Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Jacq the Ripper.

[I confess, I've been waiting for her to have a go at prostitutes just so I could use that title.]

Well, it seems there is to be another clampdown on another section of the population. Why does the so-frequent use of 'clampdown' alarm nobody, I wonder?

Jacqui Smith is to make sex a criminal offence, even if the man can prove consent the only way possible - by paying for it. Any other form of sex has already been labelled as 'rape', even within marriage. Seal up the end with duct tape lads, you won't be making use of it any time soon. Ah, but the law is Righteous:

It will carry a hefty fine and a criminal record and is designed to crack down on pimps, drug dealers and people traffickers.

Excellent. It's only going to be used to crack down on pimps, drug dealers and people traffickers. So, how to explain this next part?

Under the changes, paying for sex with a woman "controlled for another's gain" will become a "strict liability offence" in England and Wales, meaning prosecutors will not have to prove that the man knew a prostitute was being exploited in order to charge him. Ignorance of the woman's circumstances will be no defence and those convicted will get a criminal record and a fine of up to £1,000.

Riiiight... so where are the pimps, drug dealers and people traffickers in there? Oh, I see, they are still in business, still trafficking, pimping and dealing. They are hardened criminals and they have Human Rights. The poor sap out for a quickie with Wrinkly Linda behind the Working Men's Club isn't so hard, so it's a piece of cake to pick him up and squeeze him for a grand.

Now we have the serious crime laws used against bin-fillers, we have anti-terror laws used against photographers, and anti-pimp-druggie-trafficker laws used to catch their customers. If you have sex without paying for it, it's rape, If you pay for it, that's also a crime.

Always take the easy target, eh, boys? Those criminals might have guns but the law-abiding don't. They're much easier to deal with.

Jacq the Ripper thinks this will remove the demand by making all those horrible men stop searching for prostitutes. She doesn't think for a moment that her actions will drive the whole thing underground and make life immeasurably worse for those controlled girls. Looking for the customers is no good. If she had any real intention of stopping people traffickers she'd be looking for people traffickers. She is not. There is nothing in this law to hold them liable or even to require their identification - other than as a witness for the prosecution so they can say 'Yeah, right, the guy in the suit there, he, like, he paid one of my girls and she's like, an illegal, innit?'

Sound silly? Consider - the man who is to be criminalised can only be charged if the prostitute is controlled by someone else. If that is to be proved, the 'someone else' must be identified. If they are identified they can be arrested for pimping and/or trafficking and there is no need at all to charge the customer who, in most cases, won't have known. The law, we are told, is aimed at these criminals but will be applied to their clients. The criminals will carry on regardless, as usual. They will just find new clients.

Meanwhile, those arrest-targets are met. More criminals are created, not caught, by each new law Labour dream up while the real violent and dangerous thugs laugh and continue unimpeded. They don't care if a client gets lifted. It doesn't affect them at all. It doesn't change a damn thing for the traffickers or for their slave labour.

The easy target. Every time.

wordpress blog stats


( 6 comments — Leave a comment )
19th Nov, 2008 18:35 (UTC)
Well, I know a bit about human trafficking and I'm furious that JS is so wide of the mark.

Let's deal with the biggie first, we have always operated on a basis of innocence assumed over guilt and the burden of proof on the accuser rather than the accused. To change that is wrong, immoral.

OK on to prostitutes. Attending a brothel where none of the girls speak English beyond the words of business, don't really seem interested and the atmosphere is a little 'heavy'? I'll lay you odds that those girls have been trafficked, and you know it. Don't use them, it's a cunt's trick.

The normal way to get these girls involved is to promise them a bar/restaurant/hotel job in the UK and move them over here, with their consent. Once here they will be beaten up, forced to inject drugs with a gun held to their heads and repeatedly and brutally raped until they are dehumanised.

It is one of the more evil things any human being can perpetrate upon another. That being said, this will only continue whilst the market demands these girls.

Is it fair to prosecute those who KNOWINGLY use pimped and trafficked girls, or at least would have cause to believe they were? I'm unsure at present. By the very nature of the way these girls are sucked into the trade it isn't a very media friendly story to promote and I don't think it is widely known. However, the people that use these girls are just as guilty of perpetrating their misery as the traffickers and the pimps, but the burden of proof must be on the accuser.

Here's an unusual idea, licence brothels, make sure the girls and disease and drug free. Give them a psychometric test before you issue the licence. Make them safer from street corners and Turkish massage clubs, give them security from nutters.

Anyone picked up anywhere else paying for sex can then have the book thrown at them.
19th Nov, 2008 20:29 (UTC)
OH here.

I am SO tired of Jackboot Jacqui

Listen to her on Womens Hour (sic) today

You'll need a large single malt ( I prefer Irish), 30 minutes and the patience of a fucking saint, the self restraint of Ghandi and the optimism of Mandela


LegIron, you never have to ask to post at my place. Just do it.
20th Nov, 2008 02:49 (UTC)
I only have brandy in the house tonight. I'll get some decent stuff tomorrow and have a look. For Irish, Bushmills, or at a pinch, Jameson's, although the peaty Scottish ones are my favourites.

I've put a post up - well, you asked for it!
20th Nov, 2008 02:51 (UTC)
Legal brothels would work aside from the NIMBY aspect. They can rent my backyard though, as long as they keep the noise down.

If they're properly controlled there shouldn't be any trouble because they'll have bouncers. And as you say, the illegal ones will become easy to spot.
19th Nov, 2008 21:02 (UTC)
There's an interesting logical point in the BBC "Have Your Say" thread on the subject (interestingly the top 60-odd rated items, by both men and women, all call the proposed law a load of bollocks) and that is: Regardless of whether the punter knows if the girl has been piumped, trafficked or not, in order to prosecute, the authorities have to know - so why the fuck aren't they arresting the pimp / traficker?

One point of view conspicuous by its absence from the BBC website (I wonder why?) is that of "arranged marriages" - which are often coercive and frequently for money... Prosecute the "Happy Groom"? I shan't be holding my breath.


20th Nov, 2008 02:53 (UTC)
Ah yes, arranged/forced marriages aren't addressed because that would be racist. So would arresting the traffickers since most of them aren't British either.

So much easier and so much more Socialist to arrest those pudgy white businessmen. They probably smoke and drink too - those spawn of Satan!
( 6 comments — Leave a comment )