Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
starman

Committee meeting today 10 feb

40 posts in this topic

Another day, another step. A total waste of time and taxpayers money. All the blustering is just going through the motions. CONTROL is the watchword of the Brown Regime, this word will "ring" and wrankle in the ears of the populas over and over as Brown and Co tighten their grip and control over the good people of the UK.

Sex is the motor of human emotion and motivation. capture this and you have total CONTROL.

Just look back the era of the Eunuch!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another day, another step. A total waste of time and taxpayers money. All the blustering is just going through the motions. CONTROL is the watchword of the Brown Regime, this word will "ring" and wrankle in the ears of the populas over and over as Brown and Co tighten their grip and control over the good people of the UK.

Sex is the motor of human emotion and motivation. capture this and you have total CONTROL.

Just look back the era of the Eunuch!

and clause 13, control for gain, will stand part of the bill

the only ones who voted against it was Dr Harris and Nadine Dorries :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it looks as if the Home office will get its way and present the truly criminal with another business opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I listened to most of the debate and several times it was mentioned that the new bill was not particularly aimed at catching girls working together with a madam / or security even where there was an element of gain for the owner or madam providing the girls were happy with that type of arrangement.

Similar sort of thing with the brothel closure orders which are aimed at any places with trafficked women or where they are working under duress.

By the look of it it will be up to the local Chief of Police to determine the action to be taken in each case and will depend a lot on the tolerance level to prostitution. This to me sounds very much like the way it operates right now, certainly in my area, where the well run parlours are regularly visited by the police to keep an eye on things but they jump immediately on any suspicion of a place having trafficked girls as they did quite recently.

The bill hasn't changed much in the committee stages but certainly a lot of the MP's (with the exception of the radical fems ) realise they can't stamp out prostitution so there has to be a degree of tolerance. There seems to be some talk of explanatory notes being attached to the bill to ensure that it is operated with the correct intent and targets the right persons. Did anyone else hear that part ? Having semi-legal brothels was also mentioned a couple of times.

I suspect the bill may get watered down a bit, hopefully a lot, in the Lords but at the end of the day it looks likely that well run parlours could continue to operate to some extent like they do now. I'm hoping anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and clause 13, control for gain, will stand part of the bill

the only ones who voted against it was Dr Harris and Nadine Dorries :P

Looks like I'll be voting Tory for the first time then (Ms Dorries is my MP).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.......The bill hasn't changed much in the committee stages but certainly a lot of the MP's (with the exception of the radical fems ) realise they can't stamp out prostitution so there has to be a degree of tolerance. There seems to be some talk of explanatory notes being attached to the bill to ensure that it is operated with the correct intent and targets the right persons. Did anyone else hear that part ? Having semi-legal brothels was also mentioned a couple of times.........

Given that it has been made clear now that the purpose of the bill is to tackle the demand for prostitution, and that demand is on the increase, don't you think that the puritanical and radical fem lobby will push for it to be used to achieve that aim once it's in place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given that it has been made clear now that the purpose of the bill is to tackle the demand for prostitution, and that demand is on the increase, don't you think that the puritanical and radical fem lobby will push for it to be used to achieve that aim once it's in place?

They would probably like to but look at the current laws. Keeping a brothel is illegal as of now , the authorities know where they are and they could all be shut overnight if they wanted. Depending on the place and the drgree of tolerance by the local police they either let them operate or not. In fact I don't know why they need new brothel closure orders in the new bill for that matter.

As far as the demand side goes It's a bit like Canute ordering the sea back out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I listened to most of the debate and several times it was mentioned that the new bill was not particularly aimed at catching girls working together with a madam / or security even where there was an element of gain for the owner or madam providing the girls were happy with that type of arrangement.

Similar sort of thing with the brothel closure orders which are aimed at any places with trafficked women or where they are working under duress.

By the look of it it will be up to the local Chief of Police to determine the action to be taken in each case and will depend a lot on the tolerance level to prostitution. This to me sounds very much like the way it operates right now, certainly in my area, where the well run parlours are regularly visited by the police to keep an eye on things but they jump immediately on any suspicion of a place having trafficked girls as they did quite recently.

The bill hasn't changed much in the committee stages but certainly a lot of the MP's (with the exception of the radical fems ) realise they can't stamp out prostitution so there has to be a degree of tolerance. There seems to be some talk of explanatory notes being attached to the bill to ensure that it is operated with the correct intent and targets the right persons. Did anyone else hear that part ? Having semi-legal brothels was also mentioned a couple of times.

I suspect the bill may get watered down a bit, hopefully a lot, in the Lords but at the end of the day it looks likely that well run parlours could continue to operate to some extent like they do now. I'm hoping anyway.

Given that it has been made clear now that the purpose of the bill is to tackle the demand for prostitution, and that demand is on the increase, don't you think that the puritanical and radical fem lobby will push for it to be used to achieve that aim once it's in place?

They would probably like to but look at the current laws. Keeping a brothel is illegal as of now , the authorities know where they are and they could all be shut overnight if they wanted. Depending on the place and the drgree of tolerance by the local police they either let them operate or not. In fact I don't know why they need new brothel closure orders in the new bill for that matter.

As far as the demand side goes It's a bit like Canute ordering the sea back out.

This is all about a desire to sabotage the sale of sexual services because a certain minority find it offensive.

The references to trafficked/coerced women are just a smokescreen. If the Bill is meant to only affect situations where coercion takes place it should say so. It does not, instead it uses the phrase 'controlled for gain' which is deliberately designed to be open to misinterpretation.

I suggest that the use of this phrase is also made to enable it to be quietly dropped in a later amendment.

A person (A) commits an offence if

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is all about a desire to sabotage the sale of sexual services because a certain minority find it offensive.

The references to trafficked/coerced women are just a smokescreen. If the Bill is meant to only affect situations where coercion takes place it should say so. It does not, instead it uses the phrase 'controlled for gain' which is deliberately designed to be open to misinterpretation.

I suggest that the use of this phrase is also made to enable it to be quietly dropped in a later amendment.

A person (A) commits an offence if

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They would probably like to but look at the current laws. Keeping a brothel is illegal as of now , the authorities know where they are and they could all be shut overnight if they wanted. Depending on the place and the drgree of tolerance by the local police they either let them operate or not. In fact I don't know why they need new brothel closure orders in the new bill for that matter.

As far as the demand side goes It's a bit like Canute ordering the sea back out.

Yes you are absolutely right, except as the law stands at present, prostitution itself is NOT illegal, the law allows for a prostitute to work alone and nothing else. Technically all other froms of the sex for sale trade are illegal; soliciting (adversing), keeping a brothel (Massage Parlour), organising prostitution (Escort Agancy) and more, are all illegal. BUT these laws are ignored on the most part by the Police, what this NEW legislation adds, is; making it a serious offence for a MAN/WOMAN (Punter) to buy sex from a prostitute in the afforementioned situations, the prostitute working alone and a punter purchasing sex from her/him has not changed. The whole nub of this legislation as made by many contributors is to criminalise men, and I personally think this will, by virtue of Home Office directive be vorsiforously persued the same as Child Porn, a new "Witch Hunt" will ensue and probably a new Agency set up the likes of CEOP for Child Porn, to colate and direct the Police operations against punters, probably called "CAPAD" (Catch A Punter A Day) - joke....... Setting all aside this is a serious and draconian step against the freedoms we now enjoy, it is so so wrong and vindictive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
imho, it is nothing but a gas chamber disguised as delicing shower...

Dr.Evans has several times pointed out that the government refers to

evidence found during the review, but the evidence has never been published.

The Report of the Review cites three pieces of evidence in support of its findings:

1. Poppy Project's "Big Brothel" report, it does not however mention that this was thoroughly discredited by a panel of 27 leading academics working in the field, nor that Poppy Project itself has stated that they were not attempting to produce either a definitive study nor a piece of academic research;

2. A paper reporting US based research extolling the virtues of "John's Schools" & completely disregarding the evidence from UK Police Forces that such schemes are ineffective;

3. An unpublished paper, by Huddersfield University, which is used to provide an estimated percentage of UK men who have, at one time or another, paid for sexual services.

Of the above three sources, only the last is unpublished. However, the Government did undertake to produce a review & report of regarding academic research into the subject of sex work & it is this that they have singularly failed to produce; probably because such research would be overwhelmingly in favour of decriminalisation & very much against such legislation as they are proposing (as well as demonstrating the false premises & complete lack of knowledge of the nature of the various sex markets that has been inherent in Government statements on this issue).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically all other froms of the sex for sale trade are illegal; soliciting (adversing), keeping a brothel (Massage Parlour), organising prostitution (Escort Agancy) and more, are all illegal. BUT these laws are ignored on the most part by the Police .....

I wonder if the current reluctance to pursue brothel closures etc has anything to do with the majoity of the police force being men ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.......3. An unpublished paper, by Huddersfield University, which is used to provide an estimated percentage of UK men who have, at one time or another, paid for sexual services......

Have you any idea of the findings and conclusions from that paper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.....As far as the demand side goes It's a bit like Canute ordering the sea back out.

Sure - but he tried!

The internet is so pervasive now in this industry, and has made prostitution so very easy. When I started about 7 years ago, yes, I used the internet but I had to do quite a lot of delving. Few parlours had web sites, and although many independents did, you had to search around to find what you wanted.

I made a somewhat flippant post yesterday on the general board about AdultWork now acting as agents for about 10% of the prostitution industry but that must, in fact, be an alarming statistic to those who see prostitution as an evil. If such a large proportion can now promote themselves under one banner, no matter what you might think of its sometimes dubious provenance, that will give concern regarding likely future trends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the transcripts are online now

morning

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmpublic/policing/090210/am/90210s01.htm

afternoon

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmpublic/policing/090210/pm/90210s01.htm

*******************************************

Re what I said before, re what Dr. Harris said about evidence

Dr. Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab): I admit that when I first discovered the Government’s approach I too was a little sceptical, but once I read the Home Office publication, “Tackling the Demand for Prostitution: A Review”, in November 2008—a very useful document that contains much of the evidence that the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon thought was missing—it helps our understanding of the Government’s position. It is very clear from information already in the public domain that almost every approach to reduce prostitution has weaknesses. However, on the evidence available it is reasonable to attempt to reduce demand for prostitution by operating a strict liability rule that will hopefully dampen demand, and in particular—I will say more about this in a minute—make men think very seriously about the nature of the prostitution services that they are buying.

Dr. Harris: The hon. Lady would accept that I was here last Thursday. She talks about the evidence in the Home Office review, but the academic evidence—if something is published and peer-reviewed it is evidence, otherwise it is opinion, which is valuable but different from evidence—is not in the Home Office review. In so far as it exists, there is a review of that academic evidence that has not even been published yet, let alone at the time the review was published, so would the hon. Lady accept that in strict terms the evidence is not there on either side in the Home Office review?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks like I'll be voting Tory for the first time then (Ms Dorries is my MP).

Lucky you.

I will be transferring my vote from Conservative to Liberal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Labour MPs on the Committee will be whipped to follow the government line. It seems that includes talking nonsense too.

I remember Dr Harris' attack last week in Committee on the government's failure to publish their academic "evidence".

I think the research was done at the so-called "University" of Huddersfield.

I have a number of reservations about the Lib Dems generally, but Dr Harris seems very impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Labour MPs on the Committee will be whipped to follow the government line. It seems that includes talking nonsense too.

I remember Dr Harris' attack last week in Committee on the government's failure to publish their academic "evidence".

I think the research was done at the so-called "University" of Huddersfield.

I have a number of reservations about the Lib Dems generally, but Dr Harris seems very impressive.

Agree. Dr Harris seems to be the only light in this wilderness. Nevertheless, every amendment seems to get withdrawn.

Depressing reading. They're continually bothered about time constraints in discussing radically important changes to our judicial system. And they don't appear to live in the same world as us! Prostitution, as they see it, continues to be surrounded by emotive labels - drugs, coercion, pimps, violence, control etc etc - then they keep throwing in 'Child Pornography' too to make everyone recoil in horror! What the f**k has that to do with matters in question???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Labour MPs on the Committee will be whipped to follow the government line. It seems that includes talking nonsense too.

I remember Dr Harris' attack last week in Committee on the government's failure to publish their academic "evidence".

I think the research was done at the so-called "University" of Huddersfield.

I have a number of reservations about the Lib Dems generally, but Dr Harris seems very impressive.

and quoting Melissa Farley's "research"

Lynda Waltho: The hon. Gentleman refers to the New Zealand example and the legislation, which is interesting and relevant. However, the evidence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Home Office, in a reply obtained by my MP, say that accurate figures on prostitution are hard to obtain. Doubtless so, but, as a scientist, I know that if your data are iffy, the very first thing you do is to test every information set against every other to see if they are mutually compatible......

So, look at the numbers in Tackling Demand:

  • 80,000 prostitutes
  • £1 billion p.a. turnover

This means that the average prostitute has turnover of £12,500 per annum, equating to a little over 4 punters per week is she's offers £60 half-hour massages, which I take as mid-market. If this is correct, she is neither very rich not the sex slave of Jacqui's imagination.

Then there's the question of how many sex slaves there really are: Operation Pentameter found 250 or so and Tackling Demand estimates 4000 but Harriet Harman (Ch 4 News 19 Nov) talked of '70% of the 80000, seeing up to 30 clients per day'.

Now, 4000 girls x 30 clients per day x 250 weekdays p.a. x £60 per trick comes to £1.8 billion p.a. turnover, or nearly double the alleged total turnover, without allowing for the other 76000 girls. And sex slaves probably work weekends, so maybe the 250 should be 365.

It you take Harriet's estimate (which the Home Office disowns) the numbers become even more implausible, projecting over a million paid sex encounters per day. Meanwhile Tackling Demand says that 4.7-11% of men are punters, equating to 1.175-2.75 million, based on 25 million adult males resisdent in the UK. For these numbers to balance, we'd all have to punt more than twice per week, even allowing a little help from foreign visitors.

How anyone can call this 'evidence' with a straight face is beyond me. I have been trying, so far unsuccessfully to have it referred to the Government's Statistics Office, who have already bitten inot the govts figures on knife crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and clause 13, control for gain, will stand part of the bill

the only ones who voted against it was Dr Harris and Nadine Dorries :mad:

I've checked the transcripts; the voting to keep Clause 13 in the bill was actually as follows:

(It's here.)

All Labour MPs - Aye

All Tory MPs - Abstain

Both LibDem MPs (Dr Evan Harris and Paul Holmes) - No

The performance of Dr Harris throughout the ten sittings has been absolutely magnificient. Whenever I get the time, I'll try to summarize some of his powerful arguments. Paul Holmes and Mrs Nadine Dorries (Tory) also made strong contributions. Mrs Dorries actually abstained at the voting stage to Clause 13; this is probably the party policy on this bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've checked the transcripts; the voting to keep Clause 13 in the bill was actually as follows:

(It's here.)

All Labour MPs - Aye

All Tory MPs - Abstain

Both LibDem MPs (Dr Evan Harris and Paul Holmes) - No

The performance of Dr Harris throughout the ten sittings has been absolutely magnificient. Whenever I get the time, I'll try to summarize some of his powerful arguments. Paul Holmes and Mrs Nadine Dorries (Tory) also made strong contributions. Mrs Dorries actually abstained at the voting stage to Clause 13; this is probably the party policy on this bill.

Well, VindaLoo will have to vote for Lib Dem than :mad:

I didn't actually hear clearly what she was saying, but based on what she had said in her speaches I assumed she was one of the 2 who had voted no. Doesn't change the fact that it was 8-2.

I can't see that there's much hope that this won't go through the commons. Alan Campel said that it was one of the most important bills he had been handling (or something like that) so I'd say it's pretty certain, as Stevee said, that The Labour MPs on the Committee will be whipped to follow the government line

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Labour MPs on the Committee will be whipped to follow the government line. It seems that includes talking nonsense too.

I remember Dr Harris' attack last week in Committee on the government's failure to publish their academic "evidence".

I think the research was done at the so-called "University" of Huddersfield.

I have a number of reservations about the Lib Dems generally, but Dr Harris seems very impressive.

You seem to be confusing the review of academic evidence, that the Home Office commissioned but has not yet published & an unpublished study conducted by the University of Huddersfield (sorry but this really does exist, I drive past it on a regular basis).

The latter study is cited as the source for an estimate of the percentage of the UK male population that has paid for sexual services, within the "Tackling the Demand" report & being unpublished &, therefore, having not been subjected to the peer review process, should not even be considered for inclusion in a review of academic evidence. The same lack of peer review would also exclude any of Melissa Farley's research or Poppy Project's Big Brothel report from a review of academic evidence.

In response to Calynx's request, the direct quote from page 7 of the Tackling Demand report, states, "The prostitution market in the UK is calculated to be worth up to £1bn7, with

estimates of the proportion of UK men paying for sex ranging from 4.3% to 11%." & cites as its source, "7 The review of academic evidence on existing research evidence commissioned by the Review and

conducted by the University of Huddersfield calculated this figure based on figures in Moffat, P.G (2005)

Economics uncut:A complete guide to life, death and misadventure."

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