Backdoorman

Guardian article exposes the sex traffic lies

57 posts in this topic

Excellent article that explodes the myths:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/trafficking-numbers-women-exaggerated

Basically, someone did some research and came up with a figure that could be anywhere within 20x of the actual figure. Someone else then took the 20x figure and just used that, which then became the 'true' figure quoted by others - which was then elaborated and exaggerated itself. Repeat, until you have 18,000, 25,000, 40,000 - whatever the ridiculous estimates currently run at.

The actual figure of women confirmed to have actually been trafficked ? 11. Although, it actually seems that might not have been true either. So maybe zero….

Nick Davies has also written a brilliant book about the state of journalist in general, called Flat Earth News. It's a good read, and very enlightening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done for bringing this to the forum's attention. As a liberal paper with a strong tradition of supporting women, the Guardian's analysis of this can be taken as accurate. Wonder if anyone in HM Government will pay any attention?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is one impressive article. He has not missed out a single thing and is spot on with all of it. They could use somebody like him in government!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well done for bringing this to the forum's attention. As a liberal paper with a strong tradition of supporting women, the Guardian's analysis of this can be taken as accurate. Wonder if anyone in HM Government will pay any attention?
They also published this blog critique, written by a member of the Southall Black Sisters, as an op-ed sop to their RadFem readers, in the same edition:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/20/sex-trafficking-inquiry-nick-davies

I haven't bothered to read the long list of readers' comments but I suspect many of them will echo sentiments found here on our board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They also published this blog critique, written by a member of the Southall Black Sisters, as an op-ed sop to their RadFem readers, in the same edition:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/20/sex-trafficking-inquiry-nick-davies

I haven't bothered to read the long list of readers' comments but I suspect many of them will echo sentiments found here on our board.

Thank you for posting this article, Tiggy 7.

Pia: please read it, and then you will see why Nick Davies far "not spot on" with his essay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's been a suspicion of mine for a long while that trafficking has been hugely exaggerated. The sorry state of journalist today means that 'churnalists', as Davies calls them, just churn out the same old regurgitated rubbish without ever actually stopping to check the facts.

I really do recommend his book - it's a real eye-opener. I will never read or listen to a news story again without a healthy dose of scepticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for posting this article, Tiggy 7.

Pia: please read it, and then you will see why Nick Davies far "not spot on" with his essay.

Xenia, did you actually read the article? (Published presumably in the interests of 'balance'.)

Gupta is from the same stable as Bindel and Honeyball. Her articles have been dismantled by serious independent researchers before.

She starts with the argument that trafficking's not quantifiable and uses that as an excuse to say we must therefore ignore such evidence as does exist especially if it contradicts their position.

She then accuses him of sophistry. You couldn't make it up.

Other than anecdotal evidence and a reference to the Poppy Project's few dozen beds, there is only one reference to numbers in the whole piece. The Home Office May estimate of 4000. (Where have I heard that before). Click the link and it takes you to another Guardian article but on neither article is there a link to the actual report.

(BTW if anyone can find a link to this would they post it on here so we can see the provenance of the report and critique it for ourselves, thank you)

No-one is saying Davies is completely right. He is a journo let's not forget. No-one is denying that trafficking is wrong, and probably does exist, albeit at de minimis levels. But on a continuum between the two it would be clear which end the reality sits far nearer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps someone ought to mention this factual data to the Archbishop of York before he goes around using discredited information to back up his moral agenda in the sunday papers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pia: please read it, and then you will see why Nick Davies far "not spot on" with his essay.

I have spent some considerable time analysing a lot of the figures that were thrown out in the past as I was in contact with some MP's to try and show them the massive errors and lies.

Everything he has written ties up with my own findings exactly.

Where do you feel he has gone wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xenia, did you actually read the article? (Published presumably in the interests of 'balance'.)

Gupta is from the same stable as Bindel and Honeyball. Her articles have been dismantled by serious independent researchers before.

She starts with the argument that trafficking's not quantifiable and uses that as an excuse to say we must therefore ignore such evidence as does exist especially if it contradicts their position.

She then accuses him of sophistry. You couldn't make it up.

Other than anecdotal evidence and a reference to the Poppy Project's few dozen beds, there is only one reference to numbers in the whole piece. The Home Office May estimate of 4000. (Where have I heard that before). Click the link and it takes you to another Guardian article but on neither article is there a link to the actual report.

(BTW if anyone can find a link to this would they post it on here so we can see the provenance of the report and critique it for ourselves, thank you)

No-one is saying Davies is completely right. He is a journo let's not forget. No-one is denying that trafficking is wrong, and probably does exist, albeit at de minimis levels. But on a continuum between the two it would be clear which end the reality sits far nearer.

Gupta is so ill informed and she is not even worth taking a second look at. Take a look at this piece from her for example.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/02/women-sex-industry-trafficking-prostitution

One of the comments underneath from AllyF says:

In November, Julie Bindel writes in the Guardian that 70-80% of sex workers in the UK have been trafficked.

On April 2nd, Rahila Gupta not only repeats the false claim but exaggerates it (70-80% has become 80%). And she does so in a column entitled, with hideous irony, 'The truth of trafficking.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(BTW if anyone can find a link to this would they post it on here so we can see the provenance of the report and critique it for ourselves, thank you)

Here you go*: http://www.cscs.ucl.ac.uk/club/e-library/organised-crime/organised.pdf

As debunked by Stephen Paterson here: http://stephenpaterson.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/exposed-the-home-office-dodgy-dossier-on-sex-slaves/

*The official report was from five years ago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xenia, did you actually read the article? (Published presumably in the interests of 'balance'.)

Gupta is from the same stable as Bindel and Honeyball. Her articles have been dismantled by serious independent researchers before.

She starts with the argument that trafficking's not quantifiable and uses that as an excuse to say we must therefore ignore such evidence as does exist especially if it contradicts their position.

She then accuses him of sophistry. You couldn't make it up.

Other than anecdotal evidence and a reference to the Poppy Project's few dozen beds, there is only one reference to numbers in the whole piece. The Home Office May estimate of 4000. (Where have I heard that before). Click the link and it takes you to another Guardian article but on neither article is there a link to the actual report.

(BTW if anyone can find a link to this would they post it on here so we can see the provenance of the report and critique it for ourselves, thank you)

No-one is saying Davies is completely right. He is a journo let's not forget. No-one is denying that trafficking is wrong, and probably does exist, albeit at de minimis levels. But on a continuum between the two it would be clear which end the reality sits far nearer.

The whole article of Nick Davies concentrating on dissecting the ridiculous stats provided by different sources. Thats all! Anybody with common sense can do it, and its already been done even by the members of this board and with much more acurate analysis. (including you!)

I can't see just because Gupta from them same gang as J Bindel, and Harpie (as you said) make her blog less valid.

I will post more about it later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BDM I don't want to sound like some pedant or to pee on anyones bonfire here but...shouldn't that be some of the myths?

Trafficking does exist and so does forced prostitution (rape) in many forms.

lets not take this as a green light to "carry on shagging"regardless. Consumers and providers should remain vigilent and report any suspicions to the authorities less the real victims are overlooked because this "everybodys trafficked" hysteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, just to clarify, the original estimate was from 2004, five years ago. It has been repeated ad nauseam ever since in a variety of other reports, including the one linked to above from 2007.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The whole article of Nick Davies concentrating on dissecting the ridiculous stats provided by different sources. Thats all! Anybody with common sense can do it, and its already been done even by the members of this board and with much more acurate analysis. (including you!)

I can't see just because Gupta from them same gang as J Bindel, and Harpie (as you said) make her blog less valid.

I will post more about it later.

It doesn't automatically invalidate her blog, just means that what she writes cannot be accepted too trustingly.:P

Sorry, didn't mean to have a personal go at you Xenia.:D

I did find the May 09 report she referred to

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmhaff/23/23i.pdf

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmhaff/23/23ii.pdf

100 pages of report and 300 pages of testimony. It has a certain never-mind-the-quality-feel-the-width thing going. I haven't time to go through it, what with having a life and all that. That's for the serious academics to do for us anyway.

I was immediately concerned that witness statements seemed to come from the usual suspects, lobby groups etc., and the independent university researchers are nowhere to be seen, which sets off alarms with me. A massive exercise in preaching to the converted.

Looking at the key facts, they mention the 20 per year conviction rate, the 200 per year victim referral rate and extrapolate that to an estimate of 4000 at any one time, a hell of a leap of faith, which they then list as key fact. Convenient for the Home Office as any significant difference between this and the previous estimate of 2004 would have had to have been somehow explained away.

The other interesting thing to jump out at me was that although the bulk of the testimony was taken before the legislative changes were anounced last Autumn, the report was not published until May 09. The normal procedure for this sort of thing would be for the government to publish the report, wait for commentary from experts in the field, reaction from media and public, and then decide whether or not to legislate.

But this shower knew that if they left it that long, they wouldn't get it through before they got booted out, so they published ahead of the report. Another shocking example of corruption of process in pursuit of a malicious and vindictive crusade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Four lines into her piece, Ms Gupta states that weapons of mass destruction were later verified. So she doesn't even know that no weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq. She clearly lives in a fantasy world.

What Nick Davies did is completely sound. He pointed out an area of government policy that is being steered by people with an agenda but with no factual basis on which to base it. He doesn't have to go to the point of trying to find genuine stats, as this is not the point of his article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Browsing the section on trafficking in that 2007 Home Office report, I saw "assume" and "assumption" appearing all over the place. Then I came across this astonishing statement: "…the researchers assume that all foreign workers in walk-ups are trafficked." That's right, folks, all of them.

Overall: "The methodology for estimating the number of victims in London is driven largely by the analysis contained in Dickson (2004)." For those who don't know, Dickson (2004) = Poppy Project.

Also: "This analysis is based on estimates concerning the proportion of women involved in prostitution who are likely to have been trafficked; it was not directly informed by evidence concerning the number of women observed to have been trafficked."

"Estimates", "likely"; "not directly informed by evidence". Some methodology.

But as one of the top recommended comments in the Graun says: "Policy does not depend on evidence. And as it was not decided on evidence, it will not be changed on evidence."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is one impressive article. He has not missed out a single thing and is spot on with all of it. They could use somebody like him in government!!

Well, that virtually guarantees that someone like him will never be in government.

(Or am I just being a cynical old sod :P)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Four lines into her piece, Ms Gupta states that weapons of mass destruction were later verified. So she doesn't even know that no weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq. She clearly lives in a fantasy world.

.

In fairness to this silly woman, she doesn't actually say that. She says that it was verifiable (and by implication shown not to be so), whereas questions of domestic violence and rape are much harder to verify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great article Backdoorman. Thanks for posting the link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well done for bringing this to the forum's attention. As a liberal paper with a strong tradition of supporting women, the Guardian's analysis of this can be taken as accurate. Wonder if anyone in HM Government will pay any attention?

You are sadly miss informed about the Guardian, it's been the central campaign tool for the Poppy Project's revisionist propaganda and the misandrist rantings of Julie Bindel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BDM I don't want to sound like some pedant or to pee on anyones bonfire here but...shouldn't that be some of the myths?

Trafficking does exist and so does forced prostitution (rape) in many forms.

lets not take this as a green light to "carry on shagging"regardless. Consumers and providers should remain vigilent and report any suspicions to the authorities less the real victims are overlooked because this "everybodys trafficked" hysteria.

Trafficking does exist, and so does forced prostitution. These 'facts' are being used by the anti prostitution brigade for a total ban on the purchase of sex. They have failed this time around, but they will continue to fight for that law. The net result is you will not have a safe set of clients who will visit you.

What this article does is puts a lie to the exagerated figures that have been bandied around by the aboloitionists. That is why we are happy, and the ECP is happy that a reputable and generally anti prostitution paper has seen to research from the original police records the number of people found to be trafficked.

But an internal police analysis of Pentameter, obtained by the Guardian after a lengthy legal struggle, paints a very different picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick Davies has also written a brilliant book about the state of journalist in general, called Flat Earth News. It's a good read, and very enlightening.

Agreed, it's an excellent book if you've ever wondered why there's so much utter cr@p in the media.

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