Police raids in Luton

[mega]

The BBC Website gives details of raids, arrests and rescue of trafficked women:-

External Link/Members Only

There appears to be nothing, as yet, on local news sites.

[chatman]

Thought i'd imagined this earlier when I heard it first thing  on the radio and then it disappeared from the regular news bulletins.

Did a quick search and notice there have been a few raids in Luton this year, in June and October.
As a number have commented on here, Luton is always a suspect area.

I try to play safe and only see those who work for them self and with both a number of AW ratings (too many have zero ratings)
and ideally have a positive comment or 2 on here

[Muff licker]

External Link/Members Only

[Happyjose]

We try to keep these woman as safe as we can and that was the purpose of [these raids] to take the women out of that environment, give them the opportunity to exit that life and get them back to their families.

Very noble, but does this kind of action ever help women who are in debt bondage back in their home countries?

[unclepokey]

From the Beeb's local news:

Eight men have been arrested and 11 women rescued during raids at suspected brothels.
Police raided 15 sites on Tuesday night where they found Romanian and Hungarian women, in their 20s, believed to be victims of sexual exploitation.
The searches, in Luton, were part of an investigation into human trafficking, exploitation and modern day slavery.
The men were arrested on suspicion of the management and control of brothels and money laundering.
They include six Romanians, one Hungarian and one Briton and are in custody at Luton police station.
The raids were part of Operation Thame and the latest intelligence-led operation involved 150 police officers and specialist staff.
Officers seized substantial amounts of cash and at one property three officers were attacked with pepper spray.
The rescued women spoke little or no English and were taken to a place of safety.

Insp Jim Goldsmith said some women are offered contracts to come to the UK to work in a proper job but "unfortunately that's not the case" and the raids were the "tip of the iceberg".
"We've seen quite a dramatic rise over the last eight to nine months in the off-street sex trade in Luton which has seen numerous brothels open and as such, has prompted the action we've taken.
"We try to keep these woman as safe as we can and that was the purpose of [these raids] to take the women out of that environment, give them the opportunity to exit that life and get them back to their families."

Uncle Pokey

[unclepokey]

I blame WizzAir who make it all too easy  for these poor women to land here.
UP

[20jay]

Then the section Luton in Vivastreet should clear massively, it is not a pity for the "rip-off ladies" with bad service and B&S . After one can not click on the ad number to see how many of the ladies are hanging on the same ad number or pimp, or working independently by themselves, Vivastreet becomes even more opaque. It looked like they were going for a photo verification, but Vivatreet prefers the quick money with the dubious ads.So only my regular or the foreign countries remain for me then.

[Steely Dan]

11 women rescued

Police raided 15 places on Tuesday night.

Anyone else notice the maths does not add up?

Anyway, I also wonder who goes to these places.  Apparently it is non of us lot.  Might be true.  But if there were 11 escorts, there must be lots of punters keeping this business in business.

[DoggyD]

Only takes 2 of these joints with 3,4 or 5 girls to draw some serious attention to the property. Guess there must be a queue down the street haha

Had a couple of average punts in Luton over the years but you take your chances there especially at night. Throw in the street girls & it is all a bit shitty to be fair.

Hopefully a few scumbag pimps banged up though.

Hidden Image/Members Only

[AlwaysLooking]

Guessing most who advertise on vivastreet in the Luton area their phones will be rather quiet for a while. I'm sure as hell not going to phoning anyone for a while - as don't fancy the potential for having a nice chat with a copper who's now got all the WG phones.

[20jay]

Guessing most who advertise on vivastreet in the Luton area their phones will be rather quiet for a while. I'm sure as hell not going to phoning anyone for a while - as don't fancy the potential for having a nice chat with a copper who's now got all the WG phones.

....as long that girl is working independent I see no issue ... no ? Don't think that this girls are affected by police raids.

[whoya.kiddin]

I checked AW in Luton after reading this story; only eight listed and several of those were trading after the raid.  This makes me suspect that, however these places were operating, it was not through AW.  Is Luton home turf for anyone who might comment on the local market?

[Happyjose]

....as long that girl is working independent I see no issue ... no ? Don't think that this girls are affected by police raids.

How do you identify them as independent?

[20jay]

How do you identify them as independent?

You could it easily make out if you clicked on the add number at Vivastreet. If it's just one girl on the add and she writes, " independent "you could be reasonably sure that's true.

Unfortunately, you can not do more than that, Okay, if the circumstances allow you to conclude, like no other girl in the apartment or house... 100% security is nowhere .As I have already written Vivastreet has turned off the feature I described, or leaves it to the customer to keep it visible. Thus even less transparency, unfortunately.

[Happyjose]

You could it easily make out if you clicked on the add number at Vivastreet. If it's just one girl on the add and she writes, " independent "you could be reasonably sure that's true.

Unfortunately, you can not do more than that, Okay, if the circumstances allow you to conclude, like no other girl in the apartment or house... 100% security is nowhere .As I have already written Vivastreet has turned off the feature I described, or leaves it to the customer to keep it visible. Thus even less transparency, unfortunately.

I wish I had your confidence

I suspect you're playing a lottery with any Romanian, Hungarian, etc, (especially) touring girl

and if you do get caught up with a raid involving trafficked/coerced girls, then it's a strict liability offence, so good luck with that

.

[20jay]

I wish I had your confidence

I suspect you're playing a lottery with any Romanian, Hungarian, etc, (especially) touring girl

and if you do get caught up with a raid involving trafficked/coerced girls, then it's a strict liability offence, so good luck with that

.

What can happen to you. One was deceived maliciously, because one acted after best knowledge, I try to make sure as said. Okay, if you're married it'll be bad for you , but I'm not. In order to prevent all this, you have to get a girlfriend and stay true to her or marry immediately.   


EDIT : I try to avoid the ladies mentioned by you, which unfortunately can not always be avoided if you want to try something new instead of going to your regular ,where you can be so far safe because you visited them for months

[Happyjose]

What can happen to you. One was deceived maliciously, because one acted after best knowledge, I try to make sure as said. Okay, if you're married it'll be bad for you , but I'm not. In order to prevent all this, you have to get a girlfriend and stay true to her or marry immediately.   

I don't think you understand what a strict liability offence is

[20jay]

"Strict liability crimes are crimes which require no proof of mens rea in relation to one or more aspects of the actus reus. Strict liability offences are primarily regulatory offences aimed at businesses in relation to health and safety. Also many driving offences are crimes of strict liability eg. speeding, driving without insurance. The use of strict liability in criminal law is controversial as it means a person may be liable where they are not at fault or have taken all reasonable care to ensure compliance of the law (See in particular Callow v Tillstone). However, the harshness of strict liability in criminal law is generally tolerated as it brings practical benefits and is often used to provide a greater level of protection to the public in areas where it is perceived that there is a need to provide such protection."

The offence is defined in Section 14 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 and, confusingly, is implemented as Section 53A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The maximum sentence is a level 3 fine (currently £1,000).

No ?
 

[Bornslippy]

left a comment on previous thread regarding these raids.
any aware of the sites that were raided?
there isn't much Intel regarding brothels in luton.
although I don't blame anyone who avoids the place full stop

[Londonpunter30]

Anyone else notice the maths does not add up?

Anyway, I also wonder who goes to these places.  Apparently it is non of us lot.  Might be true.  But if there were 11 escorts, there must be lots of punters keeping this business in business.

Yes I wonder this.  Surely it’s obvious the girls don’t want to be there, which must lead to a shit punt. 

This is where the police need to clean things up.  Wherever these low life’s advertise these girls needs to be shut down

[Happyjose]

.........

No ?

I'm not legally competent (others are on here, I suspect, so I'm sure they'll keep us straight), but here's how I think it applies to punters under certain circumstances.

What the other half thinks would be the least of your worries, and being unaware of the law or the status of the prostitute involved would be no defence

External Link/Members Only

[20jay]

I'm not legally competent (others are on here, I suspect, so I'm sure they'll keep us straight), but here's how I think it applies to punters under certain circumstances.

What the other half thinks would be the least of your worries, and being unaware of the law or the status of the prostitute involved would be no defence

External Link/Members Only

Okay, that's what is written on the Guardian, is bla-bla, it does not say how high the punishment should be if you book a hooker whose status you do not know. If their status is not immediately obvious, it will be hard to give you the death penalty. joke aside, even condemning one to the 1000 quid penalty will not be easy. ( get a decent lawyer )

If the judiciary were so serious with that matter, they would just need to watch sides like Vivastreet, AW and, and .. or ban them.. anyway

..as I have already written, marry and be faithful, then you are secure 

[Happyjose]

Okay, that's what is written on the Guardian, is bla-bla, it does not say how high the punishment should be if you book a hooker whose status you do not know. If their status is not immediately obvious, it will be hard to give you the death penalty. joke aside, even condemning one to the 1000 quid penalty will not be easy. ( get a decent lawyer )

If the judiciary were so serious with that matter, they would just need to watch sides like Vivastreet, AW and, and .. or ban them.. anyway

..as I have already written, marry and be faithful, then you are secure 

Personally I'd just avoid Roms etc

Not for any supposed moral reason though, just because they're generally shite

[finn5555]

Not for any supposed moral reason though, just because they're generally shite

Totally agree 

[20jay]

Personally I'd just avoid Roms etc

Not for any supposed moral reason though, just because they're generally shite

What has that got to do with the topic ? And yes, everyone tries to avoid rom's because they now have such a bad reputation as rip-offs. Well, if the girl says she's from Hungary Bulgaria or or, you have to believe it too unless you avoid Balkan girls in general.

[finn5555]

everyone tries to avoid rom's because they now have such a bad reputation as rip-offs. Well, if the girl says she's from Hungary Bulgaria or or, you have to believe it too unless you avoid Balkan girls in general.

Try to avoid 99% are fucking useless 

[Happyjose]

What has that got to do with the topic ?

Yeah, it's difficult to tie in avoiding Roms with this topic 

Police raided 15 places on Tuesday night where they found Romanian and Hungarian women, in their 20s, believed to be victims of sexual exploitation.

The searches, in Luton, were part of an investigation into human trafficking, exploitation and modern day slavery.

The five men and four women are suspected of managing and controlling brothels, among other charges.

They include six Romanians, one Hungarian

I know English isn't your first language, but is logic also a distant cousin?

[20jay]

I know English isn't your first language, but is logic also a distant cousin?

That's right English is not my first language ..

I don't think you understand what a strict liability offence is

We spoke about that .... It was about the legal consequences for punter ..no ?

Anyway, and yes I recognized which girls was been affected . So all good mate 

[daviemac]

I've merged the 2 threads and moved to general discussions.   

[Baxter63]

Okay, that's what is written on the Guardian, is bla-bla, it does not say how high the punishment should be if you book a hooker whose status you do not know. If their status is not immediately obvious, it will be hard to give you the death penalty. joke aside, even condemning one to the 1000 quid penalty will not be easy. ( get a decent lawyer )

If the judiciary were so serious with that matter, they would just need to watch sides like Vivastreet, AW and, and .. or ban them.. anyway

..as I have already written, marry and be faithful, then you are secure 

That's an old article and The Guardian has run articles, of all opinions, since then - if you take the blinkers off.

You're punting in Luton, a place avoided by most WGs, so what are the chances of any the EE WGs being there of their own free will?

Here's what you should know - from the CPS.   External Link/Members Only

Specifically -
Paying for Sexual Services
Relevant Law
Section 53A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, inserted by Section 14 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009, creates a summary-only offence of paying for the sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force, etc.

You can read the rest, about knowledge by the punter, sentencing, etc., from the link. Basically, it doesn't matter if the punter knows or suspects violence, coercion, trafficking, or not.

[20jay]

You're punting in Luton, a place avoided by most WGs, so what are the chances of any the EE WGs being there of their own free will?

Luton 132 results in Luton Escorts & Erotic Massage --> a place avoided ?... you see yourself, no ?

You can read the rest, about knowledge by the punter, sentencing, etc., from the link. Basically, it doesn't matter if the punter knows or suspects violence, coercion, trafficking, or not.

Why .... ? Did you read and understand what I wrote ?

[Horizontal pleasures]

I have had some great times in Luton such as these, profiles long gone.

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=24262.0

[20jay]

I have had some great times in Luton such as these, profiles long gone.

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=24262.0

You are right dude ,I also had a few nice half hours, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to find the provider for these half hours. And despite everything, they're gone after half a year, for whatever reason. 

[Baxter63]

Luton 132 results in Luton Escorts & Erotic Massage --> a place avoided ?... you see yourself, no ?

Yes and that's not the reality. They're not all in Luton. As dodgy looking ads, as you'll find and mostly EEs. No way of knowing how many are still there, either and duplicates, too.

Why .... ? Did you read and understand what I wrote ?

So far as I could understand your confusingly poor English.

I simply added the link, for clarity.

[20jay]

So far as I could understand your confusingly poor English.

Typical argument from British who run out of arguments....

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=268895.msg2748042#msg2748042

[scutty brown]

Typical argument from British who run out of arguments....

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=268895.msg2748042#msg2748042

Do you understand what "Strict liability" means?
It means there is no defence possible. Not knowing the girl is forced or trafficked is not regarded as an excuse.
Have sex with her and you are guilty and there are no permitted extenuating services.
You're looking at a £1000 fine, ten years on the sex offenders register and just possibly a sexual harm prevention order.
And if they suspect you did know, or deliberately ignored evidence to suggest she was forced then they could throw a rape charge at you as well

[20jay]

Do you understand what "Strict liability" means?
It means there is no defence possible. Not knowing the girl is forced or trafficked is not regarded as an excuse.
Have sex with her and you are guilty and there are no permitted extenuating services.
You're looking at a £1000 fine, ten years on the sex offenders register and just possibly a sexual harm prevention order.
And if they suspect you did know, or deliberately ignored evidence to suggest she was forced then they could throw a rape charge at you as well

scutty brown me auld flower I said already « Reply #17 on: December 12, 2019, 01:23:12 pm »
The offence is defined in Section 14 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 and, confusingly, is implemented as Section 53A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The maximum sentence is a level 3 fine (currently £1,000).


then -->« Reply #21 on: December 12, 2019, 03:24:04 pm »

If their status is not immediately obvious, it will be hard to give you the death penalty. joke aside, even condemning one to the 1000 quid penalty will not be easy. ( get a decent lawyer )


Then Baxter63 comes as number 29 with his link .... he believes I did not understand ..what  ?  « Reply #29 on: Today at 09:58:47 am »

What makes you think I would not have understood if I said it days before?  I don't care about the rest I'm not British.... further when you all that in fear, I said -->

Reply #21 on: December 12, 2019, 03:24:04 pm »  . marry and be faithful, then you are secure   

Okay ..? My english too bad to understand that ..no ?

[daviemac]

If their status is not immediately obvious, it will be hard to give you the death penalty. joke aside, even condemning one to the 1000 quid penalty will not be easy. ( get a decent lawyer )

This sentence makes me think you do not understand the situation. If you have sex with anyone who's trafficked or coerced you are automatically guilty of the offence, whether you know or not, there is no excuse. The only think a good lawyer could do is try and get you a lesser sentence. You can't be not guilty.

[Jonestown]

This sentence makes me think you do not understand the situation. If you have sex with anyone who's trafficked or coerced you are automatically guilty of the offence, whether you know or not, there is no excuse. The only think a good lawyer could do is try and get you a lesser sentence. You can't be not guilty.

I don't think you even have to have sex with the girl to fall foul of the law, there just has to be intent, i.e., make a booking or turn up, that's enough.

[daviemac]

I don't think you even have to have sex with the girl to fall foul of the law, there just has to be intent, i.e., make a booking or turn up, that's enough.

Yeah, I was trying to keep it simple as he seem to have difficulty understanding that ignorance is no excuse in law. You can't say you weren't there if you're caught in the room. 

[20jay]

This sentence makes me think you do not understand the situation. If you have sex with anyone who's trafficked or coerced you are automatically guilty of the offence, whether you know or not, there is no excuse. The only think a good lawyer could do is try and get you a lesser sentence. You can't be not guilty.

I understood that. Proven trafficking and forced ---- is guilty. In serious case, 1000 quid penalty.

However, the UK is also likely to be a democratic constitutional state, so circumstances should also play a role.  I interpret the link in this way I posted, guilty, yes, but the the severity of the guilt one will be negotiable. Or maybe not .. I'm a foreigner. Then I have to pay 1000 quid...no ?

"Strict liability crimes are crimes which require no proof of mens rea in relation to one or more aspects of the actus reus. Strict liability offences are primarily regulatory offences aimed at businesses in relation to health and safety. Also many driving offences are crimes of strict liability eg. speeding, driving without insurance. The use of strict liability in criminal law is controversial as it means a person may be liable where they are not at fault or have taken all reasonable care to ensure compliance of the law (See in particular Callow v Tillstone). However, the harshness of strict liability in criminal law is generally tolerated as it brings practical benefits and is often used to provide a greater level of protection to the public in areas where it is perceived that there is a need to provide such protection."

The offence is defined in Section 14 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 and, confusingly, is implemented as Section 53A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The maximum sentence is a level 3 fine (currently £1,000).


@daviemac please advice if I'm wrong ... you are in any case guilty but the maximum penalty is 1000 quid .. the maximum, not minimum penalty!

[scutty brown]

I understood that. Proven trafficking and forced ---- is guilty. In serious case, 1000 quid penalty.

However, the UK is also likely to be a democratic constitutional state, so circumstances should also play a role.  I interpret the link in this way I posted, guilty, yes, but the the severity of the guilt one will be negotiable. Or maybe not .. I'm a foreigner. Then I have to pay 1000 quid...no ?

"Strict liability crimes are crimes which require no proof of mens rea in relation to one or more aspects of the actus reus. Strict liability offences are primarily regulatory offences aimed at businesses in relation to health and safety. Also many driving offences are crimes of strict liability eg. speeding, driving without insurance. The use of strict liability in criminal law is controversial as it means a person may be liable where they are not at fault or have taken all reasonable care to ensure compliance of the law (See in particular Callow v Tillstone). However, the harshness of strict liability in criminal law is generally tolerated as it brings practical benefits and is often used to provide a greater level of protection to the public in areas where it is perceived that there is a need to provide such protection."

The offence is defined in Section 14 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 and, confusingly, is implemented as Section 53A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The maximum sentence is a level 3 fine (currently £1,000).

There's no "degrees of severity"
Guilty is guilty. No excuses, no negotiation

[20jay]

There's no "degrees of severity"
Guilty is guilty. No excuses, no negotiation

Yes mate I understand that ..but why they said that the MAXIMUM is 1000 quid if there is nothing to negotiate .. In my opinion they wold then say the fee is 1000 or minimum 1000 quid

Then we agree that 1000 pounds are to be paid in any case .. I said that already at comment number 17

[scutty brown]

Yes mate I understand that ..but why they said that the MAXIMUM is 1000 quid if there is nothing to negotiate .. In my opinion they wold then say the fee is 1000 or minimum 1000 quid

Then we agree that 1000 pounds are to be paid in any case .. I said that already at comment number 17

Because of the offences for which that range of fines is applicable its one of the most serious. You'll get the full fine.

[20jay]

Yeah, I was trying to keep it simple as he seem to have difficulty understanding that ignorance is no excuse in law. You can't say you weren't there if you're caught in the room. 

At least the condition, human trafficking must be determined .. no? If I shag a 30 year old British woman who improves her bad salary as a seller at Specsavers, they, the cops, will hardly be able to fault anything. That's what I mean like

[20jay]

Because of the offences for which that range of fines is applicable its one of the most serious. You'll get the full fine.

Because of the offences for which that range of fines is applicable its one of the most serious. You'll get the full fine.. so that 1000 pound ,yes ..that's it then, 1000 pound !! Or did I understand that wrong..the maximum shit what can hit me are 1 grand .. ( as already said at #17 )

[daviemac]

At least the condition, human trafficking must be determined .. no? If I shag a 30 year old British woman who improves her bad salary as a seller at Specsavers, they, the cops, will hardly be able to fault anything. That's what I mean like

Not a difficult thing to prove. The police carry out surveillance over period of time to gather evidence before moving in to make arrests. If you're in the room when they raid the place and they even suspect trafficking you get arrested.

[20jay]

Not a difficult thing to prove. The police carry out surveillance over period of time to gather evidence before moving in to make arrests. If you're in the room when they raid the place and they even suspect trafficking you get arrested.

This is clear, if the cops have signs of human trafficking and you are caught with your pants down, you will be arrested as part of the investigation, but once the details are verified they will let you go. With a 30 year old British woman who serves Punter in her apartment, the cops will have problems. Human trafficking must already be identified through the observation...No ? What if the woman says that she did the job without coercion ..? She speaks passable English and is not kept frightened in the basement? Doesn't matter in the UK? Then it would be better if I stopped visiting hookers here and neither did you, or live with the risk to loose 1 grand.

[Doc Holliday]

As others have said Section 53a of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is clear in that punter 'ignorance' is not a defence.

However the stats are interesting as to how many punters have actually been prosecuted since its introduction in 2010. An initial surge has not been maintained although I cannot find any figures since 2016

External Link/Members Only

[20jay]

As others have said Section 53a of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is clear in that punter 'ignorance' is not a defence.

However the stats are interesting as to how many punters have actually been prosecuted since its introduction in 2010. An initial surge has not been maintained although I cannot find any figures since 2016

External Link/Members Only

No data may have been collected for the following periods. However, it only shows that there are almost no raids or charges later. As reliable information since there is only the note of the penalty of 1 grand in the maximum case. As said #17