bacchus

Sunday Mail article: Battle to axe prostitutes sex adverts on internet

24 posts in this topic

Article in today's Sunday Mail, which is a Scottish paper and whilst it reports a call to the Scottish Parliament, it's perhaps an omen of things to come:

Anti-vice campaigners have urged Ministers to close a loophole allowing hookers to advertise on the web.

Labour Justice spokeswoman Pauline McNeill revealed there is now a boom in prostitutes offering sex for sale online because new laws failed to include the internet.

The Act only made it illegal for men to solicit prostitutes in public places, such as streets and car parks.

The Glasgow Kelvin MSP said: "Prostitution over the internet is something that Parliament needs to properly address. The internet seems to have been ignored and the argument over whether it's a public place is something we should look at." One legal source said: "Suddenly we have a large online industry offering every kind of sexual service. Politicians must take action."

More women have gone online after police crackdowns on red-light areas.

Linda Thompson, of the Women's Support Project, said: "Prostitution is exploitation of women.

"It doesn't matter if a man buys sex on the street or the internet."

Link: Battle to axe prostitutes sex adverts on internet

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Article in today's Sunday Mail, which is a Scottish paper and whilst it reports a call to the Scottish Parliament, it's perhaps an omen of things to come:

Anti-vice campaigners have urged Ministers to close a loophole allowing hookers to advertise on the web.

Labour Justice spokeswoman Pauline McNeill revealed there is now a boom in prostitutes offering sex for sale online because new laws failed to include the internet.

The Act only made it illegal for men to solicit prostitutes in public places, such as streets and car parks.

The Glasgow Kelvin MSP said: "Prostitution over the internet is something that Parliament needs to properly address. The internet seems to have been ignored and the argument over whether it's a public place is something we should look at." One legal source said: "Suddenly we have a large online industry offering every kind of sexual service. Politicians must take action."

More women have gone online after police crackdowns on red-light areas.

Linda Thompson, of the Women's Support Project, said: "Prostitution is exploitation of women.

"It doesn't matter if a man buys sex on the street or the internet."

Link: Battle to axe prostitutes sex adverts on internet

B

What's this silly bitch on about? There's no "loop-hole". You don't see an escort advert on the net by accident. Also how am I soliciting her in public? even if the net is deemed a public space I'm ringing HER mobile or emailing HER email address, so that's not public is it. My solicitation of her was totally private. Since these laws with the "loophole" are aimed at the men, she can't possibly say we're soliciting in public by any stretch.

Wouldn't worry about it - just stupid nazi fems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here's more

from the Register a few days ago

Porn, abuse, depravity - and how they plan to stop it

also from the register last week

The Obscene Publications Act rides again

(update, not in the article)

The IWF said that it had passed details to police after being told of the site. Though it was not hosted in the UK, said a spokeswoman, the site did have UK links on it so a report was passed to police. [The author left a .co.uk email address for feedback]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how exactly is the Scottish parliment going to even try and legislate against this then?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And how exactly is the Scottish parliment going to even try and legislate against this then?????

same as the kinky porn ban, block the sites and if the ISPs don't do that they'll be charged for pimping and promoting prostitution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really?? I cant see how on earth Scottish coppers can stop someone from England looking at a website!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...but it's not only China and the UK:

France ban on internet alcohol advertising hits industry

American ban on internet gambling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
same as the kinky porn ban, block the sites and if the ISPs don't do that they'll be charged for pimping and promoting prostitution

Never happen - the Nazi fems who are promoting these ideas want the men in court. The men solicit the women by phone or email which is not public by any stretch so the effect of the law would be only to criminalise the women. They'll lose interest once they realise this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Never happen - .

of course it will

no need for legislation, they can just do like they did with ads in newspapers or kiddie porn on the internet, the scheme (IWF) is already there:

First, the government, in the person of Home Office minister Vernon Coaker, simply demanded that all UK ISPs "voluntarily" sign up for the system - there is no legislative backing for this at all. And second, no doubt only because no open discussion took place, no parliamentary debate occurred, and therefore no real examination of the dangers of such a process were exposed, no one except the Home Office knows what's on that final list. We're led to believe that it's purely a list of child pornography sites. But no one outside government knows. Not even the ISPs. They block; they don't look.

As of December 31 last year, all UK ISPs duly agreed to adopt the system. You're now viewing a state-mandated subset of the internet. How do you feel about that? Like to vote against it? You can't. Like your MP to sit on a committee to oversee implementation? He can't. Like to know if the Google results you're seeing are a full representation of Google's actual results? You can't. Censorship at this level - above even ISPs, is all but invisible to the end user. It's a secret that they're keeping these secrets from you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/17/caughtintheweb

+ the fems don't care about prostituties, they care about money being exchanged for sex - something which shouldn't happen;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
of course it will

no need for legislation, they can just do like they did with ads in newspapers or kiddie porn on the internet, the scheme (IWF) is already there:

First, the government, in the person of Home Office minister Vernon Coaker, simply demanded that all UK ISPs "voluntarily" sign up for the system - there is no legislative backing for this at all. And second, no doubt only because no open discussion took place, no parliamentary debate occurred, and therefore no real examination of the dangers of such a process were exposed, no one except the Home Office knows what's on that final list. We're led to believe that it's purely a list of child pornography sites. But no one outside government knows. Not even the ISPs. They block; they don't look.

As of December 31 last year, all UK ISPs duly agreed to adopt the system. You're now viewing a state-mandated subset of the internet. How do you feel about that? Like to vote against it? You can't. Like your MP to sit on a committee to oversee implementation? He can't. Like to know if the Google results you're seeing are a full representation of Google's actual results? You can't. Censorship at this level - above even ISPs, is all but invisible to the end user. It's a secret that they're keeping these secrets from you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/17/caughtintheweb

+ the fems don't care about prostituties, they care about money being exchanged for sex - something which shouldn't happen;)

Kiddy porn is illegal, Newspapers advertising UK escorts are run by UK companies who can be pressured the the govt. The internet is international and whilst they can get away with stuff in the name of eradicating child porn sites it would be much more difficult with escort sites since people would notice those sites being blocked and would be more likely to kick up a stink asking ISP's why they're blocking it etc. Also this thread was about making it illegal, which is different from surreptitiously adding sites to a secret list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just read the full article and it's a little OTT. Clearly the full list isn't going to be published - it's like asking them to publish a crib sheet for all the paedophiles to know where to look when they're using the internet abroad. The ISP doesn't look because it's child porn. It's illegal to knowingly look at child porn sites. He raises some reasonable points and certainly the decision to block sites outside of child porn should be debated openly, but there's a lot of scare-mongering in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just read the full article and it's a little OTT. Clearly the full list isn't going to be published - it's like asking them to publish a crib sheet for all the paedophiles to know where to look when they're using the internet abroad. The ISP doesn't look because it's child porn. It's illegal to knowingly look at child porn sites. He raises some reasonable points and certainly the decision to block sites outside of child porn should be debated openly, but there's a lot of scare-mongering in it.

Having worked for an ISP, setting up global content filters, I think you should know that every UK based ISP has one person on their staff who is certified by The Home Office to examine sites that are alleged to contain images such as child pornography, during their working day, without being prosecuted for doing so.

This is due to the fact that it is not all that uncommon for malicious allegations of such content to be made. As an example; I must add that I wasn't the person responsible for carrying out these checks, just forwarding them to the person who did, we actually had a complaint of such material being displayed on a site that turned out to have shocking details of how to order made to measure street lamps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just read the full article and it's a little OTT. Clearly the full list isn't going to be published - it's like asking them to publish a crib sheet for all the paedophiles to know where to look when they're using the internet abroad. The ISP doesn't look because it's child porn. It's illegal to knowingly look at child porn sites. He raises some reasonable points and certainly the decision to block sites outside of child porn should be debated openly, but there's a lot of scare-mongering in it.

such lists have leaked in other countries and people have checked what's on them, a lot of it shouldn't be there - the list are usually compiled by religious organisations such as ECPAT.

From the article in the Register(see my first post in this thread):

The scariest is yet to come. Forget the Scottish Parliament, calling for an end to all violent images of women. Or Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker pushing for all UK ISPs to run a blocking system akin to that created for the IWF.

The child protection lobby again appears to be acting as a Trojan Horse for far greater censorship. The Byron Review (pdf) reported to general government approval earlier this year, and one of its first fruits, to be launched this autumn, will be the UK Council for Child Internet Safety (UKCCIS). Threaded through its role of making the internet "safer for children" will be a remit to bring forward new regulation, or suggest legislation where appropriate, to control online content.

Another serious policy extension may be found within the first releases from the UKCCIS. While Byron spoke about working to prevent children accessing content that was "inappropriate to children", the UKCCIS has very quickly pushed that out to talk of blocking "inappropriate content". The first aim is about monitoring people: the second is very much about dumbing down - or infantilising - the internet.

Hard on the heels of Byron came the 10th report of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, looking at "Harmful Content on the Internet". It too believes that there is just too much nasty content out there - although at time of writing, it is in two minds as to whether the right way forward is more law or greater industry self-regulation.

A government response to its recommendations is due to be published when parliament returns in October. Anyone looking for a return to the good old days of internet free-for-all would be well advised not to hold their breath. They are gone - and aren't coming back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will never happen, with freedom of speach laws, If it does happen what else will get censored

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

France has some very strict laws on alcohol advertising, watch the presentation at the end of the French grand prix. The champagne is covered up and I dont think theyre allowed to spray it either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Telegraph today:

Jacqui Smith plans broad new Big Brother surveillance powers. Telephone calls, internet use and email will be monitored by the police as part of a broad extension of the ability of the state to snoop on citizens.

Ministers were already planning a massive Big Brother database to log data contained in emails and phone calls but have decided to go even further in view of the current threat level.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/3202766/Jacqui-Smith-plans-broad-new-Big-Brother-surveillance-powers.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will this be put through as a law or can they just go ahead with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is in fact a bloody good idea, not just against terrorism but also drug dealers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is in fact a bloody good idea, not just against terrorism but also drug dealers.

Yep, it will be easy to catch punters too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the reasons I prefer England to Denmark is because there used to be much less Big Brother mentality here..

In Denmark there is a central database on everything.. If you apply for a job, the company can check whether you are telling the truth regarding your grades, the dentists knows everything about you (when I went home for a while 5 years ago, when calling the dentist they said 'oh you are the woman who has come back from England with 2 kids' :D and the government are online with the banks) I used to hate it.. We got doctrined from an early age always to follow the rules which is why I am such an honest person and pay all my taxes!! So England was always refreshing for me, but it is definitely going in the wrong direction now..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the reasons I prefer England to Denmark is because there used to be much less Big Brother mentality here..

In Denmark there is a central database on everything.. If you apply for a job, the company can check whether you are telling the truth regarding your grades, the dentists knows everything about you (when I went home for a while 5 years ago, when calling the dentist they said 'oh you are the woman who has come back from England with 2 kids' :D and the government are online with the banks) I used to hate it.. We got doctrined from an early age always to follow the rules which is why I am such an honest person and pay all my taxes!! So England was always refreshing for me, but it is definitely going in the wrong direction now..

Thats amazing that someone is actually complementing us on our lack of a big brother mentalitiy when many Brits are saying we are going that way!

I can totally see why that would be uncomfortable. As for this, it strikes me that women have never been happy with men seeing prostitutes , not just because of the exploitation aspect but really it comes down the good old fashioned jealously.That we can spread it about see random people and for money get release.It is far more socially acceptable for a man to do this, even today . Womens sexuality unfortunately is still a bit restrained in my view. Which I don''t think is fair as women want sex just as much as we do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is in fact a bloody good idea, not just against terrorism but also drug dealers.

The drug dealers at the moment get a sim card and disposes off it quickly after the deals are done.. If this was to come through I would have thought that the drug dealers will just steal Mr Blogs registered phone, do the deal and discard... Mr Blog will of course get a rather unpleasant surprise..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats amazing that someone is actually complementing us on our lack of a big brother mentalitiy when many Brits are saying we are going that way!

I can totally see why that would be uncomfortable. As for this, it strikes me that women have never been happy with men seeing prostitutes , not just because of the exploitation aspect but really it comes down the good old fashioned jealously.That we can spread it about see random people and for money get release.It is far more socially acceptable for a man to do this, even today . Womens sexuality unfortunately is still a bit restrained in my view. Which I don''t think is fair as women want sex just as much as we do.

Yes, I know... England is no patch on Denmark YET but they are getting there day by day..

What is also a very frustrating thing in Denmark is that if you do anything not completely kosher you gotta watch thy neighbours... They will report you with absolutely no hesitation..

When I went back there 5 years ago, I stayed there for 5 months.. I had an English registered Nissan which was worth about £3000 at the time.. In Denmark it was worth £10,000 :D I enquired about getting Danish number plates for it but it would cost me £7,000 to do so as it had basically gained that in value by being in Denmark.. (Crazy!!)

By Danish laws you are only allowed to have a foreign registered car there for 3 months.. So after having parked my car outside for 3 months where we lived I had to park it some way away as I knew a 100% that it would be reported by somebody that it had exceeded the 3 months deadline..

The same goes for anybody getting the whiff of you doing cash in hand..

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