Comments on: Lords vote in favour of clause 14

By: Gulfstream5

Gulfstream5 — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:22:15 +0000

Lord Pannick on strict liability: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLWeXhc4J8k

By: Catherine Stephens

Catherine Stephens — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:40:03 +0000

Yes, I’m aware of the ostensible support for decriminalisation put out as part of these campaigns, which don’t seem to recognise that exchanging sexual services for money is legal, and that we are in fact criminalised by the legislation on brothel keeping and controlling for gain, which prevents us working together. I’ve certainly seen nothing in the lobbying materials distributed to supporters of anti sex workers’ rights crusade that asks people to campaign against the imposition of rehabilitation as punishment, the definition of persistence as twice in three months, and the most dangerous change in the law, brothel closure orders.

Where is it?

By: Gulfstream5

Gulfstream5 — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:26:45 +0000

The legal reasons for removing the strict liability element from Clause 14 were explained in the 3rd November debate by Lord Pannick (Crossbencher) and Lord Thomas of Gresford (Lib Dem), both experienced barristers. It is true that sex with a girl under 13 remains a strict liability offence (not so if she is between 13 and 16, or between 13 and 18 where there is duty of trust involved), but here it is the primary defendant, ie the person actually committing the offence who is guilty on a strict liability basis. There is no automatic extension of guilt on a strict liability basis to any secondary defendant in this case or in any other case in British law. That is why the strict liability element in Clause 14 is wrong in principle. No doubt our legislators will acquaint themselves with these facts before deciding what to do with Clause 14 at the Third Reading on 11th November. A new table of Amendments will be drawn up for this debate. Even this bigoted government quaked at the thought of trying to outlaw all payment for sex in this country, so they fell back on to the inequitable botch of Clause 14 instead. They should scrap it.

By: Cath Elliott

Cath Elliott — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:23:52 +0000

Catherine, I didn’t bother responding because your question is quite patently ridiculous.

Where in these campaigns has opposition to our increased criminalisation been made clear?

Ermm, try the front page of the Demand Change website for starters, especially the bit that says:

“To see an end to exploitation through prostitution, we further urge the Government to adopt the ‘Nordic model’ which tackles demand for prostitution by decriminalising those who sell sexual acts whilst criminalising those who purchase them (as adopted by Sweden, Norway and Iceland) – as well as providing adequate resources to help people exit prostitution.

In fact look at anything put out by any of the organisations you cite and you’ll find all of them calling for the UK to adopt the Nordic model of prostitution, you know, the one that decriminalises sex workers.

But then you already knew that.

By: Catherine Stephens

Catherine Stephens — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:03:14 +0000

Cath Elliott // November 5, 2009 at 10:48 pm
“I think feminist organisations have been absolutely clear that they don’t support the criminalisation of prostitutes right the way through the passage of this bill. That’s why Clause 14 was so important, because it places the responsibility right where it should be, with the pimps and the punters, not the women themselves.”

Catherine Stephens // November 5, 2009 at 10:56 pm
“Where in these campaigns has opposition to our increased criminalisation been made clear? I have seen no evidence of it, in statements from Object or Demand Change or in Eaves’ evidence to the Select Committee. I have seen no attempt to lobby against increased criminalisation of sex workers and refusal to acknowledge the Massey judgement’s criminalisation of consenting sex.
Please show me where I can find the material to which you are referring.”

Any response? Or simply silence?

By: john wearne

john wearne — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:24:31 +0000

A real step in the right direction. Lets hope the soon to be law is properly enforced with active prosecutions. The final say is next week but should be a mere fomality. Great result for ourselves and all those campaigning for clause 14.

By: passerby

passerby — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:55:11 +0000

What’s going on Cath?

Why the complete silence at the Guardian after their over the top coverage last week?!!

By: raincoatoptimism

raincoatoptimism — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:35:56 +0000

at last a dose of realism on the issue, like the subject of dirty needles or shelters, if we turn a blind eye to it, it doesn’t go away. As an aside, I wonder how many Lords have visited prostitutes, maybe it was of this that they realised the poor conditions in which they work (the prostitutes that is).

By: Gregory

Gregory — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:17:11 +0000

‘As 11.00pm approached, the Chamber slowly filled up with Labour Peers and it became obvious that, despite a speech from the Conservative front-bench taking the libertarian line, the LibDem amendment would be defeated. When the LibDem spokesperson responded to the debate, she indicated that she would withdraw the amendment rather than have it defeated. (This would have given her the opportunity to reintroduce it next week at Third Reading.) She therefore sought ‘leave to withdraw’ – which is normally automatically given. However, when this was put to the House, a number of us growled ‘No’ which meant that the substantive amendment had to be put. A voice vote was taken with a handful saying ‘Content’ against a roar of ‘Not Content’. From the Woolsack it was suggested that the ‘I think the Not Contents have it’ and when – unusually – this did not produce a counter-shout of ‘Content’, it was declared that ‘The Not Contents have it’ and the amendment was defeated without a Division. ‘

http://www.lordtobyharris.org.uk/the-libdems-i-didnt-know-she-was-trafficked-defence-gets-voted-down-without-a-vote/

There is something which has been missed entirely, and it was raised with me, by a conservative member of the lords, because I have nore personal experience than the entire heap of everything else combined ( that being Hugh Orde’s new hobby).

Your top cop at the ACPO, you got from us.

It is not the job of the ECP to accurately explain the failings of the UKHTC. If they did that, we might have had a few witnesses.

It is the job of prohibition to explain why the UKHTC etc. are a waste of time, a post office box, a liability rather than a help.

It would be a mistake to assume the Tory/UUP, the next govt. are going to continue a policy of arresting hundreds of prostituted women as part of some gimmick.

They are opposed to New Labour gimmicks, the public to be protected from them etc.

“Tories try to weaken
prostitution law plan”

The next govt. isn’t going to be labor, and we could surely have problems ahead.

It is very difficult to engage support for a (practical) scam – the UKHTC, facilitated by political opponents.

The ideas are not fake, the policing was fake.

If you settle for a gimmick from your political friends, then my side may eventually decide to pay you in brown money.

There is no guarantee

Gregory

By: Catherine Stephens

Catherine Stephens — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:56:20 +0000

Where in these campaigns has opposition to our increased criminalisation been made clear? I have seen no evidence of it, in statements from Object or Demand Change or in Eaves’ evidence to the Select Committee. I have seen no attempt to lobby against increased criminalisation of sex workers and refusal to acknowledge the Massey judgement’s criminalisation of consenting sex.

Please show me where I can find the material to which you are referring.