From The Metro:
People who use prostitutes will soon face a hefty fine and a criminal record as part of a new crackdown on the sex trade. They will be breaking the law if they pay for sex with a woman being 'controlled for another person's gain' under the changed rules. It is currently legal to pay for sex as legislation concentrates on brothel-keeping, soliciting for sex, and kerb crawling.
One of the general ground rules in criminal law is that the more serious the offence, the higher the burden of proof; and further, for more serious offences, it is not sufficient to show that you committed the crime, but also that you intended to do so.
At the bottom end of the scale are strict liability offences, such as selling alcohol to minors or exceeding the speed limit. It is irrelevant whether you knew that the kids were under 18 or that you were speeding. Contrast that with murder, where the prosecution not only has to prove that you did it, but also that you were aware that your attack would at least cause some physical harm. Fair enoughski.
So, although the maniacs in power accept that it is currently legal to pay for sex, they intend to make it a serious offence to pay for sex in certain vaguely defined circumstances. Short of doing the sensible thing and issuing prostitutes with licenses to act as such, wouldn't somebody accused of such a crime be able to wriggle of the hook by saying that he was not aware that the woman was "being controlled for another person's gain"?
And finally, if The Powers That Be can prove that a woman was being forced into it, wouldn't it make more sense to prosecute her pimps for kidnap, breach of immigration controls, false imprisonment, rape, breaching Consumer Credit Act, usury, living off immoral earnings, breaching National Minimum Wage and Working Hours rules, tax evasion, conspiracy and so on?
Aren't these pimps the real villains of the piece?
Import the Third World
1 hour ago
10 comments:
This is the same government which took over Kosovo & appointed the KLA as our "police" knowing that the nicer recruits to that organisation were sex slavers. Then they allowed them to kidnap thousands, possibly 10s of thousands of girls & sell them abroad.
What a pity that being an employer of sex slavers, if you are a government minister, is apparently not a criminal offence.
See also UN workers in Africa.
What does this mean for a pakistani groom who agrees to financially support a (willing) bride who is being pressured into it by her father, who them gets a stipend (or UK resident visa) as his reward.
Okay, that's stretching it but not so far.
NVM, that's a slightly different topic. I'm with Migration Watch on this - let's just reintroduce the 'main purpose rule' (para 2, here)
There not going to rest until we're all on the sex offenders register (remember baselss allegations count now) and they can control our lives to the nth degree.
There's only one solution and we shouldn't wait for Nov 5th next year.
It also assumes that all the prostitutes will be women. What about male prostitutes servicing the occassional lonely lady?
L, they've thought of that. or at least they think they have.
...and what about the attractive 'arm pieces' that get themselves alongside rich idiots and then divorce them?
The courtesan has a long and noble history, but they were still 'paid' for sex.
Bonkers. The whole lot of them. Bonkers.
It should all make S&M more interesting!
Who is in control of who!?!
It all has a certain symmetry. On one had the 'shot gun' marriage laws where the law says the man pays and pay and the woman doesn't.
Now this law t stop the man doing the logical act of only going the prostitutes as it is cheaper.
The haven't banned castration - yet.
Post a Comment