NO JOHNS CHARGED IN ONTARIO TWO MONTHS AFTER NEW PROSTITUTION LAW ENACTED-Sun Article

[Insidious Von]

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but with Baird leaving office, the odds of Mackay taking the reigns after Harper have increased.

Not going to happen, MacKay is a lightweight who wants to be Richard the Lionheart. Bill C-36 is about as well thought out as Mike Harris's electricity deregulation and may go the same way. If he did run for the Conservative leadership he would get chewed up and spit out by Jason Kenney.

 

[oldjones]

Not going to happen, MacKay is a lightweight who wants to be Richard the Lionheart. Bill C-36 is about as well thought out as Mike Harris's electricity deregulation and may go the same way. If he did run for the Conservative leadership he would get chewed up and spit out by Jason Kenney.

MacKay's only been kept around because he gave away the old Progressive Conservative Party to Harper's Reformers. Demoting him to the backbenches where his 'talents' belong would be an admission that CPoC was founded on a sellout not an alliance.

 

[squeezer]

I motion that you be the test case... second anyone?

I second the motion.

 

[Fallsguy]

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but with Baird leaving office, the odds of Mackay taking the reigns after Harper have increased.

Actually, rumours are rife that MacKay is going to follow John Baird and may not even run again. He'll never be leader of the federal Conservative Party because of his former leadership of the Progressive Conservatives. He's considered to be not right-wing enough, although he's been Harper's perfect little toady.

 

[Fallsguy]

Has anybody heard anything more about the AG in Ontario studying the law for its constitutionality?

 

[stay]

I second the motion.

all in favour of TeasePlease TOFTT?

since your sig suggests that you have had something put up there, I don't see it as a problem, Me, I'm too pretty for jail.

 

[Czar]

The hostess of that TV show asked for people to write to her what they think. I suggest we do just that. Not in a mean manner but a direct manner. The law has put me into retirement for now.

 

[anotherwebguy]

Has anybody heard anything more about the AG in Ontario studying the law for its constitutionality?

Perhaps Ms. Bedford or Mr. Young can enlighten us, after all, it's their mess we are in.

 

[TeasePlease]

all in favour of TeasePlease TOFTT?

since your sig suggests that you have had something put up there, I don't see it as a problem, Me, I'm too pretty for jail.

Didn't they just announce that a convict can be incarcerated according to his sexual identification?

Well, I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

 

[rhuarc29]

It would probably be better if this wasn't reported in the news. You get the feeling that someone in some Ontario police department is holding up this article saying they need to do something about it.

That was my thought as well. If it's under the rug, no one's reputation is being despoiled. But bring it to light...people are going to want to take action.

 

[stay]

Didn't they just announce that a convict can be incarcerated according to his sexual identification?

Well, I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

LOL, I don't know which is better, being rear-ended or face the wrath of a woman

 

[Just looking]

I thought I read that some LE out-west did charge some johns recently during some street-sweeps, but of course this would not have been any different with or without C36.

However as a taxpayer, I would sincerely hope that the Ontario LE community takes the same approach as Vancouver - and focus their efforts on helping those in true distress (trafficking, underage, etc) using the pre-existing laws, and not waste their time persecuting consenting adults for engaging in harmless activities behind close doors.

I believe its is just that, trafficking, underage and woman or girls in distress.

I have seen many ladies who I know well last few weeks, and not a problem. But I stick with ones I know. Independent ladies. I still feel LE just do not have the time and money to start watching each SP who works private or in apt , condo, or her hotel room. And again, I said this before. Your visiting a lady for company. NO PROOF at all to charge a man.

 

[drlove]

I believe its is just that, trafficking, underage and woman or girls in distress.

I have seen many ladies who I know well last few weeks, and not a problem. But I stick with ones I know. Independent ladies. I still feel LE just do not have the time and money to start watching each SP who works private or in apt , condo, or her hotel room. And again, I said this before. Your visiting a lady for company. NO PROOF at all to charge a man.

Yes, I agree. However, I'm not so sure about "NO PROOF" That is, even if one is paying for time, which is legal - the communication in setting up an appointment is now illegal. Thus, ostensibly an individual may be charged that way as well. E.G (emails, phone calls, texts etc..) Count me out.

 

[TeasePlease]

Yes, I agree. However, I'm not so sure about "NO PROOF" That is, even if one is paying for time, which is legal - the communication in setting up an appointment is now illegal. Thus, ostensibly an individual may be charged that way as well. E.G (emails, phone calls, texts etc..) Count me out.

It's been a while since I've read the text, but IIR, communication is illegal from the provider's perspective and generally only if conducted near schools, places of worship, etc.

I'd be more concerned about the interpretation of what it is you're paying for. It's unlikely that a defense of "paying for time" will fly. It's not time that you're buying. It's a particular service that is sold in temporal increments. e.g., you don't buy a lawyer's time, per se. You buy his professional legal services, which may be charged according to time spent/provided.

 

[Just looking]

Yes, I agree. However, I'm not so sure about "NO PROOF" That is, even if one is paying for time, which is legal - the communication in setting up an appointment is now illegal. Thus, ostensibly an individual may be charged that way as well. E.G (emails, phone calls, texts etc..) Count me out.

That is why my personal friend who is a lawyer tells me to call rather than Text. Text is all documented. Its a far cry that they would start to tap cell phone's, and need wards to do so. I have also said this before. Most ladies want you to call them after a few text anyway, so why not be safe and cut to it and call from the start.
The younger girls like text. I like to see the more established ladies who are Milfs anyway. And they are very crafty to the C-36 Bill. Most ladies I know have even given me their real names, to make me feel better in case ever stopped on the way out. This way you are really visiting a friend. I would never give out their names ever. I still say they will never bother Independent ladies, It really is all about the trafficking, underage and woman or girls in distress.
Avoid low rise buildings, High rise and hotels are fine. That is my personal feelings.

And don't kid yourself, some LE men see SP's in their time off as well. They are men like the rest of us.

 

[GPIDEAL]

It's been a while since I've read the text, but IIR, communication is illegal from the provider's perspective and generally only if conducted near schools, places of worship, etc.

I'd be more concerned about the interpretation of what it is you're paying for. It's unlikely that a defense of "paying for time" will fly. It's not time that you're buying. It's a particular service that is sold in temporal increments. e.g., you don't buy a lawyer's time, per se. You buy his professional legal services, which may be charged according to time spent/provided.

Companionship time. Companionship. Cuddles.

 

[GPIDEAL]

That is why my personal friend who is a lawyer tells me to call rather than Text. Text is all documented. Its a far cry that they would start to tap cell phone's, and need wards to do so. I have also said this before. Most ladies want you to call them after a few text anyway, so why not be safe and cut to it and call from the start.
The younger girls like text. I like to see the more established ladies who are Milfs anyway. And they are very crafty to the C-36 Bill. Most ladies I know have even given me their real names, to make me feel better in case ever stopped on the way out. This way you are really visiting a friend. I would never give out their names ever. I still say they will never bother Independent ladies, It really is all about the trafficking, underage and woman or girls in distress.
Avoid low rise buildings, High rise and hotels are fine. That is my personal feelings.

And don't kid yourself, some LE men see SP's in their time off as well. They are men like the rest of us.

I agree with you 100%!

 

[GPIDEAL]

It's been a while since I've read the text, but IIR, communication is illegal from the provider's perspective and generally only if conducted near schools, places of worship, etc.

I'd be more concerned about the interpretation of what it is you're paying for. It's unlikely that a defense of "paying for time" will fly. It's not time that you're buying. It's a particular service that is sold in temporal increments. e.g., you don't buy a lawyer's time, per se. You buy his professional legal services, which may be charged according to time spent/provided.

You know, I've read 286.1 over and over again, and communication only seems to be an offence for the purchaser's perspective, not the provider's since they are not OBTAINING or communicating for that purpose.

Furthermore, 286.5 immunizes SPs from aiding, abetting, conspiring or attempting to commit any of the offences under Sections 286.1 to 286.4.

 

[TeasePlease]

You know, I've read 286.1 over and over again, and communication only seems to be an offence for the purchaser's perspective, not the provider's since they are not OBTAINING or communicating for that purpose.

Furthermore, 286.5 immunizes SPs from aiding, abetting, conspiring or attempting to commit any of the offences under Sections 286.1 to 286.4.

I wasn't thinking of 286.1 although I fell into the trap of forgetting about communicating for the purposes of.....

286.5 only immunizes providers from 286.2 and 286.4, not 286.1 (or 286.3, I suppose).

 

[EJHappiness]

not a surprise, to be honest.