walksfar

Why clamp down on uk industry when trafficking is being let off the hook?

36 posts in this topic

Reading Fiona's website, there is this statement...

Responding to the announcement by the Metropolitan Police that the country's only specialist human trafficking team will be disbanded when Home Office funding ends next April, Fiona Mactaggart said: "This unit has played a key role in developing expertise, which was formerly sadly lacking, in the trade in human beings.

We all applaud steps to curtail trafficking.

Why don't new labour have joined up thinking on these issues.

Why try and curb prostitution which they link to trafficking when they are removing funding for the only anti trafficking specialist unit

DUh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they really have a problem with escorts, clients ect and no problem with trafficking as they didnt find much, so though they are happy to lie, and make out every woman working if forced they know they arent so wont spend any money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they are trying to curb prostitution at all, merely finding ways of taxing those who make money from it and adding to the public coffers. Many people have stood up and agreed that prostitution should be allowed as long as it's of a person's own free will. I wouldn't be suprised if in the next year or so the likes of A**** W and other similar sites have their databases seized, which I'm sure the government or more than legally entitled to do and investigations will follow into tax evasion - probably on the back of trafficking/proceeds of crime stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think they are trying to curb prostitution at all, merely finding ways of taxing those who make money from it and adding to the public coffers.

You may well be right, however I am of the opinion that wanting to make the purchase of sexual services illegal is not the most obvious approach to adding to the public coffers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't be suprised if in the next year or so the likes of A**** W and other similar sites have their databases seized, which I'm sure the government or more than legally entitled to do and investigations will follow into tax evasion - probably on the back of trafficking/proceeds of crime stuff.

They can't stop sites from operating abroad in Tinpotistan or seize their databases, but they can stop your ISP from letting you see the website, just as they do in China.

They're also openly planning a national database that will record every website you visit and every phone number you dial - again, as they do in China. They'll use that against punters.

We can all help stop them doing either by downloading and using this:

http://www.torproject.org/index.html.en

It slows down your web browser a lot (only when you're actually using it, there's a button to turn it on and off). I think that's a price worth paying to stop the government and/or your ISP snooping on every site you visit, especially in the period shortly after they bring in the new prostitution law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add to the above comments: the voting public are less aware of trafficking and more aware of the type of prostitution drip fed by the media. Most would immediately equate "prostitute" with "streetwalker" so I'm guessing that this would be higher on their agenda than stamping out trafficking, which they haven't witnessed and they don't perceive as a problem within their neighbourhood. So ... a government pandering to voters, perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To add to the above comments: the voting public are less aware of trafficking and more aware of the type of prostitution drip fed by the media. Most would immediately equate "prostitute" with "streetwalker" so I'm guessing that this would be higher on their agenda than stamping out trafficking, which they haven't witnessed and they don't perceive as a problem within their neighbourhood. So ... a government pandering to voters, perhaps?

:( Why do you do it? I know I'm a broken record, but I'd really like to know why you use the word "trafficking" when it has at least two distinct and quite different meanings, which are routinely used by anti-prostitution campaigners to win arguments by deceit? One meaning describes a highly morally reprehensible and illegal behaviour, while the other is merely refers to a breach of immigration law, whose function is to shift power a little from poorer foreigners to richer UK citizens - hardly the moral high ground. They routinely quote statistics for the latter and are very successfully using it to justify the proposed laws against the former. I don't think I exaggerate when I say that if we had been more successful in countering this single confusion, the current legislation might have never got off the ground in the first place.

I can't find any explanation for what you say apart from 1. you've been brainwashed and are dribbling into your keyboard as you type or 2. that you would like people to be confused on this point, because it's in your economic interest. Either is disappointing and short sighted.

"First they came for the punters. And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a punter." ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The government already snoops on whatever they wish and we do not know when they are doing it. Anyone of us could be under computer survellience at any time. The point is they are not going to spend their time worrying about small fish like me unless they think i justify a close look. In my opinion the government are likely to take a keener interest in parlours because you pay a receptionist in some and not the Wg, so they would say how do you know who the money went to if you did not personally put it in her hand. Similar for some agencies and parties. With an independent or indeed a street girl you give the money directly to her. I believe they want to cut the third party out, ie a pimp or brothel owner as a first stage in there strategy. Obviously they realise prostitution cannot be stamped totally so will target the easier areas like street prostitution that they feel is too in your face, with parlours, saunas and agencies to follow. Thats my opinion anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is they are not going to spend their time worrying about small fish like me unless they think i justify a close look.

If you only see independents, you're in the minority. If so, I'm not going to thank you for your "I'm all right Jack" position, and I think you're remarkably short-sighted.

If not, you will justify a closer look the moment you're unlucky and are in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you leave it till then, it's too late: your records are in the database already. I wish I had good advice for how to avoid records of phone calls.

The classic scenario is where somebody is investigated for some trivial reason by some official or unofficial body (often not the police), then gets done for something more serious discovered in the process. One case often reported in the press when somebody takes their PC in for repair and is done for possessing child porn. It's almost guaranteed that a database of phone and internet records will end up being used for "political hot potato" issues like immigration, benefit fraud, school catchment areas, etc. Or tax evasion, or a hundred other things. This government has repeatedly passed laws for one purpose that get applied to trivial purposes later on - they used their anti-terrorism laws to throw an elderly Labour party member out of their own conference, so they're beyond satire on this point. You'd be unlucky to be the victim of any one of these accidental investigations. But then, if you're a decent driver, any given road accident always involves bad luck. It doesn't follow that you're unlikely to die in a road accident.

That's not the only way to be unlucky, of course. If you've phoned an agency or parlour in the months before it gets raided, if you've seen an "independent" who it turns out has a boyfriend who lives off her money and that gets construed as pimping, if you're unlucky enough to be present when a raid takes place, you could be in serious trouble. By "you", I don't mean you personally, I mean any one of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone of us could be under computer survellience at any time.

If you use Tor, then you're probably not under the form of passive surveillance that I was discussing. If you're not, then when the new government scheme is implemented, you'll be guaranteed to be under that form of surveillance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you use Tor, then you're probably not under the form of passive surveillance that I was discussing. If you're not, then when the new government scheme is implemented, you'll be guaranteed to be under that form of surveillance.

I agree with you and anything that is available to try to stop the snoopers is worth having. All i am saying is the government have ways and means of getting round anti surveillance if they so wish. I would of course prefer my personal business not to be under government scrutiny, but ultimately i will continue to do what i do and they can go f*** themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with you and anything that is available to try to stop the snoopers is worth having. All i am saying is the government have ways and means of getting round anti surveillance if they so wish. I would of course prefer my personal business not to be under government scrutiny, but ultimately i will continue to do what i do and they can go f*** themselves.

In reality, there have historically been significant restrictions - not least the time and effort required - that prevented government agencies from "getting round anti surveillance if they so wish", and those restrictions are being eroded now.

You say "All I am saying", but that's not all you said: you said this, which is untrue:

The government already snoops on whatever they wish and we do not know when they are doing it.

And you said this, implying that it's very unlikely that you will ever "justify a close look", which is also untrue:

The point is they are not going to spend their time worrying about small fish like me unless they think i justify a close look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:( Why do you do it? I know I'm a broken record, but I'd really like to know why you use the word "trafficking" when it has at least two distinct and quite different meanings, which are routinely used by anti-prostitution campaigners to win arguments by deceit? One meaning describes a highly morally reprehensible and illegal behaviour, while the other is merely refers to a breach of immigration law, whose function is to shift power a little from poorer foreigners to richer UK citizens - hardly the moral high ground. They routinely quote statistics for the latter and are very successfully using it to justify the proposed laws against the former. I don't think I exaggerate when I say that if we had been more successful in countering this single confusion, the current legislation might have never got off the ground in the first place.

I can't find any explanation for what you say apart from 1. you've been brainwashed and are dribbling into your keyboard as you type or 2. that you would like people to be confused on this point, because it's in your economic interest. Either is disappointing and short sighted.

"First they came for the punters. And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a punter." ;)

Are you talking to me? If so (and to use you own format): 1. Don't be so bloody rude, and 2. Trafficking was used in the subject title of this topic ... I'm fairly sure what the OP meant and answered accordingly. If you're still confused, I suggest you seek clarification from him. 3. I have no idea how any part of this topic could be in my "economic interest". 4. Here ... have the tissues; you clearly need them for your fevered brow (sorry they're a little damp - the dribble, you know).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In reality, there have historically been significant restrictions - not least the time and effort required - that prevented government agencies from "getting round anti surveillance if they so wish", and those restrictions are being eroded now.

You say "All I am saying", but that's not all you said: you said this, which is untrue:

And you said this, implying that it's very unlikely that you will ever "justify a close look", which is also untrue:

Unless you work at a high level in the government you do not know what snooping they are up to. fact. What you say i have said is untrue is your opinion. The restrictions you mention that are being eroded now have been being eroded in my opinion for a long time. They may or may not give me a close look and yes, it is my opinion i am small fry and of no interest but how do you know either way to call my statement untrue? As i said unless you have the inside track on the goings on of the government how do you know whats happening? They like to keep it secret as i am sure you know. From reading your post your giving me your opinion that cannot be proved anymore than my opinion can be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you only see independents, you're in the minority. If so, I'm not going to thank you for your "I'm all right Jack" position, and I think you're remarkably short-sighted.

If not, you will justify a closer look the moment you're unlucky and are in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you leave it till then, it's too late: your records are in the database already. I wish I had good advice for how to avoid records of phone calls.

The classic scenario is where somebody is investigated for some trivial reason by some official or unofficial body (often not the police), then gets done for something more serious discovered in the process. One case often reported in the press when somebody takes their PC in for repair and is done for possessing child porn. It's almost guaranteed that a database of phone and internet records will end up being used for "political hot potato" issues like immigration, benefit fraud, school catchment areas, etc. Or tax evasion, or a hundred other things. This government has repeatedly passed laws for one purpose that get applied to trivial purposes later on - they used their anti-terrorism laws to throw an elderly Labour party member out of their own conference, so they're beyond satire on this point. You'd be unlucky to be the victim of any one of these accidental investigations. But then, if you're a decent driver, any given road accident always involves bad luck. It doesn't follow that you're unlikely to die in a road accident.

That's not the only way to be unlucky, of course. If you've phoned an agency or parlour in the months before it gets raided, if you've seen an "independent" who it turns out has a boyfriend who lives off her money and that gets construed as pimping, if you're unlucky enough to be present when a raid takes place, you could be in serious trouble. By "you", I don't mean you personally, I mean any one of us.

I do not only see Independent Escorts and i do not have an "I All Right Jack" attitude. If i am unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time then i may get prosecuted anyway, so nothing can be done about that. Thats my bad luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the word "trafficking" ... has at least two distinct and quite different meanings, which are routinely used by anti-prostitution campaigners to win arguments by deceit

There is also that form of "trafficking termed "debt bondage", which is what the Oriental agencies were being done for recently.

Big story today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/19/human-trafficking-lincolnshire

Fortunately I don't like the taste of leeks, or Jacqui Smith might want to prosecute me for supporting this wicked trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reading Fiona's website, there is this statement...

Responding to the announcement by the Metropolitan Police that the country's only specialist human trafficking team will be disbanded when Home Office funding ends next April, Fiona Mactaggart said: "This unit has played a key role in developing expertise, which was formerly sadly lacking, in the trade in human beings.

We all applaud steps to curtail trafficking.

Why don't new labour have joined up thinking on these issues.

Why try and curb prostitution which they link to trafficking when they are removing funding for the only anti trafficking specialist unit

DUh

This bit says they now have the expertise so any tom dick or plod knows how to do it.

"This unit has played a key role in developing expertise, which was formerly sadly lacking, in the trade in human beings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reading Fiona's website, there is this statement...

Responding to the announcement by the Metropolitan Police that the country's only specialist human trafficking team will be disbanded when Home Office funding ends next April, Fiona Mactaggart said: "This unit has played a key role in developing expertise, which was formerly sadly lacking, in the trade in human beings.

We all applaud steps to curtail trafficking.

Why don't new labour have joined up thinking on these issues.

Why try and curb prostitution which they link to trafficking when they are removing funding for the only anti trafficking specialist unit

DUh

Good point... maybe as trafficers tend to be very rich, powerful nasty pieces of work with international networks, assasisns etc that require the likes of MI6 operating with a gloves off policy... (let me make this clear torture and killing people) to stop.

Lonely guys who have trouble pulling are easier targets and it fits with their notion of any guy who is single and not their husband must see all woemn as sex object pieces of meat and be immoral...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To add to the above comments: the voting public are less aware of trafficking and more aware of the type of prostitution drip fed by the media. Most would immediately equate "prostitute" with "streetwalker" so I'm guessing that this would be higher on their agenda than stamping out trafficking, which they haven't witnessed and they don't perceive as a problem within their neighbourhood. So ... a government pandering to voters, perhaps?

The head of that nail has most definitely been hit, especially by the last sentence.

It seems rather obvious that politicians, both in power and in opposition, come up with policy initiatives partly or wholly because they believe they will appeal to the relevant electorate. All the major parties use focus groups, polling and so on to try to tap into the public mind. The govt has got the impression this crackdown on clients of prostitutes who have been trafficked or are controlled by a pimp will win votes. The opposition isn't exactly jumping up and down arguing against it, since they've got the same picture. It's Labour 'rebels' like Diane Abbot who are providing the opposition on this one - perhaps she has an ultra-safe seat, or is that rare breed a politician who puts principle first.

Now, if half of the effort that people have put into posting here on this subject had been put into writing personal letters or e-mails to their MPs and the Home Office it may just have got the impression that opinion isn't all on one side on this issue. I can verify from conversations with several MPs of more than one political colour that personal communication from voters has much more impact than anything else, such as signing e-petitions and the like, because the effort it requires to write even a short e-mail in your own words shows the issue actually matters to you.

Not only do we get the politicians we deserve, we get the policies our lethargy and inaction deserve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you talking to me?

Yes.

If so (and to use you own format): 1. Don't be so bloody rude, and 2. Trafficking was used in the subject title of this topic ... I'm fairly sure what the OP meant and answered accordingly. If you're still confused, I suggest you seek clarification from him. 3. I have no idea how any part of this topic could be in my "economic interest". 4. Here ... have the tissues; you clearly need them for your fevered brow (sorry they're a little damp - the dribble, you know).

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to provoke offence - just some reaction! I had thought that "dribbling" was OTT enough to make you smile rather than take that seriously - my misjudgement. I can no longer remember the number of times I've pulled people up for using this word. I've obviously lost the battle to the trafficking brigade. Cow-eyed incomprehension and scheming equivocation win the day, well done all of us. Yes, my brow is a bit fevered :(

It's certain that you don't fully understand the use of that word by the OP. One of the ways he used it was to refer to its use by people who equivocate about it (the police). It's not really possible to understand what somebody means by a word if they don't know what they mean by it themselves. The other use of the word by the OP presumably did mean something more than "facilitating illegal immigration in return for payment from a person who subsequently works in the sex industry". They probably meant "smuggling people into the country under after telling them they will work in a job that does not involve sex, then forcing them to have sex with men who pay for it". Even then, he might well have meant something a little different - maybe "lending money which can only practically be repaid through prostitution". Or the same but with the threat of violence? These details should be central to the debate, but they all get jumbled together as soon as somebody uses the t word, even to the point of conflating immigration law violations with organized rape and slavery. Worse, by responding to the police's use of the word with his own use of it, he allows casual acceptance that whatever meaning the reader finds most palatable at the time is the same as the meaning he has in mind, or that the meaning the police were using at the time is the same as the meaning he is using, or that the meaning the reader guesses the police were using at the time is the same as the meaning he is using. etcetera. Readers of the PNMB are not immune to those ambiguities.

The fact that somebody else uses a word thoughtlessly or foolishly does not excuse using it yourself. I did seriously mean to convey some disrespect for your behaviour, which I think is deserved. Using the term "trafficking" in the way you did (and lots of other people do) is sleepwalking into a trap laid by anti-prostitution campaigners. That tactic and others like it have been crucial in getting the current legislation as far as it has got.

Most debates on public policy achieve no advance in understanding, because even if nothing else is wrong, people are not clear about what it is they are saying. Don't you think that's a shame?

Even when I'm not insulting people like I did you, I'm sure I'm often interpreted as arrogant, rude, whatever (and boring and repetetive ;) ). That's because I think it's very important to find out as quickly as possible where and how I'm wrong. The only way to do that is to make clear statements and hope to be contradicted. Please do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless you work at a high level in the government you do not know what snooping they are up to. fact.

I know what they are up to because, with a few notable exceptions, the workings of our society and its institutions are still subject to extensive scrutiny by the press, special interest groups, lawyers, members of many other important professions, trade unions, government, and the general public. That scrutiny allows us to form a somewhat accurate and detailed picture of what the government is up to because there is the opportunity to observe what goes on, and the opportunity for open debate. Precisely what the police are up to at any given moment is not open, of course. But what powers the police have, and perhaps more importantly what resources they have available and what consequences that has on their ability to snoop on us, is quite open. The same goes for other institutions, so the general picture of what they get up to is fairly uncontroversial and unlikely to be inaccurate or incomplete in the way you suggest.

Of course, sometimes, especially where military action and terrorism are concerned, we don't have a clear picture of what snooping is going on (though we almost always find out afterwards). I don't think anybody has linked prostitution to terrorism yet. I suppose it's inevitable somebody will make a connection soon though!

What you say i have said is untrue is your opinion. The restrictions you mention that are being eroded now have been being eroded in my opinion for a long time.

They have, I agree. It depends what we mean by "a long time", I guess: that erosion is continuing now, and ten years ago the situation was significantly different. The law on detention without trial, jury trials, monitoring of electronic communications, the creation of large national databases, punishing the refusal to unlock encrypted data, monitoring people's movements, removing restrictions on the use of private data gathered through various means - a lot of these things have been changing (getting worse) rapidly over that relatively short timescale, and continue to do so on an almost daily basis.

They may or may not give me a close look and yes, it is my opinion i am small fry and of no interest but how do you know either way to call my statement untrue? As i said unless you have the inside track on the goings on of the government how do you know whats happening?.

I've already discussed this, yesterday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to provoke offence - just some reaction! I had thought that "dribbling" was OTT enough to make you smile rather than take that seriously - my misjudgement.

I'm green, but I'm not cabbage looking. Nothing about the style of your post was designed to raise a smile. You do your own writing style a disservice with the suggestion. Nevertheless, no harm done, since I'm not offended, just confused that you managed to extrapolate so much from my brief post.

It's certain that you don't fully understand the use of that word by the OP.
Have you asked him for his definition? I fail to see how you can leap to so many conclusions based upon what I said.
Even when I'm not insulting people like I did you
Ah, I'm less confused. You were looking for a target. Dream on.
I'm sure I'm often interpreted as arrogant, rude, whatever (and boring and repetetive :( ). That's because I think it's very important to find out as quickly as possible where and how I'm wrong. The only way to do that is to make clear statements and hope to be contradicted.
This may come as a shock, but people who insult, as a means to find out where they are going wrong, often lose their voice. You have done so with me. I would normally give your post some thought and offer a considered reply, but I can't see past your arrogance or rudeness.

You might try asking questions, before leaping to conclusions.

Yet again, you make assumptions. I am no longer a prostitute and as I pointed out, stand to gain nothing economically.

Even had I been working I strongly resent the implication that any financial gain would have motivated my post, nor given me any satisfaction. If the only argument you can come up with is that my post might be tainted by my desire to gain financially from the cessation of appalling circumstances, words fail me.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've just worked a twelve-hour shift and am going to treat myself to a nice glass of Cardhu. Please feel free to have the last word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you asked him for his definition? I fail to see how you can leap to so many conclusions based upon what I said.

The fact that neither of you saw fit to provide a definition is the very thing I am complaining about. Have we discussed anything else? :( You said your use of the word was in reference to his, and yet he provided no definition either. I've already discussed that in detail, and explained several times now why that's a bad thing.

I only count one leapt-to conclusion (that you work as a prostitute). Hardly a wild leap (though I take your word that you don't, of course).

Even had I been working I strongly resent the implication that any financial gain would have motivated my post, nor given me any satisfaction.

You shouldn't take offence, because I said that either you had a financial motivation or you were being a bit foolish (to put it mildly). I meant what I said literally in that respect. You were not financially motivated, so I conclude that you were foolish.

You still have the option of seriously attempting to defend what you said, instead of taking offence. That would have some chance of being productive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You shouldn't take offence, because I said that either you had a financial motivation or you were being a bit foolish (to put it mildly). I meant what I said literally in that respect. You were not financially motivated, so I conclude that you were foolish.

Ailsa: I know I should not interrupt, because you perfectly can able to stand your ground here. But I think, its absolutely pointless to get in further discussion with Mirror after above the quote. He lost you completely.

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