Erm, Excuse Me?

MINISTERS want to block the phone numbers of prostitutes who advertise their services in newspapers and telephone booths in an attempt to stifle the illegal sex trade.

Police forces would identify suspected prostitutes to the telephone companies, which would be required to cut off their numbers.

Have we actually had the government taken over by raving lunatics?

A telephone company is a private business. A legal one I might add. And prostitution is also a legal business.

How in fuck can ministers assume to intervene in a private contract between two entirely legal businesses in this manner?

12 comments on “Erm, Excuse Me?

  1. Of course we’ve gone mad.

    But this one is quite fun. Simply make up a bunch of cards, but with the Number 10 switchboard number on them. Police, being fuckwits, and BT being, well, ditto, will flip the switch. Hehehe.

  2. Oh yes, and shut down the newspapers in which they advertise, prosecute the printers who do those thoroughly entertaining cards you see in ‘phone boxes, jail doctors who treat prostitutes for aiding and abetting, burn down any property which has ever been used as a brothel, make Durex only available to married couple’s etc. etc.

    That’ll fix it.

  3. >

    Right, that’s this site blacklisted by NetNanny (which famously blocked whitehouse.gov for the use of the word, which is, oo err, a bit rude in a skirts-for-piano-legs kind of way).

  4. Sorry about that. Should have quoted Mark using the word “couples”. Lesson: don’t use wiki markup syntax in comments..

  5. An alternative, to legalise the prostitution business under license and regulation and leave the police to concentrate on the drugs and slavery trades, is obviously unacceptable.

  6. Cribbed from Guardian’s CiF (hides head in hands as Nukes appear from sky), courtesy of one ‘freespeechoneeach’

    ‘I would draw readers’ attention to the Government’s intention to make a crime of “paying for sexual services” under this Bill.

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/016/amend/su016-iia.htm

    This will never have featured in a party manifesto, nor debated by elected MPs.
    “sexual services” is being taken to mean prostitution, but it seems a highly elastic term to me.

    It only requires a vote behind closed doors by unelected Lords, a vote in the Lords chamber, and royal Assent, to make this Law.

    If that isn’t tyranny, I don’t know what is.’

    Assuming he’s got this right, (think the amendment came from Fiona McTaggert but not sure), who needs to wait on Harriet Harman’s proposals…..

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.