Sex workers have denounced Louis Theroux’s

[zztop1168]

Should be interesting.

 External Link/Members Only

[nightbot]

Typical!
Shit like this is why this industry stays stigmatized, because even when people have a chance to do something proper and shed some light they'd choose sensationalism over facts.

[Colston36]

Typical!
Shit like this is why this industry stays stigmatized, because even when people have a chance to do something proper and shed some light they'd choose sensationalism over facts.

Totally agree. Also in this case we have someone handicapped (and I have met others similar) in the industry is exploited to make a good story.

[Blackpool Rock]

So reading the link (quickly so I may have missed the detail) it looks more like he followed 1 girl rather than doing a broader piece on the industry as a whole.
I'd prefer to see an industry wide appraisal from the grotty street scene through to the "high end" but with a main focus on the girls in between which is what I believe most guys on here experience.
Also it need to be about a few different girls perspective and also punters rather than 1 disabled girl which will totally slant the whole focus.

I'll still watch but don't have much in the way of expectation

[winkywanky]

There's already a thread about this on here I think?

This is only the WG's side of the story of course. There's normally two sides to every story (although, equally, stitch-ups by TV production teams are hardly rare).

For me personally, I'll be interested to see the programme in question before forming an opinion.

All we know so far is that the subjects of the film are pissed off at the way they've been portrayed.

However, the WG in question (Ashleigh I think) apparently is 'severely disabled' with severe learning/physical difficulties/autism. The other girl Georgina is her carer (and also happens to be a WG). At one point it seems that Theroux questions Ashleigh's autism, and of course this is potentially a very big deal.

So this raises some questions: if Ashleigh really is that mentally disabled, is she morally in a position to offer herself as a WG? Or is she a vulnerable individual being exploited (albeit happily and willingly) by Georgia. As her carer, is Georgina legally/morally in a position to facilitate Ashleigh being a WG? Or is she taking advantage of her? As carer, Georgina is presumably receiving public funds to look after Ashleigh, so how about the legality/morality of that?

The other big question is: is Ashleigh truly severely mentally disabled? And if in reality she isn't, and just playing the 'I'm disabled' card, then their whole situation is fraudulent, for BOTH of them.

I'm not saying any of this is true, but it'll be interesting to see the programme when it emerges I think.

[Blackpool Rock]

However, the WG in question (Ashleigh I think) apparently is 'severely disabled' with severe learning/physical difficulties/autism. The other girl Georgina is her carer (and also happens to be a WG). At one point it seems that Theroux questions Ashleigh's autism, and of course this is potentially a very big deal.

So this raises some questions: if Ashleigh really is that mentally disabled, is she morally in a position to offer herself as a WG? Or is she a vulnerable individual being exploited (albeit happily and willingly) by Georgia. As her carer, is Georgina legally/morally in a position to facilitate Ashleigh being a WG? Or is she taking advantage of her? As carer, Georgina is presumably receiving public funds to look after Ashleigh, so how about the legality/morality of that?

The other big question is: is Ashleigh truly severely mentally disabled? And if in reality she isn't, and just playing the 'I'm disabled' card, then their whole situation is fraudulent, for BOTH of them.

I'm not saying any of this is true, but it'll be interesting to see the programme when it emerges I think.

Yeah it's a good point whether she is effectively of a suitable state of mind to freely make that decision on her own or has there been some influence or co-coercion.
If this is the case then logically from a legal view point it would be like punting a trafficked girl or punting a civvy who was so pissed / high that she wasn't in a position to fully know / understand what she was doing and be akin to rape 

Like you say we really need to watch it when it's aired   

[Moby Dick]

Yeah I just wonder why WG want to go on TV?

For money? how much did they get Paid for their time?
Exposure? Good or bad this could change their future earnings in a positive or I guess based on their reactions more likely in a negative way?

I can think of more reasons why not to draw attention to yourself.

[winkywanky]

Yeah I just wonder why WG want to go on TV?

For money? how much did they get Paid for their time?
Exposure? Good or bad this could change their future earnings in a positive or I guess based on their reactions more likely in a negative way?

I can think of more reasons why not to draw attention to yourself.

Could be telling the world they are proud of what they do, and that's fair enough.

Could be drumming up business?

Could be courting notoriety and showing off, we see that all the time now with Reailty TV and social media.

Could be all three!

I should imagine the deal was that the WGs get paid for their time, they shouldn't be out of pocket for appearing on the programme of course. And I should imagine at their standard rates, unless Louis wanted extras of course  .

I think it would probably breach producers' guidelines for the girls to receive any more than their rate, plus any expenses incurred though.

[Thecunninglinguist]

If her ability to consent to have sex is in question, then by default her informed consent to appear in the program is also questionable?