Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Oldmoor

Old Bill expresses doubt now

36 posts in this topic

Nearly 40 comments on the story and not one infavour of the proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nearly 40 comments on the story and not one infavour of the proposal.

Yes- amazing considering it's the Mail. I liked this one:

"Another piece of ridiculous legislation from a woman that allows pornography to be shown in her home and claims tax payers money for it. Is she going to prove that the 'stars' of the films were working of their own free will ?"

According to the article it's all about men who sleep with prostitutes. Does that mean we are OK if we just shag 'em? Makes overnights look a bit risky- have to get the girl to keep prodding you in case you fall asleep ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to the article it's all about men who sleep with prostitutes

Oral may become more popular then ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This government have brought in more laws that are either not being enforced or are unenforceable the police must be totally pissed off with them.

They have enough on as it is.

Now if they were to sepnd their time investigating crooked politicians they really would have their hands full! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Head of the Met's Anti-Trafficking Squad likewise expressed doubts about enforcability before Christmas but, as with her expense claims for bathplugs are patio heaters, dear Jacqui just goes on and on...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1093202/Jacqui-Smiths-new-rules-clampdown-prostitution-impossible-enforce-says-Mets-anti-trafficking-chief.html

Edited by wanderlust
Put Vice instead of Anti-Trafficking- careless!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Head of the Met's Anti-Trafficking Squad likewise expressed doubts about enforcability before Christmas but, as with her expense claims for bathplugs are patio heaters, dear Jacqui just goes on and on...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1093202/Jacqui-Smiths-new-rules-clampdown-prostitution-impossible-enforce-says-Mets-anti-trafficking-chief.html

It is interesting that some of the "shrillness" appears to be subsiding :-

Ms Harman said that 'anecdotal' evidence suggested as many as 85 per cent of the women working in London brothels were from overseas and a proportion of these had been trafficked.

What appeared to be gospel truth a couple of years ago is now "anecdotal" and "suggested", and stridently quoted figures are now "a proportion", I think a little bit of re-writing history is creeping in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...as with her expense claims for bathplugs.../QUOTE]

What? ;) Oh, BATH plugs...I thought for a moment... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO I fear that Mr Tim Brain hasn't fully understood the intent of the proposed legislation, all that he and his colleagues will be required to do is to ensure that the courts are supplied with a steady flow of punters, if some of the prosecutions are successful then they, as far as Ms Smith et al are concerned, would be the cherry on the cake, it is the media circus that is being sought and the police are merely the lion-tamer's assistants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMHO I fear that Mr Tim Brain hasn't fully understood the intent of the proposed legislation, all that he and his colleagues will be required to do is to ensure that the courts are supplied with a steady flow of punters, if some of the prosecutions are successful then they, as far as Ms Smith et al are concerned, would be the cherry on the cake, it is the media circus that is being sought and the police are merely the lion-tamer's assistants.

I am not so sure...His approach appears to be on a more practical level:

Dr Brain, who heads Gloucestershire Police, said: '...we are concerned, some difficulties in successfully prosecuting.

'The idea that men should be responsible - to have a wider knowledge of the harm that they can cause by paying for sex in such circumstances - is an absolutely sound principle...

'Our concern is around gaining sufficiency of evidence to merit a suitable number of prosecutions to act as a deterrent.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is the BBC slant

Police Doubt Over Prostitute Laws

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7988834.stm

The BBC article implies that the bill is a fait accompli and will come into law later this year. As I understand it hasn't even had its 3rd reading yet, let alone passed through The Lords - or have I missed something?

But taking SaSfan's point about Smith just wanting to "feed the lions", that's all well and good, but as soon as there are a few failed prosecutions there will be an enormous reluctance to prosecute further - the bill will fall into disrepute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not so sure...His approach appears to be on a more practical level:

And there, IMHO, is where his lack of understanding starts, I am of the opinion that Ms Smith et al have little or no interest in whether a successful prosecution is obtained, it is just the prosecution that they require, including the attendant media circus of course, in fact I will posit that they don't really want it to be a deterrent, because if it did deter then the prosecutions would dry up.

This proposed legislation has been described by Ms Smith ad nauseum as "Sending a message that paying for sex is wrong", it is not about saving countless thousands of prostitutes from being abducted and a life of slavery, it is about enshrining her personal opinion in law, and that is what I suspect Mr Tim Brain has yet to grasp. He is tackling, and good luck to him, the problem from a practical angle, Ms Smith has no interest whatsoever in the practicalities, all she wants to see, on a regular basis, is the headline :-

PERVERTED PUNTER PAYS PROSTITUTE.

and all Mr Tim Brain has to do is to provide the pussy fodder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This proposed legislation has been described by Ms Smith ad nauseum as "Sending a message that paying for sex is wrong", it is not about saving countless thousands of prostitutes from being abducted and a life of slavery, it is about enshrining her personal opinion in law, and that is what I suspect Mr Tim Brain has yet to grasp. He is tackling, and good luck to him, the problem from a practical angle, Ms Smith has no interest whatsoever in the practicalities, all she wants to see, on a regular basis, is the headline :-

PERVERTED PUNTER PAYS PROSTITUTE.

and all Mr Tim Brain has to do is to provide the pussy fodder.

Given that Ms Smith has retracted her Parliamentary expenses claim for viewing porn films, I'm assuming that she or her husband has paid this bill instead. It would therefore be logical to conclude that there has been a certain amount of "paying for sex" in the Smith household.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say - largely in agreement.

The whole thing has three drivers:

Nu labour is increasingly the political wing of the catholic church.

The feminist dominated "rescue industry" which needs victims & the Home Office which needs to keep up the public angst on immigration.

The general Nu-labor wish to look good with the US of A (they need the invites to speak & join the lucrative think-tanks). This one is rapidly losing force as the Obama Administration dumps the Bush neo-con absolutism on sex issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This proposed legislation has been described by Ms Smith ad nauseum as "Sending a message that paying for sex is wrong"

If this is what the harridan really thinks, she should try and bring in legislation to make it illegal to pay for sex.

Let's see how far that proposal would get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to say - largely in agreement.

The whole thing has three drivers:

Nu labour is increasingly the political wing of the catholic church.

The feminist dominated "rescue industry" which needs victims & the Home Office which needs to keep up the public angst on immigration.

The general Nu-labor wish to look good with the US of A (they need the invites to speak & join the lucrative think-tanks). This one is rapidly losing force as the Obama Administration dumps the Bush neo-con absolutism on sex issues.

won't be any better if religious right-wingers are replaced with radical left wing feminists...

another article in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/5109815/Police-fear-laws-to-criminalise-men-who-pay-for-sex-will-be-unworkable.html

In separate move, plans to allow up to three prostitutes to work together in the same property have been abandoned.

In 2006, the Home Office raised the prospect of changing the legal definition to allow three women, including a "maid'' or receptionist, to work together in a home - effectively decriminalising small brothels.

But a source confirmed the plans have been quietly ditched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just shows the unwillingness to actually think about this-

Every paper reaches from the image of a street girl & a kerb-crawler.

Already illegal assuming the 2nd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And there, IMHO, is where his lack of understanding starts, I am of the opinion that Ms Smith et al have little or no interest in whether a successful prosecution is obtained, it is just the prosecution that they require, including the attendant media circus of course, in fact I will posit that they don't really want it to be a deterrent, because if it did deter then the prosecutions would dry up.

This proposed legislation has been described by Ms Smith ad nauseum as "Sending a message that paying for sex is wrong", it is not about saving countless thousands of prostitutes from being abducted and a life of slavery, it is about enshrining her personal opinion in law, and that is what I suspect Mr Tim Brain has yet to grasp. He is tackling, and good luck to him, the problem from a practical angle, Ms Smith has no interest whatsoever in the practicalities, all she wants to see, on a regular basis, is the headline :-

PERVERTED PUNTER PAYS PROSTITUTE.

and all Mr Tim Brain has to do is to provide the pussy fodder.

Thanks!!

I understand your position...

Just one thing I am not sure why did the Daily Mail called the officer Dr. Brain?? ;)

My own opinion is thus, I do not think Mrs Smith is worried about prosecutions per se, since that is a police matter. Her duty is to push through a law that she wants to believe in, even if it may not work practically....

Dr Brain following the government line agrees in principle, that men should take responsibility for sex with WGs. However, this is not Dr. Brain's job, so

he can 'afford' to say this. Where Dr Brain has his concerns is securing prosecutions (which is a law and order issue) and this is why he is duly concerned how teh police force will be able to do so. However, he is still

in agreement with Mrs Smith idea/reasoning/bill...

A case of Orwellian logic methinks!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ph.D. in history

As a history PhD he ought to know that, as with prohibition, bans on goods and service that people want to buy always fail and generally matters worse.

Apropos of which I note that the papers are saying (a) that public debt is increasing by £39 bn p.a. and (;) that our failed drugs policies are costing £14 bn p.a. A way to reduce the former to £25 bn possibly presents itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whatever the injustices of this new law (and there are many) the simple fact is even if it proves hard to gain prosecutions etc etc the fear factor once its in will kill off 90% of punting

I know it you know it

if you disagree just wait till its in, a few high profile cases on the TV etc and 90% of guys with an awful lot to lose will not take the risk.

we get a distorted view of punting fron this site, most of the males using this site are skilled in clandestine punting and do it very often thats why their on this site.

Now 98% of the WGs day to day trade are ordinary odd job punters who take in there eyes a big risk puntinmg now so once the law comes in they will push off and spend the money on a new car or something else.

In fact I could do with a new car now I mention it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one is rapidly losing force as the Obama Administration dumps the Bush neo-con absolutism on sex issues

I'm not saying you're wrong, but do you have evidence on this? I've seen nothing..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whatever the injustices of this new law (and there are many) the simple fact is even if it proves hard to gain prosecutions etc etc the fear factor once its in will kill off 90% of punting

I know it you know it

I agree completely. Of course had WGs realised what we punters immediately realised, that this was a real and sincere threat, they could have organised a PR campaign which would have destroyed the proposals. But when I suggested that, I got a lot of guff about "we can't afford to put our kids in jeopardy" :D

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