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

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.

Billy86

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Were there? This is the closest passage I could find to outlining why it should be not be legalised... except if anything, it is actually an extremely strong reason why it should be legalised (e.g. to cut out said trafficking by way of regulation and oversight): 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.

I have never seen a prostitute nor could I ever see myself wanting to, but especially in the internet age where so much data collection on and screening of clients (background checks, references from other prostitutes if that`s a thing, etc) should be easy enough to do it makes so little sense not to - and makes it a lot safer for all involved. Having it out in the open also means if Mary has a client who punched her in the face `in the heat of the moment`or as a getaway when it came time to pay, or who scammed her etc would likely have avenues with which to let others knows and get said person blacklisted.

The thinking that they will somehow reduce the demand is every bit as stupid and doomed to failure as the war on cannabis and other drugs.

Were there other reasons in the article that I missed or something?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There’s no fail at all on my part. You simply have a different opinion to mine

Nope. For example - as I said the first two paragraphs you quote do not even contain any reasons. That is not "opinion" at all. It is simply a statement of fact - there are simply no reasons there. You can read it again and again 100 times if you like - there simply isn't any there. Go try. You won't find any.

So as I said. Fail.

As for the third paragraph - there is no reasons there either but assumptions. Firstly the assumption about the "vulnerable". We have no evidence on offer there - despite their use of the word "evidence" as a flag for exactly where they did not offer any - as to how many of them are "vulnerable" or "exploited" at all. I am sure given your biases you want to assume some numbers there - but lets wait for some actual evidence from you shall we?

anewme

Watch “Doing Money”, a joint production by BBC and RTE.

Based on a true story here in Ireland in recent times. It’s edge oif the seat stuff and I jumped with fright more than once. Fantastic acting from all of the leads, but so sad that this is based on a true story.

A true story of a very brave lady who stood up against her captors and still did not get fair justice. She’s still getting over what happened. The customers don’t come across too well.

These are the people who need help as this is happening amongst us.

BorneTobyWilde

Pythagorean wrote: »

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.

A phantom hooker, she never even existed. Entrapment probably.

elperello

I think the authorities should concentrate on prosecuting traffickers and others who are abusing women.

Transactions between consenting adults while considered immoral in the eyes of some should be no business of the state except to collect tax and protect public health .

jaxxx

elperello wrote: »

I think the authorities should concentrate on prosecuting traffickers and others who are abusing women.

Transactions between consenting adults while considered immoral in the eyes of some should be no business of the state except to collect tax and protect public health .

Stop speaking sense! This is 2019 dammit, sense will not be tolerated!

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nope.

So as I said. Fail.

You can “Nope” and “Fail” and all you like, but it still won’t change anything. The one thing that does appear to be having an effect is that the laws now exist to protect some of the most vulnerable members of society from exploitation and abuse, and to punish those people who would exploit and abuse them. I consider that a socially progressive step in the right direction. I’m not too bothered for your opinion tbh.

Muckka

anewme wrote: »

Watch “Doing Money”, a joint production by BBC and RTE.

Based on a true story here in Ireland in recent times. It’s edge oif the seat stuff and I jumped with fright more than once. Fantastic acting from all of the leads, but so sad that this is based on a true story.

A true story of a very brave lady who stood up against her captors and still did not get fair justice. She’s still getting over what happened. The customers don’t come across too well.

These are the people who need help as this is happening amongst us.

I agree both parties need help.
Sex addiction and prostituting goes hand in hand.

Some guy's definitely need to get a grip, going out for kicks and the partners at home.
Infidelity is rampant in this country.

It's a deep subject and there's a lot of variables involved.

I used to be flyfishing in the Fergus river in Ennis and from where I was swishing my fly rod, there's an apartment block, which looked like a Tupperware party for men.

You'd see them on the phone looking for directions.
It was doing the rounds that there was a brothel on the mill road...

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You can “Nope” and “Fail” and all you like, but it still won’t change anything.

And you can dodge my points all you like but it still won’t change anything. Like - as I said - the simple fact that 66% of the paragraphs you quoted did not even contains any reasons at all despite you quoting them while claiming they do. Again that is not opinion. Simple fact.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The one thing that does appear to be having an effect is that the laws now exist to protect some of the most vulnerable members of society from exploitation and abuse, and to punish those people who would exploit and abuse them. I consider that a socially progressive step in the right direction. I’m not too bothered for your opinion tbh.

Oh hardly. We are discussing a single prosecution of a 65 year old man. How is that having any "effect" here really? Hardly torpedoed the underworld of crime here have we?

You say it appears to be having an effect to protect some of the most vulnerable members of society from exploitation and abuse? Where? How? Who? You have offered no citations or links or data of it having protected _anyone_ at all. Even the sex worker who is involved in this case - assuming there was one and it was not a guard undercover or who knows what - why do we assume she was abused, vulnerable, exploited or in any way requiring or requesting our protections at all?

So the only one peddling "opinion" here is you. Certainly not evidence or reasons anyway.

whisky_galore

Muckka wrote: »

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

The only things blocked here are some file sharing sites, not by the govt but by the ISPs themselves when lawyers threatened to throw lawsuits at them. I suppose if China can block websites, so can we. We are probably not arsed going that far.