "niceness" of a generation of school teachers steeped in the Plowden Report and the certainties of ideologue sociologists and lawyers........

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0