Sex trade investigation launched by Cheltenham councillors

“Which one do we wish to go on then for this 'imaginary' problem?

http://tinyurl.com/afa5v42

http://tinyurl.com/ala7s5s

http://tinyurl.com/a5sv7fd

http://tinyurl.com/a9vba6x

http://tinyurl.com/bcvmpgo

http://tinyurl.com/bfhzsvl

http://tinyurl.com/bacqmyr

http://tinyurl.com/bkmb2sf

All found in less than 10 seconds. No, not any sex workers or illegal immigrants in the sex trade ever in Cheltenham, stop burying your heads in the sand!”

“PS. That should read Glos. Echo 14/09/2012”

“"A man and a woman have been charged with conspiring to manage a brothel following a police operation in Cheltenham on Wednesday." Glos Echo 4/09/2012

While the Council sits and writes strategies the Police take pragmatic action. There must be a moral in there somewhere.”

“On a realistic plane - a council which has no role or authority over the flesh-trade or in any related criminal or social issues thinking it will influence the trade or how it will be regulated - why don't they just get on with their allocated responsibilities and duties rather than pretending they will make any difference to the trade or user amenities - unless they set council managed brothels as part of Cheltenham's economy regeneration - some councils invest in housing or supermarkets, even pubs, so why not brothels, to improve their finances and reduce council tax.”

“good thinking Bonkin, but what about our local papers, with their ads in the back pages?”

“Late Night Levy - A tax on bars and restaurants but will they tax the supermarkets and corner shops for the alcohol they sell that is used to "pre load" before a night out causing a lot of the drunkenness!”

“Scorpio2010 - interesting comments - would the council and councillors be accused of living off immoral earnings if they decide to levy business rates on the trade ( not sure if they do already).

Is sharing income from the sex-trade with the ladies of the night, and their vice-managers (pimps) constitute living off immoral earnings?. Is that the real objective of the exercise?”

“Galloping bear – I can answer Part 3 of Councillor Driver's motion without the need for a Working Group.

Let me start with the Late Night Levy which I believe takes effect from October this year under the provisions of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. The Home Office explains it thus "The levy will empower local areas to charge businesses that supply alcohol late into the night for the extra enforcement costs that the night-time economy generates for police and licensing authorities." The levy will apply to the whole of the authority's area with some exemptions available. It goes on to state "There will be restrictions on the types of services that licensing authorities can fund with the levy revenue to ensure that levy is spent on tackling alcohol-related crime and disorder and services connected to the management of the night-time economy." No mention of the "sex trade" I'm afraid. CBC can try it on if they wish but if I was them I wouldn't bank on it and I'd anticipate a big legal bill on appeal.

It could be that Councillor Driver may well have been thinking of the Licensing fee income when she refers to "funding from the night time economy". In which case the Council should have regard to a recent High Court ruling when Westminster City Council's licensing fee regime was challenged by seven owners of thirteen sex shops in Soho and Covent Garden. The claimants' barrister, Philip Kolvin QC argued that Westminster was prevented from making a profit from the licensing fee regime. This meant there should be an account of the fee income, with the claimants credited for any surplus. The appeal was upheld. While this case is not directly comparable to CBC's position the same principle applies. I won't go into the boring detail but the case also highlights that the Council is unable to use the licence fee income to enforce the system. CBC can take on Philip Kolvin QC if they wish but he does have rather a formidable reputation on licensing matters.

There, that's part of the job done for them and I'm not even submitting a bill.”

“Excellent informative post, Scorpio 2010.
I would question the term 'recent', given that the illegal immigrant brothel was shut down over 2 years ago. There was a piece in one of the national papers in March about the lapdancers, to which the comments were 'so what?'.
There has been concern raised earlier that nightclubs and bars would have to pay for this enquiry from their nightime economy levy. It hardly seems fair to the majority of venues which do not allow lap dancers during the festival.
What has really irritated me, and it seems several others, is councillors opinions that it is their 'moral obligation' to deal with this matter.
Vicars may have 'moral obligations', councillors are supposed to provide a voice for their constituents and spend the money raised on providing local services that the town needs. Councillors cannot refuse licenses on 'moral grounds' so how can they justify spending money on an enquiry based on moral grounds. Criminal grounds are for the police to deal with. I'd guess a majority of the councillors do not have the knowledge/ training/ understanding to be able to deal with this subject anyway. We can criticise the police but the force in the area is pretty good at knowing its area. I bet they keep a close eye on any known brothels anyway, and don't need cllr Regan/Driver combo bursting in with Jesus. How is the enquiry to be carried out?
There is a certain amount of hippocracy here, as I'm fairly sure that at least one of the councillors will have at least been to a strip club or looked at a page 3 girl in their lives-so where does moral judging stop?
Anyway, wasn't Belle de Jour a doctor or scientist at Bristol Hospital, with good standing in the community?
Good on those councillors who talked a bit of common sense. I can see it is a topic that the males would not want to defend too much, for fear of being accused of having an interest in it! I imagine most just nodded and went along with it.”

“In my confusion as to what it was that the Council was trying to achieve I decided to go to the Council Minutes for enlightenment. However, having now read the relevant Minute I have to admit that I am non the wiser as to just exactly what is going on here.

The following motion was put to Council on 25 June 2012.
"Proposed by: Councillor Driver
Seconded by: Councillor Regan
Given recent exposé reports in the press both national and international regarding the sex trade and exploitation of young women because of people smuggling and the sex trade in Cheltenham – this Council resolves to:-
1. Work collaboratively with the Gloucestershire Safeguarding Childrens Board, Gloucestershire Safeguarding Adults Board and Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre to develop a dedicated council strategy
2. Investigate potential impact of licensed sex industry and other venues which might impact in four areas (vulnerable adults / young adults / children / people smuggling)
3. Commit to re-invest funding from Cheltenham's night time economy into the fight against sexual exploitation and the sex trade in Cheltenham."

After some confused debate and when every Tom, Dick and Barbara Councillor had contributed their two penneth, the motion was carried. To their credit Councillors Barnes, Seacome and Garnham clearly tried to inject a degree of common sense into the proceedings.

The Council also Resolved that "the matter be referred to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to set up a working group to review the issue and report back to Council in December 2012."

The minute does not make it clear just exactly what it is this motion is expected to achieve neither am I convinced that the Councillors knew what it was they were actually voting for. It strikes me of being a bit like "What the hell give Barbara her working group and let's write a strategy. After all it sounds good and makes it look as if we are serious about what we are doing".

My biggest concern about all of this is that it is a disguise for a moralistic campaign which is missing the point. Yes there is a sex industry in this Country. Just like any other country in the World and Parliament has thought fit to regulate for its control. There are lawful activities which can take place under the supervision of the authorities and there are unlawful activities which are subject to punishment within the law. It was pleasing to note from the Minute that one such unlawful activity in Cheltenham was closed down by the authorities during Race Week.

The matter of exploitation, enforced participation and the despicable issue of people smuggling is unlawful and one which is distinctly separate from, and should not be confused with, the issue of those who take part in such activities voluntarily, legal or otherwise. In many cases of the latter the participants see this as an easy means of escape from poverty. Yes, the people involved are indeed normally the weak and the vulnerable of society.
But,the solution lies not in taking the moral high ground and wasting valuable and scarce resources by forming working groups and writing strategies based on poorly drafted motions but in the rigorous enforcement of the law and in creating the circumstances under which these vulnerable people can better their lives by other means. The current onslaught on the disabled, the sick, the weak and the vulnerable people of this Country by the Political Party to which Mrs Driver belongs will do nothing to assist them along the way. And, sadly, under the present government's policies many more may well be forced into this trade as a means of survival.”