Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Vin DaLoo

India Knight on our side again

23 posts in this topic

Writing in The Sunday Times last weekend:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/india_knight/article7140133.ece

Blamires, Rushworth and Armitage might be alive today if they had worked in a big, clean, state-sanctioned brothel, with two giant bouncers on the door, panic buttons in the rooms and an in-house programme that weaned women off the class As.

A proper brothel, I mean, that said BROTHEL in big letters on the door

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that most girls would not like to work in such a place, as the overheads (Bouncers etc) would have to be paid for from their fee, and also they would have to be registered with HMRC, thus paying tax and stopping benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a brilliant piece and she is so right about it all.

Shelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is that most girls would not like to work in such a place, as the overheads (Bouncers etc) would have to be paid for from their fee, and also they would have to be registered with HMRC, thus paying tax and stopping benefits.

Not to mention that many guys are not going to want to visit a big brothel with 2 giant bouncers on the door and a big sign on the door saying "BROTHEL".

It doesn't sound very discreet to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we need to critique her specific proposals (which are never going to happen anyway), just be somewhat grateful that there is some support in the mainstream media for the concept of legalising more than one woman working from a premises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most street girls would not work in a brothel, 99% of them are drug addicts and could not adhere to any form of organised way of working. In Cologne in Germany they have a state run drive in brothel... a huge car park partitioned off for motorist to pull into after they have chosen the girl. There are sinks, bins and cctv cameras. The girls can come and go as they please and have the safety of the drive in. This in my opinion is the only way street prostitutes could work safely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most street girls would not work in a brothel, 99% of them are drug addicts and could not adhere to any form of organised way of working.

I've been meaning to bring this up, as I strongly suspect you are right.

Really then, the issue is drug addiction, and why people's lives are so bleak in the first place that they fell the need to turn to drugs for escapism :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I felt this was an excellent and very thoughtful piece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most street girls would not work in a brothel, 99% of them are drug addicts and could not adhere to any form of organised way of working. In Cologne in Germany they have a state run drive in brothel... a huge car park partitioned off for motorist to pull into after they have chosen the girl. There are sinks, bins and cctv cameras. The girls can come and go as they please and have the safety of the drive in. This in my opinion is the only way street prostitutes could work safely.

Spot on. As I mentioned in my earlier post here - www.punternet.com/forum/showpost.php?p=476374&postcount=122

I doesn't have to be a drive in either and could be done very cheaply. It doesn't need a physical sign - word gets about. And in the right location there are no worries about being 'seen' going in, especially if one is not breaking any law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting how she picked up on the Prostitution Hierachy, with street girls on the bottom step, then parlours, with independants looking down on them, when the reality is it's the same job just different locations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is that most girls would not like to work in such a place, as the overheads (Bouncers etc) would have to be paid for from their fee, and also they would have to be registered with HMRC, thus paying tax and stopping benefits.

You make a valid point, they would not want to give up their benefits especially if they have children ------- also some of them are too far gone on drugs to be employed by a legitimate brothel. :(:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not to mention that many guys are not going to want to visit a big brothel with 2 giant bouncers on the door and a big sign on the door saying "BROTHEL".

It doesn't sound very discreet to me.

I doubt we would ever have establishments with "BROTHEL" above the door.

There are already places called "Saunas" that are in fact brothels. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't pay tax at the moment. When they're arrested on the street, they aren't done for avoiding tax. Any exchange of cash is between them and the client. All you have to do is make guidance provisions to say they will not be targetted for tax. The cost of a couple of bouncers in a formerly disused block is nominal. Either the girls pay a small cash entrance fee (best) or it's paid from the public purse. A lot cheaper than failed prohibitionist methods. Or the cost of murder enquiries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is that most girls would not like to work in such a place, as the overheads (Bouncers etc) would have to be paid for from their fee, and also they would have to be registered with HMRC, thus paying tax and stopping benefits.

Im sure some girls pay (some) tax, but if they declared all their earnings then they would suffer with benefits etc

I am sure many who work in brothels flats parlours and even indies avoid paying tax at all costs :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They don't pay tax at the moment. When they're arrested on the street, they aren't done for avoiding tax. Any exchange of cash is between them and the client. All you have to do is make guidance provisions to say they will not be targetted for tax.

Sorry, I am slightly confused -------- how could the authorities condone not paying tax. :(:confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, I am slightly confused -------- how could the authorities condone not paying tax. :(:confused:

To save lives.

The legislative process is sufficiently refined to do so. They condone the project. The rest is small print. It's quite possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To save lives. The legislative process is sufficiently refined to do so. They condone the project. The rest is small print. It's quite possible.

How does making it legal to avioid tax and fraudulently claim benefits save lives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To save lives.

The legislative process is sufficiently refined to do so. They condone the project. The rest is small print. It's quite possible.

Yes, it is possible but it's never going to happen, if brothels are ever made legal the government will want their cut. :(;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, it is possible but it's never going to happen, if brothels are ever made legal the government will want their cut. :(;)

You could assume that. And someone will point out the real objective, which is to save lives and help destitute women. And it certainly doesn't have to be called a brothel, even if that's what it is. Any more than parlours are called brothels. Aberdeen and Edinburgh both had tolerance zones for many years. You give local authorities the power to make reasonable exceptions to the rule. You indicate the aims, and recommend the degree of involvement from officialdom and NGOs. You prioritise saving life, reducing crimes of murder and severe physical abuse. You limit the amount of meddling. You authorise intervention if there is obvious infiltration by organised gangs. You point out the benefits to the taxpayer. The savings massively outweigh any 'cut.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting how she picked up on the Prostitution Hierachy, with street girls on the bottom step, then parlours, with independants looking down on them, when the reality is it's the same job just different locations.

Yes , I too noticed her recognition of a hierarchy in prostitution. I'm pretty sure I have read many posts on this forum where posters have been berated by female posters for suggesting that a hierarchy exists but so far this lady IK seems to be getting away with it scot free here !I read this lady quite differently to most here it seems.:(

Also and more interesting is no-one has picked up her own view that it would be great if one could end prostitution ;

" Given that prostitution exists, has always existed and will continue to exist for all eternity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most street girls would not work in a brothel, 99% of them are drug addicts and could not adhere to any form of organised way of working. In Cologne in Germany they have a state run drive in brothel... a huge car park partitioned off for motorist to pull into after they have chosen the girl. There are sinks, bins and cctv cameras. The girls can come and go as they please and have the safety of the drive in. This in my opinion is the only way street prostitutes could work safely.

Good post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been meaning to bring this up, as I strongly suspect you are right.

Really then, the issue is drug addiction, and why people's lives are so bleak in the first place that they fell the need to turn to drugs for escapism :(

Another issue that needs addressed is our "care" system - many of the young men and women who walk the streets are the product of a childhood of being shunted from home to foster carer to institution to home to... and we could improve psychiatric facilities and treatments too.

Of course, if we provided heroin on free prescription, they wouldn't have to be out there in the first place. Heroin addicts can function like anyone else (as long as they get their drugs); it's not the heroin per se that causes chaotic lifestyles or disease, it's the fact it's illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the 'prostitution ceasing to exist' idea, I see no need for polarisation.

If prostitution 'ceased to exist' for instance, because the liberation offered by the early days of the pill and 60s flower power had continued to take off, if people freely engaged in sexual union without the current taboos, if somehow we could have a society where everyone's desires were satisfied, if (and importantly) no women particularly fancied working as prostitutes and had damn good jobs in other careers (and on a par with men) and so on. Even with that, I think there would be a place for the sacred harlot and the sexual surrogate. But if. There is a perfectly acceptable future that encompasses it, however unlikely.

But it's a long way from 'prostitution ceasing to exist' because abolitionists have nailed people on the crosses of their own sexual prudery.

There's a need for balance, for society to be able to move forward with large consensus, but also to protect minority views. Whether it be people in communities that want to live in a monastery or lead a polyamorous lifestyle or anything in the broad swathe in between. Prostitution, as the word perhaps implies, is a minor perversion that is perfectly acceptable between consenting adults and people should be free to indulge. That is, as I've said, if it doesn't interfere with the lives of others. Targetting trafficking, slavery, domestic abuse, harming children or other individuals lacking proper capacity - all these are separate and wider issues that need to be tackled directly.

Which is where the famous 'Spanner' case had problems, and because of lack of evidence on broader charges they wrongly 'nailed' them for consensual practices - it was the least worst option. It's almost like shutting down the Catholic Church on a technicality of tax evasion or similar in order to stop child abuse by priests.

It's the aims that are important, the end benefits,* and should be argued over, clarified, stated in unambiguous terms. Then find the concepts, laws and strategies that can achieve them at an acceptable cost. You should be able to do what you will if it doesn't interfere with the will of someone else. Concepts like abolition or legalisation or decriminalisation of prostitution are means to an end, as should be all laws, and are only valid or invalid inasmuch as they uphold and protect that freedom of the individual.

* benefits might include saving lives, reducing poverty, increasing happiness. They are not nebulous 'benefits' to hypothetical individuals, or making someone feel better by allowing them to force their ideas on others.

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