Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Uncle Pokey

I am just a little annoyed.......

2 posts in this topic

that a thread to which I contributed on the subject of the Home Office Minister's husband's expenditures on a bit of porn, together with other contributions from folk have been relegated to a thread other than available to casual observers. I regret that: I have been out of the country until now to try and set the matter straight and underline the relevance of my remarks as follows:

We have a piece of legislation currently passing through the parliamentary process which is sponsored by the Home Office and the purpose of which seems to be to criminalise punters who purchase sexual services from individuals who are under the control of others 'for gain'.

All of the right thinking community here applaud all attempts to rid our shores of the individuals who seek to traffic people for sex and under duress.

But the (draft) legislation is totally flawed for reasons that many here have identified.

The point of my contribution was simply that:

We deal here with matters concerning the urge that blokes have as respects matters sexual.

It is generally accepted that blokes have urges

It is well acknowledged that the oldest profession is prostitution

Attempts to curb same over the world have generally failed,

Many of the women who offer the relevant services do so perfectly willingly

Most importantly, the expressed intention of the legislation is to'limit/reduce demand' in other words an 'in terrorum' provision.

Equally importantly, the legislation is already adequate to deal with the issue of people forced to work here against their will. It's, as always, a question of resources.

Finaly, (and my point really, (for those who chose to think)) does the Home Office Minister really understand the male perspective to be bringing home the legislative provisions I refer to?

I blooming well think not.

Uncle Pokey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The topic of pornography came up on BBC1's This Week program last night. The item was discussed with Dawn Porter, the piece is near the end of the program.

It was somewhat disappointing to see Diane Abbott trot out that old hoary chestnut of trafficked women and heroin addiction, in relation not just to prostitution, but to pornography as well. It has become a comfort blanket phrase which is used to deflect any meaningful probing of the realities.

It is true that drug addiction, and trafficking exists, but not in the ridiculously exaggerated proportions claimed. Much of the industry is no more trafficked or drug addicted than the broader population at large.

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