'Forced prostitution' BBC article

It would seem to make more sense for it to be illegal to buy and sell but to have sort of the reverse of how it seems to work with drugs - people buying not treated as harshly as dealers - so those selling sex would be more likely to end up with help than a record, and those buying would face the full force of the law. However, as I say, how easy it would be to prosecute those selling vs those buying would probably add a slant onto what was fair.

I definitely think buying should be illegal. But then how would we deal with men who buy sex from people being trafficked or who are under the age of consent? Would the fact that it's an illegal act in itself have any effect on greater punishments for such acts?

In the U.K it is legal to sell and buy sex except Northern Ireland where it is illegal to buy.

An activity facilitating the sale of sex such as brothels, pimps, madams, "minders", "maids" is illegal.

The pro punter lobby will tell you this disadvantages the notion of a cosy collective of 2 or 3 women sharing a flat for mutual protection - with a nice muscled chap there for backup and/or an older retired prostitute to give help to the younger women.

The reality is more likely shifts of women operating 24 hours out of a flat paying substantial shares to pimps and madame.

I would be for making it completely illegal to buy sex. I would not want to see the vulnerable people selling sex being the ones who end up with the punishment, so I'm not clear on if it should be illegal to sell sex - other than as a pimp. I don't know how the law works with things like this, though, so I'm happy to be educated by posters who know more.

There is a new law going through here in the Netherlands that makes it a criminal offense to have sex with anyone you reasonably expect could have been trafficked

I would not have thought it were that difficult for a punter to identify where there is a possibility a woman has been trafficked. But, unless the police catch them on a raid I doubt tracking down punters would be feasible.

The answer must then be buying sex is a strict liability offence and facilitating the sale of sex is a strict liability offence.

The term "Pay to rape" would be more accurate than "Forced prostitution".

There is a new law going through here in the Netherlands that makes it a criminal offense to have sex with anyone you reasonably expect could have been trafficked.

The UK passed that about 10 years ago. Zero convictions since it's basically impossible to enforce.

I've only just seen this thread - well, actually I read the news article which led me to here.
I think there is a lot of misconceptions about not only prostitutes but also the extent of it. That's women who are forced into prostitution.
Just read a book this weekend by a woman called Carol Thomas, Pure Purgatory in Portugal, about how an English woman was forced into prostitution and not only how the authorities wouldn't help (European and national) but also how she was not a typical victim - but she was turned into one.

I'll try and put a link in but the system might not let me. It's a strange story because you really don't think much untoward is going on at the start and then it builds and builds until she's slap bang in the middle.

Very worrying situation about what's really going on.
www.amazon.com/Pure-Purgatory-Portugal-prostitution-conspiracy-ebook/dp/B01N7Z8EDB/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1488804810&sr=1-1&keywords=carol+thomas+portugal&tag=mumsnetforum-21

The men that use prostitutes obviously don't care.

You would think so, wouldn't you, Mrs TP?

On BBC news today.

Thirty 'pop-up brothels' appear in Swindon each week - www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-38841587

I for one would be happy with that, Lass.

The law is ineffective because it requires a considerable amount of police work to prove to the standard of proof required by the criminal courts that the woman has been forced, coerced or deceived

So a clear argument for introducing strict liability. All purchased sex is illegal- no need to prove whether or not there was coercion.

Re why it doesn't get prosecuted, the site I've quoted below puts forward some other ideas:

The law is ineffective because it requires a considerable amount of police work to prove to the standard of proof required by the criminal courts that the woman has been forced, coerced or deceived. But the maximum sentence is only a level 3 fine and the police do not invest many resources into investigating offences that carry such a low penalty.

She goes on to say that it was basically lip service to keep women's rights activists happy.

Cross posted with other posters.

Yes, that was how I understood it too Mostly. I think they beefed up the SOA 2003 to try to make punters liable for raping women forced into prostitution? Though it's still not counted as rape per se. But it is a separate sexual offence to "pay for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force" and it's supposed to be irrelevant "whether A (punter) is, or ought to be, aware that C (pimp, trafficker) has engaged in exploitative conduct".

Section 53a Sexual Offences Act 2003.

In reality though it doesn't get prosecuted. And I don't think even where it does that it carries a custodial sentence.

I've actually found a list online (on pc and I'm on mobile so tricky to link)

Between 2010 when the law was first enacted and 2015 there were 58 prosecutions (not necessarily convictions) of which 40 were in the first year. In 2013 there were none, and 2014 there were only 3.

The site is thefeministahood if anyone wants to google.

On the other hand we could just make buying sex illegal in all circumstances. For anyone working in law, accountancy, teaching, medicine , financial services, the armed services , the emergency services, licensed taxi drivers , alcohol licensed trade and similar where the public is required to have an element of faith in the integrity of these individuals a conviction should result in a barring from work

Yes, absolutely. It's very clear that legalising doesn't work.

I think that's a huge question hedgehog, but I think the fact that trafficked women are often from difficult backgrounds and are not seen as valued members of society. It stinks, but if were predominantly middle class girls from some private school there would be a hell of a lot more outrage about it.

That specific law doesn't talk about trafficking - it talks about "exploitative conduct" (force, threats etc) which covers British women subject to abusive pimps as well.

Just tried to find the letter - unfortunately it was hard copy so I've put it somewhere (not sure where).

But yes, why is it not being prosecuted?

I wonder what the laws definition of trafficked is? Anyone know?

Oh that's interesting and heartening Hedgehog. Except of course it doesn't seem to be being used.
www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Sex-Workers-and-Policing-and-Crime-Act-2009

From the OP: "Is there no onus on men to find out if the women whose bodies they are using are even consenting according to the pathetically low standards of sex work? The idea that men using prostitutes don't have to worry about sex slavery is repulsive."

I wrote to my MP about this in the summer (to try to counter Keith Vaz's committee whitewashing prostitution as choicy-choice all good clean consensual fun). He wrote me a very supportive letter and passed my letter on to the home office, then sent me their reply.

Having sex with a trafficked woman is a "strict liability" offence already, apparently. (Strict liability means "but I didn't know, honest, gov" is no defence - it is the material fact that a man had sex with a trafficked woman which is the only thing that matters). So the law is already on the statute books - the problem is no-one is prosecuting the bastards.

I don't think they care. There was some other research done, asking men who used prostitutes if there was (something like ) 20% chance of a women being trafficked would they still have sex with her. And the majority said yes. The deterrent would come from the law for them, not morality.

I'm sorry I'm not quoting directly any of these studies. I did a lot of reading and research several years ago, and a lot of it is in books on my shelves. But I can't for the life of me remember what came from where.