Asylum seeker who sold prostitutes under Home Office’s nose
A Thai applicant, Saranwee Kwanpetch, who was supposed to be monitored is accused of exploiting vulnerable women with impunity
He’s running a website flogging tart services at £150 an hour in Mayfair.
Pimps don’t sell birds. The entire point is that you don’t wrap them up and take them home forever.
Quite apart from whether high end escorts are being exploited or not.
Quite apart from whether high end escorts are being exploited or not.
People being exploited are the clients. Although prossies are equal opportunity exploiters. They’ll exploit anyone, given the hint of a chance.
He should of course be sent straight back to Thailand.
Assuming the Thais would take him.
Here’s another linguistic complaint. He’s not an “asylum seeker”. Thailand is a holiday destination for Brits and there’s nothing to seek refuge from, apart from a lower wages in the pimping business. He’s an illegal economic migrant, a pimp, and probably lots of other bad things too.
Jail and deport.
@Sam Vara
It would save a lot of time and money simply to offer him deportation instead of trial followed by probable jail and deportation. If he’s ever found in the UK again, then it’s automatic jail for breaking the deportation order plus the trial and additional sentence for the original offences leading to deportation.
This is just one of the Home Office’s wacky japes, like inviting acid-throwing monsters to come and live next to your daughter’s school, or the all-asylum-seeker paedophile rape gangs.
The solution involves people’s houses sadly catching fire.
Be interesting to know what crime he’s actually committed. Apart from the immigration offences. Being a “pimp” certainly isn’t illegal. Mostly because they don’t exist. Fantasy word. Running an agency offering “personal services” isn’t illegal. UK has dozens if not hundreds. And running a website isn’t. There’s “living on immoral earnings”. Someone who didn’t understand English law might fall foul of that. Didn’t set the business up correctly. But what else? Offending journalistic imagination?
@bloke in spain – “Be interesting to know what crime he’s actually committed”
The Times is paywalled, but the Daily Mail has an open access article which seems to contain the details.
“he was allowed to stay after applying to the Home Office for refuge, on the condition that he did not work while this was being processed” – one of our national stupidities that rather than hopng that applicants can support themseles, we do our best to ensure we have to pay them.
“One of his workers told the broadsheet that he charged her rent and took a third of her fees.
It is illegal for someone to control any activities relating to someone else’s prostitution for financial gain under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
It is also a criminal offence for a brothel-keeper to organise for women to travel for sex under human trafficking legislation.
On the escort agency’s website, it adds: ‘If for whatever reason you are not able to get into Central London we can travel to you so you will not have to miss out on the fun.’”
So some of it is covered by very over-broad legislation. We certainly need to ensure that prostitutes are not unfairly exploited – just like any other workers – but it’s not clear to what extent his actions ought to be illegal.
“A customer of the prostitution service, speaking to The Sunday Times, said that he knew Kwanpetch as ‘Benny’ and had reported him to immigration services” So was this a noble, public-spirirted person wanting to crack down on crime, or an entitled and dissatisfied customer? If the former, they must be well informed as most people would expect crime to be handled by the police, even though for some bizarre reason modern slavery laws are the responsibility of immigration!
Charles,
“So some of it is covered by very over-broad legislation. We certainly need to ensure that prostitutes are not unfairly exploited – just like any other workers – but it’s not clear to what extent his actions ought to be illegal.”
Unless he’s very stupid, all of the wording will be to the effect of “you get to spend an hour of fun with Crystal for £150 and what she agrees to is up to her”. You don’t need a genius lawyer to tell you how to word the website T&Cs to be on the right side of the law.
And I really struggle with the idea of “exploited” and making £150 less 30% commission. That’s what, £105/hr? That’s a lot of money for women working in professional jobs in the UK, let alone young Thai women.
Three prostitutes murdered in the EU by Afghan man whose status had not been decided.
https://www.krone.at/3277607
Yet multiple organisations have implied that the legal right in Vienna for registered sexworkers to share premises (the 3 victims were Chinese so I’m guessing they were not registered) is the key problem to address.
“That’s a lot of money for women working in professional jobs in the UK, let alone young Thai women.”
I’ve never been to London, but I hear it’s quite expensive. Living in central London (since they would travel if you can’t make it there) would be expensive. And it’s self-employed, which means you should probably divide the base rate more or less in half as banks will if you’re self-employed to cover ups and downs in business (perhaps that’s an unfortunate phrasing).
One wonders just how much of that money the woman sees in the end.
“the legal right in Vienna for registered sexworkers to share premises”
That’s one thing Chummy might have fallen foul of. Although common most everywhere else where women share premises, not only for economy but for mutual security, that’s a big no-no in the UK. Two or more prossies working in the same domicile is a “disorderly house” & is a nick. Not only for them but can be for the owner/leaseholder. No. Doesn’t make sense but that’s the law. Which means if you got a brace round your own place on an outcall, you could be on dodgy ground.
Thing to remember about the entire business is, contrary to might have been led to believe, there’s absolutely no shortage of women willing to go on the game. The shortage is in the paying customers.
So it makes a lot of cherished notions economically infeasible. Compelling a woman to work for instance. The cost of the compulsion would make them uncompetitive in the market. ““you get to spend an hour of fun with Crystal for £150 ” might sound impressive. But that may be the only money Crystal sees all day. Or just as likely a half hour for 80. And the girls are high maintenance. They can spend that in a day on nails, hair & slap. Not to mention gym fees, clothes & their predilection for fast food deliveries. And without all that, you’d be trying to rent out some miserable scrawny drab for £15 for ten minutes. The rock bottom end of the market.
All the women are essentially independents on piece work. They voluntarily pay for services will find them their work.
Of course bringing in further legislation to curtail the business is an open door for the crooks to walk through. The harder you make it for them to work, the more they’re reliant on assistance.
“flogging tart services at £150 an hour in Mayfair … whether high end escorts are being exploited”
Out of curiosity, is £150 an hour “high end” in that profession?
That Democrat Governor of New York who was caught visiting tarts was, I think, reported as paying $1,000 an hour, and that was some years ago. I wouldn’t have thought Mayfair was much cheaper than NY. Was he being ripped off, or was the press exaggerating the price, or are these not really “high end”?