Re: How (if at all) would UK law enact this ?

[GB]

On 07/04/2016 14:09, Jethro_uk wrote:
> www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35982929
>
> French MPs have passed a law that makes it illegal to pay for sex and
> imposes fines of up to €3,750 (£3,027, $4,274) for those buying sexual
> acts.
> Those convicted would also have to attend classes to learn about the
> conditions faced by prostitutes.
>
> (contd)
>
> presumably you would need definitions of "paying" and "sex" to start
> with ?
>


Is that a question? If so, the answer is yes. If you are suggesting that
paying for dinner is effectively paying for sex, I don't agree.

The BBC article says:

She told the BBC: "We are giving to the prostituted person a new tool to
defend themselves and protect themselves. If they don't want to do that
then actually they just don't have to call the police. But if anything
happens, if the client is violent, if anything wrong happens, then now
they have the law on their side."

So, that's an opportunity for blackmail.

The UK model is that prostitution is not illegal, although certain
aspects are illegal, in particular soliciting in public and running a
brothel. I'd have thought there are advantages in legalising brothels,
but apart from that the UK law is about right.

[Roland Perry]

In message <ne5m77$io7$8...@dont-email.me>, at 13:09:59 on Thu, 7 Apr 2016,
Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:

>www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35982929
>
>French MPs have passed a law that makes it illegal to pay for sex and

>imposes fines of up to €3,750 (£3,027, $4,274) for those buying sexual

>acts.
>Those convicted would also have to attend classes to learn about the
>conditions faced by prostitutes.
>
>(contd)
>
>presumably you would need definitions of "paying" and "sex" to start
>with ?

If HMRC[2] and those familiar with the Sexual Offences Act 2003[1] put
their heads together, I don't think it'd be that difficult.

[1] Which has to define sexual activity, in order for it to be an
offence in specified circumstances.

[2] Who can distinguish between wages, benefits in kind, and gifts.
--
Roland Perry

[Mike Bristow]

In article <ne5m77$io7$8...@dont-email.me>,

Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
> presumably you would need definitions of "paying" and "sex" to start
> with ?

Not really. Cases will come before judges, who will interpret the
words in the usual way & explain the law to the jury.

The usual way is, as I understand it, first the definition in the
statute, if there is one, otherwise use the definitions in the
intreptation act(s) that apply, and so on, with the final fallback
being the ordinary meaning of the words.

Given that "paying" and "sex" have meanings that are well understood
I doubt that judges would have much dificulty in explaining what
the words mean to a jury.


[1] in the case of new law, the Intpretation Act 1978. Probably.


--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com

[GB]

On 07/04/2016 14:59, Jethro_uk wrote:

> I tend to agree about legalised brothels. If nothing else they would
> provide the authorities with a clear "legal/not legal" approach to
> enforcement. I also suspect it will not happen in my lifetime. (Mind you,
> Irish peace, Berlin wall falling, and Nelson Mandela being S.A. President
> suggest life is full of surprises).
>

The Irish peace coincided with the war in what had been Yugoslavia. I
wondered at the time whether that reminded people of what could happen
in N Ireland if they really went at it hammer and tongs?

[GB]

On 07/04/2016 14:41, August West wrote:

> The entity calling itself Jethro_uk wrote:
>>
>> French MPs have passed a law that makes it illegal to pay for sex and

>> imposes fines of up to €3,750 (£3,027, $4,274) for those buying sexual
>> acts.
>>

>> presumably you would need definitions of "paying" and "sex" to start
>> with ?
>

> Not necessarily. In the UK, statutory interpretation will use the usual
> definition of common words like that, unless the Act maks other
> provision. From what I know of it, It's the up to the courts to set the
> bounds of the usual definitions.

Nevertheless, I am fairly sure that the statute would make clear that
certain acts, other than intercourse, are included.

>
> I believe French law to be similar, if not more so - the Criminal Code
> is very "open textured".
>

[The Todal]

On 07/04/2016 14:09, Jethro_uk wrote:
> www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35982929
>

> French MPs have passed a law that makes it illegal to pay for sex and
> imposes fines of up to €3,750 (£3,027, $4,274) for those buying sexual
> acts.

> Those convicted would also have to attend classes to learn about the
> conditions faced by prostitutes.
>
> (contd)
>

> presumably you would need definitions of "paying" and "sex" to start
> with ?
>

I'd like to see what specific wording the French have used in their law
criminalising those who purchase sexual services.

You'd think that one of the many newspapers or news websites would take
the trouble to quote the statute (including any defences and any
definitions) for the benefit of all those who might want to know. But I
can't see that anywhere. Can anyone else?

One report says that the law penalises buying sex "from a prostitute".
Perhaps it doesn't go without saying that a woman who accepts money for
sex is a prostitute. Perhaps she has to have offered services to the
world at large.

Obvious questions that come to mind are: does it criminalise buying sex
from male prostitutes? Does it punish women who purchase sex as well as
men? Is sex defined as some form of intercourse, or does it include what
were once coyly called "relief massages"? Is the offence complete when
money is handed over or does the sexual act have to take place?

[GB]

On 07/04/2016 14:51, Mike Bristow wrote:
> In article <ne5m77$io7$8...@dont-email.me>,
> Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>> presumably you would need definitions of "paying" and "sex" to start
>> with ?
>
> Not really. Cases will come before judges, who will interpret the
> words in the usual way & explain the law to the jury.
>
> The usual way is, as I understand it, first the definition in the
> statute, if there is one, otherwise use the definitions in the
> intreptation act(s) that apply, and so on, with the final fallback
> being the ordinary meaning of the words.
>
> Given that "paying" and "sex" have meanings that are well understood
> I doubt that judges would have much dificulty in explaining what
> the words mean to a jury.

Parliament would need to decide whether certain forms of touching are
within the definition or not. Otherwise, it's left too vague. I'm sure
the courts would fill in the gaps, but parliament usually tries to say
what it means.

[Roland Perry]

In message <ne5qba$i4n$1...@dont-email.me>, at 15:23:42 on Thu, 7 Apr 2016,
GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> remarked:

>> Given that "paying" and "sex" have meanings that are well understood
>> I doubt that judges would have much dificulty in explaining what
>> the words mean to a jury.
>
>Parliament would need to decide whether certain forms of touching are
>within the definition or not. Otherwise, it's left too vague. I'm sure
>the courts would fill in the gaps, but parliament usually tries to say
>what it means.

Which is what happened in SOA 2003, after several years of consultations
that almost didn't reach a consensus.
--
Roland Perry

[Robin]

On 07/04/2016 14:09, Jethro_uk wrote:
> www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35982929
>
> French MPs have passed a law that makes it illegal to pay for sex and
> imposes fines of up to €3,750 (£3,027, $4,274) for those buying sexual
> acts.
> Those convicted would also have to attend classes to learn about the
> conditions faced by prostitutes.
>
> (contd)
>

> presumably you would need definitions of "paying" and "sex" to start
> with ?
>

I'm broadly with those who suggest definitions are by no means
obligatory. But FWIW by tuppenyworth is:

a. "paying" does not need definition but (in English) is too narrow and
needs expansion to cover other means of reward - eg the provision of
goods and services[1] (whether or not of "money's worth"), loans, the
forgiveness of a debt, etc; but
b. "sex" and "sexual acts" does - eg think about the poor chicken
farmers who pay employees for chick sexing.


[1] The English obsession with black letter law might prompt a nice
debate about the need for an exclusion for where sex is provided in
expectation of sex, and whether that needs (a) limitation to "sex of
equal value" or (b) provision that neither party can expect more than
best endeavours - ie not specific performance
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[Roland Perry]

In message <dmn8pk...@mid.individual.net>, at 15:22:44 on Thu, 7 Apr
2016, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> remarked:

>does it include what were once coyly called "relief massages"

These (and similar activities) are now known as "performing a sex act".

Or if self-administered "touching himself inappropriately".

--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 13:09:59 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> put finger to keyboard and typed:

>www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35982929
>
>French MPs have passed a law that makes it illegal to pay for sex and
>imposes fines of up to €3,750 (£3,027, $4,274) for those buying sexual
>acts.
>Those convicted would also have to attend classes to learn about the
>conditions faced by prostitutes.
>
>(contd)
>
>presumably you would need definitions of "paying" and "sex" to start
>with ?

Not really, no. The law would only need to make it illegal to pay for
sexual acts. There is already enough established case law on what "pay" and
"sexual" mean in most cases, and for the edge cases it would be a question
of fact to be decided by the jury as to whether a particular inducement
amounted to payment and whether a particular act was sexual.

What might be harder to do, without creating unintentional loopholes, is to
draft the necessary exemptions which would allow, for example, porn to be
made professionally without breaking the law.

Mark
--
Insert random witticism here
http://www.markgoodge.com

[The Todal]

Or, perhaps, to allow people to pay a dating agency to find them one or
more partners.

Could we see arguments in court along the lines of "I wasn't paying for
sex. I was paying for companionship and possible matrimony. I was really
surprised when she offered me sex, an offer which I accepted at the time
but wasn't in my mind when I entered into the contract".

[michael adams]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message news:2GZTCOWc...@perry.co.uk...

> In message <ne5m77$io7$8...@dont-email.me>, at 13:09:59 on Thu, 7 Apr 2016,
> Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
>>www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35982929
>>
>>French MPs have passed a law that makes it illegal to pay for sex and
>>imposes fines of up to €3,750 (£3,027, $4,274) for those buying sexual
>>acts.
>>Those convicted would also have to attend classes to learn about the
>>conditions faced by prostitutes.
>>
>>(contd)
>>
>>presumably you would need definitions of "paying" and "sex" to start
>>with ?
>
> If HMRC[2] and those familiar with the Sexual Offences Act 2003[1] put
> their heads together, I don't think it'd be that difficult.
>
> [1] Which has to define sexual activity, in order for it to be an
> offence in specified circumstances.

But the point there is that those offences usually only ever
come to the attention of the police as a result of a complaint
being made, often by one of the parties.

In these new cases how is evidence ever going to be obtained ?

>From offenders and prostitutes who are sensibly discreet, at least.


michael adams

....

[The Todal]

Since prostitution is usually consensual and mutually beneficial, I
should think that the complaints to the police would usually come from
aggrieved neighbours. There might also be patrols of puritan vigilantes,
aiming to clean up the neighbourhood, taking photographs and videos of
punters entering houses. With, of course, the possibility of
blackmailing the punter afterwards.

[The Todal]

Je crois qu'on dit "une branlette".

[Ian Jackson]

In article <ne5nc7$5ub$1...@dont-email.me>, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>She told the BBC: "We are giving to the prostituted person a new tool to
>defend themselves and protect themselves. If they don't want to do that
>then actually they just don't have to call the police. But if anything
>happens, if the client is violent, if anything wrong happens, then now
>they have the law on their side."

It's amazing how distorted this discourse is. It takes a moment's
digging to discover that virtually all sex workers think that laws
like this are a very bad thing:

http://www.nswp.org/sites/nswp.org/files/Criminalisation%20of%20Clients_Summary-c.pdf
http://prostitutescollective.net/2014/03/03/today-sex-workers-oppose-criminalisation-of-clients/
http://www.scot-pep.org.uk/having-voice/scot-pep-campaigns/criminalisation-sex-work
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/6/e005191.full
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/may/27/sex-worker-laura-lee-challenges-law-criminalises-clients-northern-ireland

I guess sex workers are not real people because they're immoral, or
something, so their opinions about how best to improve their lives are
irrelevant.

>The UK model is that prostitution is not illegal, although certain
>aspects are illegal, in particular soliciting in public and running a
>brothel. I'd have thought there are advantages in legalising brothels,
>but apart from that the UK law is about right.

So I agree with you that the French law is a step in the wrong direction.

But I very strongly disagree that the UK law is about right. I take
my lead on that from what actual sex workers have said and written -
which is not hard to find, if you care to look.

--
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

[Mike Bristow]

In article <ne5qba$i4n$1...@dont-email.me>,

GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> Given that "paying" and "sex" have meanings that are well understood
>> I doubt that judges would have much dificulty in explaining what
>> the words mean to a jury.
>
> Parliament would need to decide whether certain forms of touching are
> within the definition or not. Otherwise, it's left too vague.

They may well want to do so, yes; many laws are very specific. But it's
not required; in the specific case of sex asking a jury a question
along the lines of "tab A was inserted into slot B. Does that count as
sex?" isn't exactly a difficult matter for the jury to consider, IMO.

> I'm sure
> the courts would fill in the gaps, but parliament usually tries to say
> what it means.

That's a good starting point; but it means that lawmakers need to
know what they mean first (and that's usually quite hard given that
there are quite a few of them).


--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com

[Robin]

On 07/04/2016 16:41, Mark Goodge wrote:

> There is already enough established case law on what "pay" and

> "sexual" mean in most cases, ...

Perhaps - but it was thought appropriate to include in s.51 SOA 2003

"(2)In those sections “prostitute” means a person (A) who, on at least
one occasion and whether or not compelled to do so, offers or provides
sexual services to another person in return for payment or a promise of
payment to A or a third person; and “prostitution” is to be interpreted
accordingly.

(3)In subsection (2), “payment” means any financial advantage, including
the discharge of an obligation to pay or the provision of goods or
services (including sexual services) gratuitously or at a discount."

[michael adams]

"The Todal" <the_...@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:dmngqn...@mid.individual.net...

But that would hardly apply in many blocks of flats, ranging from
mansion flats to large blocks of flats serviced by lifts. Where
providing the customers are suitably discreet, there would be no
evidence of any hanky panky taking place at all.

And that's just in towns.


michael adams

....



>

[Fredxxx]

On 07/04/2016 15:55, Jethro_uk wrote:

> My theory is there was a deliberate shift in tactics by the IRA from
> civilian targets (i.e. lots of dead people) to financial targets (i.e.
> lots of lost money).
>
> I find the fact that the UK government was happy to do fuck all
> 1970-1990. and moved heaven and earth 1990-1997 very telling.
>
> I believe (but can't prove) the change in IRA tactics was caused by the
> realisation that after 20 years of being bombed, the Great British Public
> were still as ignorant of the conflict as they were at the start, and
> showed absolutely no signs whatsoever of losing that ignorance.

During Tory rule they required the support of the Unionists. There was
never going to be power sharing during their term.

Labour didn't, were more conciliatory and they weren't targeted with
bombs. There was also the peace movement, plus intervention of Bill Clinton.

Of course it all then come together.

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 18:21:18 +0100, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> put finger to
keyboard and typed:

That's not defining "sexual services", though, it's leaving that as
generally defined elsewhere. And it isn't really defining "payment" as
such, merely extending it to cover non-financial payments (presumably in
order to avoid any loophole cause by bartering).

[GB]

On 07/04/2016 16:04, Mike Bristow wrote:
> In article <ne5qba$i4n$1...@dont-email.me>,
> GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> Given that "paying" and "sex" have meanings that are well understood
>>> I doubt that judges would have much dificulty in explaining what
>>> the words mean to a jury.
>>
>> Parliament would need to decide whether certain forms of touching are
>> within the definition or not. Otherwise, it's left too vague.
>
> They may well want to do so, yes; many laws are very specific. But it's
> not required; in the specific case of sex asking a jury a question
> along the lines of "tab A was inserted into slot B. Does that count as
> sex?" isn't exactly a difficult matter for the jury to consider, IMO.

What happens if tab A is inserted into slot C or slot D, instead? Is
that "sex"? Or .... well, I'll leave it to your imagination.

The footballer Johnson didn't insert his tab into any slots, IIRC, but
he still went down for six years.

Clearly, as August says, the courts would interpret simple English
words, if they had to, but it's usual these days for Parliament to say
which slots and tabs are included in the definition. :)

>
>> I'm sure
>> the courts would fill in the gaps, but parliament usually tries to say
>> what it means.
>
> That's a good starting point; but it means that lawmakers need to
> know what they mean first (and that's usually quite hard given that
> there are quite a few of them).

They have skilled draftsmen working for them, plus committees to hammer
out the details.

[GB]

On 07/04/2016 15:55, Jethro_uk wrote:

> If Al Queda et al, were *really* serious, they'd stop wasting time trying
> to kill people, and work out ways of costing them.

I often wondered whether terrorists would be better off with a programme
of civil disobedience. French farmers get what they want by driving
their tractors very slowly and clogging up the roads. They don't kill
anybody, yet they have blackmailed the EU into paying them trillions of
Euros.

I'm sure that, if Al Qaeda gridlocked London's traffic regularly, rather
than killing people, we'd be much more amenable to talking to them.

[Martin Bonner]

On Thursday, 7 April 2016 23:38:31 UTC+2, Fredxxx wrote:
> During Tory rule they required the support of the Unionists.

I don't think that's true. The Conservatives under Thatcher (and Major?)
had an absolute majority it Parliament without any support from the

Unionists.

> There was never going to be power sharing during their term.

That is more plausible. There is (or was) a large chunk of the Tory
party that still remembers it was once called "The Conservative
*and Unionist* Party". On the other hand, if I remember correctly,
Major spent a lot of time trying to organize a peace process.

*I* think the major impact was the fact that the leaders of the
paramilitaries grew up and realized that they would never win militarily.
(The British Army had realized this years before - and I can remember
John Cole's fury in his autobiography about them saying so.)

[Robin]

I am sorry I did not make clear I offered that example only in response
to your comment about the meaning of "pay". (I'm not aware of a
definition of "sexual services" as such but thought the definition of
"sexual" in s.78. was rather important for the interpretation of the SOA
2003)

As for ss.(3) not defining "payment", I don't know what else one would
call it. In the context of statutory construction a provision that "X
means" is conventionally referred to as a definition of X. And my point
was that in that section "payment" was *not* just being left to take its
ordinary meaning from ordinary usage and earlier cases on the meaning of
"pay".

There is a related issue, much debated, about the pros and cons of
provisions which (explicitly or implicitly) "deem" ordinary words (such
as "payment") to have a different (usually but not always) wider meaning
for the purpose of some legislation. On the one hand it makes for
shorter and simpler legislation than coining a specific term (eg "sexual
services reward") which most readers find easier to follow. On the
other hand it risks readers taking it at face value without bothering to
read on to find that payment includes, as you recognise, things which
would (very probably) not count as payment.

But s.51 is a bad example to use for all that as it defines "payment"
only for the purposes of ss.(2). That's now deprecated in Whitehall so
it might be that if the Act were written today the definition of
"payment" there are in other sections might be rethought.

[Robin]

On 08/04/2016 11:49, GB wrote:
>
> I'm sure that, if Al Qaeda gridlocked London's traffic regularly, rather
> than killing people, we'd be much more amenable to talking to them.
>

Possibly in today's London (and today's Labour party). When I used to
commute by car to central London (c.1980-1995) I'd have found it hard to
think of anything more likely to enourage support for bombing their
camps, and arming every cabbie with a with a Minigun.

[Roger Hayter]

Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 04:36:00 -0700, Martin Bonner wrote:
>
> > *I* think the major impact was the fact that the leaders of the
> > paramilitaries grew up and realized that they would never win
> > militarily.
>

> One wonders why they did't just ask the elder members of the *IRA* - who
> come to the same conclusion in the 50s ?
>
> Don't forget what the mainland UK commonly calls "The IRA" was in fact
> "The *provisional* IRA" (hence "provos").
>
> Provisional because they did not have the backing of the "official" IRA.

Don't forget that not only was the nationalist community in the enclave
imporverished, underprivileged and hopeless, but that it was the state
that invented unaccountable paramilitary groups which commited violent
crimes against Catholics with total impuniity ('B' specials etc.). So
it was not the IRA side that started political violence and overturned
the rule of law.


--

Roger Hayter

[Fredxxx]

Indeed, it was always said the army was sent in to protect the minority.
Shame that after the minority wanted the army to leave, they didn't just
withdraw.

[newshound]

Succinct and concise! I doff my metaphorical hat to you.