Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
YourSlave

Article By Rhoda Grant- The Case For Criminalization

15 posts in this topic

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/06/case-criminalisation-purchase-sex-bill

 

IMO seems a little desperate, and she is still ignoring the voices of sex workers. She quotes a sex worker who has had a terrible experience but doesn't say what consultation number it was taken from. I am still looking through the responses and so far every one I have found from a sex worker has been strongly against her bill.

 

I actually emailed Rhoda over a week ago asking how many sex workers responded and what % of them were supportive. Still waiting on a reply (maybe others could also email her this question? She will ignore one but she can't ignore a whole load of us).

 

Also this:

 

They [sex workers' lobby] suggest that "clients" are best placed to report abuse. However these clients have little concern for prostitutes. We would need evidence to demonstrate that they are reporting instances of trafficking in great numbers and where is it?

 

 

"Cients have little concern for prostitutes". HOW DOES SHE KNOW? How can she possibly think she is more qualified to make that statment over groups of sex workers who have decades (centuries?) of combined experience?

 

She is challenging the claim that clients are good at reporting abuse and suspected trafficking and wants evidence. Can evidence be provided?

 

Rhoda clearly doesn't believe clients could possible tip off authorities out of concern for a sex worker. More likely I don't think she wants to believe. Even if the evidence hit her smack in the face she would still probably refuse to believe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/06/case-criminalisation-purchase-sex-bill

 

IMO seems a little desperate, and she is still ignoring the voices of sex workers. She quotes a sex worker who has had a terrible experience but doesn't say what consultation number it was taken from. I am still looking through the responses and so far every one I have found from a sex worker has been strongly against her bill.

 

I actually emailed Rhoda over a week ago asking how many sex workers responded and what % of them were supportive. Still waiting on a reply (maybe others could also email her this question? She will ignore one but she can't ignore a whole load of us).

 

Also this:

 

 

"Cients have little concern for prostitutes". HOW DOES SHE KNOW? How can she possibly think she is more qualified to make that statment over groups of sex workers who have decades (centuries?) of combined experience?

 

She is challenging the claim that clients are good at reporting abuse and suspected trafficking and wants evidence. Can evidence be provided?

 

Rhoda clearly doesn't believe clients could possible tip off authorities out of concern for a sex worker. More likely I don't think she wants to believe. Even if the evidence hit her smack in the face she would still probably refuse to believe it.

 

Why does anyone listen to this munter in tweed knickers?  Methinks she needs to get out more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/06/case-criminalisation-purchase-sex-bill

 

IMO seems a little desperate, and she is still ignoring the voices of sex workers. She quotes a sex worker who has had a terrible experience but doesn't say what consultation number it was taken from. I am still looking through the responses and so far every one I have found from a sex worker has been strongly against her bill.

 

I actually emailed Rhoda over a week ago asking how many sex workers responded and what % of them were supportive. Still waiting on a reply (maybe others could also email her this question? She will ignore one but she can't ignore a whole load of us).

 

 If only that were true! She's been resolutely ignoring a whole load of us for some time now!

 

I'm beginning to get embarrassed for Rhoda. She's resorting to outright deception (The 2012 joint report by UNAIDS, UNDP and UNFPA did specifically say it was opposed to the criminalisation of clients and endorsed the NZ model.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 If only that were true! She's been resolutely ignoring a whole load of us for some time now!

 

I'm beginning to get embarrassed for Rhoda. She's resorting to outright deception (The 2012 joint report by UNAIDS, UNDP and UNFPA did specifically say it was opposed to the criminalisation of clients and endorsed the NZ model.)

 

 

She is from the Western Isles.  They are some of the most hard line Presbyterians on the planet.  These are people who bollock holidaymakers from drying their swimming gear on the line on a sunday, sit on hard seats hearing hell and damnation for 3 hours every Sunday in chapel and stopped the stornoway ferry from operating on a sunday.

My advice to you Rose, is not to tour Stornoway!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So many opinions, anecdotes quoted as facts. The curse if the modern media and of politicians in general. Shame on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also this:

 

They [sex workers' lobby] suggest that "clients" are best placed to report abuse. However these clients have little concern for prostitutes. We would need evidence to demonstrate that they are reporting instances of trafficking in great numbers and where is it?

 

"Cients have little concern for prostitutes". HOW DOES SHE KNOW? How can she possibly think she is more qualified to make that statment over groups of sex workers who have decades (centuries?) of combined experience?

 

Her argument is that trafficking occurs in great numbers, therefore the absence of evidence of punters reporting said trafficking in similar great numbers is in of itself evidence that punters have not concern. That "trafficking occurs in great numbers" is a false premise and thus renders the rest of her bullshit completely irrelevant is of no concern to her, it helps her justify her position so she'll continue to spout it ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/government-trafficking-enquiry-fails

 

There is no evidence of "trafficking in great numbers" and massive campaigns to find the victims have been failures (Operation Pentameter 1 and 2).

.

 

Why does anyone listen to this munter in tweed knickers?

 

 

The problem is there are plenty of people who do listen to her and lap up everything she says. I've seen the "75% of prostitutes start as children" statistic used in the consultation responses by supporters. Most here will probably know that statistic is biased, flawed and does not apply to indoor workers at all; but there are people who genuinely think it means 75% of all sex workers including all escorts started as children.

 

Many of the supporters of the bill are well-meaning but the problem is they have been fed false/inaccurate/misleading/biased/flawed information which they have believed.

 

Unfortunately lies and scaremongering does work. If you tell a group of people what they want to believe they will lap it all up like thirsty dogs. And there are too many people willing to accept random statistics without wanting to know exactly where they came from and what criteria was used etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having spent part of my working life in the public affairs sector I would suggest the following. Don't waste time trying educate Rhoda and her like minded friends. She will continue to ignore you and quite likely attempt to twist the facts you supply. Instead feed the facts and challenges to more sympathetic MSPs. She won't be able to ignore one of them if they ask for the source of her facts. Ideally pull the key facts and challenges together on a single sheet of A4 and email it to every MSP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced that most politicians are motivated by facts. More often they seem to start off with their own prejudices (or the views of the special interest groups they "represent") and then seek to build a case to support them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does anyone listen to this munter in tweed knickers?  Methinks she needs to get out more.

 

This sort of lazy insult gets us and more importantly Scottish sex workers nowhere. Insulting Rhoda Grant on her looks and not her arguments makes us all look pathetic. Sorry but it has to be said.

 

Spend your time emailing Scottish MSP's - let them know what real sex workers have to say.

 

http://scot-pep.org.uk/about-scot-pep

 

Let them know what Amnesty International has to say.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2013/06/amnesty-human-rights-and-criminalisation-sex-work

 

All MSP contact details are here:

 

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msps/177.aspx

 

Y'all can spend time here whining about it, or you can get involved and do something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually quite pleased she wrote that because it shows once again, how utterly ridiculous and inherently wrong her position is, every commentator afterwards points out where she has erred. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sort of lazy insult gets us and more importantly Scottish sex workers nowhere. Insulting Rhoda Grant on her looks and not her arguments makes us all look pathetic. Sorry but it has to be said.

 

Spend your time emailing Scottish MSP's - let them know what real sex workers have to say.

 

http://scot-pep.org.uk/about-scot-pep

 

Let them know what Amnesty International has to say.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2013/06/amnesty-human-rights-and-criminalisation-sex-work

 

All MSP contact details are here:

 

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msps/177.aspx

 

Y'all can spend time here whining about it, or you can get involved and do something.

 

I endorse this 100%.

 

<3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sort of lazy insult gets us and more importantly Scottish sex workers nowhere. Insulting Rhoda Grant on her looks and not her arguments makes us all look pathetic. Sorry but it has to be said.

 

Spend your time emailing Scottish MSP's - let them know what real sex workers have to say.

 

http://scot-pep.org.uk/about-scot-pep

 

Let them know what Amnesty International has to say.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2013/06/amnesty-human-rights-and-criminalisation-sex-work

 

All MSP contact details are here:

 

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msps/177.aspx

 

Y'all can spend time here whining about it, or you can get involved and do something.

 

Ah so its OK for them to insult us saying we punters are abusers raping drug addled coerced women who dont know what they are doing. Thats OK then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah so its OK for them to insult us saying we punters are abusers raping drug addled coerced women who dont know what they are doing. Thats OK then

 

No its not OK for her to do that - but if you want to respond then do on the basis of her arguments. Not her looks.

May I remind you that you referred to her as a "munter in tweed knickers", in other words "oh look she is ugly, who cares what she thinks."

 

I think most women would find that utterly offensive. If you can't see the blatant misogyny of your post then I am not going to waste any more time on you.

 

Rhoda Grant's arguments are wrong because they are based on faulty empirical evidence and faulty ideological reasoning. And that's the end of it.

 

Try raising the intellectual bar not lowering it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No its not OK for her to do that - but if you want to respond then do on the basis of her arguments. Not her looks.

May I remind you that you referred to her as a "munter in tweed knickers", in other words "oh look she is ugly, who cares what she thinks."

 

I think most women would find that utterly offensive. If you can't see the blatant misogyny of your post then I am not going to waste any more time on you.

 

Rhoda Grant's arguments are wrong because they are based on faulty empirical evidence and faulty ideological reasoning. And that's the end of it.

 

Try raising the intellectual bar not lowering it.

 

I read political blogs and watch stuff like have i got news for you and mock the week on telly.  It is OK for them to make jokes about Eric Pickles being fat, Ed Milliband looking like Grommit, hazel blears needing to sit on a cushion at cabinet, Margaret Becketts appearance, and even jokes about Jack Straws Tinnitus, Margaret Thatchers dementure in her later life and Gordon Browns partial blindness.  Even Harriet dromey made personal remarks about someones ginger hair. So in view of that I think 'Munter in tweed knickers' quite mild.  The tweed knickers remark is meant to suggest that perhaps she has an odd attitude to sex, perhaps regarding it as something dirty.

Remember, she set herself up on a pedestal, insulting me and people I think far more of than her, notably many lovely WG's I have met.

Edited by Coventrypunter

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0