I can't see how a confession from earlier clients would incriminate another client who doesn't confess and where there's no other evidence against him.What is the minimum evidence required by LE to arrest a client at a MP, if they suspect someone has obtained sexual services for consideration?
Circumstantial? Confession from earlier clients? MPA confession?
So why is MP referred to in several other threads as low hanging fruit?I can't see how a confession from earlier clients would incriminate another client who doesn't confess and where there's no other evidence against him.
I wouldn't listen to posts like thatSo why is MP referred to in several other threads as low hanging fruit?
I believe they are referring to illegal or non-complying holistics, or those with a bad reputation.So why is MP referred to in several other threads as low hanging fruit?
I wouldn't listen to posts like that
That's a sex act. That doesn't prove the purchase or attempt to purchase a sexual service.A customers member in her mouth while she's humming Oh Canada? Just a thought.
Sounds like with the new law, LE have complicated their jobs by having to obtain sufficient evidence for EACH individual they suspect of wrong doing. Without a common bawdy house offense with respect to prostitution any more, LE have gone from fishing net, to fishing rod.That's a sex act. That doesn't prove the purchase or attempt to purchase a sexual service.
Low hanging fruit refers to the fact that MPs have fixed addresses and (historically) openly advertised their services with menus and such.
I believe the concern also stems from the "belief" that everyone knows what really goes on in an MP (nudge nudge, wink wink).
But like I said, they still have to prove that purchase or attempt to purchase a sexual service, which means that they have to prove that what happened in an MP is a sexual service in the first instance.
I'm not saying that's impossible. It just has to be done.
In the meantime, some MPs are playing with semantics (letter of the law vs. spirit), some more cleverly than others.
Sounds like with the new law, LE have complicated their jobs by having to obtain sufficient evidence for EACH individual they suspect of wrong doing. Without a common bawdy house offense with respect to prostitution any more, LE have gone from fishing net, to fishing rod.
Best to wait it out until these theories on client rights are tested in the real world.
When the MDS bust occured, one agency argued to the police that they hadn't established the business as a place of prostitution ( bawdy house ), therefore the lady who was charged couldn't be a found-in because it hadn't been established yet. This is different now, the owner is liable for the goings on at their establishment, the purchase of sexual service is immediate, what hasn't been established is what constitutes a sexual service. So flying in a potential grey zone may be OK. In my opinion the grey won't be the first strike anyway.Not sure I follow. LE/crown always has to prove an individual breach of the law.
If you mean that they have to prove sexual service vs. bawdy house, IMO, it's similar. In order to prove bawdy house, they would have to prove prostitution.
The difference here is that sexual service is yet to be defined, and therefore the uncertainty is itself a major risk (for both sides).
Before Bill C36, "found-in" bawdy house charges could be laid against individuals who did not even pay for sexual services. Merely being caught inside a bawdy house was an offense. LE could go undercover posing as clients, and determine an MP was a bawdy house, without ever needing to prove prostitution occurred with other clients, only that it was on offer to the undercover.Not sure I follow. LE/crown always has to prove an individual breach of the law.
If you mean that they have to prove sexual service vs. bawdy house, IMO, it's similar. In order to prove bawdy house, they would have to prove prostitution.
The difference here is that sexual service is yet to be defined, and therefore the uncertainty is itself a major risk (for both sides).
Before Bill C36, "found-in" bawdy house charges could be laid against individuals who did not even pay for sexual services. Merely being caught inside a bawdy house was an offense. LE could go undercover posing as clients, and determine an MP was a bawdy house, without ever needing to prove prostitution occurred with other clients, only that it was on offer to the undercover.
Now with C36, LE needs to investigate what specifically happened with client A, B, C, D, E....in order to charge client A, B, C, D, E with obtaining sexual services for consideration. No everyone who walks out of an MP paid for sexual services. How can LE determine which one did and did not?
Oral contract implied the moment you walk into the room.
The same as for any other Criminal Code arrest: A reasonable certainty that you had committed—attempted to commit, or were in the actual process of committing—a prohibited act, and that they could collect sufficient evidence for a Crown to secure a conviction in court.What is the minimum evidence required by LE to arrest a client at a MP, if they suspect someone has obtained sexual services for consideration?
Circumstantial? Confession from earlier clients? MPA confession?
i.shouldnt have filmed my last.session ........i had permission and she took some pics herself too. no face shots. damn, I be crazy, maybe you read about me in a future police bustA palm full of semen will do it.