from today's The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/societ ... on-women-lapdancing

Paying for sex to be criminal offence
Home Secretary plans to crack down on vice trade on the streets, while lapdancing clubs will face a stringent licensing regime

The Home Secretary has attacked the 'bizarre' practice of City firms entertaining clients in lapdancing clubs, on the eve of a government crackdown on the sex trade which is expected to criminalise most men who use prostitutes.

Jacqui Smith said she expected to see some lapdancing clubs, which have mushroomed in recent years, close and fewer new ones opened under reforms triggered by concerns over a seedy culture of sexual titillation creeping across city centres. She will outline plans this week to criminalise paying for sex with a woman 'controlled for another person's gain'. The new offence will carry a hefty fine and criminal record, which could prevent those caught from getting jobs in sensitive occupations.

The legislation will cover women who have pimps or drug addicts who work to pay off their dealers as well as the rarer cases of trafficked women. This is expected to include the majority of Britain's 80,000 sex workers. Ignorance of a woman's circumstances will not be a defence. Kerb crawlers will be 'named and shamed', while those who pay a prostitute knowing she has been forcibly trafficked could face rape charges.

The measures are highly controversial, with critics arguing that men will seek other outlets if prostitution is driven off the streets. Smith said it was 'not mine or the government's responsibility to ensure that the demand is satisfied', adding: 'Is this something about which people have a choice with respect to their demands? Yes, they do. Basically, if it means fewer people are able to go out and pay for sex I think that would be a good thing.'

The prostitution review will be published this week, followed later this month by new licensing arrangements that are expected to see lapdancing clubs, currently licensed in the same way as pubs, subjected to the same stringent regime as sex shops, allowing local residents more opportunities to object.

Smith said she believed the law had been 'left behind' by the explosion in lapdancing clubs, which were seen as acceptable entertainment for a corporate night out. 'If I were a business person and I were wanting to make the best impression on clients, who presumably are female as well as male, I do think it's a bit bizarre that you would take them to a lapdancing club,' she said.

The new regime would make it more difficult to open them. 'It's not a complete ban on lapdancing clubs, but it's saying you don't operate in a vacuum, you have an impact on the community around you. I would hope it would make it harder for them to open, certainly in residential areas, and I would suspect that some of them will be closed when the licences come up for renewal.'

The English Collective of Prostitutes (ECP), which has vigorously opposed the clampdown, says outlawing paid-for sex between consenting adults will punish women who find this more lucrative than menial jobs. Forcing the trade underground would mean that 'the risks they are forced to take will be greater', said a spokeswoman.

One anonymous lapdancer who provided a statement for the ECP said she could earn £250 in four hours of dancing. 'Nine out of 10 women turn to prostitution or lapdancing because there's not enough money to survive. Recently my mum couldn't afford a pair of school shoes for my brother and sister. When I worked a day job I couldn't help her, but now I can.

'If the government is offended by the work we do, then give us the financial means to get out.' She said that there was 'no pressure to have sex with men, only opportunities', in her job.

The ECP's argument has been fuelled by the glamorisation of sex work at the hands of bloggers such as Belle de Jour, the call girl whose memoir became a bestselling book and then a TV film: she claimed to love sex and regarded working as an escort for £300 as a better option than temping.

Smith said that she did not believe that was true of most sex workers. Under the new offence, men would not be able to claim in court that they had not known the prostitute had a pimp or a drug habit. 'It won't be enough to say, "I didn't know",' she said. 'What I hope people will say is, "I am not actually going to take the risk if there is any concern that this woman hasn't made a free choice." It would be quite difficult for a man paying for sex in the majority of cases not to fall under this particular offence.'

She had ruled out a universal ban on paid sex because some women argued they did it out of choice 'and it's not my job to criminalise the demand for that'.

Katherine Rake, director of the Fawcett Society pressure group, which has campaigned for a clampdown on lapdancing clubs, welcomed the planned curbs. 'People have suddenly woken up to the fact that our city centres have changed very dramatically and that has an impact on us all, it being part of the culture of sexualisation. It has been a silent creep, but a deadly one in terms of what it meant for social attitudes and how women feel in public spaces.'

Here is another article on this proposed law from today's The Guardian. Check out the hundreds of outraged reader's comments. I've posted several comments, but under a different user name - doing a lot of posting to The Guardian forums lately.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commen ... tution-drugs-policy

We are far too tolerant when it comes to vice and drugs

Mary Warnock


The government plans to reclassify cannabis and to prosecute men who pay for sex. It should stand firm despite libertarian jeers.
  
Kingsley Amis once said, truly: 'Nice things are nicer than nasty things.' On this hangs all morality. It is because we know that some things are intolerable, and other things are admirable, that we can talk confidently about violations of human rights, or of a better society. It is only because we have this knowledge that we can teach small children to put themselves in other people's shoes, to sympathise with those who are unfairly treated, or who are suffering, and so, in turn, they can avoid treating others unfairly or doing harm. Because we have this knowledge, we can teach children the elements of morality.

Of course, it can't be denied that, within limits, what is counted as nice, and what as nasty, may change over time. Our moral standards are not the same as those of the ancient Greeks or even of the European Victorians. And among our contemporaries we may come up against moral standards so different from our own that familiar distinctions falter. The difference between the nice and nasty seems to lose its grip in the face of terrorist atrocities.

All the same, if there were not a huge measure of agreement, neither morality nor law itself could survive. Most actions that are criminal offences are also morally wrong; and when morality and law begin to diverge, society is in trouble.

Yet there are aspects of society, absolutely nasty, which appear unaccountably to be tolerated. Why, for example, does society tolerate prostitution? Why is the nastiness of buying sex so seldom noticed? Brothels are treated as a kind of joke, the stock figure of the madam at the centre. The government's proposal to punish men for paying for sex has been decried as an assault on civil liberties. Prostitution is presented as fair exchange, the commodities, sex and money, desired by the different parties, so the transaction can end in mutual satisfaction. There has probably never been a society without prostitution; we are taught indeed that it is 'the oldest profession', so it may be that the worldly are just used to it; those to whom engaging in it is unimaginable are simply out of touch with reality. This may be all there is to be said.

But for those who regard consensual sex as one of the nicest of nice things, prostitution is a corruption, a devaluing. Though it is consensual, it is so only through the medium of money. No one would put up with it without being paid. This is far from the bliss of Adam and Eve.

All the same, it seems strange that feminism has had so little effect on society's tolerance of female prostitution, or on the more general corruption of sex in such related institutions as lap-dancing. Feminism, after all, in its heyday, proclaimed that women should not be used as objects, designed simply to satisfy men. (Presumably male prostitution was seen not to much matter, might be positively encouraged as a distraction.) But the voice of feminism in matters of sex is much muted these days, except from a few die-hards. Perhaps there is no one left in the world except me and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith who thinks prostitution nasty, that is to say vicious. Or perhaps, as I suspect, feminism was always partial and incomplete in its demand for the treatment of women as wholly human, the equal of men. But the most likely explanation is that, since prostitution is such an ancient profession, it is thought that the lust of men is simply unconquerable and that feminism, however rampageous, could never be its match. I would be sorry to think this was so, but it is, after all, the same defeatism that makes some Muslim men demand that women hide themselves. Other men are simply not to be trusted even to look at their wives, nor themselves to look at other women.

No belief could be more derogatory of men. I wish we could abandon it: I wish we could say: 'If you can't find consensual sex, try masturbation.'

Defeatism is, I believe, most often the cause of our apparent tolerance of the nasty. There is, it is true, some vicious behaviour, generally agreed to be such, that we haven't yet come to tolerate, and are still trying, with increasing desperation, to control or eliminate, such as the carrying of knives, and the senseless slaughter of gang warfare. I sincerely hope that, however great the difficulties, we shall not come to tolerate this evil. In the case of this kind of vicious violence we are not likely to hear that it is only the 'Nanny State' that would suppress it, that people must be allowed the freedom to choose how they live, and go to hell their own way. There could be no more powerful illustration of the fact that there are things we know are evil, and that we do not want to live in a society where they are allowed to occur.

But there are other evils that we increasingly seem to tolerate, though we fear them and wish that they did not exist. Take, for example, the case of drugs. My own attitude, I have to acknowledge, is deeply influenced by the experience of the 1960s and '70s when I was headmistress of a school in Oxford, and when drugs were to all intents and purposes new. Because access to drugs was easy, and yet their effects both in the short and the long term unknown, it was a time of genuine panic for me, both as one in charge of a school, and as a parent.

We could sometimes see the immediate effect of the excessive use of cannabis, or the other drugs then in fashion, but we did not know in the least what would happen next, whether cannabis itself (as turns out to be the case) might have long-term consequences, or whether it would lead inexorably to the use of heroin. Because of this experience, I still have a fear of drugs that many would find excessive. The horror may have receded with the ignorance, but fear remains.

One source of fear is that the nature of drugs can change. It used in the past to be held that cannabis was relatively harmless, and less obviously damaging to the user than either tobacco or excessive alcohol. One should be thankful, according to this argument, if people preferred an occasional joint instead. But that is no longer so. Cannabis is not what it was. People cannot know the purity or the strength of the drugs they are taking, so the risks become incalculable.

For my part I have no wish to be more tolerant of drugs, nor do I wish that, as a society, we should become so. It is defeatism to give up hope that we may halt the increase in drug use, and the increase, therefore, of drug-related crime.

Education, nagging and legislation between them have radically reduced the consumption of tobacco. Perhaps next we can succeed in reducing thoughtless drinking; and after that, perhaps, the use of other drugs, damaging as they are not only to the user, but to society as a whole. Let the Nanny State tell us that such things are hateful and nasty, and let us, like good children, believe her.

[ Last edited by  Marsupial at 17-11-2008 04:06 ]

Coming from England the above is fucking scary.

You cannot claim you didn't know the wg was being forced in the eyes of the law.

We are all forced by some degree in all areas of life.

Does the force include being forced to pay her utility bills.

I don't condone enforced wg's or the leeches who enslave them.

But to criminalise punters just in case is .

Fucking do gooders.

If passed will screw up a lot of the wg scene in the UK.

Fuggit I might have to move out East permanently

[ Last edited by  Stephenmozza at 16-11-2008 23:46 ]

To my way of thinking, this law doesn't make sense. It is illegal to practice medicine without a license or sell stolen goods, but if such laws were enforced in the manner proposed for this anti-prostitution measure, anyone unknowingly treated by a fake MD or buying a stolen camera from a seemingly honest shopkeeper would be considered a criminal. Crazy!

I understand arresting someone knowingly patronizing a sex slave, but either prostitution is illegal or it is not; so if some forms of prostitution are legal, how can one prosecute a client who has no reason to believe the girl is being controlled by a third party. If the law passes in its proposed form, I would assume there will be a court challenge of this provision.

[ Last edited by  Marsupial at 26-11-2008 16:33 ]

from today's The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/societ ... fficked-women-smith

For men who pay for sex with trafficked women, ignorance is no longer a defence
• New law threatens rape charges and imprisonment
• Kerb crawlers and brothels face police crackdown

New prostitution laws to be set out today will mean a plea of ignorance is no defence for men facing prosecution for buying sex from a woman who has been trafficked or is being exploited by a pimp.

Under proposals to be published today by the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, a man who "knowingly" pays for sex with a woman who has been trafficked or is under the control of a pimp could face a charge of rape, which carries a potential life sentence.

The new offence of paying for sex with somebody who is "controlled for another person's gain" is to carry a hefty fine and a criminal record.

The decision to criminalise men who pay for sex with trafficked women is likely to have a widespread impact. The Metropolitan police have estimated that 70% of the 88,000 women involved in prostitution in England and Wales are under the control of traffickers.

It forms part of a wider package of reforms to tackle street prostitution, including prosecuting first-time kerb crawlers and implementing stronger police powers to close down brothels.

The package marks a sharp change of approach for Labour, which four years ago proposed a partial decriminalisation of prostitution in red-light "tolerance zones", and then powers to allow two or three women to work together in a brothel to provide protection for each other. The first proposal, by the former home secretary David Blunkett, was blocked by Downing Street, reportedly because of fears of a hostile media response.

Despite some expectations, today's package will not include changes to the licensing of lapdancing clubs, although Smith has indicated that proposals will be made in future to regulate them on the same basis as sex shops. This is expected to give residents stronger powers to object and to lead to the closure of some clubs, especially in residential areas.

The change in the law follows a six-month Home Office-led review of prostitution laws which included visits by ministers, including Harriet Harman and Vernon Coaker, to Amsterdam and Stockholm to see how the law worked there.

Harman has described the flow of women brought into Britain by human traffickers as "a modern slave trade", and said that it only exists because men are prepared to buy sex: "So to protect women we must stop men buying sex from the victims of human trafficking."

The home secretary has made clear that under the new offence it will not be enough for a man to say "I didn't know". The new offence will include a "strict liability" test so that police will only have to prove that the man paid for sex, and that the woman had been trafficked. There will be no need to prove he knew it at the time.

The tougher approach will allow first-time kerb crawlers spotted by the police to be prosecuted. At present, the police can only prosecute persistent offenders. Police will get powers to close down brothels where there is evidence of trafficking.

The former Home Office minister Fiona Mactaggart yesterday warned that the new criminal offence of paying for sex with a trafficked woman might fall apart in practice, and said there had been no prosecutions in Finland, the only other country where it had been made law.

The English Collective of Prostitutes said yesterday that experience had taught them any law against consenting sex forces prostitution further underground and makes women vulnerable to violence.

Key facts

· Men to be prosecuted if they pay for sex with women who are trafficked or under control of a pimp

· Ignorance that woman was being controlled not to be a defence and conviction to carry hefty fine and criminal record

· Men who knowingly pay for sex with trafficked women may face rape charges

· First-time kerb crawlers face prosecution and naming and shaming

Under English law, ignorance has never been a defence for comitting a crime, so there's no change there.
The change is that prostitution would become illegal whereas, currently, the situation is much the same as HK.
I.e. buying or selling sex is legal, but many activities related to prostitution such as kerb crawling, brothel keeping,
pimping and soliciting are not.

But lawyers will have a field day. If the WG and the punter both testify in court that no money was invloved, how
could they be foung guilty beyond reasonable doubt? The only way to prosecute successfully would be for the Poilce
to work undercover and carry out 'sting' operations.

I'm having trouble getting my head around this. How can ignorance never be a defense? A girl in a Girl Scout uniform knocks on your front door (you have this custom over there?) and sells you some of their famous cookies. You buy a box. It turns out she's just shoplifted the cookies from a local supermarket. Are you saying that under English law you're guilty of receiving stolen goods? I have no legal training, but isn't the fact of intent to commit a crime relevant in such things as business transactions where the consumer must necessarily have limited knowledge of the seller?

Some forms of prostitution will still be legally permitted in England; how can the police arrest the client if he's made every reasonable effort to ascertain that the girl is a self-employed freelancer and thus entitled under the law to sell sex?

But as you say, the lawyers will love this law. I found it interesting that "the former Home Office minister Fiona Mactaggart yesterday warned that the new criminal offence of paying for sex with a trafficked woman might fall apart in practice, and said there had been no prosecutions in Finland, the only other country where it had been made law."

[ Last edited by  Marsupial at 26-11-2008 16:34 ]

for those who freqeunt brothels often will be cautious, but using an outcall escort would remain quite safe unless shes tagged

everyone knows escorts are postitutes, but the way they advertise is that any transaction made will be for time and company only. whatever else that may occur, is a matter of choice made between consenting adults!

If you do something that's illegal, you've broken the law - how could it be any other way? But the police often have
discretion on whether to prosecute or not and no one will prosecute you for buying cookies from a girl scout. But if it's
a man selling you a brand new TV for half-price, what then? You can testify in court that you didn't know it was stolen
and you'd be telling the truth. Does that mean you're not guilty? Of course not and you can't be prosecuted for being
stupid. And let's not forget the defence  ... "I didn't know the girl was 15 m'lud, she looks at least 20". It might well be
true but the law has still been broken. Magistrates often take these things into account when sentencing those found
guilty and I suppose that could include the client who made every reasonable effort to ascertain that the WG is a
self-employed freelancer and thus entitled under the law to sell sex. But if the girl has a pimp, he'll still be guilty under
the proposed new law. As with a lot of things, it will depend on how much the police want to enforce the law. Lots of
laws in England are just ignored. But, if they're really serious and crack down to the full extent of the law, a lot of punters
are going to end up with criminal records and a lot of lives will be ruined, including innocent wives and children. If it comes
into effect, it'll be an incredbly stupid law.

when they ban the daily sport and all brothel ads in every  newspaper. only then, should we be worried!

And so the totalitarian of Labour continues on unabated....

But you have to REALLY read the law the be able to get the gist of it, I've seen a few white papers on it and it states that prostitutes who do not pay tax will also be illegal too....


Also Sc75 of the counter terrorism bill confirms that the UK is a totalitarian state,

It says your 'rights' can be revoked at any time without warning from HM government......

Hold on , rights are inalienable and can never be revoked , which means your rights in the UK are actually privilages.... and thus British people are actually prisoners.....

not that I care anymore I'm going away for a long trip mid 2009 , coming back selling up and going over to Germany for a year or two.

The thing is Jake , you've been away from the UK for ages, police these days have targets , each month they have to get X number of prosecutions for their performance related pay..

Thus at the start of each month police will do what they normally do sit around in their cars reading a book, end of the month they get stupidly tough.....


End of the month you get 100s of cops with laser guns everywhere (its why I ride much less end of each month). Who will stop you on the guise that your vehicle looks stolen , at which they will go over your vehicle with a fine tooth comb .......

This is what made my dad think ENOUGH and he left the country.....after he was stopped 3 times in one day, on a 53 mile old car.

Police quite recently have utterly been taking the piss....

Ie a number plate:

Standard size must be:

Letter height - 64mm , Letter Width - 44mm , Letter thickness 10mm ,Spacing - 10mm
Group Space - 30mm ,Top Margin - 25mm ,Side Margin - 25mm

Thing is when you have to get vernier calipers out to find that it is 0.5mm out it is seriously taking the piss....

He was fined £30 given a rectification notice.


Thus police will enforce such laws to get their points tally up each month , as the UK has no oversight no ICAC, sure we have the IPPC which is just as corrupt...

A recent case I recall was in Bolton where a cop used a street girl , refused to pay then arrested her and charged her with solicitation. Guess what happened...

The new law seems to be trying to tame the spread of the organized activities and for the protection of those who suffer from human trafficking.  Compared to the US, it is still a lot more liberal.

Like the previous discussion, it is very hard to prosecute two consenting adults, and the law enforcement would be hard press to enforce those close door, 141 activities when no organized crime is involved.

As economy is getting tough, there are more and more women choose to be working as a prostitute.  Recent example reported in Yahoo about a girl join the legal brothel in Nevada as her next job... and no shame... because she just couldn't find any other job.  She is still young and like to have sex and prostitution seems to be the perfect job for her in the brothels.

Even like the US, when the activity is deem illegal, there are just limited case where prosecution is really made.  Mostly in the situation where the complains from the citizen becomes a political issue.  Elsewhere, business continues in the underground and away from the street, and ads appears in the CL, cityvibe etc and there are always TER reviews and so on.

Is the law enforcement not busy enough?

Even when there is laws to prohibit prostitution, there would be no resources to prosecute.... especially in the internet age....

Where a man and a woman can make contact online and arrange the meeting at their own privacy.  The cost to prosecute is just too high.

It may seem strange to someone trained as a lawyer, but I had never stopped to consider this. You are, of course, correct. I see that I've always confused moral quilt with legal guilt. Since we can never really know what someone's true motives are, all illegal behavior must be considered criminal. It is then up to the police/prosecutors to determine whether or not the crime deserves to be prosecuted and punished. The necessity of this vetting role for the police changes my way of looking at the law. So, in effect, in respect to this new law on prostitution, saying ignorance is no excuse really isn't anything out of the ordinary. It only remains to be seen if the police really do intend to file charges in all cases where the girl was acting under duress irrespective of what the client might have known.

[ Last edited by  Marsupial at 26-11-2008 16:38 ]