Corus Boy

Anyone Putting Their Hands Up To This?

35 posts in this topic

My hand up? No. Just putting my name down for a place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And please note, those of you who are always having a pop at the Daily Mail, with the exception of one single use of the word "hooker", the reporting of this story is exemplary. The readers all seem in favour of the practice too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, exemplary if you're happy with our pastime here being described as primeval

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The comments below the article are bewildering me, Daily Fail readers are actually backing this.

Not a single ignorant or prudish comment yet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The online readership is very different from the ones who actualy buy the paper paper just wait until the post bag responses in a few days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The comments below the article are bewildering me, Daily Fail readers are actually backing this.

Not a single ignorant or prudish comment yet

That's what I thought. From the article, the only prude seems to be the Council!

The background checks issue is an interesting one. Obviously, they are referring to a CRB check but this could open a whole can of worms for both the council and the girls as there would be a lot of red tape and how do you reconcile carrying out a background check intended to ensure that no sexual predators engage with vulnerable people when the person being checked is a sex worker?

I am interested in this question though: Ladies, how would you feel about needing to have a CRB check done to work?

If the residents are booking the escort why does the council have any say? Surely a resident lives there and is permitted to invite guests for what ever legal pursuits they may wish to undertake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's what I thought. From the article, the only prude seems to be the Council! The background checks issue is an interesting one. Obviously, they are referring to a CRB check but this could open a whole can of worms for both the council and the girls as there would be a lot of red tape and how do you reconcile carrying out a background check intended to ensure that no sexual predators engage with vulnerable people when the person being checked is a sex worker? I am interested in this question though: Ladies, how would you feel about needing to have a CRB check done to work? If the residents are booking the escort why does the council have any say? Surely a resident lives there and is permitted to invite guests for what ever legal pursuits they may wish to undertake.

I think in light of the fact that there are many scammers out there and some elderly people can be vunerable its maybe understandable. My mother in law would trust anyone with her money and doesn't want to see the bad in people. They have to be protected. Also if they agree to this they have to ensure that they are not encouraging anyone that's doing anything illegal onto the premises, ie, co-erced or not tax paying etc.

Edited by Holly Maddison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, exemplary if you're happy with our pastime here being described as primeval

I liked primeval, the series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And please note, those of you who are always having a pop at the Daily Mail, with the exception of one single use of the word "hooker", the reporting of this story is exemplary. The readers all seem in favour of the practice too.

 

I suppose both the journo and the readers are thinking... "what if I'm in there...."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Further down the DM's front page you also find;

 

Alcohol banned at sheltered housing complex for over 60s after complaints pensioners were too rowdy.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2269476/Alcohol-banned-sheltered-housing-block-Jarrow-South-Tyneside-rowdy-behaviour-elderly-residents.html

 

Not the same place or it would certainly become a party capital :D

probably belongs on the alcohol thread, but..

 

Some of the friends of my parents (70+) are married to younger females (some of the lucky ladies are my age, 50-ish, and without exception : all very well preserved).

now, several of those women-of-leasure, have confided:

"I have to keep the alcolhol hidden/locked, or it is all empty before dinnertime, and he is such a naughty to handle after he's had a few..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone working in a place with vulnerable adults generally has to undergo background checks, but the red tape could be pretty extensive unless they always book the same ladies. I'd say the capacity for abuse is going to be far less in a controlled environment than at home, and indeed it's often outside workers who spot signs of abuse over regular staff and for many reasons. Residents may also feel more able to talk openly with sex workers rather than the inhouse staff about their feelings and thoughts.

 

I'm also not so sure many ladies would want the attention, nor risk to their own discretion now this has been publicised, could attract all sorts of busy bodys and ne'er do wells lurking around to catch a glimpse of the 'WGs'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My hand up? No. Just putting my name down for a place.

 

me too !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to see an uplifting article in the Mail for once! As to the authorities interfering, given that the home is essentially privately funded I can’t see that it’s anyone else’s business. The need for background checks seems to be a red herring – a spoiler thrown in by an unidentified so-called ‘expert.’

 

I liked the ‘special red sock’ on the door handle ploy, but every 15 minutes? I’d be up and down like a yo-yo if someone kept popping their head in to see how things were going! But I guess it’s good to know that the County Council have access to the “Pan-Sussex Multi-Agency Policy and Procedures for Safeguarding Adults at Risk!”
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And please note, those of you who are always having a pop at the Daily Mail, with the exception of one single use of the word "hooker", the reporting of this story is exemplary. The readers all seem in favour of the practice too.

 

A lot better than it might have been, I grant, but, "Prostitution is not in itself illegal, though soliciting sex and advertising sex work are both against the law." is way off the mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone working in a place with vulnerable adults generally has to undergo background checks, but the red tape could be pretty extensive unless they always book the same ladies. I'd say the capacity for abuse is going to be far less in a controlled environment than at home, and indeed it's often outside workers who spot signs of abuse over regular staff and for many reasons. Residents may also feel more able to talk openly with sex workers rather than the inhouse staff about their feelings and thoughts.

I'm also not so sure many ladies would want the attention, nor risk to their own discretion now this has been publicised, could attract all sorts of busy bodys and ne'er do wells lurking around to catch a glimpse of the 'WGs'.

Quite and perhaps the even worse gutter press looking to out WGs for taking money off the disabled as they would twist it. Personally i dont think its right for home staff to be involved in helping unless they are fully aware of the laws and potential consequences of this. I met a carer of a disabled punter at a party and he had just been sent by the home manager to drop and pick the punter up. He thought brothels were illegal full stop but said he wasnt bothered as he wanted to help his client. Thats good but his manager should of told him brothels arent illegal for punters to punt in and if he didnt know he should of found out before doing anything in my view. However unlikely there are scenarios where this could turn bad, what if it transpires a WG was being coerced or was underage though looked over 18, who would be in trouble, the client, the carer, the home manager, his boss. The can of worms i could envisage here is in fact a pallet load.

I think a third party agreed with the client is the best way, the home isnt directly involved and presumably the third party is aware of the potential consequences. I do wish it was simply a case of just picking up the phone and booking, but where your punting involves you involving others they have to be aware of what the consequences might be i believe.

Once a suitable third party has been agreed punt on as the disabled punter wishes, his decision, his life, his money. For me this is a rare thread that if i had posted when i first read it i would of posted something completely different to this post, i took me time to think about it and see the bigger picture.

Edited by smiths

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And one swallow doesn’t make a summer.  Yeah, it was a more sympathetic story.  And so it should be.

 

It by no means makes up for the Heil’s usual relentless diet of stories demonising the disabled as underserving benefit scroungers.  It’s rampant hypocrisy from a detestable organ, staffed by morally bereft bottom-feeders. 

 

Every day they trawl the court proceedings of England and Wales in order to find stories about benefit cheats.  From Sunderland to Southampton, they’ll stop at nothing to publish a story about benefit fraud just to push their odious agenda and portray the poor, the sick and the disabled as fraudulent chavscum hooked on lager and fags.

 

 A truly repugnant newspaper with no redeeming qualities at all.  Under Rothermere those rabid anti-semites got cosy with Hitler.  Let’s not forget that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Further down the DM's front page you also find;

 

Alcohol banned at sheltered housing complex for over 60s after complaints pensioners were too rowdy.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2269476/Alcohol-banned-sheltered-housing-block-Jarrow-South-Tyneside-rowdy-behaviour-elderly-residents.html

 

Not the same place or it would certainly become a party capital :D

oh for god sake they are full grown adults not babys, thats just taking the piss. If you cant have a little tipple when your on the way over the damn hill when the feck can you. The care home have no right to take away the rights of the people they are caring for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And one swallow doesn’t make a summer. Yeah, it was a more sympathetic story. And so it should be.

It by no means makes up for the Heil’s usual relentless diet of stories demonising the disabled as underserving benefit scroungers. It’s rampant hypocrisy from a detestable organ, staffed by morally bereft bottom-feeders.

Every day they trawl the court proceedings of England and Wales in order to find stories about benefit cheats. From Sunderland to Southampton, they’ll stop at nothing to publish a story about benefit fraud just to push their odious agenda and portray the poor, the sick and the disabled as fraudulent chavscum hooked on lager and fags.

A truly repugnant newspaper with no redeeming qualities at all. Under Rothermere those rabid anti-semites got cosy with Hitler. Let’s not forget that.

So, just to be clear. You don't like them? Edited by Amanda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the mail can't be too moralistic as they have sister papers that have adverts for brothels.

madame becky has opened a brothel for disabled people so perhaps the media are looking for this angle to report on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amanda, I could really go into one, but I'll save my wrath for later. 

Edited by WhilstNeroplays

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several thousand disabled have topped themselves due to benefits cuts and ATOS, and this propaganda rag has blood on its hands.  In an ideal world it would be shut down and the staff hung from tower bridge.

But then if people weren't so dumb and fucking selfish they wouldn't be in business anyway.

 

There is an upcoming panorama on this tragedy.  The paper and the cuts are a disgrace to this nation.

Edited by Bonkersenseless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're a bit behind the times.Solitaire has been doing this for a few years now and is a massive advocate to a right for erotic services for the disabled,as well as doing work for various sex workers charities and organisations.If you have a look on her website she's written.If you check her website when the current tech problems are over she's written some great articles on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone working in a place with vulnerable adults generally has to undergo background checks, but the red tape could be pretty extensive unless they always book the same ladies. I'd say the capacity for abuse is going to be far less in a controlled environment than at home, and indeed it's often outside workers who spot signs of abuse over regular staff and for many reasons. Residents may also feel more able to talk openly with sex workers rather than the inhouse staff about their feelings and thoughts.

 

I'm also not so sure many ladies would want the attention, nor risk to their own discretion now this has been publicised, could attract all sorts of busy bodys and ne'er do wells lurking around to catch a glimpse of the 'WGs'.

My thoughts exactly x

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