First arrests under UK's new anti-punter laws

[delphyne]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8600118.stm

'Brothel' arrests under new prostitution laws

Three men have been arrested under new legislation aimed at protecting women who have been forced into prostitution.
They were held by officers at an alleged brothel in Newham, east London, a Metropolitan Police spokesman said.
The men, two aged 37 and one aged 35, were questioned on suspicion of paying for the sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force.
The 35-year-old was given a caution. A 25-year-old woman was also arrested on suspicion of managing a brothel.
The arrests were made on the day new laws came into force to deal with men who, by paying for sex, are involved in forcing women into prostitution against their will.
'Trade of abuse'
From 1 April, a man paying for sex with a prostitute who is being exploited through force, deception or threats is breaking the law - regardless of whether or not he knows she is selling her body against her will.
Under the new legislation, courts have the power to close down premises associated with certain prostitution and pornography offences.
And a new penalty for the offence of soliciting will oblige sex workers to attend meetings at which they will be helped to leave prostitution.
Det Insp Kevin Hyland said: "Men who visit brothels and pay for sex are exploiting vulnerable woman and plying a trade of abuse.
"The new legislation, enforceable from today, means that people who pay for sex in brothels can be arrested and appear before the courts, which we hope will act as a deterrent to others."

[gbl]

But this is the crux: "From 1 April, a man paying for sex with a prostitute who is being exploited through force, deception or threats is breaking the law -"

If they can't prove this, if the women get on the stands and say "no-one forced me, i love it" (sic) it will be a meaningless law. The "law" just doesn't get that women will be forced to say that, are forced to front the operation, by coercion, by 'seduction', by being Patty Hearst.

[StuartM]

But this is the crux: "From 1 April, a man paying for sex with a prostitute who is being exploited through force, deception or threats is breaking the law -"

If they can't prove this, if the women get on the stands and say "no-one forced me, i love it" (sic) it will be a meaningless law. The "law" just doesn't get that women will be forced to say that, are forced to front the operation, by coercion, by 'seduction', by being Patty Hearst.

I agree. I read that in Finland (which has a very similar law) there has been not a single successful conviction and I fear that it won't be that much easier to get convictions in England either. The only law that works is one that says that buying sex is wrong, full stop, and which provides a real deterrent which can actually make those men who use prostitutes think again.

[delphyne]

The point about this law is that it's a first step. There is huge opposition even to going as far as this, and holding punter rapists responsible for their actions. I don't imagine that it will end here however. The fight against the rape trade is going in one direction only, even if it takes some places longer to get there than others.

I'm not going to feel bad hearing that three men were arrested in a brothel, it's three more than would have been arrested the day before. It's good news.

[rmott]

I do think it is a first step, but like many other survivors I find it very hard to celebrate - for I know how good the sex trade is making invisible the violence, and making it appear that there no coercion.
Many prostituted women are trained to give the appearance of being there out of their own free will - they will say loudly and clearly it is their free choice.

This is usually completely untrue, and is after loads of brainwashing by their managers/pimps.
It is wise for a prostitute to play the role of being non-coerced, because it keep her relatively safe with the johns.
Also many prostitutes are so embedded, that can only keep their sanity and some kind of safety, by making themselves believe that they are happy.

That is why and many other survivors do not believe this law is good enough.
For it seemed it would to blatantly clear that there is serious coercion or abuse for men to be fined. That leaves far too many loopholes that the sex trade has tons of time and money to find ways around.

That is why all men who buy sex "services" must be in fear of being arrested, that would scare the sex trade far more.

[delphyne]

I think we all agree with that here.

[gbl]

I've known of programs that published the names of men charged, or publish license plate numbers of men cruising the areas where prostitutes stood, or sent a letter to their home warning them about cruising those areas, saying their car had been observed there and a photo taken. For the length of time they lasted they did scare the punters. But they were stopped under some pretext of "funding gone". Geez. I was willing to go out with my equipment, but no it had to be done by cop photogs. Predictably, the prostituted women complained it cut their earnings, and starved their children and landlords were going to throw them out. Etc.

The most ludicrous catch was the cabinet minister who was caught, and said he was doing a survey of the prostituted women. Wanted to hear all about it from the horse's mouth. I believe he actually used that phrase being a farm boy, as all the cabinet ministers are in this province; farm boys with grade ten education from Christian colleges.

The letters went home, and some were opened by wives. Oooh scarey. And the names were published and everyone saw, including the kid's friends parents. That was deemed to be unfair to the kids.

Sigh. But my point about the law is that it requires PROOFS. In a brothel situation, with truly trafficked women, it may apply until they find a way to work around it. And they will, and it will be on the women's bodies they do it.