starman

Everyone's favourite feminist Julie Bindel interviews Vernon Coaker

31 posts in this topic

The minister for police, security and community safety tells Julie Bindel how he wants men to take a more responsible attitude towards domestic and sexual violence against women - and to spread the word to others

...But thanks to his and other ministers' interventions, the mood music is beginning to change."If the government had announced that it was doing a review of demand, and was even considering criminalising the purchasing of sex, two, three years ago, there would have been an outcry," Coaker says. "The fact that there was not a peep demonstrates just how far we have come."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jul/29/interview.vernoncoaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The minister for police, security and community safety tells Julie Bindel how he wants men to take a more responsible attitude towards domestic and sexual violence against women - and to spread the word to others

...But thanks to his and other ministers' interventions, the mood music is beginning to change."If the government had announced that it was doing a review of demand, and was even considering criminalising the purchasing of sex, two, three years ago, there would have been an outcry," Coaker says. "The fact that there was not a peep demonstrates just how far we have come."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jul/29/interview.vernoncoaker

I saw this bit:

Coaker gives as an example a recent Home Office campaign seeking to educate men about the abuse inherent in the off-street sex industry. A poster, put up in nightclubs, men's toilets and sports venues, aimed at men who are thinking of or who already do visit brothels, bears the slogan: "Walk in a punter, walk out a rapist" - referring to the fact that trafficked women are forced into the sex industry, and therefore cannot consent to sex.

I wonder what night clubs these are??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...But thanks to his and other ministers' interventions, the mood music is beginning to change."If the government had announced that it was doing a review of demand, and was even considering criminalising the purchasing of sex, two, three years ago, there would have been an outcry," Coaker says. "The fact that there was not a peep demonstrates just how far we have come."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jul/29/interview.vernoncoaker

Eerrrrrm no, the peep will come at the next election and they find it will be a rather large peep!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The minister for police, security and community safety tells Julie Bindel how he wants men to take a more responsible attitude towards domestic and sexual violence against women - and to spread the word to others

...But thanks to his and other ministers' interventions, the mood music is beginning to change."If the government had announced that it was doing a review of demand, and was even considering criminalising the purchasing of sex, two, three years ago, there would have been an outcry," Coaker says. "The fact that there was not a peep demonstrates just how far we have come."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jul/29/interview.vernoncoaker

Pia,

Well spotted, as usual. However, I do wonder from reading this, how much of the Julie Bindel spin has been put on what Coaker actually said; he has gone on record as saying that the Swedish approach is not really suitable for the UK.

One point I do have issue with is that he appears to ignore all of the protests from internationally recognised academic experts, the UKNSWP, the RCN, BMA, ICP, sex workers, probation officers & voters.

There again, Bindel is claimed to be the Government;s academic expert on the subject, yet she herself describes herself as , "a journalist & political activist" (c.f. http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/juliebindel)

It very much seems that Bindel; who is funded by Harman, has embarked upon a campaign designed to boost the latter's possible moves to takeover from Gordon Brown; should the latter decide that life at the top isn't worth all the hassle involved (not withstanding the fact that he is too indecisive for the role he has taken on); neutral observer, I don't think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What impressed Coaker about the Swedish model was the broad consensus of citizens in supporting such a law.

opinion polls show the opposite

on this page

http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/ssp4p08a.htm

scroll down to:

"Swedish support for prostitution law is a lot less than claimed"

and

"6/10 of Swedes think criminalisation of clients should be scrapped"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

news from Fiona

http://www.fionamactaggart.labour.co.uk/ViewPage.cfm?Page=22276

Sweden - prostitution laws

I've just spent a few days in Scandinavia - in Sweden I discussed with Swedish police, prosecutors and campaigners, the Swedish law which outlaws the purchase of sexual services. I hope to persuade the government to adopt similar legislation. The Townswomen's Guild will discuss this soon at their national conference; I have spoken to their local representative about it.

On 18 June, I co-sponsored a bill to make licensing conditions for lap dancing clubs as strict throughout the country as they presently are in London.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fiona does not have a very good memory. Not long ago she was esposing that small brothels ie. two girls and a maid should be acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fiona does not have a very good memory. Not long ago she was esposing that small brothels ie. two girls and a maid should be acceptable.

yes but after that she went to sweden, that is like sending someone

to Bin Ladens jihadist training camps in afghanistan, if you weren't before

you'll surely come back as a full-fledged radical :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sent an email to Vernon Coaker asking him to reply to the charge that the proposals are nothing to do with trafficking but related to his and others moral beliefs. Text of email below......no reply yet

I have been reading, over the past year or so, the various news stories published with regards to the campaign to criminalise paying for sex. This has involved yourself, Fiona Mactaggart, Harriet Harman and Vera Baird amongst others. The one over-riding sentiment that seems to come across from all the quotes I read is that it seems to boil down to a moral crusade; It's always mentioned in the context of trafficked women i.e. enslaved women, yet all the laws to deal with that situation already exist. Trafficking is an offence, rape is an offence, running a brothel is an offence, sex with a person under 18 for payment is an offence. So who exactly would be in danger of prosecution under these potential new laws? that wouldn't already be prosecutable? The answer is obviously men who have sex with women for payment wholly consensually. This is the ONLY group who would genuinely be affected by new legislation. Vera Baird said in March "Our measures on trafficking will be futile if we do not tackle the demand for sexually exploited women and children". What demand is she speaking of? Obviously paedophiles are interested in children but they're already covered by a wealth of legislation, and there IS no demand for sexually exploited women. There is a demand for sex - that's obvious, but I'm afraid the only way to curb that desire is with chemical castration. Which may be going too far. There seems to be very little and only grudging acknowledgement of the fact that some women choose to prostitute themselves. Maybe some don't like the job, even hate it, but if they're over 18 and making the decision of their own free will why should a man be prosecuted for paying her? Why should we declare someone a victim unilaterally? Once again I have to point out to you that consenting adults are the ONLY person who will actually be affected by new legislation. This brings me to the inevitable conclusion that I mentioned at the beginning - that the real reason for these proposals is a moral one. Many people do jobs they hate simply because they need the money - it's sad but a fact of life. Many people are trafficked for a whole multitude of reasons; are we considering outlawing the buying of cockles due to the undeniable exploitation of cockle pickers e.g.. those who drowned in Morecambe bay a few years ago? Of course not. So what's the difference?....a moral one. Wanting to buy and eat the produce of those cockle pickers is perfectly OK to everyone, so you concentrate on prosecuting those who traffic them and those who enslave them, as you should. Wanting to have sex with a woman for payment is morally wrong to a great many people - and that's where this proposed legislation comes from. Along with this comes exaggeration as to the numbers involved - 25,000 being quoted regularly until Vera Baird (I believe) was forced to apologise in The House Of Commons when someone with a grasp of maths queried it once too often. One enslaved woman is one too many, but that does not mean that you should criminalise those who are involved in consensual sex for payment, using trafficking as a convenient excuse. As I'm sure you've guessed I am a client of prostitutes and have been for 12 years or so. I am not a rapist and would report any woman I found who seemed to be under duress; This would clearly change if new legislation came into force - not withstanding anonymous calls to crime stoppers, I would be a lot more wary of coming out with suspicions. As would everyone else I'm sure.

I would be grateful for any response you have to my points as I believe that there is nothing to be gained from forcing the entire sex industry underground. The demand for sex is not going to go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would be grateful for any response you have to my points as I believe that there is nothing to be gained from forcing the entire sex industry underground. The demand for sex is not going to go away.

I have written to/emailed/posted the following to 10 or a dozen politicians, including Mr Coaker, Ms Harman et al :-

May I ask if you, and your supporters of a law against purchasing sexual services, have fully understood and investigated the consequences of such a proposal with regards to the prostitute? Have you taken into account the logical progression of the sort of things that make up a fairly typical punt? Let me guide you through some of them, bearing in mind that the prostitute performs a vital role in enabling a punter to commit a criminal offence :-

1. A punter Emails/Phones a prostitute and among other things agrees a price and a date & time - logically the prostitute is conspiring with the punter to assist in the committing of a criminal offence.

2. A punter hands the prostitute, in whatever way they both deem to be appropriate, an amount of money - logically the prostitute has assisted the punter in committing a criminal offence.

3. During and after the supply of sexual services the prostitute is in possession of the major piece of evidence of a criminal offence, to whit the money.

What do you propose should be done about the 2 offences committed by the prostitute (1 & 2 above)? What do you propose should be done about the evidence of a criminal offence, to whit the money?

To date the reactions have ranged from "Thank you for your communication, it is under consideration .........", through "post deleted", "awaiting moderation", to no reply. As we post I have yet to receive a reply along the lines of "Don't be such a stupid wanker", which in itself is quite heartening. I wish you more success with your effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have written to/emailed/posted the following to 10 or a dozen politicians, including Mr Coaker, Ms Harman et al :-

May I ask if you, and your supporters of a law against purchasing sexual services, have fully understood and investigated the consequences of such a proposal with regards to the prostitute? Have you taken into account the logical progression of the sort of things that make up a fairly typical punt? Let me guide you through some of them, bearing in mind that the prostitute performs a vital role in enabling a punter to commit a criminal offence :-

1. A punter Emails/Phones a prostitute and among other things agrees a price and a date & time - logically the prostitute is conspiring with the punter to assist in the committing of a criminal offence.

2. A punter hands the prostitute, in whatever way they both deem to be appropriate, an amount of money - logically the prostitute has assisted the punter in committing a criminal offence.

3. During and after the supply of sexual services the prostitute is in possession of the major piece of evidence of a criminal offence, to whit the money.

What do you propose should be done about the 2 offences committed by the prostitute (1 & 2 above)? What do you propose should be done about the evidence of a criminal offence, to whit the money?

To date the reactions have ranged from "Thank you for your communication, it is under consideration .........", through "post deleted", "awaiting moderation", to no reply. As we post I have yet to receive a reply along the lines of "Don't be such a stupid wanker", which in itself is quite heartening. I wish you more success with your effort.

with reference to the Swedish review of the p4p law

(not anyone I've talked to is quite sure what it means though)

http://www.punternet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9383

"New laws give the possibility for secret bugging and more energetic confiscation of profits gained from crime. We shall also review the possibilities for the police to make use of entrapment," the three ministers write.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have written to/emailed/posted the following to 10 or a dozen politicians, including Mr Coaker, Ms Harman et al :-

.

other options (for the brave)

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/m01.pdf

telephoning his or her local constituency office.

Meeting your MP

When the House of Commons is sitting, you will be allowed access to the Central Lobby to see your MP. It is best to make an appointment before doing so however, as your MP might have other

appointments or engagements elsewhere and not be available to see you.

The majority of MPs have times when they are available at different places within their constituency for constituents to meet and discuss problems with them. These sessions are often called surgeries and details are usually advertised in local papers and public libraries. Your MP's secretary or local

party office will also be able to advise you when your MP will next be holding a surgery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sent an email to Vernon Coaker asking him to reply to the charge that the proposals are nothing to do with trafficking but related to his and others moral beliefs. Text of email below......no reply yet

I have been reading, over the past year or so, the various news stories published with regards to the campaign to criminalise paying for sex. This has involved yourself, Fiona Mactaggart, Harriet Harman and Vera Baird amongst others. The one over-riding sentiment that seems to come across from all the quotes I read is that it seems to boil down to a moral crusade; It's always mentioned in the context of trafficked women i.e. enslaved women, yet all the laws to deal with that situation already exist. Trafficking is an offence, rape is an offence, running a brothel is an offence, sex with a person under 18 for payment is an offence. So who exactly would be in danger of prosecution under these potential new laws? that wouldn't already be prosecutable? The answer is obviously men who have sex with women for payment wholly consensually. This is the ONLY group who would genuinely be affected by new legislation. Vera Baird said in March "Our measures on trafficking will be futile if we do not tackle the demand for sexually exploited women and children". What demand is she speaking of? Obviously paedophiles are interested in children but they're already covered by a wealth of legislation, and there IS no demand for sexually exploited women. There is a demand for sex - that's obvious, but I'm afraid the only way to curb that desire is with chemical castration. Which may be going too far. There seems to be very little and only grudging acknowledgement of the fact that some women choose to prostitute themselves. Maybe some don't like the job, even hate it, but if they're over 18 and making the decision of their own free will why should a man be prosecuted for paying her? Why should we declare someone a victim unilaterally? Once again I have to point out to you that consenting adults are the ONLY person who will actually be affected by new legislation. This brings me to the inevitable conclusion that I mentioned at the beginning - that the real reason for these proposals is a moral one. Many people do jobs they hate simply because they need the money - it's sad but a fact of life. Many people are trafficked for a whole multitude of reasons; are we considering outlawing the buying of cockles due to the undeniable exploitation of cockle pickers e.g.. those who drowned in Morecambe bay a few years ago? Of course not. So what's the difference?....a moral one. Wanting to buy and eat the produce of those cockle pickers is perfectly OK to everyone, so you concentrate on prosecuting those who traffic them and those who enslave them, as you should. Wanting to have sex with a woman for payment is morally wrong to a great many people - and that's where this proposed legislation comes from. Along with this comes exaggeration as to the numbers involved - 25,000 being quoted regularly until Vera Baird (I believe) was forced to apologise in The House Of Commons when someone with a grasp of maths queried it once too often. One enslaved woman is one too many, but that does not mean that you should criminalise those who are involved in consensual sex for payment, using trafficking as a convenient excuse. As I'm sure you've guessed I am a client of prostitutes and have been for 12 years or so. I am not a rapist and would report any woman I found who seemed to be under duress; This would clearly change if new legislation came into force - not withstanding anonymous calls to crime stoppers, I would be a lot more wary of coming out with suspicions. As would everyone else I'm sure.

I would be grateful for any response you have to my points as I believe that there is nothing to be gained from forcing the entire sex industry underground. The demand for sex is not going to go away.

This is a good communication.

Just a small observation I think you answer your own question:

"...So who exactly would be in danger of prosecution under these potential new laws? that wouldn't already be prosecutable? The answer is obviously men" - Punter 992005

I think this is the raison d'etre for the new proposed law...Here read Swedish Model

It would be interesting to see how Mr. Coaker replies to your communication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sent an email to Vernon Coaker asking him to reply to the charge that the proposals are nothing to do with trafficking but related to his and others moral beliefs. Text of email below......no reply yet

I have been reading, over the past year or so, the various news stories published with regards to the campaign to criminalise paying for sex. This has involved yourself, Fiona Mactaggart, Harriet Harman and Vera Baird amongst others. The one over-riding sentiment that seems to come across from all the quotes I read is that it seems to boil down to a moral crusade; It's always mentioned in the context of trafficked women i.e. enslaved women, yet all the laws to deal with that situation already exist. Trafficking is an offence, rape is an offence, running a brothel is an offence, sex with a person under 18 for payment is an offence. So who exactly would be in danger of prosecution under these potential new laws? that wouldn't already be prosecutable? The answer is obviously men who have sex with women for payment wholly consensually. This is the ONLY group who would genuinely be affected by new legislation. Vera Baird said in March "Our measures on trafficking will be futile if we do not tackle the demand for sexually exploited women and children". What demand is she speaking of? Obviously paedophiles are interested in children but they're already covered by a wealth of legislation, and there IS no demand for sexually exploited women. There is a demand for sex - that's obvious, but I'm afraid the only way to curb that desire is with chemical castration. Which may be going too far. There seems to be very little and only grudging acknowledgement of the fact that some women choose to prostitute themselves. Maybe some don't like the job, even hate it, but if they're over 18 and making the decision of their own free will why should a man be prosecuted for paying her? Why should we declare someone a victim unilaterally? Once again I have to point out to you that consenting adults are the ONLY person who will actually be affected by new legislation. This brings me to the inevitable conclusion that I mentioned at the beginning - that the real reason for these proposals is a moral one. Many people do jobs they hate simply because they need the money - it's sad but a fact of life. Many people are trafficked for a whole multitude of reasons; are we considering outlawing the buying of cockles due to the undeniable exploitation of cockle pickers e.g.. those who drowned in Morecambe bay a few years ago? Of course not. So what's the difference?....a moral one. Wanting to buy and eat the produce of those cockle pickers is perfectly OK to everyone, so you concentrate on prosecuting those who traffic them and those who enslave them, as you should. Wanting to have sex with a woman for payment is morally wrong to a great many people - and that's where this proposed legislation comes from. Along with this comes exaggeration as to the numbers involved - 25,000 being quoted regularly until Vera Baird (I believe) was forced to apologise in The House Of Commons when someone with a grasp of maths queried it once too often. One enslaved woman is one too many, but that does not mean that you should criminalise those who are involved in consensual sex for payment, using trafficking as a convenient excuse. As I'm sure you've guessed I am a client of prostitutes and have been for 12 years or so. I am not a rapist and would report any woman I found who seemed to be under duress; This would clearly change if new legislation came into force - not withstanding anonymous calls to crime stoppers, I would be a lot more wary of coming out with suspicions. As would everyone else I'm sure.

I would be grateful for any response you have to my points as I believe that there is nothing to be gained from forcing the entire sex industry underground. The demand for sex is not going to go away.

You could try and cc this letter to your local MP and mention it hasn't been responded to and could they give a boot up the arse to Mr. Coaker, also send copies on to HH et al. If your MP has it then there is a law ( unless they've slyly done away with it) which makes your MP duty bound to look into your case and then get back to you. ( I used to be an anti- road campaigner and we used to send everything through our MP because we knew he was duty bound to deal with it and get personal responses from the ministers in question and send them on to us)

There is a consultation process going on at the tax office on ways to make it easier for sex workers to understand how to pay tax and cough up. I can't imagine they would go to the trouble of doing that if they were going to do away with the customer, unless it's a bluff. :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You could try and cc this letter to your local MP and mention it hasn't been responded to and could they give a boot up the arse to Mr. Coaker, also send copies on to HH et al. If your MP has it then there is a law ( unless they've slyly done away with it) which makes your MP duty bound to look into your case and then get back to you. ( I used to be an anti- road campaigner and we used to send everything through our MP because we knew he was duty bound to deal with it and get personal responses from the ministers in question and send them on to us)

There is a consultation process going on at the tax office on ways to make it easier for sex workers to understand how to pay tax and cough up. I can't imagine they would go to the trouble of doing that if they were going to do away with the customer, unless it's a bluff. :confused:

As SaSfan excellently points out very frequently on here that there is not a law (here read statute) for many things with regard to prostitution.

It is also unfortunately the same in other areas too. The PM or any other MPS do not have to do anything if they do not want to when it comes to the 'ordinary people' and that includes responding to letters. There is no law or statute that can be cited, in fact I would go as far there never was, well not in my life time at least.

Disclaimer Please do not use this comments as a way of not bothering to petitioning a cause you sincerely believe in...Unfortunately just stating the reality :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As SaSfan excellently points out very frequently on here that there is not a law (here read statute) for many things with regard to prostitution.

It is also unfortunately the same in other areas too. The PM or any other MPS do not have to do anything if they do not want to when it comes to the 'ordinary people' and that includes responding to letters. There is no law or statute that can be cited, in fact I would go as far there never was, well not in my life time at least.

Disclaimer Please do not use this comments as a way of not bothering to petitioning a cause you sincerely believe in...Unfortunately just stating the reality :confused:

MP's are public servants and the law which I am harking back to sets out an obligation they had to get answers on behalf of constituents - it's been well over a decade now since I campaigned and it was an academic who pointed out the law in question - it was mentioned at the time that it was never a well publicised route for getting answers - which is no real suprise but I seem to remember it came onto the statute books during the reign of one of the King Charles - now I'm not mad we used to use it to great effect. As I said it may well have been removed with the recent clear up of the statute books but I will try and contact some of the people I knew and see if they can remember which one it was and get back to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MP's are public servants and the law which I am harking back to sets out an obligation they had to get answers on behalf of constituents - it's been well over a decade now since I campaigned and it was an academic who pointed out the law in question - it was mentioned at the time that it was never a well publicised route for getting answers - which is no real suprise but I seem to remember it came onto the statute books during the reign of one of the King Charles - now I'm not mad we used to use it to great effect. As I said it may well have been removed with the recent clear up of the statute books but I will try and contact some of the people I knew and see if they can remember which one it was and get back to you.

Thank you Melanieabz much of what you say here is 'true', so I will wait for your response before passing any further comments

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its all in the doc I linked to before:

House of Commons Information Office

You and Your MP

Contents

Introduction 2

Who is my MP? 2

Contacting your MP 2

Your MP 3

Meeting your MP 3

What can your MP do to help you? 4

How does your MP deal with your

problems? 5

Raising matters in the House 5

Petitions 6

Campaigns and lobbying 6

The responsibilities of your MP 6

Visiting the Palace of Westminster 7

Appendix 9

Contact information 10

Feedback form 11

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/m01.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MP's are public servants and the law which I am harking back to sets out an obligation they had to get answers on behalf of constituents - it's been well over a decade now since I campaigned and it was an academic who pointed out the law in question - it was mentioned at the time that it was never a well publicised route for getting answers - which is no real suprise but I seem to remember it came onto the statute books during the reign of one of the King Charles - now I'm not mad we used to use it to great effect. As I said it may well have been removed with the recent clear up of the statute books but I will try and contact some of the people I knew and see if they can remember which one it was and get back to you.

I have no doubt that you are right, but it is not the getting of answers that is important IMHO, it is the quality and type of answers that is important and the "no real answer" that is the most important, I know this might sound a bit silly but I am always very happy with an obvious bullshit answer, and a "no answer" is even better, it is no different to a message board really. I work on the theory that if you receive a full and frank answer to a question, then you are asking the wrong question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a good communication.

Just a small observation I think you answer your own question:

"...So who exactly would be in danger of prosecution under these potential new laws? that wouldn't already be prosecutable? The answer is obviously men" - Punter 992005

I think this is the raison d'etre for the new proposed law...Here read Swedish Model

It would be interesting to see how Mr. Coaker replies to your communication.

Well I've had no response at all so far - sent the email Friday night. Obviously men are already prosecutable in the cases I've listed in my email; where they're traffickers or rapists - my point was that men who are not raping or trafficking or seeing underage girls etc.etc are the ones who now find themselves being targeted. Women would also be theoretically prosecutable if they paid a man (or woman) for sex. Making out that it was feminist anti-men legislation was going too far in my opinion. I wanted the letter to come across as sensible and well reasoned and not just as a mad rant by a guy who hates women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its all in the doc I linked to before:

House of Commons Information Office

You and Your MP

Contents

Introduction 2

Who is my MP? 2

Contacting your MP 2

Your MP 3

Meeting your MP 3

What can your MP do to help you? 4

How does your MP deal with your

problems? 5

Raising matters in the House 5

Petitions 6

Campaigns and lobbying 6

The responsibilities of your MP 6

Visiting the Palace of Westminster 7

Appendix 9

Contact information 10

Feedback form 11

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/m01.pdf

Thanks Starman.

A quick browse I came across some of the following:

1. Contacting MPs [p.3]

Whichever method you choose, you should generally only contact your local MP as MPs will deal only with the problems of their own constituents and not with those of another MP’s constituents.

This is because the British parliamentary system is founded on the principle that one Member represents a single constituency, and that her or his relations with constituents are very much apreserve other Members should not interfere with.

2. What an MP can do for you? [p. 4]

Many people think that their MP is there to solve all their problems for them: this is not the case.

MPs are there to help only with those matters for which Parliament or central government is responsible.

3. The responsibilities of your MP [p.6]

Your MP will generally do everything he or she can to help constituents but will not feel able to support every cause nor will he, or she, be able to get the desired solution to every individual problem.

Members may not be willing to support one constituent if in doing so they will deprive another.

4. MP's Job Description [p.6]

There is no statutory job description for MPs.3 The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament, the latest version of which was agreed to by the House of Commons on 13 July 2005,4 is the nearest

approximation.

The purpose of the Code is “to assist Members in the discharge of their obligations to the House, their constituents and the public at large”.

5. Complaining against MPs [p. 7]

There is no formal procedure for complaining if you are unsatisfied with the service you have received from your Member of Parliament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no doubt that you are right, but it is not the getting of answers that is important IMHO, it is the quality and type of answers that is important and the "no real answer" that is the most important, I know this might sound a bit silly but I am always very happy with an obvious bullshit answer, and a "no answer" is even better, it is no different to a message board really. I work on the theory that if you receive a full and frank answer to a question, then you are asking the wrong question.

I will try and clarify the point I'm trying to get across, I'm not doing a very good job I know and hope from the underneath you can glean what I'm trying to to say albeit in terrible English.

Basically it's a game you play with Ministers or anyone who is a public servant - they can't just stick it on the backburner or lose it - we used it as a game to piss certain bodies off, take up time and keep you grievences aired -it was especially effective because we were using our Labour MP's to question Conservative Ministers on the RT Policies.

The secret is making a loop - say you send a letter to Mr Coaker with questions, or you question the validity of someone who doesn't even like cock ie. Bindel, or Ms. Harman and her croanies who wrote the paper "The Family Way", of sitting on a committee which is debating women who sell sex and men who buy it and then want to bring it to in legislation which is not based on fact then they have to get back with something. You also send a copy of it to your local MP and anyone else you wish to cc it to - be sure to put in your letter who it is cc'd to.

MP's have proof by many letters of what's going on and it makes certain people in power very uncomfortable when brought into the spotlight and answerable to the individual.

If we could get really organized :confused: it would be great to get people from all constituancies sending letters to their MP's asking questions and pointing out the flaws we've found and also cc it to Ms. Harman and anyone else who is trying to get the Swedish model through. You keep them all in the loop - thats how it works. MP's have an obligation to an individual constituancy member which is above any bodies which bring forward questions to them. If Ms. Harman et al refuse to answer valid points it weakens her argument. If you have a Conservative MP who represents your constituency then nearly as good as having an MP who punts to bother with chasing up unanswered questions and the validity of ones you've received. So when/if it gets debated then the points brought to the attention of all have to be discussed and not dismissed off-hand.

Phew !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will try and clarify the point I'm trying to get across, I'm not doing a very good job I know and hope from the underneath you can glean what I'm trying to to say albeit in terrible English.

Basically it's a game you play with Ministers or anyone who is a public servant - they can't just stick it on the backburner or lose it - we used it as a game to piss certain bodies off, take up time and keep you grievences aired -it was especially effective because we were using our Labour MP's to question Conservative Ministers on the RT Policies.

The secret is making a loop - say you send a letter to Mr Coaker with questions, or you question the validity of someone who doesn't even like cock ie. Bindel, or Ms. Harman and her croanies who wrote the paper "The Family Way", of sitting on a committee which is debating women who sell sex and men who buy it and then want to bring it to in legislation which is not based on fact then they have to get back with something. You also send a copy of it to your local MP and anyone else you wish to cc it to - be sure to put in your letter who it is cc'd to.

MP's have proof by many letters of what's going on and it makes certain people in power very uncomfortable when brought into the spotlight and answerable to the individual.

If we could get really organized :confused: it would be great to get people from all constituancies sending letters to their MP's asking questions and pointing out the flaws we've found and also cc it to Ms. Harman and anyone else who is trying to get the Swedish model through. You keep them all in the loop - thats how it works. MP's have an obligation to an individual constituancy member which is above any bodies which bring forward questions to them. If Ms. Harman et al refuse to answer valid points it weakens her argument. If you have a Conservative MP who represents your constituency then nearly as good as having an MP who punts to bother with chasing up unanswered questions and the validity of ones you've received. So when/if it gets debated then the points brought to the attention of all have to be discussed and not dismissed off-hand.

Phew !

I fully understand the game that you have described and how it is played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I fully understand the game that you have described and how it is played.

I understand the game too - but unfortunately it is a game where the MPs pull the strings vis-a-vis 'ordinary people' :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I've had no response at all so far - sent the email Friday night. Obviously men are already prosecutable in the cases I've listed in my email; where they're traffickers or rapists - my point was that men who are not raping or trafficking or seeing underage girls etc.etc are the ones who now find themselves being targeted. Women would also be theoretically prosecutable if they paid a man (or woman) for sex. Making out that it was feminist anti-men legislation was going too far in my opinion. I wanted the letter to come across as sensible and well reasoned and not just as a mad rant by a guy who hates women.

And still no response??

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