[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.