nntt

What is the legal position?

32 posts in this topic

I read an article in the papers over the weekend on a series of raids in London where some City high flyers were caught and arrested visiting ladies.

It had me thinking, what is the current legal position if 1) you see an indie and 2) if you visit a massage parlour. Are you liable to arrest and what is legal? How can you minimise any risk, is there such a thing as a parlour which won't be raided and can you be arrested if visiting an independant lady?

For example there seems so many parlours in Milton Keynes and Manchester, are the guys and girls safe there, are these tolerated or are they subject to a possible police raid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy answer - if you get arrested and found guilty, it was illegal. If you get arrested and found not guilty, it wasn't: but the newspapers might consider that a mere detail.

The way it stands just now, you could read pages of statute and still not have a yes/no answer. My feeling is that an indie outcall to your home, as long as she is provably of legal age, has a high safety factor. After that, it's the buzz on the 'streets.' but the number of busts compared to the number of places is almost infinitesimally low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read an article in the papers over the weekend on a series of raids in London where some City high flyers were caught and arrested visiting ladies.

It had me thinking, what is the current legal position if

1) you see an indie and

2) if you visit a massage parlour.

Are you liable to arrest and what is legal? How can you minimise any risk, is there such a thing as a parlour which won't be raided and can you be arrested if visiting an independant lady?

It would be helpful if you gave a reference to which paper or papers printed this single article!

As to your questions (always assuming that you are doing whatever you are doing in England & Wales):

1) A visit to an independant lady, who works alone, should never be interrupted by the police. It is entirely legal for one man to pay one woman to provide sexual services to him.

2) A parlour is, in effect, a brothel. There are a good number of offences involved in running brothels, although visiting one as a customer is not one. Different police forces, and different police authorities, different town councils even, do have different policies on parlours/brothels. Ask locally! If you are in a parlour when the police raid, then they will almost certainly lean on you, and make threatening statements. They may well assert that they are looking for illegal immigrants.

There is the so called "new law" of paying for or promising to pay for sex with a girl who has been coerced. This seems to be a damp squib.

If you wish to enjoy punting without fear of police involvement, stick to British born independant ladies over 30 years of age, and I think you will get a better service, and be 100% safe!

Many EE girls, well photoshopped, do look stunning, but, me, I'd find it very difficult to tell the difference between a Latvian, Estonian or Lithuanian (EU, so probably legal) and a Ukranian, Byelorussian or even Russian (almost certainly an II)! Screwing an II isn't an offence, but if you visit the sort of parlour that offers II's @£20 your chances of police involvement increase exponentially!

Final point, in the unlikely event that you do come into contact with the police, remember to avail yourself of the right to see a solicitor, and think very carefully before accepting a caution. <"Oh, you want a solicitor, do you? We'll never get one to come out at this hour. I'll just have to bang you up for the night, then, and you can see one in the morning!">

PS - This question has been answered many times before - time spent on research before posting is NEVER wasted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many EE girls, well photoshopped, do look stunning, but, me, I'd find it very difficult to tell the difference between a Latvian, Estonian or Lithuanian (EU, so probably legal) and a Ukranian, Byelorussian or even Russian (almost certainly an II)! Screwing an II isn't an offence, but if you visit the sort of parlour that offers II's @£20 your chances of police involvement increase exponentially!

EE being Eastern European

II being ?? Illegal Immigrant?

Xenia's Russian. Almost certainly an II? ROFL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EE being Eastern European

II being ?? Illegal Immigrant?

Xenia's Russian. Almost certainly an II? ROFL

Xenia is the exception who proves the rule! (I bow, respectfully, towards the honourable lady!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not illegal to pay for sex with a woman. FULL STOP.

It is illegal to pay for sex with a woman forced to do it by a third party. It is illegal to run a brothel but not to visit one. It is also illegal to kerb crawl as it is to work the streets.

There is no reason for the police to raid a genuine, independent lady who is working legitimately in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Article is in the News of the World (http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news...ity-gents.html), who were apparently invited along to the raids. Punters were (a) duly embarrassed and (:confused: released without charge. It is hard to escape the view that this (a) was the intended result and (:D was entirely predictable. In other words it was a publicity stunt and little more.

Two further conclusions can be tentatively drawn © the police are overmanned if they have time to waste on this sort of escapade, allowing the paperwork involved in arresting anybody and (d) the Coalition is right to look for manpower cuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Article is in the News of the World (http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news...ity-gents.html), who were apparently invited along to the raids. Punters were (a) duly embarrassed and (:confused: released without charge. It is hard to escape the view that this (a) was the intended result and (:D was entirely predictable. In other words it was a publicity stunt and little more.

Two further conclusions can be tentatively drawn © the police are overmanned if they have time to waste on this sort of escapade, allowing the paperwork involved in arresting anybody and (d) the Coalition is right to look for manpower cuts.

I couldn't get your link to work.

Try: http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/894723/Sex-and-the-city-gents.html

I take what the NOTW says with a pinch of salt but the article does say:

"All the men arrested were interviewed and later released without charge."

That does suggest to me that they were interviewed under caution after being processed ie. photographed, fingerprinted and had a DNA mouth- swab taken.

On the face of it the Police do not have reasonable suspicion that these guys had committed an arrestable offence as required by section 24 PACE 1984.

I would be pretty pissed off that I'd been arrested and even more pissed off that the Police now retained my DNA etc. That is in itself non-compliant with a ECHR ruling.

There is no mention of coerced or forced girls in the article and in a couple of other articles about "Operation Monaco" that I googled. I think the Police overstepped the line here and if I was arrested I would be complaining and threatening legal action with a view to getting my DNA and other records deleted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The unintentional irony in the closing quote raised a wry smile:

Det Chief Insp David Clark said: "The illegal sex trade is a breeding ground for slave labour, people trafficking, and drug abuse. It is our aim to clean up the City."

Additionally, the figure of '30,000 hookers ply[ing] their trade in the City and Westminster districts alone' given in the article beggars belief, as do the lazy assertions made in the above quote.

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically it seems visiting an indie is legal and safe.

Visiting a parlour, although not illegal, is slightly more of a risk depending on the council and police view which varies across the country. But if you keep quiet you are not going to be charged with any offence, assuming no girls are forced to work, but you can be arrested.

Think that is a fair summation? Thanks all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So basically it seems visiting an indie is legal and safe.

I would qualify that by adding the adjective "british born"!

But if you keep quiet you are not going to be charged with any offence, assuming no girls are forced to work, but you can be arrested.

Yes, that seems to be the case, but what they might be arresting you for, as my friend has remarked, is in some doubt. The Police have no right to arrest a potential witness to secure his attendance at the station to give a s.9 statement, although they seem, as reported by the NotW to be using arrest, dabs, mug-shot and slobber as a frightener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
............

Yes, that seems to be the case, but what they might be arresting you for, as my friend has remarked, is in some doubt. The Police have no right to arrest a potential witness to secure his attendance at the station to give a s.9 statement, although they seem, as reported by the NotW to be using arrest, dabs, mug-shot and slobber as a frightener

Could you clarify "s.9 statement" for us, please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could you clarify "s.9 statement" for us, please?

I think Irgendeiner is having his tea, watching Eastenders, or something similar.

In the circumstances perhaps I can answer for him.

A section 9 statement is a witness statement made under section 9 CJA 1967 where if the conditions in that section are satisfied, the statement can be admissible in evidence in the same way as oral evidence but without the need for the witness to give evidence in court. It is read out aloud. Either party or the court can still call the witness though to give formal evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I caught the recent re-run of "Consenting Adults" on BBC4 .

It is a drama based on the Wolfenden enquiry and report conducted in the 50s.

Stories like this topic really are a sort of Groundhog day of moralising and police prejudice and easy marks.

Also leaves one thinking just how dated the NOW is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Irgendeiner is having his tea, watching Eastenders, or something similar.

My friend is particularly obliging! While his characterisation of a s.9 Statement is entirely correct, I should like to make it clear to all that I have never watched the programme to which he refers, and that of an evening I am accustomed to partake of dinner or supper, but never "tea"! At the time in question I think I was walking the dogs, or having one of two long and unsatisfactory telethons with Orange "customer help-line"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Irgendeiner is having his tea, watching Eastenders, or something similar.

In the circumstances perhaps I can answer for him.

A section 9 statement is a witness statement made under section 9 CJA 1967 where if the conditions in that section are satisfied, the statement can be admissible in evidence in the same way as oral evidence but without the need for the witness to give evidence in court. It is read out aloud. Either party or the court can still call the witness though to give formal evidence.

My friend is particularly obliging! While his characterisation of a s.9 Statement is entirely correct, I should like to make it clear to all that I have never watched the programme to which he refers, and that of an evening I am accustomed to partake of dinner or supper, but never "tea"! At the time in question I think I was walking the dogs, or having one of two long and unsatisfactory telethons with Orange "customer help-line"!

Thank you both. All clear now. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I couldn't get your link to work.

Try: http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/894723/Sex-and-the-city-gents.html

I take what the NOTW says with a pinch of salt but the article does say:

"All the men arrested were interviewed and later released without charge."

That does suggest to me that they were interviewed under caution after being processed ie. photographed, fingerprinted and had a DNA mouth- swab taken.

On the face of it the Police do not have reasonable suspicion that these guys had committed an arrestable offence as required by section 24 PACE 1984.

I would be pretty pissed off that I'd been arrested and even more pissed off that the Police now retained my DNA etc. That is in itself non-compliant with a ECHR ruling.

There is no mention of coerced or forced girls in the article and in a couple of other articles about "Operation Monaco" that I googled. I think the Police overstepped the line here and if I was arrested I would be complaining and threatening legal action with a view to getting my DNA and other records deleted.

I too am very concerned about what the police were playing at - There's a picture showing a man in a suit who's handcuffed so that does suggest one of the punters at least really was arrested, but on what grounds? One woman was American so it would be highly unlikely she was a sex slave without some major evidence to the contrary, and since they were realeased without charge, it seems they very quickly established for definite that neither the American nor the Russian were being forced...you can't use a woman's nationality as "reasonable grounds" in any case; even if she was Alabanian the police would have to have something to base their arrest on beyond racial stereotyping. I do think the police are heading for a fall if this is how they're proceeding. Notwithstanding the obvious caveats when dealing with a NoTW story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me the police are now arresting you if they find any foreign girl on the premises on the basis that you may be breaking the new law about having sex with a woman that is trafficked. At the time they don't know the woman is, but it seems they are presuming she is because she is not British and hoping they will get evidence of this during their investigation.

Also seems to me they are trying to scare the crap out of punters. This seems to be working judging by all the chatter on forums about these raids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I too am very concerned about what the police were playing at -

I think that one question that arises is "Police? Which police force?"

This was not DI Kevin, but DCI David? Was this the City of London Police rather than the Met?

Anyone know who/what drives the city force?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems to me the police are now arresting you if they find any foreign girl on the premises on the basis that you may be breaking the new law about having sex with a woman that is trafficked. At the time they don't know the woman is, but it seems they are presuming she is because she is not British and hoping they will get evidence of this during their investigation.

Also seems to me they are trying to scare the crap out of punters. This seems to be working judging by all the chatter on forums about these raids.

The new law does not deal with trafficking. I think most of the clients were arrested because they saw 2 women. City of London's bizarre spin on a 'brothel' ie more than one woman working from a premise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The new law does not deal with trafficking. I think most of the clients were arrested because they saw 2 women. City of London's bizarre spin on a 'brothel' ie more than one woman working from a premise.

well the definition of Brothel has no bearing on whether a client can be arrested. Within prostitution there are only two offences that a client can be arrested for

1)paying for the services of a child (or attempting to)

2)paying for the services of a person subjected to force etc. (or attempting to)

Clearly number one is out or the NoTW would have made it very clear that kids were involved, so that only leaves number two.

The fact they were foreign is irrelevant, as is their specific nationality...whilst it may make the police look closely if they're Albanian or Romanian etc. they, as I said before, need something concrete and specific to have reasonable grounds for arrest.

For anyone who is arrested here's a few of questions for you to ask the police when you're interviewed.

1)Why do you believe this girl is subjected to force etc? If all they can come up with is specualtion relating to the girl's nationality; simply reply "So I was arrested on the basis of racial stereotyping. Thankyou for your honesty."

2)Has the brothel madam been arrested for anything beyond running a brothel...i.e false imprisonment, making threats etc.

3)When they reply "No" to question 2 (which they will) ask why do you have reasonable grounds to arrest me for paying a forced/threatened woman but not reasonable grounds to arrest anyone else (like the pimp on the premises) for actually applying that force or making those threats? Then sit back and watch them squirm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The new law does not deal with trafficking. I think most of the clients were arrested because they saw 2 women. City of London's bizarre spin on a 'brothel' ie more than one woman working from a premise.

Really I thought it was now illegal to have sex with a woman who has been forced into prostitution even if you do not know she has - i.e. if she has been trafficked and has no passport and is from a foreign country you are guilty.

Is that not the case then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that one question that arises is "Police? Which police force?"

This was not DI Kevin, but DCI David? Was this the City of London Police rather than the Met?

Anyone know who/what drives the city force?

It is City of London police.

Googling "Operation Monaco" I found this:

http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/CityPolice/SaferCityWards/YourCityWard/clusters/cluster-north-action-and-followup-archive.htm

"Address prostitute carders, who are littering and causing a nuisance to City workers and residents.

Uniform Police Officers and PCSO's are working on operation Monaco. We have been targeting prostitute carders in the Bishopsgate area with a view to prosecute offenders."

All very confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The new law does not deal with trafficking. I think most of the clients were arrested because they saw 2 women. City of London's bizarre spin on a 'brothel' ie more than one woman working from a premise.

I suspect that you're probably correct in assuming that if the guys had gone to indies working by themselves ( and not in brothels) then they probably would not have been arrested. It would appear as though the police were targeting brothels, although it's far from clear what the purposes of the raids were.

However, I can't see how seeing 2 women as opposed to just one should make any difference to the police's decision to arrest.

As regards the City of London's spin on a " brothel" - I think that you're wrong. More than one prostitute working from premises constitutes a brothel.That's always been the case.

In any event, as Punter992005 says, it's not illegal to visit a brothel.

These guys should not have been arrested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank-you very much for that! Happily I'm not a City Council Tax / Business Rate payer, but if I was I think I'd be calculating the cost of a "Patrol Hour"! I, certainly, applaud the hard line being taken against push-bikers who don't think red lights apply to them, but 8 warnings for 306 patrol hours looks a bit extravagant!

Will the City Force be affected by the current bugetary restraints, one wonders? Op Monaco, I note, only rates Priority 2!

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