The interesting point that isn't being looked at is a definition of what constitutes 'sex for money'. In the book 'Ask a Policeman', the author comments that a common claim amongst workers and clients caught in public was that they were temporarily engaged, which allowed the police to use their discretion. Despite knowing darn well what was happening, it was all paperwork, so was brushed aside with a weary sigh. Usually, this was pretty standard 'tuppeny-upright' stuff, as bondage gear and muzzles are few and far between in a Rochdale back alley.

However, prostitution and sexuality in the UK is far more varied than Lord Percy meeting Lady Penny, and sometimes Lord Percy himself is nothing more than an innocent bystander.

If certain rumours are true, Mark Oaten's tastes led to the scatological.
There are hundreds of tales of whippings, constraints, giantism, and anything else you can find by typing 'sex' into google.

How can something that ends in non-genital contact be called 'sex?' Do we say that any action intended to arouse is to be considered sexual? That would be strippers, kissograms and publishers of FHM in the dock, then. Do we say that any physical relationship embarked upon for money is immoral and thus illegal? That could apply to certain nameless individuals - mostly Furnis- female.

The trouble is, as with the rest of the law, burden of proof. To secure a conviction you'd need client lists and an itemised ledger, and it's more likely that they'll eventually stand trial for undeclared earnings, if anything.

The government are just setting themselves up for a fall for the sake of a soundbyte.