Lots of discussions on tv and radio about what ken clarke said about this weekend,Imagine this scenario. A swinging couple meet another swinging couple and agree to swap,same room fun,groping goes well but as one male goes to the toilet for 5 mins and returns he's confronted with his partner and the other couple getting dressed as the other male has "finished" playing with the guy's partner who went to ended the "fun", but the agreement was both parties swapped,apart from feeling cheated is this classed as ?
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
RAPE
Sex God
Quote by cockslut
Lots of discussions on tv and radio about what ken clarke said about this weekend,Imagine this scenario. A swinging couple meet another swinging couple and agree to swap,same room fun,groping goes well but as one male goes to the toilet for 5 mins and returns he's confronted with his partner and the other couple getting dressed as the other male has "finished" playing with the guy's partner who went to ended the "fun", but the agreement was both parties swapped,apart from feeling cheated is this classed as ?
No, definitely not . The wife of toilet guy could have insisted on waiting - she was obviously happy enough to continue! Wife of other guy must have had second thoughts about playing with toilet guy, hmm?
Some really odd situations can arise in the "swinging scene" ...I (Ron) know of several couples where the lady is really turned on by "play ".
I was in a Hotel room a short while ago ...where the lady appeared completely unwilling to play and her partner got very abusive towards her and said ....we'll the fucking bitch ! I was completely shocked and of course and refused to take part until he grabbed me by the arm took me into the toilet and explained the situation to me.
Ron
I was in a Hotel room a short while ago ...where the lady appeared completely unwilling to play and her partner got very abusive towards her and said ....we'll the fucking bitch ! I was completely shocked and of course and refused to take part until he grabbed me by the arm took me into the toilet and explained the situation to me.
Ron
Orgasminator
Quote by DomRon69
Some really odd situations can arise in the "swinging scene" ...I (Ron) know of several couples where the lady is really turned on by "play ".
I was in a Hotel room a short while ago ...where the lady appeared completely unwilling to play and her partner got very abusive towards her and said ....we'll the fucking bitch ! I was completely shocked and of course and refused to take part until he grabbed me by the arm took me into the toilet and explained the situation to me.
Ron
but unless she had said so shouldnt you still have refused? a game is ok but all need to be aware of the rules
Sex God
Quote by cockslut
Lots of discussions on tv and radio about what ken clarke said about this weekend,Imagine this scenario. A swinging couple meet another swinging couple and agree to swap,same room fun,groping goes well but as one male goes to the toilet for 5 mins and returns he's confronted with his partner and the other couple getting dressed as the other male has "finished" playing with the guy's partner who went to ended the "fun", but the agreement was both parties swapped,apart from feeling cheated is this classed as ?
Where is the in this case? 2 people had sex, 2 others didn't.
is where one person has forcible sex with another. What he Americans call statutory is an adult having sex with a minor regardless of how willing the minor siad they were.
I think Ken Clarke was trying to distinguish between the cases of 'true' and those of a 16 year-old having sex with his 15 year-old gf.
It is time the government woke up and changed the law, we need a new law governing the situation where an adult (over 16 in this case) has sex with a minor (under 16)
At the moment some poor bloke can go to a nightclub (average minimum admission age 21) pick up a girl he believes (and the club believes) is over 21, have sex with her only to be later charged with because it turns out that she is under 16, so many girls can dress to make themselves look over 21 what chance has a guy got knowing she is under 16.
Having his life ruined with a charge hanging over him is disgusting especially since the minor gets away without any charges whatsoever yet she is the only one who knows that what they are doing is illegal. Surely an alternative charge can be found/legislated. Does the guy really deserve to be charged with , doesn't this confuse people about what is ? surely is having sex with someone against thier will either by force or some other method (victim asleep or drugged for instance).
Different in the case of someone over the age of 16 having sex with someone under the age of consent and knowing thier age, often 14 and 15 year olds have been known to get pregnant to 19-21 year old boyfriends without any charges being brought against them, why is that ?
Even rarer is the conviction of a woman having sex with an underage boy.
Younger women on here, if you are around the age of 18 - 24 would you be happy to carry your ID around a swingers club or party with you so that anyone playing with you can check your ID first, and I mean driving licence or passport not one of the easily faked "passes" ? Has any SH member arranging a meet with you ever asked you for proof of age ? could they not be guilty of "intention to commit " if they do not check, after all they are meeting with the intention of having sex with someone who may or may not be over the legal age of consent ?
Food for thought methinks
At the moment some poor bloke can go to a nightclub (average minimum admission age 21) pick up a girl he believes (and the club believes) is over 21, have sex with her only to be later charged with because it turns out that she is under 16, so many girls can dress to make themselves look over 21 what chance has a guy got knowing she is under 16.
Having his life ruined with a charge hanging over him is disgusting especially since the minor gets away without any charges whatsoever yet she is the only one who knows that what they are doing is illegal. Surely an alternative charge can be found/legislated. Does the guy really deserve to be charged with , doesn't this confuse people about what is ? surely is having sex with someone against thier will either by force or some other method (victim asleep or drugged for instance).
Different in the case of someone over the age of 16 having sex with someone under the age of consent and knowing thier age, often 14 and 15 year olds have been known to get pregnant to 19-21 year old boyfriends without any charges being brought against them, why is that ?
Even rarer is the conviction of a woman having sex with an underage boy.
Younger women on here, if you are around the age of 18 - 24 would you be happy to carry your ID around a swingers club or party with you so that anyone playing with you can check your ID first, and I mean driving licence or passport not one of the easily faked "passes" ? Has any SH member arranging a meet with you ever asked you for proof of age ? could they not be guilty of "intention to commit " if they do not check, after all they are meeting with the intention of having sex with someone who may or may not be over the legal age of consent ?
Food for thought methinks
Quote by MidsCouple24
It is time the government woke up and changed the law, we need a new law governing the situation where an adult (over 16 in this case) has sex with a minor (under 16)
There are provisions already in existence to cover this within the Sexual Offences Act - it is called the "Young Man's Defence". Have a look for it online to save me retyping it all out.
Quote by MidsCouple24
At the moment some poor bloke can go to a nightclub (average minimum admission age 21) pick up a girl he believes (and the club believes) is over 21, have sex with her only to be later charged with because it turns out that she is under 16, so many girls can dress to make themselves look over 21 what chance has a guy got knowing she is under 16.
He has no chance - what the law is saying is do not have sex with girls where there may be a chance that she is below the age of consent.
Quote by MidsCouple24
Having his life ruined with a charge hanging over him is disgusting especially since the minor gets away without any charges whatsoever yet she is the only one who knows that what they are doing is illegal.
A minor - is a child, where do you draw the line on having . Of course she should not have to answer for any of it.
Quote by MidsCouple24
Surely an alternative charge can be found/legislated. Does the guy really deserve to be charged with , doesn't this confuse people about what is ? surely is having sex with someone against thier will either by force or some other method (victim asleep or drugged for instance).
No - is sexual intercourse without consent - it has nothing to do with their will. A 15 year old can be more than willing to engage in sex, but she cannot give consent, and therefore any sexual intercourse will by definition be .
Quote by MidsCouple24
Different in the case of someone over the age of 16 having sex with someone under the age of consent and knowing thier age, often 14 and 15 year olds have been known to get pregnant to 19-21 year old boyfriends without any charges being brought against them, why is that ?
Probably because it is not in the public interest - the public will be paying for much of the child's upbringing without paying for the fees of a court case where it does not really matter whether the defendant is charged or not as the victim is not willing to press charges.
Quote by MidsCouple24
Even rarer is the conviction of a woman having sex with an underage boy.
It happens, especially in education settings.
Quote by MidsCouple24
Younger women on here, if you are around the age of 18 - 24 would you be happy to carry your ID around a swingers club or party with you so that anyone playing with you can check your ID first, and I mean driving licence or passport not one of the easily faked "passes" ? Has any SH member arranging a meet with you ever asked you for proof of age ? could they not be guilty of "intention to commit " if they do not check, after all they are meeting with the intention of having sex with someone who may or may not be over the legal age of consent ?
Food for thought methinks
is , it is sex without consent irrespective of the age of the parties involved or where it take place.
Sex God
Quote by HimandHer
Different in the case of someone over the age of 16 having sex with someone under the age of consent and knowing thier age, often 14 and 15 year olds have been known to get pregnant to 19-21 year old boyfriends without any charges being brought against them, why is that ?
Probably because it is not in the public interest - the public will be paying for much of the child's upbringing without paying for the fees of a court case where it does not really matter whether the defendant is charged or not as the victim is not willing to press charges.
Quote by HimandHer
is , it is sex without consent irrespective of the age of the parties involved or where it take place.
Huge contradiction there HimandHer. The girl who got pregnant could not give consent and neither could the girl in the nightclub according to how you see it. Both men regardless of relationship are then guilty of the same crime so you cant treat them any differently. Whats public interest got to do with it? Also the pregnant girl may not be bringing charges but then again neither normally is the girl in the nightclub. Its usually the authorities or the parents.
All of your points fall down on that one. The area is not black and white an neither should the law be.
Quote by tweeky
Huge contradiction there HimandHer. The girl who got pregnant could not give consent and neither could the girl in the nightclub according to how you see it.
That is correct - that is how I see it, because that is how it is. There is no contradiction, if there was a contradiction then I would say that one case should be treated differently to the other. I am not saying that therefore no contradiction exists.
Quote by tweeky
Both men regardless of relationship are then guilty of the same crime so you cant treat them any differently.
That is exactly it. So where is the contradiction that you are referring to.
Quote by tweeky
Whats public interest got to do with it?
Do you know how the CPS operates? The public interest is absolutely everything to do with it. Do not confuse "whether the public will be interested in it", with "being in the public interest". The public interest is whether it in the interests of Public Law to pursue the case and not whether the public (as in the general populous) want to see the case prosecuted.
Essentially it comes down to time, money, evidence and whether the case will be likely to succeed. There are many cases of where the victim will not give evidence, whether it be the case that they are traumatised by the episode or for other reasons. If the victim is not willing to press charges, then without the presence of other substantive evidence, any prosecution is bound to fail - it is therefore prima facie not in the public interest to proceed if the victim will not testify.
Quote by tweeky
Also the pregnant girl may not be bringing charges but then again neither normally is the girl in the nightclub. Its usually the authorities or the parents.
Remember - this is hardcore law. You cannot " " an authority, and unless the parents were actually there at the time or have other substantive evidence to determine that occured, then neither they nor the authorities can bring a case of against a third party (in law it is called locus standii). If they have the evidence that it occured of course, then they can provide sufficient witness testimony, but the victim needs to bring the case and provide the evidence if the case is likely to suceed.
Quote by tweeky
All of your points fall down on that one. The area is not black and white an neither should the law be.
WRONG. The law is black and white - you can Google it and look it up and read it word for word. That is entirely the problem with , there are too many variables for it all to be codified in one comfortable reading package.
It is absolutely the case that the law should be black and white - I accept that you do not think it should be... but how are lawyers likely to arrive at a decision on a case for a prosecution or a defence if there are no rules of predictability to follow.
How would you feel if you "accidentally" killed someone, but were prosecuted for murder... and the reason given by the judge was that the law was not black and white.
Quote by HimandHer
It is absolutely the case that the law should be black and white - I accept that you do not think it should be... but how are lawyers likely to arrive at a decision on a case for a prosecution or a defence if there are no rules of predictability to follow.
Agreed. The law is black and white. Decisions are guilty or not guilty.
If found guilty then sentancing can then fall back on mitigation. This is where judges can have a decision and look at the information surrounding the case.
Dave_Notts
Sex God
Quote by HimandHer
Huge contradiction there HimandHer. The girl who got pregnant could not give consent and neither could the girl in the nightclub according to how you see it.
That is correct - that is how I see it, because that is how it is. There is no contradiction, if there was a contradiction then I would say that one case should be treated differently to the other. I am not saying that therefore no contradiction exists.
Quote by tweeky
Both men regardless of relationship are then guilty of the same crime so you cant treat them any differently.
That is exactly it. So where is the contradiction that you are referring to.
Quote by tweeky
Whats public interest got to do with it?
Do you know how the CPS operates? The public interest is absolutely everything to do with it. Do not confuse "whether the public will be interested in it", with "being in the public interest". The public interest is whether it in the interests of Public Law to pursue the case and not whether the public (as in the general populous) want to see the case prosecuted.
Essentially it comes down to time, money, evidence and whether the case will be likely to succeed. There are many cases of where the victim will not give evidence, whether it be the case that they are traumatised by the episode or for other reasons. If the victim is not willing to press charges, then without the presence of other substantive evidence, any prosecution is bound to fail - it is therefore prima facie not in the public interest to proceed if the victim will not testify.
Quote by tweeky
Also the pregnant girl may not be bringing charges but then again neither normally is the girl in the nightclub. Its usually the authorities or the parents.
Remember - this is hardcore law. You cannot " " an authority, and unless the parents were actually there at the time or have other substantive evidence to determine that occured, then neither they nor the authorities can bring a case of against a third party (in law it is called locus standii). If they have the evidence that it occured of course, then they can provide sufficient witness testimony, but the victim needs to bring the case and provide the evidence if the case is likely to suceed.
Quote by tweeky
All of your points fall down on that one. The area is not black and white an neither should the law be.
WRONG. The law is black and white - you can Google it and look it up and read it word for word. That is entirely the problem with , there are too many variables for it all to be codified in one comfortable reading package.
It is absolutely the case that the law should be black and white - I accept that you do not think it should be... but how are lawyers likely to arrive at a decision on a case for a prosecution or a defence if there are no rules of predictability to follow.
How would you feel if you "accidentally" killed someone, but were prosecuted for murder... and the reason given by the judge was that the law was not black and white.
Neatly sidestepping the main question I left you with
22 year old man gets 15 year old girl pregnant: in your view
22 year old man has sex with 15 year old he met in a night club: again in your view
Niehter girl is old enough to give consent and you are looking for them to bring a case? There are too many holes in this. Take the first scenario. Lets say they are in a relationship they have the baby and live together for 6 months then it all goes pear shaped. Now she decides its
She can give evidence so will the law now prosecute a man who had a relationship and lived with raised a baby for 6 months? I doubt the case would get anywhere at all but both men are still guilty of the same crime. The word of the law may be black and white but it still wont be applied in that way which make it an unsafe system.It may seem that these scenarios are unlikely though I can say that I am guilty of both. I didnt get Mrs Tweeky Pregnant (then
) but she was 15 when I met her. I was also once told that one girl I had several sexual experiences with when I was 20ish was in fact three years younger than she had led everyone to believe. Ive never ascertained if thats actually true but it would put me in the first scenario above. It leads me to the below conclusion.Its all a load of random bullshit used against people when circumstances conspire against them. I was lucky others are not thought the law would say we are criminal I would say we are not. It certainly is not applied in a black and white manner even if the text is black and white.
Quote by Dave__Notts
It is absolutely the case that the law should be black and white - I accept that you do not think it should be... but how are lawyers likely to arrive at a decision on a case for a prosecution or a defence if there are no rules of predictability to follow.
Agreed. The law is black and white. Decisions are guilty or not guilty.
If found guilty then sentancing can then fall back on mitigation. This is where judges can have a decision and look at the information surrounding the case.
Dave_Notts
Exactly.
And this is where the different sentencing regimes are applied - the example that Mr Clarke was giving was that a person accused of would get his tarrif reduced by a set amount depending on how early he pleaded guilty during the proceedings.
The offence of is pretty clear - it is these sentencing guidelines that are at issue, many people will say that a is a criminal, albeit at the extremes of criminal behavior and engaged in one of the most abhorent crimes - but a criminal nonetheless.
In other branches of sentancing (except murder, where the sentance is fixed by law), there is scope to alter tarrifs for sentencing - so why not ?
Of course the answer is that you cannot compare a and the indeterminable emotional and physical damage that is left in the wake of a - with a shop lifter, whose damage is measured by way of pure economic loss and is easily quantifiable, foreseeable and capable of being insured against.
This is the problem that needs to be addressed, and the correct answer is out there somewhere, but perhaps its place is not in hardcore law.
Quote by tweeky
Neatly sidestepping the main question I left you with
22 year old man gets 15 year old girl pregnant: in your view
22 year old man has sex with 15 year old he met in a night club: again in your view
Niehter girl is old enough to give consent and you are looking for them to bring a case? There are too many holes in this.
There is no "neat sidestepping" and I resent the implication albeit you are free to make it, afterall this is the internet.
I have cut the rest of the scenario you go on to explain, as it is irrelevant to the issue of . It does not matter what happens after the fact - it is the fact that matters.
So for the avoidance of doubt - the two scenarios that you outline are both - this not my view it is the view of the legislators of the Sexual Offences Act.
As to whether "I" am looking for them to bring a case... well there are lots of people who do not bring charges for lots of different reasons. However... and again to avoid "side stepping" the issue....
If you read my post earlier, which you clearly did not - you will see that a 22 year old man who has sexual intercourse with a 15 year old girl, will be able to invoke the "Young Man's Defence" - he may still be charged with , but the crime reduced to sexual acitivity with a child or some lessor offence.
However (and I appreciate this is not in your scenario - but I include it to avoid further allegations of "side stepping" the issue), if the man was 50 for instance, then he would not be able to call upon the "young man's defence", and he would have to rely on other defences to escape a conviction for .
If there are any other matters that have been neatly sidestepped then please highlight them and I will try and express myself more clearly.
The Law is NOT black and white, it is supposed to be but another colour is added to the mix, the CPS. a crime is committed but the CPS decide wether or not to pursue a conviction, costs too much, evidence a bit shaky, courts too busy, prisons to full.
Some politicians were recently charged with claiming expenses they were not entitled to, someone, somewhere decided to prosecute some but not others, shouldn't every single one have been charged so that that a court of law could decided who was guilty of fraud and who simply made a mistake ?
Often people are not charged with offences for financial reasons, "not in the public interest" so the Law is NOT black and white, a law that says xxxxx is illegal should read xxxxx is illegal but permitted if the CPS deem it not worth going to trial for.
Hard to secure a conviction if the 15 yr old girl does not testify against partner that got her pregnant ? I heard there was something called DNA that is permissable as evidence in a court of law!
I understand the CPS and that sometimes the decsions they make are necessary but don't defend a bunch of people who are not Judges actually deciding a persons fate before they have been tried in a court of law, that is the job of the judges, that is what we have a legal system for not for civil servants without a law degree to decide.
If we are to respect the law then it must be equal to all, in your own words, some women are tried for of a minor, some, why not all, why "especially in the education system" if a child cannot give consent it doesn't matter if it is consent to a teacher or a cook, that would be for a judge to consider when sentancing, obviously using a position of trust to seduce a child might be worthy of a more serious punishment than a chance encounter for instance.
Some politicians were recently charged with claiming expenses they were not entitled to, someone, somewhere decided to prosecute some but not others, shouldn't every single one have been charged so that that a court of law could decided who was guilty of fraud and who simply made a mistake ?
Often people are not charged with offences for financial reasons, "not in the public interest" so the Law is NOT black and white, a law that says xxxxx is illegal should read xxxxx is illegal but permitted if the CPS deem it not worth going to trial for.
Hard to secure a conviction if the 15 yr old girl does not testify against partner that got her pregnant ? I heard there was something called DNA that is permissable as evidence in a court of law!
I understand the CPS and that sometimes the decsions they make are necessary but don't defend a bunch of people who are not Judges actually deciding a persons fate before they have been tried in a court of law, that is the job of the judges, that is what we have a legal system for not for civil servants without a law degree to decide.
If we are to respect the law then it must be equal to all, in your own words, some women are tried for of a minor, some, why not all, why "especially in the education system" if a child cannot give consent it doesn't matter if it is consent to a teacher or a cook, that would be for a judge to consider when sentancing, obviously using a position of trust to seduce a child might be worthy of a more serious punishment than a chance encounter for instance.
Quote by MidsCouple24
The Law is NOT black and white, it is supposed to be but another colour is added to the mix, the CPS. a crime is committed but the CPS decide wether or not to pursue a conviction, costs too much, evidence a bit shaky, courts too busy, prisons to full.
The law cannot deviate, therefore it is black and white.
The CPS (some in that organisation do hold a law degree) will look at the evidence and decide if it has the realistic chance of securing a conviction. If they think it will then they see if it is in the public interest to pursue through the courts. If it passes these then possibly it will go to court.
If the evidence is shaky then it may waste public money pursuing a case that will not result in a conviction. That seems sensible to me
Dave_Notts
Quote by Dave__Notts
The law cannot deviate, therefore it is black and white.
Dave_Notts
Not quite so fast Dave. English law is not so "black and white" as you suggest. If it were, there would be no need for the courts or a justice system, just a police state with summary justice meted out - just as you might find under Sharia Law. I think the west is far more civilised than that.
English law is made up of Statute and Common Law. Parliament makes the rules but it is the Courts which develop Case Law. The decisions, interpretations made by judges while deciding on the legal issues before them are considered as the common law or as an aid for interpretation of a law in subsequent cases with similar conditions.
Moreover, there is discretion in the application of the law. Picture Basil Fawlty beating himself with the branch of a tree in one of the famous episodes; If everyone, every time they commit an offence, either punish themselves or are subjected to the weight of the justice system, there would be no need for Police as everyone would just turn themselves in! An unlikely scenario indeed.
The Police exercise discretion in the application of the law. You commit a minor offence, parking for example - an absolute offence because of the presence of yellow lines and your car parked on them but the law does deviate. The officer asks you to move on. You have committed an offence but have not been brought to justice for it.
You can write laws in black and white but then you add the human element, police officers, victims, CPS, Judges, Magistrates and The Home Office.
Thier introduction to the equation changes law, some decide not to prosecute even though they believe a crime has been committed, a victim will not press charges or give evidence, a policeman decides a warning is sufficient, the CPS decide it is not in the public interest to take the case any further, the Home Office issue guidelines on how offences should be dealt with, Magistrates and Judges decide not to impose a punishment.
Laws are often interpreted differently, carrying a concealed weapon is and offence but the offence is ignored on religious or cultural (Sikhs and Gurkhas carry concealed knives as part of thier culture and for religious reasons) so those who enforce the law choose to see this as being different to those who carry a concealed weapon perhaps for the purpose of commiting a crime.
Diplomatic Immunity renders many laws useless, black and white says it something is illegal, the grey area of diplomatic immunity says "yes it's illegal but you cannot be prosecuted or punished for it"
Ideal world not here yet......... Real world very different to black and white
Thier introduction to the equation changes law, some decide not to prosecute even though they believe a crime has been committed, a victim will not press charges or give evidence, a policeman decides a warning is sufficient, the CPS decide it is not in the public interest to take the case any further, the Home Office issue guidelines on how offences should be dealt with, Magistrates and Judges decide not to impose a punishment.
Laws are often interpreted differently, carrying a concealed weapon is and offence but the offence is ignored on religious or cultural (Sikhs and Gurkhas carry concealed knives as part of thier culture and for religious reasons) so those who enforce the law choose to see this as being different to those who carry a concealed weapon perhaps for the purpose of commiting a crime.
Diplomatic Immunity renders many laws useless, black and white says it something is illegal, the grey area of diplomatic immunity says "yes it's illegal but you cannot be prosecuted or punished for it"
Ideal world not here yet......... Real world very different to black and white
Quote by foxylady2209
Lots of discussions on tv and radio about what ken clarke said about this weekend,Imagine this scenario. A swinging couple meet another swinging couple and agree to swap,same room fun,groping goes well but as one male goes to the toilet for 5 mins and returns he's confronted with his partner and the other couple getting dressed as the other male has "finished" playing with the guy's partner who went to ended the "fun", but the agreement was both parties swapped,apart from feeling cheated is this classed as ?
Where is the in this case? 2 people had sex, 2 others didn't.
is where one person has forcible sex with another. What he Americans call statutory is an adult having sex with a minor regardless of how willing the minor siad they were.
I think Ken Clarke was trying to distinguish between the cases of 'true' and those of a 16 year-old having sex with his 15 year-old gf.
so are you saying if a prostitute agrees sex with a client for financial reward and he refuses to pay after the sex act took place, was she robbed not ?
Orgasminator
Quote by cockslut
Lots of discussions on tv and radio about what ken clarke said about this weekend,Imagine this scenario. A swinging couple meet another swinging couple and agree to swap,same room fun,groping goes well but as one male goes to the toilet for 5 mins and returns he's confronted with his partner and the other couple getting dressed as the other male has "finished" playing with the guy's partner who went to ended the "fun", but the agreement was both parties swapped,apart from feeling cheated is this classed as ?
Where is the in this case? 2 people had sex, 2 others didn't.
is where one person has forcible sex with another. What he Americans call statutory is an adult having sex with a minor regardless of how willing the minor siad they were.
I think Ken Clarke was trying to distinguish between the cases of 'true' and those of a 16 year-old having sex with his 15 year-old gf.
so are you saying if a prostitute agrees sex with a client for financial reward and he refuses to pay after the sex act took place, was she robbed not ?
according to pretty woman and secret diary of a call girl etc (only reference i have of such matters) payment is done before hand
Quote by sara2010
according to pretty woman and secret diary of a call girl etc (only reference i have of such matters) payment is done before hand
The issue is one of - a prositute who consents to sex is a consenting party, therefore she cannot be subjected to irrespective of whether she is paid for the services she provides... or not.
The issue of being paid or services, and enforcing payment for services finds its basis in "contract law". A prostitute could sue for non-payment of sexual services granted, in the same way that a builder can sue a househoulder for not paying for their house to be painted...
... however
A builder and a householder have a legally enforceable contract - whereas a prostitute and a client do not. The legal relationship regarding payment between a prostitute and their client is called an "unconscionable bargain" and is not enforceable in law.
Quote by MidsCouple24
Laws are often interpreted differently, carrying a concealed weapon is and offence but the offence is ignored on religious or cultural (Sikhs and Gurkhas carry concealed knives as part of thier culture and for religious reasons) so those who enforce the law choose to see this as being different to those who carry a concealed weapon perhaps for the purpose of commiting a crime.
Where are the statistics for this? How many people have carried knives in public places in a concealed manner and have subsequently claimed "It's OK I'm a Gurkha" in order to escape prosecution.
Quote by MidsCouple24
Diplomatic Immunity renders many laws useless, black and white says it something is illegal, the grey area of diplomatic immunity says "yes it's illegal but you cannot be prosecuted or punished for it"
How is it a grey area? You are either liable or you are not. In the case of immunity... well the clue is in the title. Immunity works both ways remember.
