Dave451

Evening Standard 31Mar10

15 posts in this topic

Kit Malthouse (London's Deputy Mayor for Policing in case you were wondering), yes, the same Deputy Mayor who, we are told, does not bother to turn up at police committee meetings, has had a rant in the London Evening Standard about the new laws. Unfortuantely this article is not on the ES web site as it only rates a slot at the bottom of page 15.

He trots out the usual baseless statistics "Nationally it is estimated 4,000 women a year are trafficked into UK". He does not give any source for this 'estimate' and he fails to explain what the UK Border Agency is doing about it. He then praises the mertis of the new law and cites more statistics to back his thesis. He says " ... on average there are 28 brothels in every borough across the city" and " ..... the 8,000 women forced to work in brothels and thousands more working on the streets." In the absence of any source for these figures, please allow me to examine his numbers myself.

There are 33 boroughs in London (assuming he includes the outer boroughs). So 28*33 = 924 brothels. Not counting the women who are not forced to work, we get 8,000/924 = 8.7 women forced to work in each brothel. Now the existing law forbids more than one woman per premis so either Kit's figures are rubbish or the present laws are not being enforced. Personally, I am inclined to believe the former and I might also ask what has changed since the two Pentameter operations failed to find more than a handful of supposedly trafficked women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A continuation of the 'we must do something about it' (I agree that trafficking is an abhorrent crime and should be stopped) which leads to a response of no effective action or a proposal that is counter-productive.

Possibly there are around 900 brothels in London. There may be 4,000 women trafficked into the UK. It does not mean those 4,000 are in London, or that they are being forced to work in the sex industry. There are other industries where alleged ill-treatment and illegal workers are supposedly found.

Criminalising the man on the basis of strict liability is not going to solve the trafficking problem. In any other business it is the employer who can be prosecuted for employing illegal workers, so why not the person running the place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kit Malthouse (London's Deputy Mayor for Policing in case you were wondering), yes, the same Deputy Mayor who, we are told, does not bother to turn up at police committee meetings, has had a rant in the London Evening Standard about the new laws. Unfortuantely this article is not on the ES web site as it only rates a slot at the bottom of page 15.

He trots out the usual baseless statistics "Nationally it is estimated 4,000 women a year are trafficked into UK". He does not give any source for this 'estimate' and he fails to explain what the UK Border Agency is doing about it. He then praises the mertis of the new law and cites more statistics to back his thesis. He says " ... on average there are 28 brothels in every borough across the city" and " ..... the 8,000 women forced to work in brothels and thousands more working on the streets." In the absence of any source for these figures, please allow me to examine his numbers myself.

There are 33 boroughs in London (assuming he includes the outer boroughs). So 28*33 = 924 brothels. Not counting the women who are not forced to work, we get 8,000/924 = 8.7 women forced to work in each brothel. Now the existing law forbids more than one woman per premis so either Kit's figures are rubbish or the present laws are not being enforced. Personally, I am inclined to believe the former and I might also ask what has changed since the two Pentameter operations failed to find more than a handful of supposedly trafficked women.

The article is on the website, here:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23820617-take-this-chance-to-strike-back-at-the-sex-trade.do

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How are the authorities EVER going to prosecute anyone? Or isnt that the point, is it all about acting as a deterent? and if it is, when no-one gets prosecuted, in say, 3 or 4 months time wont it have shown itself to be .... ineffective?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kit Malthouse (London's Deputy Mayor for Policing in case you were wondering), yes, the same Deputy Mayor who, we are told, does not bother to turn up at police committee meetings, has had a rant in the London Evening Standard about the new laws. Unfortuantely this article is not on the ES web site as it only rates a slot at the bottom of page 15.

He trots out the usual baseless statistics "Nationally it is estimated 4,000 women a year are trafficked into UK". He does not give any source for this 'estimate' and he fails to explain what the UK Border Agency is doing about it. He then praises the mertis of the new law and cites more statistics to back his thesis. He says " ... on average there are 28 brothels in every borough across the city" and " ..... the 8,000 women forced to work in brothels and thousands more working on the streets." In the absence of any source for these figures, please allow me to examine his numbers myself.

There are 33 boroughs in London (assuming he includes the outer boroughs). So 28*33 = 924 brothels. Not counting the women who are not forced to work, we get 8,000/924 = 8.7 women forced to work in each brothel. Now the existing law forbids more than one woman per premis so either Kit's figures are rubbish or the present laws are not being enforced. Personally, I am inclined to believe the former and I might also ask what has changed since the two Pentameter operations failed to find more than a handful of supposedly trafficked women.

I had the misfortune to meet KM, but nothing to do with politics.

He is talking complete bollocks IMHO. But then again, he is attempting to be a politician (he is a failed prospective MP, I believe) so he is talking their language.

I believe that trafficked ladies are mostly Oriental, and there really don't seem to be that many of them.

Quite how they get the information to alledge how many trafficked ladies there are, defies me. Where do these figure come from? Show us the evidence.

I think they are just trying to be seen to be championing a cause to win votes.

Since the Tony Blair WoMD fiasco, can we actually believe anything they tell us these days?

How long before the next MP gets caught with his trousers down I wonder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kit Malthouse (London's Deputy Mayor for Policing in case you were wondering), yes, the same Deputy Mayor who, we are told, does not bother to turn up at police committee meetings, has had a rant in the London Evening Standard about the new laws. Unfortuantely this article is not on the ES web site as it only rates a slot at the bottom of page 15.

He trots out the usual baseless statistics "Nationally it is estimated 4,000 women a year are trafficked into UK". He does not give any source for this 'estimate' and he fails to explain what the UK Border Agency is doing about it. He then praises the mertis of the new law and cites more statistics to back his thesis. He says " ... on average there are 28 brothels in every borough across the city" and " ..... the 8,000 women forced to work in brothels and thousands more working on the streets." In the absence of any source for these figures, please allow me to examine his numbers myself.

There are 33 boroughs in London (assuming he includes the outer boroughs). So 28*33 = 924 brothels. Not counting the women who are not forced to work, we get 8,000/924 = 8.7 women forced to work in each brothel. Now the existing law forbids more than one woman per premis so either Kit's figures are rubbish or the present laws are not being enforced. Personally, I am inclined to believe the former and I might also ask what has changed since the two Pentameter operations failed to find more than a handful of supposedly trafficked women.

I really wish I wasn't working tomorrow, I'd be down Oxford street in a flash to confront the lying fuckwit.

"The new charge carries a hefty fine or a prison sentence"

No it fucking doesn't. It's a fine. That's it.

"4000 women a year are trafficked into the UK"

er....no - up to 4000 people a year are trafficked, that includes all trafficked persons male or female for all reasons. Willingly and unwillingly.

"8000 woman FORCED to work in brothels"

I'd love to see his source for that.....and his explanation for the police's incompetence in being able to find them. (only 167 in pentameter 1 and 2 over a couple of years and 800+ brothels raided)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really wish I wasn't working tomorrow, I'd be down Oxford street in a flash to confront the lying fuckwit.

"The new charge carries a hefty fine or a prison sentence"

No it fucking doesn't. It's a fine. That's it.

"4000 women a year are trafficked into the UK"

er....no - up to 4000 people a year are trafficked, that includes all trafficked persons male or female for all reasons. Willingly and unwillingly.

"8000 woman FORCED to work in brothels"

I'd love to see his source for that.....and his explanation for the police's incompetence in being able to find them. (only 167 in pentameter 1 and 2 over a couple of years and 800+ brothels raided)

It is hard to be sure whether he is woefully ignorant, illiterate or deliberately disingenuous. Take also the start of the final para:

Today's law change has the potential to help the police tackle the demand for prostitution by arresting punters who think it is acceptable to pay for sex with women - regardless of whether they have been exploited or coerced into prostitution.

It would be easy to misconstrue this as meaning that it is to be illegal to punt whether or not the woman had been forced, coerced etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

does km realise that the evening standard is part of the daily mail group which includes some papers & loot that has adverts for parlours & escorts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
does km realise that the evening standard is part of the daily mail group which includes some papers & loot that has adverts for parlours & escorts

They sold it on to a Russian whose name eludes me but who is also buying the Indy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People like that remind me so much of my mate who smears himself in chicken shit because it is "the World's most effective Tiger deterrent", when told there are no tigers wild in the UK he replies "Precisely mate so it proves how effective chicken shit is!".

I reckon they will publish new stats in a couple of years time after the new law comes into effect "proving" how effective it has been - not by convictions but from the massive fall in "trafficked women".

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is hard to be sure whether he is woefully ignorant, illiterate or deliberately disingenuous. Take also the start of the final para:

Today's law change has the potential to help the police tackle the demand for prostitution by arresting punters who think it is acceptable to pay for sex with women - regardless of whether they have been exploited or coerced into prostitution.

It would be easy to misconstrue this as meaning that it is to be illegal to punt whether or not the woman had been forced, coerced etc.

sorry just checked and the 4000 figure does refer to sexual trafficking of women but is still lambasted by Nick Davies in the guardian.....

http://www.nickdavies.net/2009/10/19/how-misinformation-flooded-the-sex-trafficking-story/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
when no-one gets prosecuted, in say, 3 or 4 months time wont it have shown itself to be .... ineffective?

Not really, because they will be forced (pun intended) to say something along the lines of "We have not prosecuted anyone because the legislation is working as a deterrent".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sorry just checked and the 4000 figure does refer to sexual trafficking of women but is still lambasted by Nick Davies in the guardian.....

The Home Affairs Committee on trafficking mentioned that there were "some estimates" of 4000 for sexual trafficking but concluded that there was, in fact, no reliable data.

However, the minister did indicate that a figure would be produced to replace the 4000 but that this would not be published before April.

I had assumed some sort of low key "welfare" Pentameter 3 project would be the only way that a relatively accurate survey could be undertaken quickly. I am not aware of anything of that nature so it will be interesting to see how the new figure has been arrived at. I hope that full details are published including method of collection, possible margin of error and breakdown by sex, age, origin and distribution within the UK etc. How else can sensible law making proceed?

Edited by Dancer
Addition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They sold it on to a Russian whose name eludes me but who is also buying the Indy.

Alexander Lebedev.

B

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