Talk:Soho walk-up

Extent

From the History section: By the early 1960s almost every doorway in Soho had red-lit doorbells, or open doors with little postcards just inside advertising "Large Chest for Sale" or "French Lessons Given."

In 2001 52 flats were raided: workers rally over deportation of 28 prostitutes held in Soho raids. There must have been a minimum of 52 at that time (I remember reading an article from about that time saying there were 83 but can't find it now.)

In 2013 there were just 19: sex workers protest against forced evictions in London red light district.

Since 2013 more have closed.

In the history section, is "Nevertheless, prostitution is still widespread in walk-ups in parts of Soho and prostitutes are widely available" still applicable? ie given the number left, is 'widespread' accurate? (And perhaps Soho#Sex industry needs altering too?)

It may be worth adding a new section: Decline.

A lot of the decline is due to gentrification. Soho losing its mojo? gives some insight.

John B123 (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Legality

The walk-ups are in a very grey area legally. Apart from 3 or 4 in Shepard Market, Mayfair (with has a similar history as a red light district), similar establishments are not found elsewhere in the UK.

It is technically legal for a single sex worker to work in this way providing she follows the rules correctly.. This is correct but only tells part of the story.

Brothels are defined (in simple terms) as two or more women working from the same premises. However the women don't have to be working at the same time. The walk-ups generally have a rota system with a different girl working every day.

From the CPS Guidelines: In circumstances where prostitutes are working individually out of one flat but there is a rotation of occupants and the young women are moved on a regular basis; i.e. sole occupancy and a rotation of sole occupants, it does constitute a brothel.

Most buildings used for walk-ups have 2 or 3 separate walk-ups in them. (It might be worth adding this to the page as the current text implies only one walk-up per building.) Although an old ruling, it's still a reference point legally:

Durose v. Wilson (1907) 71JP 263; 96 L.T. 645 DC. "If several flats in a block of buildings under one roof are used for the purpose of prostitution, the whole block may be a brothel." "a brothel is such a place as that described in that case - that is, premises used by more than one woman for prostitution."

In recent years police have tended to use closure orders on the grounds of drug taking and public nuisance and/order disorder rather than prosecuting for sexual offences.

Part of the problem for the police in bringing prosecutions for sexual offences is that the walk-ups have been tolerated for so long, a defence of 'abuse of process' is likely. See Police investigations: abuse of process at CPS Guidelines

John B123 (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Edits by Dictatorj 28th March

(for a house to be a de iure brothel it must be used by more than one person to offer sexual services in return for payment)

Should it be 'de jure' rather than 'de iure' (De iure redirects to De iure)'

For a premises to be a brothel, there is no need for payment to be made.

From CPS Guidelines: Prostitution and Exploitation of Prostitution:

A brothel is defined as "a place where people of opposite sexes (but see paragraph below) are allowed to resort for illicit intercourse, whether the women are common prostitutes or not". It is not essential to show that the premises are in fact used for the purposes of prostitution (which involves payment for services rendered); a brothel exists where women offer sexual intercourse without charging (Winter v Woolfe [1931] KB 549).

Section 6 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 provides that "Premises which are resorted to for the purposes of lewd homosexual practices shall be treated as a brothel" for the purposes of sections 33 to 35 of the Act. The same now applies to section 36 by virtue of Schedule 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

A Soho walk-up can be legal

Again from the CPS

Premises only become a brothel when more than one woman uses premises for the purposes of prostitution, either simultaneously or one at a time (Stevens v Christy [1987] Cr. App. R. 249, DC). This implies that if two women are present, both must be there for the purposes of prostitution. In circumstances where prostitutes are working individually out of one flat but there is a rotation of occupants and the young women are moved on a regular basis; i.e. sole occupancy and a rotation of sole occupants, it does constitute a brothel.

As the walk-ups have generally have rotas (i.e. different girls on different days) then the 'one at a time' condition above is applicable, making them a brothel and therefore illegal

the prostitute may not solicit potential customers on the street i.e. clients must by their own initiative walk in through the door

Section 51A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is cited. The actual wording is 'It is an offence for a person in a street or public place' (not just on the street)'

Criminal Justice Act 1972 S33 defines a 'public place':

“Public place” includes any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise”

Arguably, by leaving the street door open and inviting the public in with the 'model' sign, this is a public place as defined by the CJA, in the same way as a shop is.

John B123 (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Southwark

The Soho area has been at the heart of London's sex industry since 1778 when the first brothel was opened. Previously it was across the Thames at Southwark

I'm not sure there is any evidence of a sex industry move from Southwark to Soho as suggested by this edit. I would have thought it more likely prostitution was pushed towards Soho from Covent Garden when that area was 'cleaned up' in the 18th c. John B123 (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

If this article is claiming the centrality of Soho now as a red-light district (and fair enough), then it needs a nod to the historical context. Our Prostitution_in_the_United_Kingdom#History mentions Covent Garden, but not any cleaning up thereof. What wording do you suggest? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

There have been many areas of prostitution in London in over the past few hundred years. Some have grown up independently (such as Covent Garden, which was theatre land and, at the time, actresses were generally prostitutes too.). Others have moved due to circumstances (The area where the Strand is now was formally warehouses into which goods were transferred from ships in the Thames. It also housed the prostitutes who serviced the sailors. With the building of the London Docks, the prostitutes moved to the docklands as the ships no longer unloaded in the river). Other areas have included Shepherd Market, Pimlico, Marylebone and more latterly Kings Cross.

Soho is probably the best know UK red-light district not because of prostitution but, over the years, nude theatre, strip clubs, adult bookshops etc. Prostitution in Soho is, apart from the odd place in Shepard Market, unique in the way the 'walk ups' work. There is little or no street prostitution or brothels in the conventional sense. In terms of numbers, Ilford Lane in Tower Hamlets and Commercial Street in the East End are larger RLDs.

Whilst I've made a guess that there was migration from Covent Garden to Soho, I don't know of any reliable evidence of this. This is a specific article on the walk-ups, as opposed to Soho as a RLD (although this is touched on as history of how the walk ups evolved), I'm not sure prostitution in other parts of London is relevant to the article, especially as there's not definite link between the Southwark RLD and the Soho one. John B123 (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Certainly the current text needs editing. The sentence in parentheses is out of chronological sequence and it would read more easily if it were not in brackets. Also the use of "see" is not ideal (see WP:YOU). And we should have the punctuation before the reference. While my WP:INCLUSIONISM causes me to be reluctant to lose content, this information is all available in the Cross Bones article. I find it difficult to see how we can keep this sentence in this article without adding further content here concerning the history of prostitution in London. Such content would be likely to overwhelm this article. The best I can suggest is to replace the sentence in parentheses with a link to Cross Bones in the "See also" section. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that more editing is in order. In the meantime, I've added Cross Bones to the see also. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)