Fun Times Escorts

Some interesting reading

24 posts in this topic

Yes, apart from the odd religious-loony Chief Constable, it appears that most of the police and Home Office know that sex trafficking on any appreciable scale is a complete myth, and are wisely redirecting resources elsewhere.

Together with JS being out of the government and Labour about to be swept to oblivion anyway, it does make you wonder whether Clause 13 would ever be enforced.

If not, what on earth is the point in having it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a punter and someone who works in parallel with the media, I have suspected for sometime that the figures banded around were always bogus. If there were 80,000 trafficked women, in addition to the home-grown WGs, they'd be one on each street corner, and by the law of averages, one person on this board would have had a trafficked WG in their street,

Now we know all the spin was bollocks, a smokescreen for what? Harman's crusade to be PM, Brown's mishandling of the economy, MPs expenses or just a case to bury bad news elsewhere?

In the area I work in, a Government plan for something revolutionary (cant say what as it might erode my identity) was heavily criticised by several professional journalists as well as other organisations who would be involved as backers/supporters, but on they went regardless, until the cost of a key item for the project doubled to more than £6m - and they wanted 6 of these items, which basically fucked the budget, that was already well over £40million. So the project was abandoned and will be trialled on a smaller scale elsewhere "which is more manageable". This is exactly what was suggested by a room of eminent opinion formers when the project was first announced. I guess the Government department concerned was suffering from the ostritch syndrome?

After 12 years, we are now used to the lies, cheating and deceit of Government to get its way and prove a point. You can only cry 'wolf' so many times.

Question is, now the facts that the bill has been based upon were false, can the bill be stopped hitting the statute books?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit reminiscent of the Satanic Abuse hysteria of a few years ago.

A few loonies whipped up a scare. Loads of people jumped on the bandwagon for the sake of funding and kudos. There was not even a shred of proper evidence. The end result was some real harm done to quite a few families.

:D:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exchange Satanic Abuse for:

WMDs in Iraq

Current percieved terrorist threat (together with)

ID cards

Cleveland child abuse scandal

Salmonella in eggs

Hutton Inquiry

CRB checks

Social Services failures

etc

The list goes on. And these lies were perpetuated by people entrusted to run the country. :P They're nothing but a bunch of c u next tuesday's......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At last, an objective and factual report in the mainstream media. And in The Grauniad, no less. Will be fascinating to see the response from Bindel, Poppyock, et al. I can hardly wait.

But it's not just the report. It also links to a brilliant article by Nick Davies deconstructing every aspect of the "moral panic" over trafficking: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/trafficking-numbers-women-exaggerated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Question is, now the facts that the bill has been based upon were false, can the bill be stopped hitting the statute books?

I see what you post and am in agreement, however to be fair and to the best of my knowledge, the current proposed legislation does not mention "trafficking", it does however mention "force, threats, coercion" etc. all of which may or may not, in individual cases, be part and parcel of trafficking, but nevertheless in and of themselves they are something that should not be tolerated, so in conclusion I am not convinced that an argument based on "trafficking" would add much weight to the need to scrap the current legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At last, an objective and factual report in the mainstream media. And in The Grauniad, no less. Will be fascinating to see the response from Bindel, Poppyock, et al. I can hardly wait.

But it's not just the report. It also links to a brilliant article by Nick Davies deconstructing every aspect of the "moral panic" over trafficking: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/trafficking-numbers-women-exaggerated

I missed that. Pretty good summary of the way this has developed over the last few years.

So it goes like this:

Government decides what it wants to do on grounds of personal moral prejudice of certain ministers

Govenrment funds lobby group sharing moral prejudice to come out with 'right' figures to support legislation

Government uses 'right' figures as justification for legislation

A disgusting and shameful travesty of democracy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At last, an objective and factual report in the mainstream media. And in The Grauniad, no less. Will be fascinating to see the response from Bindel, Poppyock, et al. I can hardly wait.

But it's not just the report. It also links to a brilliant article by Nick Davies deconstructing every aspect of the "moral panic" over trafficking: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/trafficking-numbers-women-exaggerated

Completely agree. He also acknowledges that we continue to remain unheard as working women.

"Thus far, their voices remain largely ignored by news media and politicians who, once more, have been swept away on a tide of misinformation."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I maight post what the ECP have to say about this.

English Collective of Prostitutes

Crossroads Women's Centre PO Box 287 London NW6 5QU

Telephone 020 7482 2496 Fax 020 7209 4761 Email ecp@allwomencount.net

www.prostitutescollective.net

Guardian trafficking enquiry vindicates sex workers' experience

Nick Davies' report ("Sex, lies and trafficking -- the anatomy of a moral panic" Guardian, 20 October 2009) vindicates what we have been saying for many years: figures on the numbers of women trafficked into the sex industry are distorted and in many cases purely fabricated.

In our wide experience working with women in most towns and cities throughout the UK, most sex workers have not been trafficked but are working to support families. Does that make prostitution "freely chosen"? Does it make any job freely chosen when economic need is pressing?

Feminism has become identified with a political agenda that considers prostitution uniquely degrading and equal to rape. Consent, the central issue both in rape and in prostitution, is being dismissed in favour of a fundamentalist law and order crusade. NGOs who sign up for this have seen their funding and influence increase. Far from being an independent women's group, the Poppy Project has become a Home Office front funded to the tune of £9m.

The Poppy Project is now trying to save itself by saying there "there is an awful lot of confusion in the media and other places between trafficking (unwilling victims) and smuggling (willing passengers) . . . they are two very different things." Yet they were the first to blur that distinction, label most immigrant women as victims of trafficking, and promote legislation which does not require force and coercion in order to prove trafficking.

The impact of this anti-trafficking crusade on the ground has been to increase dramatically the numbers of raids, prosecutions and convictions of sex workers working consensually and often collectively with other women. Immigrant women have been particularly targeted as anti-trafficking laws have been used as an extension of immigration controls to get them deported.

Sex workers have been campaigning against rape and other violence for decades. From 1975 when we started, to 1981 when our we conducted the first research into the situation of prostitute women, 1982 when we took sanctuary in a church for 12-days, 1994 when we campaigned against serial murders, 1995 when we took the first successful private prosecution for rape with Women Against Rape, and 2008 when we initiated the Safety First Coalition in the aftermath of the Ipswich murders, we have been pressing for protection, highlighting how criminalisation makes women vulnerable to rape and other violence, and prevents women from coming forward.

Our calls were ignored because they did not suit the government agenda. While feminists campaign for the criminalisation of clients under the Policing and Crime Bill, they hide all the measures in the Bill which further criminalise women and undermine our safety: increased arrests against women working on the street, forced 'rehabilitation' under threat of prison, throwing women out of the safety of premises, increased power to seize women's hard won earnings and assets. If they are so concerned with our safety, why the silence?

They have also kept quiet about the Welfare Reform Bill which is making its way through Parliament at the same time as the Policing and Crime Bill. Welfare Reform threatens to bring destitution to increasing numbers of single mother families, people with disabilities and others. How many more will end up on the game?

Both the government and their feminist backers have refused to look at New Zealand which decriminalised prostitution over five years ago. A recent comprehensive government review found a reduction in attacks and sex workers are more able to report violence.

Grahame Maxwell, head of the UK Human Trafficking Centre, who doesn't dispute Nick Davies' findings is quoted as saying "what we are trying to do is to get it gently back to some kind of reality."

Let's start with scrapping the Policing and Crime Bill.

20 October 2009

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Poppy Project is now trying to save itself by saying there "there is an awful lot of confusion in the media and other places between trafficking (unwilling victims) and smuggling (willing passengers) . . . they are two very different things." Yet they were the first to blur that distinction, label most immigrant women as victims of trafficking, and promote legislation which does not require force and coercion in order to prove trafficking.

This, one assumes, is the same Poppy Project that, in Big Brothel, said that 80% of WGs in London brothels were foreign and therefore, by inference, 'trafficked'. It's a pity that there isn't a Nobel Prize for hypocrisy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here's todays little panic

Hoodies again

Any objective numbers on mayhem in FE???

my local news which spouts every handout from the local plod PR has never run a schock horror on this.

or has someone been promised a retirement job on the board of the company making detection arches???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And here's todays little panic

Hoodies again

Any objective numbers on mayhem in FE???

my local news which spouts every handout from the local plod PR has never run a schock horror on this.

or has someone been promised a retirement job on the board of the company making detection arches???

Forbidding the wearing of caps and hoodies is an entirely sensible precaution and one that many inner city FE colleges already take.

For example, head wear can, and does, often indicate gang membership, and can also prevent identification when incidents occur (which they do in these colleges on a fairly regular basis).

These incidents rarely make it into the press as by and large they will be resolved without recourse to the police.

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hoodies - yes

In many ways the objections are the same as those to

wearing baseball caps at the dinnertable, the niquab, etc.

It's shifty & damn rude not to look each other in the eye from time to time.

But it's the detectors I find really wierd.

Don't know what goes on South of the Tees, but up here FE colleges seem filled with rather stressed folks trying to get on.

It's the

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Catherine Bennett responded to Nick Davies' article in yesterday's Observer:

No trafficking? Well, there's a hell of a lot of women suffering

It's a somewhat confused piece by an often clear-minded and intelligent writer (although I have sympathy with her view over the proportionality of comparing WMDs in Iraq with trafficking, although of course it's the rad-fems who are doing that not those arguing that they're wrong).

It's also worth drawing attention to a Bill currently before the Lords which seeks to criminalise forced labour and servitude:

'Anti-slavery laws' before Lords

Whilst the Tories and Lib Dems are supporting it as well as the Unite union and Gangmasters Licensing Authority, the Government isn't, insisting that 'current laws give victims enough protection'. (Perhaps if it was an 'anti-sex-slavery law' their attitude may be somewhat different.)

You really couldn't make it up, but maybe I just have an over-developed sense of irony. :mad:

Finally, further demolishing of the trafficking case on Spiked:

‘Rescue’: a new PC term for repatriation

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catherine Bennett responded to Nick Davies' article in yesterday's Observer:

No trafficking? Well, there's a hell of a lot of women suffering

Good to see that Catherine B. takes it for granted that Harman and Smith are ludicrous figures.

Finally, further demolishing of the trafficking case on Spiked:

'Rescue': a new PC term for repatriation

B

Thanks for introducing me to this site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reassuring words from Fiona Mactaggart:

A previous draft of the law was claimed to put at risk prostitute women who paid a maid to help them be safe. Now there is no possible ambiguity about the proposed offence.

If we continue to have laws which are ineffective and do not do enough to help women leave prostitution, we will see, when the Olympics come to London, the same explosion of criminality and sexual exploitation as has been seen during major sporting events in other countries, especially in the countries where prostitution has been legalised. Next month the Lords has a chance of putting in place a law which could prevent that.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/22/crime-bill-human-rights

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