So is prostitution to be outlawed in Ireland or what?

SheikhSpear

Crossubrigs wrote: »

I think everyone on this thread already knew this was your position, it was obvious from the logical inconsistencies you were spouting that you have a position based on personal preferences. From this position you then sought to backwards rationalise your position. Backwards rationalisation becomes apparent when logical inconsistencies are made.

Bottom line you simply want to assert your personal preferences on society without any logic or reason to back it up.

Excellent post, and sums up one eyed Jackie's argument, or lack thereof succinctly.

A Regular John

A decent barrister would tear them to shreds, yes. But most johns would not want to go to court. The present proposal is to give any johns that confess a fixed penalty notice for €100 for a first offence. It would take balls to tell the cops to screw their kind offer of an easy way out and fight in court where you can bet the local rag will report every word said.

There are many videos on youtube of the Swedish police staking out apartments and challenging the johns on leaving. What they do is they basically brow beat a confession out of the john. Without the john admitting it they have zero proof.

In my case, I has all my regulars numbers and emails so there is no issue when it comes to contacting them. I know they won't ever sell a client down the river. The main fear is decoy profiles on websites from undercover gardaí to entice greenhorns into trapping themselves.
The established ladies and johns have nothing to fear if they use their heads and keep quiet.

One eyed Jack

nokia69 wrote: »

only in one eyed Jackies dream world would that be enough for a conviction

What? I never said anything about what I would consider sufficient evidence to meet the standard for a prosecution, let alone a conviction, because each case, as you pointed out earlier, would have to be investigated by Gardaí before a case file would be sent to the DPP who would determine then, if there is sufficient evidence to pursue a prosecution with the possible outcome of a conviction.

Carlos Orange

SheikhSpear wrote: »

They'll observe John entering the escort's premises, see him leave after an hour or so and have her advert online with a complete list of the sexual services she offers. It won't take much to prove a case from there.
He seems to be stating that he's willing to take the risk, but unless his regular escorts are working without advertising it is a risk.

So unchaperoned contact with a known prostitute is now a crime.

Under_Graduate

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody yet can answer that question definitively for you UG. They may be prosecuted, or they may not. I don't know where nokia got his information about anyone being placed on the sex offenders register. I'm sure that should be read as a possibility though, more than anything actually guaranteed yet. At the moment all the Sexual Offences bill is just a series of proposals, with nothing guaranteed until it becomes an Act when it is written into law.

When that could happen though, is still anyone's guess, as there's plenty to be thrashed out yet, and the proposals regarding prostitution are only one small part of the bill.

Okay so, what kind of spiked my curiosity regarding this matter was that, it was read out loud and clear on the radio last week that, "the sale of sexual services in Ireland is to be made illegal".

I heard this after hearing some debate regarding the matter - I think it was on George Hooks radio show - that there was actually consideration regarding legalizing it entirely as a means to better regulate it and thus more efficiently tackle issues like child prostitution and exploitation.

I had assumed it was to come into effect in the near future, and it was a certainty.

What you seem to be saying though is that, it's potentially a long ways off before the police could potentially be enforcing these laws - and even as of yet, the actual nature of the law and how it is to be implemented has yet to be fully determined....
Correct?

A Regular John

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What? I never said anything about what I would consider sufficient evidence to meet the standard for a prosecution, let alone a conviction, because each case, as you pointed out earlier, would have to be investigated by Gardaí before a case file would be sent to the DPP who would determine then, if there is sufficient evidence to pursue a prosecution with the possible outcome of a conviction.

Just give him a fixed penalty notice. They know he will pay up.

SheikhSpear

Under_Graduate wrote: »

What about laws regarding massage parlors and sexual services being offered there at the moment?

Is that currently prohibited or accepted?

Because there are some parlors in Dublin that openly offer and advertise sexual services.

If it's against the law - why haven't they been busted?

At the moment it's legal to visit an escort and pay for sex or have her visit you. If the premises has two or more escorts working in it, it is considered a brothel and so it becomes illegal to pay for sex in a brothel. That's the law currently as far as I know.
I'd guess the reason massage parlors aren't busted more regularly is because the guards have better things to be doing than harassing people making a living.

A Regular John

SheikhSpear wrote: »

At the moment it's legal to visit an escort and pay for sex or have her visit you. If the premises has two or more escorts working in it, it is considered a brothel and so it becomes illegal to pay for sex in a brothel. That's the law currently as far as I know.
I'd guess the reason massage parlors aren't busted more regularly is because the guards have better things to be doing than harassing people making a living.

They will only investigate if the parlour is making a nuisance of itself.

SheikhSpear

A Regular John wrote: »

In my case, I has all my regulars numbers and emails so there is no issue when it comes to contacting them. I know they won't ever sell a client down the river. The main fear is decoy profiles on websites from undercover gardaí to entice greenhorns into trapping themselves.
The established ladies and johns have nothing to fear if they use their heads and keep quiet.

I don't see how they would continue to make a viable living without advertising. But you know more than me.

psinno wrote: »

So unchaperoned contact with a known prostitute is now a crime.

I didn't say it was a crime but I'm under no illusions about our system of justice and the ability of judges to rule that there is overwhelming evidence etc etc. I'm all for sex, paid for or free and think the introduction of this law is a backward step in our society.

nokia69

SheikhSpear wrote: »

I don't see how they would continue to make a viable living without advertising. But you know more than me.

in theory they could, all they need to do is give their regulars an E-mail address or phone number, but of course they can only do this after advertising for a while

and the problem for John is his regular girls will move on or retire in the end, so at some point he will need to roll the dice and visit a new girl

nokia69

One eyed Jack wrote: »

it cannot be stated as a fact that the sex was consensual when money is involved), nor does the law seek to change the nature of consent.

yes it can

all you need to do is ask the people who had sex was it consensual

simple and easy

One eyed Jack

nokia69 wrote: »

yes it can

all you need to do is ask the people who had sex was it consensual

simple and easy

If only it was indeed so simple and easy, but it isn't, nor will it be when the proposed legislation is written into law to comply with the EU directive on the implementation of the Swedish model in all EU member states.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

ignoring the fact that for every one of those women who are happy and quite successful in the sex industry, there are at least a thousand more women who aren't them, who are beaten, raped, abused and assaulted, living in squalor with not much hope of regulation doing anything for them... but it looks good on paper at least.

At least a thousand to one?

Back that up. Come *close* to backing that up.

nokia69

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If only it was indeed so simple and easy, but it isn't, nor will it be when the proposed legislation is written into law to comply with the EU directive on the implementation of the Swedish model in all EU member states.

again you can write any kind of law you want

but you simply can NOT change the nature of consent, if two adults agree to have sex then thats consensual sex, your idiot laws will NOT change that

grumpynerd

only ever had one bad escort experience and that was just she was just a weird girl. should be regulated and organised like a normal job...

One eyed Jack

nokia69 wrote: »

again you can write any kind of law you want

but you simply can NOT change the nature of consent, if two adults agree to have sex then thats consensual sex, your idiot laws will NOT change that

I think you may need to brush up on the difference between what you consider consensual sex, and what the law would consider consensual sex.

Because money is changing hands, that changes the nature of the sexual encounter, a point you're either genuinely oblivious to, or deliberately dismissing.

nokia69

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think you may need to brush up on the difference between what you consider consensual sex, and what the law would consider consensual sex.

Because money is changing hands, that changes the nature of the sexual encounter, a point you're either genuinely oblivious to, or deliberately dismissing.

Jackie, the new law will have nothing to do with consent, it won't even be mentioned in the law

just because money changes hands does not change the nature or meaning of consent, its does change the motive of the people involved, but just because someone is getting paid does not mean they are incapable of consent

it would be a strange person who would argue otherwise

Under_Graduate

For the uninitiated here, could anyone take the trouble to explain what this, "Swedish Practice or Rule or Law", whatever, is??

They have sex workers in Sweden, right?

One eyed Jack

nokia69 wrote: »

Jackie, the new law will have nothing to do with consent, it won't even be mentioned in the law

just because money changes hands does not change the nature or meaning of consent, its does change the motive of the people involved, but just because someone is getting paid does not mean they are incapable of consent

it would be a strange person who would argue otherwise

I never said it did. You brought up the idea of consent with your "two adults engaged in consensual sex" scenario.

What's actually quite strange is that you seem to think your opinion regarding consent has any legal basis?

One eyed Jack

Under_Graduate wrote: »

For the uninitiated here, could anyone take the trouble to explain what this, "Swedish Practice or Rule or Law", whatever, is??

They have sex workers in Sweden, right?

It's very simple. The law will make it a criminal offence to purchase the services of a sex worker. The sex worker themselves will not be charged with committing a criminal offence for offering sexual services.

nokia69

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never said it did. You brought up the idea of consent with your "two adults engaged in consensual sex" scenario.

What's actually quite strange is that you seem to think your opinion regarding consent has any legal basis?

could you define consent for me then, jackie, when it comes to sex between two adults

nokia69

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never said it did. You brought up the idea of consent with your "two adults engaged in consensual sex" scenario.

yes I did, because the new law makes a criminal out of one adult but not the other, when both are involved in consensual sex, in some ways it could be argued that its worse than the crazy anti homosexual laws we once had

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What's actually quite strange is that you seem to think your opinion regarding consent has any legal basis?

my definition of consent is the same as the legal one, this new law has NOTHING to do with consent

Crossubrigs

I don't care what the law says, they can write whatever bullsh1t they want, it doesn't change what consent actually means.

If a law is written that says horses have 28 legs does that mean they actually have 28 legs.

One eyed Jack

nokia69 wrote: »

yes I did, because the new law makes a criminal out of one adult but not the other, when both are involved in consensual sex, in some ways it could be argued that its worse than the crazy anti homosexual laws we once had

At least you're willing to acknowledge that in the commission of a crime, consent is completely irrelevant. The sex may be consensual, but the fact that one party is engaged in the commission of a crime, negates any argument about consent.

my definition of consent is the same as the legal one, this new law has NOTHING to do with consent

Yeah, it's really not if you think that paying someone for sex means that you can argue that they had the free will to give informed consent without coercion.

One eyed Jack

Crossubrigs wrote: »

I don't care what the law says, they can write whatever bullsh1t they want, it doesn't change what consent actually means.

If a law is written that says horses have 28 legs does that mean they actually have 28 legs.

You fell at the first hurdle there.

nokia69

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah, it's really not if you think that paying someone for sex means that you can argue that they had the free will to give informed consent without coercion.

absolute complete and total nonsense, you're making a fool of yourself

looks I need to ask the same question again, could you define consent for me, jackie, when it comes to sex between two adults

mecanno37

One eyed Jack wrote: »

At least you're willing to acknowledge that in the commission of a crime, consent is completely irrelevant. The sex may be consensual, but the fact that one party is engaged in the commission of a crime, negates any argument about consent.





Yeah, it's really not if you think that paying someone for sex means that you can argue that they had the free will to give informed consent without coercion.

So if a sex worker advertises a service that they are willing to do for a price they are willing to accept, once they accept the money , they are no longer able to consent freely , is that what you are saying?

Also , are you really sure that the EU have voted that all member states MUST implement the swedish law or a variant of it? Because I really don't think that is the case.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Under_Graduate

I have to question why "One Eyed Jack" is in opposition to the legalization of the financed sex movement.

Firstly, is he some playboy that gets poontang with such ease that he has not, nor ever will have, to worry about being in a position where he must exchange money for it?

Does he have the hottest wife in Ireland and motivation to seek sexual gratification elsewhere is simply an absurd proposition to him?

Does he support the sexual repression of outcast members of the male society, effectively condemning them to a life of abstinence?

Does he take offense on a personal level regarding the working womans frivolous approach toward her sexual conduct?

None of the above?


Why the oppositional stance?

Under_Graduate

Under_Graduate wrote: »

I have to question why "One Eyed Jack" is in opposition to the legalization of the financed sex movement.

I did ask him. He entirely and completely ignored my post.