Elite, independent, highly reviewed GFE. Base in NYC, Tour all major US
Cities.All Initial contact must be done through emails to ensure proper screening.
The title of which says it all. A police 'impact assessment' suggests that about 300 punters per annum will be prosecuted under the proposed law criminalising going with a 'controlled' girl (probably an honest reflection of the difficulty of enforcing such a daft law) but that up to 1200 brothels p.a. will be closed. No problem if these are the places where 'trafficked' girls are forced to work (though these seem much rarer than Ms Harman & Ms Smith suppose) but a considerable problem if these include well-run massage aprlours where working girls have a degree of protection.
elrond Punterlink Member
Joined: Sep 19, 2004
Posts: 121
Posted:
Friday, 26 December 2008 10:54:41
Yes the industry is totally threatened. Already the police have been closing places in Croydon and Soho, some belive in a lead up and sofening of the public reactions prior to the law going through parliament.
I would again suggest all write and complain to your MP. You all should either donate and join the IUSW as an escort or a friend if you are a punter.
I have one specific request from Nikki Adams of the ECP about recent closures in Soho.
On 18 December, three police officers from Charing Cross Clubs and Vice Unit visited a flat in Romilly Street, Soho, London and issued a written notice against Ms Tracey Ramsey* who works as a receptionist there, that they intend charging her with “controlling prostitution for gain”. Soho has been one of the safest places for women in the sex industry to work. As a receptionist, Ms Ramsey is women’s first line of defence against violent attacks and exploitation. If the police are allowed to proceed against Ms Ramsey, other receptionists will be driven away and women will be forced to work alone. Why are police targeting safe premises?
Details of the raid
The police are familiar with this and other flats in Soho. The police notice claimed that their visit was “to check the welfare of the occupants and to ensure that there are no juveniles or trafficked victims working at the location”. It threatened charges such as: “to keep or to manage, or to act or assist in the management of a brothel”; “controlling prostitution for gain” as well as “causing or inciting child prostitution”. No underage or trafficked women or any evidence of force or coercion was found at the premises, and none had been found during the weekly visits by the police during the whole month of September. This is an abuse of process.
Ms Ramsey is a mother and grandmother and has been in Soho for 30 years.
She is a registered carer for her father who has Alzheirmer’s and suffered a stroke. Her situation is similar to that of many other women who have contacted us recently after being charged with “brothel-keeping” or “controlling”. Many are mothers supporting children; at least three have children with disabilities. One woman started working after the Inland Revenue sent her a £6,000 bill for overpayments of child tax credit. Others are struggling to keep bailiffs at bay following threats of repossession on their home or suffer from ill heath.
New legislation to be announced on 19 January
These raids and prosecutions are aimed at preparing the ground for new legislation being announced on 19 January which would force women into “rehabilitation”, make it easier for the police to close brothels and arrest kerb-crawlers, and make an offence of “paying for sex with a person who is controlled for another person’s gain”. Such measures would force prostitution further urderground, adding to sex workers’ vulnerability and stigma.
What is a brothel?
The word brothel conjures up images of big exploitative establishments.Yet by law two prostitute women sharing premises to work constitute a brothel, even if no force and coercion are involved. Many women prefer to work in such brothels because they offer greater safety, companionship and lower running expenses. Working indoors is 10 times safer than working on the street. Why should women not be allowed to work in this way?
Impact of the raids
Receptionists such as Ms Ramsey face criminalization and imprisonment for up to seven years (increased from six months by New Labour). Immigrant women face deportation; clients face “a hefty fine and a criminal record”.
Police profit directly from raids
Since the Proceeds of Crime Act, raids have become profitable for the police. They receive 25% of any assets confiscated both at the time and from subsequent prosecutions. The Crown Prosecution Service keeps another 25% and the rest goes to the Inland Revenue, ie the government. It is common for the police to seize any money found on the premises. Even if no one is charged, the money is rarely returned as police take advantage of sex workers’ reluctance to go public. Women who have worked for years to put money aside lose not only their livelihood but their home, car, life savings, jewellery, etc. This exploitation by agents of the State is the worst form of theft and pimping. We believe it is a main reason why raids are now high up on the police and government agenda.
Government statistics on trafficking are false
The figures the government is using to justify raids are based on blatantly discredited research which claims that 80% of women working in the sex industry in the UK have been trafficked. Convictions for trafficking are distorted because the UK definition of trafficking for prostitution, unlike trafficking for any other industry, does not mention force or coercion. This enables every woman with a foreign accent to be labelled a victim of trafficking!
Measures that would help women get out of prostitution
The government has done little to address the homelessness, poverty, debt and domestic violence, which were established as key factors driving women into the sex industry. With women’s hourly wages ranging from £5.73 to £11.67, enforcing pay equity would also reduce the number of women working in prostitution. In New Zealand where decriminalisation became law five years ago, sex workers’ criminal records were expunged making it easier for women to leave prostitution if they want to. Sex workers recount being more able to report violence and insist on their rights.
Rape and violence against sex workers dismissed
The conviction rate for reported rape is a shameful 6%. Sex workers who have been attacked face particular discrimination when seeking justice. Seven women came to the ECP in a two month period reporting rape and other attacks which the police had refused to investigate. One woman was told to gather the evidence herself; another was forced out of her flat by a raid and was violently attacked on the street.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Write protesting that these raids will isolate sex workers from essential support and force women out of the safety of premises onto the streets. Demand an end to the prosecution of women working in the sex industry, including for brothel-keeping and “controlling” if no force or coercion is involved. Please send your complaint to:
Last edited by elrond on Monday, 29 December 2008 22:29:42; edited 1 time in total
elrond Punterlink Member
Joined: Sep 19, 2004
Posts: 121
Posted:
Friday, 26 December 2008 12:58:39
I was just copying in the email from he ECP. It really should have included 'your own MP' in the text. Your MP has to reply to you, and it is REALLY VERY USEFUL to tell him what you feel. Writing to your own MP does mean you have to give them your name and address.
I was thinking in this case it was important that it should for this case have gone to the London police and Vice squad. To some extent Jacqui Smith was an irrelevance, but the more more protest the better.
The copies to ECP and to the John McDonnell MP, mcdonnellj@parliament.uk and Richard Faulkner, House of Lords , faulkerro@parliament.uk are because these guys want to know how many are protesting so they can wave the letters in front of Jacqui Smith when this is debated.
If the figures quoted are accurate then I wouldn't get too worried as 300 punters prosecuted is a drop in the ocean.
As for the 1,200 brothels, I don't know how many there are nationwide but I suspect that there are many more than 1,200, so the same would apply.
B
ww Punterlink Member
Joined: Nov 19, 2006
Posts: 105
Posted:
Friday, 26 December 2008 22:09:48
Any idea how the proposed legislation change will affect Escort Agencies. In particular their "for gain" owners. In fact, does that mean that to avoid any prosecution everyone will need to become "independent"
But in that case how long until New Labour fucktards change the law to criminialse Website creators if they do work for an Independent?
elrond Punterlink Member
Joined: Sep 19, 2004
Posts: 121
Posted:
Friday, 26 December 2008 23:52:08
ww wrote:
Any idea how the proposed legislation change will affect Escort Agencies. In particular their "for gain" owners. In fact, does that mean that to avoid any prosecution everyone will need to become "independent"
But in that case how long until New Labour fucktards change the law to criminialse Website creators if they do work for an Independent?
From an IUSW representative I understand the the Government select Committe are already discussing what to do with agencies after closing down all the brothels.
I do worry about the web as well. Already the ISPs block paedophilia sites from abroad on the information provided to them by the Government through the Internet Watch Foundation. Those hosted in the UK are obviously closed down.
It would not take much more effort to block sites like this.
And with the idea of monitoring and keeping for two years all web addresses visited, phone calls made, text messages and emails. The vast amount of CCTV, numberplate recongnition.........
I am afraid there will be nothing you can do with out someone watching and informing. We are fast approaching and passing the Stazi of East Germany.
spider Punterlink Member
Joined: Jan 14, 2007
Posts: 305
Location: Gloucester
Posted:
Saturday, 27 December 2008 01:01:57
Noted the write to your own MP comment, I may be wrong, but I believe that it is essential to write to your own MP. Letters to any other may be ignored
wanderlust Punterlink Member
Joined: Apr 23, 2008
Posts: 343
Posted:
Sunday, 28 December 2008 12:21:50
Exactly—write to your own MP, asking them to put questions to the Home Office. They are then obliged to put the questions and respond to you with Home Office’s reply. Writing direct to the HO is a waste of time.
Some questions you might like to ask your MP put:
How many people were charged with ‘controlling for gain’ in the past year? Of these how many had charges dropped and how many were acquitted vs. convicted? If the answer is that many/most have charges dropped or are acquitted, how can the issue of a client hiring a controlled girl be prejudged in when there has been no conviction for controlling the said girl? There are suggestions that the police think that this proposal is unworkable
The Home Office ‘Tackling Demand’ report (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/tackling-demand?view=Binary) talks of summarily closing brothels where there is ‘evidence of exploitation taking place’. Can they confirm that there is no intention to force closures where this proviso does not apply and all sexual activity is voluntary? Ask for clarification of what evidence that will be required of ‘exploitation’ and how the police will be able to summarily judge this. You may wish to note that Jacqui Smith is quoted (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/16/prostitution-women-lapdancing) as saying that she “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”. Ask your MP to have the HO confirm that no ‘Restraint of Trade’ will be placed on voluntary prostitution
Ask if the HO will refer the Tacking Demand report to the Govt’s independent Statistics Office. Point out that the figures are evidently bogus. Over the past month I have read or heard the following figures cited by the Home Office or Ministers:
· There are 80000 prostitutes in the UK (Home Office Report)
· UK prostitution has a turnover of £1 billion p.a. (Home Office Report)
· Up to 70% of prostitute women are ‘enslaved’ (Harriet Harman, Ch 4 7PM News 19 Nov)… though the Home Office report says 4000 = 5%!
· These enslaved women are forced to service up to 30 clients per day (Harriet H, as above)
· 10% of UK men hire prostitutes
You can spot the flaws for yourself…. But a couple of obvious ones:
First 80000 women and a £1 billion p.a. equal £12500 per woman per annum. Assuming £60 per liaison (half-hour in a massage parlour,) this is c. 200 clients per woman p.a. or 4 p.w., vastly fewer than cited for the ‘sex slave’, who therefore cannot be representative. Secondly, 80000 women, 70% of them forced, seeing 15 (half the 30) clients per day would mean 80000 x 0.7 x 15 = 840000 clients per day, to which we must add those (4 per day, say) seen by the remaining 30% = 80000 x 0.3 x 4 = 96000… This is nearly a million clients per day: do they believe this.
One last point …. Do remember that there must be an election within the next 18 months and that we have a chance to get rid of this shower of control freaks….
Bradlee Guest
Posted:
Sunday, 28 December 2008 13:05:19
elrond wrote:
Measures that would help women get out of prostitution
The government has done little to address the homelessness, poverty, debt and domestic violence, which were established as key factors driving women into the sex industry. With women’s hourly wages ranging from £5.73 to £11.67, enforcing pay equity would also reduce the number of women working in prostitution. In New Zealand where decriminalisation became law five years ago, sex workers’ criminal records were expunged making it easier for women to leave prostitution if they want to. Sex workers recount being more able to report violence and insist on their rights.
So what is the minimum a woman should be earning to prevent her entering the world of prostitution? This is all a ludicrous assumption and does little to further the cause. After all, if this rang true a third of the female population will be prostitutes by the end of next year.
Prostitution is the last untapped reserve open to Government and they are not going to sit back and allow pimps to profiteer from the prostitutes or millions of undeclared tax revenue to go awol. Give it a few years and the sex industry in this country, possibly the whole of Europe will be unrecognisable and about time too I say. The brothel will always exist in some shape or form but the only way to rid this industry of the sleaze factor and to prevent women from exploitation is to properly regulate it. With regulation must come empowerment for the women who choose this career and protection for those who want money (lots of money at any cost).
Magpy Punterlink Member
Joined: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 332
Posted:
Monday, 29 December 2008 12:22:16
To be honest I cant get too worked up about parlours...
Fact is parlours are brothels and brothels have been illegal for a while now. If the police start closing them down they're only enforcing existing legislation. Thus if you start from this aspect of the new announcement and/or the new proposals then you'll get very little traction.
The point about parlours is just a reflection of the more important wider debate about brothels, that is that brothels should be legalised because they provide a safer environment both for punter and WG. Succeed in this and the issue of parlours largely goes away.
The really worrisome issue is the new offence of paying for sex with a controlled girl which is to be a strict liability offence. Given that "controlling for gain" is currently very imprecisely defined it arguably does include agencies, thus there is a danger that not only will this offence catch punters having sex with trafficked girls but also agency punters.
Of course there are many arguments against this, for instance if you go after an agency punter do you go after the agency also? If not why not etc etc. How many prosecutions for "controlling for gain" have there been etc (ie why so few).
The answer to the agency issue is for all WG to go independent. The overall answer to the governments moralising is to launch an action under Human Rights legislation.
See also 2 other threads: "Politicians get serious" and "Prosecution"
Tim
wanderlust Punterlink Member
Joined: Apr 23, 2008
Posts: 343
Posted:
Monday, 29 December 2008 21:35:52
Magpy, I don't agree. The present law on brothels requires the neighbours to complain and then for the police to prove a case in court. The proposed law will allow summary closure and sealing of premises, without due process. This is the sort of thing that the boys in blue are capable of doing, not least because brothels/massage parlours are eay to find---- look in the back of the local newspaper: here in NW London they appear to be the one growing category of advert!
On the other hand, it is very hard to believe the offence of 'hiring a girl who is controlled for another's gain' will be workable.... How can the police define a girl as controlled if she says she is not controlled and no one has been convicted of controlling her? Note, in context, that many charges of controlling are dropped or lead to an accquital. How can the police prejudge the outcome when no one has even yet been charged with controlling? Even as a 'strict liability offence' it will be hard to prove.
The Independent article at the top of this thread makes this point perfectly clear, though not in so many words. The police impact assessment suggest that they will prosecute 300 punters per annum---- a trivial percentage if 10% of the male population hire wgs (the govt's assertion, not that I believe it), but that they will close 1200 brothels per annum (a significant proportion, I'd have thought).
As a client, I perfer indy girls to massage parlours; they have a nicer attitude and are less clock-orientated. But I also think it iniquitous that the govt wishes to make life harder for any wg who prefers, for reasons of security of company to work in a parlour. Operating as an indy takes a degree of nerve and organisational ability-- which not everyone has. Moreover, it isn't suitable for a semi-pro who wants to do an evening a week- like the moonlighting receptionists, perfure salesgirls and nurses whom I've met in the massage parlours I have vistied.
Magpy, I don't agree. The present law on brothels requires the neighbours to complain and then for the police to prove a case in court.
Incorrect. Moreover, there are documented examples where local people have complained to the police and they are still in operation several years later.
Quote:
The proposed law will allow summary closure and sealing of premises, without due process. This is the sort of thing that the boys in blue are capable of doing, not least because brothels/massage parlours are eay to find---- look in the back of the local newspaper: here in NW London they appear to be the one growing category of advert!
If you read Schedule 2 the bill it's actually a more complex procedure than you suggest. For example, the police are obliged to consult the local authority before a closure notice can be served. In some parts of the country, notably Manchester, the local authority would be slow to agree to such a request as they have pursued a policy of tolerance realising that the alternative (i.e. increased street prostitution and girls working off street in less safe circumstances) is the lesser of (perceived) two evils.
My belief is that pragmatism will prevail. As I've previously stated, 1,200 closures and 300 prosecutions is a drop in the ocean. But for some people the glass is always half empty...
B
elrond Punterlink Member
Joined: Sep 19, 2004
Posts: 121
Posted:
Monday, 29 December 2008 23:15:58
I have a couple of template letters you might want to AMEND and send to the following. I would also suggest you include your MP. These were crafted by an IUSW member Douglas Fox. Re emails it is better if using a template to alter it a little otherwise they do tend to get ignored unless there are thousands. Also like all emails or letters it is often quantities of concerned emails that have effect.
The more people who write to their MPs as well. Something indeed anything to the point will be noted and the more concern that is shown then the better and more likely that the MPs will pay heed. Quite simply they need votes and they want support. An MP who feels he is going against the majority of his/her constituents is not a happy MP.
--------
Idea for letter to home secretary Jacqui Smith
Dear Jacqui Smith MP (Home secretary)
I am concerned at the government’s proposals to further criminalise sex work by criminalising the clients of sex workers who are controlled for gain and targeting brothels.
Two girls working together for security and companionship is legally a brothel. The majority of sex workers like the majority of British subjects choose to work for a third party for anonymity, security and because safe businesses provide social support networks. It is unfair and unjust that sex workers should be denied the same rights as any other working person. There is decades of collated evidence that indoor sex work is the safest place for sex workers and the majority of evidence including raids during pentameter 1 and 11 prove that there is little evidence of coercion or trafficking. Despite this the government is planning new laws to target safe places of work and indeed is already doing so.
During recent raids in Soho police arrested and threatened with controlling for gain Ms Tracey Ramsey a brothel receptionist who is also the sole carer for her elderly father who also has Alzheimer’s. This was despite the fact that there was no evidence of any abuse or trafficking. Receptionist and other support staff employed to ensure the safety of sex workers are being targeted under unfair laws that do not differentiate between coercion and genuine managements who are employed by sex workers to perform specific roles ensuring safe business practises. The government talks a lot about ensuring the safety of sex workers and yet creates laws that target safe places of work and ensures that sex workers are alienated and vulnerable.
I would ask you to stop closing safe working premises and instead recognise the legitimate demands of sex workers to be afforded the same rights as any other UK worker. I would ask that as home secretary that you speak to and listen to sex workers and look at New Zealand where sex workers human rights are recognised in law.
Only by recognising people’s rights will you stop injustice. The government is targeting an already vulnerable sector of workers and forcing them underground and into the hands of criminals. This is simply wrong and I ask that the home secretary does the right and just thing and stop persecuting sex workers.
Yours truly,
Name.
-----------------------
Sir John Stevens
The head of club and vice..
Remember they are separate addresses and seperate people.
Dear Sir John Stevens/Head of clubs and vice.
I was dismayed that police have raided a brothel in Soho and have threatened to arrest Ms Tracey Ramsey on charges of controlling prostitutes for gain. Ms Ramsey was employed as a receptionist. There were no signs of coercion or trafficking.
It is a concern that already bad laws will be further exacerbated by the government’s proposals to target brothels. Decades of independent research have shown brothels which legally can be just two women working together to be safe places (if free from coercion) for sex workers. The government also plans to criminalise the clients of sex workers controlled for gain which as you know will effectively mean the clients of the majority of sex workers who choose for reasons of anonymity, security and social support to work through a third party. The effect of these policies will be to push an already criminalised group of workers underground and into the hands of criminals. I hope you agree that further criminalising and marginalising an already stigmatised sector of our community will only further alienate those involved in sex work and make them further vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.
I ask you to use your discretion to stop raids and prosecutions of people involved in providing safe environments for sex workers and that you use any influence you have to persuade the government not to precede in pushing for more negative legislation targeted at sex workers. Only inclusion and rights have ever stopped abuse not criminalisation and exclusion.
Name
-------
Last edited by elrond on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 19:32:01; edited 1 time in total
sabrine Punterlink Member
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
Posts: 319
Posted:
Tuesday, 30 December 2008 13:54:29
does this mean the agency im currently working for could be shut down??
Not sure exactly what changes with regard to agencies with the proposed new law, although purchasing sex from someone controlled for gain will be illegal whether that person works in a brothel or for an agency.
B
ww Punterlink Member
Joined: Nov 19, 2006
Posts: 105
Posted:
Tuesday, 30 December 2008 19:47:27
bacchus wrote:
sabrine wrote:
does this mean the agency im currently working for could be shut down??
Escort agencies are currently covered by the Sexual Offences Act 2003: as with parlours, running them is currently illegal:
Not sure exactly what changes with regard to agencies with the proposed new law, although purchasing sex from someone controlled for gain will be illegal whether that person is works in a brothel or for an agency.
B
Then maybe that age old disclaminer "paying for time only" is sufficient for an Escort Agency. Which "could" still be just accompanying a client to a social function. Harder to use that in a parlour where no one leaves during the course of a day. If the law is changed as our retarded government want. Then I will consider my punting carefully, maybe only seeing Indies.
Then maybe that age old disclaminer "paying for time only" is sufficient for an Escort Agency. Which "could" still be just accompanying a client to a social function. Harder to use that in a parlour where no one leaves during the course of a day. If the law is changed as our retarded government want. Then I will consider my punting carefully, maybe only seeing Indies.
Wanderlust. Brothels are illegal full stop.
It is 'specifically illegal to own or run a 'disorderly house' or brothel - anywhere more than one woman or man resorts to for non-marital sex' (cf SW5 link above).
However, it is also illegal 'control another's prostitution' for gain, and this includes agencies as well as brothels.
So agencies, as well as brothels, are both currently illegal, full stop.
And I doubt that the time and company disclaimer is, or ever has been, worth anything in the UK.
B
sintakvazar Newbie
Joined: Jan 31, 2010
Posts: 1
Posted:
Sunday, 31 January 2010 05:25:12
знакомства я ищу девушка фото телефон адрес волгоград
соответствие бесплатно знакомства
знакомства бесплатно без регистрации
одноклассники секс знакомства
сайт знакомств секс на одну ночь
знакомства www.24open.ru саратов
флагелляция знакомства
калининградские знакомства для секса
знакомства dimon1970
балашиха портал знакомства
скачай love для мобильного знакомства
сайты знакомств для секса с фото
стоит ли ехать к итальянскому мужчине первой при знакомстве
сайт знакомств г мытищи
знакомство для секса с 16
сайт знакомств высшее общество
знакомства в архнгельске
знакомство со скейтерами
другой personals фотографии друзей знакомств
интим знакомства днепродзержинск
риминг знакомства
знакомства по никополю
знакомство с микроэвм djvu
знакомства в самаре
скачать бесплатно и без регистрации фильм знакомство со спартанцами в формате avi
детские игры-знакомства
знакомства на кузбассе
33 170 ирина знакомства ирина
халява знакомства
знакомства девушка от 21 до 23 клин солнечногорск
чат знакомств mail.ru
мобильные чаты знакомств барнаула
вадим санкт-петербург знакомства
найти сайты знакомств в нелидово в тверской области
сайт знакомств бесплатно с иностранцами
интим знакомства винницы
знакомства на love 4ik.ru
список знакомств фильм
1 часть знакомство с факерами
лучший сайт знакомств в киеве
встреть знакомства
скачать фильм знакомство со спартанцами бесплатно
галактика знакомств тормозит на sony ericsson
знакомства в москве парень
анкеты знакомств новокузнецк
гей эмо знакомство
знакомства снг фото
агентство знакомств анкета скачать
ьд знакомства
тольятти ирина знакомство
знакомства для секса за денги ббез презерватив
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Warnings RSS Feed
Escort
adverts by USA Cities - 