NIK

So what's happened to the great crusade?

30 posts in this topic

About a year or so ago there was much panic on this board that the crusading government led by moral crusaders such as Harriet Harman, Jacqui Smith and that arch hypocritical backbencher, Mr 14 laptops Dennis Mcshane, were going to do something which has never been done before in the whole history of the world - BAN PROSTITUTION.

This was definitely going to happen and we were all going to have to stop punting or have our collars seriously felt.

People like me who said it will never happen were condemned as living in a complacent cloud cuckoo land and we were going to have to accept the end of punting as we know it.

Of course since then these moral crusaders have had something much more important on their plates, such as saving their own hypocrictial skins and Jacqui Smith has been vanquished. Thus far, as I predicted, prostitution will still be around long after they are not.

So would anyone like to give an update? Am I still living in a complacent cloud cuckoo land? And when can we expect THE END OF PROSTITUTION?

PS It should be noted they have of course managed to very successfully completely abolish the dealing and taking of drugs. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So would anyone like to give an update?

There's an update right here, in the correct section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So many of us here will be long dead and gone before anything happens :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So many of us here will be long dead and gone before anything happens :(

I would think that the legislation will be on the statute books in some form before the next General Election, unless GB calls one for the autumn.

You are right that prohibiting soft and hard drugs has not abolished their use, but that does not mean that quite a few current punters would consider being potentially on the wrong side of the law too high a price to pay to get their rocks off occasionally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NIK, I was never really worried about any change in the laws, it is impossible to ban prostitution --------- remember that brothels are already illegal but there are thousands of them throughout the country.

Ms Harman will be history after the next election, good riddance. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harriet Harman was interviewed on Woman's Hour on Radio 4 yesterday and said how her 'controversial' views on prostitution had become 'conventional wisdom'. (The interview was picked up by the PM programme later in the day.)

(She basically demonstrated once again her talent for Stalinist revisionism.)

I'll post a link to the interview in the legalities board shortly (unless someone beats me to it).

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an amusing piece in the Spectator entitled "Harriet Harman is either thick or criminally disingenuous".

There are some really good passages such as: "But the problem with Harman is that this is stupidity repackaged as a form of jejune radicalism and as a consequence nobody in her party will gainsay it, for fear of being branded a reactionary."

and

"Bizarrely, Harman has been allowed to draft legislation based solely, it would seem, upon her hatred for men."

or maybe

"So juvenile and deep-seated is her loathing of men that she has even argued that men are not really needed in a family set-up, that there's really no great necessity for a child to know its own father."

Give a few clues as to where she is coming from on prostitution.

If you want to depress yourself with the rest of it.....

Link: http://www.spectator.co.uk/i/the-magazine/features/5244693/harriet-harman-is-either-thick-or-criminally-disingenuous.thtml

Anyway, as soon as the loathesome, ugly, self-righteous cow is history, the better.

And it is me or are all the leading Labour politicans smug or smarmy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"either thick or criminally disingenuous".

"this is stupidity repackaged as a form of jejune radicalism"

Wish I could write like that :D

Are all the leading Labour politicans smug or smarmy?

Hmmmmmmm . . . I guess the logical answer is No.

As the majority, or all, are both smug and smarmy. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hatred of men.

The wilful misinterpretation of statistics to support whatever case she wants to believe in. Confirmation bias in extremis.

The insistence that because trafficking does exist all of us should be criminalised even if only a tiny fraction of punters may have had sex with a trafficked girl, inadvertently or otherwise.

She really is a vile creature.

Liddle has her nailed sure enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And it is me or are all the leading Labour politicans smug or smarmy?

What, and David Cameron isn't?

I'm no fan of HH, btw (and neither was Tony Blair).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know what the Tory policy is on this, as it seems that is a little more relevant given the current opinion polls?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone know what the Tory policy is on this, as it seems that is a little more relevant given the current opinion polls?

or Tory policies on anything, whilst you're at it?

Their strategy would seem to be (and you can't blame them) sit tight and cruise into government by default.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was one of a group of women who attended a meeting at the House of Commons. After speaking to a couple of the Lords and a lovely Baroness, who's name escapes me right now the general feeling given out is that these new proposals will go through, in what form no-one knows as yet. When parliament commences in Oct it will be the report stage and things will become a lot clearer. No they will never be able to bann the sale of sex completely but in my opinion what they are doing is giving the police more powers to close down the badly run venues, venues with trafficked/underage girls and make the venues that are left run properly, ie pay tax and VAT and run like any other business.This I imagine will be left totally in the hands of the local police in any area and their views on the industry. A good run parlour is a valuable source of information and most police forces know this. As for men being criminilised, I understand this is now only if they pay for sex with a prostitute who is trafficked/coerced/forced/on drugs. So when, not if, it all goes through punters need to follow their heads before their dicks and be very choosy of who and where they punt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
or Tory policies on anything, whilst you're at it?

Their strategy would seem to be (and you can't blame them) sit tight and cruise into government by default.

Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. ...

(Napoleon Bonaparte)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was one of a group of women who attended a meeting at the House of Commons. After speaking to a couple of the Lords and a lovely Baroness, who's name escapes me right now the general feeling given out is that these new proposals will go through, in what form no-one knows as yet. When parliament commences in Oct it will be the report stage and things will become a lot clearer. No they will never be able to bann the sale of sex completely but in my opinion what they are doing is giving the police more powers to close down the badly run venues, venues with trafficked/underage girls and make the venues that are left run properly, ie pay tax and VAT and run like any other business.This I imagine will be left totally in the hands of the local police in any area and their views on the industry. A good run parlour is a valuable source of information and most police forces know this. As for men being criminilised, I understand this is now only if they pay for sex with a prostitute who is trafficked/coerced/forced/on drugs. So when, not if, it all goes through punters need to follow their heads before their dicks and be very choosy of who and where they punt.

And when did the plod ever know what they were doing? The plod are no better than the HMRC and abuse their power as demonstrated by the link below.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1199878/Force-uses-stop-search-power-3-400-times--suspends-failing-make-single-terror-arrest.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harriet Harman ..... said how her 'controversial' views on prostitution had become 'conventional wisdom'.

To whom? The disenchanted blue rinsed, who will soon return to the blue fold.

New Labour and Harman in particular love to be seen to be doing, by attacking a minority workforce, who have no coherent union or public voice, and without much public sympathy she negates any fear of backlash, and is left to politically bully and harrass Happy professional service providers as she wills.

The real problems of Pimping, forced prostitution, underage prostitution and other unpleasent practices found in the paid sex industry are shielded and obscured by Harmanns obsessive one size fits all psuedo-policy. The real tragedy of prostitutional politics is those politicians with the power to change things, simply dont understand what needs changing and what doesnt. They seek to change things for the benefit of the outrages voters.

The woman is a fookwit.

Easy vote winner with some of the more gullible sections of society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To whom? The disenchanted blue rinsed, who will soon return to the blue fold.

New Labour and Harman in particular love to be seen to be doing, by attacking a minority workforce, who have no coherent union or public voice, and without much public sympathy she negates any fear of backlash, and is left to politically bully and harrass Happy professional service providers as she wills.

The real problems of Pimping, forced prostitution, underage prostitution and other unpleasent practices found in the paid sex industry are shielded and obscured by Harmanns obsessive one size fits all psuedo-policy. The real tragedy of prostitutional politics is those politicians with the power to change things, simply dont understand what needs changing and what doesnt. They seek to change things for the benefit of the outrages voters.

The woman is a fookwit.

Easy vote winner with some of the more gullible sections of society.

I don't think she's doing it because she sees it as a vote-winner. If it impacts voting at a General Election at all it will lose votes as well as gain some, with probably a neutral overall effect.

Nor do I see it as some sort of power trip over a voiceless and disenfranchised community of punters and WG's.

I certainly don't believe for a moment that she gives a stuff about the victims of trafficking and pimping etc. If she did she would direct resources to finding out the real nature and extent of the problem, and use the knowledge garnered to work out an effective strategy for mitigating it.

No, this is about her hatred of the idea that we can pay for sex. It's a hatred she shares with many women who would prefer a world where men were utterly dependant on them for sex, and therefore much more controllable. Doubtless she sees us punters as outlaw scum-of-the-earth. But my guess as she sees you sex workers as traitors to your gender, letting the side down, in the battle for power between the sexes.

So her policy is to deter as many men as possible from punting, hence the very deliberate one-size-fits-all approach. I suspect it is doomed to failure, but there will be casualties along the way, arrests of punters leading to broken marriages, falling demand leading to falling prices making it uneconomic for some women to pursue this line of work etc. From this she will derive some comfort.

Why do I believe that it is doomed to failure? Because we live in a relatively free society and there will always be men keen to buy, women happy to sell, and the internet as a medium of information exchange that enables them to get together, thank God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose I should add that whatever watered-down legislation does limp onto the statute book, hopefully police forces will use the additional powers in a commonsensical way, to target the street trade, nail traffickers, and rescue victims when they come across them, move nuisance brothels on, and generally avoid hauling punters off in a squad car unless it's blatantly obvious that the girl was trafficked.

If one in ten men punt then I bet a fair few plod do too and they won't want to be collaring their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I'm on a rant, one could perhaps overlook the minor affair of the illegal donation of £5k by Abrahams.

Less easy to overlook however was the £3.5m cash-for-peerages scandal at the centre of which was the Party Treasurer Dromey, her other half. He claimed to be unaware at the time. If true then he was criminally negligent, if false just criminal.

Ironically she had been made Solicitor-General despite having no legal qualification. A scandalous appointment for that reason and also because of the question marks, noted above, hovering over her head.

Just off to have a lie down in a dark room with a cold compress on my temple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think she's doing it because she sees it as a vote-winner. If it impacts voting at a General Election at all it will lose votes as well as gain some, with probably a neutral overall effect.

...

No, this is about her hatred of the idea that we can pay for sex.

I'm not so sure! She is a lawyer, and appearances to the contrary, she has a brain!

A year or so ago she was buying votes for the NuLabour #2 election with her touchy-feely comments on the wicked (more likely just flying too high to see) American pilots who'd done blue-on-blue, and then wouldn't come and testify at the English inquest. Now when running off at the mouth there, she had to know that if the pilots had been Brits, no way would UK MoD have allowed them to go to the US to testify, so I conclude that she was simply after votes. I think now that she has concluded that the feminist vote, with the prudish vote are worth telling porky-pies for!

Just my own opinion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry - You're quite right she is a qualified solicitor.

Indeed she even acted as Legal Officer for NCCL (now Liberty) back in the good old days when they were still trying to defend the Paedophile Information Exchange. You know, the guys who liked to bugger little boys.

But I suppose that that was ok, after all no money changed hands, and no women were hurt in the process. So in that sense her views then were consistent with her views now.

Give me strength.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re your belief that she's in this for votes.......

She hates men and seeks to do them down whenever possible. Witness the wilful misreading of stats to promote an anti-male pro-female point for which she rightly got knuckles-rapped by NSO. That and all the other stuff in this thread and others leads inexorably to the same conclusion.

As for vote-gathering she knows Labour are on their way out and she is furiously jockeying with all the other vultures for the poisoned chalice that is Leader of the Opposition. The battleground for that is much bigger than our thing which is the type of sideshow that can only distract from the main event. I'll believe that you're right and that she is in it only for political advancement if she jettisons her espousal of the proposed legislation, in favour of the bigger picture. But if, as I suspect, she hangs onto it regardless then it'll confirm to me that her hatred of men has overcome her desire for power.

Or she might be choosing to play a very long game. Get leadership, get back into government eventually, and then use the power she has to really lay into us. That might not work because Labour are likely to go through several leaders of the opposition before they get back in, as the Tories have done over that last 12 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose I should add that whatever watered-down legislation does limp onto the statute book, hopefully police forces will use the additional powers in a commonsensical way, to target the street trade, nail traffickers, and rescue victims when they come across them, move nuisance brothels on, and generally avoid hauling punters off in a squad car unless it's blatantly obvious that the girl was trafficked.

If one in ten men punt then I bet a fair few plod do too and they won't want to be collaring their own.

I despair. The plod at best are useless. Under section 44 they haven't caught any terrorists and with this legislation the EE,Triad gangs will carry on trafficking. The police only look after themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry - You're quite right she is a qualified solicitor.

Indeed she even acted as Legal Officer for NCCL (now Liberty) back in the good old days when they were still trying to defend the Paedophile Information Exchange. You know, the guys who liked to bugger little boys.

But I suppose that that was ok, after all no money changed hands, and no women were hurt in the process. So in that sense her views then were consistent with her views now.

Give me strength.

That's right, and Patricia Hewitt was Secretary of the NCCL in those days. They have both airbrushed this out of their cvs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know if Liberty have made any statement on the proposed legislation? Their current leadership is rather good - am a bit concerned that recent posts are dissing them by implication.

Harman doesn't need expertise in this area of law if she can grandstand effectively.

It's awful law. I would be much happier if she made a real attempt to target child prostitution, slavery, abduction, and immigration, separately and effectively.

Trafficking is horrible, but the root miseries are connected with slavery. No-one wants the, "women locked in a basement forced to service men" scenario. But trafficking alone includes much lesser ills than that. This is not to condone some things and not others. Simply that, if they are not separated, police and resources are easily spread too thinly to tackle high priority cases effectively.

An example of trafficking that is in a different category to the "locked in a basement" scenario is where the women would rather pay the trafficking debt to remain in the country rather than return to horrific circumstances in their country of origin. Such women are not happy to be 'saved' by Harmanesque legislation. Hence immigration and illegal immigration needs to be refined to look at such trafficked cases.

Willing working girls, whatever the background, incidentally 'integrate' rather better than many other new arrivals. It is a necessary part of their job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now