Antonia AA - Liverpool street

[EnglishRebecca121]

That's a really useful comment that adds to a discussion punters were having on here about punting.

Why don't you concentrate on pretending to be dying (again) instead of coming on here and shitting on other people's doorsteps with your pointless trolling?

Twat

[SlamBoy]

Twat

Calling out your trolling does not make me a "twat".

It's nice to see you're still alive btw  I'm looking forward to punting you soon without you knowing who I am 

[Mario7769]

Just stretching her fingers between each load dispensed in her I would assume ^

[SlamBoy]

Just stretching her fingers between each load dispensed in her I would assume ^

 

[g284]

Errrr . . . no. Slamboy is not only "half correct", he is 100% correct. Here's why:

Scutty Brown made the following statement, which I have shown is incorrect (see above):

I have shown that offering prostitution from a rented property is not illegal.

The key word here is "illegal". Illegal means criminal. Breaking a 'no prostitution' clause in a rental agreement is a civil matter: it is not a criminal matter and is therefore, by definition, not illegal. That's why I am not "half correct" but 100% correct.

Illegality is not limited to just criminal matters.

Just because renting client is not breaking criminal law doesn't mean they are immune to other civil laws

[SlamBoy]

Illegality is not limited to just criminal matters.

Just because renting client is not breaking criminal law doesn't mean they are immune to other civil laws

It is in the present context.

It is not "illegal"to contravene a term in a tenancy agreement. Such a contravention may have legal consequences (i.e. termination of the agreement, injunction etc. etc.) but that does not mean it is "illegal".

[PatMacGroin]

Illegality is not limited to just criminal matters.

Just because renting client is not breaking criminal law doesn't mean they are immune to other civil laws

The law covering tenancy agreements comes from the Housing Acts 1988 and 1996... mostly. For those like me, with a respect for detail there are also many other statutes and lots of case law which cover various aspects of Housing/Tenancy Law. As well as many statutes and cases covering contract law and how that could affect tenancy agreements.

Breaching some of those laws can be regarded as illegal, and potentially make an individual liable for prosecution or civil penalties. However, none of those laws have any elements which make prostitution illegal. And finally, simply breaching a tenancy agreement, or any other contract, in of itself is not "illegal" it is just a breach of contract which can only be resolved by civil litigation.

(Edit: I should clarify that illegal behaviour punishable under Housing Law is usually only limited to the behaviour of the Owner/Landlord/Agent, not the tenant.)

[Baxter63]

I disagree with Scutty on a number things; especially on Chinese 'trafficking'. However, he is correct about S36 of the 1956 Act. It really couldn't be clearer - here's an extract from a H of C Select Committee on prostitution. You can read the whole page or, even, the report, if you like.

External Link/Members Only

'It is illegal to keep a brothel, i.e. a venue where more than one prostitute works (not necessarily at the same time). The main offence is keeping a brothel used for prostitution, the maximum penalty for which is 7 years (s33 Sexual Offences Act 1956, with the maximum penalty amended by Sexual Offences Act 2003). It is also illegal for a landlord to let premises to be used as a brothel, or a tenant to permit premises to be used as a brothel or for prostitution, maximum penalty of six months (s33–36, Sexual Offences Act 1956)'

No need to confuse things, by bringing in, Landlord/Tennant Law or Housing Act legislation. It's a straightforward offence, under the 1956 Act. The police do tend to turn a blind eye, as we know, unless there are neighbour complaints, nuisance and so on.

[magnetico]

. The police do tend to turn a blind eye, as we know, unless there are neighbour complaints, nuisance and so on.

Except for HOD which got the plods benediction

[PatMacGroin]

I disagree with Scutty on a number things; especially on Chinese 'trafficking'. However, he is correct about S36 of the 1956 Act. It really couldn't be clearer - here's an extract from a H of C Select Committee on prostitution. You can read the whole page or, even, the report, if you like.

External Link/Members Only

'It is illegal to keep a brothel, i.e. a venue where more than one prostitute works (not necessarily at the same time). The main offence is keeping a brothel used for prostitution, the maximum penalty for which is 7 years (s33 Sexual Offences Act 1956, with the maximum penalty amended by Sexual Offences Act 2003). It is also illegal for a landlord to let premises to be used as a brothel, or a tenant to permit premises to be used as a brothel or for prostitution, maximum penalty of six months (s33–36, Sexual Offences Act 1956)'

No need to confuse things, by bringing in, Landlord/Tennant Law or Housing Act legislation. It's a straightforward offence, under the 1956 Act. The police do tend to turn a blind eye, as we know, unless there are neighbour complaints, nuisance and so on.

As far as I can see, you haven't read the whole thread.  Or even read the whole of the segment you have quoted.  And you definitely haven't read/understood the link you have provided.

To pinpoint the area's you have over looked, please see the sections' I have highlighted in bold in your post above.

To pre-empt your soon to follow comment about permitting premises for prostitution (as highlighted in red from you post) please see my previous explanation from this thread:

SlamBoys explanation of the legislation and case law is correct.

Scuttys attempted explanation appears be solely based on an interpretation of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.34-36.

Those three sections concern the use of a premises as a brothel. Section 36 is intended to prevent the bypassing of sections 34 and 35 by any number of methods that may try to claim the property is not being used as a brothel. E.g trying to claim that it is one building split up into several separate premises with separate tenancy agreements and it's a pure coincidence that each tenant is a prostitute (ensuring that each "tenant" can be prosecuted for participation in running a brothel under section 35, even if they claim to be unaware of the other "tenants".)

It's sections 34 and 36 in combination which makes Hotels nervous about prostitution under it's roof , and which means the famous Chelsea apartments are skating on thin ice.

The basics: Prostitution is not illegal in the UK. Brothels are illegal in the UK.

Otherwise, is Scutty claiming that all prostitution is illegal? Or that prostitutes can only legally work from a premises which they own?

If you are still struggling to understand the difference between a brothel and an individual independent prostitute working from a privately rented premises the key words you should paying be attention to in the link you have provided are:

- brothel
- exploitation
- controlling
- managing
- force
- threats
- coercion
- deception
- induce

The first sentence of your link says it very clearly:

"In summary, the acts of buying and selling sex are not in themselves illegal in England and Wales"

(P.S. My later comments about Housing/Tenants Law was to quash divergent arguments about "illegal" behaviour of tenants)

[SlamBoy]

As far as I can see, you haven't read the whole thread.  Or even read the whole of the segment you have quoted.  And you definitely haven't read/understood the link you have provided.

To pinpoint the area's you have over looked, please see the sections' I have highlighted in bold in your post above.

To pre-empt your soon to follow comment about permitting premises for prostitution (as highlighted in red from you post) please see my previous explanation from this thread:

If you are still struggling to understand the difference between a brothel and an individual independent prostitute working from a privately rented premises the key words you should paying be attention to in the link you have provided are:

- brothel
- exploitation
- controlling
- managing
- force
- threats
- coercion
- deception
- induce

The first sentence of your link says it very clearly:

"In summary, the acts of buying and selling sex are not in themselves illegal in England and Wales"

(P.S. My later comments about Housing/Tenants Law was to quash divergent arguments about "illegal" behaviour of tenants)

+1

PatMacGroin - keeping it real 

It's SO frustrating trying to explain an issue to people who don't have the depth of comprehension to enable them to understand the issue being explained. I give up 


If they ACTUALLY read the statute correctly, they would see all of the sections come under the statutory heading 'Brothel'  But of course, they won't/haven't done that because they are all knowing and no understanding 

[smiths]

The legalities around prostitution are clear on the CPS website, unless they make a mistake that is the site to read to find out the laws around it.

A WG who works solely alone AT ALL TIMES from a premises is legal in a criminal law sense. However, in a civil law sense she may be breaking a tenancy, lease, mortgage or rent agreement by working from the premises as a WG. Unless permission is given the only certain way is to own the freehold.

A premises becomes a brothel in a punting sense when 1 or more WGs work out of the same premises, so even if there is 1 WG on a Monday working alone, but on Tuesday there is another WG working alone from the same premises its a brothel legally. This may not apply if within the same premises there are 2 or more separate WGs who have their own private access to their premises and their own key to their own separate doors so they are in fact not linked to each other in anyway and have separate tenancy agreements/lease etc.

What constitutes a brothel is or at least was very wide ranging, money doesn't even need to change hands or be part of the equation for a premises to be a brothel legally. The police presumably use the top cops common sense when deciding which premises to raid and which not to. However, as many of us know the top cops in any given area decide on their brothel policy and may raid or not as they decide. Some may also allow a brothel to operate for a while, the pimp to make some money then raid under POCA for the pimps assets.

A punter is not breaking the law by punting in a brothel unless it was proven that 1 or more of the WGs was underage, being coerced/forced and/or trafficked in which case the punter could get done. In theory the coercion offence is a strict liability offence meaning legally it doesn't matter if the punter knew a woman was being coerced or not. The fact a punter may have no way of knowing this is irrelevant, he would have to prove he didn't know, which would be impossible I imagine.

A WG is also not breaking the law by working out of a brothel unless she actively helps run it by taking punters bookings for all the WGs and/or being also the maid for example. What the law in theory wants is to ensure a pimp who is a third party between a WG and punter and thus illegal gets nicked for running the brothel/s. Its this third party that is the pimp that is the criminal and however they pimp is a crime IF they take an agreed or not cut of a WGs fees. Dressing it up as a consultancy fee or some suchlike wont help IF the police have sufficient evidence to raid and nick. The usual offences pimps face are controlling prostitutes for gain, running a brothel, money laundering or a mixture of the 3. If also coercing/forcing women to be WGs these are additional offences of course, and in my view if convicted should carry a mandatory life sentence.

[magnetico]

Great summary smiths 

[smiths]

Great summary smiths 

Thanks.

[scutty brown]

I've deliberately avoided posting again in this thread as to be quite honest I got fed up trying to argue with that idiot Slamboy: I was certain it was only a matter of time before he departed, and then the facts could be restated. I didn't want to end up in a slagging match with him.
The three relevant parts of the 1956 Sexual Offences Act are below. Note S36: it deliberately makes no reference to a brothel, only to prostitution, and was intended as a catch-all in case the premises failed the definition of "brothel". The wording is quite unambiguous



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.

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.

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.

[PatMacGroin]

The legalities around prostitution are clear on the CPS website, unless they make a mistake that is the site to read to find out the laws around it.

A WG who works solely alone AT ALL TIMES from a premises is legal in a criminal law sense. However, in a civil law sense she may be breaking a tenancy, lease, mortgage or rent agreement by working from the premises as a WG. Unless permission is given the only certain way is to own the freehold.

A premises becomes a brothel in a punting sense when 1 or more WGs work out of the same premises, so even if there is 1 WG on a Monday working alone, but on Tuesday there is another WG working alone from the same premises its a brothel legally. This may not apply if within the same premises there are 2 or more separate WGs who have their own private access to their premises and their own key to their own separate doors so they are in fact not linked to each other in anyway and have separate tenancy agreements/lease etc.

What constitutes a brothel is or at least was very wide ranging, money doesn't even need to change hands or be part of the equation for a premises to be a brothel legally. The police presumably use the top cops common sense when deciding which premises to raid and which not to. However, as many of us know the top cops in any given area decide on their brothel policy and may raid or not as they decide. Some may also allow a brothel to operate for a while, the pimp to make some money then raid under POCA for the pimps assets.

A punter is not breaking the law by punting in a brothel unless it was proven that 1 or more of the WGs was underage, being coerced/forced and/or trafficked in which case the punter could get done. In theory the coercion offence is a strict liability offence meaning legally it doesn't matter if the punter knew a woman was being coerced or not. The fact a punter may have no way of knowing this is irrelevant, he would have to prove he didn't know, which would be impossible I imagine.

A WG is also not breaking the law by working out of a brothel unless she actively helps run it by taking punters bookings for all the WGs and/or being also the maid for example. What the law in theory wants is to ensure a pimp who is a third party between a WG and punter and thus illegal gets nicked for running the brothel/s. Its this third party that is the pimp that is the criminal and however they pimp is a crime IF they take an agreed or not cut of a WGs fees. Dressing it up as a consultancy fee or some suchlike wont help IF the police have sufficient evidence to raid and nick. The usual offences pimps face are controlling prostitutes for gain, running a brothel, money laundering or a mixture of the 3. If also coercing/forcing women to be WGs these are additional offences of course, and in my view if convicted should carry a mandatory life sentence.

So, I take from this that you agree with everything I've said so far?

I do not dis-agree with any of your additional comments providing further definition of what constitutes a brothel.

Although I would adjust this sentence slightly:

"A WG is also not breaking the law by working out of a brothel unless she actively helps run it by taking punters bookings for all any of the WGs and/or being also the maid for example."

[PatMacGroin]

I've deliberately avoided posting again in this thread as to be quite honest I got fed up trying to argue with that idiot Slamboy: I was certain it was only a matter of time before he departed, and then the facts could be restated. I didn't want to end up in a slagging match with him.
The three relevant parts of the 1956 Sexual Offences Act are below. Note S36: it deliberately makes no reference to a brothel, only to prostitution, and was intended as a catch-all in case the premises failed the definition of "brothel". The wording is quite unambiguous



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.

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.

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.

Scutty, all you have done is repeat yourself. Apart from slightly rephrasing your own interpretation of s36. And again you are wrong.

So, I'll ask you again:

Are you trying to say all prostitution is criminally illegal? (i.e. prosecutable under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 that you keep misinterpreting?)

If not, in what circumstances are you suggesting a prostitute can legally operate?

[cotton]

I've deliberately avoided posting again in this thread as to be quite honest I got fed up trying to argue with that idiot Slamboy: I was certain it was only a matter of time before he departed, and then the facts could be restated. I didn't want to end up in a slagging match with him.
The three relevant parts of the 1956 Sexual Offences Act are below. Note S36: it deliberately makes no reference to a brothel, only to prostitution, and was intended as a catch-all in case the premises failed the definition of "brothel". The wording is quite unambiguous

Sections 33 34 35 and 36 of the Sexual Offences Act, 1956 come under the heading "Suppression of brothels"
External Link/Members Only
Ergo the Act itself clearly signals the intention is suppresion of brothels not criminalising single women doing something legal.

[scutty brown]

Its quite simple
S36 is there to catch any situation where a single (or more) woman or man offers prostitution from rented or leased premises which would not be covered by the definition of "brothel". The only possible ambiguity is over the use of the word "occupier" if the person offering prostitution isn't the tenant.
Essentially it prevents a prostitute operating from leased / rented premises.

[PatMacGroin]

Its quite simple
S36 is there to catch any situation where a single (or more) woman or man offers prostitution from rented or leased premises which would not be covered by the definition of "brothel". The only possible ambiguity is over the use of the word "occupier" if the person offering prostitution isn't the tenant.
Essentially it prevents a prostitute operating from leased / rented premises.

Ok Scutty, you are obviously completely unable to accept when you are wrong and simply misunderstand something. So this should be my final comment on this thread.

As you have been repeatedly informed, those sections of the sexual offences act that you keep quoting relate exclusively to the activity of brothels.

Others have also failed to understand this and attempted to make the same arguments that you have through the courts. The definitive judgements on the law taken from those cases are as stated below:

“It is not illegal to sell sex at a brothel provided the sex worker is not involved in management or control of the brothel. A house occupied by one woman and used by her alone for prostitution, is not a brothel”: Gorman v Standen, Palace Clarke v Standen (1964) 48 Cr App R 30.

“Premises only become a brothel when more than one woman uses premises for the purposes of prostitution, either simultaneously or one at a time”: Stevens v Christy [1987] Cr. App. R. 249, DC

These two cases occurred after the 1956 Act was passed. The second case in particular hinged on the argument that you are making about s36. As stated above, it was decided that one woman alone offering prostitution from a premises does not constitute a brothel and cannot be prosecuted under the 1956 Act.

If you are as familiar with laws of England and Wales as you present yourself to be, you will understand that these cases define the current law on this issue. The statements and outcomes from these cases are accepted as the "rule of law", creating the current precedent for how the law in this area is interpreted. They set the law of this land until overruled by a later case or new statute on the matter.

I hope you can now understand why your previous comments have been incorrect. Accepting where you have made a mistake, and drop the matter rather than continue to try and spread inaccurate information.