Why aren't police looking at this site?

[IncurableDesperate 110]

One question that has been going through my mind forerver. I mean,if I were a cop and wanted to catch people doing this, This site would be my first stop for sure.

 

They must be knowing and tolerating this underground world. If so, why?

 

Not that I'm complaning or anything but why not make this completely legal and safer for the ladies providing?

[mod 135639]

What makes you think they don't look at this site? I know for a fact they do as I have spoken with police in the past in regards to the site. In fact a very nice lady police investigator contacted us not too long ago asking for assistance in a case.

 

Now, your new so I suspect you think prostitution is illegal right? We watch a lot of american TV and prostitution in Canada (unlike MOST of the USA) is very much legal here. In canada streetwalking (public solicitation), brothels (common bawdy houses) and pimping/procuring is illegal. The actual exchange for money for sex in private is very much legal and since a website is not considered a PUBLIC PLACE discussing and advertising such activities in classified ads and online is NOT illegal.

 

We do not allow discussions of illegal nature here. Included on this list is

- streetwalkers

- FS massage spa's

- public brothels

- sex in public (including "Car dates")

- underage (18 is the legal age)

- drugs

- pimping

and so on...

 

Hope that helps

[PistolPete 61421]

It is not a underground world accept for everyone's handle on the board here and other boards.They (law enforcement) will tolerate individuals that totally understand/respect/abide by/and ensure the safety of everyone involved in this business. As Mod said (his list) those that are not abiding by the law, they will be of course seek out.The safety of ladies is paramount importance, while participating in the business, and you could not find a better web site to seek out ladies if that is what you desire.

There is no need for paranoid thoughts.

 

My nickel to comment on it.

 

 

 

One question that has been going through my mind forerver. I mean,if I were a cop and wanted to catch people doing this, This site would be my first stop for sure.

 

They must be knowing and tolerating this underground world. If so, why?

 

Not that I'm complaning or anything but why not make this completely legal and safer for the ladies providing?

[Phaedrus 209521]

One question that has been going through my mind forerver. I mean,if I were a cop and wanted to catch people doing this, This site would be my first stop for sure.

 

They must be knowing and tolerating this underground world. If so, why?

 

Short answer: because they have a gazillion better things to be doing than going after consenting adults who aren't causing any problems for anyone else.

 

Not that I'm complaning or anything but why not make this completely legal and safer for the ladies providing?

 

If you're interested in this stuff, head over to the "Legal Discussions" forum and look at the threads on the Bedford case. If things go well, all this could be legal before too long...

[VedaSloan 119179]

since a website is not considered a PUBLIC PLACE discussing and advertising such activities in classified ads and online is NOT illegal.

 

 

Hey Mod,

 

Quick correction. The laws regarding communicating for the purposes of prostitution in public were put in place before the advent of the internet, so we actually don't know whether advertising is legal or not. The paper Now Toronto was charged a number of years ago for solicitation, though the charges were eventually dropped.

 

http://www.rrj.ca/m3837/

[Guest webothscore]

Hey Mod,

 

Quick correction. The laws regarding communicating for the purposes of prostitution in public were put in place before the advent of the internet, so we actually don't know whether advertising is legal or not. The paper Now Toronto was charged a number of years ago for solicitation, though the charges were eventually dropped.

 

http://www.rrj.ca/m3837/

 

Because this has always been a little worrysome or unclear to me, I have only ever given details in writing about non cerb and non pay events. Concerning anyone who has given specific details with respect to a paid encounter, could it be that those people might actually have a worry on their hands? Not trying to alarm, but asking to learn, etc. I am naive about these sort of details. In fact, I have never even mentioned a name of a place, or product or anything like that. I know, a little paranoid but I am a rule follower and caution myself continually.

[VedaSloan 119179]

Because this has always been a little worrysome or unclear to me, I have only ever given details in writing about non cerb and non pay events. Concerning anyone who has given specific details with respect to a paid encounter, could it be that those people might actually have a worry on their hands? Not trying to alarm, but asking to learn, etc. I am naive about these sort of details. In fact, I have never even mentioned a name of a place, or product or anything like that. I know, a little paranoid but I am a rule follower and caution myself continually.

 

 

Well, as others have said, I think the police have bigger fish to fry. But that is why many sex workers often have a disclaimer on their sites and ads that reads something like "money exchanged is for companionship only and anything else that happens is between consenting adults."

 

I don't go out of my way to flout the law, but I'm not sitting around worrying about the cops either. If they really want to arrest you, they will.

[Guest webothscore]

Well, as others have said, I think the police have bigger fish to fry. But that is why many sex workers often have a disclaimer on their sites and ads that reads something like "money exchanged is for companionship only and anything else that happens is between consenting adults."

 

I don't go out of my way to flout the law, but I'm not sitting around worrying about the cops either. If they really want to arrest you, they will.

 

Right. Thank you. Second and probably last question for me, following the disclaimer, for those people that have all the recos with specific details about an encounter with them and the provider, what about those?

[VedaSloan 119179]

Right. Thank you. Second and probably last question for me, following the disclaimer, for those people that have all the recos with specific details about an encounter with them and the provider, what about those?

 

No idea. Maybe another member may have some thoughts on this.

[cyclo 30131]

Right. Thank you. Second and probably last question for me, following the disclaimer, for those people that have all the recos with specific details about an encounter with them and the provider, what about those?

 

The short answer is that since prostitution is legal in Canada, providing recommendations with details is also legal. You're describing a legal event that took place. End of story.

[VedaSloan 119179]

The short answer is that since prostitution is legal in Canada, providing recommendations with details is also legal. You're describing a legal event that took place. End of story.

 

Ha, and after I just gave you rep points, I just remembered:

 

 

 

SECTION 212, The Criminal Code

This law makes it an offense to:

a) Procure or solicit a person to have illicit sex with another person.

b) Entice someone who is not a prostitute to enter a brothel for

the purpose of prostitution.

c) Hide someone in a brothel.

d) Procure someone to become a prostitute.

e) Convince someone to leave their residence and become a

"frequenter" of a brothel.

f) Direct or take a new arrival to Canada to a brothel.

g) Procure a person to leave Canada to become a prostitute.

h) Exercise control over someone for the purpose of prostitution

(commonly used against pimps, also used against escort service owners,

managers, and phone operators).

i) Drug someone (which includes getting someone drunk) to enable

another person to have sex with the person who has been drugged.

j) Live wholly or partially on the avails (profits) of prostitution

(commonly used against pimps, often used against husbands, lovers,

boyfriends, etc.). Evidence that someone is "habitually in the

company" of a prostitute, or lives in a brothel, is, in the absence

of evidence to the contrary, proof that the person in question lives

on the avails of prostitution.

 

The Supreme Court case only challenges section (j). One could argue that a review convinces someone to leave their residence to visit a sex worker-- incalls, and working from your own space or sharing one with another escort amounts to a brothel under the law, currently.

[Guest webothscore]

No idea. Maybe another member may have some thoughts on this.

 

Thanks for both answers. You are a sweetheart. I was actually thinking more technical like ip addresses to real people which is a synch but not going to press. I figure in between all my jokey joke posts I would contribute something serious from time to time :)

 

I just saw cyclo's response. Thank you too cyclo. Goodnight all.

 

Additional Comments:

Ahhhhh I posted too soon ;) there was more. no biggie. I kept it to only two questions, I will let the experts go back and forth. Whatever the answer, I am appreciative of the effort, especially at this hour. Thanks.

[cyclo 30131]

Ha, and after I just gave you rep points, I just remembered:

 

 

 

SECTION 212, The Criminal Code

This law makes it an offense to:

a) Procure or solicit a person to have illicit sex with another person.

b) Entice someone who is not a prostitute to enter a brothel for

the purpose of prostitution.

c) Hide someone in a brothel.

d) Procure someone to become a prostitute.

e) Convince someone to leave their residence and become a

"frequenter" of a brothel.

f) Direct or take a new arrival to Canada to a brothel.

g) Procure a person to leave Canada to become a prostitute.

h) Exercise control over someone for the purpose of prostitution

(commonly used against pimps, also used against escort service owners,

managers, and phone operators).

i) Drug someone (which includes getting someone drunk) to enable

another person to have sex with the person who has been drugged.

j) Live wholly or partially on the avails (profits) of prostitution

(commonly used against pimps, often used against husbands, lovers,

boyfriends, etc.). Evidence that someone is "habitually in the

company" of a prostitute, or lives in a brothel, is, in the absence

of evidence to the contrary, proof that the person in question lives

on the avails of prostitution.

 

The Supreme Court case only challenges section (j). One could argue that a review convinces someone to leave their residence to visit a sex worker-- incalls, and working from your own space or sharing one with another escort amounts to a brothel under the law, currently.

 

Ha ha Good one Berlin! I don't think I've got a definitive answer. Here are my initial thoughts. I think that subsection e) should be read in the context of the previous and subsequent subsections all of which address pimping and/or coercion. A recommendation wouldn't seem to be similar in nature to any of the other offences listed.

 

Returning to the original question I've never heard of a conviction for online or print advertising. Given that, a conviction for an online recommendation would be even more unlikely.

[SamanthaEvans 166766]

Convincing someone to leave their residence (where it's legal to see a prostitute) and go to a brothel (where it's not legal to see a prostitute) is a crime. If someone is going to commit an illegal act, he's not entitled to attempt to convince, pressure or inveigle someone else to do it, too.

 

I don't think this is the same thing as writing a recommendation on a review board.

 

Recommendations are written by anonymous individuals for many reasons. It is impossible to know whether any of the things the writer describes actually took place or whether his description of events is accurate. It's also impossible to know whether the writer actually saw the person he appears to be reviewing, or not. The review may be written by someone anxious to gain credibility on a board. On some boards, a man can be an unpaid member if and only if he contributes reviews, otherwise he has to pay a membership fee. That gives rise to an enormous number of fake reviews from men who want to save a few dollars so that they can read the rest of the content on the board.

 

That's important: readers of these reviews actively choose to find and read them. In many respects, reviews are a form of advertising that clients engage in for escorts.

 

And so, given that the writers are anonymous and often extremely difficult to trace, and given that participation in or readership of these boards is a voluntary choice, I don't think there's anything to worry about most of the time.

 

"Most of the time" excludes making threats, divulging private information and other such things that could reasonably compromise an escort's safety and well-being. I don't think it would be a good idea to try doing anything like that and expect to get away with it!

[cyclo 30131]

[quote name=SamanthaEvans;

If someone is going to commit an illegal act' date=' he's not entitled to attempt to convince, pressure or inveigle someone else to do it, too.[/quote]

 

Samantha, if we were playing Scrabble I would hope you get a triple word score for "inveigle" ;-)

[roamingguy 300292]

Keep in mind those recommendations/reviews are posted on a escort recommendation board. Only members of the board read the recos/reviews. You could argue that the convincing was already done when someone signed up as a member on a escort recommendation board, to read in part, recos.

RG

[Phaedrus 209521]

Keep in mind those recommendations/reviews are posted on a escort recommendation board. Only members of the board read the recos/reviews. You could argue that the convincing was already done when someone signed up as a member on a escort recommendation board, to read in part, recos.

RG

 

Absolutely. If I sent you an unsolicited mail telling you what a great time I'd had at a brothel, that would be... dodgy. But if you log into a site of your own accord and read a reco I wrote - having bothered to set up an account, without which you can't see the reco at all - then I'm pretty sure I'm in the clear.

 

IANAL, but I'm okay with taking the risk on this one :)

[fortunateone 156618]

Because this has always been a little worrysome or unclear to me, I have only ever given details in writing about non cerb and non pay events. Concerning anyone who has given specific details with respect to a paid encounter, could it be that those people might actually have a worry on their hands? Not trying to alarm, but asking to learn, etc. I am naive about these sort of details. In fact, I have never even mentioned a name of a place, or product or anything like that. I know, a little paranoid but I am a rule follower and caution myself continually.

 

 

I don't provide things in writing, and would never write and text or email my address.

 

I will give everything out in a phone call, as there is a clear precedent that phone conversations are fully legal and are not considered public solicitation. In fact if everyone stopped just saying 'solicitation' and remembered to say 'public solicitation' I imagine there would be less confusion about legalities and illegalities.

 

The reality is that there is still an expectation of privacy when using text and emails, and there is no real good reason to not be able to provide information this way as the considering feature is that public has no expectation of privacy.

 

 

The majority of police station computers have zero access to adult sites, that would be a number one reason why LE isn't just randomly checking in. When a few of us had to report an incident last year to the sex worker liason, much of it had to do with defamatory statements posted on online review sites. Part of the delay had to do with them not being able to access the links provided, and having to go thru some special requirements before they could view the material.

 

Additional Comments:

No idea. Maybe another member may have some thoughts on this.

 

 

It's still a legal activity, the exchange of money for sexual services. i think the only issue that affects either client or sp is where that session actually takes place, as providing an incall is still illegal.

[sandimoon 72517]

I've said this before, I have

no fear of arrest, much less prosecution.

I don't rip men off, do drugs,

act wrong in a hotel lobby, or do car dates.

I am under no illusions that I am on someone's radar,

somewhere but I imagine the police & the courts have

more important business to attend than me.

Also, Cerb & many other sites have been around

for quite some time.

If we & our lifestyle were of paramount concern to

those with powers of arrest & prosecution,

it would have happened long ago.

So I never worry about it.

Sandi

[MightyPen 67414]

e) Convince someone to leave their residence and become a "frequenter" of a brothel.

aHAHAHAHA... sorry, I'm just trying to imagine that conversation.

 

GUY 1: "Hey, whatcha doin'?"

GUY 2: "Playing Killzone 7... just came out." *pew pew boom*

GUY 1: "Huh, cool." (pause) "Hey, you know what GUY 2? You should totally get out of here and go to a brothel."

GUY 2: "WTF?"

GUY 1: "Seriously. You've captured the other guy's flag, like, three times while I've been watching. Knock that off. You need some action." (pause) "At a brothel."

GUY 2: "Dude, my girlfriend will be home in, like, an hour."

GUY 1: "Look, here, take this..." *gives paper* "Just call this number and go to this address. Seriously. You should totally do it."

GUY 2: "Uhhh...."

 

LATER:

 

GUY 2: "Dude! That was awesome!"

GUY 1: "I told you! Now... make sure you go back several more times this week."

GUY 2: "You know what? I'm totally doing that, because you've just convinced me that I should."

HANDCUFFS: "Click!"

[kerrixoxo 33719]

aHAHAHAHA... sorry, I'm just trying to imagine that conversation.

 

GUY 1: "Hey, whatcha doin'?"

GUY 2: "Playing Killzone 7... just came out." *pew pew boom*

GUY 1: "Huh, cool." (pause) "Hey, you know what GUY 2? You should totally get out of here and go to a brothel."

GUY 2: "WTF?"

GUY 1: "Seriously. You've captured the other guy's flag, like, three times while I've been watching. Knock that off. You need some action." (pause) "At a brothel."

GUY 2: "Dude, my girlfriend will be home in, like, an hour."

GUY 1: "Look, here, take this..." *gives paper* "Just call this number and go to this address. Seriously. You should totally do it."

GUY 2: "Uhhh...."

 

LATER:

 

GUY 2: "Dude! That was awesome!"

GUY 1: "I told you! Now... make sure you go back several more times this week."

GUY 2: "You know what? I'm totally doing that, because you've just convinced me that I should."

HANDCUFFS: "Click!"

 

 

I want to make these noises every where I go now! *pew pew boom* :tongue: Thanks for making me laugh with that conversation. I really agree with what Sandi's reply. In addition to that and what everyone else had said, policing agencies look at all kinds of sites to help in their investigations including your personal social media sites (if you have any) in the event you are part of an investigation. So unless you are doing something wrong, then you really don't have anything to worry about. In the meantime, relax and have some fun ;)

[CrunchandMunch 218]

... since a website is not considered a PUBLIC PLACE ...

 

Hello Mod

 

I was just wondering how you came to this conclusion?

 

I am not disagreeing, just trying to find out information from those in the know.

[mod 135639]

The case with now magazine was dropped because the laws specifically state a "public place" and a "place" is a physical location not a newsprint or other media publication (such as the internet) until the law is redefined the internet is not a public place.

[Phaedrus 209521]

Hello Mod

 

I was just wondering how you came to this conclusion?

 

I am not disagreeing, just trying to find out information from those in the know.

 

More specifically for this audience... there was a Supreme Court verdict (I forget the case, alas) where they ruled that the Internet in general was not a "place" that might apply to the laws relating to prostitution. That's why the ladies can advertize here - and anywhere else online - without fear of prosecution.

 

Given that this is a SCC ruling, it probably won't change short of Parliament enacting some new law to make it illegal.

[roamingguy 300292]

Something else, while yes CERB occupies "space" on the web for lack of a better term, it really isn't publicly accessible. It is a private board, only accessible to those people who register and are granted membership.

Your average Joe or Jane just can't type in cerb.ca and have access to the

board, they need to register and it takes a bit of time to go through the moderation phase, and even more posting history before full access to the board is granted

RG