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

tayto lover

Not all hookers are happy.
Some are beaten, threatened and maimed by their pimps.
Not all are there because they want to be.

odyssey06

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Laws existing on the statute books and actual protection are two entirely different things.
You seem more concerned about what socially progressive laws are on the statute books than the actual impact of these laws.

Apparently, there are highly organised criminal gangs which have already broken multiple laws to get these women into the state, and to run brothels, which was already illegal. The women were already "protected" and the highly organised criminal gangs were already being "punished".

Laws all around the world on the statutes, drugs illegal, prostitution illegal, buying and selling, doesn't matter... all it does is fuel highly organised criminal gangs.

tayto lover

tayto lover wrote: »

Not all hookers are happy.

So what? not all McDonalds workers are happy either. Should we make that illegal?

tayto lover wrote: »

Some are beaten, threatened and maimed by their pimps. Not all are there because they want to be.

"Some" is nebulous at best but yes "some" are. And we should do what we can to help them. I am not sure how making the trade of genuine sex workers illegal to sell - or be purchased - is going to help anyone though. Bit like chopping off a hand to remove a wart. Overkill.

odyssey06

tayto lover wrote: »

Not all hookers are happy.
Some are beaten, threatened and maimed by their pimps.
Not all are there because they want to be.

Does that happen more in Ireland where brothels are illegal, or more in Germany, Netherlands where they are legal?

tayto lover

odyssey06 wrote: »

Does that happen more in Ireland where brothels are illegal, or more in Germany, Netherlands where they are legal?

Happens everywhere.

elperello

tayto lover wrote: »

Not all hookers are happy.
Some are beaten, threatened and maimed by their pimps.
Not all are there because they want to be.

Agreed.

Anyone who is beating,threatening or maiming a woman or a man should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

On the other hand if a woman or man wishes to participate in the sex trade that is their own business.

odyssey06

tayto lover wrote: »

Happens everywhere.

Why do we need these laws then?
As opposed to say better laws, powers and resources on people trafficking?

paleoperson

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

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

No doubt about it. When you get older you're not allowed to have or even want to have sex. Out of all the prostitution going on up and down the country they pick this guy. It seems unlikely that a 65 year old man is going to be engaged in aggressive or antisocial activity as they are usually glad to get anything at all at that age.

What makes it doubly ridiculous to name him is that there are thousands of such acts going on in the country every day, it's by pure chance that he got caught.

anewme

Interesting article here about the Amsterdam model and why it’s not working. It’s seen as a disaster nit the success everyone thinks.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/voices/amsterdam-red-light-district-failing-prostitution-sex-work-decriminalisation-doesnt-work-holland-a8206511.html%3famp

Prince William

I would have thought tinder had made the whole paying for sex thing obsolete

Pythagorean

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

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

Maybe they sent an undercover Guard in, in which case he would be breaking the law. Did they use mobile phone data? Graham Dwyer case has proved this to be dubious. Entrapment can only be used as a defence if the "entrapper" persuades the" entrapee" to carry out a criminal act which they would not normally do. I wonder if the defendant had free legal aid.

tayto lover

tayto lover wrote: »

Happens everywhere.

The user did not ask if it happens. The question was where does it happen _more_?

Beating people is already illegal. Holding people against their will is already illegal. Forcing people to have sex is already illegal.

Why do we need laws impacting the work of legitimate sex workers when we have laws already related to the crimes we are working against?

Underage Child Labour is illegal right? We already have laws on that. So if a clothing firm started using children to cheaply produce clothes would we A) prosecute them under existing laws of make the purchase and/or sale and/or production of clothes illegal?

B would be patently ridiculous. Yet somehow people think it is a good idea in the context of sex work.

turdball

odyssey06 wrote: »

Does that happen more in Ireland where brothels are illegal, or more in Germany, Netherlands where they are legal?

Generally in the Netherlands where the proper tourist places are the people who rent the windows have to do a check on all the women and generally look after them. 50 yoyos a go.

Probably tons of shady places in Netherlands as well where you could get a ride for a tenner but not in the tourist regions.

Muckka

whisky_galore wrote: »

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.

Wasn't it on some Sunday paper someone from outside the durestiction was running the site.

They named him and all didn't they.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

I don’t mind that it doesn’t change the laws as they are now. I’m perfectly happy with them.

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.

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

Well it’s eay for you to say there is no evidence when you dismiss a prosecution out of hand as though it isn’t evidence that in fact prosecutions are being pursued under the new laws, and people are being found guilty of having committed offences under the new laws.

You’re expecting far too much of the new laws already if you imagine they are ineffective if things don’t change overnight. Give it time tax.

padd b1975

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?

Coppinger and the pit girls spring to mind.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t mind that it doesn’t change the laws as they are now. I’m perfectly happy with them.

Huh? I was not talking about the laws as they are now. I was talking about the lack of the very arguments you claimed were in the paragraphs where they patently were not. You are just changing the subject now. Come back with the goal posts there son!

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well it’s eay for you to say there is no evidence when you dismiss a prosecution out of hand as though it isn’t evidence that in fact prosecutions are being pursued under the new laws, and people are being found guilty of having committed offences under the new laws.

You are now defending a claim I was not at all refuting. Come back with all the goals posts from the other end of the pitch too please.

The claim I am refuting is your claim that the laws are "having an effect is that the laws now exist to protect some of the most vulnerable members of society from exploitation and abuse". You have offered _no_ evidence of that claim. Not even a little. We have a single prosecution and you have not shown the person sell sex in this situation was vulnerable, exploited, abused or required any protection at all.

So how is it clear the laws are having an effect that we appear not to have at all observed yet?

lbc2019

padd b1975 wrote: »

Coppinger and the pit girls

Wasn't their first album called Clit Power?

Muckka

A German guy called Helmut approaches a lady of the night in London .
"I vish to buy sex viz you."
"Okay," says the girl, "I charge £50 an hour."
"Ist goot, but I must varn you, I am a little kinky."
"No problem," she replies cautiously, "I can do a little kinky for an extra £10."
Helmut agrees
So off they go the girl's flat, where the German produces four large bedsprings and a duck caller.
"I vant zat you tie zese springs to each of your hans und knees."
The girl finds this odd, but complies, fastening the springs as requested.
"Now you vill get down on your hans und knees."
This she duly does, balancing precariously on the springs.
"You vill please to blow zis kwacker as I make love to you."
She thinks this even odder, but figures it's harmless (and the guy is paying).
But the sex is fantastic: honking away on the duck caller, she is bounced all over the room by the energetic German. The climax is the most sensational she has ever experienced, and it is several minutes before she has enough breath to say, "That was totally amazing! What do you call that position?"
"Zat," replies the German, "is ze Four-sprung Duck Technique."

Just a joke, not to be taken seriously....

elperello

Muckka wrote: »

A German guy called Helmut approaches a lady of the night in London .
"I vish to buy sex viz you."
"Okay," says the girl, "I charge £50 an hour."
"Ist goot, but I must varn you, I am a little kinky."
"No problem," she replies cautiously, "I can do a little kinky for an extra £10."
Helmut agrees
So off they go the girl's flat, where the German produces four large bedsprings and a duck caller.
"I vant zat you tie zese springs to each of your hans und knees."
The girl finds this odd, but complies, fastening the springs as requested.
"Now you vill get down on your hans und knees."
This she duly does, balancing precariously on the springs.
"You vill please to blow zis kwacker as I make love to you."
She thinks this even odder, but figures it's harmless (and the guy is paying).
But the sex is fantastic: honking away on the duck caller, she is bounced all over the room by the energetic German. The climax is the most sensational she has ever experienced, and it is several minutes before she has enough breath to say, "That was totally amazing! What do you call that position?"
"Zat," replies the German, "is ze Four-sprung Duck Technique."

Just a joke, not to be taken seriously....

Audi you get away with it

Muckka

elperello wrote: »

Audi you get away with it

He probably had a getaway car outside...and changed drivers lol
Good comeback

Dravokivich

I'd be of the opinion that we need to get over the stigma against sex work, and be more supportive of the people in it and the people who wish to get out of it. I'd be very much for stronger enforcement against people who drag others I to it by trafficking or abuse. (I think trafficking is an issue that needs to be taken more seriously, as it's not just limited to sex work). With that in mind, all we know is this guy went to purchase sex. We don't know, if the escort was indeed someone who was trafficked, abused and forced into sex work. As this is the first conviction, after a charge that was submitted 1 year after the legislation got put through, I'd be inclined to think there's something else about this case that either the press didn't see the point in reporting, or could have been restricted from reporting.

TCM

paleoperson wrote:

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

Would I be correct in saying that buying sex is illegal but it is not actually illegal to sell sex (ie, the prostitute is not prosecuted)?

Reddit

In Ireland, If you film it, is it considered legal because it's pornography?

Dravokivich

TCM wrote: »

Would I be correct in saying that buying sex is illegal but it is not actually illegal to sell sex (ie, the prostitute is not prosecuted)?

Buying was made illegal 2 years ago.

Prior to that it was solicitation (which is why none of the websites are based here), brothel keeping (which means a minimum of 2 people actively involved in the running of a premises that's purpose was for the sale of sex) and pimping (I'm not sure of that's also covered by solicitation).

Oh and prostitutes have been charged. I read an article is recently of 2 women charged with brothel keeping, who were still running a brothel, while awaiting court.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Huh? I was not talking about the laws as they are now. I was talking about the lack of the very arguments you claimed were in the paragraphs where they patently were not. You are just changing the subject now. Come back with the goal posts there son!

You are now defending a claim I was not at all refuting. Come back with all the goals posts from the other end of the pitch too please.

The claim I am refuting is your claim that the laws are "having an effect is that the laws now exist to protect some of the most vulnerable members of society from exploitation and abuse". You have offered _no_ evidence of that claim. Not even a little. We have a single prosecution and you have not shown the person sell sex in this situation was vulnerable, exploited, abused or required any protection at all.

So how is it clear the laws are having an effect that we appear not to have at all observed yet?

You never are, but I was talking about the laws as they are now, and I understand the reasons for the laws being introduced. It’s quite obvious that you don’t see those reasons as legitimate reasons, but that doesn’t mean that to people who are not you that they aren’t legitimate reasons. Evidence of the claims has already been presented in order to support the introduction of the laws. If you still claim that the laws are not having an effect in spite of the fact that prosecutions are taking place, then it’s simply because you don’t want to acknowledge the fact that the laws are having a positive effect on society by prohibiting, discouraging and preventing people from exploiting other people.

If you’re not grateful for that much, at least we can both be grateful for the fact at least that I am not your son :pac:

Gimme A Pound

Ultimanemo wrote: »

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

Would they?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You never are, but I was talking about the laws as they are now, and I understand the reasons for the laws being introduced.

Again with the goal posts. A recap. You said there were reasons for the laws in the article. You were asked where. You quoted three paragraphs - two of which had no reasons at all in them of any kind. And one which was a complete fail.

So now you are just shifting as usual to deflection. Usual MO. The simple fact is the article does not contain what you claimed so now you are defending a string of things I did not even remotely dispute.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you still claim that the laws are not having an effect in spite of the fact that prosecutions are taking place, then it’s simply because you don’t want to acknowledge the fact that the laws are having a positive effect on society by prohibiting, discouraging and preventing people from exploiting other people.

Why would I acknowledge something you have not evidenced? This is a _single_ prosecution so your claim "prosecutions are taking place" is already wrong.

Further though - and this is the focus of the fail in your position I have been pointing out over a few posts now - the fact a prosecution happened is _not_ evidence that the law is "prohibiting, discouraging and preventing people from exploiting other people" at all. It just is not. It is just evidence one 65 year old was prosecution which means a few things including 1) he clearly was not discouraged or prevented from doing anything at all given he did it and we have no evidence anyone here was being exploited at all.

So you can pretend this is about what I "want to acknowledge" all you like to dodge the actual arguments. But it is not about what I want at all. It is about what is actually evidenced here. And there is no evidence yet that this law has discouraged anyone from anything - has protected anyone from anything - or that anyone the law has affected has actually being abused, exploited or in any way helped even a little.

You fling the word "want" and "opinion" around a lot - but this is projection as only you are basing you position on that.

CPTM

I knew someone who sold incredibly expensive condoms with a free trial.. seemed legit..

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You fling the word "want" and "opinion" around a lot - but this is projection as only you are basing you position on that.

My opinion is based upon the evidence which you have chosen to dismiss. You’re free to interpret the evidence as you wish, it changes nothing, and I’m not all that invested in changing your opinion. I’m more interested in how the laws will have a positive effect on society and particularly the positive effect they will have on people who are subjected to exploitation and abuse, and preventing that from happening.