Worst news ever

[liffey]

LadyVonTeese IANAL but my understanding is that under the Constitution (for what it's worth these days) offences cannot be prosecuted retrospectively.

So Advertising "Drain me dry" today cannot be used as evidence for an offence that doesn't exist today, or for an offence that may exist next year. Only actions and evidence occuring after the date of commencement of the legislation are admissable.


Oh, and bad news for anyone changing their SIM every few weeks... it doesn't make a whole lot of difference. The phone sends its IMEI every time it signs on to a network* so if someone is really serious about tracking you down they'll just match the IMEI number, not the SIM number. They'll know it's the same handset.


* there's a bit more to it, but let's keep it simple. If you want the details, search wikipedia for "IMSI catcher"

[simon2280]

As i said before:

"Where there is a will there will always be a way... the devil will be in the fine print. You can not arrest a man for having a sex with a woman he met through a website like "Ashlymadison," so how can you prove that they met for financially solicited sex.

It will be hard to prove it".

Hah! young Elizaparkeruk!, Yes the possibilities are many So lets not give M//S F,Fitzgerald anymore vote catching opportunities, The First Shots of the next Election, If She was sincere, She would ensure the police section responsible for Human Trafficking was Properly Resourced. Thanks M/S Fitzgerald for an other Opportunity to call for Legalisation and Regulation

[satisfaction]

The PSNI said the law was not workable.
And I would tend to agree.... unless they start kicking down doors and catching people in the act how can they prove it.

The whole thing is to make abolitionists feel good about themselves. There was a serious lobby group behind this and so it got pushed through. The Gardai are not going to bother with this nonsense.

[Davidontour]

I think it's worth remembering that a third of the clients in the recent QUB study assumed that what they were doing was already illegal. I suspect a large percentage of the public think it's already illegal as well.

Also remember that Sweden still have enough active clients to keep 1000+ sex workers employed in what is a relatively small country and judging by the number of client convictions, the chances of being caught are very low. The risk involved though, while it might actually enhance the experience for a few, will put a lot of clients off and unfortunately those are likely to be the nicer guys.

Despite what we might think, the govts in Ireland aren't stupid. They know this won't reduce coerced trafficking figures (which are already very low) and it won't eradicate prostitution. But it will act as a deterrent, it will show that 'something' is being done to avoid the 'normalisation' of buying sex and it just might give the likes of ruhama the chance to do something rather than going on junkets and making up statistics.

This has nothing to do with helping sex workers (whose views have been ignored and ridiculed throughout this process) and everything to do with extreme religionists, greedy NGOs and a certain misguided brand of feminist.

[greenie]

I think it's worth remembering that a third of the clients in the recent QUB study assumed that what they were doing was already illegal. I suspect a large percentage of the public think it's already illegal as well.

Also remember that Sweden still have enough active clients to keep 1000+ sex workers employed in what is a relatively small country and judging by the number of client convictions, the chances of being caught are very low. The risk involved though, while it might actually enhance the experience for a few, will put a lot of clients off and unfortunately those are likely to be the nicer guys.

Despite what we might think, the govts in Ireland aren't stupid. They know this won't reduce coerced trafficking figures (which are already very low) and it won't eradicate prostitution. But it will act as a deterrent, it will show that 'something' is being done to avoid the 'normalisation' of buying sex and it just might give the likes of ruhama the chance to do something rather than going on junkets and making up statistics.

This has nothing to do with helping sex workers (whose views have been ignored and ridiculed throughout this process) and everything to do with extreme religionists, greedy NGOs and a certain misguided brand of feminist.

Honestly I would have held that notion when i started out at this tomfoolery and that only changed when i delved further into this site and this message board.
Saying that i would see myself at this stage walking away when the law is introduced or maybe just keeping to the ladies i know or those established .
My fear would be a sting by the Gardai as how else will they police this

[Johnny Simpleton]

im not saying this on emotion, but i dont think it will be policed. its mainly for the trafficked women

is the trafficked women bit not an excuse or cover to hit us good ordinary clients

[Davidontour]

is the trafficked women bit not an excuse or cover to hit us good ordinary clients

Yes it is and the mask slipped a few weeks ago in Canada when a Canadian senator (regarding similar law) stated that he had no interest in the safety of sex workers. Likewise, Fitzgerald referred to ''buying girls'' and her concerns at sex work being ''normalised'' rather than the trafficking issue.

This is about disapproval of sex work. It's just a pity our law makers don't have the courage and honesty to admit it.

[liffey]

Here's a question which should be shouted from the rooftops, written to the papers, and even asked in the Dail...

If this stupid idea has been a failure/disaster in Sweden and Norway, and rejected by the Danes, Finns, French, Scots and English, why are we adopting it here?|

[Catriona]

Yes it is and the mask slipped a few weeks ago in Canada when a Canadian senator (regarding similar law) stated that he had no interest in the safety of sex workers. Likewise, Fitzgerald referred to ''buying girls'' and her concerns at sex work being ''normalised'' rather than the trafficking issue.

This is about disapproval of sex work. It's just a pity our law makers don't have the courage and honesty to admit it.

Regarding Canada, Vancouver City are actually not going to implement this law but pay attention to sex worker safety.

[Davidontour]

Regarding Canada, Vancouver City are actually not going to implement this law but pay attention to sex worker safety.

I did hear this mentioned, but in practical terms how while that work? I can just hear some senator complaining that all the sex workers will move to Vancouver.