What is exploitation?

[ManOFSteel]

In particular in reference to this article -

Two men convicted of controlling prostitution for gain -

External Link/Members Only


Two brothel workers convicted of exploiting young girls in Manchester -


External Link/Members Only


My question is, how does the define what is expoitation, as opposed to legal prostituion?

[Moby Dick]

Legal prostitution?

It is not illegal to be a prostitute.
It is illegal to be a pimp, run a brothel or solicit prostitutes (kerb crawl)
Not really a question about scales of exploitation, if someone is making money from a prostitute then that is illegal.

Prostitutes working alone, and for themselves aren’t breaking the law.

[Vice Admiral]

It is illegal to be a pimp, run a brother or solicit prostitutes (kerb crawl)

Or, more likely, Moby, a sister?

(P.S.  I see that you spotted your typo and have just corrected it.  Shucks!)

[Moby Dick]

Or, more likely, Moby, a sister?

(P.S.  I see that you spotted your typo and have just corrected it.  Shucks!)

 
Fat thumbs, small phone that keeps autocorrecting everything I type.
Sometimes it gets it wrong.

[Vice Admiral]

Fat thumbs, small phone that keeps autocorrecting everything I type.
Sometimes it gets it wrong.

Or perhaps your small phone takes a high moral tone?

(Which rhymes.)

[daviemac]

My question is, how does the define what is expoitation, as opposed to legal prostituion?

The safest source of information about all prostitution related matters is here, the CPS website as they are the one's who do the prosecuting.

External Link/Members Only

[munterhunter]

The safest source of information about all prostitution related matters is here, the CPS website as they are the one's who do the prosecuting.

External Link/Members Only

Spot on!

[misterm]

Worth remembering that the CPS is England and Wales, Scotland has a slightly different system(it’s the procurator fiscal who prosecute) and the laws may diverge slightly (or significantly in future).

[dave451]

To come back to the original question "What is Exploitation". This is complicated, not only in the context of prostitution as it occurs in many fields of work - gutting chickens for minimum wage for example. The defendants were not charged with 'exploitation' but with "controlling prostitution for gain ". In this case 'exploitation' seems to be nothing more than a lurid headline thrown in by the Manchester Evening News presumably to attract more readers.

The story actually says "Workers would get 50 per cent of the fee and the conditions in which they were living were satisfactory". I guess they also kept any tips they might have been given. Pay in China is still quite low, particularly for low-skill jobs, so they can make far more money as working girls here than they could hope to make in China.  If these girls were not forced, trafficked etc. (and no evidence of this was reported) it is difficult to see how they were exploited.

[daviemac]

To come back to the original question "What is Exploitation". This is complicated, not only in the context of prostitution as it occurs in many fields of work - gutting chickens for minimum wage for example. The defendants were not charged with 'exploitation' but with "controlling prostitution for gain ". In this case 'exploitation' seems to be nothing more than a lurid headline thrown in by the Manchester Evening News presumably to attract more readers.

The story actually says "Workers would get 50 per cent of the fee and the conditions in which they were living were satisfactory". I guess they also kept any tips they might have been given. Pay in China is still quite low, particularly for low-skill jobs, so they can make far more money as working girls here than they could hope to make in China.  If these girls were not forced, trafficked etc. (and no evidence of this was reported) it is difficult to see how they were exploited.

So are you saying those convictions are wrong? To be honest if you don't think that the young Chinese lasses they found in the flat were not being exploited then you need your bumps felt. You actually think it's OK for a pimp to keep 50% of the fee.   

No wonder they get away with it so much with people like you making excuses for it.

[misterm]

Reading the first article it was IMHO difficult to tell as not a lot of detail, in the second article it does sound a lot more suspect (condones as balloons.........yeah right). Innocent student in a profile could point to underaged person or genuinely naive person, or 30 year old who’s been round the block trying it on

A place to work for 50% of fee maybe good or bad. What’s not said is how they work eg do they control the hours, who they go with and what they do ? I suspect in this case they had little control and worked quite hard

Tbh I normally assume that when a court has jailed someone it’s generally for a good reason

[ManOFSteel]

Thanks for the responses so far.

So here is another story of "Human Trafficking/Modern Day Slavery"

External Link/Members Only

This time in North London.

Articles like these give punters and sex workers a very bad name and one of my biggest fears is getting handcuffed out of a building in one's vest and boxer shorts becuase the SP I am with has been "trafficked".

[David1970]

Sexual exploitation is any actual or attempted abuse of a position of vulnerability, differential power, or trust, for sexual purposes, including, but not limited to, profiting monetarily, socially or politically from sexual exploitation of another.

The pimps in the original story match the above criteria, so were sexually exploiting the woman.

[DrGFreeman]

I am attempting to resurrect this thread to continue a discussion on what constitutes exploitation [at moderators direction]
the previous discussion was in a thread about a sex for rent
discussion was when is sex for rent is exploitative

Interesting subject.
Obviously theres alot we dont know about the details of this particular case. 
Clearly its about targetting undesireable exploitative and controlling behaviour , the same as happens in other areas of prostitution.
So where a person controls a vulnerable person and exploits them that qualifies , for example foreign gangs who move girls about dont allow them free movement and takes their passports.
Like i said we dont know all the details about this case.  If its just a guy puts an advert in craigslist offering rent for sex , a girl replies of her own free will , listens to the proposed offer and thinks yeh that sounds good and agrees , all the time having the option not to do it or leave and find alternative accomodation then that woudnt seem to qualify as control and exploitation in the same way as the previously mentioned example.
If the CPS are lowering the bar for what qualifies as control/exploitation to include girls who act voluntarily but out of dire personal necessity then that might complicate alot of sex 4 money arrangements.

from what I can see this only applies to sex for rent, not general prositution
but I wonder if it makes a difference who initiates the exchange
if a girl is a dire circumstances and decides escorting is her way out, puts up a profile on adultwork and you pay her for sex are you exploiting her ?
if you know of a girl in dire circumstances and offer her sex for money, I would definitely say you are taking advantage and the exchange is exploitative, even if she freely agrees

[yandex]

My take on the rent thing is that there clearly is exploitation, otherwise there would be no prosecutions. However, the key thing is that the police don't randomly knock on rentals and ask people if they're being treated badly. There has to be some sort of complaint, in which case the main thing is how the women feel about the situation.

Some women will accept the arrangement and not feel the need to complain - they're being exploited in the eyes of the law but probably see it as the price they have to/are willing to pay. Some women will accept the arrangement, but don't feel there is any other option - these are the vulnerable who should be offered the protection of society and if that's the full force of the law and a bunch of blokes complaining about what constitutes exploitation, so be it. Some women will of course walk away and a lot of women will probably react with disgust at the offer.

I'm guessing that someone in dire straits who sets up on Adultwork but then complains that they are being exploited will meet with little sympathy from PC Plod. Ultimately they have initiated the contact by offering the service and will be seen as equally responsible for whatever occurs consensually.

[daviemac]

from what I can see this only applies to sex for rent, not general prositution
but I wonder if it makes a difference who initiates the exchange

Must just be me that thinks the CPS guide is self explanatory, the charge is inciting prostitution for gain a landlord offering accommodation in exchange for sex is inciting the girl to be a prostitute. If a girl approaches a landlord and suggests she pays with sex she has not been enticed.

[Fuggedaboutit]

My take on the rent thing is that there clearly is exploitation, otherwise there would be no prosecutions. However, the key thing is that the police don't randomly knock on rentals and ask people if they're being treated badly. There has to be some sort of complaint, in which case the main thing is how the women feel about the situation.

I had a WG rent a room in my house as a lodger; I didn't know she was a WG until after she'd come to the end of her tenancy, nor do I have any reason to suspect she was working out of my premises (I work locally and neighbours would have said something if there was a constant stream of blokes). I only realised when I was doing an AW search and noticed a specific tattoo in the profile pic. Looking at other pics it was clear who it was.

Had I discovered she was a WG before she moved out, would I have broached the subject with her and/or suggested a "benefits in kind" arrangement...?? God knows...

[DrGFreeman]

Had I discovered she was a WG before she moved out, would I have broached the subject with her and/or suggested a "benefits in kind" arrangement...?? God knows...

had you done so you could have been on a very sticky wicket and by my understanding open to a 'controlling a prostitute for gain'
much simpler and cleaner to spend her rent on a booking with a different escort

[Fuggedaboutit]

had you done so you could have been on a very sticky wicket and by my understanding open to a 'controlling a prostitute for gain'
much simpler and cleaner to spend her rent on a booking with a different escort

Not sure that would be the case...where's the (financial) gain? But anyhow, I don't really think it's something I would have actually discussed - too much like shitting on one's own doorstep. But, you know, it's not every day you end up living with a WG...

[DrGFreeman]

Must just be me that thinks the CPS guide is self explanatory, the charge is inciting prostitution for gain a landlord offering accommodation in exchange for sex is inciting the girl to be a prostitute. If a girl approaches a landlord and suggests she pays with sex she has not been enticed.

no but the landlord could still be prosecuted

the law and my moral compass don't always align
if something is illegal but I dont have a problem with it, I'll still do it if I think I wont get caught
Ive paid for sex in counties where its illegal, bought drugs, broke the speed limit etc
exploitation isnt just what the law says IMO, but what you can morally justify

in your example above, if a girl approaches the landlord and offers sex in return for a bed is she being exploited ?
thats why I think its an interesting discussion for UKP - if you accept the offer freely given are you a bad man ?

[DrGFreeman]

Not sure that would be the case...where's the (financial) gain? But anyhow, I don't really think it's something I would have actually discussed - too much like shitting on one's own doorstep. But, you know, it's not every day you end up living with a WG...

from the CPS guidelines :

A section 53 ‘controlling’ charge may be capable of capturing established ‘sex for rent’ arrangements, even where the victim is apparently acting in accordance with his/her own free will.
‘Control’ includes, but is not limited to, ‘compulsion’, ‘coercion’ and ‘force’. It is enough that the person acted under the instructions or directions of the Defendant. There is a wide variety of possible reasons why the person may do as instructed. It may be, for example, because of emotional blackmail or the lure of gain. There is no requirement for the person to have acted without free will: R v Massey [2008] 1 Cr. App. R. 28 CA.

[daviemac]

no but the landlord could still be prosecuted

the law and my moral compass don't always align
if something is illegal but I dont have a problem with it, I'll still do it if I think I wont get caught
Ive paid for sex in counties where its illegal, bought drugs, broke the speed limit etc
exploitation isnt just what the law says IMO, but what you can morally justify

in your example above, if a girl approaches the landlord and offers sex in return for a bed is she being exploited ?
thats why I think its an interesting discussion for UKP - if you accept the offer freely given are you a bad man ?

You either understands the laws on prostitution or you doesn't. All prostitutes offer sex in exchange for something, normally it's money and anyone buying sex is doing nothing illegal, whatever payment method is agreed. (Subject to the normal caveats).

To help you a bit from dictionary.com. -

 prostitute
[ pros-ti-toot, -tyoot ]SHOW IPA


See synonyms for prostitute on Thesaurus.com
noun
a woman who engages in sexual intercourse for money; whore; harlot.
a man who engages in sexual acts for money.
a person who willingly uses his or her talent or ability in a base and unworthy way, usually for money.
verb (used with object), pros·ti·tut·ed, pros·ti·tut·ing.
to sell or offer (oneself) as a prostitute.
to put to any base or unworthy use:

If you think that any woman who willingly offers sexual services for money is being exploited then punting is not for you.

Exploitation is where women are forced or coerced into it, not where they are willing participants.

[DrGFreeman]

You either understands the laws on prostitution or you doesn't. All prostitutes offer sex in exchange for something, normally it's money and anyone buying sex is doing nothing illegal, whatever payment method is agreed. (Subject to the normal caveats).

did you read either thread or the link you provided ?
anyone buying sex is doing nothing illegal, whatever payment method is agreed. wrong. if you exchange accommodation for sex you are breaking the law

If you think that any woman who willingly offers sexual services for money is being exploited then punting is not for you.
Exploitation is where women are forced or coerced into it, not where they are willing participants.

I thought we all agreed that offering accommodation for sex a homeless girl who has no option but to accept was exploitative, even if she agreed to the arrangement ?

[cotton]

You either understands the laws on prostitution or you doesn't. All prostitutes offer sex in exchange for something, normally it's money and anyone buying sex is doing nothing illegal, whatever payment method is agreed. (Subject to the normal caveats).

To help you a bit from dictionary.com. -

 prostitute
[ pros-ti-toot, -tyoot ]SHOW IPA


See synonyms for prostitute on Thesaurus.com
noun
a woman who engages in sexual intercourse for money; whore; harlot.
a man who engages in sexual acts for money.
a person who willingly uses his or her talent or ability in a base and unworthy way, usually for money.
verb (used with object), pros·ti·tut·ed, pros·ti·tut·ing.
to sell or offer (oneself) as a prostitute.
to put to any base or unworthy use:

If you think that any woman who willingly offers sexual services for money is being exploited then punting is not for you.

Exploitation is where women are forced or coerced into it, not where they are willing participants.

That is exactly the point i was making , conventionally sexual exploitation manifests in the form of girls being made to work under duress , threatened , their free movement controlled and their passports siezed.
In the case of sex for rent if the CPS are only going to prosecute instances which involve exploitation and control then its pivotal what the CPS are determining to be exploitation and control.  If you place an advert advert in craigslist offering rent for sex , a girl replies of her own free will , listens to the proposed offer and thinks yeh that sounds good and agrees , all the time having the option not to do it or leave and find alternative accomodation  the question is hat yes it is technically illegal but does it meet the CPS (exploitation) criteria sufficient for them to prosecute ?
On the face of it renting a room to a chik who is happy to shag you for free rent dosnt seem to be on a par with the exploitation present in the case of an unwilling foreign girl held as a sex slave.
It kinda behoves us guys to know what the cps is calling exploitation and control - thats all i was saying.

[daviemac]

did you read either thread or the link you provided ?
anyone buying sex is doing nothing illegal, whatever payment method is agreed. wrong. if you exchange accommodation for sex you are breaking the law
I thought we all agreed that offering accommodation for sex a homeless girl who has no option but to accept was exploitative, even if she agreed to the arrangement ?

You are confusing yourself make your mind up which scenario you are talking about.

in your example above, if a girl approaches the landlord and offers sex in return for a bed is she being exploited ?

That is exactly what every prostitute does with every client, offers sexual services for a reward and that is not the same as anyone inciting another into prostitution.

Like I said you either understand or you don't and it looks obvious you don't.

[daviemac]

That is exactly the point i was making , conventionally sexual exploitation manifests in the form of girls being made to work under duress , threatened , their free movement controlled and their passports siezed.
In the case of sex for rent if the CPS are only going to prosecute instances which involve exploitation and control then its pivotal what the CPS are determining to be exploitation and control.  If you place an advert advert in craigslist offering rent for sex , a girl replies of her own free will , listens to the proposed offer and thinks yeh that sounds good and agrees , all the time having the option not to do it or leave and find alternative accomodation  the question is hat yes it is technically illegal but does it meet the CPS (exploitation) criteria sufficient for them to prosecute ?
On the face of it renting a room to a chik who is happy to shag you for free rent dosnt seem to be on a par with the exploitation present in the case of an unwilling foreign girl held as a sex slave.
It kinda behoves us guys to know what the cps is calling exploitation and control - thats all i was saying.

You are mixing offences, trafficking is an offence, coercion is another, human trafficking is another, the list goes on they are all different offences and prosecutions are decided on an individual basis.

Sex for rent is one of those offences that come under the 'inciting prostitution' laws and has it's own section dedicated to it. The CPS guide linked to details all the offences and the likelihood of being prosecuted for each of them.   

[DrGFreeman]

..That is exactly what every prostitute does with every client, offers sexual services for a reward and that is not the same as anyone inciting another into prostitution...

To offer someone a roof over their head on the condition they have sex is exploitation and beneath contempt.

but for a landlord to accept the same offer from a vulnerable girl isnt exploitative  ?
I would say it is

[daviemac]

but for a landlord to accept the same offer from a vulnerable girl isnt exploitative  ?
I would say it is

That is not what I have said.

[cotton]

You are mixing offences, trafficking is an offence, coercion is another, human trafficking is another, the list goes on they are all different offences and prosecutions are decided on an individual basis.

Sex for rent is one of those offences that come under the 'inciting prostitution' laws and has it's own section dedicated to it. The CPS guide linked to details all the offences and the likelihood of being prosecuted for each of them.   

Yes i was mixing offences to just try and get an overall idea what the CPS are looking for when they talk about exploitation.
But anyway straight out of from the CPS guidelines , as you rightfully said , it says
 
"‘Exploitative conduct’ includes:
The use of force, threats (whether or not relating to violence) or any other form of coercion.
Any form of deception."

Thats pretty clear and reasonable.
and ;

"Prosecuting ‘sex for rent’ arrangements via use of a Section 52 'causing' charge
Circumstances which clearly feature exploitation
Causing or controlling prostitution for gain charges can be considered where arrangements are in place which involve the exploitation of a victim, e.g. where a homeless or otherwise vulnerable person is persuaded to enter into an arrangement. "

Again pretty clear and reasonable.
So in my hypothetical example where a guy places an advert in craigslist offering rent for sex , a girl replies of her own free will , listens to the proposed offer and thinks yeh that sounds good and agrees , all the time having the option not to do it or leave and find alternative accomodation ,given that there dosnt seem to be any ‘Exploitative conduct’ as defined by the CPS would you agree that on that basis the CPS woudnt prosecute.  And its not exploitation.

[David1970]

If you offer rent for sex you are exploiting the person by enticing them into prostitution. A landlord abusing their position for sex is exploiting the tenant.
If you use a SP who is already selling their services then you are doing a business transaction, not enticing them to have sex .
Sexual exploitation is any actual or attempted abuse of a position of vulnerability, differential power, or trust, for sexual purposes.

[DrGFreeman]

So in my hypothetical example where a guy places an advert in craigslist offering rent for sex , a girl replies of her own free will , listens to the proposed offer and thinks yeh that sounds good and agrees , all the time having the option not to do it or leave and find alternative accomodation ,given that there dosnt seem to be any ‘Exploitative conduct’ as defined by the CPS would you agree that on that basis the CPS woudnt prosecute.  And its not exploitation.

From the CPS guidelines :
A section 53 ‘controlling’ charge may be capable of capturing established ‘sex for rent’ arrangements, even where the victim is apparently acting in accordance with his/her own free will.
so even if the girl is entering the agreement freely, they can charge you

[cotton]

From the CPS guidelines :
A section 53 ‘controlling’ charge may be capable of capturing established ‘sex for rent’ arrangements, even where the victim is apparently acting in accordance with his/her own free will.
so even if the girl is entering the agreement freely, they can charge you

Yes i saw that and i know that, but the point is if the CPS follow their own guidelines regarding ‘Exploitative conduct’ then if there isnt any ‘Exploitative conduct’ then presumably they wont prosecute.

[daviemac]

Yes i was mixing offences to just try and get an overall idea what the CPS are looking for when they talk about exploitation.
But anyway straight out of from the CPS guidelines , as you rightfully said , it says
 
"‘Exploitative conduct’ includes:
The use of force, threats (whether or not relating to violence) or any other form of coercion.
Any form of deception."

Thats pretty clear and reasonable.
and ;

"Prosecuting ‘sex for rent’ arrangements via use of a Section 52 'causing' charge
Circumstances which clearly feature exploitation
Causing or controlling prostitution for gain charges can be considered where arrangements are in place which involve the exploitation of a victim, e.g. where a homeless or otherwise vulnerable person is persuaded to enter into an arrangement. "

Again pretty clear and reasonable.
So in my hypothetical example where a guy places an advert in craigslist offering rent for sex , a girl replies of her own free will , listens to the proposed offer and thinks yeh that sounds good and agrees , all the time having the option not to do it or leave and find alternative accomodation ,given that there dosnt seem to be any ‘Exploitative conduct’ as defined by the CPS would you agree that on that basis the CPS woudnt prosecute.  And its not exploitation.

Whether she agrees or not, the guy is still inciting her into prostitution because he has made the suggestion and that is the offence he would be charged with. Whether or not they would actually prosecute would depend on all the circumstances of the individual case.

If the girl approaches the bloke then that is different, she is doing what all prostitutes do, offering sex for payment.

It could be said if a girl makes the initial approach and freely offers sex for a room then she is exploiting the bloke.

so even if the girl is entering the agreement freely, they can charge you

That's what I've been saying all along. The offence is inciting prostitution and that happens if she agrees or not..

[DrGFreeman]

Yes i saw that and i know that, but the point is if the CPS follow their own guidelines regarding ‘Exploitative conduct’ then if there isnt any ‘Exploitative conduct’ then presumably they wont prosecute.

agains from the CPS guidelines :

As the legislation is designed to address exploitation, there are potential difficulties in prosecuting arrangements where the element of exploitation is or may be missing; for example, a ‘sex for rent’ arrangement, which developed following a suggestion made by the tenant or prospective tenant. Such a scenario would call into question whether the landlord had ‘caused’ the tenant to become a prostitute. Similarly, there may be cases where the arrangement was discussed and agreed freely between two adults with full capacity in circumstances where there was no significant financial and/or power imbalance. The case of R v Christian (1913) 23 Cox C.C. 541, where a female willingly committed indecent acts, decided under old law, is likely to remain relevant. In circumstances where a victim has apparently acted in accordance with his/her free will, a section 53 ‘controlling’ charge could be considered.

[cotton]

agains from the CPS guidelines :

As the legislation is designed to address exploitation, there are potential difficulties in prosecuting arrangements where the element of exploitation is or may be missing; for example, a ‘sex for rent’ arrangement, which developed following a suggestion made by the tenant or prospective tenant. Such a scenario would call into question whether the landlord had ‘caused’ the tenant to become a prostitute. Similarly, there may be cases where the arrangement was discussed and agreed freely between two adults with full capacity in circumstances where there was no significant financial and/or power imbalance. The case of R v Christian (1913) 23 Cox C.C. 541, where a female willingly committed indecent acts, decided under old law, is likely to remain relevant. In circumstances where a victim has apparently acted in accordance with his/her free will, a section 53 ‘controlling’ charge could be considered.

Yeh , explain that wording to me , "As the legislation is designed to address exploitation, there are potential difficulties in prosecuting arrangements where the element of exploitation is or may be missing"
Its like the objective is to combat exploitation , but where there isnt any exploitation we can consider such and such a charge , it dosnt make sense.  Basically they want complete leeway to do whatever they want .

[cotton]

Whether she agrees or not, the guy is still inciting her into prostitution because he has made the suggestion and that is the offence he would be charged with. Whether or not they would actually prosecute would depend on all the circumstances of the individual case.

Yeh the guy is inciting her into prostitution but according to the CPS guidelines iiuc they are only going to prosecute if there is exploitation , so if there isnt exploitation they will let it slide , no harm no foul.

[DrGFreeman]

Yeh , explain that wording to me , "As the legislation is designed to address exploitation, there are potential difficulties in prosecuting arrangements where the element of exploitation is or may be missing"
Its like the objective is to combat exploitation , but where there isnt any exploitation we can consider such and such a charge , it dosnt make sense.  Basically they want complete leeway to do whatever they want .

I dont know, but thats what its says. you would need a lawer to put it in context

Basically they want complete leeway to do whatever they want .
yeah  I suspect there is some discretion for prosecutors

[LLPunting]

Whether she agrees or not, the guy is still inciting her into prostitution because he has made the suggestion and that is the offence he would be charged with. Whether or not they would actually prosecute would depend on all the circumstances of the individual case.

If the girl approaches the bloke then that is different, she is doing what all prostitutes do, offering sex for payment.

It could be said if a girl makes the initial approach and freely offers sex for a room then she is exploiting the bloke.
That's what I've been saying all along. The offence is inciting prostitution and that happens if she agrees or not..

Furthermore what are the exact terms of the agreement, if both parties never deviate from the amount of sex at whatever time of agreed convenience that has been bargained for the rent and she proposed it then, yes, the "landlord" may avoid some charges.
BUT if the landlord tries to alter the terms he immediately becomes exploitative (amongst other things) particularly if she doesn't want the new terms.

[Watts.E.Dunn]

Furthermore what are the exact terms of the agreement, if both parties never deviate from the amount of sex at whatever time of agreed convenience that has been bargained for the rent and she proposed it then, yes, the "landlord" may avoid some charges.
BUT if the landlord tries to alter the terms he immediately becomes exploitative (amongst other things) particularly if she doesn't want the new terms.

Bet this will be bloody taxed this Wednesday!, you'll see!...

[daviemac]

Furthermore what are the exact terms of the agreement, if both parties never deviate from the amount of sex at whatever time of agreed convenience that has been bargained for the rent and she proposed it then, yes, the "landlord" may avoid some charges.
BUT if the landlord tries to alter the terms he immediately becomes exploitative (amongst other things) particularly if she doesn't want the new terms.

I'm not privy to the inner workings of the CPS. As with any issue regarding paid for sex, read the CPS website, carry out any due diligence you feel necessary or even get in touch with one of the  DLOs in your area and ask them for advice, then act accordingly, bearing in mind ignorance is no excuse in law. 

One thing I do know is it is illegal for me to incite another into prostitution under any circumstances and that offence has nothing to do with any arrangements made between the two parties. The CPS deciding not to prosecute does not make it legal.

I think a lot of people on here are misunderstanding what is the illegal part of this.

[cotton]

I think a lot of people on here are misunderstanding what is the illegal part of this.

As i understand it they specifically changed the law so that sex 4 rent now identifies as prostitution thereby criminalising the landlord in such arrangements thru pre-existing causing or inciting or controlling prostitution for gain charges. 
However the CPS guidelines clearly state that the "CPS focuses on the prosecution of those who force others into prostitution, exploit, abuse and harm them" so its worth recognising that while people offering sex for rent are running foul of the law insofar as they are guilty of inciting prostitution , they are not defacto guilty of exploitation and they are not necessarily therefore doing anything to warrant prosecution as indicated by the CPS guidelines.
As far as i can see so long as you go about it in a non exploitative way then you should be ok, altho obviously you cant trust the CPS one bit, in the event of any problems the police are going to be siding with the girl and you are going to be on the back foot , which is exactly how they want it , so basically you gotta be extra careful not to fall foul of the exploitation criteria,

[signy]

This sounds like one of those laws that neither the police nor CPS have any interest in pursuing. However, if there are other issues (drugs, blatent prostitution, abuse, disturbing the peace, disputes with neighbours, etc.), then they will happily add it to the charge sheet.

[Fuggedaboutit]

I dont know, but thats what its says. you would need a lawer to put it in context

Basically they want complete leeway to do whatever they want .
yeah  I suspect there is some discretion for prosecutors

It depends what the “moral panic” of the day is. Domestic abuse is (rightly so) higher on the agenda of most police forces now, whereas 15 years ago, not so much. But that doesn’t mean that all reports of potential abuse are actually that. The publicised spat between Boris and Carrie pre last election being an example. Where does “lovers’ tiff” stop and actual abuse start for the purposes of CPS (obviously when it gets physical)?;  but a slanging match could pass the threshold for “assault” (which technically does not require physical contact).

[yandex]

It depends what the “moral panic” of the day is. Domestic abuse is (rightly so) higher on the agenda of most police forces now, whereas 15 years ago, not so much. But that doesn’t mean that all reports of potential abuse are actually that. The publicised spat between Boris and Carrie pre last election being an example. Where does “lovers’ tiff” stop and actual abuse start for the purposes of CPS (obviously when it gets physical)?;  but a slanging match could pass the threshold for “assault” (which technically does not require physical contact).

  There's clearly a few members on here undergoing a bit of a moral panic about this!

As we all know, the law is what it is, but the application of the law is something else. Plenty of people get rich/poor in trying to dodge or circumvent the application of the law and that's really where the issue lies here.

I'd guess the CPS would not be at all interested in the case of a professional person (this particular scam doesn't just have to be male landlords & female tenants) agreeing readily to an offer of sex in order to obtain a substantial discount on the rent, however illegal it may be. On the other hand, if it surfaced that the same landlord was exercising that offer with several tenants, they might take a different view.

Personally, any laws which punish exploitation of the vulnerable are welcome in my view. If that means a bit of head scratching and moral outrage because the laws are a bit woolly, then so be it. My feeling is that once the Covid pandemic is sorted we will be hearing much more about sexual exploitation/assault/rape as the police records are abysmal and they and us know it.

[DrGFreeman]

the sex for rent story is based on [from the independent article]
The allegations were passed to Surrey police in 2019 following an investigation by ITV researchers before the force identified a complainant who has alleged she entered into a sex for rent arrangement with Mr Cox.
Police and the ladies involved would have done nothing until ITV started poking around
I hope no-one was advocating such arrangements anyway

still think the story raises interesting moral questions

[ManOFSteel]

Any woman who is living with me in exchange for sex is colloquially called a wife or girlfriend.