View Full Version : You better be in love or married if you want to have sex (according to labour women)!
Half man half dildo started a good thread on the labour womens' submisison on the review of legislation on prostitution. However, it's been lost in General Chat and I can't find it. So here's another thread on it. Of the submisions I've read e.g. from Ruhama and like minded groups, this is the most achaic and draconian! And what's scary is that this is from a political party in power!:angryfire:
Here's a little snipet
Question 4. What benefit might ensue from a ban on purchasing sexual services?
Prostitution is not a "service". Sex with another human being cannot be reduced to a service. The act of "purchase" in prostitution is an ........
The ultimate beneficiaries of the ban will be the communities and the society as a whole, where harmful degrading practice of prostitution will decrease. The ban on paid sex is the right message to give to younger generations and brings to the fore well established values of the Irish society, such as the importance of relationship and marriage, the appreciation of sex associated with affection rather than with anonymity and power, gender equality, the unconditional rejection of sexual exploitation of children and other vulnerable people.
I fully believe in love, relationships and marriage. But to limit sex to those settings only leaves those of us outside those spheres with no option for a sex life. Is it just me, or do these sound like shades of previous religious groups exerting power over the sex lives of the population? Ironically, I hear that there are a lot of atheists in Labour! Obviously they are cut from the same thread, afterall exerting powert over others isn't limited to religious hierachy.
It's also ironic that the "Workers party" will not recognise escorts as workers! And any of us that know anything about this business, know that escorts works very hard for their money and should be entitled to "workers rights" as any other worker.
very shy guy
24-09-12, 00:32
Half man half dildo started a good thread on the labour womens' submisison on the review of legislation on prostitution. However, it's been lost in General Chat and I can't find it. So here's another thread on it. Of the submisions I've read e.g. from Ruhama and like minded groups, this is the most achaic and draconian! And what's scary is that this is from a political party in power!:angryfire:
Here's a little snipet
Question 4. What benefit might ensue from a ban on purchasing sexual services?
Prostitution is not a "service". Sex with another human being cannot be reduced to a service. The act of "purchase" in prostitution is an ........
The ultimate beneficiaries of the ban will be the communities and the society as a whole, where harmful degrading practice of prostitution will decrease. The ban on paid sex is the right message to give to younger generations and brings to the fore well established values of the Irish society, such as the importance of relationship and marriage, the appreciation of sex associated with affection rather than with anonymity and power, gender equality, the unconditional rejection of sexual exploitation of children and other vulnerable people.
I fully believe in love, relationships and marriage. But to limit sex to those settings only leaves those of us outside those spheres with no option for a sex life. Is it just me, or do these sound like shades of previous religious groups exerting power over the sex lives of the population? Ironically, I hear that there are a lot of atheists in Labour! Obviously they are cut from the same thread, afterall exerting powert over others isn't limited to religious hierachy.
It's also ironic that the "Workers party" will not recognise escorts as workers! And any of us that know anything about this business, know that escorts works very hard for their money and should be entitled to "workers rights" as any other worker.
Still think you should be running the country Morpheus,and yes it does sound like the clergy have labour by the balls.
Rachel Divine
24-09-12, 06:30
I remember a client telling me about years ago to get condoms the guy had to be in a relationship and the doctor would give him the condoms with a prescription (if I am not wrong)..
Casual sex is no shame and nobody should fell bad about it.
I am afraid the religion still has a big impact in Ireland in this days and that is a shame!
I will be on twitter later on, dont make much difference but still....
Curvaceous Kate
24-09-12, 06:44
It must be lovely to have your head in the clouds and live in such an adyllic world where there is someone for everyone and we all find love and live happily ever after, but reality is nothing like that. Men and women can spend most of their lives single, be it intentional or not. There are people who have social disorders, who find it incredibly difficult to make connections with anyone, let alone fall in love, people with disabilities and people who are shy or work driven and just don't have the time. Are we to believe that this whole cross section of people are to live without the joy of sex, because of politics?
Now who is playing at being God?
You are also condemning people outside of relationships to a shorter life if they are not allowed to have sex. There are numerous articles like this one to be found on the net.
http://www.hitchedmag.com/article.php?id=968
This article gives 7 good reasons why sex is important to us al, regardless of our relationships.
1. Increases Immunity to Infection
2. Improve Cardiovascular Health
3. Reduce Risks of Prostate Cancer
4. Decrease Incontinence for Men and Women
5. Reduce the Possibility of Osteoporosis
6. Increase Longevity
7. Burns Calories
After reading that, I think our services should be on the national health!!!
http://www.nigeriafilms.com/news/12627/35/having-sex-regularly-extends-life-span-by-8-years.html
Rachel Divine
24-09-12, 07:42
I wouldn't feel bad about it ;)
Hope not babe ;)
the traveller
24-09-12, 09:24
I fully believe in love, relationships and marriage. But to limit sex to those settings only leaves those of us outside those spheres with no option for a sex life
This is just as I find myself now and put that in my submission. Is the only sex in Ireland now to be maternal and for the procreation of the human race. Will the Labour women make casual sex illegal, after all, I'm sure we all know there are females that go out on a Friday, Saturday night with the sole intention of getting hammered and laid! I'm sure they won't, as then the evil male rapist won't be to blame.
There is a stage in life when you can find yourself single and all the avenues that you used to use to find members of the opposite sex are not available to you any more as you're past that stage in life ( unless you want to be the oldest swinger in town). And to be honest at that stage most of the ladies that are left single are single for a reason. I might be past my youth but I'm not ready to just curl up and die, and I say thankyou to the sex workers of Ireland, you carry out an invaluable service and I love you all for it.
P.S. Great to see you posting here again Rachel.
saoirsemac
24-09-12, 11:19
good thing i make love to my clients
phew!
i say ban bars and nightclubs as they lead to casual sex
it needs to be banned, we can have people having sex
i support them 100% u need to be in love to have sex and thats the only way yup
as i said im in love with my clients (big heart i have) so im exempt
i wonder tho, do both have be in love? or else at least one of the women are having sex illegal
odds are one of there husbands is with them for the kids etc
why do women (and though not of course exclusively, I do feel its a particularly feminine trait) feel they have a god given right to dictate to other women how they should lead their lives?
Surely the blindingly obvious thing for any concerned person is to ensure that sex workers (and clients of) are provided with a regulated and safe framework for their profession and get back to trying to save the real economy from annihilation.
Christ, I destest these people. Everything they do is selfish and self serving. I don't believe any of them would have the courage to make a living on their own wit or guile.
saoirsemac
24-09-12, 12:38
why do women (and though not of course exclusively, I do feel its a particularly feminine trait) feel they have a god given right to dictate to other women how they should lead their lives?
Surely the blindingly obvious thing for any concerned person is to ensure that sex workers (and clients of) are provided with a regulated and safe framework for their profession and get back to trying to save the real economy from annihilation.
Christ, I destest these people. Everything they do is selfish and self serving. I don't believe any of them would have the courage to make a living on their own wit or guile.
because in the gender battles of centuries the only people women cud bully was other women
because in the gender battles of centuries the only people women cud bully was other women
are we still stuck back there? Nothing been leant from decades of the female revolution? Will women not ever help each other unless its a self serving agenda?
very shy guy
24-09-12, 13:01
It must be lovely to have your head in the clouds and live in such an adyllic world where there is someone for everyone and we all find love and live happily ever after, but reality is nothing like that. Men and women can spend most of their lives single, be it intentional or not. There are people who have social disorders, who find it incredibly difficult to make connections with anyone, let alone fall in love, people with disabilities and people who are shy or work driven and just don't have the time. Are we to believe that this whole cross section of people are to live without the joy of sex, because of politics?
Now who is playing at being God?
You are also condemning people outside of relationships to a shorter life if they are not allowed to have sex. There are numerous articles like this one to be found on the net.
http://www.hitchedmag.com/article.php?id=968
This article gives 7 good reasons why sex is important to us al, regardless of our relationships.
1. Increases Immunity to Infection
2. Improve Cardiovascular Health
3. Reduce Risks of Prostate Cancer
4. Decrease Incontinence for Men and Women
5. Reduce the Possibility of Osteoporosis
6. Increase Longevity
7. Burns Calories
After reading that, I think our services should be on the national health!!!
http://www.nigeriafilms.com/news/12627/35/having-sex-regularly-extends-life-span-by-8-years.html
Now that is one prescription I would love to see,wonder how Reilly would handel it,lol,well said young lady,sadly we are run by a crowd of feckers Kate that are divorced from reality.
very shy guy
24-09-12, 13:07
why do women (and though not of course exclusively, I do feel its a particularly feminine trait) feel they have a god given right to dictate to other women how they should lead their lives?
Surely the blindingly obvious thing for any concerned person is to ensure that sex workers (and clients of) are provided with a regulated and safe framework for their profession and get back to trying to save the real economy from annihilation.
Christ, I destest these people. Everything they do is selfish and self serving. I don't believe any of them would have the courage to make a living on their own wit or guile.
Hit the nail on the head Braveboy,these women are politicans and are so far up their own arses like most politicans they believe the sun shines out of their backsides and are so superior to other women that they can dictate and look down their noses at everyone else when in fact they are as useless as tits on a boar.
saoirsemac
24-09-12, 13:37
are we still stuck back there? Nothing been leant from decades of the female revolution? Will women not ever help each other unless its a self serving agenda?
femisim, also puts women down,
if u do not conform to there ideals
i like wearing a bra and i like shaving, i also like selling my time which sometimes sex occurs
so im a victim of men's oppression appartently
however i never got the bit, where ur all for woman rights etc and well some lesbian femist
if there pro woman, why dress and act like a man?
its all about who shouts the loudest really
Hit the nail on the head Braveboy,these women are politicans and are so far up their own arses like most politicans they believe the sun shines out of their backsides and are so superior to other women that they can dictate and look down their noses at everyone else when in fact they are as useless as tits on a boar.
Maybe we should seek a change to the marraige contract. A new clause saying the partners must have sex with each other at least 3 times a week otherwise marraige is over save provisions for any kids that might have come in the good days. Of course, its a 'no blame' law so each party walks away with waht they brought.
That would soften their cough.
very shy guy
24-09-12, 17:44
Maybe we should seek a change to the marraige contract. A new clause saying the partners must have sex with each other at least 3 times a week otherwise marraige is over save provisions for any kids that might have come in the good days. Of course, its a 'no blame' law so each party walks away with waht they brought.
That would soften their cough.
I can see a lot of spluttering in coffee cups when that is read by them Braveboy,lol.
Labor councillor Catherine Clancy most likely was the ringleader who tabled this motion. The Journal.ie is no longer publishing the names of the Councillors who support Ruhama's motion to criminalize prostitution. Not surprising considering the fact Labor's Catherine Clancy (Cork City Council) is on a wipe-out come the next local election. She cannot hide and everyone knows this. It only takes a simple Google search to find out.
very shy guy
24-09-12, 18:04
Labor councillor Catherine Clancy most likely was the ringleader who tabled this motion. The Journal.ie is no longer publishing the names of the Councillors who support Ruhama's motion to criminalize prostitution. Not surprising considering the fact Labor's Catherine Clancy (Cork City Council) is on a wipe-out come the next local election. She cannot hide and everyone knows this. It only takes a simple Google search to find out.
Workers party my backside,I am looking forward to seeing them being wiped out as they deserve,smug feckers,from that prat of a gilmore down,at least with FF we knew who the bad guys were.
Obviously it's a starkly traditional viewpoint, maybe it's just my recent moods, but I cannot deny that they do have a point which I would emphatically agree with if it were an ideal world.
Irish society has a huge emphasis on relationships and eventual marriage, and has traditionally even enshrined the institution of it in the Constitution, for better or worse. It's something I'd one day aspire to, and hopefully it'll be an option, but for many it's not possible or advisable in their circumstances.
Dictating what a woman can do with her body is inappropriate, however, and not necessarily conductive or confidence inspiring in terms of that ideal world they envisage.
Buachaillbeag
24-09-12, 19:10
If you are following a religious code of beliefs fair enough to believe sex outside marri age is wrong. But religious beliefs shouldn't be the basis for forming our legal code. Freedom, responsibility & equality are what I believe should frame laws around sexuality & sex practices including sex work.
If a woman or man want to sell sex willingly without being indentured then that is a fair right.
If someone is forced to do this then that is legally and morally repugnant. Society is wrapped up in a wound coil regarding sex.
If you are following a religious code of beliefs fair enough to believe sex outside marriage is wrong.
But religious beliefs shouldn't be the basis for forming our legal code. Freedom, responsibility & equality are what I believe should frame laws around sexuality & sex practices including sex work.
If a woman or man want to sell sex willingly without being indentured then that is a fair right.
If someone is forced to do this then that is legally and morally repugnant.
Society is wrapped up in a wound coil regarding sex.
Agree with every word Buachaillbeag. Fabulous points. You're dead right - Irish society anyway - has always been in a wound up coil regarding sex.
Curvaceous Kate.
Your services on The Public Health System, Ring up for appointment, wait for application, fill it out, return it, wait for confirmation of receipt of application, Have application returned to u because how u filled it is not acceptable, dispite the fact u followed the instructions on how to fill it out, ring up to be told person dealing with your application is unavailable. After several calls u are told due to a change in criteria u need to re-apply and so you start the process all over again...Hmm Hun You would starve from lack of work and we would develop nervous tics. You are being Cruel:tounge-in-cheek:
Some muslim clients perform a brief religious marriage ceremony with escorts and an anullment afterwards. It's quite sweet. They bring flowers :)
Thinking out loud here, I wonder if a signed disclaimer at the commencement of bookings might be the way to go in the future. I know it makes things legal for sex parties if it is classed as a private club.
AbsoluteNoob
28-09-12, 18:06
Some muslim clients perform a brief religious marriage ceremony with escorts and an anullment afterwards. It's quite sweet. They bring flowers :)
Thinking out loud here, I wonder if a signed disclaimer at the commencement of bookings might be the way to go in the future. I know it makes things legal for sex parties if it is classed as a private club.
REALLY!?! That's laughable. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Half Man and Half Dildo
28-09-12, 22:12
Thinking out loud here, I wonder if a signed disclaimer at the commencement of bookings might be the way to go in the future. I know it makes things legal for sex parties if it is classed as a private club.
Heather, I was actually thinking along the same lines a while back, just hadn't gotten around to mentioning it here. Nice one ! ;)
Heather, I was actually thinking along the same lines a while back, just hadn't gotten around to mentioning it here. Nice one ! ;)
I had thought of this, but I'm not familiar with the exact disclaimer imagined, and one cannot contract out of criminal law (for example, BDSM of a level constituting ABH, or Causing Serious Harm in this jurisdiction, is still illegal even with express consent per R v Brown, R v Emmett, etc.).
Circumstantial evidence such as quantities of cash, condoms, identification of an escort with an escort advertisement, etc. would likely also be adduced should a challenge actually ever go to the District Court to reach the threshold of proving it beyond a reasonable doubt to a sole Judge.
It's all speculation until the Bill is drafted and published.
They also never talked in depth about the issue of absolute strict liability and its difficulty of being put into an Irish constitution, it is unconstitutional to prosecute sex workers clients and expect them to have no defense despite the fact that the seller (sex worker) is the party who initiated the transaction (advertising etc) and been a willing party to the act (consenting). It is blackmail. Strict liability like that cannot apply because the Supreme Court has ruled that a defence must be possible.
Criminalising one party only in that manner, if it was not clearly justifiable on objective grounds, would be open to constitutional challenge.
Thanks Brock as always for your detailed insightful comments.
I've been trying to get my head around how such a law could be brought into Sweden (and now Norway and Iceland), all apparent democracies, considering how it is uncontitutional to proscute only one party of a criminal transaction.
Here's the cruncher! They've equated sex for money with an escort to be the same kind of offence as statutory rape!! Statutory rape is now called "the defilement of a child under the age of 17".
This law governs sex with minors. There is no issue of consent here. Sex with a minor is a criminal offence - regardless of whether the minor consented or not. Because a minor is not in a postion to consent to such actitivty.
But this is what the Swedish law is all about. It reduces women to the level of minors when it comes ot payment for sex. It is basically saying that women do not have the capacity to make a decision to have sex for money! And therefore are victims and as a result their clients are rapists/ sex offenders!!
So even if an escort in Sweden were to appear in court on behalf of one of her clients to say that she consented to have sex with him for money - the law doesn't recognise her right to consent!!
The similarities between this and the Catholic churches hold / control over peoples sexuality in the past, is uncanny!
(Brock and Banjaxed, feel free to critique the above. I don't have a legal background and this is my amateurish understanding of the law).
Some muslim clients perform a brief religious marriage ceremony with escorts and an anullment afterwards. It's quite sweet. They bring flowers :)
Thinking out loud here, I wonder if a signed disclaimer at the commencement of bookings might be the way to go in the future. I know it makes things legal for sex parties if it is classed as a private club.
This is true a priest told us that a Muslim man can have a temporary marriage with a prostitute, thus not commuting adultery.
Thanks Brock as always for your detailed insightful comments.
I've been trying to get my head around how such a law could be brought into Sweden (and now Norway and Iceland), all apparent democracies, considering how it is uncontitutional to proscute only one party of a criminal transaction.
Here's the cruncher! They've equated sex for money with an escort to be the same kind of offence as statutory rape!! Statutory rape is now called "the defilement of a child under the age of 17".
This law governs sex with minors. There is no issue of consent here. Sex with a minor is a criminal offence - regardless of whether the minor consented or not. Because a minor is not in a postion to consent to such actitivty.
But this is what the Swedish law is all about. It reduces women to the level of minors when it comes ot payment for sex. It is basically saying that women do not have the capacity to make a decision to have sex for money! And therefore are victims and as a result their clients are rapists/ sex offenders!!
So even if an escort in Sweden were to appear in court on behalf of one of her clients to say that she consented to have sex with him for money - the law doesn't recognise her right to consent!!
The similarities between this and the Catholic churches hold / control over peoples sexuality in the past, is uncanny!
(Brock and Banjaxed, feel free to critique the above. I don't have a legal background and this is my amateurish understanding of the law).
Well firstly Brock is correct that strict liability is constitutionally questionable as it denies the accused a defence, and thus may fall foul of Article 38.1 which is the right to a fair trial in that "no person shall be tried on any criminal charge save in due course of law". The offence you refer to is the one which was introduced in the Sexual Offences Act 2006 in the wake of the CC case which found the previous offence under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935 was unconstitutional as it did not allow for a defence of honest belief that the person was over the age of consent which is now incorporated in the 2006 Act.
Ruhama are not proposing a strict liability offence any more, as their submission and attached legal opinion shows. This removes the possible constitutional hurdle altogether and returns it to an ordinary criminal offence requiring both actus reus and mens rea (intention). They basically argue that communication and meeting between what would presumably be a known sex worker and the individual provides enough basic intent.
I can't disagree with your general view on the effect of any such law, Morpheus. While some will assert the policy basis for such laws is to protect women, the truth is that what they are really saying is that from a public policy perspective both sex work or paying for sexual gratification is wrong and not something which should be encouraged in society regardless of whether the parties are consenting or not.
Ruhama are not proposing a strict liability offence any more, as their submission and attached legal opinion shows. This removes the possible constitutional hurdle altogether and returns it to an ordinary criminal offence requiring both actus reus and mens rea (intention). They basically argue that communication and meeting between what would presumably be a known sex worker and the individual provides enough basic intent.
Bloody hell!! Could you kindly expand on that Banjaxed because that doesn't sound good!!
From what you are saying Ruhama is proposing that one be criminalized for thinking of having sex with an escort whether one proceeds with the sexual encpounter or not!!!
In other words phoning up an escort, or talking to her, or looking at her profile all constitute intention to have sex with her and are therefore equivalent to the offence of paying her to have sex!!!!!!
How fucked up is that!!!!!!!
It's like something from "Minority report" and the department of Pre-crime (Tom Cruise/ Spielberg film)!!
I can't disagree with your general view on the effect of any such law, Morpheus. While some will assert the policy basis for such laws is to protect women, the truth is that what they are really saying is that from a public policy perspective both sex work or paying for sexual gratification is wrong and not something which should be encouraged in society regardless of whether the parties are consenting or not.
That is exactly what these men hating ultra feminists groups and moralists/religious bigots want.:mad: Well surmised Banjaxed.
Yet why don't they just have the guts to come out and say it, instead of couching it under the disguise of women's rights or the absurd "prostitution is violence against women" lark???:angryfire:
Bloody hell!! Could you kindly expand on that Banjaxed because that doesn't sound good!!
From what you are saying Ruhama is proposing that one be criminalized for thinking of having sex with an escort whether one proceeds with the sexual encpounter or not!!!
In other words phoning up an escort, or talking to her, or looking at her profile all constitute intention to have sex with her and are therefore equivalent to the offence of paying her to have sex!!!!!!
How fucked up is that!!!!!!!
It's like something from "Minority report" and the department of Pre-crime (Tom Cruise/ Spielberg film)!!
Well I should explain that ordinarily a criminal offence must be composed of actus reus + mens rea occurring at the same time, whereas strict liability requires no mens rea, just the prohibited conduct.
I suppose what I mean is that as outlined in the legal opinion prepared for Ruhama it appears that they are arguing two things, (a) that strict liability is not an issue as the CC judgment noted that it may be acceptable for offences with low maximum penalties, but also if the Dail is unwilling to create a new strict liability offence, (b) that an offence can be created without needing to be strict liability and would incorporate the two necessary elements of actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind, or intent):
Future proposals for reform of criminal law require drafters to be careful that serious offences do not entail an element of absolute liability. However the proposed new offence outlined in this submission is not considered a serious offence as it would carry low maximum penalties and therefore it may be acceptable to include an element of absolute or strict liability based on the rationale of the CC judgement.
Based on the presumption that the new offence would assume mens rea ‘guilty mind’ it would most likely take 2 parts (a) the intention to obtain the sexual service (b) the knowledge the service was being offered by way of prostitution. In order for the transaction and the sexual act to take place, a certain degree of intention will always be present, as the defendant will have to engage in at least some form of discussion with the person offering the sexual service by way of prostitution. Therefore a certain minimum degree of intention (mens rea) will always be present and similarly, in order to obtain the sexual service the accused person would ordinarily need to be aware that it was obtained by way of prostitution.
Appendix 4, Ruhama Submission to Oireacthas Committee on Justice and Defence.
Intention is generally defined as foresight of particular consequences and a desire to act or fail to act so that those consequences occur.
So the prosecution must prove both (a) and (b) in the above beyond a reasonable doubt, and can adduce any admissible evidence to do so whether direct or circumstantial.
Pre-crime already exists through inchoate offences - incitement, conspiracy, and attempt. :)
Half Man and Half Dildo
29-09-12, 22:40
Ruhama are not proposing a strict liability offence any more, as their submission and attached legal opinion shows. This removes the possible constitutional hurdle altogether and returns it to an ordinary criminal offence requiring both actus reus and mens rea (intention). They basically argue that communication and meeting between what would presumably be a known sex worker and the individual provides enough basic intent.
Thanks, Banjaxed.
What would happen if a woman was only working part time as an escort - suppose, just for arguments sake, that an escort works one week-end a month. Would communication and\or a meeting with her for lunch, coffee, dinner, drinks, etc be considered basic intent if they take place outside of her working hours?
I have quite a bit more to add to this thread, but my eyes are half closed with tiredness and I'm off to bed shortly, but I will post more tommorrow.
Goodnight, all.
Well I should explain that ordinarily a criminal offence must be composed of actus reus + mens rea occurring at the same time, whereas strict liability requires no mens rea, just the prohibited conduct.
I suppose what I mean is that as outlined in the legal opinion prepared for Ruhama it appears that they are arguing two things, (a) that strict liability is not an issue as the CC judgment noted that it may be acceptable for offences with low maximum penalties, but also if the Dail is unwilling to create a new strict liability offence, (b) that an offence can be created without needing to be strict liability and would incorporate the two necessary elements of actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind, or intent):
Intention is generally defined as foresight of particular consequences and a desire to act or fail to act so that those consequences occur.
So the prosecution must prove both (a) and (b) in the above beyond a reasonable doubt, and can adduce any admissible evidence to do so whether direct or circumstantial.
Pre-crime already exists through inchoate offences - incitement, conspiracy, and attempt. :)
FFS Banjaxed!!! Bloody lawyers!! English man! English please!!:p
Apologies Banjaxed but I didn't understand any of that. Could you simplify in lay terms without talking about liability!:o
The term liability gives me the willies as I always thing it means I am going to get sued!!;)
Thanks, Banjaxed.
What would happen if a woman was only working part time as an escort - suppose, just for arguments sake, that an escort works one week-end a month. Would communication and\or a meeting with her for lunch, coffee, dinner, drinks, etc be considered basic intent if they take place outside of her working hours?
I have quite a bit more to add to this thread, but my eyes are half closed with tiredness and I'm off to bed shortly, but I will post more tommorrow.
Goodnight, all.
Yeah! Does this mean that an escort can't have any (male) friends and can't meet them outside of work?????
Well done Ruhama, The immigrant Council, Labour Women and the rest of the TORL, you are doing a great job at protecting women's rights!!:mad: Obviously escorts that work of their own free will and aren't victims, don't qualify as women to you!!!
Thanks, Banjaxed.
What would happen if a woman was only working part time as an escort - suppose, just for arguments sake, that an escort works one week-end a month. Would communication and\or a meeting with her for lunch, coffee, dinner, drinks, etc be considered basic intent if they take place outside of her working hours?
I have quite a bit more to add to this thread, but my eyes are half closed with tiredness and I'm off to bed shortly, but I will post more tommorrow.
Goodnight, all.
Well this is an issue which I'm curious about myself, as in theory it could be possible that there's nothing to stop the Gardai attempting to fine any male in the company of an escort who they might have under surveillance. Were it to go to Court, it must be proved that the accused person had both (a) the intent to obtain a "sexual service" and (b) was knowingly seeking that by way of "prostitution".
Being witnessed having a drink with an escort would not provide any indication of either (a) or (b) to me, but going back to her place would possibly open the trap and give the Gardai reason to make their move (at least if I was them, that's when I'd move in as possibly in her apartment I have supporting evidence to back me up beyond a reasonable doubt if I'm challenged). However if a Garda did land on you, and attempt to fine you even incorrectly, would you be willing to appeal it in the District Court and be reported in the local papers?
Unfortunately it does not seem possible to find the text of draft amendment to the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993 which the Immigrant Council of Ireland commissioned the abovementioned legal opinion on, so it's speculation without any text. As you can see, if we assume that their draft was based on the two stages outlined above, it would be incredibly time consuming for Gardai to simply prosecute just one incidence of a minor offence.
Well this is an issue which I'm curious about myself, as in theory it could be possible that there's nothing to stop the Gardai attempting to fine any male in the company of an escort who they might have under surveillance. Were it to go to Court, it must be proved that the accused person had both (a) the intent to obtain a "sexual service" and (b) was knowingly seeking that by way of "prostitution".
Being witnessed having a drink with an escort would not provide any indication of either (a) or (b) to me, but going back to her place would possibly open the trap and give the Gardai reason to make their move (at least if I was them, that's when I'd move in as possibly in her apartment I have supporting evidence to back me up beyond a reasonable doubt if I'm challenged). However if a Garda did land on you, and attempt to fine you even incorrectly, would you be willing to appeal it in the District Court and be reported in the local papers?
Unfortunately it does not seem possible to find the text of draft amendment to the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993 which the Immigrant Council of Ireland commissioned the abovementioned legal opinion on, so it's speculation without any text. As you can see, if we assume that their draft was based on the two stages outlined above, it would be incredibly time consuming for Gardai to simply prosecute just one incidence of a minor offence.
And that may be our one saving grace if this mullarkey ever come into law!
Thanks Banjaxed.
The implementation of the lwa may be quite different to the letter fo the law.
Funny how in the Labour women's submission they said that the Swedish model would save the guards time!!!??
Bloody hell!! Could you kindly expand on that Banjaxed because that doesn't sound good!!
From what you are saying Ruhama is proposing that one be criminalized for thinking of having sex with an escort whether one proceeds with the sexual encpounter or not!!!
In other words phoning up an escort, or talking to her, or looking at her profile all constitute intention to have sex with her and are therefore equivalent to the offence of paying her to have sex!!!!!!
How fucked up is that!!!!!!!
It's like something from "Minority report" and the department of Pre-crime (Tom Cruise/ Spielberg film)!!
FFS Banjaxed!!! Bloody lawyers!! English man! English please!!:p
Apologies Banjaxed but I didn't understand any of that. Could you simplify in lay terms without talking about liability!:o
The term liability gives me the willies as I always thing it means I am going to get sued!!;)
Okay, a lot of this is going to depend on the actual text of any draft Bill, so it's all speculation.
Basically
1. A criminal offence requires a guilty act and a guilty mind which must both be present almost at the same time.
2. Intention in a legal sense is understood to be the foresight of the outcome of an action and desiring that action.
3. A Judge (or jury in an indictable offence) may infer intention based on the evidence presented (the accused's conduct, phone records, if a reasonable person would deduce lady was an escort, envelope containing 200 euro, etc.)
Yeah! Does this mean that an escort can't have any (male) friends and can't meet them outside of work?????
Well done Ruhama, The immigrant Council, Labour Women and the rest of the TORL, you are doing a great job at protecting women's rights!!:mad: Obviously escorts that work of their own free will and aren't victims, don't qualify as women to you!!!
Currently, a prostitute cannot meet another prostitute for any reason in a public place. Two prostitutes having a coffee or a meal together in a restaurant for instance, are breaking the law. Crazy isn't it.
Currently, a prostitute cannot meet another prostitute for any reason in a public place. Two prostitutes having a coffee or a meal together in a restaurant for instance, are breaking the law. Crazy isn't it.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
:yell: :yell: :yell: :yell:
ladiesman217
30-09-12, 22:48
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
:yell: :yell: :yell: :yell:
My sentiments exactly.
And there was I thinking humans were somewhat intelligent..... is it a prerequisite to get into power that you have to have a brain the size of an atom?
It's a bad joke. I'm half convinced them morons can't even figure out how to tie their shoes without assistance.
My sentiments exactly.
And there was I thinking humans were somewhat intelligent..... is it a prerequisite to get into power that you have to have a brain the size of an atom?
It's a bad joke. I'm half convinced them morons can't even figure out how to tie their shoes without assistance.
To be honest LDM, I think politicians and law makers are intelligent people (well some anyway), but all they really care about is votes.
So they will choose to listen or not listen to common sense depending on which they think will get them the most votes.
Labour should be a lot smarter though, seeing as they are the one party to have lost the most ground in opinion polls.
I certainly hope they don't think that bringing in the Swedish model or equivalent, and controlling the sex lives of consenting adults, will bring them any more votes in the next election.
Rachel Divine
01-10-12, 12:33
Currently, a prostitute cannot meet another prostitute for any reason in a public place. Two prostitutes having a coffee or a meal together in a restaurant for instance, are breaking the law. Crazy isn't it.
What a laugh! And you do post it on an open forum...
Rachel Divine
01-10-12, 17:16
A quick add to my post above.
Is nothing wrong of two prostitutes to walk on the street together, have a coffee, go for dinner, pub etc...
In case a client reads here and see me on the street with another escort and call the Guards saying we are not allowed on to walk on the street together... :D
The Equalizer
01-10-12, 17:49
Check the link below to see who are trying to pretend they are saints as of 29 September 2012:
http://www.ruhama.ie/page.php?intPageID=202
Keep an eye, and be warned; The Equalizer understands that a certain CEO of a certain organisation has a username under which they peruse this site.
The Equalizer-Guardian Angel of Escorts and Punters Alike
There are no laws in Ireland stopping two legally resident women that are suspected sex workers from having a meal or coffee together in a restaurant.
They are allowed meet in public and have coffee or a meal together so long as they don't solicit or importune people for sexual services.
They can't stop two legally resident women from having meals or coffee together in public, for fecks sake.
Soliciting or importuning for purposes of prostitution in public is illegal though.
7.—A person who in a street or public place solicits or importunes another person or other persons for the purposes of prostitution shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding—
Loitering for purposes of prostitution.
8.—(1) A member of the Garda Síochána who has reasonable cause to suspect that a person is loitering in a street or public place in order to solicit or importune another person or other persons for the purposes of prostitution may direct that person to leave immediately that street or public place
Just turn off phones and sex workers would not be committing a soliciting and importuning offense. They can't stop two legally resident women from having a meal or coffee together. Thats nonsense. Just switch off phones and don't loiter to solicit or importune. If you don't loiter to solicit or importune in a public place, then you are not a prostitute according to the law.
Look at the old UK law regarding two or more prostitutes 'congregating' in a public place. It's a public order offence and presumably relevent in the North of Ireland. Though, perhaps it's been amended since I read through the laws.