Man dials 999 to complain about ugly prostitute

[Steve2]

External Link/Members Only

[maxxblue]

Here is the text from the article:

A peeved punter was so upset when the prostitute he ordered did not match his expectations, he rang 999 to complain to police.

The shameless customer bluntly told the working girl she was not the Pretty Woman he’d been hoping for when she turned up to meet him outside a hotel.

When she responded by angrily grabbing his car keys, he reported her for breaching the Sale of Goods Act.

Stunned emergency operators listened as he bitterly complained she had misled him about her appearance – when it was he who had broken the law by soliciting for sex.

‘It was unbelievable,’ said Sgt Jerome Moran. ‘He believed he had done nothing wrong and that the woman should have been investigated by police for misrepresentation.’

The unnamed man called 999 in Solihull on Tuesday night after the woman took the keys, ran away from his car and threw them back at him.

The female officer who spoke to him hung up after he launched into his bizarre complaint.

But Sgt Moran later phoned him back to give him some words of advice.

Still not chastened, the angry caller threatened to come down to the station to debate the matter further.

He refused to give his name and never turned up but officers have sent him a letter after managing to identify him.

In an unusual step, they have released the tape of his initial call to ‘highlight regular abuse’ of the 999 number.

In the recording, the man says the prostitute ‘got her knickers in a twist’ when he backed out of their deal. He adds: ‘Beforehand I have asked for a description of her – give me an honest description otherwise when I get there I’m not going to use your services.

‘She’s mis-described and misrepresented herself totally.

‘She was angry – she thinks I owe her a living or something.’

How did the man break the law?

[daviemac]

Kerb Crawling

Section 19 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 introduces section 51A into the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and creates a new offence for a person in a street or public place to solicit another for the purpose of obtaining a sexual service as a prostitute. The reference to a person in a street or public place includes a person in a motor vehicle in a street or public place.

This replaces the offences of kerb crawling and persistent soliciting under sections 1 and 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 1985 with effect from 1 April 2010.

A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

That is taken from  External Link/Members Only   so as they met in public he is guilty on 'kerb crawling'

[maxxblue]

Does it count as soliciting when he contacted her by phone? I thought soliciting was if he had approached her in the street, but if that was the case he would have known what she looked like.

[daviemac]

I think in the case of this idiot the Police could at least threaten him with that. I suppose it would be a bit of a grey area when meeting in public even after phone contact.

[Silverado]

Does it count as soliciting when he contacted her by phone?

Technically it could, if he was in a street or public place when he telephoned/solicited. CPS wouldn't run it though for a level 3 summary offence. That's not to say that the police wouldn't get him to admit it in interview and then offer a simple caution. It seems unlikely though and I've never heard of it happening.

[billyjo]

The article is from June 2013, pretty sure it was posted here at the time.

[Rochdull lad]

It may well have been, billyjo - there seems to be a lot of the same sort of thing about; as in https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=24974.0

Mind you, if Harriet Harridan and her cohorts do get their way and criminalise prostitution, then a dissatisfied client, as in the OP, would be scoring an Own goal to ring 999.

[Jason]

Does it count as soliciting when he contacted her by phone? I thought soliciting was if he had approached her in the street, but if that was the case he would have known what she looked like.

Technically it could, if he was in a street or public place when he telephoned/solicited. CPS wouldn't run it though for a level 3 summary offence. That's not to say that the police wouldn't get him to admit it in interview and then offer a simple caution. It seems unlikely though and I've never heard of it happening.

What is illegal in UK is soliciting in public i.e. two people physically meeting outdoors and discussing about a paid sex encounter. It is NOT illegal to contact a prossie and arrange a meeting over the phone or email even if the one who is holding the phone conversation is doing it outdoors. And that not only because it is impossible to prove it but because technically there was no physical presence. The police referral to soliciting was because of the incident that happened outside the hotel - the punter met the prossie outside the hotel and argued about their sex meeting being cancelled due to looks. Yes that technically was soliciting a paid sex encounter and even that would not stand in the court if the punter said that was refusing to see an escort (although in this case this idiot scored an own goal by himself calling the service provider a prostitute). That said if you meet a prossie outdoors (either to pick her up from the hotel entrance or go to a dinner later etc) and do not discuss about paid sexual services it is perfectly legal. For the moment at least, as some idiots try to criminalise punters.

[Silverado]

What is illegal in UK is soliciting in public i.e. two people physically meeting outdoors and discussing about a paid sex encounter. It is NOT illegal to contact a prossie and arrange a meeting over the phone or email even if the one who is holding the phone conversation is doing it outdoors. And that not only because it is impossible to prove it but because technically there was no physical presence. The police referral to soliciting was because of the incident that happened outside the hotel - the punter met the prossie outside the hotel and argued about their sex meeting being cancelled due to looks. Yes that technically was soliciting a paid sex encounter and even that would not stand in the court if the punter said that was refusing to see an escort (although in this case this idiot scored an own goal by himself calling the service provider a prostitute). That said if you meet a prossie outdoors (either to pick her up from the hotel entrance or go to a dinner later etc) and do not discuss about paid sexual services it is perfectly legal. For the moment at least, as some idiots try to criminalise punters.

"There is no requirement that the offence is committed face-to- face and so it may in principle be committed where A solicits B from a street or public place using a telephone, or by sending a text or email."

Source: Paragraph 12.63 of Rook & Ward (4th Edition)

External Link/Members Only

I've been a solicitor for far too long to know that they're absolutely correct on the point. There is no requirement for the 2 persons to  physically meet outside, as you suggest.

If the arrangements had already been made, then meeting outside the hotel would not constitute soliciting for the purposes of section 51A - DPP v Ollerenshaw [1992]. That's a SOA1985 case but the principle still holds true.

[Jason]

"There is no requirement that the offence is committed face-to- face and so it may in principle be committed where A solicits B from a street or public place using a telephone, or by sending a text or email."

Source: Paragraph 12.63 of Rook & Ward (4th Edition)

External Link/Members Only

I've been a solicitor for far too long to know that they're absolutely correct on the point. There is no requirement for the 2 persons to  physically meet outside, as you suggest.

If the arrangements had already been made, then meeting outside the hotel would not constitute soliciting for the purposes of section 51A - DPP v Ollerenshaw [1992]. That's a SOA1985 case but the principle still holds true.

First we agree that when meeting outside the hotel with arrangements being per-arranged it does not constitute soliciting. That is what I said as well. In the above case though they did have an argument in public in order to cancel their sex encounter so it might be viewed as soliciting. And it was definitely to this action that the policeman referred as soliciting- NOT to the fact that they arranged their meeting via a phone call that might (with no evidence) had been made in a public place. 

Now we disagree about this:
"There is no requirement that the offence is committed face-to- face and so it may in principle be committed where A solicits B from a street or public place using a telephone, or by sending a text or email." There is no requirement for the 2 persons to physically meet outside.

However good the authors of this book are I can dispute them because such a thing has never been tested in a UK court. And if you want to commit to fallacies (red-herrings) as they did then let me tell you this: 
(a) The legal definition of a public place is any area that is open to the public, indoors or outdoors, and paid for private use or free to the public.
(b) Paid sex (or in fact sex in general) is illegal to take place in public places.
(c) Therefore, it is illegal to have (paid or free) sex in a hotel room.

Also mind you that:
(i) it is virtually impossible to deduce that someone has called/emailed from a public place unless you consider everything but his own purchased house as a public place.
(ii) that prostitution is illegal to be advertised in public places yet it is legal (with an above 18 statement) to be advertised on the internet which is also available to the public.
(iii) that small licensed non-organised brothels (yet again a public place according to the strict definition, like a barber shop or a private clinic) are legal.
(iv)that the soliciting law was voted with sole purpose to eliminate outdoor/street prostitution and loitering.

I know that solicitors are experts in red-herrings in their law interpretation. But there is always a rebuttal from pure logic... 

[Silverado]

First we agree that when meeting outside the hotel with arrangements being per-arranged it does not constitute soliciting. That is what I said as well. In the above case though they did have an argument in public in order to cancel their sex encounter so it might be viewed as soliciting. And it was definitely to this action that the policeman referred as soliciting- NOT to the fact that they arranged their meeting via a phone call that might (with no evidence) had been made in a public place. 

Now we disagree about this:
"There is no requirement that the offence is committed face-to- face and so it may in principle be committed where A solicits B from a street or public place using a telephone, or by sending a text or email." There is no requirement for the 2 persons to physically meet outside.

However good the authors of this book are I can dispute them because such a thing has never been tested in a UK court. And if you want to commit to fallacies (red-herrings) as they did then let me tell you this: 
(a) The legal definition of a public place is any area that is open to the public, indoors or outdoors, and paid for private use or free to the public.
(b) Paid sex (or in fact sex in general) is illegal to take place in public places.
(c) Therefore, it is illegal to have (paid or free) sex in a hotel room.

Also mind you that:
(i) it is virtually impossible to deduce that someone has called/emailed from a public place unless you consider everything but his own purchased house as a public place.
(ii) that prostitution is illegal to be advertised in public places yet it is legal (with an above 18 statement) to be advertised on the internet which is also available to the public.
(iii) that small licensed non-organised brothels (yet again a public place according to the strict definition, like a barber shop or a private clinic) are legal.
(iv)that the soliciting law was voted with sole purpose to eliminate outdoor/street prostitution and loitering.

I know that solicitors are experts in red-herrings in their law interpretation. But there is always a rebuttal from pure logic... 

Let's be clear:

1. Having an argument in public cancelling an already arranged meeting isn't soliciting. I've already given you case-law for that.

2.  You say: "...it is illegal to have (paid or free) sex in a hotel room".

You're wrong on that. Where's your authority for that?

3. You also say  "....prostitution is illegal to be advertised in public places."

You're wrong again. This is only applicable to public telephone boxes- section 46 Criminal Justice And Police Act 2001

4. You say "small licensed non-organised brothels (yet again a public place according to the strict definition, like a barber shop or a private clinic) are legal."

Yet again you're wrong. It's an offence to keep a brothel, or to manage, or act or assist in the management of, a brothel - sections 33/33A SOA 1956.
That applies whether the brothel is large or small, organised or not.

I'm guessing from your grammar and broken - English that English may not be your first language. The above applies to E & W, and not necessarily from where you're originally from.

You carry on thinking that you know more about the criminal laws relating to prostitution in England & Wales than those who deal with them every day. I've got no problems with that, but please don't expect to post your own misunderstandings relating to the law without somebody pointing out that you're wrong.

[Jason]

Let's be clear:

1. Having an argument in public cancelling an already arranged meeting isn't soliciting. I've already given you case-law for that.

2.  You say: "...it is illegal to have (paid or free) sex in a hotel room".

You're wrong on that. Where's your authority for that?

3. You also say  "....prostitution is illegal to be advertised in public places."

You're wrong again. This is only applicable to public telephone boxes- section 46 Criminal Justice And Police Act 2001

4. You say "small licensed non-organised brothels (yet again a public place according to the strict definition, like a barber shop or a private clinic) are legal."

Yet again you're wrong. It's an offence to keep a brothel, or to manage, or act or assist in the management of, a brothel - sections 33/33A SOA 1956.
That applies whether the brothel is large or small, organised or not.

I'm guessing from your grammar and broken - English that English may not be your first language. The above applies to E & W, and not necessarily from where you're originally from.

You carry on thinking that you know more about the criminal laws relating to prostitution in England & Wales than those who deal with them every day. I've got no problems with that, but please don't expect to post your own misunderstandings relating to the law without somebody pointing out that you're wrong.

First I am not here to write academic essays and use English flawlessly.

Second, I guess that reading and understanding is not your strong point. Perhaps it is because you are ageing or even because English is not your first language as you claim. What you don't understand from “I am going to demonstrate you a similar “red-herring” as the one committed by Rook & Ward”? Google “red-herring” if you don't know what it means.

But let me explain a few things:
(1) This law-case is different to what I said but anyway this is not the main discussion point.
(2) What I wanted to demonstrate you is that some laws are intentionally made vague in order to cover everything and then logic to be applied by the police and courts in order to exclude illogical cases. Hotel rooms are public places according to the very strict definition yet again we (of course) exclude them when we interpret what a public place is, without needing to write it down. Similarly soliciting in public places is prohibited but one can argue that it only means soliciting in public places in person without needing to write it down. Exactly because of similar issues lawmakers add sub-paragraphs to a law (as for example with the phone boxes vs internet).
(3) What you don’t understand by the word non-organised? I know what that the law says about brothels. It can even be interpreted as saying that premises inhabited by two unmarried couples constitute a brothel. Again similar to my point (2) above. Vague law – special application and without needing to write it down.

Next time make sure you understand what you read.

[Silverado]

Next time make sure you understand what you read.

The problem is that it is very difficult to understand what you write because 98% of it is total and utter garbage. You're just making it up as you go along.

Your understanding of the criminal law relating to prostitution is non-existent. My only concern is that somebody else might actually believe that you know what you're talking about and rely on it to their future detriment.

[Jason]

The problem is that it is very difficult to understand what you write because 98% of it is total and utter garbage. You're just making it up as you go along.

Your understanding of the criminal law relating to prostitution is non-existent. My only concern is that somebody else might actually believe that you know what you're talking about and rely on it to their future detriment.

Or you don't understand because of you have low IQ. By the way, you are a member since August 2010 and 80-90% of your 97 posts (so far) are related to Brothel raids and commenting on prostitution laws. Also zero reviews or comments on girls you have seen. Do you actually punt in real life or are you here to gather information about your law cases?

[k]

Hello.... is that the popcorn delivery company?  I'd like a biiig box please, it's going to be a long evening.

[Silverado]

Or you don't understand because of you have low IQ. By the way, you are a member since August 2010 and 80-90% of your 97 posts (so far) are related to Brothel raids and commenting on prostitution laws. Also zero reviews or comments on girls you have seen. Do you actually punt in real life or are you here to gather information about your law cases?

I'm reasonably intelligent, have a good knowledge of the English language and an even better knowledge of the law. I think that it's a fairly safe bet to say that I can easily beat you hands down on all 3.

Yes, I punt in real life and if I have knowledge of a girl or a parlour I'm happy to pass any information on.

Do you still believe, using your words, that "it is illegal to have (paid or free) sex in a hotel room" ?

[Silverado]

Hello.... is that the popcorn delivery company?  I'd like a biiig box please, it's going to be a long evening.

No it's not!

I'm not wasting my evening dealing with this guy.     

[k]

Do you still believe, using your words, that "it is illegal to have (paid or free) sex in a hotel room" ?

With a man banging his partner from behind, her leaning out the window shouting "More, More" he might have a point, otherwise I think not.  Disclaimer: I do not hold a legal qualification.

[smiths]

I'm reasonably intelligent, have a good knowledge of the English language and an even better knowledge of the law. I think that it's a fairly safe bet to say that I can easily beat you hands down on all 3.

Yes, I punt in real life and if I have knowledge of a girl or a parlour I'm happy to pass any information on.

Do you still believe, using your words, that "it is illegal to have (paid or free) sex in a hotel room" ?

As you know i and others have put you to the test many times as regards your legal knowledge over the years, i have yet to see you get it wrong upon checking. Its been most appreciated and handy to have you as a resource on legal matters.

[Strawberry]

As far as I'm concerned having seen Silverado post in various places over the years, he is the man to rely on on the matter of legal knowledge.

I also very much doubt he has anything like a low IQ, then again is IQ score truly representative of a persons knowledge, accuracy, genuicity and reliability?

[Jason]

I'm reasonably intelligent, have a good knowledge of the English language and an even better knowledge of the law. I think that it's a fairly safe bet to say that I can easily beat you hands down on all 3.

Yes, I punt in real life and if I have knowledge of a girl or a parlour I'm happy to pass any information on.

Do you still believe, using your words, that "it is illegal to have (paid or free) sex in a hotel room" ?

This is usually what stupid people do: They falsely think they are clever and better than their superiors.

Really how many times should I say that the above was a conclusion of a red-herring (fallacy)?
The simplest argument in logic has the following structure:
(a) Proposition 1 (true statement reasons, grounds, or evidence)
(b) Proposition 2 (another true statement, reason)
(c) Conclusion (purported to be established on the basis of propositions).

The (c) “it is illegal to have (paid or free) sex in a hotel room” was the conclusion of a special logical fallacy called red-herring. And I did that in purpose in order to demonstrate how lawyers can commit fallacies by using as propositions the letter of law. 

That was so clear in my first post that even a five year old could get it. How you managed to become a solicitor is beyond me…

[maxxblue]

This is usually what stupid people do: They falsely think they are clever and better than their superiors.

Really how many times should I say that the above was a conclusion of a red-herring (fallacy)?
The simplest argument in logic has the following structure:
(a) Proposition 1 (true statement reasons, grounds, or evidence)
(b) Proposition 2 (another true statement, reason)
(c) Conclusion (purported to be established on the basis of propositions).

The (c) “it is illegal to have (paid or free) sex in a hotel room” was the conclusion of a special logical fallacy called red-herring. And I did that in purpose in order to demonstrate how lawyers can commit fallacies by using as propositions the letter of law. 

That was so clear in my first post that even a five year old could get it. How you managed to become a solicitor is beyond me…

 

[Roland D Hay]

This is usually what stupid people do: They falsely think they are clever and better than their superiors.

Really how many times should I say that the above was a conclusion of a red-herring (fallacy)?
The simplest argument in logic has the following structure:
(a) Proposition 1 (true statement reasons, grounds, or evidence)
(b) Proposition 2 (another true statement, reason)
(c) Conclusion (purported to be established on the basis of propositions).

The (c) “it is illegal to have (paid or free) sex in a hotel room” was the conclusion of a special logical fallacy called red-herring. And I did that in purpose in order to demonstrate how lawyers can commit fallacies by using as propositions the letter of law. 

That was so clear in my first post that even a five year old could get it. How you managed to become a solicitor is beyond me…

Just face up to it, you've had your pants pulled down and been well and truly spanked by Judge Silverado. 

[Jason]

As far as I'm concerned having seen Silverado post in various places over the years, he is the man to rely on on the matter of legal knowledge.

I also very much doubt he has anything like a low IQ, then again is IQ score truly representative of a persons knowledge, accuracy, genuicity and reliability?

IQ is representative of how quickly a person can process and learn new information, how well can deal with new situations and how quickly can understand. Also higher intelligence allows you to grasp more difficult or complex concepts. Try to teach quantum field theory, electrodynamics or general theory of relativity to Silverado or Roland D Hay and you will commit a suicide because even after explaining them the same thing 1000 times they will simply not be able to get it.

Perhaps they don't even know how to google "red herring": External Link/Members Only

[Silverado]

Hello.... is that the popcorn delivery company?  I'd like a biiig box please, it's going to be a long evening.

Unfortunately here in Bristol the shops are completely sold out of popcorn. Something to do with the ParisB thread last week, and they're still waiting for new stock to come in.

I doubt that'll worry Jason though, because it looks as though he's been on the Class A's all evening.

 

[k]

Actually I thought that IQ testing had died along with Eysenck.

[whiterussian]

Jason, iv'e always enjoyed your input. 
This thread is a joke, being out of your depth is one thing but creating further humiliation for yourself is stupid

[batista]

I'm reasonably intelligent, have a good knowledge of the English language

Your own made up English language perhaps!

I'm reasonably intelligent, have a good knowledge of the English language and an even better knowledge of the law. I think that it's a fairly safe bet to say that I can easily beat you hands down on all 3.

Yes, I punt in real life and if I have knowledge of a girl or a parlour I'm happy to pass any information on.

Do you still believe, using your words, that "it is illegal to have (paid or free) sex in a hotel room" ?

of course as long as you're practising in %%% and UKP!