Excellent piece!

These new laws on prostitution are in fact worse than I had thought.

For starters, the new offence of \’paying for sex with person controlled for gain\’ is so broad that it will be unworkable. Under existing laws \’controlling\’ can include advising what to charge, and \’for gain\’ currently means \’any financial advantage\’. \’Trafficking\’ already includes providing food or transport on a journey – even giving someone a lift to a train station. Theoretically, the proposals criminalise a prostitute\’s landlord as well as her client.

As for trafficking, the only official report from the police operation Pentameter 1 shows a tiny proportion, just 0.11 per cent, of people in the sex industry have in fact been trafficked. A subsequent operation, Pentameter 2, found 167 trafficked people, which is still only 0.21 per cent.

All of which is bad enough but:

The proposals are based on myriad flawed and inadequate reports written by lobby groups who have a vested interest in the criminalisation of clients and the victim status of women.

Couldn\’t be talking about Ms. Bindel there, could we?

6 thoughts on “Excellent piece!”

  1. So let me see- if “trafficking” includes providing someone with a lift, then thats the railway and bus companies out of business- unless they can verify that no prostitute has ever been carried. Of course it could produce some interesting conversations if they ask Ms. Harman and Ms. Smith to prove that they aren’t prostitutes.
    And what is the position of the local council that collects council tax and imposes planning restrictions? Or the Government that collects taxes and imposes laws? Perhaps a legal exception is needed to allow government officials to “Control for gain”
    If a drug supplier is to be regarded as gaining from a prostitute’s income (presumably in addition rather than instead of the charge of illegally supplying drugs) then what of the man who sells milk? Is every shopkeeper to investigate every customer to ensure he/she is not a prostitute?
    It seems we need a raft of exceptions allowing railways to traffic, shops and government to control for gain etc.
    Of course what will happen is that the law will be in the main not enforced- but in the event the authorities don’t like someone they are virtually guaranteed to be able to find an excuse for prosecuting them.

  2. Pat, maybe all those checks are intended. Extension of the Stasi state and so on.

    Here’s another for your list. When I was a tax inspector, at some point in the training we learned there is an old court case which ruled that a prostitute’s profits are subject to tax. So, as we all remarked, the government lived off immoral earnings.

  3. Thought should be given to the sexual needs of all those male immigrants .
    Dont want to prove a lot of rape or such do they.
    And adolescent males – after all what is the point of sex education if you can’t use it?

  4. Look here folks, it’s an ill wind , if you get my drift.

    The market for plastic inflatable wimminfolk is going to go through the roof. Does anyone know who makes them?

  5. “Thought should be given to the sexual needs of all those male immigrants .”

    Actually, social services are under an obligation to ensure that the sexual needs of disabled people, in their care, are not denied. They have an obligation, which they usually fulfill, to procure prostitutes for their clients needs, whenever necessary.

    I don’t have a problem with that.

    But we are about to witness another clash of victimhoods.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *