MrGladstone

Jacqui Smith on the Today programme

17 posts in this topic

This is billed on the site as a "discussion" between Niki Adams and Jacqui Smith. In fact, they spoke to Niki Adams first, and then brought on the Home Secretary, without going back to Niki Adams for comments.

To be fair, Evan Davis poked reasonably hard at the weakness of the new law. But Jacqui Smith got away with some assertions that wouldn't stand up to proper debate.

The whole thing rolls on, without any proper definition of "trafficking", why it can't be dealt with by regular laws, or good figures of the number of women who are "trafficked".

Full audio will be here later,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7736000/7736870.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is billed on the site as a "discussion" between Niki Adams and Jacqui Smith. In fact, they spoke to Niki Adams first, and then brought on the Home Secretary, without going back to Niki Adams for comments.

To be fair, Evan Davis poked reasonably hard at the weakness of the new law. But Jacqui Smith got away with some assertions that wouldn't stand up to proper debate.

The whole thing rolls on, without any proper definition of "trafficking", why it can't be dealt with by regular laws, or good figures of the number of women who are "trafficked".

Full audio will be here later,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7736000/7736870.stm

wrong link, the programme is here already

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7737000/7737010.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this in another thread, but worth repeating here perhaps:

When Evan Davis asked her if it was fair that a man who had made reasonable efforts to determine if a wg was trafficked and then found himself prosecuted was fair, she replied that the purpose of the law was to send a message to men to make them think twice about paying for sex.

Just shows how ill-thought out and ideologically driven this legislation is. :(

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly this is exactly what they are trying to do here, scare men off punting. Nanny state politics at its absolute worst, but why should we be surprised about that by now?

Because the trade is already "underground" at the moment the government can pretty much make up figures to prove its point without any fear of challenge so it can assert that most women are being trafficked, coerced, pimped or supporting a drug habit and get away with this nonsense.

In the meantime they are shutting down the specialist unit dealing with trafficking in a great piece of double standards (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7719662.stm). This has according to Ms Smith managed to rescue "200 enslaved women" in 18 months. Either it is a pretty rubbish unit or the perhaps the problem is not so widespread as they make out?

All this is going to do is make it harder for the "legitimate" lady to work safely and drive the trade further underground where there will be more unscrupulous people able to profit from it and it will be even harder to police.

It makes a fabulous set of sound bites though, and takes the news off the mess they have made of the economy for a day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I posted this in another thread, but worth repeating here perhaps:

When Evan Davis asked her if it was fair that a man who had made reasonable efforts to determine if a wg was trafficked and then found himself prosecuted was fair, she replied that the purpose of the law was to send a message to men to make them think twice about paying for sex.

Just shows how ill-thought out and ideologically driven this legislation is. :(

B

It's entirely driven by ideology. He had his faults and made many mistakes, but do you think something like this could have happened at the time of Tony Blair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's entirely driven by ideology. He had his faults and made many mistakes, but do you think something like this could have happened at the time of Tony Blair?

Nope. Blair was far more libertarian than Brown... perhaps something to do with Brown's Presbyterian upbringing.

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's entirely driven by ideology. He had his faults and made many mistakes, but do you think something like this could have happened at the time of Tony Blair?

No i don't.

In addition to being more pragmatic about such issues, Blair was also far more libertarian than Brown... perhaps something to do with Brown's Presbyterian upbringing.

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jacqui Smith is doing some work experience soon, to enable her to better understand this whole issue.

:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to do a soundbite for the BBC later today...anything you guys would like me to say????

L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to do a soundbite for the BBC later today...anything you guys would like me to say????

L

You might try asking for the definitive ruling of "control"/"controlled" that would be used in cases under the proposed legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You might try asking for the definitive ruling of "control"/"controlled" that would be used in cases under the proposed legislation.

That was PRECISELY what i was going to ask........

L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope. Blair was far more libertarian than Brown...

Agreed, he was much more focussed too on the issues that really matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was PRECISELY what i was going to ask........

L

i am also confused as to why they need the extra legislation to close down brothels where trafficking occurs. All brothels must be illegal and the punters criminals who visit them criminals because of the control aspect.

Does this extra legislation mean that brothels without trafficking are legal? :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i am also confused as to why they need the extra legislation to close down brothels where trafficking occurs. All brothels must be illegal and the punters criminals who visit them criminals because of the control aspect.

They don't need extra legislation to close brothels because irrespective of "trafficking" the management of a brothel is illegal. AFAIK the proposed legislation will have nothing whatsoever to do with the law pertaining to the management of a brothel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was PRECISELY what i was going to ask........

L

You could ask why a punter is more responsible for making sure they avoid Trafficked girls than avoiding underage girls. The law says that the police need to prove the punter knew or reasonably suspected the girl was under 18. If she's 13 or above and had a fake passport that would probably get you off the hook. Traffickers themselves can argue they didn't know the girl would work for an escort agency and it would possibly get them off. The prosecution would have to prove he knew or suspected. Whereas in this case we're done for, no matter how careful we were.

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