[la gran siete]

From an article on the Financial Times website, FT.com, today:

Labour's deputy leader, Harriet Harman, came under fire from MPs yesterday as she signalled her support for outlawing prostitution. Her comments came after a government-commissioned poll by Ipsos-Mori, in which 58 per cent of people said they would support legislation making it illegal to pay for sex if it helped stop the trafficking of women and children into the UK.
But there was a backlash yesterday from politicians who said that criminalising prostitution would not solve the problems but could push them further underground.

Anthony Steen, Conservative MP and chairman of the All Party Group on Trafficking of Women and Children, said he was "stunned'' by Ms Harman's comments. "Whacking a criminal label on prostitution certainly won't solve our trafficking problems in Britain today,'' he said. "If the government forces through legislation to make buying sex illegal in the UK, it will force trafficking underground or on to the internet. This is much more ominous and will make the victims of trafficking invisible," Mr Steen added.

Lynne Featherstone, the Liberal Democrat equalities spokeswoman, also said that outlawing prostitution was no solution. "The statute book is littered with offences relating to prostitution, some of which are rarely used," Ms Featherstone said. "We should be gunning directly for pimps, traffickers and drug dealers with better-resourced policing."
Back to top

such an outrageous attack on personal freedoms which needs to be challenged in all four corners of the country, in my view

Puritan Harman is obviously following where her predecessor Claire Short left off. Why not ban fun altogether whilst she is at it

[krish]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

Puritan Harman is obviously following where her equally stupid predecessor Claire Short left off. Why not ban fun altogether whilst she is at it

Harman's got no political principles or ideology (she's not that bright to have any anyway), she's just going for the typical NL populist vote .... i.e. legislation by DM editorial
- which alway backfires these days

Short, however, was a genuine feminist back in the day when she was trying to ban page 3

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by krish

Harman's got no political principles or ideology (she's not that bright to have any anyway), she's just going for the typical NL populist vote .... i.e. legislation by DM editorial
- which alway backfires these days

Short, however, was a genuine feminist back in the day when she was trying to ban page 3

Mmm hope you are right.If nothing else it gets the silly sow in the papers.

[Ian J]

I also disagree with Harriett Harman but for completely different reasons to you. Prostitution has been around for rather a long time and if the "sex immigrants" were done away with there would still be a plentiful supply of British women to take over.

If she thinks that the sex traffickers would stop just because it was now illegal Ms Harman must be living in cloud cuckoo land.

Although I disagree strongly with Ms Harman I wouldn't like anyone to think that I agreed with LGS as although I agree with his proposals I disagree with his reasoning as it is too hedonistic for me

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by Ian J

.... and if the "sex immigrants" were done away with there would still be a plentiful supply of British women to take over.

Perhaps she just wants to keep the jobs British? Now that would be a DM editorial policy. Show all these Johnny Foreigner tarts the door because they are driving our English Roses off the streets.

[Mr Incredible]

In a modern western society, is prostitution a confirmation that society has failed in its duty to protect the vulnerable and the needy? I'm not suggesting it be made illegal, but is it the case that as a society we should be finding ways to give people a greater choice of lifestyles to avoid having to sell their bodies to survive?

[Sonic67]

The second oldest profession trying to ban the oldest profession. It's been around for thousands of years and it won't be swept away now. I wouldn't want to see girls on my street corner but I don't have a problem if it's happening in a 'massage parlour'.

[Mr Incredible]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

The second oldest profession trying to ban the oldest profession.

And ironically you get screwed by both.

[Guardo Bosque]

Throughly naive and an utter waste of tax payers money should the legislation be passed.

I'd wager that if prostitution was to be made illegal we'd see a considerable rise in sexual attacks on women.

What the government should be pursuing is safer working environments for prostitutes.

[Mr Incredible]

Originally Posted by Guardo Bosque

What the government should be pursuing is safer working environments for prostitutes.

.... as a first step to providing a wealthier society in which people don't have to make that awful choice.

[Squiffy]

Originally Posted by Mr Incredible

In a modern western society, is prostitution a confirmation that society has failed in its duty to protect the vulnerable and the needy? I'm not suggesting it be made illegal, but is it the case that as a society we should be finding ways to give people a greater choice of lifestyles to avoid having to sell their bodies to survive?

What more choice do they need? Everyone has the opportunities to make what they want of their lives.

Some friends of us have an "escort" living in their street, who works from home. She has a very nice house, an expensive car and enjoys several holidays every year.

From all accounts, I don't believe she is either vulnerable or needy. Why should her lifestyle choice be looked down upon when it seems to be serving her well?

[Mr Incredible]

Because if they could earn as much doing something else they would. No woman wants to sell their body if there is an alternative.

[Steven]

At the risk of criticism, putting aside policies, I cannot stand that woman regardless

[Mr Incredible]

No criticisms from me!

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by Mr Incredible

Because if they could earn as much doing something else they would. No woman wants to sell their body if there is an alternative.

I don't think there are many jobs going that have hours to suit, no qualifications needed, can work from home and can pay at what can be a high hourly rate.

[Mr Incredible]

If it were that good then we'd have half the country doing it.


EDIT:
From a September Mori Poll about prostitution:


"Similarly, while 38% of the public feel it is acceptable for a woman to sell sex to a man (and 53% find it unacceptable), these figures shift to 22% acceptable and 69% unacceptable when respondents were asked “to imagine that the woman selling sex is related to you, for example your sister, mother or daughter”.

So, are the Government taking heed of public opinion and just curtailing an activity which the majority of people find unacceptable? Mind you, taking heed of public opinion would be a first!!

[JagoPlasma]

am i missing something here? i thought it was already illegal? or is purchasing sex for money completely different from prostitution? (yes i know one is buying and the other is selling) why was i watching notts police on tv the other week arresting girls for selling themselves?

its like saying you can run a cinema but no one is allowed to watch.

and when is someone gonna look at tv channels like babestation (NO dont LOOK physically ) if thats not paying for a "sex act" then i dont know what is!

personally i think the government needs to grow some balls and just be straight with people. same goes for drugs etc.

and for added brownie points they can build shedloads more prisons to put criminals away in! (pref without electricity)

[Mr Incredible]

I think there is a difference. Offering to specifically pay for sex is illegal. But "escorts" get around this by offering companionship for money, and then if sex takes place between two consenting adults then it's a private affair. I think!

[Mr Incredible]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

I don't think there are many jobs going that have hours to suit, no qualifications needed, can work from home and can pay at what can be a high hourly rate.

http://rhetoricallyspeaking.blogspot...rey-bloom.html


"Street prostitutes unanimously hate what they do and not a single street prostitute in Stoke-On-Trent believes that they have made a positive career choice. Life on the streets is not the fantasy portrayed in Hollywood movies such as Pretty Woman. 70% of women surveyed had experienced violence at work including knifepoint rapes and attempted strangulations. One woman has been murdered this year."

I don't think Stoke would be untypical of street prostitution.

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by Mr Incredible

.... as a first step to providing a wealthier society in which people don't have to make that awful choice.

trouble is you are assuming that for them its an awful choice.Take it from me a lot of them actually enjoy doing it. Some do its as partime job to provide themselves an extra income whilst their husbands earn the major part of the bacon.The problem is the media has tended to focus solely on the negative aspects when its not all like that.Some call girls are highly educated ,some have fulltime jobs as well whilst others are students wanting some extra cash.We must get away from this idea that they are all just victims.

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by Mr Incredible

I think there is a difference. Offering to specifically pay for sex is illegal. But "escorts" get around this by offering companionship for money, and then if sex takes place between two consenting adults then it's a private affair. I think!

Thats the disclaimer found in certain sites that promote escorts.An escort relies on good feed back from punters , if they didnt deliver services they would soon run out of punters

[Ethics Gradient]

Originally Posted by Mr Incredible

In a modern western society, is prostitution a confirmation that society has failed in its duty to protect the vulnerable and the needy? I'm not suggesting it be made illegal, but is it the case that as a society we should be finding ways to give people a greater choice of lifestyles to avoid having to sell their bodies to survive?

I do think we need to be careful and seperate out distinct types of sex workers.

There are those that may be forced into it due addiction, pressure from pimps and extreme poverty.
Those women or men should be assisted and attempts to protect them made.

There are also those that choose to do it. It may come as a shock, but there are a suprising number of people both male and female that actually choose to join the sex industry.
Just look at the number of girls that want to be glamor models.
How many porn stars are their because of the money they can earn rather than driven into it by desparation.

Before we use our own morals, relationships and experiences to make judgements, we must accept that there are a considerable amount of people that don't share how we see things.
Just look at the large swinger scenes for example. They don't fit what a lot of people would consider the social norm.

[krish]

Originally Posted by LFC_SL

At the risk of criticism, putting aside policies, I cannot stand that woman regardless

add ... Hazel Blears, Ruth Kelly, Jacqui Smith

Don't know if that was ever GB's intention ... and the only able/nice person woman cabinet member is Yvette Cooper, wife of his preferred successor, Ed Balls.

[pringtef]

Originally Posted by Ethics Gradient

........ There are also those that choose to do it. It may come as a shock, but there are a suprising number of people both male and female that actually choose to join the sex industry.

Was just about to say along the same lines. Theres a few working girls who (no pun intended) come into my local bar in Amsterdam, on their nights off, or before meeting a client, and they've several times said they enjoy their work, nor are they ashamed to tell people their job if asked.

Unfortunately the UKs typically prudish attitude to sex has actually done more to bring women into danger than any relaxing of laws could ever do.

[Mr Incredible]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

trouble is you are assuming that for them its an awful choice....

You're assuming I'm assuming. Read the excerpt from the research and interviews.......

Originally Posted by Mr Incredible

"Street prostitutes unanimously hate what they do and not a single street prostitute in Stoke-On-Trent believes that they have made a positive career choice........... "

Some "choice".

Originally Posted by Ethics Gradient

I do think we need to be careful and seperate out distinct types of sex workers....

Although the majority of people said it was unacceptable to sell sex, just 43% felt it should be illegal. Interesting that when asked to imagine a close relative engaging in such activity, the disapproval ratings went up. Selling sex appears to be socially unacceptable and have a stigma with doing so, but people don't want it to be made illegal. That being the case, and given the majority think it is unacceptable, then perhaps over time prostitution will wither as social attitudes change.

Also they found the younger the person questioned the more they were against people selling sex.

The poll also showed that the majority of people felt that if women wanted to make that choice they should be able to. But if men feel that women make a free and informed choice to do this, research suggests for the majority of women, they're wrong.

But back to the original point about Ms Harman. It looks as though the government may have conducted the poll because one of the questions was directed to illicit a response on trafficikng:


"When asked whether they would support or oppose making it illegal to pay for sex as part of an attempt to reduce trafficking of women and children from abroad into prostitution in the UK, almost six in ten (58%) support the measure, while three in ten (31%) oppose it."

But whether there are other ways to reduce trafficking is yet to be seen. But if correct, and if by making prostitution illegal would reduce trafficking, then the majority of people in the UK are in favour of making it illegal. There's democracy at work!

[Squiffy]

Originally Posted by Mr Incredible

You're assuming I'm assuming. Read the excerpt from the research and interviews.......

The specific quotes you had about whether prostitutes wanted to do the job appeared to be related solely to street prostitutes, and not escorts or those that work in brothels.

Originally Posted by Mr Incredible

"When asked whether they would support or oppose making it illegal to pay for sex as part of an attempt to reduce trafficking of women and children from abroad into prostitution in the UK, almost six in ten (58%) support the measure, while three in ten (31%) oppose it."

But whether there are other ways to reduce trafficking is yet to be seen. But if correct, and if by making prostitution illegal would reduce trafficking, then the majority of people in the UK are in favour of making it illegal. There's democracy at work!

How can anyone put any credence on this poll result with a question loaded like that?

[Ian J]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

An escort relies on good feed back from punters

So it's a bit like Ebay then.

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by Mr Incredible

Y

But whether there are other ways to reduce trafficking is yet to be seen. But if correct, and if by making prostitution illegal would reduce trafficking, then the majority of people in the UK are in favour of making it illegal. There's democracy at work!

I think the expression "using a sledgehammer to crack a nut" is appropriate here.
If put a question like that one can hardly be surprised at the answer.One with a bit of saavy though would see it for what it is - stupid - and refuse to answer it.
Doesnt alter the fact that the vast majority of escorts /masseuse do what they do out of free choice are not victims and regard Harman's intended measures as very unwelcome.

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by Ian J

So it's a bit like Ebay then.

well I could introduce a few links so you can see for yourself but as this is a family forum I wont

[Mr Incredible]

Originally Posted by Squiffy

The specific quotes you had about whether prostitutes wanted to do the job appeared to be related solely to street prostitutes, and not escorts or those that work in brothels.



How can anyone put any credence on this poll result with a question loaded like that?

I don't think the government would make any distinction between street prostitution and any other kind. Don't get me wrong, I am all for freedom of choice where it doesn't hurt other people and is done in the privacy of ones home. That's none of the government's business. But like with legislation on drugs, where that "choice" could be seen as self-harming where an informed choice is not made, then I think society has a duty to protect vulnerable and weak people from themselves.

If prostitution is an activity that we would not like our wifes, daughters and mothers to carry out, why would we be less concerned about other women? Don't they all deserve the same amount of respect? Ask your wife/daughter/partner/mother whether they could ever envisage selling sex as (a) a means for survival, or (b) as a means to increase their lifestyle.

Originally Posted by LGS

I think the expression "using a sledgehammer to crack a nut" is appropriate here.
If put a question like that one can hardly be surprised at the answer.One with a bit of saavy though would see it for what it is - stupid - and refuse to answer it.
Doesnt alter the fact that the vast majority of escorts /masseuse do what they do out of free choice are not victims and regard Harman's intended measures as very unwelcome.

Agreed on the loaded question. They may have equally asked, "If making prostitution illegal reduced trafficking in women and children, but drove it underground with increased health and personal safety aspects, would you support criminalising it?" I think they may have got a completely different answer. I've posted a link before in another thread, but it reminds me of the Yes Prime Minister sketch in which Sir Humphrey asks Bernard a series of questions and got him to agree and disagree with conscription!

Actually LGS, I am in agreement with you (believe it or not). Where personal choice is not adversely impacting anyone else, then anything between "consenting adults" should not be criminalised. But then again, with respect to hard drugs, I think the line is blurred somewhat. Perhaps what I am saying, rather badly, is that given opinions on prostitution, social stigma suggests that society would rather be without prostitution. But that's no excuse to criminalise it. It requires social engineering. But as we appear to have had this "problem" for aeons, I'm not convinced that will ever happen.