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

vicwatson

retalivity wrote: »

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

West end girls

Yamanoto

anewme wrote: »

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

The article you've linked to is an opinion piece by Julie Bindel, a lesbian feminist anti-prostitution campaigner & co-author of a report on Brothels in Britain, which was labelled 'inaccurate' & 'unethical' by 27 leading UK academics involved in sex-work research

Big Brothel research 'seriously flawed'

The Big Brothel report, co-authored by journalist and campaigner Julie Bindel and Helen Atkins, received huge media coverage last month.

But critics accused it of conflating fears over trafficking with general prostitution.

Brooks-Gordon said: "You can't just churn out political propaganda and say it's research. You end up with very dangerous policy.

"The government has to bear responsibility if they have put tenders out for research and the people carrying out that research are not following full ethics procedures.

She called the report a "shocker". "Not only is the methodology flawed but it shows a complete lack of understanding about the sex industry."

People saying they feel sorry for him must know more about his personal circumstances than that article divulges. If he's a single guy and choosing to risk being named by breaking the law that way that's his business.

However, if he's a man in a relationship and he's going off visiting brothels and then posing a health threat to his unknowing partner, he is getting no sympathy from me. They are plenty of instances of people cheating on their partner and then fúcking over their health as a result of stds. Nobody to feel sorry for there except their poor partner.

Aside from that, the decent thing for legislators to do would be to make brothels not only legal, but regulated. Making them legal but not regulating the working conditions in them would be state-sanctioning of abuse and a bad move.

paleoperson

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

One eyed Jack I'm having a hard time trying to find this "evidence" you keep referring to that "has already been presented". I've gone back through all the posts following the quote links and I can't find the "evidence" or the "prosecutions" you're talking about.

One eyed Jack

paleoperson wrote: »

One eyed Jack I'm having a hard time trying to find this "evidence" you keep referring to that "has already been presented". I've gone back through all the posts following the quote links and I can't find the "evidence" or the "prosecutions" you're talking about.

It appears as though you read my mind by snipping out the last part of your post -


One eyed Jack I'm having a hard time trying to find this "evidence" you keep referring to that "has already been presented". I've gone back through all the posts following the quote links and I can't find the "evidence" or the "prosecutions" you're talking about.

Don't tell me you're considering this conviction of the 65 year old man as your "prosecution"...


Ok, I won’t tell you that then, if it makes you feel better.

goose2005

RustyNut wrote: »

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

goose2005

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.

a lot of maids and fruit-pickers are enslaved too. Doesn't mean that all domestic service or fruit should be illegal

Muckka

There's plenty of hooker's along the pier in Kinvara

They're a very fine craft, she was rigged fore-and-aft
And oh, how the wild winds drove her
She had twenty-three masts and withstood several blasts
And we called her the Galway hooker

Dravokivich

[Deleted User] wrote: »

People saying they feel sorry for him must know more about his personal circumstances than that article divulges. If he's a single guy and choosing to risk being named by breaking the law that way that's his business.

However, if he's a man in a relationship and he's going off visiting brothels and then posing a health threat to his unknowing partner, he is getting no sympathy from me. They are plenty of instances of people cheating on their partner and then fúcking over their health as a result of stds. Nobody to feel sorry for there except their poor partner.

Aside from that, the decent thing for legislators to do would be to make brothels not only legal, but regulated. Making them legal but not regulating the working conditions in them would be state-sanctioning of abuse and a bad move.

Is infidelity really the issue? Is it unique to those who use prostitutes? Is it an issue for the state? I wouldn't expect it, nor want it to be.

Guy:Incognito

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.





.

Why does it matter to you either way. If you're not going to use their services, whether it's legal or illegal wont affect you. Why not let other adults do what they want, the same way they dont care what you do.


Or are you afraid you wont be able to resist temptation if you were walking by an advertised brothel.............

Dante7

How is the Ruhama campaign against fishing going? Lots of people trafficked into that industry but no calls to close it down. It's almost as if they are trying to legislate morality.

rgace

Prince William wrote: »

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

I doubt lonely, 65 year old men are getting much action on tinder.

One eyed Jack

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Why does it matter to you either way. If you're not going to use their services, whether it's legal or illegal wont affect you. Why not let other adults do what they want, the same way they dont care what you do.


Or are you afraid you wont be able to resist temptation if you were walking by an advertised brothel.............

Why does it matter to me? Well, I have this thing against people being exploited and abused, and so I support any laws which endeavour to discourage that sort of behaviour in society. I really don’t care what other people get up to in their spare time as long as they aren’t exploiting and abusing other people, or supporting the exploitation and abuse of other people.

With regard to your assertion that I might feel tempted to indulge in the exploitation and abuse of other people, I can’t say I’ve ever been tempted, nor do I foresee any occasion in the future which might tempt me to knowingly imagine I am above the law or that it doesn’t equally apply to me as it does to every person in society.

Gimme A Pound

Omackeral wrote: »

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

For some reason, only a German accent seems right for that sentence.

sabat

It's just a cack-handed, misguided, discriminatory law that won't achieve a single one of its aims. If you want to suppress a product or activity you have to prosecute the suppliers, probably even more so than the consumers. Why not start by shutting down all those premises on and around Dorset St that pretty much have giant signs saying "whorehouse?" The place is starting to resemble parts of Bangkok. Or how about contacting all the Irish women on 'sugarbaby' sites and reminding them that they're inciting criminal acts?

Guy:Incognito

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why does it matter to me? Well, I have this thing against people being exploited and abused, and so I support any laws which endeavour to discourage that sort of behaviour in society. I really don’t care what other people get up to in their spare time as long as they aren’t exploiting and abusing other people, or supporting the exploitation and abuse of other people.

With regard to your assertion that I might feel tempted to indulge in the exploitation and abuse of other people, I can’t say I’ve ever been tempted, nor do I foresee any occasion in the future which might tempt me to knowingly imagine I am above the law or that it doesn’t equally apply to me as it does to every person in society.

How does a law fining a man who has engaged in a consensual transaction with a woman prevent people being exploited and abused?


There are laws against forcing people to have sex, laws against trafficking or abusing them. Why not just enforce those laws and let the people who want to be sex workers be sex workers?

Yamanoto

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I really don’t care what other people get up to in their spare time as long as they aren’t exploiting and abusing other people, or supporting the exploitation and abuse of other people.

So where both parties FREELY and CONSENSUALLY enter into an agreement where sex is provided in exchange for money, you have no issue with that - correct?

One eyed Jack

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How does a law fining a man who has engaged in a consensual transaction with a woman prevent people being exploited and abused?

There are laws against forcing people to have sex, laws against trafficking or abusing them. Why not just enforce those laws and let the people who want to be sex workers be sex workers?

Yamanoto wrote: »

So where both parties FREELY and CONSENSUALLY enter into an agreement where sex is provided in exchange for money, you have no issue with that - correct?

What’s with the trying to nit pick what I said lads?

I couldn’t possibly have been clearer or put it more simply - I support any laws which discourage the exploitation and abuse of other people, and I support laws which discourage people who would wish to support the exploitation and abuse of other people.

It’s really not that difficult to understand if you really want to.

Yamanoto

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What’s with the trying to nit pick what I said lads?

I couldn’t possibly have been clearer or put it more simply - I support any laws which discourage the exploitation and abuse of other people, and I support laws which discourage people who would wish to support the exploitation and abuse of other people.

It’s really not that difficult to understand if you really want to.

You don't appear to have answered the question.

Where both parties FREELY and CONSENSUALLY enter into an agreement where sex is provided in exchange for money, you have no issue with that - correct?

Guy:Incognito

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What’s with the trying to nit pick what I said lads?

I couldn’t possibly have been clearer or put it more simply - I support any laws which discourage the exploitation and abuse of other people, and I support laws which discourage people who would wish to support the exploitation and abuse of other people.

It’s really not that difficult to understand if you really want to.

Again. How does criminalising one or both parties in a consensual transaction for sex protect anyone?

There are seperate laws criminalising any of the issues around abuse. Why not just enforce them?

One eyed Jack

Yamanoto wrote: »

You don't appear to have answered the question.

Where both parties FREELY and CONSENSUALLY enter into an agreement where sex is provided in exchange for money, you have no issue with that - correct?

I answered your hypothetical question. You can infer what you like from my answer.

Mrsmum

I don't think they have to catch every man buying sex for this law to be more effective than if it wasn't there. Lots of 'respectable' men buy sex but they would be horrified to be caught and for all their family, friends to find out about their secret lives. By making examples of a man like this guy from time to time I would imagine a certain type of man will think twice.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Mrsmum wrote: »

I don't think they have to catch every man buying sex for this law to be more effective than if it wasn't there. Lots of 'respectable' men buy sex but they would be horrified to be caught and for all their family, friends to find out about their secret lives. By making examples of a man like this guy from time to time I would imagine a certain type of man will think twice.

Yep. Probably though just go abroad.

I thought the latest fashion in feminist belief was pro sex worker meaning the laws may change, but I could be wrong.

elperello

Mrsmum wrote: »

I don't think they have to catch every man buying sex for this law to be more effective than if it wasn't there. Lots of 'respectable' men buy sex but they would be horrified to be caught and for all their family, friends to find out about their secret lives. By making examples of a man like this guy from time to time I would imagine a certain type of man will think twice.

That seems to be the game plan of the proponents of the law.

Indeed if "respectable" men were abusing women I think they would deserve to be caught and made an example of.

On the other hand if they were getting together with another consenting adult I think it is their own business.

professore

[Deleted User] wrote: »

People saying they feel sorry for him must know more about his personal circumstances than that article divulges. If he's a single guy and choosing to risk being named by breaking the law that way that's his business.

However, if he's a man in a relationship and he's going off visiting brothels and then posing a health threat to his unknowing partner, he is getting no sympathy from me. They are plenty of instances of people cheating on their partner and then fúcking over their health as a result of stds. Nobody to feel sorry for there except their poor partner.

Aside from that, the decent thing for legislators to do would be to make brothels not only legal, but regulated. Making them legal but not regulating the working conditions in them would be state-sanctioning of abuse and a bad move.

Difference is that the "legitimate" cheaters don't have to fear being named and shamed or even going to jail.

professore

Mrsmum wrote: »

I don't think they have to catch every man buying sex for this law to be more effective than if it wasn't there. Lots of 'respectable' men buy sex but they would be horrified to be caught and for all their family, friends to find out about their secret lives. By making examples of a man like this guy from time to time I would imagine a certain type of man will think twice.

We should make adultery illegal too and make examples of people engaging in that. Hell why not bring back the stocks altogether? This stinks of the old shame of Catholic Ireland, laundries and all.

Can't wait to see the first prosecutions for men buying sex from other men or women buying sex... Oh wait that will never happen.

Men pay for sex no matter whether in a relationship or from a professional. I'm still paying for sex I had 21 years ago! Yet only some forms of consensual sex are illegal.

Trafficking and coercion is of course abhorrent and should be prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law but there are plenty of women willing to sell their bodies - why make it illegal to buy? I just can't understand the logic behind that.

What a strange world we live in.

Mrsmum

elperello wrote: »

That seems to be the game plan of the proponents of the law.

Indeed if "respectable" men were abusing women I think they would deserve to be caught and made an example of.

On the other hand if they were getting together with another consenting adult I think it is their own business.

Not just "getting together with another consenting adult" though because people who are sympathetic to what he was doing were the very ones saying - poor man, being shamed like that. So something shameful then ?

Mrsmum

professore wrote: »

We should make adultery illegal too and make examples of people engaging in that. Hell why not bring back the stocks altogether? This stinks of the old shame of Catholic Ireland, laundries and all.

Can't wait to see the first prosecutions for men buying sex from other men or women buying sex... Oh wait that will never happen.

Men pay for sex no matter whether in a relationship or from a professional. I'm still paying for sex I had 21 years ago! Yet only some forms of consensual sex are illegal.

What a strange world we live in.

You've a sad way of describing your relationship, past or present.

professore

Mrsmum wrote: »

Not just "getting together with another consenting adult" though because people who are sympathetic to what he was doing were the very ones saying - poor man, being shamed like that. So something shameful then ?

Shame is defined by the norms of society. Not so long ago it was shameful to be gay, or to have a baby outside marriage, to have an abortion or a whole raft of other things. Some Muslims think its shameful for a woman to show her face in public.

In many European countries its quite normal for young men to lose their virginity to a prostitute.

There is still a very puritanical element in this country. Don't get me wrong I have no interest in prostitution myself but what others do is none of my business as long as its consensual.

statesaver

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Again. How does criminalising one or both parties in a consensual transaction for sex protect anyone?

There are seperate laws criminalising any of the issues around abuse. Why not just enforce them?

How does the man know it’s consensual ?