Hi Guys
I see there is already a thread up here but here's my two cents on the subject aswell.
There's only a week left to get responses in to the consultation on the proposed bill to criminalise the purchase of sex in scotland, so please at least have a look through the consultation paper before saying this doesn't apply to me.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parlia...54314.aspx
I am not great at the technology
so you'll probably need to cut and paste this into your browser. The one above is the consultation paper and below is the campaign page on scot-pep's website - they have template letters if you can't be bothered answering the 8 consultation questions or writing your own.
http://www.scot-pep.org.uk/having-voice/...rchase-sex
I'm not going to get into all the arguments against this that I listed in my 9 page rant to Rhoda Grant but I'd really like to tell you all the reasons why I think this affects everyone using this site.
Okay, punters in Scotland - that's pretty obvious but this will also affect all the escorts but also, due to the wording of the proposed bill, all the webcam and phone/text chat girls aswell.
If it goes through, it will eventually affect you guys down south too - your not telling me that this nanny state isn't going to take this up and you also have your own fair share of religious nuts and bleeding hearts that will jump on the bandwagon if this becomes legislation up here.
Please take 5 mins to give it a read and hopefully it will make you as angry as it has me and you'll reply - you can choose to do so anonymously. This bill failed previously as Trish Godman lost her seat but the consultation papers were about 50/50 with a slight edge in favour so please, please answer before the 14th. You can reply if you don't live in Scotland (also please be aware, we currently have legislation that protects against trafficking - although you wouldn't think so from reading this paper)
Many thanks for taking the time to read this and I hope you get the time to reply.
Cheers Connie xx
gonna keep bumping this till Friday
thanks anyone who's sent in a response
if its any consolation, i'm bugging my flat mates, clients and any other working girls i know with it.
Thanks, Connie.
(07-12-2012, 23:40)x Connie x Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not going to get into all the arguments against this that I listed in my 9 page rant to Rhoda Grant...
...Actually, it might be useful. Perhaps there are arguments and angles that others might not have considered, and which they might like to develop.
For what it's worth, this was my response (I'm not Scottish, but I wasn't going to let that minor detail get in the way of a good rant!):
I am very concerned about the proposed legislation to outlaw prostitution in Scotland. It is an entirely disproportionate and illiberal measure. 15% of all adult males in the UK have visited a prostitute (source: Observer sex survey) - that's about 1 in 7 of all men. If this were a religion, it would be the second-largest after Christianity (and actually larger than the proportion of Christian men who are regular churchgoers). Banning prostitution because of concerns about "human trafficking" would be equivalent to banning Islam because of concerns about terrorism.
Also, this proposal actually has very little to do with human trafficking anyhow: a problem which is almost entirely nonexistent. The notion that significant numbers of women are being smuggled into the UK and forced to work in the sex industry is a myth. There is a smokescreen of misinformation based on assumptions that normal women would never voluntarily choose to be prostitutes (false), that most prostitutes have been coerced into the profession (false), and that most foreign women who have entered the UK and are now working as prostitutes must therefore have been "trafficked" by criminal gangs (also false: even those smuggled in by actual criminal gangs are overwhelmingly prostitutes by choice). This is why police investigations and raids keep failing to find them (e.g. the failure of Operation Pentameter: over 500 arrests, but about 1% of those arrested were actually charged with relevant offences related to forced prostitution).
There are sinister overtones of the Rochdale "Satanic abuse" scandal here. Again, crazed idealogues (in that case, evangelical Christians who believed in the actual existence of Satan and hence of widespread Satanist ritual) managed to dupe well-meaning people into perpetrating a monumental injustice. In this case, it's radical feminists who can't accept that voluntary prostitution can exist, and insist that all prostitution is "exploitation of women" (whereas the prostitutes themselves take a very different view, and see themselves as making a good living by exploiting men). Over and over again, their publications blur any distinction between forced and voluntary prostitution, between foreign women who come here voluntarily and those supposedly "trafficked", between consensual sex and rape... and so on. Their myths have been frequently exposed by academic studies and stridently opposed by prostitutes themselves, and yet they persist. The "consultation document" is riddled with them. Some of the rhetoric would be laughable if it were not so serious. For instance, apparently some women have to become prostitutes in order to "escape poverty": excuse me, but don't MOST people work for a living in order to escape poverty? Apparently, these women are to be "helped" into poverty, for their own good! And nevermind the testimony of the prostitutes themselves, who generally enjoy what they do and are quite happy to say so to the (sadly very few) people who actually listen to them. Of course, there are some who have had bad experiences, but in the vast majority of cases, they can simply quit: all too often, the only cases we hear about are those who have other problems (drug addiction and so forth).
And for many (perhaps most) clients of prostitutes, the only alternative is involuntary celibacy: which causes problems of its own. The Roman Catholic Church requires its priests to be celibate, and is riddled with sexual-abuse scandals. Many men in prisons are transformed from heterosexuals into sodomite rapists. Sweden, which already has the law that Scotland wishes to adopt, has double the UK's rape rate. An increase in rape and other forms of sexual assault seems inevitable. Of course, most sexually-frustrated men don't become rapists... but what about divorce? Like many men, I have a wife who has become frigid, whereas I have not: should I therefore abandon my family to find another woman, or have an affair, with its inevitable risks and complications?
And what of the men who are convicted? Presumably the Sex Offenders Register is to be expanded to include one-seventh of the entire male population? Consensual sex with the "wrong sort of woman" is to be a perversion sufficient to blight the career prospects of that huge number?
This proposal is both misanthropic and misogynistic. It seeks to crimimalise harmless, good, decent men and to financially ruin the compassionate women who help them. It seeks to deny freedom to those women and consign them to economic hardship. It is wholly unnecessary, being supposedly designed to tackle a problem that is almost nonesistent and that can be dealt with quite adequately by existing legislation. It goes entirely against the advice of prostitutes themselves, who do NOT want to see their profession driven further underground, exposing them to needless danger. It is pure crackpottery of the worst kind, driven by those who have an agenda that runs contrary to the interests of both prostitutes and their clients.
A couple of articles that I urge you to read if you haven't already:
"Prostitution and trafficking – the anatomy of a moral panic":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20...xaggerated
"Inquiry fails to find single trafficker who forced anybody into prostitution":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20...intcmp=239
As for the consultation questions: here are my responses.
Q1: "Do you support the general aim of the proposed Bill?" - No. Reasons given above.
Q2: "What do you believe would be the effects of legislating to criminalise the purchase of sex?" - Financial hardship to prostitutes, increased danger to prostitutes, adding large numbers of men to the Sex Offenders Register for engaging in sex with freely-consenting adults.
Q3: "Are you aware of any unintended consequences or loopholes caused by the offence?" - Possible increase in rapes and other sexual assaults, likely increase in extramarital affairs and divorce. Evidence: effects of celibacy on Roman Catholic priests and on prisoners, Sweden's high incidence of rape, frequency of marital breakdown where frigidity and/or extramarital affairs are cited.
Q4: "What are the advantages or disadvatages in using the definitions outlined above?" - Repeated use of biased propaganda terms clouds the debate. Repeated use of "sexual exploitation" to describe prostitution, repeated use of "trafficking" to describe the movement of voluntary prostitutes. Use of the phrase "promoting equality" with regard to a service that already caters for (and is used by) heterosexual and homosexual men and women, but happens to be largely used by (a minority of) heterosexual men (so let's ban football matches too?). Blatantly infringes on minority rights, seeks to impose the will of the majority on the minority: this is bigotry, not equality.
Q5: "What do you think the appropriate penalty should be for the offence?" - None. There is no "offence", this is an activity that takes place between freely-consenting adults. Where coercion/duress is involved, existing legislation covers that. If this is inadequate, address that: don't punish the innocent.
Q6: "How should a new offence provision be enforced? Are there any techniques which might be used or obstacles which might be overcome?" - It must never be enforced, and is in fact unenforcable without radically unjust measures. Presumably this would involve police entrapment operations and "stings" on innocent people who have no intention of engaging in any non-consensual activity. The whole idea is a monstrous violation of civil liberties.
Q7: "What is your assessment of the likely financial implications of the proposed bill to you or your organisation": - As I have absolutely no intention of complying with this unjust law, I risk becoming a criminal, gaining a criminal record, and perhaps becoming a registered sex offender. The financial implications are obvious.
Q8: "Is the proposed Bill likely to have any substantial positive or negative implications for equality? If it is likely to have a substantial negative implication, how might this be minimised or avoided?" - Major negative implications. Prostitutes from Eastern Europe already face discrimination because of the mere suspicion that they might have been "trafficked", and this will not help. These are likely to be driven further underground than the very obviously non-trafficked native prostitutes. Of course, by its very nature, the legistlation discriminates against women (and some men) who choose prostitutuion as their profession, and against men (and some women) for whom prostitutes are their only access to sex. This is unavoidable, and requires abandonment of the Bill.
Okay Simon, you asked for it and seeing as your the only person who has replied I'll oblige - hope it doesn't put anyone else of. here is my reply,
Dear Rhoda Grant
I am writing to register my objection to your proposals to criminalise the purchase of sex in Scotland. I note that for consultation you have asked for answers to the eight questions provided. However, I have found many of your points to be inaccurate and misleading so have chosen to respond to all of them along with your questions.
Please note I am a private individual and would like my response to be treated as anonymous. My reason for this is that I choose to work anonymously – due to the stigma attached to my job through years of negative reinforcement. I hope this is a reasonable explanation for you, as highlighted in point 113, but doubt that it is, so I will also submit a copy in the normal attributal basis (I am assuming this means pop it in the post).
11. I have experience as a sex worker and I do not feel that my chosen profession exploits me or is any kind of physical abuse. It is not a treatment or degradation but a form of income and in a 21st Century Scotland I do not think women should be dictated to by the state.
12. I and everyone I know are completely willing. The study here apparently reflects the experiences of street workers. If this bill is successful there will be many more street workers as there will not be anywhere safe for the more vulnerable girls to go. 48% of indoor workers have suffered violence – I find this statistic highly questionable. (Find better studies to quote).
13. Rubbish – there will be nowhere for trafficked girls to find help.
14. If demand falls – saunas will close – independent girls will set up privately – vulnerable groups will either walk the streets or end up locked up somewhere with no access to girls who know their rights and healthcare professionals.
15. Perhaps you should do that instead?
16. I would say majority rather than minority. I personally (in 5 years), have met well over a hundred girls who choose to be ‘prostitutes’ and only 1 who did not.
17. Disagree – would weaken any work that is currently done.
18. Only goes to show how closed your mind is.
19. Prostitution is neither harmful nor dehumanising. It is neither exploitation nor a form of violence against women. It is a service that is needed and provided willingly. I have no doubt that vulnerable women are sometimes forced into this but punishing the people who are most likely to report his form of abuse to the authorities seems stupid.
20. Rubbish. Individuals are not bought, time with an individual is bought.
21. Why should these severe punishments be levied at someone who is breaking no laws and hurting no one??!!??
22. Hiding prostitution under the radar would surely mean that the only people with the means to make it beneficial would be criminals.
Q1. No. My income would be affected, the more vulnerable of my colleagues would find themselves forced into positions where exploitation and violence could befall them, there would be a greater risk of the spread of STIs, HIV and AIDS, disabled clients would find themselves either breaking the law or doing without female company, lonely elderly gents would find themselves in the same predicament , wives and partners of clients may be inconvenienced by their partners requesting sexual acts that they are not comfortable with, trafficked girls would go without advice and support from their peers and healthcare professionals and I would lose my right to choose what I want to do with my body and for my income – in a 21st Century Scotland I find that unacceptable.
23. This bill fell and your attempt to slide your bill through without public consultation was despicable and rightly thrown out as hopefully this nonsense will be.
24. Although worker will not be charged, why should someone be charged for accepting an offer or service which is being given? Again anyone trafficking women will be driven further underground where they cannot be discovered and where undesirable customers will be able to have access to girls that they are exploiting.
25. Had you bothered to do your own research you may have noticed that your views and facts are very flawed.
26. that is a lot of people to put on the dole. I wonder how that will affect the unemployment figures for Scotland not to mention our already ailing economy.
27. Only in very rare and very extreme cases are sex workers harmed because of their job it is in even more exceptional cases that a family would be affected – so exceptional that I have never heard of it. Perhaps you should provide details of actual cases as most genuine (as opposed to the variety featured on ‘Eastenders’ and ‘Rivercity’ and such movies as ‘Taken’) working girls have not heard of this.
28. It surprises me that you have only looked at negatives and don’t seem to care about the other 99.99% of people involved in the industry.
29. As with cars, shops, people etc. there are more in bigger towns and cities. It is as ridiculous to criminalise these as it is to allow your bill through.
30. No change of attitude is needed here. What you think is happening is not.
31, 32 & 33. I don’t understand the relevance? These statistics are based on the OPINIONS of men who have admitted to paying for sex – not convicted rapists. I am sure if they had ever tested out their theories their sex workers would have pointed out their error – it is in their favour that they didn’t know the outcome of attempting such behaviour. It is also widely known and proven that rape is a product of a need for ‘power’ and not ‘sex’ as stated here.
34. The social change you want is not needed.
35. Responses to this consultation will raise the same objections – will you just ignore them out of hand as well?
36. If this is the case then most of the girls I work with must be trafficked – they are not.
37. Why not look at Germany, New Zealand or Australia to name but a few where prostitution is legal and a lot safer than this country where the only strictly legal option for sex workers is to work alone. Trafficking, tax evasion and benefit fraud are much more difficult in a situation where total transparency is available.
38 - 42. As with your bill, that is not law so doesn’t seem relevant.
43. These bills are raised by individuals not governments as you surely know. You would really suggest that Scotland should follow countries such as Israel in legislative matters?
44 – 51. Yes, current legislation is not perfect. Decriminalisation or legalisation would allow everyone to work safely and incidents of abuse and trafficking could be reported easily without fear of reprisal.
52. Yes I believe I have met the 1 reported case in Scotland and if she had not come to work in a council licenced Sauna her plight would remain unknown.
51 – 63. I could not agree more – human trafficking is a terrible crime and should not be tolerated. As far as I am aware Scotland already has a zero tolerance policy on this. As I mentioned earlier a girl we believed was being forced to do the job was made aware of her rights in this county and directed to where she would find that help. If she was forced to work the streets or in a private flat – as this bill would surely do – the outcome could have been much worse for her.
64. No it is not and no it does not. Actual (oxford dictionary) description of what a prostitute is,
‘a person, typically a woman, who engages in sexual activity for payment.’
65. I did not ‘find’ myself in prostitution. I am not sexually exploited or abused.
66. There are no brothels in Scotland – it is illegal. As far as I am aware, there are licenced Saunas and flats. Illegal brothels are raided and shut down. In saunas, adult massage is offered and in flats, escort services. Hopefully what goes on between concenting adults in these situations will remain between them and not be dictated by the state.
67. It will only tackle demand from good, hardworking, law abiding gentlemen – it will not deter the kind of men who use trafficked, abused, exploited women – the kind you claim you are trying to protect.
68 – 70. Zero tolerance to trafficking would be a better aim and legalising prostitution would protect far more women than this proposed Bill would.
71 – 74. Adults should be free to make a transaction that hurts no one and involves no one else. I would also not like to live in a country where no evidence was needed to charge someone with a crime.
75. This is ridiculous.
76 & 77. It should never be an offence where all parties are willing – a service is being offered and it is just stupid to charge people for accepting it.
Q2. I believe that saunas would see a dramatic fall in customers they would subsequently close. The girls working there who are financially secure and have a sensible head on their shoulders would either become unemployed or would rent premises and advertise and work independently.
• Unemployment causes financial hardship. This affects not only the prostitute but also any dependants she may have. Along with financial hardship this could cause health problems like depression also causing problems for any dependants.
• Working independently has its own risks. By law, you must be alone with your customers or whilst awaiting customers. Most clients are gentlemen but if you are unfortunate enough to attract a violent customer or one who has partaken of alcohol or drugs you are in a very vulnerable position as a lone female.
The more vulnerable girls who work in the saunas who may have a substance addiction or simply are not that good at organising things or are just too young to know how to go about working independently would find themselves in a worse predicament.
• Unemployment
• Work the street with all the dangers that entails – rape, beatings, kidnap, and murder.
• Answer ads to work for private unlicensed flats and agencies where abuse or trafficking is more likely as checks cannot be made.
• These girls may not remember to get regularly screened for STIs, HIV an AIDS
• They may offer their services inappropriately out of desperation.
I have not provided evidence as I have read through your scree and you have provided none. The question asks for what I believe will happen – negating the need for evidence. I also do not feel I should have to provide any as I am not the one proposing a change to the law. The onus should be on you to back up your rantings with facts and case-studies – you have not done this adequately.
Q3. Consequences would include,
• Spread of STIs – Vulnerable girls would fail to go for screenings or see customers in a state where they were unaware of their actions and risk sex without protection.
• Spread of HIV and AIDS for the same reasons.
• Disabled customers would have no skin-to-skin contact and perhaps no contact at all in extreme cases.
• Trafficked girls would not be identified by their peers, in the case of saunas, or customers, in the case of flats.
• Working alone carries the risk of assault, rape, robbery or murder.
• Working the street carries the risk of assault, rape, robbery or murder, or assault, rape, robbery or murder by a pimp.
• Working for a pimp may also increase the risk of being coerced to use alcohol or drugs.
• Attacks could go unreported.
• Disappearances could go unreported.
• Violent customers could go unreported
Loopholes could include,
• Clients being charged may claim they were simply having a massage and sauna.
• Clients being charged may claim that they were simply paying an escort for her time and conversation.
In some cases this would be the case and in other cases police would have to provide evidence, a lot of police man hours could be wasted – this would not be beneficial to our already hard-pressed force. As a tax payer, I personally, would find this an abuse of resources. Once again I have provided no evidence, that is on you.
78. I think it has already been established, by the parliament, that the previous consultation is not relevant.
79. Some of your mumsnet followers could take offence to this as this definition could also refer to some husbands.
80. Would you seek to avoid someone avoiding prosecution through innocence???
81 & 82. You could conveniently present anything you wanted as sexual.
Q4. The advantages for you, is that you can secure a conviction without evidence if you are taking penetrative and oral sex out of the equation.
The disadvantages for sex workers, clients, campaigners and members of the public alike is that what we deem reasonable others may not.
e.g. ,
• Gay marriage – I and the Scottish government (to my relief) deem this reasonable – others do not.
• The release of Abdel Ali Al Magrahei – this was in line with Scottish law but still some found it unreasonable.
• Working on a Sunday (indeed even, working in a sauna on a Sunday) is found unreasonable by a small number of our population.
• I would find it unreasonable to perform (unprotected in some cases) ‘sexual acts’, for a few drinks or even free, every weekend but some people do not.
I do not think any one opinion in these examples are right or wrong, just different – that is why this legislation has no place in a democratic society.
83. This could become just another revenue generator with fixed penalties being handed out willy-nilly.
84 & 85. And with the all-encompassing definitions you want to use you can simply convict everyone – brilliant.
Q5. I do not think any penalty is appropriate as I do not think the legislation is appropriate in any democratic society.
86 – 89. In this society this type of legislation SHOULD be unenforceable. You need to prove someone is guilty. E.g. where an elderly gent just wants a cuddle, is then ‘raided’ then subsequently charged, where is the evidence to prove he paid for a sexual act? There is no physical evidence and the only witness is his (very willing and not trafficked) prostitute. If there is a conviction in this case something would have gone very wrong with this country.
90. GCSS ‘describe’ and ‘believe’. Where is the evidence?
91. And in these circumstances should be dealt with, by the police, accordingly. A blanket ban will not put an end to organised crime.
92 – 95. ??? It is not the clients advertising and many do not study the list of services etc. just look at the pictures.
96. Relevance? If this was an illegal brothel police would be gathering evidence to that end.
97 & 98. Again why should people’s attitudes be changed? Freedom of speech and the right to choose are quite important.
Q6. It should not, but if it was, techniques might include police beating prostitutes to get a supporting witness statement with specially issued hooker batons? Obstacles that might need to be overcome are our basic human rights, freedom of choice, the justice system etc.
99. No financial impact is small in this economic climate.
100. Have you even read this back?
101. It is ridiculous to think that, under your proposal, my tax pounds would go towards prosecuting my clients.
102. The great majority of prostitutes do not want your intervention or subsequent charity. We would like you to stop vilifying our customers and find more pressing projects to pursue.
Q7. The financial implications for me, personally, will be devastating. My clients will not want to break the law in any location where they can be found out. So I will either face financial hardship or face the inconvenience of setting up independently (as I love my job and CHOOSE to do it the latter is more likely).
Financial hardship will,
• Mean I cannot pay my mortgage and in all likelihood will lose my home.
• My child will lose their home.
• In the short-term, I will not be able to pay my utility bills causing stress to me and hardship to my child.
• I will not be able to maintain my other financial obligations causing poor credit rating, CCJs and bankruptcy leading to stress for me and therefore hardship for my child.
• Failure to meet financial commitments affects our countries banks and economy.
• I will not be able to pay for food.
• I will not be able to afford any family holidays.
• I won’t be able to drive and so I will either not go anywhere or hope I have the money for public transport to do so – so as well as no holidays, days out are out too.
• No eating out for a treat.
• No new clothes, again, this will affect my child.
Setting up independently would,
• Eat into my personal time. I work 9-5 and like it that way.
• Affect the amount and quality of time I can spend with my child and my dog.
• Make my bookkeeping/accounts a lot more complicated than they are at the moment.
• Mean I have to have photographs and personal details in the public domain (I prefer to work anonymously and have the means to do that currently)
• Put me in danger of attack
• Put me in danger of rape
• Put me in danger of robbery
• Put me in danger of murder
• Cause distress to my child and family if any of the above occurred
• Put me in danger of blackmail (if my photos are recognised)
• Put me in a position where my future job prospects are affected if and when I decide to leave this profession
• Cause distress to my child and family if any of the above occurred
• Require a lot more business acumen than I currently have
I’m not sure what kind of evidence you want to back these claims up but I am not willing to open my personal accounts for your scrutiny and I don’t even draw up a business plan for the accountant, so I won’t be doing one for you.
Other financial implications are the ones that will be faced by the country when attempting to finance the enforcement of this folly. i.e. Raiding saunas, court and police time wasted when convictions fall through, police surveillance of private flats. Tax payers money (mine included) will be squandered plus shops may also see a downturn as working girls are noted spenders. Both of these factors will not help the current economic situation.
103. You cannot buy another person in this country – you can pay for a service or an hour of that person’s time. Keeping repeating it won’t make it so. You could apply this same ridiculous notion to gardeners or plumbers or cleaners etc., all of us use these people but we do not claim ownership of them.
104. I have never met a victim of prostitution despite having met 100s of prostitutes. Prostitution perpetuates no sexual inequality towards me.
105. I have heard, on the news, about a group that were successfully prosecuted after bringing girls here from Nigeria – I would be interested to know who provided the police with the tip-off, if not a client. Customers reporting this type of thing would lessen or completely cease if they felt in danger of prosecution. No good deed goes unpunished, so they say.
106. This societal change would not have the effect that you say you want, it would just see decent people facing prosecution, trafficked girls remaining in the dark concerning their rights, working girls facing financial hardship and danger and less chance of working girls helping the police with their enquiries in order to catch the real criminals.
Q8. I cannot see how this Bill can possibly affect equality in a positive way. In my opinion the only time inequality arises in this business is when a girl is forced into the industry by a pimp or drug dealer. Although I personally, have only come across this on one occasion* I think this generally will only happen to foreign girls - who do not know their rights in this countries, drug addicts – who are coerced into the job by a dealer or boyfriend (this is not personal knowledge just what I have seen portrayed in films and TV.) or very young and very suggestible girls (magazines, films and TV. again) - who are, again coerced by a boyfriend. These are the individuals who need to be punished and the people who bring these individuals to the police’s attention and help gather evidence against them are working girls, their clients and healthcare workers and campaigners.
As clients will be prosecuted under the proposed Bill this will have a negative impact on equality as it is directly taking one group out of the process of reporting this kind of inequality and abuse – clients may not step forward for fear of reprisals; and indirectly removing the other parties – as saunas that do not make money through lack of clients will soon close – no knowledgeable advice from peers and no access to healthcare professionals and charities like scot-pep.
This can be avoided through disregarding the proposed Bill. A more effective way to prevent this type of abuse from happening would be to completely legalising all sex work AND BROTHELS allowing women to work in a completely safe environment with guidelines in place that can be monitored, taking the stigma out of the industry thereby making it easy to prosecute the real criminals who prey on vulnerable young women.
*Over a year ago, (I cannot remember specific dates, but this particular case was reported in the ‘Edinburgh Evening News’) a new girl ‘Paris’ came to the sauna where I work. She claimed to be French and kept very much to herself. Myself and many of the other girls suspected that she was Albanian due to her accent and behaviour.
As this girl denied where she was from, despite her obvious lack of Frenchness and as her ‘boyfriend’ picked her up after every shift we began to suspect that he was her pimp. Despite her denials we urged her to report her circumstances to the police or the nurse who regularly visited us. We thought that she was scared to do this as she was afraid he would tell her family back home what she had been doing and she would be outcast, we also suspect that she was afraid of the authorities as her status here may have been questionable.
We urged her that even if this was the case, she would receive help getting away from her pimp and that there might be the chance to stay here if her life was going to be made unbearable at home. We encouraged her that if she wasn’t ready to report him and be on her own right away that she should start to lie about the amount of clients she had seen and start to put the money away so that she would eventually have something of her own.
She disappeared from our sauna soon after and we suspected that this was due to a drop in the money she was taking back to her pimp and that he had moved her elsewhere. This was confirmed about two weeks later when her story was reported in the ‘Evening News’. She had, thankfully, went to the nurse and reported her situation.
One of the girls met her recently and heard her story. She had taken our advice and after saving enough for a few basics to get her by, went to the drop-in clinic and reported everything. She has been rehoused and is in much better place. I have not heard if her boyfriend/pimp was caught or charged but she is safe. Had she been working in a flat, a client may have noticed her plight or may not. If this proposed Bill is successful there will not be other working girls around to advise girls like Paris (due to sauna closures) and clients visiting vulnerable girls in flats will be reluctant to come forward for fear of reprisals.
I did not intend for this response to be so lengthy but I feel that legislation that criminalises the purchase of sex results in harmful outcomes for sex workers, including increasing their HIV risk, vulnerability to abuse and exploitation and limiting their access to effective healthcare and support services and so wished to cover all points.
I fail to see why you, or indeed the Scottish Government, would wish to go against the overwhelming body of international evidence that clearly demonstrates that your proposal is completely misguided.
I hope that many people respond to this consultation and it is enough to let you see the error of your ways. I would also encourage you to visit or meet with working girls to put your mind at ease about the amount of suffering, inequality, exploitation and abuse that you feel is going on, perhaps if you encountered some genuine girls who work in the industry, rather than the stereotypes presented in the media, you would be a tad more open-minded in your attitude towards us and the sort of clients that we provide a service for.
Yours sincerely,
Connie
Other points that have been raised since i sent in my response is that the appeals court in scotland threw out the bill to 'do away with' the need for corrobarative evidence. this obviously means that without physical evidence (condoms etc) the proposed legislation would be absolutelly impossible to impliment - us girls are not going to give a statement that will convict our clients.
it is a bit of a rant and i have helped girls with better responses since - you did ask though. xx
...Thanks for that, and well said!
The disability angle is one I wish I'd remembered to include. How exactly are many disabled people going to ever experience sex? That should make "equality" campaigners sit up and take notice, and might actually cause the Bill to breach equality legislation on the basis of "indirect discrimination" against disabled people (and not just physical disability... what about Aspergers Syndrome?)
(09-12-2012, 16:17)Simon Wrote: [ -> ]...Thanks for that, and well said!
The disability angle is one I wish I'd remembered to include. How exactly are many disabled people going to ever experience sex? That should make "equality" campaigners sit up and take notice, and might actually cause the Bill to breach equality legislation on the basis of "indirect discrimination" against disabled people (and not just physical disability... what about Aspergers Syndrome?)
yes, atm disabled clients can come and go freely with many having their carers bringing them along.
i'm really confident that this will be thrown out - we have the likes of Margo in our corner after all (and common sense hopefully), but its not unheard of for stupid things to get a following just because people don't know whats really going on - you should see some of the drivel on the subject women post on mumsnet for example, it can make you cringe. the papers don't help - there was a story a couple of weeks ago in the Sunday Mail where some idiot was pretending to have links to loads of gangsters and selling foreign girls into saunas - if your reading it as a working girl then you say, "i can't believe they're printing this rubbish" but if you don't know anything about how the industry works, you're going to say, "Oh my God, those poor girls" and you really can't blame people for this.
If you're a foreign prostitute you can't possibly have come to this county on your own with the aim of improving your life - you have to be vulnerable, stupid, trafficked and if you're British its not much better - you must be a junkie/drunk who is being abused.
NEWSFLASH people - we like sex (and money
)
Simon, you have got me on my soapbox - nice rant of your own btw
edit: the MSP i mentioned hasn't outwardly said she's on the side of sexworkers but she does usually have compelling arguments in our favour.
Excellent submission Connie! Parts of it gave me a good laugh as well. The score is Connie: 10 Grant: nil.
So everybody please get a submission in by Friday 14th December. As Connie stated it was a close call the last time around so make sure we kill off this plan.
if the bill passes in scotland, its likely all other parts, of the u.k will follow suit, lets all fight for our rights..
well written connie,i better submit mine now.x
Don't let the disease of criminalising the clients of sex workers get in anywhere.
Fucking bullshit dot com...