Another trafficking story in today’s papers and on Ch4 now

[Bond]

I did not see this documentary so I cannot comment on it. I hope this doesn't make me off-topic.

I just want to comment that the term 'trafficking' is seemingly used to describe two different activities: (i) helping someone get illegally into a country (ii) controlling someone, who is not in their home country, for financial gain.

I think that for 'human trafficking' to occur both (i) and (ii) have to occur.

As far as I know, situation (i) on its own should be called 'human  smuggling' and situation (ii) on its own should be called 'coercion', or, in some instances, 'extortion'.

   

[daviemac]

I did not see this documentary so I cannot comment on it. I hope this doesn't make me off-topic.

I just want to comment that the term 'trafficking' is seemingly used to describe two different activities: (i) helping someone get illegally into a country (ii) controlling someone, who is not in their home country, for financial gain.

I think that for 'human trafficking' to occur both (i) and (ii) have to occur.

As far as I know, situation (i) on its own should be called 'human  smuggling' and situation (ii) on its own should be called 'coercion', or, in some instances, 'extortion'.   

Are you yet another one who is just guessing or have you actually checked what the internationally recognised definition of trafficking is.   

Human Trafficking
Definition
The Palermo Protocol provides the first internationally recognised definition of human trafficking:

"Trafficking in persons shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control of another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or removal of organs."

You might notice it also includes harbouring and receipt of persons, not just the one's who bring them in.

[Barclay Spank]

Emily Kenway in her book 'The Truth about Modern Slavery' says that this part of the Palermo Protocol is interpreted differently by different people. This is what she writes in her book:-

"the protocol says that consent is negated when particular methods are used to move and exploit someone, like fraud, deception, abuse of power or a position of vulnerability. If these things have been part of the process of someone moving and being exploited, then their consent to the situation is void. If, by contrast, those methods aren't present, then trafficking has not happened. The nature of sex work and how it relates to exploitation is left ambiguous by the following phrase in the protocol: 'exploitation shall include, at a minimum, exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation'. Six words there - exploitation of the prostitution of others - have unsurprisingly been construed in totally opposing ways by the two warring sides. To those fighting for sex workers' rights, they consider the phrase to mean practices that exploit those performing sex work, not the sex work itself; for those who believe that all sex work is fundamentally exploitative, it has been construed to mean the entire sex sector. This is despite the fact that official records on the protocol state that it should not be interpreted to mean that states are required to adopt legislation that makes sex work in entirety illegal."

Nick Davis in one of his newspaper articles says this:-

"And, from the outset, that word was a problem. On a strict definition, eventually expressed in international law by the 2000 Palermo protocol, sex trafficking involves the use of force, fraud or coercion to transport an unwilling victim into sexual exploitation. This image of sex slavery soon provoked real public anxiety.

But a much looser definition, subsequently adopted by the UK's 2003 Sexual Offences Act, uses the word to describe the movement of all sex workers, including willing professionals who are simply travelling in search of a better income. This wider meaning has injected public debate with confusion and disproportionate anxiety."

[Barclay Spank]

As a generalisation that isn't true. There isn't space in the detention centre!!!
Only the most intransigent get locked up - those with a record or history of other offences. Most who simply breach immigration offences are given an order to report on a specific day for deportation - and in the meantime released and allowed to vanish into the community and gain a new ID. Those who appear to be genuine trafficking victims can either be aided to return home, or end up getting leave to remain here.
I think you'll find immigration control are to busy to worry much working prossies when they have much bigger targets in their sights.
If a girl does get booted out its almost certainly because she's an undesirable who isn't worth the cost of prosecuting

I quoted earlier on page 2 from the book Revolting Prostitutes where it says that in the police raids in Soho the police took 17 women to deportation centres. They also took 35 thousand pounds.

In the Cuddles brothel raid in 2005 6 of the 19 women taken away by the police 'were detained under immigration powers and scheduled for deportation'.

[Barclay Spank]

Can you provide the evidence you have for this.   

It happened in England eg Soho and Birmingham. It also happens in countries like Thailand and Cambodia.

This is what it says in 'Between Victim and Agent: A Third-Way Feminist Account of Trafficking for Sex Work' by Shelley Cavalieri:-

"The coalition of organizations effected what they termed a “rescue” of the women in the brothel because of the believed presence of children. What followed was a human rights debacle. Twenty-eight women and girls, most of whom were, by all accounts, adults, were involuntarily detained beyond the period of time that victims of trafficking may be confined under Thai law. They were not arrested or charged with crimes, but detained, according to the authorities, because they had been rescued from a situation of human trafficking. They were deprived of access to their belongings and saved earnings, which were locked inside the inaccessible brothel under police control; they never regained ownership of these possessions. After a lengthy period of time, the government deported many of these women to Burma. All of these actions, which the women experienced as both harmful and alienating, occurred under the guise of rescuing them from the brothel in which they worked."

This is what it says in 'Running from the Rescuers: New U.S. Crusades Against Sex Trafficking and the Rhetoric of Abolition' by Gretchen Soderlund:-

"As soon as they had their mobile phones returned [the] women contacted Empower. They are only permitted to use their phones for a short time each evening and must hide in the bathroom to take calls outside that time. They report that they have been subjected to continual interrogation and coercion by Trafcord [an anti-trafficking NGO formed in 2002 with U.S. financial support]. Women understand that if they continue to maintain that they want to remain in Thailand and return to work that they will be held in the Public Welfare Boys Home or [a] similar institution until they recant. Similarly, they understand that refusing to be witnesses against their “traffickers” will further delay their release. (Empower 2003)"

Also the women are beaten and raped by guards. They don't have clean water to drink or bathe in. They are denied medicine, including anti-HIV medicines.

[daviemac]

It happened in England eg Soho and Birmingham. It also happens in countries like Thailand and Cambodia.

Can you show links to any official reports of this happening? not something you have typed out or copied and pasted from somewhere.

As an example if you ask me what the law is on prostitution, I would refer you to the official CPS site that tells you -  External Link/Members Only - I won't copy and paste or relay what someone else has said.

[scutty brown]

It happened in England eg Soho and Birmingham. It also happens in countries like Thailand and Cambodia.

This is what it says in 'Between Victim and Agent: A Third-Way Feminist Account of Trafficking for Sex Work' by Shelley Cavalieri:-

"The coalition of organizations effected what they termed a “rescue” of the women in the brothel because of the believed presence of children. What followed was a human rights debacle. Twenty-eight women and girls, most of whom were, by all accounts, adults, were involuntarily detained beyond the period of time that victims of trafficking may be confined under Thai law. They were not arrested or charged with crimes, but detained, according to the authorities, because they had been rescued from a situation of human trafficking. They were deprived of access to their belongings and saved earnings, which were locked inside the inaccessible brothel under police control; they never regained ownership of these possessions. After a lengthy period of time, the government deported many of these women to Burma. All of these actions, which the women experienced as both harmful and alienating, occurred under the guise of rescuing them from the brothel in which they worked."

This is what it says in 'Running from the Rescuers: New U.S. Crusades Against Sex Trafficking and the Rhetoric of Abolition' by Gretchen Soderlund:-

"As soon as they had their mobile phones returned [the] women contacted Empower. They are only permitted to use their phones for a short time each evening and must hide in the bathroom to take calls outside that time. They report that they have been subjected to continual interrogation and coercion by Trafcord [an anti-trafficking NGO formed in 2002 with U.S. financial support]. Women understand that if they continue to maintain that they want to remain in Thailand and return to work that they will be held in the Public Welfare Boys Home or [a] similar institution until they recant. Similarly, they understand that refusing to be witnesses against their “traffickers” will further delay their release. (Empower 2003)"

Also the women are beaten and raped by guards. They don't have clean water to drink or bathe in. They are denied medicine, including anti-HIV medicines.

Nothing you quote there has any relevance to this country.

[scutty brown]

I quoted earlier on page 2 from the book Revolting Prostitutes where it says that in the police raids in Soho the police took 17 women to deportation centres. They also took 35 thousand pounds.

In the Cuddles brothel raid in 2005 6 of the 19 women taken away by the police 'were detained under immigration powers and scheduled for deportation'.

Six out of nineteen? I don't know the case but the fact only six were deported suggests that subgroup were otherwise criminal or undesirable, but weren't worth the cost of a trial. Take more note of the fact that thirteen were not deported.
But importantly, that was sixteen years ago. The handling of trafficking victims has changed significantly since then

[Al]

Regarding deportation - I think the argument is counter intuitive to some extent because the argument being made by some is that if these woman came in of their own free will and are not victims of any dodgy behaviour - therefore if they were deported it was because they were probably in breach of their visa requirements or something - what is the problem with that then? That is no different from someone coming in on a student visa and working full time and not going to studies (very common)

Since the introduction of the Modern Day Slavery Act and the period before it, you can be sure if that if any person is found in a situation where it looks like they will have been taken advantage of - the authorities will definitely consider whether they have been a victim of something rather than treating them like a suspect.

Perhaps the more difficult question is - if a woman SP (or any type of victim really) was legitimately tricked into coming to the UK  and then is found by Police. Clearly she will be given support initially - but in the long run do we then deport them if they cannot meet the criteria to be here?

[daviemac]

I think people are getting a bit confused here, victims of human trafficking who have not committed any criminal offence would be repatriated not deported. There's a world of difference.

[Bond]

Are you yet another one who is just guessing or have you actually checked what the internationally recognised definition of trafficking is.   

Human Trafficking
Definition
The Palermo Protocol provides the first internationally recognised definition of human trafficking:

"Trafficking in persons shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control of another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or removal of organs."

You might notice it also includes harbouring and receipt of persons, not just the one's who bring them in.

Thanks mate for sharing this definition.

The point I was trying to make was that if I am an Afghan refugee (of which there will probably soon be a lot more but that's another discussion) and pay Mr X to take me from Calais to Dover, then, in my opinion, Mr X is not a human trafficker but a human smuggler. If, on the other hand, I make arrangements with Mr Y to take me from Calais to Dover, on the understanding that I will work for Mr Z at his farm in Norfolk, then, in my opinion, Mr Y and Mr Z are human traffickers.

This doesn't necessarily make Mr X a good person or Messers Y and Z bad persons but I think that, regardless of what the Palermo Protocol says, the law of England and Wales should make a distinction between these two types of activity.

For all I know the law already makes this distinction. But it seems to me that the media and public opinion don't.

[daviemac]

Thanks mate for sharing this definition.

I have no interest in debating what you may think is or isn't human trafficking, like I have said many times I prefer to get my information from recognised official sources.

External Link/Members Only

External Link/Members Only

[Barclay Spank]

I have no interest in debating what you may think is or isn't human trafficking, like I have said many times I prefer to get my information from recognised official sources.

External Link/Members Only

External Link/Members Only

I don't know why you have such confidence in 'official sources'. They contain many false statistics. We have told you that the Palermo Protocol tells you that the internationally accepted definition of trafficking involves coercion and deception. Using this definition, none of the women in the documentary were trafficked.

Then you have the English 2003 law which says that trafficking doesn't need to involve coercion or deception. That created a situation where bringing people into the country and coercing them into factory work is trafficking but bringing people into the country and not coercing them into sex work is also trafficking.

We're telling you the facts, not speculating.

[Barclay Spank]

I think people are getting a bit confused here, victims of human trafficking who have not committed any criminal offence would be repatriated not deported. There's a world of difference.

If they are forced to leave the country against their will then they are deported. I know in the Daily Mail article about the documentary it says women are rescued. None of the women were rescued.

You can say what's wrong with deporting them? Why would you be surprised at that? The point is though that they want you to believe that the women are victims. In the documentary they don't tell you that the women are captured by the police, detained against their will, have their saved earnings taken from them permanently then get deported. That's no way to treat a victim.

Why is it that people want to believe this macho male bullshit of Detective Inspector Peter Brown rescuing vulnerable women, believe Channel 4, the Daily Mail and 'official sources'? And not believing Emily Kenway, who is an expert on trafficking or academics such as Gretchen Soderlund and Shelley Cavalieri?

[Barclay Spank]

Six out of nineteen? I don't know the case but the fact only six were deported suggests that subgroup were otherwise criminal or undesirable, but weren't worth the cost of a trial. Take more note of the fact that thirteen were not deported.
But importantly, that was sixteen years ago. The handling of trafficking victims has changed significantly since then

The six who were deported were probably deported because they had no right to be in the country. Not because they were 'criminal or undesirable'. The thirteen who were not deported could well all have been British.

Even EU nationals before Brexit were deported if it was found they were prostitutes.

[Barclay Spank]

Nothing you quote there has any relevance to this country.

You cannot treat trafficking in Britain as something separate from what is happening in the world. The point is that we are told that women are victims when they are not. Victims of the police, yes. The police imprison them.

I'm not saying that sexual slavery does not exist. It happens, but it is rare. The issue of trafficking is being used by right-wing American Evangelicals to try to stop prostitution. The US State Department puts pressure on governments around the world. That's why in Britain the police started shutting down brothels starting in 2005 with Cuddles and then in the 2010s with many more.

There used to be many brothels in Liverpool, my nearest city. Now there are two. In a well-run brothel nobody gets raped or robbed because no woman is left alone in a flat. Most SPs in Liverpool now use internet sites to contact clients and work alone where they are vulnerable. That's all due to decisions made almost 20 years ago by President Bush in America.

[petermisc]

I'm not saying that sexual slavery does not exist. It happens, but it is rare. The issue of trafficking is being used by right-wing American Evangelicals to try to stop prostitution. The US State Department puts pressure on governments around the world. That's why in Britain the police started shutting down brothels starting in 2005 with Cuddles and then in the 2010s with many more.

The police have been closing down brothels long before then.  London used to have a more permissive attitude, not because the powers-that-be wanted it, or it was good for the WGs, but because the police were getting back-handers for looking the other way (there was a series on policing recently that covered this, and how they would give advance warning of raids).  The same probably went on in other major cities.  Nowadays the police tend to look the other way if a brothel isn't generating many complaints - they just don't have the resources to shut down all the brothels, any more than they have to deal with all the drug-users.

While the American Evangelicals (and others) are certainly over-stating the size of the problem to fit their agendas, that is no reason to down-play the issue.

[daviemac]

I don't know why you have such confidence in 'official sources'. They contain many false statistics. We have told you that the Palermo Protocol tells you that the internationally accepted definition of trafficking involves coercion and deception. Using this definition, none of the women in the documentary were trafficked.

Then you have the English 2003 law which says that trafficking doesn't need to involve coercion or deception. That created a situation where bringing people into the country and coercing them into factory work is trafficking but bringing people into the country and not coercing them into sex work is also trafficking.

We're telling you the facts, not speculating.

Simple reason, the official sources I quoted explain what the law is regarding trafficking, not necessarily how it's implemented. On the other hand people like you post your opinion and claim it to be fact.

I think I'll stick to what the official sources say and form my own opinion from that and I'll just ignore the random punters on a punting forum who think they know it all.

As I have already stated, I have no wish to debate any of these points with anyone, something you have either not noticed or chosen to ignore. I posted links to the relevant official sources for people to make their own minds up.

Unlike you I am not trying to convince anyone what is right and what is wrong.

[scutty brown]

The six who were deported were probably deported because they had no right to be in the country. Not because they were 'criminal or undesirable'. The thirteen who were not deported could well all have been British.

Even EU nationals before Brexit were deported if it was found they were prostitutes.

"Probably".........."could well".........in other words you don't know and you're making it all up.
And just for clarification - anyone in the country with no right to be here IS committing a criminal act

[scutty brown]

You cannot treat trafficking in Britain as something separate from what is happening in the world. The point is that we are told that women are victims when they are not. Victims of the police, yes. The police imprison them.

I'm not saying that sexual slavery does not exist. It happens, but it is rare. The issue of trafficking is being used by right-wing American Evangelicals to try to stop prostitution. The US State Department puts pressure on governments around the world. That's why in Britain the police started shutting down brothels starting in 2005 with Cuddles and then in the 2010s with many more.

There used to be many brothels in Liverpool, my nearest city. Now there are two. In a well-run brothel nobody gets raped or robbed because no woman is left alone in a flat. Most SPs in Liverpool now use internet sites to contact clients and work alone where they are vulnerable. That's all due to decisions made almost 20 years ago by President Bush in America.

You are out of your tiny little mind.
Sexual slavery is damn common, especially among the immigrant populations. You mention Liverpool, that city is riddled with competing gangs jostling for market share. Romanians, Chinese, Russian/Albanian, Hungarian and others. You say just two brothels in Liverpool? Bullshit. Preston and Blackburn have 25-30 each. Liverpool is far larger and currently shows 191 Vivastreet profiles and around 50 non-UK AW profiles, that will equate to around 30+ brothels, plus those hidden parlours fed by taxi touts, backpage adverts and suchlike. Between the foreign gangs and our own druggie gangs these overseas girls are mainly trappped and trafficked into horrendous situations - and it is the majority

[petermisc]

plus those hidden parlours fed by taxi touts, backpage adverts and suchlike.

Aren't going to be getting much work from Backpage adverts.  How many years ago was it closed down?
Or do you mean back of newspaper ads?  Hardly any of them left nowadays, indeed some papers have long since stopped running them.  Advertising is mostly on-line these days.

[Barclay Spank]

"Probably".........."could well".........in other words you don't know and you're making it all up.
And just for clarification - anyone in the country with no right to be here IS committing a criminal act

I was responding to your speculation that the ones deported must have been wrong'uns.

The point is that the are deported, this is something that the documentary doesn't tell people. The reason they don't tell you is because they are trying to make out that they are victims being recued. They are not victims and they are not being rescued.

[Barclay Spank]

You are out of your tiny little mind.
Sexual slavery is damn common, especially among the immigrant populations. You mention Liverpool, that city is riddled with competing gangs jostling for market share. Romanians, Chinese, Russian/Albanian, Hungarian and others. You say just two brothels in Liverpool? Bullshit. Preston and Blackburn have 25-30 each. Liverpool is far larger and currently shows 191 Vivastreet profiles and around 50 non-UK AW profiles, that will equate to around 30+ brothels, plus those hidden parlours fed by taxi touts, backpage adverts and suchlike. Between the foreign gangs and our own druggie gangs these overseas girls are mainly trappped and trafficked into horrendous situations - and it is the majority

There are lots of women in Liverpool who can be found online. They are not in brothels. It is illegal for them to work with other women. Sometimes they will have someone in the flat with them for safety but they are taking a risk because that is illegal.

Do you remember in the documentary where Sylvia says she was working in Oxford and men with knives came and robbed her? She would have been working alone. It would not have happened if she had been working in one of the two brothels in Liverpool.

At the end of the third episode it showed Sylvia at the airport. She had decided to return to Britain to be a sex worker again. She said she wanted money for university. Does that sound like sexual slavery to you?

[daviemac]

I was responding to your speculation that the ones deported must have been wrong'uns.

The point is that the are deported, this is something that the documentary doesn't tell people. The reason they don't tell you is because they are trying to make out that they are victims being recued. They are not victims and they are not being rescued.

Can you show some official evidence of this? or are you just speculating but claiming it as fact.   

[daviemac]

There are lots of women in Liverpool who can be found online. They are not in brothels. It is illegal for them to work with other women. Sometimes they will have someone in the flat with them for safety but they are taking a risk because that is illegal.

Do you remember in the documentary where Sylvia says she was working in Oxford and men with knives came and robbed her? She would have been working alone. It would not have happened if she had been working in one of the two brothels in Liverpool.

At the end of the third episode it showed Sylvia at the airport. She had decided to return to Britain to be a sex worker again. She said she wanted money for university. Does that sound like sexual slavery to you?

This post tells me you know absolutely nothing about the laws regarding prostitution. it is NOT illegal to work with other women and, as long as the other person is not a sex worker, it is NOT illegal to have another person in the premises they work from.  Premises only become a brothel when more than one sex worker uses them. Even then it is only the person operating the premises that is doing anything illegal, not escorts who only use it to work from but have no other involvement.

Try and learn the facts before you make comments.

[Barclay Spank]

Simple reason, the official sources I quoted explain what the law is regarding trafficking, not necessarily how it's implemented. On the other hand people like you post your opinion and claim it to be fact.

I think I'll stick to what the official sources say and form my own opinion from that and I'll just ignore the random punters on a punting forum who think they know it all.

I am not posting my opinion. I am telling you what academic experts like Emily Kenway and investigative journalists like Nick Davies have discovered. I have quoted both of them on this thread.

You should read 'The Truth about Modern Slavery' by Emily Kenway especially chapter 3 the section 'The Scale of 'Sex Slavery': A Model of Misinformation'. In this section she explains how the Home Office and others came up with completely false estimates of the number of trafficked women in Britain. It's a joke. These are your 'official sources'.

In this section she also states "... Nicki Adams [of the ECP] says some temporary brothels are a result of police activities. Tactics changed in the mid-2010s, she told me, which saw an increase in police shutting down long-term brothels". So that answers the guy who said 'The police have been closing down brothels long before then'.

[scutty brown]

I was responding to your speculation that the ones deported must have been wrong'uns.

The point is that the are deported, this is something that the documentary doesn't tell people. The reason they don't tell you is because they are trying to make out that they are victims being recued. They are not victims and they are not being rescued.

You're speculating on something you don't know. Unless you were involved with the women you have no way of knowing what happened to them. However this report indicates that at least one was glad to return home after seven years of what appears to be sexual slavery - though I accept you have to read between the lines of a Daily Mail report
External Link/Members Only
It rather seems she was glad to be rescued.

The simple fact remains though that one way or another they would have been working here illegally.
Either willingly, in which case they're simply illegal immigrants and will eventually be deported. Just like any other illegal immigrant
Or unwillingly, in which case they may be given leave to stay, or may be repatriated - depending on circumstances and country of origin.
But there's a fundamental flaw in your argument. The majority of foreign sex workers in this country ARE victims, and are unwilling participants. They in many cases may have been fooled into coming here voluntarily, but it takes very little time before they realise their mistake. By then they're trapped

[Barclay Spank]

This post tells me you know absolutely nothing about the laws regarding prostitution. it is NOT illegal to work with other women and, as long as the other person is not a sex worker, it is NOT illegal to have another person in the premises they work from.  Premises only become a brothel when more than one sex worker uses them. Even then it is only the person operating the premises that is doing anything illegal, not escorts who only use it to work from but have no other involvement.

Try and learn the facts before you make comments.

If you take money from a prostitute to keep her safe that is illegal. You will be considered to be a pimp. "It will generally be in the public interest to prosecute those who abuse, harm, exploit, or make a living from the earnings of prostitutes." From External Link/Members Only

[daviemac]

I am not posting my opinion. I am telling you what academic experts like Emily Kenway and investigative journalists like Nick Davies have discovered. I have quoted both of them on this thread.

You should read 'The Truth about Modern Slavery' by Emily Kenway especially chapter 3 the section 'The Scale of 'Sex Slavery': A Model of Misinformation'. In this section she explains how the Home Office and others came up with completely false estimates of the number of trafficked women in Britain. It's a joke. These are your 'official sources'.

In this section she also states "... Nicki Adams [of the ECP] says some temporary brothels are a result of police activities. Tactics changed in the mid-2010s, she told me, which saw an increase in police shutting down long-term brothels". So that answers the guy who said 'The police have been closing down brothels long before then'.

Agreed, you aren't posting your opinion, you are relaying the opinions of others. Show something from an official source.

What the police do in any given situation very much depends on the local Police and crime commissioner and their outlook on it. That varies from region to region BTW.

Any comment on your misrepresentation of what is or isn't illegal in the sex industry.   

If you take money from a prostitute to keep her safe that is illegal. You will be considered to be a pimp. "It will generally be in the public interest to prosecute those who abuse, harm, exploit, or make a living from the earnings of prostitutes." From External Link/Members Only

You're wrong. It's only illegal if you are controlling or coercing her.

[scutty brown]

There are lots of women in Liverpool who can be found online. They are not in brothels. It is illegal for them to work with other women. Sometimes they will have someone in the flat with them for safety but they are taking a risk because that is illegal.

Do you remember in the documentary where Sylvia says she was working in Oxford and men with knives came and robbed her? She would have been working alone. It would not have happened if she had been working in one of the two brothels in Liverpool.

At the end of the third episode it showed Sylvia at the airport. She had decided to return to Britain to be a sex worker again. She said she wanted money for university. Does that sound like sexual slavery to you?

You are talking out of your arsehole.
Few of the foreign girls work alone - most are in twos and threes, controlled by a pimp or trafficker. As an estimate there will be around 30+ locations in Liverpool just whoring out the non-Brits. I've not counted them exactly, but I can extrapolate from numbers elsewhere which I do collate. Just two brothels in Liverpool? Total bollocks.

As for your idea that a second girl would stop a knife attack........that's totally laughable

[Barclay Spank]

You're speculating on something you don't know. Unless you were involved with the women you have no way of knowing what happened to them. However this report indicates that at least one was glad to return home after seven years of what appears to be sexual slavery - though I accept you have to read between the lines of a Daily Mail report
External Link/Members Only
It rather seems she was glad to be rescued.

I've read this Daily Mail article and there are a number of lies. For example "but soon became the victim of a violent human trafficking network": Viner and Gomes were never violent. "Sylvia, who has now escaped to Brazil,": she didn't escape to Brazil she was deported after a brothel raid. Then she decided to return to Britain to be a sex worker again. To get money for university.

When a prostitute works 16 or 17 hours a day, most of the time she will be watching TV, looking at her smart phone or ironing. She won't be having sex 17 hours a day. She said if you have 10 customers a day you will be hurt. Well, we know that's not true, don't we. Lots of sex workers have 10 customers a day and don't get hurt. In the documentary they mention 16 customers in a day, but they didn't tell us what the average each day is. Or how common 16 per day is, is that the largest number any of these women had in a day?

Rosana Gomes got ten pounds every time these women had sex. They kept the rest of the money for themselves. Does that sound like slavery? It's seems that Gomes spoke English to the customers on the phone to arrange the meetings then spoke to the sex workers in Portuguese. It seems that she wasn't on the premises. Which is a pity because then they could have avoided the rape and robbery.

[Barclay Spank]

As for your idea that a second girl would stop a knife attack........that's totally laughable

She will have a safe space where she can lock the door and call the police. She is not going to let a gang of men into the flat. You might say she could open the door to one man then the rest will be hiding round the corner and rush in. Or a man in the flat might open the door to his fellow gang members. He might not be able to open the door though because it might be locked with a key. Then he's the one in trouble because there are two angry women and one man.

I'm not saying that every crime can be prevented by having more than one woman on the premises. But nearly all rapes and robberies can be prevented. Why do you think that it is now recommended that female estate agents, nurses and social workers aren't in a building with an unidentified male? It's because 'Mr Kipper' would not have been able to murder Suzie Lamplugh if there had been two of them.

[Barclay Spank]

You're wrong. It's only illegal if you are controlling or coercing her.

If you take money from a prostitute for any service at all connected to her work then that is illegal.

[scutty brown]

I've read this Daily Mail article and there are a number of lies. For example "but soon became the victim of a violent human trafficking network": Viner and Gomes were never violent.

How do you know that?

"Sylvia, who has now escaped to Brazil,": she didn't escape to Brazil she was deported after a brothel raid. Then she decided to return to Britain to be a sex worker again. To get money for university.

How do you know she was deported? And how do you know her alleged return was voluntary?

[/quote]

When a prostitute works 16 or 17 hours a day, most of the time she will be watching TV, looking at her smart phone or ironing. She won't be having sex 17 hours a day. She said if you have 10 customers a day you will be hurt. Well, we know that's not true, don't we. Lots of sex workers have 10 customers a day and don't get hurt. In the documentary they mention 16 customers in a day, but they didn't tell us what the average each day is. Or how common 16 per day is, is that the largest number any of these women had in a day?
[/quote]

Awful lot of speculation and falsity over a working girl's day in that comment
I believe she means hurt as in friction burns to her vagina and ass, and not allowed time to recover.

Rosana Gomes got ten pounds every time these women had sex. They kept the rest of the money for themselves. Does that sound like slavery? It's seems that Gomes spoke English to the customers on the phone to arrange the meetings then spoke to the sex workers in Portuguese. It seems that she wasn't on the premises. Which is a pity because then they could have avoided the rape and robbery.

How do you know that? I don't remember it from the film. Also you're ignoring the fact the majority share would go to Viner and his mate.


To me your comments appear either total fabrication, or those of someone who has a vested interest in the gang of crooks. Are you a pimp by any chance?

[scutty brown]

She will have a safe space where she can lock the door and call the police. She is not going to let a gang of men into the flat. You might say she could open the door to one man then the rest will be hiding round the corner and rush in. Or a man in the flat might open the door to his fellow gang members. He might not be able to open the door though because it might be locked with a key. Then he's the one in trouble because there are two angry women and one man.

I'm not saying that every crime can be prevented by having more than one woman on the premises. But nearly all rapes and robberies can be prevented. Why do you think that it is now recommended that female estate agents, nurses and social workers aren't in a building with an unidentified male? It's because 'Mr Kipper' would not have been able to murder Suzie Lamplugh if there had been two of them.

Rambling pointless speculation intended to distract from the fact you seem to know fuck all about trafficking, slavery and prostitution but seem   determined to whitewash this group of criminal bastards

[daviemac]

If you take money from a prostitute for any service at all connected to her work then that is illegal.

Do yourself a favour and give it up, you are wrong, totally wrong. For the last time you have to be controlling or coercing in some way, or be vital for the running of the place for it to be illegal and or be prosecuted. Those with only minor involvement are left to get on with it.

Read the CPS site properly.

Escorts pay to advertise, pay for website development, pay for internet access, pay for photo shoots, the list goes on and none of those getting paid for those services are breaking the law yet they are all directly connected to her business as an escort.

[Barclay Spank]

How do you know that?

You have asked a number of questions. I will be brief in my reply.

1. If Viner or Gomes had been violent they would have put that in the documentary. They didn't.
2. It says in this newspaper article External Link/Members Only "Sylvia, who now lives in Brazil after being deported, has given up sex work."
3. At the end of the 3rd episode it shows Sylvia at the airport and it says she's returning because she wants money for uni.
4. If she's getting hurt it's because she doesn't understand about lubrication, 10 clients a day is not a lot.
5. In the documentary the police find the books that record transactions, one woman had 16 clients in a day and Gomes kept 160 from that, so all the rest went to the woman, she kept most of it.
6. If you say that I must be a pimp then you would also have to say that Emily Kenway, Mollie Smith and Juno Mac are also pimps. I am just saying the sort of things that they are saying. They are not so gullible as to believe that the police are saving women from captivity. I know it's a nice story but it's false. I urge people to read their books and also the two important articles on the subject of trafficking by investigative journalist Nick Davies especially Inquiry fails to find single trafficker who forced anybody into prostitution. Or the Jerry Markon article Human Trafficking evokes outrage, little evidence.

[Barclay Spank]

Do yourself a favour and give it up, you are wrong, totally wrong. For the last time you have to be controlling or coercing in some way, or be vital for the running of the place for it to be illegal and or be prosecuted. Those with only minor involvement are left to get on with it.

Read the CPS site properly.

Escorts pay to advertise, pay for website development, pay for internet access, pay for photo shoots, the list goes on and none of those getting paid for those services are breaking the law yet they are all directly connected to her business as an escort.

I am going to quote from two different sources to show that you are wrong. The first is from the English Collective of Prostitutes website. The second is from a New Scientist article.

Sexual Offences Act 2003, Section 53: Controlling prostitution for gain12 and Sexual Offences
Act, Section 52: Causing or inciting prostitution for gain.13 No evidence of force, coercion or
even exploitation is required to bring charges for controlling or inciting. Consequently, these
laws prevent sex workers from working with others and employing a security guard, driver,
assistant or anyone who could provide protection and reduce the risk of violence.

External Link/Members Only

Why do you think anti-prostitution laws can make life more dangerous for sex workers?

If you think what sex workers do is dangerous, why insist they do it alone? It is legal in the UK for individuals to sell sex, but they may not work with companions or employ security guards. Brothels are illegal. If you prohibit businesses but people run them anyway – which they do – then workers must please bosses no matter what they ask. That is why this is a labour issue. Also, targeting kerb-crawlers makes things more dangerous since sex workers may have to jump in cars without getting a good sense of the driver.

In the same article the author goes on to say:-

What about trafficking of unwilling victims?

The numbers of trafficking victims reproduced by the media have no basis in fact. There is no way to count undocumented people working in underground economies. Investigations showed that one big UK police operation failed to find any traffickers who had forced people into prostitution. Most migrants who sell sex know a good deal about what they are getting into.

External Link/Members Only

You said "none of those getting paid for those services are breaking the law yet they are all directly connected to her business as an escort". Lezlie Davies, who we see in the documentary photographing the women for their AW profile, was convicted. In one newspaper article it says "Viner's friend Davies lived as a sub-tenant in the next door flat to the brothel, "kept an eye" on what was going on and sometimes helped women with lifts, the court heard". So he was paid for his photography but was not involved in the running of the brothel. Yet he was convicted.

[winkywanky]

As ever the truth is somewhere in the middle I should imagine.

To say no foreign woman ever got fooled into becoming sex worker in the UK is frankly ludicrous, there are frequent examples where women are brought over on the pretext of doing a 'proper job', then have their passports taken away and are forced to fuck for peanuts to pay off a £10,000 'loan' for bringing them over. That is clearly coercion and servitude, and it is trafficking.

There's also plenty women who knowingly come over to do sex work, and are willingly facilitated in that by others, who have various premises around the country and the girls are 'rotated'.

I think in the second case these girls are also often regarded by the Law as 'trafficked'. Whether they are in any way really forced to do what they do, or are actually simply glad to be earning (hopefully) reasonable money per fuck is another matter.

To my mind if a girl can choose to leave and go home at any point and she has access to her passport to be able to do that, then I don't see that as necessarily 'wrong'.

[Barclay Spank]

To say no foreign woman ever got fooled into becoming sex worker in the UK is frankly ludicrous, there are frequent examples where women are brought over on the pretext of doing a 'proper job', then have their passports taken away and are forced to fuck for peanuts to pay off a £10,000 'loan' for bringing them over.

That is not frequent, that is rare. This is from the Anti Trafficking Review:-

"The most spectacular instance of the UK’s repressive mode of control was the police-led, multi-agency anti-trafficking mission, Pentameter 2. Beginning in 2007, this mission coordinated 55 police forces and raided 822 premises across the UK and Republic of Ireland. But Pentameter 2, like the Cuddles raid, had a dismal result. The mission led to the conviction of 15 men and women for trafficking offences, including ten people convicted without evidence they coerced women into prostitution, and the five convicted of using force were all detected by investigations preceding Pentameter 2. In a Guardian expos, journalist Nick Davies revealed Pentameter 2’s outcome: ‘The UK’s biggest ever investigation of sex trafficking failed to find a single person who had forced anybody into prostitution in spite of hundreds of raids on sex workers in a six-month campaign’. Nonetheless, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith deemed the policing mission ‘a great success’."

[daviemac]

I am going to quote from two different sources to show that you are wrong. The first is from the English Collective of Prostitutes website. The second is from a New Scientist article.

Just give it a rest mate, you are wrong in what you think because you don't understand the difference between what is classed as illegal and what the CPS would actually prosecute, there's a world of difference between the two.

As a little example of what I mean, the legal limit for drink driving is 35 micrograms per 100 millilitres of breath yet they don't prosecute until you reach 40. It's the same with prostitution, some things are allowed others aren't.

Now leave it there, do not involve me any further. you think what you like, I know what I know

One final note. -     External Link/Members Only

A man has been jailed for more than five years for trafficking women from Brazil to work in a brothel.

Mark Viner, 62, was extradited from his villa near Barcelona last year after a two-year police investigation uncovered the brothel in Cheltenham.

He admitted two counts of human trafficking and one count of keeping a brothel.

Lezlie Davies, 61, and 45-year-old Rosana Gomes admitted assisting in managing the brothel.

Davies, of Millennium Plaza in Cheltenham, and Gomes, of High Six Gardens in Patchway, Bristol, were also sentenced at Bristol Crown Court and both received 12-month community orders.

They were also placed under a 10-week curfew and were ordered to pay £500 costs.

[scutty brown]

You have asked a number of questions. I will be brief in my reply.

==snipped because surmisation not fact ==
.
5. In the documentary the police find the books that record transactions, one woman had 16 clients in a day and Gomes kept 160 from that, so all the rest went to the woman, she kept most of it.

so where was Viner's share? The girl also had to pay him, presumably through inflated building rent. Viner provided the properties

6. If you say that I must be a pimp then you would also have to say that Emily Kenway, Mollie Smith and Juno Mac are also pimps. I am just saying the sort of things that they are saying. They are not so gullible as to believe that the police are saving women from captivity. I know it's a nice story but it's false. I urge people to read their books and also the two important articles on the subject of trafficking by investigative journalist Nick Davies especially Inquiry fails to find single trafficker who forced anybody into prostitution. Or the Jerry Markon article Human Trafficking evokes outrage, little evidence.

If you are saying what they are really claiming then you are all wrong.
Just the number of trafficking prosecutions in Lancashire alone in the last few years is enough to show there is a serious problem. Last year was relatively quiet presumably due to covid, but the number jailed in the last 3-4 years is close on 35-40. The women they controlled were certainly forced. As were the chinese women I know of who were recently freed from a locked room where they were forced to service punters. Or others who were tricked into coming to the UK as cleaners, then gang raped until they agreed to sex work. There are numerous Romanian gangs running popup brothels with forced women, some Hungarians. In the cities things are more hidden but the Russian-Albanian gangs have private escort clubs while controlling a big stake in the  street market.
There are hundreds of hidden brothels dotted around the UK holding controlled women

[Horizontal pleasures]

I saw the Taken series. It worries me personally as I prefer to meet ladies who work at this from choice and for pleasure as well as for money. So maybe no Brazil nuts.

[meptalon]

I saw the Taken series. It worries me personally as I prefer to meet ladies who work at this from choice and for pleasure as well as for money. So maybe no Brazil nuts.

Kidnapped and drugged like in taken is quite extreme, and I hope it's an extremely rare case. What is probably much more common is some coercion via financial pressure. It could be debt to come over to the UK or indirect pressure towards the family/offspring or reputation back in their home countries. For instance, in Asian countries, face is something not to be taken lightly, suicides for loss of face are still not unheard of nowadays.

And the middle-ground is probably what many described in some of the documentaries broadcast recently: simply taking the passport and giving it back only once the "debt" is paid off.

[winkywanky]

And the middle-ground is probably what many described in some of the documentaries broadcast recently: simply taking the passport and giving it back only once the "debt" is paid off.

I wouldn't call that 'middle ground', I would call that clear and criminal coercion?

No one has the right to withhold your passport. No one.

[lillythesavage]

I wouldn't call that 'middle ground', I would call that clear and criminal coercion?

No one has the right to withhold your passport. No one.

Wow, there are people who think taking away another,s liberty, which holding a passport is, is acceptable for debt?

[tynetunnel]

And the middle-ground is probably what many described in some of the documentaries broadcast recently: simply taking the passport and giving it back only once the "debt" is paid off.

I would not expect anyone to take my passport because of a debt. Do you think that’s acceptable? Using the word “simply” implies it’s insignificant, which it’s not. It’s never acceptable in my view

[daviemac]

Wow, there are people who think taking away another,s liberty, which holding a passport is, is acceptable for debt?

What do you think the traffickers do? get them into the country then say "there you go, off you pop" they need a hold over them to get the debt paid.

[winkywanky]

Wow, there are people who think taking away another,s liberty, which holding a passport is, is acceptable for debt?

There are indeed, often scum from Albania and Romania and with a somewhat scary demeanour  .

[lillythesavage]

What do you think the traffickers do? get them into the country then say "there you go, off you pop" they need a hold over them to get the debt paid.

I know exactly what they do, minds must work differently up north lol, the point being some obviously find it acceptable and not just traffickers.