Does anybody think that LE would do a search warrant on an existing escort business and then set up shop and answer the phones for a night (and busting johns in the process)???? I dont think this is entirely out of the realm of possibility.
Law Enforcement vs. Terbites
- Thread starter johnnyhandsome
- Start date
Don't give them any ideas! *lol*
Seriously though, outcall agencies would not be affected, as they are perfectly legal. The only establishments at risk of being busted are incalls.
Seriously though, outcall agencies would not be affected, as they are perfectly legal. The only establishments at risk of being busted are incalls.
Actually, I've heard of one instance where they did exactly that and not just for one night. They kept the company running for months after they busted it and just let client come in to hang themselves and be arrested.
So in short, not a new idea by any stretch.
PAL
So in short, not a new idea by any stretch.
PAL
No offence guys but Pally and Dr. Love's posts are contradicting themselves. Was the escort co. you mentioned in Ontario, pallydin??
Sorry guys, some b.s. creeping in here!
Agencies are illegal, outcalls are not.
The gentleman who calls an agency for an outcall commits no offence.
Why would LE waste time, money and resources on an agency?
If it happened, then there must have been a lot more to it... like gentlemen seeking under aged girls, pornography, drugs, etc. etc.
Perry
Agencies are illegal, outcalls are not.
The gentleman who calls an agency for an outcall commits no offence.
Why would LE waste time, money and resources on an agency?
If it happened, then there must have been a lot more to it... like gentlemen seeking under aged girls, pornography, drugs, etc. etc.
Perry
Last edited:
Yes, it was in Hamilton and I'm pretty sure it was an incall place they took over and they just invited guys over to be arrested. There might have been other things going on but I'm really not so sure anymore.....all I remember is that LE busted the place and then used it as a front to make easy arrests after the fact (as it would literally cost them nothing in investigative time and only need an operator and an arresting officer at that point ).johnnyhandsome said:No offence guys but Pally and Dr. Love's posts are contradicting themselves. Was the escort co. you mentioned in Ontario, pallydin??
As for outcalls being legal, there are still many loopholes that are not entirely closed. For instance, at what point is communicating not an offense (if you talk to an officer about what you want from an outcall)? What if they send someone and you discuss something while the door is still open and the expectation of privacy doesn't yet exist? There are a myriad of ways that LE could get creative yet still legal in busting down outcalls, but they just cannot be bothered.
PAL
Sorry to be so blunt and putting it this way, but yer talkin' through yer hat! Stick to reality! Communicating in public has nothing to do with the question of legality of outcalls.Pallydin said:As for outcalls being legal, there are still many loopholes that are not entirely closed.
We have discussed this issue over and over in here. Do a search and get with the program!
Perry
Uuummm????.............so what exactly are you saying????Perry Mason said:Sorry to be so blunt and putting it this way, but yer talkin' through yer hat! Stick to reality! Communicating in public has nothing to do with the question of legality of outcalls.
You're making no sense, Perry M. Stick to my original question, please.
I'm not a lawyer, but I believe Perry is saying the answer to your original question is no. The legality of agencies and incalls has absolutely nothing to do with the law about public communicating. It involves different laws.
Agencies are illegal because they are "living off the avails of prostitution". A customer calling an agency is not doing anything illegal, so your idea of LE setting up an operation to catch the customers makes no sense.
I think a customer at an incall could be charged with being found in a common bawdy house, but that's only if he's there when the raid occurs. I believe the idea of setting up a phony one just to arrest the customers makes no sense either because a guy who is simply showing up there would not be committing a crime if it wasn't a real bawdy house.
Agencies are illegal because they are "living off the avails of prostitution". A customer calling an agency is not doing anything illegal, so your idea of LE setting up an operation to catch the customers makes no sense.
I think a customer at an incall could be charged with being found in a common bawdy house, but that's only if he's there when the raid occurs. I believe the idea of setting up a phony one just to arrest the customers makes no sense either because a guy who is simply showing up there would not be committing a crime if it wasn't a real bawdy house.
Last edited:
There has been a case where a guy talking in his car on his cell to an agency was found to be "communicating" because his car is public space (I want to say it was in Ottawa but I might be wrong on that one).....the dumbass phoned while parked in prime strolling grounds and was picked up by LE doing busts. The fact is that the edges around the communication laws are still quite blurry in those regards, hence making outcalls not quite as ironcad as some would try to mislead people into believing. It is only a matter of time that LE will move on to such pastures (as the only reason they don't now is manpower and laziness) so why be the uneducated and reckless doofus caught in the first wave? People believing outcalls are foolproof are deluding themselves in a most dangerous way and people should take precautions at all times.HaywoodJabloemy said:Agencies are illegal because they are "living off the avails of prostitution". A customer calling an agency is not doing anything illegal, so your idea of LE setting up an operation to catch the customers makes no sense.
People *should* realize the law is a fluid thing that changes in definition from day to day. It will only take one such bold charge (probably in North York) and the right (or wrong?) judge with something to say to wipe out outcalls. As it stands right now, it could fall either way. Remember: outcalls are only as legal as the method of getting to that point. A stricter take on communication very much affects the legality of outcalls, just as the strictness of bawdy house enforcement affects the legality of incalls.
PAL
Heywood got it. Did you not read both my posts?johnnyhandsome said:Uuummm????.............so what exactly are you saying????
You're making no sense, Perry M. Stick to my original question, please.
Pal Pally: C'mon, man. We have been through this over and over on this board... you are making no more sense now than you did before on this thread and that misleads people who really don't know!
The law may be a living thing, but the laws concerning both public solicitation and outcalls do not change from day to day unless Parliament amends the Criminal Code! I want to see the case you cite about the guy who called from his car... if it is as you say, I'll pay for a massage for you at Chang's: Will you do the same for me if you are wrong?
Perry
NBC's Dateline on Sunday night had something about US cops setting up their own phony massage parlours to arrest customers. Undercover female cop poses as MPA, asks guy on table if he would like to pay for more than just a massage, then she leaves room and male cop enters and arrests guy. Seems like an awfully elaborate waste of police resources for something no one would be complaining about.
I watched this last night. Apparently in the US Chiropractors are running massage parlours and the LE was running sting operations out of Chiropractors’ offices that they had busted. This was being done because of complaints from the Chiropractors’ professional body.HaywoodJabloemy said:NBC's Dateline on Sunday night had something about US cops setting up their own phony massage parlours to arrest customers. Undercover female cop poses as MPA, asks guy on table if he would like to pay for more than just a massage, then she leaves room and male cop enters and arrests guy. Seems like an awfully elaborate waste of police resources for something no one would be complaining about.
In some of the segments I think the cop was the one doing the soliciting and should have been busted. She didn’t even wait for the client to ask for the services and was the one that suggested that “other” services were available for a fee.
Apparently some in Canada would like police here to also go after all the "pigs".
http://www.canada.com/regina/leader....html?id=20bc87a2-e7e6-4db8-8d88-5dbdb971dbbf
"It would not be difficult, at all, to stop prostitution." What an unbelievably stupid statement. No civilization in history has ever stopped it no matter how hard they tried. I think Dan Gardner's "No simple way to end sex trade" (scroll down to second article) comes from a far more educated and reasonable point of view.
Of course there's nothing wrong with Malarek's crusade against people trafficking, but he's also misguidedly using it to advance an anti-decriminalization agenda. Wouldn't the scumbags be easier to find if the legitimate businesses were allowed to operate completely legally and above ground?
http://www.canada.com/regina/leader....html?id=20bc87a2-e7e6-4db8-8d88-5dbdb971dbbf
"It would not be difficult, at all, to stop prostitution." What an unbelievably stupid statement. No civilization in history has ever stopped it no matter how hard they tried. I think Dan Gardner's "No simple way to end sex trade" (scroll down to second article) comes from a far more educated and reasonable point of view.
Of course there's nothing wrong with Malarek's crusade against people trafficking, but he's also misguidedly using it to advance an anti-decriminalization agenda. Wouldn't the scumbags be easier to find if the legitimate businesses were allowed to operate completely legally and above ground?
