Toronto Escorts

Speculation and Bravado

dirkd101

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2005
10,319
56
48
eastern frontier
I have read, with vested interest of course, most of the C36 threads.

It is pure speculation what is being proclaimed by certain posters, that we have nothing to fear, but this is by those who either haven't really looked at the long term and very real personal and for some, professional consequences and those that have the very real potential of lost business, that come with regards to C36.

One can consult a room full of lawyers with regards to C36, but even their counsel is just their interpretation of the laws and how they see a way to argue a clients point of view. A lawyer with a moral dilemma would be the only one who would turn such a client down. As business owners, have you made it clear that your employees can be subpoenaed to appear in court and their real names and occupation will be made public? If you haven't done this, then you haven't made them aware of the risk to their anonymity and how this might affect their very real personal lives.

To say that this or that police force will not enforce a law is also erroneous and that Harper cannot make them enforce this new law. I am not surprised that if questioned, a chief of police, would say anything about how their force would go about enforcing a new law, one does not tip ones own hand after all. The statement "low hanging fruit" and who that pertains to is also misleading as it is all "low hanging fruit". With regards to how the police acted in the past, with regards to the profession, it will be on a complaint based system and anyone can lodge that complaint and tell the police about their suspicions or just lodge a complaint about something not related to the trade, ie; noise, parking, foot traffic, etc. With regards to the police and "low hanging fruit", the police will act as they always have, but now they are armed with new legislation and can enforce this law as they and the crown see fit. People will still get arrested. Some will see the inside of a courtroom as well. Lives on both sides of the coin, consumers and "companions", will get ruined. This is an indisputable truth.

How the police will go about laying charges and what evidence they will use is an argument that will be borne out in the courts. The assertion that the use of circumstantial evidence will not be a factor is also an erroneous statement. Many a case has been brought to light using circumstantial evidence and when fleshing the case out they uncover direct evidence that supports their original lead.

The bravado from those with everything to lose, after all it is a business that they have built, just like any other business, but they have to understand that we as consumers, have to look at the very real consequences that we would have the burden to bear. That burden can be personal (the demise of a family unit) and professional (termination, passed over for promotion, passed over as a job applicant) and can have long standing consequences attached to it. Anyone who has had to undergo a police check for a job/coaching/volunteering knows that your past can certainly haunt you if you have been charged. The bravado of other consumers is not my concern, but they have no need to call into question the decision that many have made with regards to C36.

Undeniable truths are, this law will have enforcement. How the police/crown make charges stick and present their case in court is an unknown, but know this, it will happen. The when's, where's and such are as yet to be determined.
 

wangbang

Camel Toad
Nov 19, 2007
3,165
4
38
Gettin' Licked
The bravado of other consumers is not my concern, but they have no need to call into question the decision that many have made with regards to C36.
I have lots of bravado on this matter but I have yet to say anyone shouldn't quit the hobby or ridiculed anyone for suggesting they might quit. My suggestion all along is to practice safe hobbying as I have always done and use common (or not so common) sense. If someone thinks they have too much at risk then they should pack it in and sleep well.

What I have no use for is all the "Chicken Little" know it alls who clearly know jack shit and just talk out of their asses.

Most people are too stupid to realize that most of what they have been doing for years carried the same risk.
 

dirkd101

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2005
10,319
56
48
eastern frontier
And it happened under the old laws as well. SHM.
The old laws were challenged and as a result of that challenge a new law has been drawn up, tweaking the old, plugging the holes and giving the police new powers to enforce the law.

Under the old laws a provider was charged and nothing really came out of that from an enforcement stand point.

and

What I have no use for is all the "Chicken Little" know it alls who clearly know jack shit and just talk out of their asses.
Nobody said the sky is falling, but they have shown good judgement in what they have said and nobody is trying to change how you will move forward and you are free to disagree with everything that has been said with regards to what might happen. You may be 100% right, that we are talking out of our asses. Time will certainly tell.
 

Bickle

Member
May 1, 2007
425
20
18
I agree, Dirk. A lot of speculation, but none of the facts available yet. A lot of hobbyists will be watching closely to see how things roll out.

Safe hobbying? Well, C36 increases the risk level. So risk reduction is in order.

There seems to be a reasonable consensus around the notion that low volume discrete providers who are known to you will be low risk.

I also assume that jurisdictions will matter: that some municipalities/police districts will be more activist than others, Location location location.

I tend to assume that LE might well focus their attention based on advertising. But I'm not sure where to go from that idea. If we assumed they only looked at Backpages then it would help to base OUR searches on other media. But I don't know.

I find the idea (originating with dirkd101 in a Durham thread?) that LE is building a database of provider profiles logical and alarming. There could be some refined surveillance based on such a database. As opposed to a strategy of just raiding high-volume Queen St walk ups or Scarborough apartments.

Watch and learn, I guess. And share information as avidly as we have shared speculation.
 

DB123

Active member
Jul 15, 2013
4,739
3
38
Her place
Most people are too stupid to realize that most of what they have been doing for years carried the same risk.
Not 100% accurate, but more or less. It always carried risk, maybe not to the same degree, but risk nonetheless

Safe hobbying? Well, C36 increases the risk level. So risk reduction is in order.


Watch and learn, I guess. .
3000 threads and 46 million posts later, this is it. The rest is (un)educated guessing, on both sides.
 

trtinajax

New member
Apr 7, 2008
356
0
0
I find the idea (originating with dirkd101 in a Durham thread?) that LE is building a database of provider profiles logical and alarming. There could be some refined surveillance based on such a database. As opposed to a strategy of just raiding high-volume Queen St walk ups or Scarborough apartments.
The Durham Police along with a number of other police forces were simply interviewing the younger SP's to ensure that they were not underage, that they were not being forced to work in the business and to put a friendly face to a Vice Squad member(s) if the lady ever needed LE assistance to get out of a bad situation.

It's not the Durham cops that you should worry about. It's MacKay's new federal force - THE ROYAL CANADIAN SEX POLICE. They have a mandate to totally eliminate sex from Canada. Population growth in the future to be entirely based on new immigrants. Even the yearly sex with the wife is to be criminalized in the new moralistic version of MacKay's Canada.
 

Bickle

Member
May 1, 2007
425
20
18
Gee! Even if the wife consents?

There's a tension between your theory, and the new version of Right to Life occasioned by the story of Onan and skewed age demographics: Duty to Life. Enforced procreation.
 

dirkd101

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2005
10,319
56
48
eastern frontier
The Durham Police along with a number of other police forces were simply interviewing the younger SP's to ensure that they were not underage, that they were not being forced to work in the business and to put a friendly face to a Vice Squad member(s) if the lady ever needed LE assistance to get out of a bad situation.
Along with the ongoing enforcement to keep underage girls away from the trade, they have interviewed many girls who are not underage.

In other jurisdictions, LE has done some ground work and it may well be that it has been come by while doing legwork in unrelated matters.

Remember, one does not have to be a confirmed criminal to end up in any sort of data base, but if you show up in certain places from time to time, you are in an unknown category, suspected of possible links to Question mark? The question mark is what they look into, to see where you fit into the grand scheme of things. It's all in how they connect the dots within the framework of an investigation.
 

dirkd101

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2005
10,319
56
48
eastern frontier
I agree, Dirk. A lot of speculation, but none of the facts available yet. A lot of hobbyists will be watching closely to see how things roll out.

Safe hobbying? Well, C36 increases the risk level. So risk reduction is in order.

There seems to be a reasonable consensus around the notion that low volume discrete providers who are known to you will be low risk.

I also assume that jurisdictions will matter: that some municipalities/police districts will be more activist than others, Location location location.

I tend to assume that LE might well focus their attention based on advertising. But I'm not sure where to go from that idea. If we assumed they only looked at Backpages then it would help to base OUR searches on other media. But I don't know.

I find the idea (originating with dirkd101 in a Durham thread?) that LE is building a database of provider profiles logical and alarming. There could be some refined surveillance based on such a database. As opposed to a strategy of just raiding high-volume Queen St walk ups or Scarborough apartments.

Watch and learn, I guess. And share information as avidly as we have shared speculation.
Thanks Bickle.

I am of the wait and see variety and as we all know there has always been a level of risk involved and we've all weighed that risk.

And, the speculation is food for thought and something for each of us to wade through and see what is valid as far as each is concerned.
 

wangbang

Camel Toad
Nov 19, 2007
3,165
4
38
Gettin' Licked
Not 100% accurate, but more or less. It always carried risk, maybe not to the same degree, but risk nonetheless
If someone was worried about the wife catching them, seeing their name in the paper or losing access to the US then they should have thought about that a long time ago, not now. That's all I'm saying.

Prior to the SCC decision, virtually every thing I engaged in, such as being at an incall, was an at risk activity. It was a risk then and it is a risk going forward.



Nobody said the sky is falling.
You clearly have a few people on ignore.
 

Titalian

No Regrets
Nov 27, 2012
8,500
8
0
Everywhere
I have read, with vested interest of course, most of the C36 threads.

It is pure speculation what is being proclaimed by certain posters, that we have nothing to fear, but this is by those who either haven't really looked at the long term and very real personal and for some, professional consequences and those that have the very real potential of lost business, that come with regards to C36.

One can consult a room full of lawyers with regards to C36, but even their counsel is just their interpretation of the laws and how they see a way to argue a clients point of view. A lawyer with a moral dilemma would be the only one who would turn such a client down. As business owners, have you made it clear that your employees can be subpoenaed to appear in court and their real names and occupation will be made public? If you haven't done this, then you haven't made them aware of the risk to their anonymity and how this might affect their very real personal lives.

To say that this or that police force will not enforce a law is also erroneous and that Harper cannot make them enforce this new law. I am not surprised that if questioned, a chief of police, would say anything about how their force would go about enforcing a new law, one does not tip ones own hand after all. The statement "low hanging fruit" and who that pertains to is also misleading as it is all "low hanging fruit". With regards to how the police acted in the past, with regards to the profession, it will be on a complaint based system and anyone can lodge that complaint and tell the police about their suspicions or just lodge a complaint about something not related to the trade, ie; noise, parking, foot traffic, etc. With regards to the police and "low hanging fruit", the police will act as they always have, but now they are armed with new legislation and can enforce this law as they and the crown see fit. People will still get arrested. Some will see the inside of a courtroom as well. Lives on both sides of the coin, consumers and "companions", will get ruined. This is an indisputable truth.

How the police will go about laying charges and what evidence they will use is an argument that will be borne out in the courts. The assertion that the use of circumstantial evidence will not be a factor is also an erroneous statement. Many a case has been brought to light using circumstantial evidence and when fleshing the case out they uncover direct evidence that supports their original lead.

The bravado from those with everything to lose, after all it is a business that they have built, just like any other business, but they have to understand that we as consumers, have to look at the very real consequences that we would have the burden to bear. That burden can be personal (the demise of a family unit) and professional (termination, passed over for promotion, passed over as a job applicant) and can have long standing consequences attached to it. Anyone who has had to undergo a police check for a job/coaching/volunteering knows that your past can certainly haunt you if you have been charged. The bravado of other consumers is not my concern, but they have no need to call into question the decision that many have made with regards to C36.

Undeniable truths are, this law will have enforcement. How the police/crown make charges stick and present their case in court is an unknown, but know this, it will happen. The when's, where's and such are as yet to be determined.

You sound like Fugi. Your allowed to think what you want.
 

dirkd101

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2005
10,319
56
48
eastern frontier
wangbang,

I have nobody on ignore. I read with an open mind what is written. You're interpreting what you read and likening it to the fable.

One thing is for certain though, I have not read anything that can allay my fear of what can happen to me the consumer, as it is certainly spelled out in C36 as to what can happen to me. I have read how those with vested interest have put forth their best effort in trying to say that everything is status quo, nothing to worry about, we've consulted lawyers and there is nothing to worry about. Those with vested interest are certainly afraid of C36 and it is understandable that they would try and put to rest any fears had by the consumer. Just because a lawyer has been consulted, it is quite clear that the consultation was in order to see if they are in compliance with C36 and how it pertains to them in particular. Not the consumer or the companion. For the consumer, it is all spelled out, the full extent is unknown. For the companion, if charges have been laid, anonymity is lost and disclosure is brought about upon being subpoenaed.
On top of that, those consumers who advocate status quo, have not made one compelling argument, other than to say that the rest of are wrong and full of shit, don't know what they are talking about, pure speculation...the list can go on. Speaking of speculation, one can speculate with an informed opinion on matters, it's the uninformed speculation that is erroneous here and most of that is from the status quo side. Nobody is trying to tell you what to do, come the date in question. But writing informed posts is what is required here, for those who are seeking guidance in making a choice.
 

Titalian

No Regrets
Nov 27, 2012
8,500
8
0
Everywhere
wangbang,

I have nobody on ignore. I read with an open mind what is written. You're interpreting what you read and likening it to the fable.

One thing is for certain though, I have not read anything that can allay my fear of what can happen to me the consumer, as it is certainly spelled out in C36 as to what can happen to me. I have read how those with vested interest have put forth their best effort in trying to say that everything is status quo, nothing to worry about, we've consulted lawyers and there is nothing to worry about. Those with vested interest are certainly afraid of C36 and it is understandable that they would try and put to rest any fears had by the consumer. Just because a lawyer has been consulted, it is quite clear that the consultation was in order to see if they are in compliance with C36 and how it pertains to them in particular. Not the consumer or the companion. For the consumer, it is all spelled out, the full extent is unknown. For the companion, if charges have been laid, anonymity is lost and disclosure is brought about upon being subpoenaed.
On top of that, those consumers who advocate status quo, have not made one compelling argument, other than to say that the rest of are wrong and full of shit, don't know what they are talking about, pure speculation...the list can go on. Speaking of speculation, one can speculate with an informed opinion on matters, it's the uninformed speculation that is erroneous here and most of that is from the status quo side. Nobody is trying to tell you what to do, come the date in question. But writing informed posts is what is required here, for those who are seeking guidance in making a choice.
Is smoking Cannabis illegal ? Yes !! Are you thrown in prison for it or charged for that matter. No !! Get a grip.
 

Vixens

New member
Dec 26, 2006
2,698
0
0
www.torontovixens.com
"One can consult a room full of lawyers with regards to C36, but even their counsel is just their interpretation of the laws and how they see a way to argue a clients point of view. A lawyer with a moral dilemma would be the only one who would turn such a client down. As business owners, have you made it clear that your employees can be subpoenaed to appear in court and their real names and occupation will be made public? If you haven't done this, then you haven't made them aware of the risk to their anonymity and how this might affect their very real personal lives."

You're forgeting that this risk is not new and making it seem as though we are somehow remiss if we don't let those we represent know these risks is ludicrous.
Agencies have consulted lawyers certainly (I have ) but this is to ask their expert advice as to how these new laws affect how we operate. Changes are currently being implemented. Any responsible agency owner will have had this discussion in a reasonable and unbiased manner with both those we represent and any client that has questions.
You are right to say that we don't know the ramifications as yet but presenting the above as something new to fear just isn't responsible. Creating fear is just as irresponsible and damaging as saying there is nothing to fear.
Determine your comfort level and conduct yourself accordingly but please stop trying to scare people under the guise that you're helping or making others sound as though they only care about their bottom line.

Steph
 
Last edited:

dirkd101

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2005
10,319
56
48
eastern frontier
Is smoking Cannabis illegal ? Yes !! Are you thrown in prison for it or charged for that matter. No !! Get a grip.


I have firm grip on reality, thank you for caring about my state. I never said that time will be served in the immediate future. In one thread I did state that some poor slob, probably someone with a big mouth will do some time, but will probably get off with a fine along with time served.


Don't confuse time served with doing actual time.

And for your consideration;

Is possession of marijuana a criminal offense?
Yes. Possession of marijuana is a criminal offense under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (available at laws.justice.gc.ca - click on “English”, then on “Consolidated Acts”, then on letter “C”, and then scroll down to the Act). You don’t have to own the marijuana – you just have to have, or possess, it. There are medical exceptions. If you are charged with possession of marijuana, you should speak to a lawyer.

What must the prosecutor prove to convict you? What can you do?
In court, the prosecutor, also called the crown counsel (Crown), must prove – beyond a reasonable doubt – that you:

had control of the marijuana – for example, the police found it on you or in an area you controlled, such as a car, suitcase, or bedroom, and
knew the marijuana was there.
If the Crown proves both these things, the judge will convict you. To prove these things, the Crown will have witnesses – normally the police officer who arrested you – tell the court (or testify) about the situation when they found the marijuana on you. Witnesses testify under oath, meaning they promise to tell the truth. You can question, or cross-examine, each witness the Crown uses.

After the Crown finishes, you – and your witnesses, if you have any – can tell the court what happened. To do this, you have to take an oath promising to tell the truth, and then give evidence as a witness. If you have any witnesses who saw what happened and who can support your story, you can call them to testify, or give evidence. They also have to promise to tell the truth. You then question them about what they know. When you and your witnesses finish giving evidence, the Crown can question, or cross-examine, you and them.

Lastly, you and the Crown summarize your positions by making “submissions” to the court. For more information, check script 211, called “Defending Yourself Against a Criminal Charge”, and script 212, called “Pleading Guilty to a Criminal Charge”.

Is the amount of marijuana important?
Yes – a small amount is less serious. The more you have, the greater the chance that you may be charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking, a more serious offense with more serious penalties. The way the marijuana is packaged is also important.

What are the penalties?
For a first conviction, if you had less than 30 grams of marijuana, the maximum penalties are a fine of $1000 or 6 months in jail, or both. But the penalty for a first offense is usually much less.

You may also get a criminal record. That can prevent you from traveling to other countries, getting certain jobs, being bonded (which some jobs require), and applying for citizenship. Check script 205, called “Criminal Records and Applying for a Record Suspension,” for more information.

If it is your first offence, ask the judge for a discharge or ask the Crown for diversion (or alternative measures). If you meet the conditions of the discharge or if you complete the alternative measures, you will not get a criminal record. For more on discharges, check script 203, called “Conditional Sentences, Probation and Discharges”. For more on diversion, check script 212, called “Pleading Guilty to a Criminal Charge”.

The legal issues for this crime can be complex and a conviction can seriously harm you. If you are charged with this crime, you should talk to a lawyer.

[updated January 2014]


http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-38.8/index.html



The facts are clear -

Any form of Marijuana (including hash and hash oil) are known as Schedule 2 drugs under Canadian Law
Minor possession of small amounts of the drug (30g or less for Marijuana and 1g or less for Hash and Hash Oil) can result in a lower level offense called a summary conviction. Anyone who is charged with this lower level offense is not required to have their fingerprints or photographs taken, but still enters the criminal justice system. They could be given a court date and have a trial. A person convicted under this charge will have a court record of this conviction.
First time minor possession conviction can result in a maximum penalty of 6 months in jail and/or a $1,000 fine.
For possession of small amounts of marijuana, the Halton Regional Police Service have the alternative option of sending the subject into a ‘Diversion Program’. If the youth complies with the program, this alternative keeps minor and usually first-time offenders out of the court system.
Possession of larger quantities of the drug (over 30g of Marijuana or 1g of Hash or Hash Oil) can result in a charge of Trafficking or Possession for the purpose of trafficking. This is a much more serious offense and, depending on the exact quantity and previous record of the offender, can carry a conviction penalty of imprisonment from 5 years less a day up to and including life imprisonment.
The medical use of Marijuana is permitted in Canada under restricted circumstances only. A permit is required in order to possess or use marijuana for medical purposes.
It can be hard to think of the future, especially for kids who are having the time of their life living in the present, but conviction of a marijuana possession charge can haunt them well beyond what they can currently see. A criminal record has far reaching implications and can affect a youth’s post-secondary education acceptance, work and travel opportunities and also impact eligibility for future loans and credit card acceptance.
 

D-Fens

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2006
1,186
27
48
Most of the fear mongering on here is from people who don't even hobby and thus have no stake or vested interest in what is going to happen. If you don't even hobby then why are you even here?

Best to ignore people like this and just do your own research and form your own plan on how you are going to move forward.
 

GPIDEAL

Prolific User
Jun 27, 2010
23,355
9
38
I have lots of bravado on this matter but I have yet to say anyone shouldn't quit the hobby or ridiculed anyone for suggesting they might quit. My suggestion all along is to practice safe hobbying as I have always done and use common (or not so common) sense. If someone thinks they have too much at risk then they should pack it in and sleep well.

What I have no use for is all the "Chicken Little" know it alls who clearly know jack shit and just talk out of their asses.

Most people are too stupid to realize that most of what they have been doing for years carried the same risk.

I think the risk has increased for johns due to the broader criminal scope. This doesn't mean that I'll quit. You just have to be more careful. You can't hobby with impunity and a carefree attitude.
 

Hard Idle

Active member
Jan 15, 2005
4,959
23
38
North York
I think the bravado & defiance are ultimately a lot more useful than catastrophising.

One way or the other C36 has no long term future, there is only the question of how much aggravation it will cause in the interim, and for how long.

I condemn the catastrophisers because I believe they are contributing to exactly the effect that supporters of such legislation would desire. While that effect will be temporary at best, it could result in a short term contraction of availability in erotic services for the rest of us (not to mention a much tougher landscape for providers) and would also extend the life of C36 (assuming it's widely enforced at all) by encoraging any sympathetic jurisdictions to stick with it longer.

While for a certain percentage of customers their purchase of erotic services is strictly an indulgence complementing an already full & satisfying sex life, quitting or seriously scaling back may be a realistic option. But those for whom it's an important, almost therapeutic ingredient that fills a void in their lives, any illusion of quitting will be short lived, they will eventually break and seek out the services wherever they happen to be available, as people have been doing for millennia.

I personally believe that the sooner it becomes obvious that C36 is yet another exercise in swimming against the current of nature, the sooner the attitudes and enforcement of C36 will go the way of the previous laws.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts