This is why no one should should take legal advice from muppets like you on the internet. As they say, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" - and you clearly have only a little knowledge - and NO understanding behind that knowledge - I'm going to explain below why YOU are talking bollox (AGAIN)
You initially made this point (which I correctly said was wrong):
Offering prostitution from a rented property is illegal irrespective of the number of girls.
I told you that your above statement was incorrect (which it is) and instead of being introspective (something I know you are not very good at) you came back with a misguided and incorrect interpretation of law and, true to form, fired off expletives. Notwithstanding, I'll be the better person and still correct you out of the kindness of my heart.
It is not correct because a single woman can offer sexual services from a property (rented or not) without it being illegal providing it is not a brothel (See: Gorman v Standen,Palace Clarke v Standen (1964) for the correct definition of a brothel).
You, in your arrogance, have misinterpreted the provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. None of the sections you highlight support your assertion. In fact, they all undermine your assertion.
I'll deal with each in turn:
You're talking bollocks again, these are the relevant statutes. S36 is the key one.
Sexual Offences Act 1956, Section 34
Landlord letting premises for use as brothel
It is an offence for the lessor or landlord of any premises or his agent to let the whole or part of the premises with the knowledge that it is to be used, in whole or in part, as a brothel, or, where the whole or part of the premises is used as a brothel, to be wilfully a party to that use continuing.
Section 34 above makes it:
ILLEGAL for a
LANDLORD to let premises for a
BROTHEL.
Section 34 does NOT make it illegal for a single girl to offer sexual services from a rented property.
Nice try though
Sexual Offences Act 1956, Section 35
Tenant permitting premises to be used as brothel
It is an offence for the tenant or occupier, or person ' in charge, of any premises knowingly to permit the whole or part of the premises to be used as a brothel.
Section 35 above makes it:
ILLEGAL for a
TENANT to allow premises
to be used as a
BROTHEL.
Section 35 does NOT make it illegal for a single girl to offer sexual services from a rented property (as that is not a brothel, see above).
Again, nice try though
Sexual Offences Act 1956, Section 36
Tenant permitting premises to be used for prostitution
It is an offence for the tenant or occupier of any premises knowingly to permit the whole or part of the premises to be used for the purposes of habitual prostitution.
Section 36 above makes it:
ILLEGAL for a
TENANT to
allow premises
to be used for the purposes of prostitution.
This section exists to prevent a tenant from permitting
someone else to provide sexual services. Note the language "to be used" i.e. that means others. It does not say "It is an offence for the tenant or occupier of any premises knowingly
to use". The rationale for the section is to stop tenants of properties from controlling a prostitute(s) on the premises (you wouldn't know that of course, because you are all knowing, and no understanding). Because section 35 without section 36 would be absurd as section 35 could be made redundant by executing a tenancy agreement and having only one girl on site. To avoid that, we have section 36.
Section 36 does NOT make it illegal for a single girl to offer sexual services from a rented property.
Again, nice try though
As if the above burns, were not enough, you asked fro more. Okay, here it is:
More bollox. She only has right of residence if she is receiving state benefits or in valid recognised employment. Border Control don't regard escorting or prostitution as valid
The above is actually incomprehensible. So all I'll say is: you don't need to have 'residence' in a country in order to live and work there.
In conclusion:Now we know who was actually "talking bollox again", you should concentrate more on "understanding" than "knowing" in the future. You'll be a better (and much less arrogant) person for it.
Topic: Antonia AA - Liverpool street (Read 6285 times)