Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
elrond

Two recent debates in Parliament

14 posts in this topic

These debates in parliament make rather depressing reading. The police are being castigated for not following up on the adverts in the paper. Assumption proposed is they all are to trafficked women.

I am mystified, given the number of advertisements in the back of local papers that are clearly to do with trafficking, as to why the police do not follow up those telephone numbers, track them down and use them. Yes, such adverts should be banned, but the police say that they do not have the manpower to track those numbers down.
Local police forces do not get it. I am anxious about the merging of the trafficking unit with the vice and clubs unit, which is more concerned, in my experience, with public order and less concerned with serious and organised crime, because it will mean that a resource that was beginning to educate police forces around the country about ways of tackling and policing this will be lost..

Vera wants to do more about advertising, banning papers advertsing and the internet advertising.

I was pleased to hear him welcome our intended further restriction on newspaper advertising for prostitutes. The law in Ireland seems capable of being transferred across, although there is probably more to add, as it does not cover the internet and we would want it to do that. A well-known website called "punternet" has been mentioned, where not only are prostitutes offered for sale, but there are comments about how they have performed. We want to close that down as quickly as we possibly can.

Dennis again refuses to acknowledge the ECP.

The English Collective of Prostitutes makes an extremely nefarious and negative contribution to the debate. It is constantly cited on "Newsnight" or in The Guardian and other newspapers as some kind of expert authority on the problem. However, the collective, its supporters and spokesmen in the House and elsewhere, and those journalists who write about it, are in complete and utter denial about the extent of the problem. They fall into the trap of having a debate over statistics.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2010-01-20a.103.0&s=prostitution#g121.1

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2010-01-21a.145.0&s=prostitution#g187.0

On a quick read it all is rather depressing, though there are some rays of light from some speakers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The usual mishmash of ignorance, now leavened with impatience that the new laws have not instantly thown up a welter of punter collars felt, and a consequent fall in demand.

If demand falls, and it is a big if, price falls, which may encourage some SP's to leave the profession, but that may well be the real effect they are seeking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do love Denis MacShane trying to say that people are falling into the trap of analysing statistics. What does he expect us to do when he tried to claim 25,000 women were trafficked every year? I can't wait for this lot (labour) to be out on their arses. Hopefully a good few of them won't even be MPs by the Summer. As for Vera Baird's comments on punternet, it might be useful to write to a few MPs asking them to request she clarifys the "offered for sale" comment. As far as I can see the adverts on here have nothing within them to suggest trafficking or slavery other than her assumptions. As for closing punternet down, they can't since there's no laws under which they could, and even if they stayed in power long enough to pass some laws the site is hosted in the US as Harriet Harman made clear previously when she was trying to score points in the Labour party conference....so UK laws will be useless unless they try to go down the censorship route of blocking the site but there's zero chance of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very depressing read in some ways as despite some decent the conservative and liberal democrat speakers seem to be agreeing with much of this rubbish so maybe a change of government this year won't be as good as we hoped for (assuming the conservatives win).

However with all the focus on "this is to stop trafficking, slavery etc." if the police councils etc. start to close and/or prosecute establishments, owners and punters (arrest first prove cohesion latter!) where no trafficking or slavery has occurred but purely on the bases that it's a parlour so it might, this will be very unpopular and lead to all sorts of legal challenges etc. So back to sending a sign and scaring the average punter, hence the calls for a big information campaign.

Oh and rubbish the IUSW and ECP along the way for having a different opinion.

As for closing punternet, well a lot has been said on another thread after HH had a go at the labour party conference, but internet censorship they no there's no way without a big fuss, and probably could not do it anyway (web hosting overseas etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very depressing read in some ways as despite some decent the conservative and liberal democrat speakers seem to be agreeing with much of this rubbish so maybe a change of government this year won’t be as good as we hoped for (assuming the conservatives win).

However with all the focus on “this is to stop trafficking, slavery etc.” if the police councils etc. start to close and/or prosecute establishments, owners and punters (arrest first prove cohesion latter!) where no trafficking or slavery has occurred but purely on the bases that it’s a parlour so it might, this will be very unpopular and lead to all sorts of legal challenges etc. So back to sending a sign and scaring the average punter, hence the calls for a big information campaign.

Oh and rubbish the IUSW and ECP along the way for having a different opinion.

As for closing punternet, well a lot has been said on another thread after HH had a go at the labour party conference, but internet censorship they no there’s no way without a big fuss, and probably could not do it anyway (web hosting overseas etc.)

well physically they could block punternet, in the same way that China blocks certain sites. Also it already happens here, child porn sites are routinely blocked in this country by the vast majority of ISPs (there's a black list of pages) on a voluntary basis. Although that brings up the point that if they can't force all the ISPs to block known kiddy porn sites they're hardly going to be successful in forcing them to block punternet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is IMO the clear intention of Nanny Labour to end organised prostitution in the UK, the case surrounding Trafficking as a basis for bringing in the new legislation was just a red herring, this was signalled lound and clear in the original wording of Clause 13 of the Policing and Crime Bill namely "controlled". This land of ours is becoming a sinister and controlled place to live, the West rail against regimes like China, they need to look in their own back yard. There have been measure after measure bringing censorship and restiction to the freedoms we once enjoyed in recent times, even dedicated centres set up to monitor, witch hunt and censure the citizen if he or she falls foul of Nanny Labours strict rules, the hideous Extreme Pornography legislation was a typical example; what IS extreme pornography? The new law with it's draconian tag of Stict Liability, is a throwback to the Victorian Days when you could be hung for stealing food if you were starving. Nanny Labour will be setting the pigs off on a march, a crusade to rid the streets of Punters by abusing this legislation and in turn eliminating Brothels accross the land. Punters will be witch hunted and become pariahs of Society just as suspected padophiles are whether guilty or not. Yes Brown will, just like Thatcher, use the pigs against Punters as she did with the miners. This country is becoming a Police State, if not there already, not only in the name of Section 14 of the Policing And Crime Act 2009, but in many other aspects of day to day life. I no doubt this script will be read scrutinised and digested by the Stazi, probably I will get an early morning visit from the Thought Police!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well physically they could block punternet, in the same way that China blocks certain sites. Also it already happens here, child porn sites are routinely blocked in this country by the vast majority of ISPs (there's a black list of pages) on a voluntary basis. Although that brings up the point that if they can't force all the ISPs to block known kiddy porn sites they're hardly going to be successful in forcing them to block punternet.

Wikipedia got blocked in the UK for a short while http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/wikipedia-article-blocked-in-uk-over-child-photo-1057010.html

The blocking is controlled through the blacklists from the Internet Watch Foundation.

Of course this blocking is totally useless for those who want to bypass it. There are a multitude of proxy servers located overseas which encrypt and access the target site from the proxy.

I had a conversation on PN with a guy from Dubai, where Punternet is blocked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wikipedia got blocked in the UK for a short while http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/wikipedia-article-blocked-in-uk-over-child-photo-1057010.html

The blocking is controlled through the blacklists from the Internet Watch Foundation.

Of course this blocking is totally useless for those who want to bypass it. There are a multitude of proxy servers located overseas which encrypt and access the target site from the proxy.

I had a conversation on PN with a guy from Dubai, where Punternet is blocked.

yeah I remember that, the page was removed from the blacklist after a while, but as the article says the list is only used by 95% of the ISPs. But, as I said if there's not even 100% take-up with that (where child porn is the allegation) there's hardly going to be any enthusiasm for blocking this site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the b.u.f.(british union of feminazis) has some of its members & supporters in parliament trying to influence people with its lies,smears,rumours & disinformation

although small in numbers they do have people in positions of power,they certainly don't have public opinion on their side as opinion polls show that most people support legalisation/decriminalisation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the b.u.f.(british union of feminazis) has some of its members & supporters in parliament trying to influence people with its lies,smears,rumours & disinformation

although small in numbers they do have people in positions of power,they certainly don't have public opinion on their side as opinion polls show that most people support legalisation/decriminalisation

I am worried, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Slough[Fiona MacTaggart], that the Bill that was passed by the House of Lords just before Christmas may not be made operational. - Denis MacShane

It seems that my suspicions from other threads were correct i.e that they're having trouble drawing up workable guidelines for the CPS and Police etc. to follow in using clause 14 etc. and that a commencement order may not be made.

I'm guessing they're having trouble working out a situation where this offence would be the appropriate charge and where they would have a realistic chance of conviction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am worried, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Slough[Fiona MacTaggart], that the Bill that was passed by the House of Lords just before Christmas may not be made operational. - Denis MacShane

It seems that my suspicions from other threads were correct i.e that they're having trouble drawing up workable guidelines for the CPS and Police etc. to follow in using clause 14 etc. and that a commencement order may not be made.

I'm guessing they're having trouble working out a situation where this offence would be the appropriate charge and where they would have a realistic chance of conviction.

I hope that Section 14 of The Policing And Crime Act 2009 IS never given a Comencement Order, all you young bucks can then carry on without fear of prosecution, for me at almost 61 I cannot summon up the energy these days to visit for a Punt. I keep promising myself to book into a Hotel on one of my journeys to my cottage in Wales and hire an Escort for some fun, these days for me thinking about it seems more the mark. Relating back to the new law, if it is deemed unworkable the Legislators may repeal the Section and make it far more draconian! At this moment in time with The Sons Of Thatcher most likely to form the next Government no one knows what their approach will be to so called Sexual Offences, the consesus is; Tories are far more harsh than a more Liberal Party which Labour is supposed to be, we will just have to wait and see and hope for a hung Parliament, there will be no time to think about extreme legislation they concentrating on who will doing what with more emphasis on the economy, electoral reform and Europe. With the Comencement Order for 14 not forthcoming in the near future, the election coming nearer and "Postman Al and his paid for gal" seeing his time in the Home Office coming to a close, 14 may whither on the vine. Hopefully!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't wait for this lot (labour) to be out on their arses. Hopefully a good few of them won't even be MPs by the Summer.

That kind of is what has to happen for Labour to lose their Commons' majority!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That kind of is what has to happen for Labour to lose their Commons' majority!

Lol - well I was referring to those who are specifically involved in this e.g. Jacqui Smith, Harriet Harman, Vernon Coaker et al. the idea being that the labour MPs left won't include a good number of those who are pushing this legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do love Denis MacShane trying to say that people are falling into the trap of analysing statistics. What does he expect us to do when he tried to claim 25,000 women were trafficked every year? ...

Disbelieve him. I don't trust round figures. If a proper survey was made , how come the figure came to exactly 25 000 and not , for example, 24 760 or 31 150? The rounder the figure the less likely that it comes from a real survey. Just guesswork or worse, demagogy.

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