Here is are a few questions for our Home Economics Minister (sorry Home Secretary) Jacqui Smith (of no specific address) wrt her planned law, due to come into force later this year, re prostitution.Under the new legislation a man will face prosecution if he pays for sex with a woman who is being "controlled for gain" by someone else.
In court he will not be able to argue he did not know the woman was being controlled, because ignorance is no defence.
Do you really think that this is provable in a court of law?
What about women who pay for sex?
To quote Gloucestershire Chief Constable Dr Tim Brain, he said that the complexity of the law may make gaining evidence hard.
"It will take a lot of unpicking to prove and therefore I am concerned that the deterrent effect the government was hoping to bring about will be lessened because the legislation is so complex."
Quite!
Aside from that I read today that male apes apparently give food for sex, will they be prosecuted too?
Re the concept of paying for "sex", what exactly does the word "sex" mean in terms of the law?
- Full scale intercourse?
- Slap and tickle?
- Dressing in women's underwear?
- Watching porn? etc
Many people get their rocks off in many different ways, as we know from reading the lurid stories about our MPs and their "sex" lives/proclivities.
Surely, it could be argued, that a man/woman who pays to watch porn is paying for sex?
Will Jacqui be bringing a prosecution case against her husband then?
I see also that Jac's Home Orifice had linked their website to a Japanese porn site the other day. Errmmm..who is running this shower?
The issue that our "respected" Home Secretary hasn't quite grasped is that once people think that you are corrupt and have become a joke, your career in politics is over.
Just a few thoughts.....
Over to you Hom Sec...
Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.
Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.
Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.
www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
Celebrate the joy of living with champagne. Click and drink!
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Ken, her 'illustrious career' in politics is indeed over. Her snout is still firmly in the trough though and will continue (via her gold plated pension) long after she and her ilk have been removed from parliament.
ReplyDeleteHell, best get the whoring out of my system now! You never know, I might bump into you in Soho, Ken.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, which bit do you mean is hard to prove in court? That a woman is being controlled?
Good grief, a Senior policeman called Brain qualified to PHD level?
ReplyDeleteMust be resistant to all humour I suppose.
"To quote Gloucestershire Chief Constable Dr Tim Brain, he said that the complexity of the law may make gaining evidence hard."
Mentioning jokes I suppose the old one about 'hard evidence' would be a bit passé here?
The word verification security for these comments is working overtime these days to be pertinent to the subject matter (which is worrying really) .
For this post it wants me to enter 'cackfixi'. Perfect.
So paying what I believe is termed a 'rentboy' for sex is okay then is it ? What about paying a transgendered person for it ? Once again, nanny and her minions show they have not got a clue.
ReplyDeleteStill, I suppose that within six months most of parliament will be banged up for their little peccadilloes...oh sorry, no they won't will they as there will be some wildly believable excuse as to exactly why they were caught with their pants down with a stick of rhubarb up their fundament in the company of an English model, discipline a speciality, ring top bell and ask for 'Deirdre'.
Sexually frustrated men will just have to make do with a j arthur rank over some porn films. After all, works for Jaqui's husband. Course, the average wanker can't bill them to the taxpayer though.
ReplyDeleteThese crazy proposals hae been dreamed up by clueless feminazis like Smith, Harman, and McTaggart who have convinced themselves, regardless of abundant evidence to the contrary, that all prostitutes are 'victims'.
ReplyDeleteHaving known many more prostitutes of both sexes than they have probably ever set eyes on, I can confidently say that this view is pig-ignorant nonsense. Of course there are unwilling prostitutes - 'sex slaves'who have been trafficked and terrorised into the trade, and who need legal and social protection. But they are almost certainly a small minority, and this law is not the right way to help them. It merely satisfies the puritanical prejudices of those sad idiots who think sex is basically dirty and regard all men as beasts and potential rapists.
The notion that the only 'pure' sex is when money isn't involved is ludicrous and would disqualify many marriages for a start.
Your comment, anticant, is all too true - I have female friends whose husbands/partners 'pay' for sex in the form of holidays etc. Women have been using sex as a bargaining tool since time immemorial (and BTW, I'm a woman (I'll now probably get jumped on by the sisters)).
ReplyDeleteJay
They don't mind you 'paying for sex' as long as you don't enjoy it.
ReplyDelete