Biggus Dickus

No 10 petition. The Government replies

12 posts in this topic

There has now been a "reply" from No 10 to the petition which some of us signed.

As far as I can see, the petition is asking the governement not to prosecute punters. The reply says NOTHING about this, but just trots out the usual party line..........

Petition:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to reject proposals to drive prostitution further underground by prosecuting clients of prostitutes; to endorse the policy suggested by the Royal College of Nursing, the National Association of Probation Officers and others by decriminalising prostitution; and to observe Council of Europe Resolution 1579 of October 2007."

Details of Petition:

"Criminalising clients means: Street prostitutes revert to darker less safe areas * don't carry condoms (as used in evidence) * they have little time to appraise clients and weigh up risk * dispersal breaks up informal networks, needed for protection, and inhibits health services' ability * trafficking victims are less likely to be helped * prices have fallen so they have to work longer with more clients, and accept clients + acts they would have rejected . We call upon Government to decriminalise + to comply with Council of Europe Resolution 1579 (Oct 2007), specifically: "…avoid double standards + policies which force prostitutes underground or under the influence of pimps..; instead…seek to empower them..by..refraining from criminalising…prostitutes + developing programmes to assist (them) leave the profession should they wish to..;…ensuring prostitutes have access to safe sexual practices…respect the right of prostitutes who freely choose (prostitution) to have a say in.. policies..;..ending the abuse of power by the police + other public authorities towards prostitutes."

Read the Government's response

The Government has a Coordinated Prostitution Strategy. Offences exist to deal with anyone buying or attempting to buy sex from someone on the street; and in terms of off-street prostitution, our Strategy is clear that the demand for commercial sex from under-18s or individuals trafficked to this country is totally unacceptable. We have specific offences that cover paying for the sexual services of a child, and rape remains the appropriate offence with which to prosecute those who pay for sex with an individual who does not consent. Well, thanks for reminding us of all the laws that are already in place. If there are so many, why do you need more?

We will also do all we can to prevent individuals from falling into work in prostitution, and are committed to ensuring that services are in place to allow women already involved to develop routes out. If they want to get out that is.......

However, we recognise also that there is significant support for more to be done to tackle the demand for prostitutionReally? and where does this 'significant support' come from? . Recently, the Home Secretary announced a number of proposals which have arisen from a major review into tackling the demand for prostitution. These include our intention to outlaw paying for sex with someone controlled for another person's gain. Erm... but the petition claims that these proposals will make things worse. Did you not actually read the petition? If you did and disagree with it, could you at least tell us why? This is aimed at protecting vulnerable individualsbut the petition claims it will do the reverse. If you disagree, could you at least say why?, for example those who have been trafficked or exploited in some other way. We also announced a crackdown on kerb-crawlers, as well as new powers to close premises associated with prostitution.

How can you have a debate with someone who doesn't listen, doesn't attempt to respond to what you are saying and just tries to fob you off with, basically, a bull-shit press release? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and where does this 'significant support' come from? .

spot on BD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if you give the government evidence that in countries that has legalised prostitution have dramatically decrease of rape and other sex crimes, where people are being trafficked are a very, very tiny minority they won’t listen. Even if every sex worker whether the sex worker is female, male, straight gay or bisexual come forward and tell the government that they are doing what they do at their own free will and that they have no problems at all, the government will still not listen. They are under the retarded delusion that it’s the majority of sex workers that are being trafficked when the truth is it is the minority and a very tiny minority too.

It’s like talking to a wall but the difference is you can get more from a wall. It won’t matter who we vote for in the main two parties, most of the Labour Party are a bunch of idiots, most of the Tories are also a bunch of idiots. Most of the idiots in the Labour party are Christian Socialists, most of the idiots in the Tory party are Christian Fundamentalists, both parties of which are anti-sexual freedom.:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you have a debate with someone who doesn't listen, doesn't attempt to respond to what you are saying and just tries to fob you off with, basically, a bull-shit press release? :P

And that surprises you because of what exactly? It's politics (or more precisely, ideology). That's just the way it is, and it was ever thus. Go figure.

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And that surprises you because of what exactly? It's politics (or more precisely, ideology). That's just the way it is, and it was ever thus. Go figure.

B

It doesn't surprise me. I'm part of a group that's in dispute with the BBC and they do exactly the same. They've got a 'press release' style statement and no matter what you say they just respond with the same blanket answer. The press release is totally irrelevant to the point you are trying to make, so you wonder why you bother. I think the only thing that works is sheer weight of numbers, and even that's not guaranteed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everybody. I've been a reader on here for several years and it's about time I made a contribution.

Clearly having a dialogue with a government which has made up its mind is more like talking to a parrot than a wall. At least you get an echo from a wall!

I have read this act and wonder whether the phrase "intentional control for gain" was intended to be illegal control". It would make far more sense and can be fairly accurately defined. Allowing a judge to decide that the expression shall mean what he wants it to mean is pure Alice in Wonderland stuff.

Perhaps instead we should turn to Star Wars and "turn the force onto itself". There are enough wise heads posting here to come up with a definition of illegal control for gain which could then be released to the media and encourage public debate.

It would be interesting to ask HH whether she intended illegal control since if she were to say "no" then it bring into the frame maids, landlords, mortgage providers &etc.

I also have views on self regulation but that's too much for a first post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi everybody. I've been a reader on here for several years and it's about time I made a contribution. Welcome!

I have read this act and wonder whether the phrase "intentional control for gain" was intended to be illegal control"............. It would be interesting to ask HH whether she intended illegal control If she said 'intentional' then I think we can take it that she meant that rather than 'illegal'. I'm assuming that it's poorly worded on purpose, not because of a lack of skill

since if she were to say "no" then it bring into the frame maids, landlords, mortgage providers &etc. Yep -and that's almost certainly the real intention; to make it as confusing as possible. So that there's no way of finding out what the law really means without bringing test cases, and as few punters would want to go to court as a test case then there's a hope that we'll stop punting 'just in case'.

.........................................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also have views on self regulation but that's too much for a first post

you know, self regulation is what we would love too. we have so many ideas for it to support regulation, but would the government do it the right way? or would they organise it with their own hidden agenda ignoring what we need.

this is off the main point of this duscussion really, just couldnt resist supporting the suggestion for regulation done correctly.

sorry, back to the main discussion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think that they anticipate bringing many cases for hiring a woman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are under the retarded delusion that it's the majority of sex workers that are being trafficked when the truth is it is the minority and a very tiny minority too

No. Governments are never idiots though they are often liars. The government is not under any illusions, it knows exactly what is going on and what people are asking for, it just suits the current government to go down the path of criminalisation.

I think there are two possible reasons, I consider a) most likely:

a) there has been a secret EU directive for all EU governments to introduce legislation as soon as practicable to ban prostitution. ('As soon as..' basically means here 'softly softly..' Obviously they would need to be more 'softly' in Netherlands, Germany etc, but less so in France.)

:D the Labour Party has been taken over by politicians (specifically women) of the banning persuasion.

:D

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