UK Judge Rules Clients and Escorts Not Bound by Any Law of Confidentiality

[fred Zed]

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/02/15/ntheak15.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/02/15/ixhome.html

[SDFeuerzauber]

If this is supposed to be an analogy for the escort scene in Toronto, then it is flawed. Whereas in the UK it was ruled that sex-for-hire doesn't come with any guarantee of privacy, many of the women of Canada advertise "discretion" and that "no records are kept."

So English prostitutes and Canadian "escorts" are not selling the same service.

When a Canadian escort sells time and not sex, and it is further advertised as confidential, then it can be argued that she is licensing the billed hour(s) to the client and that the client owns all rights to that time.

[Sheik]

If no records are kept, then there is nothing to give. In the case of a Doctor and Patient, records are kept. In the case of a confession in church, records are not kept. However to protect the men and women of the cloth from legal harrassment, its deemed priviledged.

In the case of the attorney and client, again its deemed confidential and cannot be touched except, I would venture to guess, in the most extreme cases. Even then I still cant see it happening.

So if a lady of the night wishes to protect her clients, she should not keep any records. A phone number doesnt mean a damn thing, but any records she may have, could have the rev Can agents after her for unpaid taxes.

[Aardvark154]

If this is supposed to be an analogy for the escort scene in Toronto, then it is flawed. Whereas in the UK it was ruled that sex-for-hire doesn't come with any guarantee of privacy, many of the women of Canada advertise "discretion" and that "no records are kept."

So English prostitutes and Canadian "escorts" are not selling the same service.

When a Canadian escort sells time and not sex, and it is further advertised as confidential, then it can be argued that she is licensing the billed hour(s) to the client and that the client owns all rights to that time.Although I agree with you that the situation on the ground is perhaps different, I'm not sure that legaly it is, although then again most of us are not recognizable "public figures." Food for thought - anyone here specialize in privacy rights?