Even though it has never been debated in Parliament, and was never in a party's election manifesto, it will shortly become illegal to pay for sexual services in the UK.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 16-iia.htm
(This is in the same Bill that will make it a serious offense to own "extreme pornography")
(NB "paying for sexual services is being interpreted as meaning paying prostitutes. But it seems a particularly elastic phrase to me.)
UK users: be warned!
Re: UK users: be warned!
I am no lawyer - but I read "the sexual services of another person" - As a physical service from another person. If it means anything else I think you can expect all phone-sex services in the UK to close as the first effect...
(And there are dark-sides to prostitution, so I can understand why some people wants to get rid of it - But I think the Dutch-model is a much smarter way to go)
But making it illegal to own "extreme pornography" sounds very elastic - Is that aimed at pedophilia (I hope so), or will it be illegal to own recording of consenting adults having "extreme" fun?
Here (Denmark) it is already illegal to own pedophile-porn (A good thing!) - But besides that you can own and make any kink/kind of porn.
ts
(And there are dark-sides to prostitution, so I can understand why some people wants to get rid of it - But I think the Dutch-model is a much smarter way to go)
But making it illegal to own "extreme pornography" sounds very elastic - Is that aimed at pedophilia (I hope so), or will it be illegal to own recording of consenting adults having "extreme" fun?
Here (Denmark) it is already illegal to own pedophile-porn (A good thing!) - But besides that you can own and make any kink/kind of porn.
ts
-
Susan Strict
- Explorer At Heart
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:04 pm
- Location: On Top
- Contact:
No! Read the proposed amendment carefully. It DOESN'T say it will be illegal to pay ANYONE for sexual services (even if the amendment is passed), and it's not meant to say that.
It says that it will be illegal to pay for sexual services to a third party if the payment or agreement to pay is made before the services are provided. It's an amendment designed to stop pimps taking advantage of vulnerable women (mainly), and in particular to stop the "sex slavery" that still happens. If you EITHER pay the service provider direct OR pay someone else at the time the services are provided OR afterwards then there's absolutely no problem from this proposed amendment.
Therefore, it does NOT apply to sex phone lines (because payment is made to the telecoms company afterwards and any "promise to pay" is made by making the phone call not by booking the service with a third party).
For once, this amendment is not ambiguous in the slightest. It means what is says, if you read it properly. The important word is "and" between 1(a) and 1(b). Both events have to happen for it to be an offence.
We've already discussed the "extreme pornography" issue in this forum. No, it's not aimed at paedophilia which is already covered. It's aimed at sexual acts that also seriously endanger life or involve mutilation and permanent injury. It also covers sex with corpses and sex with animals. The details are quite specific. The only ambiguity is precisely where the line is drawn that divides sexual acts "likely to endanger life" etc from actually endangering it. I don't think the wording is clear enough on this. I, personally, would thoroughly agree that it is proper to ban possession of pictures involving actual multilation and/or death in a sexual context. What is potentially over-restrictive (for those of us who enjoy BDSM in its various forms) is the possibility of a picture and/or video being classed as illegal because, for example, an act depicted in it might potentially cause death or mutilation if it were not performed carefully, properly and with the care that most BDSM "players" take with their interests. That could see the banning of a wide range of material, and that would, in my view, be completely wrong if it were taken to include such wonderful activities as facesitting and so on.
Susan
It says that it will be illegal to pay for sexual services to a third party if the payment or agreement to pay is made before the services are provided. It's an amendment designed to stop pimps taking advantage of vulnerable women (mainly), and in particular to stop the "sex slavery" that still happens. If you EITHER pay the service provider direct OR pay someone else at the time the services are provided OR afterwards then there's absolutely no problem from this proposed amendment.
Therefore, it does NOT apply to sex phone lines (because payment is made to the telecoms company afterwards and any "promise to pay" is made by making the phone call not by booking the service with a third party).
For once, this amendment is not ambiguous in the slightest. It means what is says, if you read it properly. The important word is "and" between 1(a) and 1(b). Both events have to happen for it to be an offence.
We've already discussed the "extreme pornography" issue in this forum. No, it's not aimed at paedophilia which is already covered. It's aimed at sexual acts that also seriously endanger life or involve mutilation and permanent injury. It also covers sex with corpses and sex with animals. The details are quite specific. The only ambiguity is precisely where the line is drawn that divides sexual acts "likely to endanger life" etc from actually endangering it. I don't think the wording is clear enough on this. I, personally, would thoroughly agree that it is proper to ban possession of pictures involving actual multilation and/or death in a sexual context. What is potentially over-restrictive (for those of us who enjoy BDSM in its various forms) is the possibility of a picture and/or video being classed as illegal because, for example, an act depicted in it might potentially cause death or mutilation if it were not performed carefully, properly and with the care that most BDSM "players" take with their interests. That could see the banning of a wide range of material, and that would, in my view, be completely wrong if it were taken to include such wonderful activities as facesitting and so on.
Susan
This Labour government has time and time again legislated on issues of personal morality, this bill is the brain child of nasty piece of work named Paul Goggins MP.
This bill does tackle some serious issues, particulaly in relation to sex trafficking, however, as usual it is rather badly worded and very much open to judicial intepretation (although badly worded bills have kept housing advocates like myself in work for many years)
Many BDSM'ers in the UK see this bill as very dangerous and it could make many adults criminals for possessing, for example, images of their partner engaged in a wide range of very common BDSM practices.
Handguns, fake handguns, swords, jokes about religion, protesting outside the seat of our democracy and now taking a picture of my fiance all made illegal by this overbearing CCTV loving nanny state of a government.
Shame on anyone who went red last time...lol
This bill does tackle some serious issues, particulaly in relation to sex trafficking, however, as usual it is rather badly worded and very much open to judicial intepretation (although badly worded bills have kept housing advocates like myself in work for many years)
Many BDSM'ers in the UK see this bill as very dangerous and it could make many adults criminals for possessing, for example, images of their partner engaged in a wide range of very common BDSM practices.
Handguns, fake handguns, swords, jokes about religion, protesting outside the seat of our democracy and now taking a picture of my fiance all made illegal by this overbearing CCTV loving nanny state of a government.
Shame on anyone who went red last time...lol
Dear Susan Strict,
I'm afraid the crime will be for a person A to pay a person B *or* a third party C for "sexual services". So it doesn't have to involve a pimp or a maid. It can mean going to see a single person with no-body else involved. Or, indeed, paying for a phone sex session. Or possibly even buying any kind of porn.
("A person ("A") commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally obtains for himself the sexual services of another person ("B"), and
(b) before obtaining those services, he makes or promises payment for those services to B or a third person, or knows that another person has made or promised such a payment.")
I'm afraid the crime will be for a person A to pay a person B *or* a third party C for "sexual services". So it doesn't have to involve a pimp or a maid. It can mean going to see a single person with no-body else involved. Or, indeed, paying for a phone sex session. Or possibly even buying any kind of porn.
("A person ("A") commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally obtains for himself the sexual services of another person ("B"), and
(b) before obtaining those services, he makes or promises payment for those services to B or a third person, or knows that another person has made or promised such a payment.")
-
Susan Strict
- Explorer At Heart
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:04 pm
- Location: On Top
- Contact:
I'm sorry but you are talking absolute rubbish.
It doesn't say that. There is no legislation, proposed or otherwise that even hints this might be the case. The particular proposed amendment to which you refer cannot be interpreted in that way by any stretch of the imagination, and certainly not by any law agency or court. It's clear and unambiguous.
I don't understand. Why are you scaremongering when there is no cause for it? It's not a matter of interpretation. Quite simply, you are wrong.
It doesn't say that. There is no legislation, proposed or otherwise that even hints this might be the case. The particular proposed amendment to which you refer cannot be interpreted in that way by any stretch of the imagination, and certainly not by any law agency or court. It's clear and unambiguous.
I don't understand. Why are you scaremongering when there is no cause for it? It's not a matter of interpretation. Quite simply, you are wrong.
Wow. I'm confused. The quote by diddums appears verbatim in the link he provided in his first post, and indicates to me that if that piece of text were law, it would be illegal to in any obtain sexual services where money for those services had been discussed beforehand with anyone.
It's hard for me to understand your position Susan. It doesn't appear that scaremongering is on the agenda here, unless the linked text has been defeated or will not be introduced as law. Are you able to further explain why the quoted text by diddums does not indicate my interpretation?
It's hard for me to understand your position Susan. It doesn't appear that scaremongering is on the agenda here, unless the linked text has been defeated or will not be introduced as law. Are you able to further explain why the quoted text by diddums does not indicate my interpretation?
As a law student i can only agree with the forementioned by diddums that this particular proposal will indeed cause a person to commit an offence if he obtains the sexual service of another person an he or another person pays either up front or by promise afterwards to that person or another.
i cannot agree with the assessment that paying the service provider directly will not cause any problem. its clearly stated that to obtain the sexual services of another person (B). hereby meaning to obtain b's sexual services whichever deviant act you'd want B to commit. and to complete the article u pay B or another beforehand or afterwards or have someone else do this for you (you know as a nice birthday gift
)
it cannot be read as a rule that implies the phone sex issue or buying porn as it states that required is the obtaining of sexual services of another person and this is a particular important legal phrase which assumes the obtaining of actual sexual services from another person not recorded materials or anything.
as a dutchy myself i can only agree that indeed that's the better system
to make illigal an activity which will occur anyway and quite often is only to shift that entire activity into crime. no control no rules. cuz u cant make sure someone isnt being used by a pimp or other if its completely illigal because u cannot control and check what u push into the shadows.
i cannot agree with the assessment that paying the service provider directly will not cause any problem. its clearly stated that to obtain the sexual services of another person (B). hereby meaning to obtain b's sexual services whichever deviant act you'd want B to commit. and to complete the article u pay B or another beforehand or afterwards or have someone else do this for you (you know as a nice birthday gift
)it cannot be read as a rule that implies the phone sex issue or buying porn as it states that required is the obtaining of sexual services of another person and this is a particular important legal phrase which assumes the obtaining of actual sexual services from another person not recorded materials or anything.
as a dutchy myself i can only agree that indeed that's the better system
to make illigal an activity which will occur anyway and quite often is only to shift that entire activity into crime. no control no rules. cuz u cant make sure someone isnt being used by a pimp or other if its completely illigal because u cannot control and check what u push into the shadows.
The devil as usual with appallingly written legislation is in the detail.....
The offence is created if the sexual services (what constitues a 'sexual service?') are obtained and a price is paid or agreed upon beforehand, if no payment is made, then there must be a promise to pay post hoc.
This clause is essentially ballast as you could simply argue that no promise to pay was made beforehand and that the money you paid after the event was simply a gift. It would only really be useful in stings, seen as you cant make a contract tat is contrary to statute you couldnt enter into a legally binding contract to purchase sex anyway.
Furthermore Lord Anderson is a nutty old crust who has voted against gay rights, for ID cards and for the Iraq war, this amendment has been offered in committee which is a fair bet he knows it couldnt make it through a full session. Even if it gets voted out of committee there is no reason to believe it would make it through a session in the lords, purely because it is so legally inept.
However, I must agree that it could be interpreted in the way diddums describes, again all new legislation has to be weighed in the light of previous precedent.
The offence is created if the sexual services (what constitues a 'sexual service?') are obtained and a price is paid or agreed upon beforehand, if no payment is made, then there must be a promise to pay post hoc.
This clause is essentially ballast as you could simply argue that no promise to pay was made beforehand and that the money you paid after the event was simply a gift. It would only really be useful in stings, seen as you cant make a contract tat is contrary to statute you couldnt enter into a legally binding contract to purchase sex anyway.
Furthermore Lord Anderson is a nutty old crust who has voted against gay rights, for ID cards and for the Iraq war, this amendment has been offered in committee which is a fair bet he knows it couldnt make it through a full session. Even if it gets voted out of committee there is no reason to believe it would make it through a session in the lords, purely because it is so legally inept.
However, I must agree that it could be interpreted in the way diddums describes, again all new legislation has to be weighed in the light of previous precedent.
It does seem to me that the broader reading is correct, at least gramatically. Since the "third person" cause follows an "or" we can drop that, and read the legislation
A person ("A") commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally obtains for himself the sexual services of another person ("B"), and
(b) before obtaining those services, he makes or promises payment for those services to B *snip*
That sure reads like the A to B transaction is illegal regardless of the absence of a third party. Which leads me to wonder if this wasn't already illegal. I thought prostitution was illegal in UK, no?
On a more amusing note, part 2 says
"(2) In this section "payment" means any financial advantage, including the discharge of an obligation to pay or the provision of goods or services (including sexual services) gratuitously or at a discount. "
So, "I'll eat your pussy if you suck me off" would be illegal too? Because I'd say a LOT of sex is done under the promise of "the discharge of an obligation to provision sexual services gratuitously."
A person ("A") commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally obtains for himself the sexual services of another person ("B"), and
(b) before obtaining those services, he makes or promises payment for those services to B *snip*
That sure reads like the A to B transaction is illegal regardless of the absence of a third party. Which leads me to wonder if this wasn't already illegal. I thought prostitution was illegal in UK, no?
On a more amusing note, part 2 says
"(2) In this section "payment" means any financial advantage, including the discharge of an obligation to pay or the provision of goods or services (including sexual services) gratuitously or at a discount. "
So, "I'll eat your pussy if you suck me off" would be illegal too? Because I'd say a LOT of sex is done under the promise of "the discharge of an obligation to provision sexual services gratuitously."
As regards the chances of this becoming Law, I'd say they are very high. The amendment need only be passed in a House of Lords Committee (by unelected persons behind closed doors) before its final vote in a Lords division. It has the Government whips behind it. Then, after the formality of Royal Assent, it will be Law. As I say, it will have featured in no manifesto promise nor Commons debate.
To see the whole Bill, including its progress into Law, click here:
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/200 ... ation.html
Dear Susan Strict:
I'm sorry you are so antagonistic. Why have you chosen to attack me personally rather than look at the wording carefully as others have done?
To see the whole Bill, including its progress into Law, click here:
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/200 ... ation.html
Dear Susan Strict:
I'm sorry you are so antagonistic. Why have you chosen to attack me personally rather than look at the wording carefully as others have done?
-
Susan Strict
- Explorer At Heart
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:04 pm
- Location: On Top
- Contact:
