I feel really proud of our government today.

[ohIdoliketobebesidethe]

here

a cautious from me

Christ yes - I was made up when I heard it thi morning. I wonder whether the 'knowingly pays illegally trafficked women' bit will be incredibly hard to prove though?

Wouldn't legalising prostitution also remove pimps though?

and also

How will the user of the prostitute know the girl is controleld by a pimp? will the girl have to wear a little badge saying "I have a pimp"?

disclaimer: I'm only asking based on the news snippet I heard this morning. am off to read the article now.

I'm sure it will be too hard to prove but they'll still get a criminal record and a fine just skip the rape charge. (Like all the other rapists).

Ok have read article. I think it means nothing.

I don't really care if someone gets caught because they didn't realise. That's their problem not mine.

'Wouldn't legalising prostitution also remove pimps though?
'

some i suppose but (and this is gesswork) I think iirc that legalisation would involve tests for std etc- now there will always be a black market of non tested prostitutes no? Also ones who are willing do be unregulated for the chance of £20 (or whatever hal;f the going rate is) towards a hit who would then be vunerable- also black amrket girls of course

So how exactly does that help the girls who are being prostitued against their will?

Are you just anti prostitution? or are you really, genuinely concerned about the girls who are actually victims of people trafficking for the sex trade? not attacking, just trying to understand your poiont of view.

I think legalising prostitution would far better protect the women who are being foraced todo this against their will..

I'm sure most men would rather go to someone trading legally and who was getting regular health checks etc than to some underground bedsit to see a girl who is kept there as a prisoner.

I am against the trafficking thing but I'm not keen on prostitution per se either.

I think it will help by reducing demand. The statistics on the increase in prostitute use over the last few years is staggering.

I'm quite interested in this but have to get back to work now (unfortuantely) however I do feel this is a non-law.. I doubt it will chaneg anything, it won't reduce the numbers of people using prostitutes (not dramatically anywa) and I doubt very much it will even do anything wrt peopel trafficking, I don't even think it will begin to the scratch the surfice.

I think the governmant was in need of an attention seeikng new idea adn this is it.. I think it's all just a bit of noise.

I will be interested to see teh statistics a year after this is implemented, realistically I will expect nothing to have chnaged.

Good old Jacqui, another law that sounds good, but hasn't been thought through. I think she scribbles them on napkins in restaurants and bars.

Ms Smith said the government had considered banning paying for sex altogether but had ruled this out as there was no public support for such a move.>>

Anyone who knowingly pays illegally trafficked women for sex could face rape charges>>

Pleading ignorance of the circumstances under which a prostitute is working will not count as a defence

Onager - you can make the same argument about under age sex - there being no way to check.

Men paying for sex need to face up to the fact that most women doing it are not consenting adults.

Theres obviously no way to actually check but I think most men can make an educated guess.
If a client goes to a brothel where all the girls are foreign, covered in bruises and not allowed to speak there's a fairly good chance she might be trafficked.

ohIdoliketobebesidethe, and your point is?

Suppose a 19 year old flirts with a barmaid and she sleeps with him. He has every reason to think she is old enough (doesn't know she is working behind the bar illegally) but then finds out she was really 15. This is rape?

They can make all sex for money illegal if they want. Doing it this way is just stupid and unjust.

As for 'educated guess' it seems they are including kerb crawlers in this. You might well assume a woman standing on the street and not in chains was there of her own free will.

You would have to pay ME to go with a prostitute and it would have to be an awful lot of money too, but messed up laws only encourage contempt for all laws

Let's remove consentual under age sex from the equation.. it has no relation to either.. consentual sex for money or sex with a trafficked women who receives no money even though her pimp does.

"Men paying for sex need to face up to the fact that most women doing it are not consenting adults. " by ohIdolike

On that note.. I don't actually think that os an accurate statistic. I've not time to research but I would hazard a guess that actually most of the prostitues in this contry are consenting adults (regardless of the circumstances that surround that)

We are not talking about rape, that's already illegal.. we are talking about prostitution, sex for money.

The 19 yr old would not get prosecuted in that circumstance as you know. It is however a good law to have and is used appropriately.

The kerb crawling is a separate issue to trafficking. It is already illegal but they are now going to prosecute for a first offence.

The rape charge was only for men who "pay a prostitute for sex knowing they have been trafficked against their will"
Well that is rape in my book. They know they are not consenting in that situation. Unlikely it will ever be proved.

I don't want to live in a country where a man can have sex with a woman who he thinks is being coerced and know he can get away with it.

"Anyone who knowingly pays illegally trafficked women for sex could face rape charges"

surely this provision will kill the law dead in it's tracks as the mens rea now includes pre-knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the womans motivations to prostitute herself as well as the intent to pay for sex illegally.
all men will now have to do is not ask any questions regarding trafficking and they will not have knowingly paid for a trafficked prostitue.

i SHOULD THINK IT WILL WORK A BIT LIKE HANDING STOLEN GOODS. If a man comes up to you in a pub and offers to sell you a racing bike for a fiver it won't get you off the hook to say 'I just didn't ask.'
A jury is allowed to construe that in some circumstances you must have 'known' it was stolen even if it wasn't said implicitly.

I knew what this thread was about without opening the link because I felt proud as well.

And yes, Litchick, it will work as you outline: ignorance won't be allowed as a defence.

smallwhitecat - I abhor prostitution, I despise the fact that men use prostitutes but I'm not sure, when the transaction is consensual (which is rare), I would want to outlaw it.