Sugar Babies
Shemales

Author Topic: Trafficking raids in Lancs-What should be the responsibility of the UK taxpayer?  (Read 1312 times)

Offline Thecunninglinguist

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=140101.0
I have brought this to the Off Topic section because I think it's the more appropriate place as the point I wish to address is is a general, rather than area specific issue but prompted by the above thread.
First of all, let me make it plain that I am totally against trafficking or coercion of anyone into the sex (or any other come to that) trade.
The topic relates to Police raids in Lancashire and elsewhere when 8 people in total were arrested for trafficking and 8 women of Romanian origin believed to be the subject of trafficking for prostitution and removed to a place of safety.
My difficulty is, not that they should not be removed from this situation and dealt with humanely and with consideration but where the responsibility lies for them after this initial period. They will no doubt be treated as victims and if they choose to, which they probably will, they will be allowed if not encouraged, to stay in the UK. This means that they will be housed, given funds,counselling, health care and the host of other benefits the British taxpayer can offer. It may well also mean that inadvertently, we have provided them with a house for free where the original or a new Sergei can move in and continue in business as before with us picking up the tab for the rent, heating, council tax etc. Or they might just decide that Sergei is no longer needed and go Indy.
I do not see that after the initial period when these women have been removed to a place of safety, why they can't be returned to their country of origin. They will be in no worse a condition than they were before coming and forewarned against falling for the same spiel again. It is also probable that they would have returned anyway after a period of time. There is no reason why a bad decision in being deceived into going to another country means that the second country should pick up the tab for the rest of their lives. It could well be seen as a bonus to women coming here as a safety net, should this sort of thing happen?
« Last Edit: April 20, 2017, 04:17:15 pm by Thecunninglinguist »

James999

  • Guest
My difficulty is,

Writing a post that is interesting and gets to the point  :hi:

Offline Marmalade

EXAMPLE ONE Sounds reasonable to me. If they were trafficked -- in the sense of brought to the uk under false pretences and then brutalised raped and forced to work as prostitutes for the financial benefit of the pimp -- then they are by definition here against their will.

EXAMPLE TWO If on the other hand the woman by dint of living in a shitty Romanian sewer feels forced to write her prossie friend and says will you ask your employer to sort things out for me when I get to the UK and for the usual fee that you pay, and he arranges her transport when she gets here (even if it is only across London to a flat he rents out that, due largely to police harassment is more expensive than a normal flat), then she is 'trafficked'. She's only been picked on cos she's selling sex rather than any other trade where an employer exploits low-wage earners who can't get any other job. Only she happens to be better paid than ChangChingChong sewing shirts and washing dishes down in Chinatown.
External Link/Members Only

Fairness. I'm all for people getting a fair wage for a fair job, but Romanian prostitutes aren't generally underpaid, even after deductions to their pimp. And if that's the case, the police have just wasted my fucking tax money, again, to make themselves look good.

Simpler with old laws. In terms of fiscal efficiency, even the system of Glasgow in the old days was better: the woman would be arrested by police on or near Glasgow Green (why her? For not paying a bribe? Being drunk and disorderly as well?). Anyway, she'd then have to report to the court on a charge of prostitution. The court involved was a short walk so no great inconvenience. She would be duly fined and then have to go to work a bit earlier for a couple of days to pay off the fine.

Prossie 'tax'. It worked quite well. It even meant she in a way paid a sort of 'tax'. And rarely would any of the money find its way into police funds under s 'proceeds of crime' rule.

Real crime, not anti-prostitution excuses for an unjust law. If police can prove real abuse, e.g. Beatings, rape, threats of physical violence, robbing them of all their income, holding them prisoner, damn right prosecute the bastards for everything they're worth. Give the victim her money back that she's earns, her phone, medical treatment if she needs it and s session with a shrink if she's freaked out, and then within a few days escort her to the channel tunnel to see that she is returned to the country from which she was forcibly removed and detained.

An approach for punters. Most experienced punters avoid Romanians for the most part if they can -- not because of the risk that they might be trafficked but because they usually give shit service. If you do want to fuck EE women then just be on the lookout for any signs of abuse and call Crimestoppers if you feel reasonably sure (bear in mind if you get it wrong, you may have just unfairly put Roma girl out of a job, even if she was rubbish).

How the police could better serve the public in such cases. It's surely not that hard. For the police, any thinking taxpayer might want to see evidence of real abuse. Such things might include photographs of bruises, evidence of threats such as in recordings of texts, evidence that the woman's movements had been unreasonably curtailed (e.g. tied up, not allowed to leave the flat) -- but applying the same rules as one would to any company that placed restrictions on employees and that were either agreed to in advance of forced on the person illegally. 

Abuses of the systemAll we generally get is some sexed-up sob story that could have been heavily coached, police finding 'evidence' in the form condoms and money, and a newspaper report about the horrors of slavery and some statistics unconnected and undefined.

In most cases after a victim has been 'rescued', given a house and social security, she will get a different pimp to write her a new AW profile and then carry on as before. With help from the taxpayer for all her new 'benefits'.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2017, 05:36:42 pm by Marmalade »

Offline scutty brown

I know that its an issue which is very much a discussion point among the authorities, and to some extent what happens depends on the girls attitude, who finds them and which agencies are involved.
If they end up in the hands of the immigration authorities they get sent back. If they help with police enquiries they MAY be given leave to stay as long as they find proper jobs - or sign on the dole. But usually they get sent back. Others just vanish with no trace.....read into that what you will, but its a bit disturbing.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2017, 10:18:07 pm by scutty brown »

agbora

  • Guest
Re:Diatribe on trafficking.

A)"Will be allowed,if not encouraged,to stay in the UK"-in case you hadn't noticed,Romania joined the EU,fully,in January 2014.So they have a perfect legal right to be in the UK,they don't need any invitation or encouragement from anybody.

B)"Will be housed,given funds ...........................................etc".So, who will give them a house?The majority of EE migrants are privately housed,and they work hard to pay their rents.Who is going to get a council house off the bat without a long wait?And, even then,have you heard of working to pay the rent on the house?And, what "funds" will these be?From who? Can you provide evidence of these?

C)"Provided them with a house for free where the original or a new Sergei etc"-I'm overwhelmed by your underwhelming logic.If someone's been trafficked,would they invite someone who has,or potentially will, committed/commit the crime  from which they have escaped, into their abode?Like suggesting if you ran from a mugger in the street,you would then be prepared to rent a room to them in your house!

D)"Why can't they be returned to their country of origin"-even if they were brought here under false pretences,they have a  right to be here,as in point A.

E) "Second country should pick up the tab for the rest of their lives etc"-Right,so someone can just lounge on Jobseekers Allowance for 50 years,can they? Think not.And,of course,it doesn't occur to you that people might have ambition,get jobs and qualifications etc and better their lives?Unlike the Great British Chav sub-class but,of course,they are conveniently ignored in your thinking.

You are a mish-mash of serious logic fails and "blame everything on foreigners" bigotry.Cunning you are not."The point I which to address is is  a general................". Two "ises" in a row? Linguist,you are not.

vw

  • Guest
You are a mish-mash of serious logic fails and "blame everything on foreigners" bigotry.Cunning you are not."The point I which to address is is  a general................". Two "ises" in a row? Linguist,you are not.

do you need anger management ?   :angry: :mad:

Offline Thecunninglinguist

Re:Diatribe on trafficking.

A)"Will be allowed,if not encouraged,to stay in the UK"-in case you hadn't noticed,Romania joined the EU,fully,in January 2014.So they have a perfect legal right to be in the UK,they don't need any invitation or encouragement from anybody.

B)"Will be housed,given funds ...........................................etc".So, who will give them a house?The majority of EE migrants are privately housed,and they work hard to pay their rents.Who is going to get a council house off the bat without a long wait?And, even then,have you heard of working to pay the rent on the house?And, what "funds" will these be?From who? Can you provide evidence of these?

C)"Provided them with a house for free where the original or a new Sergei etc"-I'm overwhelmed by your underwhelming logic.If someone's been trafficked,would they invite someone who has,or potentially will, committed/commit the crime  from which they have escaped, into their abode?Like suggesting if you ran from a mugger in the street,you would then be prepared to rent a room to them in your house!

D)"Why can't they be returned to their country of origin"-even if they were brought here under false pretences,they have a  right to be here,as in point A.

E) "Second country should pick up the tab for the rest of their lives etc"-Right,so someone can just lounge on Jobseekers Allowance for 50 years,can they? Think not.And,of course,it doesn't occur to you that people might have ambition,get jobs and qualifications etc and better their lives?Unlike the Great British Chav sub-class but,of course,they are conveniently ignored in your thinking.

You are a mish-mash of serious logic fails and "blame everything on foreigners" bigotry.Cunning you are not."The point I which to address is is  a general................". Two "ises" in a row? Linguist,you are not.
Agbora I note with interest that this is your one and only post.
 Most of us know that when you get into the largess of the benefits culture provided for the most part by the unwilling to the ungrateful, no matter what your origins, you tend to stay there. Believe me, I have as much dislike for those born in the UK who choose to live a life on benefits, generation on generation as I do for anyone coming in from the EU or elsewhere.  If you don't think that there are this type of people in the UK, then my guess is that you have not lived in here very long?
Social housing will be provided, which may be in private rented accommodation but the public purse will still pick up the tab and unfortunately the record of the abused returning to the abuser is a very sadly a large number. (You only have to look at domestic violence figures).
Lack of English will prevent many of these women from obtaining jobs. It is not generally in Sergei's interest that they speak English too well.
I'm not a "bigot", I just realise that as a country we cannot afford to allow anyone from anywhere to just walk in and have all the benefits that having a history of family, work and contributions over many years brings and my personal view is that we should not be expected to provide for anyone who cares to rock up here. In this particular case I do not see why, because someone has made a bad choice in their lives with another person from their own country, we should then be expected to provide a life for them indefinitely. As we are leaving the EU it could well be a mute point anyway. There will no doubt be a mechanism that people coming to a real job, that benefits all parties can come and I hope that is the case but not to work in any illegal trade or to gain benefits.

Offline scutty brown

Agbora
they only have a legal right to stay in the UK if they are in genuine employment, or are registered as unemployed (in which case they are time limited). Prostitution / escorting doesn't count, even if the girls have been helpful.
FWIW the "place of safety" once the police have finished with them is a Salvation Army hostel (they hold a national contract with the government). From there, if they choose to stay they get the same help (or lack of) as any homeless person. However a lot don't make it to the Sally Army: the Immigration Enforcement teams kick them out if they can get their hands on them first. In the main the girls get no special treatment or preferment. Some girls disappear overseas to avoid testifying, others switch identities and vanish. Others just vanish.......
Some DO just carry on escorting again either for themselves or for a new set of pimps: remember in many cases the guys who go to jail are just the frontmen, the brains behind the gang are still free and just send in another team to pick up the pieces, reusing the same girls
« Last Edit: April 21, 2017, 10:21:26 pm by scutty brown »

Offline maxxblue

You are a mish-mash of serious logic fails and "blame everything on foreigners" bigotry.Cunning you are not."The point I which to address is is  a general................". Two "ises" in a row? Linguist,you are not.

A problem arises when you criticise others for their grammar/punctuation/spelling when you are equally as incompetent at grammar/punctuation/spelling.   :hi:

Offline mrfishyfoo

A problem arises when you criticise others for their grammar/punctuation/spelling when you are equally as incompetent at grammar/punctuation/spelling.   :hi:

Hilarious.  :hi: :hi:

 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

mediumjoe

  • Guest
 How to Win friends and influence people!   Friendly you are not.  (Strange phraseology copied)

Offline Keema

*cough*

It's a moot point ( not mute)

agbora

  • Guest
A)CunningLinguist- "You only have to look at domestic violence figures etc." So you try and analogise this to Trafficking? People return to domestic  violence situations because of financial reasons,children,house ownership etc.These don't manifest themselves in the Trafficking situation.There is minimal parallel.

                            "You have not lived here very long"-40 years,if you want to know.You also don't seem to have read the final parts of my reply,mentioning the indigenous Chav culture.Otherwise,you would not have written this as I have observed it.

                            "Lack of English prevents them from obtaining jobs"-I have been in manufacturing companies where a significant proportion of the EU migrant workers manifested little/no English proficiency at all.Doesn't stop them working in the factory.So,  a lack of English skills doesn't stop them being productive.Besides,have you ever heard of somebody taking themselves to college or an ESOL course to learn a language?

                            " Could well be a mute point anyway"-actually,the word is "moot",not "mute".Somebody needs to take themselves off to one of the aforementioned English courses.

B)MaxxBlue  - " A problem arises etc".So exactly where is my punctuation etc lacking?Demonstrate it to me.Jealous because I manifest impeccable English skills,and you can't?But there again,one wouldn't expect it from someone who spells their Nom de Plume with a double "XX".

C) Mr FishyFoo - "Hilarious"-exactly what you are,you probably own the other account"MaxxBlue "and are so sad you converse with yourself online using both accounts.You stink as well,as indicated by your username.No wonder you get bad services off WGs.

D) MediumJoe - "Friendly you are not".I speak my mind,I don't curry favours or brown-nose,if anybody thinks that's unfriendly,too bad.By the way,ever heard of "full stops" at the end of a written sentence? Strange phraseology applied by YOU in not using them!

mediumjoe

  • Guest
What a twat, thank god he's gone.  Couldn't be doing with reading any more of that sanctimonious bullshit.  Joe