Man, 65, convicted of purchasing sex in landmark prostitution case

paleoperson

A man has been convicted of purchasing sex, in what is the first conviction under new prostitution laws introduced in April 2017.

Bryan Mason, aged 65, with an address at Moatlands, Rathoath, Co Meath, was fined €200 in relation to the purchase of sexual services at West End Village, Blanchardstown, west Dublin on 30 March 2018.

It is the first conviction under Section 25 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017, which was enacted on April 3, 2017 after being signed into law by then justice minister Frances Fitzgerald.

Mr Mason was charged with paying, giving, offering or promising to pay or give money or any other form of remuneration or consideration for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity with a prostitute.

The case, which appeared before Dublin District Court this morning, followed an investigation by specialist officers attached to Operation Quest, based within the Garda National Protective Services Bureau (GNPSB).

The Oireachtas Justice Committee recommended the new offence in a report it published in June 2013.

Section 25 of the 2017 Act amended the provisions of Section 7A of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993.

Ruhama, which works with women affected by prostitution and sex trafficking, welcomed the conviction.

“This case sends a clear message to Irish society that it is not acceptable to pay for access to another person’s body for sexual gratification,” said Ruhama CEO Sarah Benson.

“Sex buyers have been operating with impunity in Ireland for far too long, and we are hopeful that more convictions will be achieved under this legislation in future.

“Evidence has shown that tackling ‘demand’ is a key mechanism for preventing the sexual exploitation of the most vulnerable in our society. While the sex trade continues to thrive due to buyer’s demand, the criminal gangs running it are profiting.”

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/man-65-convicted-of-purchasing-sex-in-landmark-prostitution-case-899086.html

And whose fault is that when you're the ones who made it highly illegal and trying to scare off less criminal people even more, durrr?! You don't have criminal gangs running boxing clubs because boxing isn't illegal.

Is there any possible legitimate reason why prostitution should be illegal?

whisky_galore

Ruhama and prudes in govt have it all arseways. The demand will always be there.
The choice is either bring the industry into the light and legitimise it or drive it further underground where it can't be monitored at all.

retalivity

Lol was the west end retail park known for having brazzers?

beertons

Bad luck I suppose.

gctest50

Ruhama are filth :




(The four religious orders than ran the Magdalene Laundries are the Good Shepherd Sisters, the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity, the Religious Sisters of Charity and the Sisters of Mercy.)

These are the orders all now refusing to contribute anything to the Magdalene Laundry survivors’ compensation fund set up by the Government.

Despite claiming to have no money to pay compensation, the Religious Sisters of Charity paid for the 2009 research report Globalisation, Sex Trafficking and Prostitution: The Experiences of Migrant Women in Ireland produced by the Immigrant Council of Ireland and TORL’s main evidence frequently described as “independent research” but clearly not. The Immigrant Council of Ireland was in fact founded by Sr. Stanislaus Kennedy of the Religious Sisters of Charity.

It has recently come to light that Atlantic Philanthropies have funded the Immigrant Council of Ireland to the tune of 5.9 million US dollars. In fact numerous members of TORL are funded by Atlantic Philanthropies. TORL organisations have received a whopping 40.7 million US dollars from Atlantic Philanthropies in total.

Ruhama was founded by the Good Shepherd Sisters and Our Lady of Charity Sisters. These religious orders also remain the trustees of Ruhama today.

At least 18 different Magdalene order nuns are known to have worked at Ruhama over the years







no money for paying victims though

Muckka

I suppose they're not going to name the person who was selling the sex no.

KevinCavan

Was it some beauty fresh out of Templemore in a short and fishnets that snared him?;-)

odyssey06

We must stamp it out before we end up like Germany or the Netherlands. Probably safest to just leave the EU.

Renegade Mechanic

Still cheaper than marrying someone for it

Sleepy

Poor man. While I'm sure the €200 fine wasn't nice, being named and shamed in the press is the real punishment here imo.

Omackeral

Thread title is gas. "Hello, I would like to purchase one sex please."

Vic_08

whisky_galore wrote: »

Ruhama and prudes in govt have it all arseways.

Hypocricy is...

Ruhama, defending the right of vulnerable Irish women from the same Catholic orders that ran the Magdalene orders and have done everything possible to cover up their vicious crimes against vulnerable Irish women.

If the Gardai want to investigate actual crimes how about investigating why these poisonous b!tches are still pulling in millions in state funding while their decades of ruining lives has gone unpunished.

whisky_galore

gctest50 wrote: »

Ruhama are filth :




(The four religious orders than ran the Magdalene Laundries are the Good Shepherd Sisters, the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity, the Religious Sisters of Charity and the Sisters of Mercy.)

These are the orders all now refusing to contribute anything to the Magdalene Laundry survivors’ compensation fund set up by the Government.

Despite claiming to have no money to pay compensation, the Religious Sisters of Charity paid for the 2009 research report Globalisation, Sex Trafficking and Prostitution: The Experiences of Migrant Women in Ireland produced by the Immigrant Council of Ireland and TORL’s main evidence frequently described as “independent research” but clearly not. The Immigrant Council of Ireland was in fact founded by Sr. Stanislaus Kennedy of the Religious Sisters of Charity.

It has recently come to light that Atlantic Philanthropies have funded the Immigrant Council of Ireland to the tune of 5.9 million US dollars. In fact numerous members of TORL are funded by Atlantic Philanthropies. TORL organisations have received a whopping 40.7 million US dollars from Atlantic Philanthropies in total.

Ruhama was founded by the Good Shepherd Sisters and Our Lady of Charity Sisters. These religious orders also remain the trustees of Ruhama today.

At least 18 different Magdalene order nuns are known to have worked at Ruhama over the years







no money for paying victims though

Plus ça change.

Just the RCC in a different set of clothes. It's like we haven't progressed at all.

One eyed Jack

paleoperson wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/man-65-convicted-of-purchasing-sex-in-landmark-prostitution-case-899086.html

And whose fault is that when you're the ones who made it highly illegal and trying to scare off less criminal people even more, durrr?! You don't have criminal gangs running boxing clubs because boxing isn't illegal.

It’s completely the fault of the adult who knows that what they are doing is illegal, yet they choose to do it anyway.

Is there any possible legitimate reason why prostitution should be illegal?

There have been legitimate reasons given in the article you quoted. The fact that you don’t agree they are legitimate reasons is another matter entirely. You should challenge the law if you want to have any hope of changing it, rather than engaging in illegal activity in the hope you won’t fall foul of existing laws.

Ultimate Seduction

How is the prostitute not named and fined as well. Fcuking feminists.

Imagine it being legal to sell drugs but illegal to buy. How strange.

paleoperson

paleoperson wrote: »

Is there any possible legitimate reason why prostitution should be illegal?

None that I have ever heard. All attempts to argue prostitution is bad which I have heard have actually either been:

1) bad things that happen when you legalize and regulate it poorly or
2) bad things that happen when it is illegal which the speaker is pretending is bad things about prostitution itself.

I have yet to hear something that was not nonsense - which did not fall into one or those categories.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There have been legitimate reasons given in the article you quoted.

Where? I just read it twice and saw none.

McCrack

It's absolutely bonkers that this is criminalised

Muckka

Sleepy wrote: »

Poor man. While I'm sure the €200 fine wasn't nice, being named and shamed in the press is the real punishment here imo.

I was thinking the same, not all ladies of the night are forced into prostituting.

Once you're an adult, you're supposedly wise enough to make good,bad, right or wrong decisions.

Drug Addiction, college fee's, sex addiction, open mindedness are all the variables with prostution.

I wouldn't tar them all with the one brush, they're not all victims.

I know crime is crime, but this guy obviously made the wrong decision and it will effect him for the foreseeable future.

biko

I'm all for clamping down on buying sex
The "happy hooker" doesn't exist. These women are trafficked here, not uncommly by their own countrymen, and forced to sell themselves.

The numbers of victims of human trafficking in Ireland has almost doubled in four years, with 94 believed to have been children, according to a report by the Council of Europe.SRC

Highly organised Nigerian gangs are earning “extremely high profits” from trafficking children into 12 European countries, including Ireland, for prostitution, according to the EU police agency. SRC

biko

biko wrote: »

I'm all for clamping down on buying sex The "happy hooker" doesn't exist.

Two problems there. The first is that you asserted this without evidence they do not exist. The second is that "so what?". People being unhappy in a job or trade does not mean we should shut down that job or trade. So even if your assertion was not just assertion - it would be irrelevant.

biko wrote: »

These women are trafficked here, not uncommly by their own countrymen, and forced to sell themselves.

Which "these women" are you speaking of? While I have no doubt _some_ women in the sex trade fit this profile - you have offered no figures on how many it is at all relative to the whole. Just saying the number "doubled" tells us nothing. From what to what? And what % of the complete trade do they represent?

Further though there is nothing here suggesting that making it illegal combats that at all. If we want to combat sex trafficking we should not simply assume making paying for sex illegal is going to solve it.

Further again though - slavery and sex with children are already illegal. Why do we require further laws making them illegaler? Why indict the innocent with crimes of their peers?

Fr_Dougal

biko wrote: »

I'm all for clamping down on buying sex
The "happy hooker" doesn't exist. These women are trafficked here, not uncommly by their own countrymen, and forced to sell themselves.

Eh did you not read the AMA with the hooker? She was happy out, proper businesswoman.

lbc2019

Ronan Mullen pushed for this law, ergo, I'm against it.

Him and those fecking nuns!

GinAndBitter

retalivity wrote: »

Lol was the west end retail park known for having brazzers?

I'd say it was one of the many brazzers in the apartments up there.

Renegade Mechanic

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

How is the prostitute not named and fined as well. Fcuking feminists.

Imagine it being legal to sell drugs but illegal to buy. How strange.

Erm, well now in fairness, if I could play devil's advocate for a tic, young women aren't being shipped here in containers to sell smack

Two different ball games requiring two different approaches.

Vic_08

biko wrote: »

I'm all for clamping down on buying sex
The "happy hooker" doesn't exist. These women are trafficked here, not uncommly by their own countrymen, and forced to sell themselves.

And prosecuting one punter in two years will do what exactly about those terrible crimes?


This new law is just more sh!te regulation that will never see more than token prosecutions.

If our (and other western) governments really wanted to seriously stop the sex trafficking trade then what is needed is resources and huge amounts akin to the trillions they pore into terrorism and their futile war on drugs.

But all that requires real commitment and money so instead we get puritanical lecturing, rubbish laws and a handful of men who most likely had no connection with trafficking being humiliated infront of the unquestioning media.

BorneTobyWilde

Doesn't Ireland have an Escort site? How on earth is that still online if the law changed? It's a funny law, so basically all those hookers on that site can work hassle free, but the guys availing of the service are the ones breaking the law, Weird as they are the one preying on vulnerable guys and rinsing them for large amount of money and then never declaring that money. But arrest the lonely farm who wanted a change from the sheep. Weird.

Del2005

Muckka wrote: »

I suppose they're not going to name the person who was selling the sex no.

He or she didn't commit a crime, before or after the current legislation, so why should they be named?

paleoperson

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Eh did you not read the AMA with the hooker? She was happy out, proper businesswoman.

oh don't be silly, these girls can't think for themselves, she was brainwashed by her pimp into thinking she was happy.

GinAndBitter

paleoperson wrote: »

oh don't be silly, these girls can't think for themselves, she was brainwashed by her pimp into thinking she was happy.

You don't be silly, there are plenty of freelance escorts out there and no one is forcing them to do anything.

turdball

Probably better off paying for a return flight to Amsterdam for 40 euro and there cheaper over there apparently.

odyssey06

biko wrote: »

I'm all for clamping down on buying sex
The "happy hooker" doesn't exist. These women are trafficked here, not uncommly by their own countrymen, and forced to sell themselves.

Drugs are illegal and we have mini armies of highly organised criminal gangs fuelled by the profits from the trade. It just doesn't work.
It's already an offence to traffick someone into the country, yet we seem to have highly organised criminal gangs getting away with it.

"Clamping down" might make people feel better about the whole situation. It's not going to improve matters one jot.

Muckka

Del2005 wrote: »

He or she didn't commit a crime, before or after the current legislation, so why should they be named?

Exactly it doesn't make sense, he was probably lonely and needed company.

For all we know he could have just gone for a massage or company.

He shouldn't have been named, you're right.

whisky_galore

turdball wrote: »

Probably better off paying for a return flight to Amsterdam for 40 euro and there cheaper over there apparently.

You don't get your name read out in the paper either.

TheValeyard

65 and he's still getting the horn. Fair play.

paleoperson

GinAndBitter wrote: »

You don't be silly, there are plenty of freelance escorts out there and no one is forcing them to do anything.

I know I was being sarcastic. People claiming to care about these girls often get very patronizing and forceful about what the women actually say, and try to force what they can and can't do with their bodies. They don't care about their actual opinions and claim they're being manipulated.

Maybe if there could be a lower age limit of 21 or 23, maybe that would help?

Teddy Daniels

biko wrote: »

I'm all for clamping down on buying sex
The "happy hooker" doesn't exist. These women are trafficked here, not uncommly by their own countrymen, and forced to sell themselves.

There was a whole AMA here on boards with a Happy Hooker.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Where? I just read it twice and saw none.

Here -

“This case sends a clear message to Irish society that it is not acceptable to pay for access to another person’s body for sexual gratification,” said Ruhama CEO Sarah Benson.

“Sex buyers have been operating with impunity in Ireland for far too long, and we are hopeful that more convictions will be achieved under this legislation in future.

“Evidence has shown that tackling ‘demand’ is a key mechanism for preventing the sexual exploitation of the most vulnerable in our society. While the sex trade continues to thrive due to buyer’s demand, the criminal gangs running it are profiting.”

They were considered legitimate reasons for the introduction of the law in the first place. You fail to see them as legitimate reasons, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t legitimate reasons for the introduction of the laws.

RustyNut

Who exactly is the victim in this consentual arrangement between two adults?

Renegade Mechanic

RustyNut wrote: »

Who exactly is the victim in this consentual arrangement between two adults?

Revenue......

Muckka

RustyNut wrote: »

Who exactly is the victim in this consentual arrangement between two adults?

According to society it's the woman.

The man's the baddie.

It's obvious women who turns a trick does so without it being wrong.

I suppose it's like letting a getaway driver off and charging the hit man..

Pythagorean

The actual mechanics of how a punter like this unfortunate man is prosecuted would be interesting. How did they prove that the woman was an actual hooker? Did they have the place under surveillance ? Was he caught "in flagrante delicto"? How did they prove that he paid her, as this would be crucial to the case, I assume it was a cash transaction? Seems like there could be a new line of work here for legal people.

Ultimate Seduction

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

How is the prostitute not named and fined as well. Fcuking feminists.

Imagine it being legal to sell drugs but illegal to buy. How strange.

The reasoning behind not criminalizing the prostitute is because if a sex worker is assaulted or raped, beaten up or otherwise attacked, she will not report the crime if she fears prosecution herself/himself.

It's to protect society from dangerous and violent people, it's more important they're caught and dealt with than it is to prosecute prostitutes so the greater good is served by not putting barriers to reports being made about serious crimes.

Prostitutes may also be victims of trafficking or coercion, and again there are bigger fish to fry in that scenario than prosecuting the worker.

The fact that this is the first time someone has been convicted of the crime tells me that not a lot of resources are put into catching the customers. It's not quite persecution level just yet.

I don't believe prostitution should be illegal, but I do think there will always be an issue with the most vulnerable sex workers. The girls who'll work in legit brothels (should it become legal) will be safe and cared for, but the most vulnerable - the drug addicts working the back streets and canal ways, under the control of pimps or with no protection at all - will still be at enormous risk of harm. Not all prostitutes are comfortably off escorts who get to pick and choose their customers and conditions, but the people in the worst situations will benefit least.

But yeah, those feminist nuns.

jaxxx

RustyNut wrote: »

Who exactly is the victim in this consentual arrangement between two adults?

The so called "feminists" who campaign for equality for women so long as they conform to their beliefs, and to hell with those who dare think differently?

whisky_galore

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Doesn't Ireland have an Escort site? How on earth is that still online if the law changed? It's a funny law, so basically all those hookers on that site can work hassle free, but the guys availing of the service are the ones breaking the law, Weird as they are the one preying on vulnerable guys and rinsing them for large amount of money and then never declaring that money. But arrest the lonely farm who wanted a change from the sheep. Weird.

Probably hosted outside of the country. The lawmakers here are so technologically backward they probably don't know it exists.

Ultimanemo

Muckka wrote: »

I suppose they're not going to name the person who was selling the sex no.

If the person who is selling sex was a man, They would have named and shamed him and got the sh1t out of him.

SEPT 23 1989

Doubt he was the first one caught but all other cases were held back until the "the dirty old man" was brought to court

the quango zealots made sure of it

Muckka

whisky_galore wrote: »

Probably hosted outside of the country. The lawmakers here are so technologically backward they probably don't know it exists.

It should be easy enough to filter it out, shouldn't it.

Muckka

jaxxx wrote: »

The so called "feminists" who campaign for equality for women so long as they conform to their beliefs, and to hell with those who dare think differently?

Shushhhh you'll get yer wan in here, she'll go postal on your mentioning the word femminist.

It's Third wave femminist.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Here - They were considered legitimate reasons for the introduction of the law in the first place. You fail to see them as legitimate reasons, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t legitimate reasons for the introduction of the laws.

Fail from you there - there is no "reasons" there. Let us break it down one paragraph at a time to see.

1) The first paragraph says it just sends a message that it is not acceptable. No reasons there as to why it is.

2) Same problem here. It just explains that the purpose of a law against purchasing sex is because people were purchasing sex. Hardly reasons is it?

3) There is no reasons why prostitution should be illegal here either. Quite the opposite in fact as by making it illegal we in fact push demand into the hands of those criminal gangs

So I ask again, where are the reasons in the article. They most certainly are not in the bit you quoted. Paragraph 1 and 2 do not contain any at all - and paragraph 3 not only supports the opposite argument as I said - but we already have laws against much "exploitation" so no reasons here why we need more of them. Let alone evidence of the efficacy or "evidence" mentioned but not offered.

odyssey06

If the "legitimate reasons" for this legislation is about trafficking...
Presumably then we should deport the sex worker, to ensure they are put out of reach of engaging in illegal activities in this jurisdiction, and entrapping otherwise law abiding citizens here from committing an illegal act.
Of course, this implies if the sex worker has EU passport, it should be legal.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Fail from you there - there is no "reasons" there. Let us break it down one paragraph at a time to see.

There’s no fail at all on my part. You simply have a different opinion to mine, and so on that basis of course we’re going to disagree on what either of us considers legitimate reasons for the introduction of the law.