View Full Version : Great news -- Prostitution is a good gig !!
Well it seems to be for immigrant sex workers in the UK according to this ;
http://apt46.net/2011/11/04/hooking-is-a-pretty-good-gig/
Which begs the question -- could it be that immigrant 'elective' sex workers ( who see selling sex as a way of improving their lot ) are more likely to be happier in their work than perhaps the local national sex workers , who although 'elective' , feel forced into prostitution as a last desperate option ?
EnglishAlex
17-03-12, 12:08
Well it seems to be for immigrant sex workers in the UK according to this ;
http://apt46.net/2011/11/04/hooking-is-a-pretty-good-gig/
Which begs the question -- could it be that immigrant 'elective' sex workers ( who see selling sex as a way of improving their lot ) are more likely to be happier in their work than perhaps the local national sex workers , who although 'elective' , feel forced into prostitution as a last desperate option ?
Begs the question? I don't think it does. What a silly question to ask. A last desperate option? Hahaha! Dear god man, pull your head out and step away from the spoon. You want us all to say we had to be hookers because we were so hard up we had no other options? Right. :bs:
Curvaceous Kate
17-03-12, 12:11
What if you just chose the job because you thought you might be good at it?
Begs the question? I don't think it does. What a silly question to ask. A last desperate option? Hahaha! Dear god man, pull your head out and step away from the spoon. You want us all to say we had to be hookers because we were so hard up we had no other options? Right. :bs:
Au contraire Alex .:)
As can be seen from my many posts on this subject, I hold quite the opposite view. Probably more so than any other male contibutor on this site, I have constantly called for escorts here who are not 'desperate' but have freely and without undue pressure opted to provide escort services, to come forward and openly express how they feel as you have just done.!
What if you just chose the job because you thought you might be good at it?
Music to my ears Kate, as you well know !:)
LaBelleThatcher
17-03-12, 13:29
Oooooo but there is some serious generalising and assumption going on here...
Only 13% felt exploited and less than half of those (6%) felt forced into prostitution. Which means 87% were perfectly happy hooking.
Duh?
If Ruhama produced a distorted statement like that I would 'ave 'em for breakfast!
What percentage of hookers cannot stand Jimmy Choos? .02%? Little less?
...and of those .02% 5% were abducted from villages in Romania and forced into the sex industry therefore it must be assumed that 99.99% of sex workers are totally happy their work?
I DON'T THINK SO! :rolleyes:
You can play all sorts of games with statistics, like, for example, ye guys are paying 8.75% more than for anything like equivalent service (in fact the available service is now considerably enhanced) in 1992 yet, during the same period the average household income more than doubled in line with the consumer price index...
...oh WAIT...that isn't a statistical game at all, that is a bona fide anathema ye lads will be RACING to the ATM to rectify. ;)
Now here is the real link:
http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/research-units/iset/projects/esrc-migrant-workers.cfm
Which is going up on my site, because rather than a load of ould hype it tends to prove my hypothesis that sexual trafficking is a mercifully rare phenomenon, at least here and in the UK, where it is far harder to bring people in and would not pay any better than the European mainland (and it must remembered, like most felonies, however evil, trafficking is business and profit orientated not abstract devotion to his satanic majesty).
However, where trafficking and/or coercion does occur it should be treated as a combination of rape and abduction and prosecuted with the same severity as murder.
Hyping everybody who ever employed an illegal (or "grey area") immigrant in a lapdancing club as a "trafficker" to whip up an abolitionist witchhunt only undermines the severity of the offence.:mad:
LaBelleThatcher
17-03-12, 13:33
What if you just chose the job because you thought you might be good at it?
I would add to that it is possible to choose the job because it suits you better than anything else available too...and that might apply particularly to migrant workers and anyone else who's choices are limited in any way...
LaBelleThatcher
17-03-12, 13:36
Au contraire Alex .:)
As can be seen from my many posts on this subject, I hold quite the opposite view. Probably more so than any other male contibutor on this site, I have constantly called for escorts here who are not 'desperate' but have freely and without undue pressure opted to provide escort services, to come forward and openly express how they feel as you have just done.!
But he STILL needs to step away from the spoon, as per usual, before the guys in the flack jackets behind me get nervous and fingers slip on triggers...:rolleyes:
Oooooo but there is some serious generalising and assumption going on here...
Duh?
If Ruhama produced a distorted statement like that I would 'ave 'em for breakfast!
What percentage of hookers cannot stand Jimmy Choos? .02%? Little less?
...and of those .02% 5% were abducted from villages in Romania and forced into the sex industry therefore it must be assumed that 99.99% of sex workers are totally happy their work?
I DON'T THINK SO! :rolleyes:
You can play all sorts of games with statistics, like, for example, ye guys are paying 8.75% more than for anything like equivalent service (in fact the available service is now considerably enhanced) in 1992 yet, during the same period the average household income more than doubled in line with the consumer price index...
...oh WAIT...that isn't a statistical game at all, that is a bona fide anathema ye lads will be RACING to the ATM to rectify. ;)
Now here is the real link:
http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/research-units/iset/projects/esrc-migrant-workers.cfm
Which is going up on my site, because rather than a load of ould hype it tends to prove my hypothesis that sexual trafficking is a mercifully rare phenomenon, at least here and in the UK, where it is far harder to bring people in and would not pay any better than the European mainland (and it must remembered, like most felonies, however evil, trafficking is business and profit orientated not abstract devotion to his satanic majesty).
However, where trafficking and/or coercion does occur it should be treated as a combination of rape and abduction and prosecuted with the same severity as murder.
Hyping everybody who ever employed an illegal (or "grey area") immigrant in a lapdancing club as a "trafficker" to whip up an abolitionist witchhunt only undermines the severity of the offence.:mad:
One problem on this site is that there are many escorts that create a new profile and use fake photographs. When this happens, the line of thought tends to be, "Fakes = agency = pimped = trafficked = coerced". As much as we don't condone the use of fake photographs (and there are procedures to follow to report them, in most cases 95% of them tend to be unverified anyway), people shouldn't really assume that they are victims anyway. I agree that this trivialises the genuine cases.
As we know, there is also the technicality of the term 'trafficked' too; there are escorts in certain countries that WANT to be trafficked so that they can work as a sex worker in another country. I have heard several stories when the escort pays somebody to help them leave the country, set up a profile for them (because of a lack of English) and pay them a percentage of their income for these services. Of course, in some cases, the problem also lies when the escort wants to become independent and the 'agent' has an issue with that too.
LaBelleThatcher
17-03-12, 14:12
One problem on this site is that there are many escorts that create a new profile and use fake photographs. When this happens, the line of thought tends to be, "Fakes = agency = pimped = trafficked = coerced". As much as we don't condone the use of fake photographs (and there are procedures to follow to report them, in most cases 95% of them tend to be unverified anyway), people shouldn't really assume that they are victims anyway. I agree that this trivialises the genuine cases.
Y'know Samlad, this is another place where hype, witchhunting and false associations can take you for a nice, long, walk up the garden path?
Sometimes a cigar *IS* just a cigar...and a fake profile is just an escort who is naturally economical with the truth...end of...
Before anyone even HEARD of trafficking there were fake profile pictures, hell they were posting them outside clubs in Soho and St James when Ruth Ellis still managed one.
All those women who always used fake photos didn't suddenly get abducted by aliens, or get religion you know.
Also, being a canny lass in my own right, I would say that, in these troubled time there is a certain amount of, innocently intended, sharing of profiles.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if there was a way to insure against ALL fake profiles, and particularly insure against the possibility of trafficking victims being advertised at all?
I wouldn't say being forced to operate in exile helps a whole lot with monitoring that?
As we know, there is also the technicality of the term 'trafficked' too; there are escorts in certain countries that WANT to be trafficked so that they can work as a sex worker in another country. I have heard several stories when the escort pays somebody to help them leave the country, set up a profile for them (because of a lack of English) and pay them a percentage of their income for these services. Of course, in some cases, the problem also lies when the escort wants to become independent and the 'agent' has an issue with that too.
This will not make you very popular, but it is all down to earth truth I am afraid. Rather than witchhunting blind, we need to be exploring all these realities and defining coerced sex work as carefully as we have defined rape.
Because, when it happens, IT IS A LOT MORE SERIOUS than a bit of ould PR, and an excuse to seek funding for the rescue industry.
I would add to that it is possible to choose the job because it suits you better than anything else available too...and that might apply particularly to migrant workers and anyone else who's choices are limited in any way...
Forgive me Eileen, but if any guy here were to say this, they would be hung,drawn and quatered.! :eek::D
LaBelleThatcher
17-03-12, 16:57
Forgive me Eileen, but if any guy here were to say this, they would be hung,drawn and quatered.! :eek::D
Then isn't it very lucky you have me to speak for you? ;)
Then isn't it very lucky you have me to speak for you? ;)
You may live to regret giving that assurance Eileen.!:D
I agree that "Fakes = agency = pimped = trafficked = coerced" is just not true.
I agree that the majority of escorts are probably not trafficked.
But I also agree with the other side of the argument that one trafficked coerced person is one too many.
LaBelleThatcher
17-03-12, 18:32
I agree that "Fakes = agency = pimped = trafficked = coerced" is just not true.
I agree that the majority of escorts are probably not trafficked.
But I also agree with the other side of the argument that one trafficked coerced person is one too many.
I think you are standing right about where I am on that Martin...but rather than the entire sex industry (most of whom do not know any more about trafficking than anyone else does) be symbolically pilloried and punished so everybody else can feel better we need to be leading the way in trying to pin down the extent, nature AND location of the real problem.
Because we are the people best placed to do it. Find the real problem and you save real human beings while all the NGO generated Urban legends evaporate...
...and let me state this here and now, if the rescue industry had its way, and the market was eradicated by persecuting clients anyone who is really being trafficked would either be trafficked elsewhere (likely in a larger population with far less chance of rescue) or "disposed of" as redundant...and the people who would do this are not the people who would be handing out passports and tickets home...or wanting to be leaving any evidence lying around that can talk.
I do not believe that people in the rescue industry are so intellectually challenged that this has never occurred to them. :mad:
LaBelleThatcher
17-03-12, 18:34
You may live to regret giving that assurance Eileen.!:D
I don't think so. :)
Hyping everybody who ever employed an illegal (or "grey area") immigrant in a lapdancing club as a "trafficker" to whip up an abolitionist witchhunt only undermines the severity of the offence
Exactly what I was thinking.
Obviously trafficking falls under a broad definition, and the consent of the trafficked person is no defence in the present law enacted in 2008, most likely due to policy reasons (read prohibitionist agenda) more so than anything else. The penalties can be up to life imprisonment at the discretion of the court (seemingly similar to how manslaughter is treated).
LaBelleThatcher
17-03-12, 20:08
Exactly what I was thinking.
Obviously trafficking falls under a broad definition, and the consent of the trafficked person is no defence in the present law enacted in 2008, most likely due to policy reasons (read prohibitionist agenda) more so than anything else. The penalties can be up to life imprisonment at the discretion of the court (seemingly similar to how manslaughter is treated).
Not quite that simple, because the clauses are interdependent, but it is left a bit open to interpretation through case precedent, isn't it?
4.— (1) A person (in this section referred to as the “trafficker”) who trafficks another person (in this section referred to as the “trafficked person”), other than a child or a person to whom subsection (3) applies, for the purposes of the exploitation of the trafficked person shall be guilty of an offence if, in or for the purpose of trafficking the trafficked person, the trafficker—
(a) coerced, threatened, abducted or otherwise used force against the trafficked person,
(b) deceived or committed a fraud against the trafficked person,
(c) abused his or her authority or took advantage of the vulnerability of the trafficked person to such extent as to cause the trafficked person to have had no real and acceptable alternative but to submit to being trafficked,
(d) coerced, threatened or otherwise used force against any person in whose care or charge, or under whose control, the trafficked person was for the time being, in order to compel that person to permit the trafficker to traffick the trafficked person, or
(e) made any payment to, or conferred any right, interest or other benefit on, any person in whose care or charge, or under whose control, the trafficked person was for the time being, in exchange for that person permitting the trafficker to traffick the trafficked person.
(2) In proceedings for an offence under this section it shall not be a defence for the defendant to show that the person in respect of whom the offence was committed consented to the commission of any of the acts of which the offence consists.
But, of course, without a few convictions there can be no case precedents.
Not quite that simple, because the clauses are interdependent, but it is left a bit open to interpretation through case precedent, isn't it?
Yes you're correct, it is somewhat more complex than I outlined above. Coercion, threats, deception, etc. is a requirement. However it also covers the support network of trafficking, for instance, the payment of someone else under whose control the trafficked person was if that is in exhange for permitting the primary trafficker to traffick the person.
Very few cases or even academic comment on the legislation from what I can find, although I did come across one disturbing story (http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/garda-arrested-in-trafficking-probe-106085.html) which doesn't exactly encourage confidence, I remember a similiar issue arising in commentary on the Swedish model.
LaBelleThatcher
17-03-12, 21:11
Yes you're correct, it is somewhat more complex than I outlined above. Coercion, threats, deception, etc. is a requirement. However it also covers the support network of trafficking, for instance, the payment of someone else under whose control the trafficked person was if that is in exhange for permitting the primary trafficker to traffick the person.
Very few cases or even academic comment on the legislation from what I can find, although I did come across one disturbing story (http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/garda-arrested-in-trafficking-probe-106085.html) which doesn't exactly encourage confidence, I remember a similiar issue arising in commentary on the Swedish model.
This is the clause that is worrying me:
(e) made any payment to, or conferred any right, interest or other benefit on, any person in whose care or charge, or under whose control, the trafficked person was for the time being, in exchange for that person permitting the trafficker to traffick the trafficked person.
It could mean anything and nothing...on one hand it is open to interpretation that could lead to the conviction of an innocent party - like Irish Ferries - and yet be useless against any person who trafficks people without coercion to a destination where they are "then" coerced...and leaves open whether the coercion they are subject to at destination is an offence under the act or not...
Basically it leaves innocent people open to prosecution while opening loopholes you could drive a tank through...my honest impression is of legislation put through for form's sake. Not surprising when you realise we already have other laws against abduction, unlawful imprisonment, pimping etc.
This is the clause that is worrying me:
It could mean anything and nothing...on one hand it is open to interpretation that could lead to the conviction of an innocent party - like Irish Ferries - and yet be useless against any person who trafficks people without coercion to a destination where they are "then" coerced...and leaves open whether the coercion they are subject to at destination is an offence under the act or not...
Basically it leaves innocent people open to prosecution while opening loopholes you could drive a tank through...my honest impression is of legislation put through for form's sake. Not surprising when you realise we already have other laws against abduction, unlawful imprisonment, pimping etc.
Yep, that's the one I was referring to above. It's quite wide, and definately is open to interpretation. My constitutional lecturer once pointed out the difference that one word can make to interpretation, forming the basis of at least one Supreme Court decision.
The statutory definition of the act is also quite wide, as I said earlier:
“trafficks” means, in relation to a person (including a child)—
(a) procures, recruits, transports or harbours the person, or
(i) transfers the person to,
(ii) places the person in the custody, care or charge, or under the control, of, or
(iii) otherwise delivers the person to,
another person,
(b) causes a person to enter or leave the State or to travel within the State,
(c) takes custody of a person or takes a person—
(i) into one’s care or charge, or
(ii) under one’s control,
or
(d) provides the person with accommodation or employment.
Case law is essential in knowing how it will be interpreted, but there's just seem to be any reported cases available on BAILII, Justis, and Westlaw.
The legislation is designed to give affect to international frameworks and so I don't think the same level of thought or drafting would have been put into in as compared with domestic legislation (the Occupiers Liability Act 1995 being one of my most used examples for reader friendly registration).
LaBelleThatcher
17-03-12, 22:19
Yep, that's the one I was referring to above. It's quite wide, and definately is open to interpretation. My constitutional lecturer once pointed out the difference that one word can make to interpretation, forming the basis of at least one Supreme Court decision.
The statutory definition of the act is also quite wide, as I said earlier:
“trafficks” means, in relation to a person (including a child)—
(a) procures, recruits, transports or harbours the person, or
(i) transfers the person to,
(ii) places the person in the custody, care or charge, or under the control, of, or
(iii) otherwise delivers the person to,
another person,
(b) causes a person to enter or leave the State or to travel within the State,
(c) takes custody of a person or takes a person—
(i) into one’s care or charge, or
(ii) under one’s control,
or
(d) provides the person with accommodation or employment.
Case law is essential in knowing how it will be interpreted, but there's just seem to be any reported cases available on BAILII, Justis, and Westlaw.
The legislation is designed to give affect to international frameworks and so I don't think the same level of thought or drafting would have been put into in as compared with domestic legislation (the Occupiers Liability Act 1995 being one of my most used examples for reader friendly registration).
That really *is* a nasty, ambivalent piece of law, isn't it? I missed that (scanned the definitions of "exploitation" which seemed fine and totally overlooked it - probably same as half the Dail).
It is literally a carte blanche to define *anyone* facilitating an immigrant as a trafficker at will (with no exemption for Irish Ferries!). That is going to come royally UNRAVELLED if it is ever put to the test - please god not when they have a really savage, bona fide (by *MY* standards) trafficker in the dock who winds up turned loose!
But it certainly does explain how TOTRL are managing to claim trafficking is so widespread...they just forgot to mention that when they say "trafficker" they mean anyone who enables an immigrant (and yep, that DOES have some scary wider implications that will, hopefully, *NEVER* be realised)!
Just saw this on Ch4 and it seems to sum up the whole game here to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WW_dBQPAeDY
That really *is* a nasty, ambivalent piece of law, isn't it? I missed that (scanned the definitions of "exploitation" which seemed fine and totally overlooked it - probably same as half the Dail).
It is literally a carte blanche to define *anyone* facilitating an immigrant as a trafficker at will (with no exemption for Irish Ferries!). That is going to come royally UNRAVELLED if it is ever put to the test - please god not when they have a really savage, bona fide (by *MY* standards) trafficker in the dock who winds up turned loose!
But it certainly does explain how TOTRL are managing to claim trafficking is so widespread...they just forgot to mention that when they say "trafficker" they mean anyone who enables an immigrant (and yep, that DOES have some scary wider implications that will, hopefully, *NEVER* be realised)!
Just saw this on Ch4 and it seems to sum up the whole game here to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WW_dBQPAeDY
At the risk of having more eyes prying at my identity, you're exactly correct in your implications concerning the level of scrutiny attracted by the legislation. Everyone lambasts escorts for making their choices, "oh it's easy money, etc." but if you get the golden ticket to Leinster House, you have a license to print money, never mind earn it.
That's what I was getting at, it brings a lot of people into the net, to the point of being unenforcable. Unfortunately, the only ones who tend to challenge anything are usually the ones who are guilty in the common sense but will escape on some technicality, and certainly have nothing to use by appealing as they'll at least get a bit knocked off their sentance on one of the charges.
Then again, as I mentioned last night, technicalities work both ways: there have been a number of independent escorts charged and convicted of brothel keeping in recent years which is worrying to me. However, many of these escorts seemed to have pled guilty and just took the fine.
LaBelleThatcher
17-03-12, 22:57
At the risk of having more eyes prying at my identity, you're exactly correct in your implications concerning the level of scrutiny attracted by the legislation. Everyone lambasts escorts for making their choices, "oh it's easy money, etc." but if you get the golden ticket to Leinster House, you have a license to print money, never mind earn it.
True enough...though, in my experience a lot of 'em are far more genuine than one might expect. It's often down to the fact that morally they are under obligation to represent the needs of their constituents as best they and, and if morality fails them they had better please the electorate if they want re-election.
Sadly, the sex industry is not a high priority in constituency politics (to say the least) nobody will ever be re-elected on legalising - or criminalising prostitution...and half the Dail have no idea it really exists anyway...just like everybody else...so it ceases to be a perceived as an issue affecting real people and just becomes a counter to be played for kneejerk points
That's what I was getting at, it brings a lot of people into the net, to the point of being unenforcable. Unfortunately, the only ones who tend to challenge anything are usually the ones who are guilty in the common sense but will escape on some technicality, and certainly have nothing to use by appealing as they'll at least get a bit knocked off their sentance on one of the charges.
Not to mention that the only ones who can afford, and have nothing to lose by, a proper legal challenge are the guilty.
Then again, as I mentioned last night, technicalities work both ways: there have been a number of independent escorts charged and convicted of brothel keeping in recent years which is worrying to me. However, many of these escorts seemed to have pled guilty and just took the fine.
What else could they do? They are not in this business to be political activists, just to pay the mortgage etc
...and you know what happens if you stick the head to far above the parapet...in the sex industry that is "THE END" careerwise, unless you so far forget yourself as to aspire to become a professional ex hooker, and there is an opening...
True enough...though, in my experience a lot of 'em are far more genuine than one might expect. It's often down to the fact that morally they are under obligation to represent the needs of their constituents as best they and, and if morality fails them they had better please the electorate if they want re-election.
Sadly, the sex industry is not a high priority in constituency politics (to say the least) nobody will ever be re-elected on legalising - or criminalising prostitution...and half the Dail have no idea it really exists anyway...just like everybody else...so it ceases to be a perceived as an issue affecting real people and just becomes a counter to be played for kneejerk points
Correct, but I see it in a far more cynical way. I've known and worked for the most genuine of people but once they get inside the system, their objectives change, the idealism dries up and every statement has to be triple checked in case that it might be read the wrong way by a single voter. It reminds me of reading the blogs of escorts here, where they feel burdened to please everyone all the time.
I wouldn't agree with the criminalising part, there's always plenty of support for a good old-fashioned witch hunt. Even more so in the current climate, whether it be the moral compass, immigrants, etc.
What else could they do? They are not in this business to be political activists, just to pay the mortgage etc
...and you know what happens if you stick the head to far above the parapet...in the sex industry that is "THE END" careerwise, unless you so far forget yourself as to aspire to become a professional ex hooker, and there is an opening...
Well the problem with society is that those who should care, don't care. Hence why we are in the mess that we are in at the moment. We get so lost in the effort of just trying to exist that we forfeit our interest in wider society, and leave it to what seems to be a certain type of people.
Personally if an escort went for election, I'd be willing to say there'd be a huge vote for her between 18-34 age group. The amount of people who vote on the basis of appearance should not be doubted, certainly at local level anyway! And they'd be more respectable than some of the people that presently get elected, borderline gangsters (and that's not the media version, I mean actual non-white collar criminal activities).
LaBelleThatcher
17-03-12, 23:59
Correct, but I see it in a far more cynical way. I've known and worked for the most genuine of people but once they get inside the system, their objectives change, the idealism dries up and every statement has to be triple checked in case that it might be read the wrong way by a single voter. It reminds me of reading the blogs of escorts here, where they feel burdened to please everyone all the time.
Now you say it, that is very true...and I have watched that change for myself
I wouldn't agree with the criminalising part, there's always plenty of support for a good old-fashioned witch hunt. Even more so in the current climate, whether it be the moral compass, immigrants, etc.
True again, everybody LURVES an excuse for an auto da fe...and if they can chuck in a healthy belt of racism in times of economic crisis, without anyone actually noticing, so much the better.
Well the problem with society is that those who should care, don't care. Hence why we are in the mess that we are in at the moment. We get so lost in the effort of just trying to exist that we forfeit our interest in wider society, and leave it to what seems to be a certain type of people.
Yep, know that type, morally bankrupt and heavily invested in a pathological need to control...oh, and I nearly forgot...hopelessly addicted to "keeping up appearances".
Personally if an escort went for election, I'd be willing to say there'd be a huge vote for her between 18-34 age group.
That's what got half of them signed up for TOTRL...the "cool" image of "helping" women in prostitution without any of the usual pitfalls in terms of public perception...really good for the younger vote. They didn't read the small print and are frantically wondering how the heck they can get out of this one without legislation that commits them to funding for organisations within TOTRL that cannot be justified by the standards by which funding has already been withdrawn from other, more publicly sympathetic, organisations.
The amount of people who vote on the basis of appearance should not be doubted, certainly at local level anyway! And they'd be more respectable than some of the people that presently get elected, borderline gangsters (and that's not the media version, I mean actual non-white collar criminal activities).
Then we need to make the pendulum swing...privately most people are disposed to be fairly sympathetic to sex workers, particularly crisis and survival sex workers...but the ladies around here are also fairly irresistable, compelling, human beings and time they speak fore themselves to the world.
...
Now here is the real link:
http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/research-units/iset/projects/esrc-migrant-workers.cfm
Thanks for the link Eileen. Great article. There are also attachement in thta link to the two complete reports in PDF form from Dr. Nick Mai, reader in migration studies, from the London Metropolitan University.
Here is an excerpt from the one of the documents:
The research evidence strongly suggests that current attempts to curb
trafficking and exploitation by criminalising clients and closing downcommercial sex establishments will not stop the sex trade and thatas a result the sex industry will be pushed further underground andpeople working in it will be further marginalised. This will discouragemigrants and UK citizens working in the sex industry, as well as clientsfrom co-operating with the police and sex work support projects in the
fight against actual cases of trafficking and exploitation
I know it's what most of us here already believe. But it is a recent (Oct 2011) from what appears to be an unbiased academic source.
I've be looking at the list of TD's - 167 of them!! I think it would be worth emailing the PDF's to some of the more open TD's. Does anyone have any ideas who these might be? Ming and Mick Wallace would be obviously two, but they don't have a lot of credibility. Anyone in government who might be more open?
Yep, know that type, morally bankrupt and heavily invested in a pathological need to control...oh, and I nearly forgot...hopelessly addicted to "keeping up appearances".
That's what got half of them signed up for TOTRL...the "cool" image of "helping" women in prostitution without any of the usual pitfalls in terms of public perception...really good for the younger vote. They didn't read the small print and are frantically wondering how the heck they can get out of this one without legislation that commits them to funding for organisations within TOTRL that cannot be justified by the standards by which funding has already been withdrawn from other, more publicly sympathetic, organisations.
Then we need to make the pendulum swing...privately most people are disposed to be fairly sympathetic to sex workers, particularly crisis and survival sex workers...but the ladies around here are also fairly irresistable, compelling, human beings and time they speak fore themselves to the world.
Competely self-consumed individuals, who keep up appearances but also will do anything to keep their place and financial interests alive. One such politician to the point of hiring thugs to intimidate.
I was once the type that would have been the first into the TOTRL campaign. I never read the small print, read the legislation or looked at other views. I have my studies in Law to thank for that, it made me more objective and more willing to look at the other point of view. I believe the TOTRL campaign gets a lot of funding from the Catholic Church and related interest groups, I would object to any public funding they get, but I'm sure they do get some.
I agree that the ladies here are especially compelling, and there stories deserve to be heard both far and wide.
LaBelleThatcher
18-03-12, 01:26
Thanks for the link Eileen. Great article. There are also attachement in thta link to the two complete reports in PDF form from Dr. Nick Mai, reader in migration studies, from the London Metropolitan University.
Here is an excerpt from the one of the documents:
The research evidence strongly suggests that current attempts to curb
trafficking and exploitation by criminalising clients and closing downcommercial sex establishments will not stop the sex trade and thatas a result the sex industry will be pushed further underground andpeople working in it will be further marginalised. This will discouragemigrants and UK citizens working in the sex industry, as well as clientsfrom co-operating with the police and sex work support projects in the
fight against actual cases of trafficking and exploitation
I know it's what most of us here already believe. But it is a recent (Oct 2011) from what appears to be an unbiased academic source.
I've be looking at the list of TD's - 167 of them!! I think it would be worth emailing the PDF's to some of the more open TD's. Does anyone have any ideas who these might be? Ming and Mick Wallace would be obviously two, but they don't have a lot of credibility. Anyone in government who might be more open?
On way to bed (teddy awaits) but BRILLIANT idea. :) Need to get together a presentation really...
LaBelleThatcher
18-03-12, 01:29
Competely self-consumed individuals, who keep up appearances but also will do anything to keep their place and financial interests alive. One such politician to the point of hiring thugs to intimidate.
I was once the type that would have been the first into the TOTRL campaign. I never read the small print, read the legislation or looked at other views. I have my studies in Law to thank for that, it made me more objective and more willing to look at the other point of view. I believe the TOTRL campaign gets a lot of funding from the Catholic Church and related interest groups, I would object to any public funding they get, but I'm sure they do get some.
I agree that the ladies here are especially compelling, and there stories deserve to be heard both far and wide.
I think a LOT of people could be persuaded to object to Ruhama and TOTRL's funding...not all entirely for the whole right reasons, but enough (and I think we can all muster some enthusiasm for "WTF are they getting money for with vital children's services being cut")
I think a LOT of people could be persuaded to object to Ruhama and TOTRL's funding...not all entirely for the whole right reasons, but enough (and I think we can all muster some enthusiasm for "WTF are they getting money for with vital children's services being cut")
Unleash it to me, madam. I'm no fan of Church funded fronts, in fact while I do have a moral viewpoint, the Church is the last person I want to be directing or influencing it!