An open letter to Harriet Harman

[Galahad]

Dear Mrs. Harman,

I have a few points to make regarding your recent remarks regarding my website and your fantastic demand that the Governor of California close it down.

Firstly, PunterNet is not violating any laws. If it were, then surely the many websites catering to the US prostitution scene (where sex for pay is almost completely illegal) would already have been closed down.

In the USA, there is a concept called "freedom of speech" which is considered the most important personal right guaranteed by the Constitution. It exists specifically to prevent the sort of abuse of power that you are attempting. The Governor (indeed, even the President) has no authority with which to shut down a perfectly lawful enterprise such as PunterNet.

PunterNet was not the first, and is certainly not the only, website in the UK with the same subject matter. Rather than creating the demand for commercial sex, sites like PunterNet are a response to that demand, which has existed since the dawn of mankind and certainly long before the advent of the Internet!

One of the missions of PunterNet is education - to provide information and guidance in hopes that the commercial sex scene is limited to consenting adults and those who choose of their own free will to engage in it.

If sites like this one did not exist, and if prostitution were outlawed, then it would effectively be handed to organised crime on a platter - just as happened with liquor during Prohibition. If, on the other hand, sexwork is recognised as a legitimate, honourable profession, then there will be no market for the criminal elements, and the truly despicable aspects of the scene such as sex slavery and trafficking will die out. Surely that is a far more desirable goal than driving it back underground where it will then consist only of criminals and victims?

In closing, I would like to thank you for the huge influx of traffic to my website which your actions have caused. I am sure that the ladies who are a part of the PunterNet community thank you as well, as they will no doubt benefit financially from the many new clients who might otherwise never have found them.

[6upxxx]

Originally Posted by Galahad

Dear Mrs. Harman,

I have a few points to make regarding your recent remarks regarding my website and your fantastic demand that the Governor of California close it down.

Firstly, PunterNet is not violating any laws. If it were, then surely the many websites catering to the US prostitution scene (where sex for pay is almost completely illegal) would already have been closed down.

In the USA, there is a concept called "freedom of speech" which is considered the most important personal right guaranteed by the Constitution. It exists specifically to prevent the sort of abuse of power that you are attempting. The Governor (indeed, even the President) has no authority with which to shut down a perfectly lawful enterprise such as PunterNet.

PunterNet was not the first, and is certainly not the only, website in the UK with the same subject matter. Rather than creating the demand for commercial sex, sites like PunterNet are a response to that demand, which has existed since the dawn of mankind and certainly long before the advent of the Internet!

One of the missions of PunterNet is education - to provide information and guidance in hopes that the commercial sex scene is limited to consenting adults and those who choose of their own free will to engage in it.

If sites like this one did not exist, and if prostitution were outlawed, then it would effectively be handed to organised crime on a platter - just as happened with liquor during Prohibition. If, on the other hand, sexwork is recognised as a legitimate, honourable profession, then there will be no market for the criminal elements, and the truly despicable aspects of the scene such as sex slavery and trafficking will die out. Surely that is a far more desirable goal than driving it back underground where it will then consist only of criminals and victims?

In closing, I would like to thank you for the huge influx of traffic to my website which your actions have caused. I am sure that the ladies who are a part of the PunterNet community thank you as well, as they will no doubt benefit financially from the many new clients who might otherwise never have found them.

Very well put Galahad! You have pointed out the real problem, she is denying freedom of speech. Hopefully this goverment is soon destined for the dustbin.
They have no understanding of personal freedom or democracy.

[Tea Bag]

“The best activities for your health are pumping and humping.” Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California.

[mike52]

Fantastic, I suggest you send a copy of the mail to the other party leaders, that way they might realise that people have a right to lead their lives as they wish without harming others and without the state intruding.

[Bert]

Well said G

[oneputt]

Thank you for highlighting the stupidity and ill informed nature of this silly woman's little rant.

[toxical]

As Simon Cowell might say: "100% YES!"
Brilliantly put, G.

[Galahad]

http://community.livejournal.com/ti_mr/14643.html

[youveryniceman]

from the christian voice:


Before she became an MP, Harriet Harman was the legal officer in the late 1970s for the National Council for Civil Liberties. When Miss Harman joined NCCL in 1978, PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange, had already been affiliated for three years. Another group, Paedophile Action for Liberation, a Gay Liberation Front offshoot, had also been affiliated to NCCL until it was absorbed by PIE. PIE, which campaigned for adults to have sex legally with children, only broke off its relationship with NCCL when it went undercover in 1982, the same year that Harriet Harman left her NCCL post to become Member of Parliament for Peckham.


Jack Dromey, whom Harriet Harman married in 1982, and who is now Treasurer of the Labour Party, was also involved with the NCCL. He served on its Executive Committee from 1970 to 1979, so he was there when the decision to invite the two paedophile groups to affiliate was made. NCCL also set up a gay rights sub-committee at the same time, members of which included prominent paedophiles Peter Bremner (alias Roger Nash), Michael Burbidge, Keith Hose and Tom O'Carroll. And of course Walters and Locke were on the Executive.

'NCCL has now been rebranded as 'Liberty' and is doing great work standing up to the Government to defend the civil liberties of us all. But thirty years ago some rather peculiar things went on, and I think we should be told why.'

ENDS

[Overworked]

Originally Posted by Galahad

http://community.livejournal.com/ti_mr/14643.html

Great article and hits alot of points exactly.

Punternet should be backed, not banned.

[notme]

Don't use 'free speech', it sounds so lame. Only people from the Daily Mail or the BNP are that doltish.

I think it's the 'is she a good bit of meat/ bad bit of meat: rate her out of 10!' aspect of this website Harman has a problem with.

Otherwise a good post.

[WykeTyke]

Good report, are you sending it to the press agencies/ papers ? I think you should.

You might want to add the results of the Poll from earlier this year that 90% of the w/g here are independents. Also explicitly mention your Board policies against, touting pimps, under-aged girls, drugs, street prostitution, especially those that directly contradict what she said.

[Punter]

Excellent! Well said!!

[Tarquin]

I think that by responding to HH so promptly was maybe a little bit of a knee jerk reaction, whilst understandable, I'm not entirely convinced that your comments contain the the necessary points to stop her in her tracks.

Having said that, I'm no legal beagle and maybe you feel that you have the law on your side and said enough to shut her up. The cynic in me says that a tougher approach is needed and with respect I would urge the very best legal advice available to you, as I foresee political skullduggery is at work as we speak.

[hotandwild]

Well she has promoted your site like crazy.

hew he

We at www.ClownX.com support you by the way.

[hotandwild]

I read (and posted your letter on clownx.com as you gave me permission to).

Its very interesting to read.

I am not sure why she called for a banning at her conference.

For years and years escorts and so on have advertised in newspapers and other places.

Your site is not doing anything more than what has gone on in media for years.

If your site were to close others would set up to replace it. So shutting it would achieve nothing.

This is what Labour believes in banning what they can.

I believe its important to support your site regardless or not if you believe escorts are a good or bad thing. Its a question of freedom of speech.

I do wonder how she found the site. One thought maybe that her husband found it while searching for online porn as we now know he watches it (he he).

On a note of women's rights surly, one should believe women (or men for that matter) should have the right to do what they want with there own body.

After they ban your site, will it be porn next?

At least in the USSR they had trains that ran on time and stations that looked wonderful. We do not even have that benefit with this soviet style government.

[hotandwild]

Originally Posted by notme

Don't use 'free speech', it sounds so lame. Only people from the Daily Mail or the BNP are that doltish.

I think it's the 'is she a good bit of meat/ bad bit of meat: rate her out of 10!' aspect of this website Harman has a problem with.

Otherwise a good post.

I disagree.

Its important to have freedom of speech.

You state the BNP, but its important that even the BNP have the right to say what they believe, as I and anyone else who disagrees with them have the right to comment on there points.

Once you start banning things, when do you stop?

For me I speak on the side of porn. For me I believe a woman (or man) has the right to do what they wish with there porn body. I know from experience women enjoy porn. And I know women who have hired out male studs for a night of sex. Also there are clubs full of women who go to watch male strippers.

The problem is while she believes in women's lib, she does not believe women have the right to decide for themselves what they do with there bodies.

You will note that when she refers to escorts she only refers to women doing this work, not men.

Edit

She has got the site in most if not all UK newspapers, as well as other media (they are talking about the site on talk sport).

Edit 2

At least in less that a years time we will have a new government in. Lets hope its sooner rather than later.

Make sure you vote for anyone but Labour.

[hotandwild]

One last thought for me on this.

Has she given a reason why the site should be closed?

On the net there are hundreds if not thousands of escort sites. So will she be getting these shut?

Do you then close Domanatrix sites were the women often do not have sex with the clients?

Maybe she will demand these TV stations get shut where you phone in to chat to a model while she strips topless or nude, as after all its a form of sex.

But it would be interesting to see what grounds she has to close the site. Is it breaking UK or USA law? I presume not (or I am sure by now it would be closed).

So why does she feel she has the right to ban a site that is legal, simply as she does not like the site. I myself am vegetarian, but I do not call for a ban for others not to eat meat.

I am sure there are lots of things we all do not like, but that does not mean it should be banned (unless it harms people or animals).

To be honest I think we should be extremely worried that a UK government want to ban text. If this was another country trying to ban a site we would think that's shocking.

I presume next Labour will try to ban the news. Oh, and if you think that may not happen, in the last week Labour have been complaining that the BBC and others are not reporting the news as they want them to. In other words Labour appear to now want to control the news.

[Laura Lee]

Originally Posted by Galahad

Dear Mrs. Harman,

I have a few points to make regarding your recent remarks regarding my website and your fantastic demand that the Governor of California close it down.

Firstly, PunterNet is not violating any laws. If it were, then surely the many websites catering to the US prostitution scene (where sex for pay is almost completely illegal) would already have been closed down.

In the USA, there is a concept called "freedom of speech" which is considered the most important personal right guaranteed by the Constitution. It exists specifically to prevent the sort of abuse of power that you are attempting. The Governor (indeed, even the President) has no authority with which to shut down a perfectly lawful enterprise such as PunterNet.

PunterNet was not the first, and is certainly not the only, website in the UK with the same subject matter. Rather than creating the demand for commercial sex, sites like PunterNet are a response to that demand, which has existed since the dawn of mankind and certainly long before the advent of the Internet!

One of the missions of PunterNet is education - to provide information and guidance in hopes that the commercial sex scene is limited to consenting adults and those who choose of their own free will to engage in it.

If sites like this one did not exist, and if prostitution were outlawed, then it would effectively be handed to organised crime on a platter - just as happened with liquor during Prohibition. If, on the other hand, sexwork is recognised as a legitimate, honourable profession, then there will be no market for the criminal elements, and the truly despicable aspects of the scene such as sex slavery and trafficking will die out. Surely that is a far more desirable goal than driving it back underground where it will then consist only of criminals and victims?

In closing, I would like to thank you for the huge influx of traffic to my website which your actions have caused. I am sure that the ladies who are a part of the PunterNet community thank you as well, as they will no doubt benefit financially from the many new clients who might otherwise never have found them.

Absolutely spot on G.

One day (and hopefully before I retire ) good sense will prevail over sensationalism.

[Tiggy 7]

Originally Posted by Galahad

Dear Mrs. Harman,
In closing, I would like to thank you for the huge influx of traffic to my website which your actions have caused. I am sure that the ladies who are a part of the PunterNet community thank you as well, as they will no doubt benefit financially from the many new clients who might otherwise never have found them.

Brilliant letter, eloquently expressing the thoughts and sentiments of the vast majority of punters and purveyors of sexual services throughout the UK. I have little faith that it will alter the views of the intended recipient, but it does put her frantic and pathetic actions into perspective for the more rational of our countrymen and MPs to consider! Well done!

(And I hereby resolve to quit hectoring you re London oriental agencies at least through the balance of the year).

[Lick n Suck]

Originally Posted by Overworked

Great article and hits alot of points exactly.

Punternet should be backed, not banned.

Yep - a good article and surprisingly objective and non-sensationalist coming from a national newspaper. The journalist says that he was not familiar with PN until HH mentioned it, and in checking it out he describes it as written by UK punters. He didn't seem to notice that much of the content of PN is from WGs and former WGs (altho his research did notice the dangerous punter forum which is contributed to by sex workers).

Nevertheless, he was perceptive enough to notice that "there are a number of very disparaging comments on there by some rather sad, misogynists" .....

....... So,.... step forward *****, ****** and ***** ..... well, you know who you are!!

[Vin DaLoo]

Originally Posted by notme

I think it's the 'is she a good bit of meat/ bad bit of meat: rate her out of 10!' aspect of this website Harman has a problem with.

I disagree - even if this site were filled with the fluffiest of punters Harman and her ilk would still have a problem with it. They refuse to acknowledge that Prostitution is a choice any woman would make of her own free will.

[sandra]

thank you Sir very well put !

[CatherineIUSW]

Harriet Harman, like some other MPs and NGOs, believe that all prostitution is violence against women and that the state should have the power to overrule a woman’s consent to sex by criminalising all purchase of sexual services.

The government is currently bringing in new legislation (the Policing and Crime Bill) that will make people in the sex industry less safe.

The original Bill criminalised clients of everyone in the industry who was “controlled for gain” (i.e., anyone whose work is arranged by other people, either in brothel or by an escort agency) on terms of “strict liability” (ignorance was no defence); gave the police powers to close brothels on grounds of suspicion; defined “persistent” for street soliciting; created an enforced rehabilitation process for street sex workers and removed the requirement of persistence for a kerb crawling conviction.

There has been a small improvement (and a smaller step back). The government said they were introducing this legislation to target forced prostitution and trafficking but “controlling for gain” explicitly includes people who are working of their own free will, and there was widespread criticism of this proposal. As a result, the government briefly amended the Bill to criminalise clients of those who were subjected to “force, deception or threats”.

This would have been the first British legislation on the sex industry (including our trafficking legislation) that actually referred to coercion, violence, abuse or exploitation. Despite this, some organisations received considerable media coverage for their opinions that targeting “force” in the Bill weakened the legislation. (Many of the groups concerned consider all prostitution to be violence against women and campaign for wholesale criminalisation of clients.)

In the House of Lords Committee stage, the government changed the Bill again to refer to “exploitative conduct” rather than “force, deception or threats”.

If legislation is created using vague terminology (e.g., “threats not relating to violence, any form of coercion or deception”) then the way the law is applied will be decided by case law. The law we’ll all end up with depends on the view of the individual judge or judges, which will in turn be influenced by the individual case that comes to court.

Although the legislation relating to clients has received most publicity, brothel closure orders are the most dangerous aspect of the legislation, as the provisions give wide-ranging powers to be used at the discretion of the police. No proof is required, and it is irrelevant whether the officer applying the order has suspicions that an offence has been or will be committed. Despite government assurance these powers will be used only to target harmful practice, the law is the law - once broad brush legislation is enacted, there is no way to impose limits on its execution.

Sex workers will be aware that the police have power to close premises immediately on grounds of suspicion only and that police have a financial interest in prosecutions under the Proceeds of Crime Act: these proposals make sex workers enormously vulnerable to the police.

Sex workers will often chose not to take the increased risk of reporting crimes against them; criminals also know the law and will take advantage accordingly. We will be without the protection of the law, and the consequences will be harmful to almost everyone in the indoor sex industry.

For more information, and to join the campaign for full human rights and safety for people in the sex industry, sign up for the IUSW newsletter at
http://iusw.org/lists/?p=subscribe

[BillOBong]

New Labour is sadly like a cancer which has invaded and is in the process of destroying everything that once made this a great nation. Firstly through Tony Blair they sought to manipulate the media with their various spin doctors and latterly via Gordon Brown they have sought to both monitor and control every aspects of our lives. The concepts of free speech; innocent until proven guilty are gone and it is clear that Central and Local Government are biased against the hardworking, honest, taxpaying majority.

The attack by Harriet Harman on PN is a classic example, they attack an organisation that distributes information on sexual services, it does not promote prostitution; it seeks to protect underaged or trafficked women, it does not distribute or promote pornography,it also promotes indirectly sexual health and I am sure has reduced sexual crime by directing those so inclined to services which they might not have realised existed.

It is quite ironic that she should raise this issue whilst the Labour Party Conference is being held in Brighton, I would bet a pound to a penny that girls in the area have never been more busy as delegates seek to relax after hours of digesting bullshit from Brown & co.

Next year we will all have an opportunity to stand up for our rights at the ballot box, don't waste the opportunity to get rid of this vile regime.