{"id":1933,"date":"2010-04-20T11:45:40","date_gmt":"2010-04-20T10:45:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.adoreamy.co.uk\/blog\/?p=1933"},"modified":"2010-06-20T14:09:18","modified_gmt":"2010-06-20T13:09:18","slug":"are-you-sitting-comfortably","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.adoreamy.co.uk\/blog\/index.php\/2010\/04\/20\/are-you-sitting-comfortably\/","title":{"rendered":"are you sitting comfortably?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"prThen I’ll begin…<\/p>\n

On the 1st of April 2010, a new law was introduced in England and Wales which criminalises the purchase of sexual services from any person who has been or is being forced, coerced or exploited. The nuts and bolts of this legislation (an addition to Section 53A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) are here<\/span>.<\/a><\/p>\n

There continues to be widespread misconception and lack of understanding about what this actually means, not helped by the abolitionist lobby, the moronic red-tops and even senior police officers (at least one of whom has been quoted as stating, among other things, that it is no longer legal to purchase sexual services in a brothel). The Sun newspaper has already had to amend and print a correction to this<\/span><\/a> disgraceful article (see the end) following an email to the Press Complaints Commission by an irritated punter (leaving aside the fact that the raid reported was almost certainly a set up, unless you believe that the Sun routinely send a reporter and photographer to hang around outside East London brothels at ten in the morning on the off chance). And the predictable throwing around of the ‘T’ word has reached pandemic proportions, despite there being no mention whatsoever<\/strong> of trafficking in any part of the new statute.<\/p>\n

It is hardly any wonder that most of the relatively small number of our clients who have even heard about the new laws are confused – I personally have been reading every relevant article I could get my hands on and have yet to see one which addresses these concerns in any sort of informative, responsible and pragmatic way. This week I am aiming to at least have a go myself, admittedly having no legal background or any legal training at all so please do bear with me – an embarrassingly analytical nature and adeptitude with Google can make up for an awful lot. The background is as follows:<\/p>\n

Myth One: Visiting a prostitute\u00a0 is illegal.<\/strong> FALSE. It is not, and has NEVER been an offence to visit a prostitute for the purpose of buying and availing oneself of their services, nor to have one visit you, and this applies whether you are referring to commercial premises or private dwellings.<\/p>\n

Myth Two: Working as a prostitute is illegal.<\/strong> FALSE. It is not, and has NEVER been an offence to sell, or offer sexual services for sale in the UK. I have found that confusion arises about these first two surprisingly often and generally results from a mistaken belief that soliciting and prostitution are the same thing; the soliciting offence (including kerb-crawling) relates to maintaining public order and preventing nuisance, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the process of exchanging money for sex.<\/p>\n

This last is not helped by the worthless disclaimers carried on many websites; the twaddle about ‘time and companionship’ originates from the United States where prostitution is almost entirely outlawed and has as much relevance in England and Wales as the Bill of Rights. If I decide to redesign my site to read ‘I will cheerfully have full penetrative sex with you in any position of your choosing and on any fuckable surface you see fit for \u00a3XXX – ring me to find out how!!!’, I would be perfectly within the law in doing so. Neither the internet nor the telephone are public places. Escort agencies are technically breaking the law because they are almost exclusively procuring sexual partners for third parties (no matter what it says on their websites), but no one using or working for one is committing an offence in doing so.<\/p>\n

None of this mentioned so far has been in any way affected by recent changes. The new Section 14 offence of paying for the sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force (etc) would on the surface seem to be relatively straightforward; most reasonable people would recoil in horror at the thought of adding to the misery of those genuinely exploited and I do not believe I have ever met any punter, however unpleasant (and there have been a few over the years) that would knowingly continue an appointment with anyone who was not participating willingly and of their own volition. It is the nature of the offence – one of the relatively few categorised as ‘strict liability’ – that is unusual, and demonstrates for me beyond doubt, the eventual intention of the state to make prostitutes and prostitution disappear.<\/p>\n

Strict liability automatically convicts a defendant of the offence they are charged with; there is no defence and it is normally applied to situations where there is no question that the party concerned were aware they were in breach of the law – speeding, driving without insurance and possession of a firearm are examples I know about (there was a recent case of a man being prosecuted for the latter having found a gun in his back garden and taken it to the police station to hand it in). However, the new legislation concerns a far greyer area – it is explicitly stated that it is irrelevant whether the person who pays for sex is, or ought to be aware that the prostitute has been exploited – they are guilty regardless. Therefore, someone can now be convicted of an offence they not only do not know they have committed but have no way of knowing<\/strong> they are committing.<\/p>\n

In other words, John Q Punter could prepare and bring along a carefully worded questionnaire or statement for his chosen lady to sign, confirming that she is happy and working of her own free will or conversely he could shuffle through the door, pay, get his end away and leave without even asking her name – if the lady in question is later decreed to fall into one of the categories described, BOTH examples would be equally guilty of exactly the same offence; any concerted effort made to find out her personal circumstances is utterly pointless, completely futile and constitutes no defence whatsoever. Unfair and unjust doesn’t even begin to describe it, but there it is (and it is worth pointing out that none of this is aimed at punishing the third party actually responsible for the coercion).<\/p>\n

The aim is obvious enough and the agenda is hardly hidden; the reduction of demand by putting the fear of God into people. Only time will tell whether this will have any real effect. Common sense ought to prevail in terms of avoiding the sort of establishments where ladies are kept chained up in puppy cages and let out only to service punters on demand, the problem being that (as far as the UK goes) such establishments exist, for the most part, only in the heads of the Harriet Harmans of this world, and actual exploitation is likely to be far more ‘everyday’ and subtle, extremely well hidden and thus almost impossible to detect. So in summary:<\/p>\n

It is not illegal to pay for sex with a prostitute who has been trafficked any more than it was a month ago; the state of being trafficked in and of itself does not indicate coercion, or even being non-British. Many migrant workers are not trafficked, and some native British workers are.<\/p>\n

If you are convicted of this new offence you can be fined up to \u00a31000 and will have a criminal record. Contrary to one popular misconception, you will NOT end up on the Sex Offenders register. And the offence does have to be proved to have taken place before any of this can happen, which is when it is going to get interesting. If it ever happens.<\/p>\n

Most importantly, it makes no difference whether you have tried to ascertain whether a person is willing, exploited or under duress in the event that\u00a0 it turns out he\/she is.<\/p>\n

So realistically, the chances of this law ever being able to be properly enforced are close to zero. In other words, after all that fuss –\u00a0 it’s\u00a0 basically as you were. Back for the usual diary entry soon…<\/p>\n

\n

EDIT: 20th April 2010, 1.15pm – For those following developments from north of the border, Trish Godman’s amendment<\/span><\/a> has been voted down by the Justice Committee this morning. Unlucky, Trish.<\/p>\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Then I’ll begin… On the 1st of April 2010, a new law was introduced in England and Wales which criminalises the purchase of sexual services from any person who has been or is being forced, coerced or exploited. The nuts and bolts of this legislation (an addition to Section 53A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) are here. There continues to be widespread misconception and lack of understanding about what this actually means, not helped by the abolitionist lobby, the moronic red-tops and even senior police officers (at least one of whom has been quoted as stating, among other things, that it is no longer legal to purchase sexual services in a brothel). The Sun newspaper has already had to amend and print a correction to this disgraceful article (see the end) following an email to the Press Complaints Commission by an irritated punter (leaving aside the fact that the raid reported was almost certainly a set up, unless you believe that the Sun routinely send a reporter and photographer to hang around outside East London brothels at ten in the morning on the off chance). And the predictable throwing around of the ‘T’ word has reached pandemic proportions, despite there being no mention whatsoever of trafficking in any part of the new statute. It is hardly any wonder that most of the relatively small number of our clients who have even heard about the new laws are confused – I personally have been reading every relevant article I could get my hands on and have yet to see one which addresses these concerns in any sort of informative, responsible and pragmatic way. This week I am aiming to at least have a go myself, admittedly having no legal background or any legal training at all so please do bear with me – an embarrassingly analytical nature and adeptitude with Google can make up for an awful lot. The background is as follows: Myth One: Visiting a prostitute\u00a0 is illegal. FALSE. It is not, and has NEVER been an offence to visit a prostitute for the purpose of buying and availing oneself of their services, nor to have one visit you, and this applies whether you are referring to commercial premises or private dwellings. Myth Two: Working as a prostitute is illegal. FALSE. It is not, and has NEVER been an offence to sell, or offer sexual services for sale in the UK. I have found that confusion arises about these first two surprisingly often and generally results from a mistaken belief that soliciting and prostitution are the same thing; the soliciting offence (including kerb-crawling) relates to maintaining public order and preventing nuisance, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the process of exchanging money for sex. This last is not helped by the worthless disclaimers carried on many websites; the twaddle about ‘time and companionship’ originates from the United States where prostitution is almost entirely outlawed and has as much relevance in England and Wales as the Bill of Rights. If I decide to redesign my site to read ‘I will cheerfully have full penetrative sex with you in any position of your choosing and on any fuckable surface you see fit for \u00a3XXX – ring me to find out how!!!’, I would be perfectly within the law in doing so. Neither the internet nor the telephone are public places. Escort agencies are technically breaking the law because they are almost exclusively procuring sexual partners for third parties (no matter what it says on their websites), but no one using or working for one is committing an offence in doing so. None of this mentioned so far has been in any way affected by recent changes. The new Section 14 offence of paying for the sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force (etc) would on the surface seem to be relatively straightforward; most reasonable people would recoil in horror at the thought of adding to the misery of those genuinely exploited and I do not believe I have ever met any punter, however unpleasant (and there have been a few over the years) that would knowingly continue an appointment with anyone who was not participating willingly and of their own volition. It is the nature of the offence – one of the relatively few categorised as ‘strict liability’ – that is unusual, and demonstrates for me beyond doubt, the eventual intention of the state to make prostitutes and prostitution disappear. Strict liability automatically convicts a defendant of the offence they are charged with; there is no defence and it is normally applied to situations where there is no question that the party concerned were aware they were in breach of the law – speeding, driving without insurance and possession of a firearm are examples I know about (there was a recent case of a man being prosecuted for the latter having found a gun in his back garden and taken it to the police station to hand it in). However, the new legislation concerns a far greyer area – it is explicitly stated that it is irrelevant whether the person who pays for sex is, or ought to be aware that the prostitute has been exploited – they are guilty regardless. Therefore, someone can now be convicted of an offence they not only do not know they have committed but have no way of knowing they are committing. In other words, John Q Punter could prepare and bring along a carefully worded questionnaire or statement for his chosen lady to sign, confirming that she is happy and working of her own free will or conversely he could shuffle through the door, pay, get his end away and leave without even asking her name – if the lady in question is later decreed to fall into one of the categories described, BOTH examples would be equally guilty of exactly the same offence; any concerted effort made to find out her personal circumstances is utterly pointless, completely futile and constitutes no defence whatsoever. Unfair and unjust doesn’t even begin to describe it, but there it is (and it is worth pointing out that none of this is aimed at punishing the third party actually responsible for the coercion). The aim is obvious enough and the agenda is hardly hidden; the reduction of demand by putting the fear of God into people. Only time will tell whether this will have any real effect. Common sense ought to prevail in terms of avoiding the sort of establishments where ladies are kept chained up in puppy cages and let out only to service punters on demand, the problem being that (as far as the UK goes) such establishments exist, for the most part, only in the heads of the Harriet Harmans of this world, and actual exploitation is likely to be far more ‘everyday’ and subtle, extremely well hidden and thus almost impossible to detect. So in summary: It is not illegal to pay for sex with a prostitute who has been trafficked any more than it was a month ago; the state of being trafficked in and of itself does not indicate coercion, or even being non-British. Many migrant workers are not trafficked, and some native British workers are. If you are convicted of this new offence you can be fined up to \u00a31000 and will have a criminal record. Contrary to one popular misconception, you will NOT end up on the Sex Offenders register. And the offence does have to be proved to have taken place before any of this can happen, which is when it is going to get interesting. If it ever happens. Most importantly, it makes no difference whether you have tried to ascertain whether a person is willing, exploited or under duress in the event that\u00a0 it turns out he\/she is. So realistically, the chances of this law ever being able to be properly enforced are close to zero. In other words, after all that fuss –\u00a0 it’s\u00a0 basically as you were. Back for the usual diary entry soon… EDIT: 20th April 2010, 1.15pm – For those following developments from north of the border, Trish Godman’s amendment has been voted down by the Justice Committee this morning. Unlucky, Trish.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[77,74,75],"class_list":["post-1933","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-my-diary","tag-british","tag-section-14","tag-strict-liability"],"aioseo_notices":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.adoreamy.co.uk\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1933","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.adoreamy.co.uk\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.adoreamy.co.uk\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.adoreamy.co.uk\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.adoreamy.co.uk\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1933"}],"version-history":[{"count":67,"href":"https:\/\/www.adoreamy.co.uk\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1933\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1990,"href":"https:\/\/www.adoreamy.co.uk\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1933\/revisions\/1990"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.adoreamy.co.uk\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1933"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.adoreamy.co.uk\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1933"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.adoreamy.co.uk\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1933"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}