Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
elrond

Advertising Of Prostitution (Prohibition) Bill [Hl]

27 posts in this topic

Saw this from yesterday.  Hopefully it won't get far, but then Lord Morrows bill was a private members bill

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldhansrd/text/150602-0001.htm

 

 

 

 

.Advertising of Prostitution (Prohibition) Bill [HL]

 
First Reading
 
3.23 pm
 
A Bill to prohibit the advertising of prostitution; and for connected purposes.
 
The Bill was introduced by Baroness Howe of Idlicote (on behalf of Lord McColl of Dulwich), read a first time and ordered to be printed.
 
2 Jun 2015 : Column 298

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I wasn't an (occasional) punter, I like to think I would still be sickened by the hypocrisy of some anti-prostitution idiots.  If people know of girls being trafficked or forced/coerced into prostitution and these people do not notify the police, they are the ones to be focused on.  

 

We don't ban the picking of vegetables simply because there exist gang-masters who force immigrants into picking East Anglian cabbages thru debt slavery.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how that will work for internet advertising where the website is hosted abroad somewhere ?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politicians talk crap about computers. No clue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice that the bill was introduced by Baroness Howe of Idiotcote. At least, I think that's what it said.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt there'll be a lot of French lessons advertised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt there'll be a lot of French lessons advertised.

 

or ladies with big chests for sale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt there'll be a lot of French lessons advertised.

 

or ladies with big chests for sale

Seriously, if a law like this came in and the authorities really wanted to enforce it,  the courts would laugh at this.

 

I've not heard of it but "Mouth organ lessons" would be a good one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what the definition of 'prostitution' is in the bill.

 

I can't be particularly bothered to look it up as the bill will either fail or in all other respects be as nugatory as 'tis possible to imagine.

My question is purely an intellectual enquiry.

 

Uncle Pokey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what the definition of 'prostitution' is in the bill.

 

I can't be particularly bothered to look it up as the bill will either fail or in all other respects be as nugatory as 'tis possible to imagine.

My question is purely an intellectual enquiry.

 

Uncle Pokey

 

Same as the definition that exists in all the other legislation regarding prostitution. Payment for sexual services. It'll fail as there'll be no enthusiasm from the rad-fems for legislation that's not going to affect the clients one iota. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same as the definition that exists in all the other legislation regarding prostitution. Payment for sexual services. It'll fail as there'll be no enthusiasm from the rad-fems for legislation that's not going to affect the clients one iota. 

it will fail becaue much prostitution stuff is hosted abroad.  PN is and AW is.

and if necessary we will have to use proxy servers to get round any filtering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it will fail becaue much prostitution stuff is hosted abroad.  PN is and AW is.

and if necessary we will have to use proxy servers to get round any filtering.

 

Correct about stuff being hosted abroad but after making my previous post I did wonder if they would go after the actual people advertising rather than the folks providing the advertising service  ?  -  eg a UK agency or parlour advertising their services and address even though the website was hosted abroad. Easy enough to knock on someones door in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be honest. As long as there will be a demand, there will be an offer. Any "bill" won't help. And you know it guys :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it will fail becaue much prostitution stuff is hosted abroad.  PN is and AW is.

and if necessary we will have to use proxy servers to get round any filtering.

it will fail because like love...SEX will always find a way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very few private members bills get through and this is totally unenforceable, the police have diminishing resources and will still prioritise real sex crime like trafficking and the disgusting abuse of children. It is also possibly in conflict with the Human Rights Act which allows anyone to advertise and promote a trade or service and prostitution itself is not illegal. If this goes through the the only beneficiary will be the legal profession as usual. As Chloe says sex will always find a way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically escorts advertise their time only? So if advertising of prostitution was criminalised it shouldn't affect escort directories?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they don't. The old 'paying for my time' service is just a pointless thing people put in thinking that makes it legal- or if they are US based. I see so many women have this line on website but then talk about sexual services and fees! 

 

However if the law was to change then maybe advertising would go back to being a companion or escort in the old fashioned sense of the word. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lord Morrow really has a bee in his bonnet on prostitution. He is the one who initiated the Swedish model and got it pushed through in Northern Ireland. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will be a an amazing increase in people taking language courses, particularly in French. Just like the pre internet days when there were all sorts of code messages in newspapers and shop windows. How many remember the Curzon Street window with the Neon French Lessons sign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lord Morrow really has a bee in his bonnet on prostitution. He is the one who initiated the Swedish model and got it pushed through in Northern Ireland. 

 

He's one of the religious brigade- he's a member of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, they're fundamentalist Calvinists and evangelicals. They were even describing homosexuals as 'perverts', see here: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/free-presbyterian-advert-ignites-fresh-antigay-storm-28515794.html They're not exactly an open-minded lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's one of the religious brigade- he's a member of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, they're fundamentalist Calvinists and evangelicals. They were even describing homosexuals as 'perverts', see here: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/free-presbyterian-advert-ignites-fresh-antigay-storm-28515794.html They're not exactly an open-minded lot.

 

 

In the ordinary meaning of the words, most right-thinking people would agree with you. But, they would justify it by saying that Adam and Eve were the first humans, and use one of the definitions of pervert from the Oxford English Dictionary  :

 

Pervert : alter (something) from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended:

 

With their narrow view on life, that may be where they are coming from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the ordinary meaning of the words, most right-thinking people would agree with you. But, they would justify it by saying that Adam and Eve were the first humans, and use one of the definitions of pervert from the Oxford English Dictionary  :

 

Pervert : alter (something) from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended:

 

With their narrow view on life, that may be where they are coming from.

I was going to post something similar but I thought I would be called as a dick,  no offence.  :)

 

Actually I wondered whether FL was suggesting that us punters are perverts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I just meant that homophobia is now classified as bigotry, you can be prosecuted for it as a 'hate crime' but I'm sure even that doesn't stop the Free Presbyterian Church from having a judgemental view of homosexuals, never mind us punters or anyone in the sex industry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Bill had its second reading in the House of Lords on Friday (23 October). You can read the whole debate at http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2015-10-23a.946.2#g946.3 where you will see that only one Lord (Lord Davies of Stamford) spoke out against the Bill. Here's an extract from what he said:

 

Lord Davies of Stamford Labour 3:20 pm, 23rd October 2015
My view about legalising or criminalising prostitution is, above all, based on a fundamental principle, which is that set out so lucidly by JS Mill 150 years ago, which I think is dear to the hearts of everybody who believes in freedom. That is that the state should not restrict the freedom of any citizen except to the extent required to protect the freedom of others. It flows directly from that that acts in private between consenting adults are no concern of the state or of the law. You violate that principle at your peril.

 

I recognise that virtuous and respectable people, in the interests of reforming society, as they see it, are always trying to encroach on that principle. The worst case was the introduction of the legislation in the 1880s criminalising homosexuality, which continued on our statute book for 80 years. In my view, we should never have violated that principle. I would be against it even if the pragmatic arguments ran in the other direction, but actually, I see several pragmatic arguments which run very much against the idea of criminalising prostitution. In the time I have, I will mention just three.

 

One is a definitional problem, whether it has to be dealt with by Parliament or by the judiciary in the courts. I fear that it does not sound very romantic or edifying to say so, but I suspect that quite a lot of relationships—far more than we like to think—have some element of material interest in them. It would be extremely difficult to decide whether the material or monetary interest was decisive in one particular case. The law would make an awful fool of itself if it specified that if you hire someone for sex for a night or a weekend, you are committing a criminal offence, but if the relationship, including the financial relationship, continued for months or years, you are not—in other words, that a crime, if continued long enough or repeated frequently enough, ceases to be a crime. That would be a novel jurisprudential notion.

 

Equally, the law would be pretty stupid if it ended up specifying that if you pay for sex with money—cash or specie—it is a criminal offence, but if you pay by means of a diamond brooch, it is not. The law would be held up to equal ridicule and there would be a considerable sense of injustice if you targeted the poor prostitute and perhaps the relatively poor client of the poor prostitute and left the wealthy man and the successful and wealthy courtesan to enjoy themselves without let or hindrance. That would be a mistake. So the definitional problems are real, and the noble Lord needs to address them, if he wants to take further his project of abolishing prostitution by law.

 

Then there is the issue of the strain on the criminal justice system and particularly the police. We know that the Government are cutting police numbers in drastic fashion, which I personally think is an utterly irresponsible policy that we and even they will ultimately regret. That aside, can you imagine what would happen if the police had responsibility for chasing up every act or alleged act of prostitution in this country? Here for once I do feel that I am not speaking alone. I should be very unamused if I was told by the police that they did not have time or resources to investigate the burglary of my house because they were launched on a much more exciting case, because Snooks was alleged to be having sex with Fifi and money might be changing hands. We want to think very carefully about that aspect as well.

 

Thirdly, there is the whole issue of the prohibition effects. We all know what prostitution is conceptually. The exchange of money for sex or sex for money is the confluence of two powerful forces in human nature: the desire for sex and the desire for money. If there are more powerful forces in human nature, I am not quite sure what they are, and if you try to dam the tide against them you may have some very perverse effects. The Americans did that with prohibition, but I fear that the two forces that I have just mentioned may be even more ubiquitous and powerful than the desire for alcohol. So you get the same effects; you create a whole new seam of rich potential profits for criminals involved in the intermediation which obviously would be necessary if you criminalised prostitution. It is quite easy to envisage all sorts of opportunities for criminal activity, racketeering and so forth, such as happened under prohibition.

 

If you prohibit by law something that has been going on for a long time and for which there is a structural demand and existing supply system—we are told that it is quite pervasive; I have not seen these websites myself but I have heard about them and I gather that there are an awful lot of them—you will force a raft of people overnight to change their habits or give up their livelihoods or become criminals. There are enormous social implications from doing that which have to be thought through. None of this has been thought through on this occasion.

 

Finally, there is one extraordinary anomaly—an ironic contradiction at the heart of the noble Lord’s Bill. He set out his intention essentially to defend women in this matter, and I have some sympathy with that: but he then brings forward a Bill that criminalises advertising. But advertising is always paid for by the supplier, not the customer, and the suppliers on these occasions are largely women. So the only people who would suffer criminal sanctions as a result of the Bill becoming law, if it ever did, would be the females involved in prostitution, and not the males. That seems to me an extraordinarily perverse outcome, and I hope that the noble Lord will think a little bit further about this Bill before taking it further.

 

Speaking in favour of the Bill were:

 

Lord McColl of Dulwich, Conservative

Baroness Butler-Sloss, Crossbench

The Bishop of Derby

Baroness Gale, Labour

Lord Morrow, DUP

Lord Kennedy of Southwark, Labour

4 people like this

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