Ghenghis

Home Office Propaganda

10 posts in this topic

Once again the Home Office has been directed to make political points by confusing the public about the pernicious failings in the new law.

On its opening page http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/DG_187126 on what is being done post 1st April it says:

The facts

Walk in a punter, walk out a criminal

On 1 April 2010, it will become an offence to pay for sex with someone who has been forced, threatened, exploited or otherwise coerced or deceived into providing the sexual services by someone else who has engaged in such conduct for gain.

Most women involved in street-based prostitution are not there through choice. They are among the most vulnerable people in our society. Nearly all prostitutes are addicted to drugs or alcohol.

Many of them have been trafficked into the country by criminals, and are held against their will. Many were abused as children, and many are homeless.

Kerb crawlers, on the other hand, have a choice. Men who pay for sex are indirectly supporting drug dealers and organised crime groups, and funding violence and abuse.

They are fuelling the exploitation of women by creating the demand for prostitution.

The opening statement being one that any sane person would agree with but they then, without a heartbeat, conflate it with street prostitution and kerb crawlers whilst the main areas they are telling us there are trafficked girls are brothels!!

I realise that we are beating our heads against a brick wall here but when will some newspaper owner with some balls take on these lies so that we can firstly get on with rescuing the real trafficked women and secondarily let the rest of us consenting adults get on with our lives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again the Home Office has been directed to make political points by confusing the public about the pernicious failings in the new law.

On its opening page http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/DG_187126 on what is being done post 1st April it says:

The opening statement being one that any sane person would agree with but they then, without a heartbeat, conflate it with street prostitution and kerb crawlers whilst the main areas they are telling us there are trafficked girls are brothels!!

I realise that we are beating our heads against a brick wall here but when will some newspaper owner with some balls take on these lies so that we can firstly get on with rescuing the real trafficked women and secondarily let the rest of us consenting adults get on with our lives?

Thanks for drawing this to our attention. I agree with your fundamental point. However, what I find interesting about both the statement on the directgov site and that on the Home Office site is that each specifically mentions trafficking (as well as street prostitution). Some members have said that since the law itself does not mention trafficking, therefore it isn't aimed at trafficking. I have always taken the view that (in large part) it is. As I said in another thread, as a matter of prudence I would avoid any agency or parlour that only 'employs' foreign providers.

Of course, how the police choose to try and interpret the law will also be of interest. They may not care what the underlying purpose of the law is. Some senior officers may decide they want to go on a moral crusade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having personal in depth knowledge of a great many policemen, the idea of senior Police Officers on a "Moral Crusade" seems both alarming and oxymoronic in concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO this new law is going to be very difficult to prove, as what WG who has been "trafficked" will admit to being "trafficked", because of the consequences to her and her family. Without her admission, how are they going to prove she is working against her will?

I think we all agree that "trafficking" into any form of work, whether it be prostitution, cockle picking, or anything else, is to be abhorred, but surely the best way of resolving this problem would be to enlist punters help in stamping out "trafficking", by having an anonymous phone line you could call, rather than alienating punters by threatening to arrest and charge them, on an offence that will be very difficult and expensive to prove.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I note that today on Sky a major childrens charity has issued a story that strongly suggests that many in the sex trade are runaway children.

Now, this sort of thing does happen and is to be utterly abhored, but I am suspicious of the timing and the emphasis in the article.

An article like this could make many people think of all punters as actual or potential child abusers.

It is interesting that the charity concerned appears to receive over half its funding from the government, and yet many people would assume it to be independent.

Many charities now appear to be merely extensions of government and you have to wonder to what degree they are told to follow or support government policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't have to prove trafficking, just force, coercion or deception.

There's already crimestoppers to call which, theoretically should deal with any reports made to it of trafficked women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again the Home Office has been directed to make political points by confusing the public about the pernicious failings in the new law.

On its opening page http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/DG_187126 on what is being done post 1st April it says:

The opening statement being one that any sane person would agree with but they then, without a heartbeat, conflate it with street prostitution and kerb crawlers whilst the main areas they are telling us there are trafficked girls are brothels!!

I realise that we are beating our heads against a brick wall here but when will some newspaper owner with some balls take on these lies so that we can firstly get on with rescuing the real trafficked women and secondarily let the rest of us consenting adults get on with our lives?

Have they changed the page, I was going to take issue with you, because the word expolited had been sneeked in to the sentence it an incorrect fashion. Now the page is title ker crawling, and mentions coercion and now gets the law correct.

People looking for paid-for sex on the street can now be arrested on their first offence, as new laws take effect. As of 1 April 2010, police no longer need show that kerb crawlers are persistent to arrest them.

Other measures to curb prostitution and human trafficking introduced as part of the Crime and Policing Act 2009 include the following.

Anyone who pays for sexual services with a prostitute who is exploited by force, deception or threats, risks a fine of up to £1,000 and a criminal record. It is not a valid excuse to say 'I did not know'. This is known as a 'strict liability' offence.

Courts have new powers to close down premises associated with prostitution and pornography.

A new penalty has been brought in for the offence of loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution. The penalty can be used by courts instead of a fine. It includes a requirement for offenders to attend meetings designed to help them to leave prostitution.

The term 'common prostitute' has been dropped from the law, as it was considered outdated and offensive. The new definition makes it an offence for a person to loiter or solicit persistently.

The new laws aim to:

* reduce the demand for prostitution

* support people to leave street prostitution

* enable police to disrupt criminal activity linked with sexual exploitation - especially involving children

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have they changed the page, I was going to take issue with you, because the word expolited had been sneeked in to the sentence it an incorrect fashion. Now the page is title ker crawling, and mentions coercion and now gets the law correct.

The Home Office page Ghenghis refers to is a link from the one he gave us, I think. But it is 2 hours since I looked and the memory is not so good nowadays! :confused:

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