Popular media on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

UKPunting is a free, independent and not-for-profit paid sex buyer site.


Author Topic: Discussion programme about should paying for sex be made illegal?  (Read 4963 times)

Offline NIK

Did anyone see the discussion programme this morning on should paying for sex be made illegal?
I inadvertently caught it as I was looking for the Football League Show on catch up.
I only saw about ten minutes of it as I had to go out and the discussion had already started and I missed the end. Apart from Peter Hitchens I didn't know any of the other participants, but there was an ex prossy, some woman with a dog collar and another one who was wanting to criminalise it. There was also a bald bloke who I think was a punter. However the best speaker was a blonde woman wearing red who spoke a lot of common sense about how such a law would actually make things worse for sex workers.
As we all know!   :cool:
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 07:05:09 AM by NIK »

Offline CatBBW

  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 1,972
I saw it. The ex sex worker ("Ruth") said that being a prostitute is "traumatic" (she made that point more than once). Some young-ish bloke said that making it illegal to pay for sex would mean that "agencies who care for their employees would become illegal" - too many inaccuracies for me to pay much attention to him. Was rather glad that most of the audience and guests were in agreement that making it illegal to pay for sex would endanger the women.

Many "statistics" were wheeled out, and I'm glad the one about "most WGs are trafficked" was debunked by the lady in red (none of the police raids on brothels found any illegall or trafficked workers, which is totally the opposite to what the government will tell us).

« Last Edit: February 23, 2014, 05:20:13 PM by Catherine The Great »

Offline smiths

I saw it. The ex sex worker ("Ruth") said that being a prostitute is "traumatic" (she made that point more than once). Some young-ish bloke said that making it illegal to pay for sex would mean that "agencies who care for their employees would become illegal" - too many inaccuracies for me to pay much attention to him. Was rather glad that most of the audience and guests were in agreement that making it illegal to pay for sex would endanger the women.

Many "statistics" were wheeled out, and I'm glad the one about "most WGs are trafficked" was debunked by the lady in red (none of the police raids on brothels found any illegall or trafficked workers, which is totally the opposite to what the government will tell us).

Indeed and what some police will say of course, plus obviously the antis and some of the media.

Prove by convicting evil scum that trafficking for sex against a womans free will is a widespread practice is my request. If its so widespread it cant be hard to prove it if the police then CPS have the evidence.

In reality its all about individual cases, there are sadly some trafficked and forced/coerced women but its never yet been proved its a widespread problem including when the police did Operations Pentameters 1 and 2 specifically looking for such woman.

Stats can and have been twisted by the antis like Harridan in the past, in her case she used guesswork as fact to help get her coercion law through in 2009 using a figure of 4000 trafficked for sex women, a figure never proved by arrests let alone convictions.

Offline SirFrank

Didn't see it but as per above, making it illegal will simply send it underground. Far from protecting girls such action, however well intentioned, would be counter productive. These debates are generally ill informed. Like debates on lap dancing and glamour (topless) modelling, they are paternalistic and rarely incorporate balanced views from the 'boots on the ground'.

Forcing people in the sex trade is abhorrent but I'm sure any such moves would simply serve to further exploit such women
Banning reason: Shitstirring against admin on behalf of banned member

Offline Falstaff


Many "statistics" were wheeled out, and I'm glad the one about "most WGs are trafficked" was debunked by the lady in red (none of the police raids on brothels found any illegall or trafficked workers, which is totally the opposite to what the government will tell us).

The lady is red is Dr Belinda Brooks-Gordon a respected academic who has been fighting the cause for years.


Offline vorian

The lady is red is Dr Belinda Brooks-Gordon a respected academic who has been fighting the cause for years.

Had a quick google of her and seems she does talk a lot of sense, here is a quick link to some points she raised about the Nordic model.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/sex-law-expert-belinda-brooks-gordon-why-nordic-model-prostitution-does-not-work-1434028
Banning reason: Two faced - Slagging off UKP and it's membership using fake account

Offline LL

The lady is red is Dr Belinda Brooks-Gordon a respected academic who has been fighting the cause for years.
You know your stuff.  What was the show please and what channel was it on?  Maybe I can watch it on catch-up.  Cheers.

What channel / time was it on?

You know your stuff.  What was the show please and what channel was it on?  Maybe I can watch it on catch-up.  Cheers.

Come on, NIK; there's at least three of us waiting for your answer!!


Grateful for that, pacifist; thanks. 

Offline LL

Thanks! Now I know I can easily watch it on iPlayer.
Shame I have to watch Nicky fucking Campbell though!  :D

Offline Bond

I hope that some posters on here realise that by passing certain comments on these public forums they are simply giving the prostitution haters more ammunition to use against us when the next criminalization attempt is made.

Offline NIK

I hope that some posters on here realise that by passing certain comments on these public forums they are simply giving the prostitution haters more ammunition to use against us when the next criminalization attempt is made.

Not really. They can pass all the legislation they like, they will NEVER stop it. It has been around since the dawn of civilisation.
Making drugs illegal has really stopped people using them, and making it illegal to use a hand held mobile whilst driving has really stopped that. Similarly no one will ever light up if they have kids in the car after it's made illegal.  :rolleyes:

When will the twats ever learn that there is no point on passing laws that are almost impossible to enforce?

Offline vorian

I hope that some posters on here realise that by passing certain comments on these public forums they are simply giving the prostitution haters more ammunition to use against us when the next criminalization attempt is made.

If they read prossynet first, the legislation will include sections which require punters to wear full hasmat suits and the wgs will be on a minimum wage of £1000 per hour. Personally I would rather anyone read the truth and on the whole that is on UKP no matter how rough and ready it can be.
Banning reason: Two faced - Slagging off UKP and it's membership using fake account

Offline Bond

Not really. They can pass all the legislation they like, they will NEVER stop it. It has been around since the dawn of civilisation.
Making drugs illegal has really stopped people using them, and making it illegal to use a hand held mobile whilst driving has really stopped that. Similarly no one will ever light up if they have kids in the car after it's made illegal.  :rolleyes:

When will the twats ever learn that there is no point on passing laws that are almost impossible to enforce?

Making punting illegal will not stop all punters, but will certainly stop a significant minority. Moreover, I think that it will be quite difficult for this site to go on as it is today.

To go back to my original argument, with just one simple example . . . by referring to WGs as "prossies" and "whores" and to agency/parlour owners as "pimps", some posters on here are simply giving the criminalisation supporters more quotes to use against us.

Sometimes I think that they are actually abolitionists in disguise  . . .



Offline NIK

Making punting illegal will not stop all punters, but will certainly stop a significant minority. Moreover, I think that it will be quite difficult for this site to go on as it is today.

To go back to my original argument, with just one simple example . . . by referring to WGs as "prossies" and "whores" and to agency/parlour owners as "pimps", some posters on here are simply giving the criminalisation supporters more quotes to use against us.

Sometimes I think that they are actually abolitionists in disguise  . . .

Maybe so, but it will not stop people paying for sex.
I go to see my indie regular. I hand over the cash. We are the only two people who know about that. What are the police going to do hide under the bed?

Offline vorian

Why will this site be affected,  I believe that Adam lives outside of the UK and is not a citizen.  I can find a hundred websites within seconds which promote illegal things.
Banning reason: Two faced - Slagging off UKP and it's membership using fake account


also discussed on ' this week'   bbc. Rupert Everett and Portillo arguing against criminalisation. Abbott saying it would be a brilliant idea. Unfortunately if we get a Labour government in 2015 I can see this legislation coming in very quickly... it is the way the EU is moving at the moment.

I


Offline LL

also discussed on ' this week'   bbc. Rupert Everett and Portillo arguing against criminalisation. Abbott saying it would be a brilliant idea. Unfortunately if we get a Labour government in 2015 I can see this legislation coming in very quickly... it is the way the EU is moving at the moment.

I

I'd better get working thru my hotlist before that date then as I don't think I'll be punting if it becomes illegal.
I'm already risking enough as it is - friends, family, job.  I'm not prepared to add my own liberty to that risk-list too.

Offline Sienna_Bronze

  • Banned
  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 288
I'd better get working thru my hotlist before that date then as I don't think I'll be punting if it becomes illegal.
I'm already risking enough as it is - friends, family, job.  I'm not prepared to add my own liberty to that risk-list too.

This is what the anti's don't think about. When all the good punters are scared off it leaves us with the more riskier, possibly nastier ones. It's an ill thought out law at best and dangerous at worst!
Banning reason: Trolling

Offline LL

This is what the anti's don't think about. When all the good punters are scared off it leaves us with the more riskier, possibly nastier ones. It's an ill thought out law at best and dangerous at worst!
And the punters that carry on may well stop going to GUM clinics to get tested regularly.  Right now we can be very open about what we're getting up to, when talking to staff at these clinics.  What happens when the staff are obliged to report people who admit to seeing prostitutes to the police!?

Offline vorian

And the punters that carry on may well stop going to GUM clinics to get tested regularly.  Right now we can be very open about what we're getting up to, when talking to staff at these clinics.  What happens when the staff are obliged to report people who admit to seeing prostitutes to the police!?

For goodness sake, please I respect your opinion and of course if you do or do not punt that is up to you.  However GUM clinics are not going to start reporting punters who use them to the police. It will not happen.
Banning reason: Two faced - Slagging off UKP and it's membership using fake account

Offline Olivia

  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 66
Making punting illegal will not stop all punters, but will certainly stop a significant minority. Moreover, I think that it will be quite difficult for this site to go on as it is today.

To go back to my original argument, with just one simple example . . . by referring to WGs as "prossies" and "whores" and to agency/parlour owners as "pimps", some posters on here are simply giving the criminalisation supporters more quotes to use against us.

Sometimes I think that they are actually abolitionists in disguise  . . .

You fail to actually qualify any of your declarations.  May I ask: what the fuck are you talking about?  I fail to appreciate the validity of your assertion that in using terms such as 'prossie', contributors to this (or any other) site are in fact cultivating material to be used 'against us'.  Why would this be so?  Upon whos authority did you see fit to determine what are acceptable or  detrimental nouns by which to refer to us sex workers?  Regurgitating this politically correct, self conscious, 'guilty conscience' tripe is what serves to fuel the detractors not the use of, in reality, utterly meaningless (until attributed) items of vocabulary, generally employed by punter and prossie alike, equally secure/unburdened in their chosen role/hobby as to be genuinely relaxed in both attitude and language. 


Latest videos on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

Latest images on UKEscorting.com (free site!)