I just heard on the news this morning that the cops in Edmonton now have the power to confiscate your car when caught picking up street ladies. It seems the stakes are very high now for those of you that like to cruise. Personally I prefer mp or outcall for the comfort and safety. Dont feel like getting busted trying to get laid.
street scene warning
- Thread starter footlong
- Start date
The shitty part is that they do not even need a conviction.
- So what if they confiscate your car and sell it and your are proven innocent?
- What is to stop a cop from falsely accusing you of "communicating for the purposes of"
-What happened to "innocent until PROVEN guilty"
Can you spell ABUSE OF POWER!!!
Point two actually happened to me once. I was going home along 118 Ave. As I approached the intersection to turn right, the walk light had JUST changed to a Wait light and there was a lady looking like she was about to cross and stopped. I figured she stopped cuz of me and not the light so I motioned for her to cross. She looked at me and I motioned again. She approached my car so I rolled down the window as was about to ask, "Do you want to cross or don't you?" She started to say something and walked away. Next thing you know, after I make my turn there's a cop car behind me. He pulls me over. Normally I have a lot of respect for these guys but some are real dickheads. I asked this guy what the problem was (thought he was going to accuse me of not giving a pedestrian the right of way) and his answer was, (and I quote...) "You were seen talking to a lady in an area frequented by prostitutes". I said, "OK. But what did I do wrong?" His answer, "You were seen talking to a lady in an area frequented by prostitutes". I said, "OK. But what did I do wrong?" He didn't answer this time but asked for D/L, Reg, Ins. As far as I'm concerned, accuse me and charge me or FUCK OFF. He had NOTHING on me or he would have done something so in my opinion it was simply a cop that had the opportunity to throw his weight around and took advantage. Probably felt pretty powerful after too. Now...What is he was able to confiscate my car. I know the politically correct answer will be that they would not do that unless they had some proof but my question is. What is to stop them? Normally a conviction is needed. Here, none is needed. All that does is open the door to abuse. So now, rather than fight REAL crime, they have added to their picture taking skills (sitting in a cozy vehicle taking pictures of speeding cars while ignoring drunken bastards, bastards without insurance etc.) and taken up seizure as a hobby. Just as a joke one day, I'd love to solicit a lady at a bus stop and when picked up say, "There's my vehicle. Go ahead. Take it!"
- So what if they confiscate your car and sell it and your are proven innocent?
- What is to stop a cop from falsely accusing you of "communicating for the purposes of"
-What happened to "innocent until PROVEN guilty"
Can you spell ABUSE OF POWER!!!
Point two actually happened to me once. I was going home along 118 Ave. As I approached the intersection to turn right, the walk light had JUST changed to a Wait light and there was a lady looking like she was about to cross and stopped. I figured she stopped cuz of me and not the light so I motioned for her to cross. She looked at me and I motioned again. She approached my car so I rolled down the window as was about to ask, "Do you want to cross or don't you?" She started to say something and walked away. Next thing you know, after I make my turn there's a cop car behind me. He pulls me over. Normally I have a lot of respect for these guys but some are real dickheads. I asked this guy what the problem was (thought he was going to accuse me of not giving a pedestrian the right of way) and his answer was, (and I quote...) "You were seen talking to a lady in an area frequented by prostitutes". I said, "OK. But what did I do wrong?" His answer, "You were seen talking to a lady in an area frequented by prostitutes". I said, "OK. But what did I do wrong?" He didn't answer this time but asked for D/L, Reg, Ins. As far as I'm concerned, accuse me and charge me or FUCK OFF. He had NOTHING on me or he would have done something so in my opinion it was simply a cop that had the opportunity to throw his weight around and took advantage. Probably felt pretty powerful after too. Now...What is he was able to confiscate my car. I know the politically correct answer will be that they would not do that unless they had some proof but my question is. What is to stop them? Normally a conviction is needed. Here, none is needed. All that does is open the door to abuse. So now, rather than fight REAL crime, they have added to their picture taking skills (sitting in a cozy vehicle taking pictures of speeding cars while ignoring drunken bastards, bastards without insurance etc.) and taken up seizure as a hobby. Just as a joke one day, I'd love to solicit a lady at a bus stop and when picked up say, "There's my vehicle. Go ahead. Take it!"
Guess you let them stay lost now Wolverine. What if a lady is standing beside a seemingly broken down car. Guess you have to let her stand there and hope no mugger comes along cuz you or I sure can't stop and talk to her. Actually, this opens up a whole shitload of, "What if" scenarios and in each case we will hear, "We'll NEVER impound a vehicle in that situation. We'll need proof that there was communication for the purposes of." But as long as they do not need a conviction, MY point is that there is nothing to STOP exactly that, from happening. Ever hear of the baseball bandit in Calgary? That was a cop! Remember the two cops in Sask who took the drunk guy out in the country and left him in the middle of nowhere, in winter? Not saying they are all bad asses but just because they have the training...
All I know is that I want my tax dollars going to fight REAL crime, not to stop some poor bastard who is just out there looking for a little company. Don't take the easy way out. Stop the related crime (drugs, pimps etc). There is NO WAY any cop or politician can convinve me that drugs will go away by getting rid of street prostitution. Has to laugh at the statement, "We're trying to get street prostitution off the streets." What a dumbass comment. Perhaps we should be spending more on our education as evidenced by that stupid remark.
All I know is that I want my tax dollars going to fight REAL crime, not to stop some poor bastard who is just out there looking for a little company. Don't take the easy way out. Stop the related crime (drugs, pimps etc). There is NO WAY any cop or politician can convinve me that drugs will go away by getting rid of street prostitution. Has to laugh at the statement, "We're trying to get street prostitution off the streets." What a dumbass comment. Perhaps we should be spending more on our education as evidenced by that stupid remark.
I think Hamish, that they want to make sure it is enforceable. I know this'll be taken as though I frequest the streets (if not by board members, for sure those who are not) but I sure hope this does not fly. With conviction, I can live with it. But no conviction means open the door to ABUSE. People will argue that only users will argue. Not true. In the case of smokers maybe because non smokers have to put up with smoke. In this case, not true. I just feel this is SUCH an ABUSE OF POWER AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is unconstitutional. This law was inspired by a similar 1999 Manitoba law, one which was recently reviewed to see if it was having any effect at all. (A grand total of four cars were seized in Manitoba since 1999.) The government of BC and the City of Toronto both studied the issue and their legal experts said the Manitoba law would be found unconstitutional if ever tested in court.
The problem is this: criminal law is the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, according to the British North America Act (which established Canada). Provinces and municipalities have NO POWER to enact penalties for criminal offenses, such as prostitution, shoplifting, assault, etc. Thus the law is already legally beyond the Alberta government's jurisdiction.
Secondly, Canadian courts have never looked kindly on anything that tampers with the presumption of innocence. This law would allow police to take away a person's vehicle BEFORE they were convicted of anything. (Possibly risking a person's livelihood.) This will not go over well with the courts, which tend to interpret the Charter of Rights and Freedoms pretty strictly.
The Alberta government has legal experts too, and Justice Minister Dave Hancock is asking them to study whether the legislation is even enforceable, before it is proclaimed into law. (It is not law now until signed by the Lieutenant Governor.) In their heart of hearts, the MLAs who passed this know this is a bad law that will serve no purpose other than window-dressing.
The problem is this: criminal law is the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, according to the British North America Act (which established Canada). Provinces and municipalities have NO POWER to enact penalties for criminal offenses, such as prostitution, shoplifting, assault, etc. Thus the law is already legally beyond the Alberta government's jurisdiction.
Secondly, Canadian courts have never looked kindly on anything that tampers with the presumption of innocence. This law would allow police to take away a person's vehicle BEFORE they were convicted of anything. (Possibly risking a person's livelihood.) This will not go over well with the courts, which tend to interpret the Charter of Rights and Freedoms pretty strictly.
The Alberta government has legal experts too, and Justice Minister Dave Hancock is asking them to study whether the legislation is even enforceable, before it is proclaimed into law. (It is not law now until signed by the Lieutenant Governor.) In their heart of hearts, the MLAs who passed this know this is a bad law that will serve no purpose other than window-dressing.
Donning my flame proof suit
Here's my view on the subject.
I view this law like I view photo radar.
If you don't want a photo radar ticket, don't speed.
If you don't want your vehicle confiscated don't go trolling for street action.
Perhaps overly simplistic? But it will work in both cases. ;-)
I'll just sit now with my flame proof suit and wait for the replies ;-)
Here's my view on the subject.
I view this law like I view photo radar.
If you don't want a photo radar ticket, don't speed.
If you don't want your vehicle confiscated don't go trolling for street action.
Perhaps overly simplistic? But it will work in both cases. ;-)
I'll just sit now with my flame proof suit and wait for the replies ;-)
Not a flame Jim but I do disagree. I will STILL dislike photo radar even if I am not speeding. The reason I dislike it, is not cuz I'm afraid of getting caught speeding as a radar trap will catch me speeding too. The reason I dislike it is two fold:
1. The cops keep lying and saying it isn't meant to be a cash cow but to keep our streets safer. Just be honest and ADMIT it's a cash cow because it DOES NOT keep our streets safer (see next point).
2. It catches people speeding but NOT the bastards without insurance, the bastard who stole my car, the bastard who stole my plate off my car, the drunken bastard. Nailing a guy going 10K over the speed limit and leaving the drunk idiot behind the wheel IS NOT KEEPING OUR STREETS SAFER. I would LOVE to hear a cop or legislator explain how someone driving 10, 15,...kms over the limit is more of a danger than the drunk driver (or for that matter an uninsured driver.)
1. The cops keep lying and saying it isn't meant to be a cash cow but to keep our streets safer. Just be honest and ADMIT it's a cash cow because it DOES NOT keep our streets safer (see next point).
2. It catches people speeding but NOT the bastards without insurance, the bastard who stole my car, the bastard who stole my plate off my car, the drunken bastard. Nailing a guy going 10K over the speed limit and leaving the drunk idiot behind the wheel IS NOT KEEPING OUR STREETS SAFER. I would LOVE to hear a cop or legislator explain how someone driving 10, 15,...kms over the limit is more of a danger than the drunk driver (or for that matter an uninsured driver.)
It's a whole can of worms that they've opened up here, and I don't agree with it. If they catch you with an underage...take the car, lock you up...just cruising though? What the fuck, how do you think some pizza delivery guys are going to get away with it? Bad evil delivery people driving around the neighborhood looking for something! Photo radar is as everyone knows "stupid tax"...everyone knows that they're there, yet still speed by. You get the tax bill in the mail.
I read this one article in the Sun yesterday about a declining number of prostitution arrests. One cop mentioned something about johns becoming more sly and sophisticated because they exchange information on internet msgboards on how to avoid getting caught.
Well gee whiz, he couldn't possibly be referring to this particular msgboard now, could they?
I'm going to put on my paranoid hat for just one moment:
Sometimes I wonder if 5-0 is collecting intel on us PERBerts...and I sometimes can't help but think that one day, they'll be busting down my door and arresting me for the things I've posted here.
Well gee whiz, he couldn't possibly be referring to this particular msgboard now, could they?
I'm going to put on my paranoid hat for just one moment:
Sometimes I wonder if 5-0 is collecting intel on us PERBerts...and I sometimes can't help but think that one day, they'll be busting down my door and arresting me for the things I've posted here.
A couple of replies: Wolverine, I was a veteran of the street scene for years. The reason prostitution arrests are down is because there's nobody out there anymore. I've driven down some of my old haunts and there just aren't the SWs there were five, six years ago. The quality used to be quite good and the prices excellent, but there are almost no worthwhile SWs on the strolls anymore. The quality is at MPs.
Second of all, dear Wolverine, do not be paranoid about posting. Visiting MPs is legal. Having paid sex with an escort at your home or hotel room is legal. Only legal technicalities of this hobby are unlawful--i.e. communicating with a prostitute in a public place, living off the profits of prostitution, etc. This is not (yet) Communist Cuba or Nazi Germany. You will not get busted for visiting an MP and writing about it.
Thirdly, the police are already engaging in the practise of "warehousing." This means prioritizing criminal cases and investigations and putting the lower-ranked ones in "File 13." There simply are not enough resources to deal with gang violence, stabbings, murders, assaults, robberies and car theft as it is. They would be risking the wrath of their bosses--the taxpayers--if they diverted resources from serious criminal investigations (like Edmonton's exploding gang problem) to harassing men who visit MPs for consensual encounters with adult women.
Jim, with all due respect I view your point about "just don't do it" as irresponsible. It's none of anyone's business if I choose to have sex with a prostitute. There are all sorts of behaviours that some people consider morally wrong and feel should be illegal. I remember speaking with one federal MP who believed simple ADULTERY should be a criminal offence. There are people who object to those of us who eat fatty food, who drink alcohol, who gamble. And there are still people who want, say, alcohol banned, even though we all know how well that worked. In a society that is technically a democracy that respects human rights, the law needs to be pretty limited. Unless I'm doing something that openly violates the rights of others (e.g. theft, arson, murder, assault) what I do and who I have sex with is nobody's business.
Second of all, dear Wolverine, do not be paranoid about posting. Visiting MPs is legal. Having paid sex with an escort at your home or hotel room is legal. Only legal technicalities of this hobby are unlawful--i.e. communicating with a prostitute in a public place, living off the profits of prostitution, etc. This is not (yet) Communist Cuba or Nazi Germany. You will not get busted for visiting an MP and writing about it.
Thirdly, the police are already engaging in the practise of "warehousing." This means prioritizing criminal cases and investigations and putting the lower-ranked ones in "File 13." There simply are not enough resources to deal with gang violence, stabbings, murders, assaults, robberies and car theft as it is. They would be risking the wrath of their bosses--the taxpayers--if they diverted resources from serious criminal investigations (like Edmonton's exploding gang problem) to harassing men who visit MPs for consensual encounters with adult women.
Jim, with all due respect I view your point about "just don't do it" as irresponsible. It's none of anyone's business if I choose to have sex with a prostitute. There are all sorts of behaviours that some people consider morally wrong and feel should be illegal. I remember speaking with one federal MP who believed simple ADULTERY should be a criminal offence. There are people who object to those of us who eat fatty food, who drink alcohol, who gamble. And there are still people who want, say, alcohol banned, even though we all know how well that worked. In a society that is technically a democracy that respects human rights, the law needs to be pretty limited. Unless I'm doing something that openly violates the rights of others (e.g. theft, arson, murder, assault) what I do and who I have sex with is nobody's business.
Hey Wolvie, I seriously doubt that 5-0 has nothing better to do with their time than build files on us and come knocking on our doors... If they don't then, that's the beauty of the internet...it lends itself to the faceless masses. The only time you have to worry, is when you start leaving personal information about yourself online...
I'm no longer wearing my paranoid hat, so rationally speaking, I do agree that we posters should be OK. However, erase all doubt that the vice squad are keeping an eye on boards like this. That article pretty much confirmed as such.
Don't be putting words in my mouth Kev. I didn't say don't go have paid sex. I said don't go cruising, a significant difference ;-).KLKev said:
No it isn't. If I choose to go cruising for sex, that's my business, not the state's, not the feminists', not society's. There are many of us who used to enjoy cruising (before the girls started leaving for other venues). What you suggested, Jim, was not to cruise. I resent the fact that the state is trying to remove all chance of a revival in a particular area of the hobby I richly enjoyed. I have a right to meet and negotiate services with an SP, whether at an MP, in my home, at her place or on the street.
I agree with just about everything BS Detector had to say. While I think for the most part the police are there to help us, we all know that some of them are on serious power trips.
With regard to the photo radar system, I don't believe the people sitting in the vehicle's are actual police officers. I could be wrong but I seem to recall a conversation I had with someone about that a couple of years ago.
I wonder what would happen if a woman, lets say a lezbian stopped to talk with a SW? Or a couple? Would it matter who was behind the wheel as to whether or not the car was confiscated? Geez, a few months ago I saw a girl I used to work with at an MP working outside and I stopped to talk to her just to make sure she was ok. So if I ever see her again and notice that she seems to be really messed up on drugs I better just keep on driving then. Or does that law apply to me? I'm really confused now, I better speed over to the Tim Horton's and think about all of this stuff. LOL
I also agree that there are MUCH more serious things to be thinking about. Like maybe catching the guy thats killing all of the girls on the street. Or keeping the Karl Tofts of the world off the street. Here is a guy that has admitted to molesting at least 200 boys. Around the time he was getting out of jail there was an article in the paper that claimed he was considered a "low risk repeat offender" Did somebody cut his penis off? If I drink and drive 200 times am I a low risk? The worst part is that if I ever see him walking down the street having a nice life and decide I'm going to run him over with my car I will go to jail longer than he did.
I think the US had the right idea about the war on drugs. I don't agree a house should be confiscated for a joint of just some weed, when I personally feel alcohol is far more dangerous. Just because its legal does'nt make it any better. But yeah for harder drugs like crack, meth or heroin take the house, the cars, the money, take everything. There are millions of children that don't have a father or mother because of the shit thats out there nowadays.
Toodles for now and have a good day.
I hope everyone had a good weekend.
Love Rebecca
With regard to the photo radar system, I don't believe the people sitting in the vehicle's are actual police officers. I could be wrong but I seem to recall a conversation I had with someone about that a couple of years ago.
I wonder what would happen if a woman, lets say a lezbian stopped to talk with a SW? Or a couple? Would it matter who was behind the wheel as to whether or not the car was confiscated? Geez, a few months ago I saw a girl I used to work with at an MP working outside and I stopped to talk to her just to make sure she was ok. So if I ever see her again and notice that she seems to be really messed up on drugs I better just keep on driving then. Or does that law apply to me? I'm really confused now, I better speed over to the Tim Horton's and think about all of this stuff. LOL
I also agree that there are MUCH more serious things to be thinking about. Like maybe catching the guy thats killing all of the girls on the street. Or keeping the Karl Tofts of the world off the street. Here is a guy that has admitted to molesting at least 200 boys. Around the time he was getting out of jail there was an article in the paper that claimed he was considered a "low risk repeat offender" Did somebody cut his penis off? If I drink and drive 200 times am I a low risk? The worst part is that if I ever see him walking down the street having a nice life and decide I'm going to run him over with my car I will go to jail longer than he did.
I think the US had the right idea about the war on drugs. I don't agree a house should be confiscated for a joint of just some weed, when I personally feel alcohol is far more dangerous. Just because its legal does'nt make it any better. But yeah for harder drugs like crack, meth or heroin take the house, the cars, the money, take everything. There are millions of children that don't have a father or mother because of the shit thats out there nowadays.
Toodles for now and have a good day.
I hope everyone had a good weekend.
Love Rebecca
Rebecca, You may be right on about photo radar. I remember reading or hearing that they wanted to contract out the 'photograpgy' part of it. Don't know if that has actually happened or not. My problem still is that whether they are cops or photographers sitting in that van (and this also addrsses Walrus's point about use of the money collected) I do NOT see extra police presence out in the streets. I really feel that their presence out there is a deterrent in itself (sometimes). Proof...If you see a cop driving slowly in the right hand lane at 5-10 clicks below the speed limit, notice how everyone is afraid of passing him. Also Rebecca, if you're going to Tim Horton's, you don't have to contemplate, you can ask the cops, cuz that's where you'll find half of them. You see more cops cars congregated there sometimes than at the local cop shop. BTW, I wouldn't mind photo radar half as much if it resulted in additional police presence on the streets and more checkstops etc. Unfortunately, (and I may be way wrong on this) the funds do go to general revenues and the police are still stuck with a budget handed down to them. I would like to see the funds from the Cash Cow go directly to policing and to finding and keeping those you mentioned, off the streets
