elrond

Two home office research pieces,

16 posts in this topic

As part of the Home Office's Review to explore what further can be done to tackle the demand for prostitution two projects were commissioned to help inform the thinking around tackling the demand for prostitution: a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) of the published research literature and an assessment of legislation and policy in selected countries.

I can't comment on the content yet as I have not read them.

http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/crimereduction052.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a skim through and note that Punternet gets quite a few mentions !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes interesting conclusions.

One of which is that criminalisation of punters and John Schools have not enough robust data to support.

Overall it is well worth further study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not read it fully so if I have missed some good news sorry! but what I have read seems to me to show this is not asking is reducing demand necessary or the correct policy it just wants to find ways of making reducing demand more effective.

It does this through pages and pages of excepting that some of the reports quoted before (80,000 trafficked etc) might be wrong but reducing demand (hence the report name) is the right policy despite any evidence to the contrary.

This will be the bases for an excuse for more legislation no doubt, certainly if Labour wins the next general election and possibly if the Tories do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't quite see the point. They've won the battle to an extent by getting their tawdry legislation through the house albeit in slightly watered-down form. They know they are on their way out to be replaced by a more libertarian regime which, while it may have no plans to immediately reverse the statute, would certainly not have any specific agenda for extending it either. So no further legislation is likely to arise in the near future. On this basis would have thought it was a waste of taxpayers money and one for the Audit Commission.

The terms of reference seem to take it as a given that prostitution is bad and that tackling demand is the answer, and that the need is for research is on how that might best be achieved. Surprised again that an academic institution would agree to research on such narrow terms. Presume the invitation came with a casket of exchequer dubloons. However skim-read the executive summary and found it to be reasonably balanced. Will read the full text at my leisure later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't quite see the point. They've won the battle to an extent by getting their tawdry legislation through the house albeit in slightly watered-down form. They know they are on their way out to be replaced by a more libertarian regime which, while it may have no plans to immediately reverse the statute, would certainly not have any specific agenda for extending it either. So no further legislation is likely to arise in the near future. On this basis would have thought it was a waste of taxpayers money and one for the Audit Commission.

Assuming the Tories win the general election then you are probably right, at least at the national level but the anti fanatics want to stop all sorts of sex work and have said they will never stop fighting the industry.

But reducing demand reports could be used to justify legislation in say the Scottish parliament or to pressure tolerant councils or police forces to be less so.

Thank goodness for the IUSW and the ECP, they always seem to be there to counter the antis and I will be interested to hear there response to these reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have not read it fully so if I have missed some good news sorry! but what I have read seems to me to show this is not asking is reducing demand necessary or the correct policy it just wants to find ways of making reducing demand more effective.

This will be the bases for an excuse for more legislation no doubt, certainly if Labour wins the next general election and possibly if the Tories do.

The remit of the 'research' was to reduce demand, not question that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The remit of the 'research' was to reduce demand, not question that.

Sad but true, and in the middle of this recession and spending squeeze to be using public money (tax payers) to commission this report that only allows justification of reducing demand and not questioning it or allow any other options, hopefully will be seen for what it is:- a scandal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I have read in respect of the debate in the House of Lords, I understand that suspect "facts" and "statistics" were used to justify the need for a change in the law. However, the REA from the University of Huddersfield was the only academic work used to support the need for STRICT LIABILITY as the means to implement this. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Although the "facts" and "statistics" were queried in depth, the REA was accepted without question, together with the assertion that strict liability somehow directly flowed from it. It now appears that the report has only just been published. Nevertheless, as so much weight appears to have been given to it by those proposing strict liability, I do hope that all sides were given access to this important document prior to the House of Lord debate.

I look forward to reading it in detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reducing demand well there could be several options and I apologise in advance for any unintended offence that may be taken;

1. Bromine in the water supply

2. Chastity belts

3. Testosterone therapy for menauposal women

4. Free sex surrogates paid for by the government

5. Turn off the part of our brains that craves love and warmth of a sexual partner.

Other suggestions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reducing demand well there could be several options and I apologise in advance for any unintended offence that may be taken;

1. Bromine in the water supply

2. Chastity belts

3. Testosterone therapy for menauposal women

4. Free sex surrogates paid for by the government

5. Turn off the part of our brains that craves love and warmth of a sexual partner.

Other suggestions?

6 Bankrupting us all with tax demands to pay off the debt the govt has racked up paying off HBOS & RBS debts?

7 Starting a rumour that condoms have holes in them?:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8. Forcing men/women to have sex with their spouses

WL unfortunately that's a bad joke considering condoms given out at a University Health Centre recently were found to have been pricked with a pin.

One or two young couples have got rather worried as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WL unfortunately that's a bad joke considering condoms given out at a University Health Centre recently were found to have been pricked with a pin. One or two young couples have got rather worried as a result.

One assumes said couples are not reading this over their bedtime cocoa.... &, as you said, apols for any unintended offence.:)

Sure I've heard it was said that Nazi era German condoms often had holes to increase Aryan procreation, but can't quickly authenticate that story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As part of the Home Office's Review to explore what further can be done to tackle the demand for prostitution two projects were commissioned to help inform the thinking around tackling the demand for prostitution: a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) of the published research literature and an assessment of legislation and policy in selected countries.

I can't comment on the content yet as I have not read them.

http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/crimereduction052.htm

the other report, I recognize one name, Liz Kelly, one of Julie Bindels mates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the other report, I recognize one name, Liz Kelly, one of Julie Bindels mates

You got to have the right people on the team.

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