Decriminalisation of the sex industry - Corbyn says yes, what thinks urban?

[bimble]

Just want to say i get it now, that a move to decriminalising brothel-keeping would probably just help pimps and not women.
The conversation about how street walking is outdated and nobody needs to do that anymore when they could use the internet instead seems a bit strange though. eg

what is this? it's 2016 you know, no one HAS to do this.

I went to narcotics anonymous for a year (not long ago) & met women who've survived years of doing that, getting into strangers cars etc. They're not stupid they were just desperate, their circumstances at the time meant they didn't have the option of staying home getting bookings on their laptop, screening people etc.

 

[Dowie]

Rented from whom? In reality, men would buy properties to run as brothels, keeping women there, and living off them. In reality, you'd be decriminalising pimping. Progress?

Not really, any property could be a brothel regardless of the gender of the person who owns the premises. Men already run brothels and this idea of sex workers being allowed to work together doesn't decriminalize non sex workers from running them.

 

[likesfish]

The next big thing in buy to let obviously
Foxtons probably all ready presentation ready

Adding a brothel to your property portfolio 69 things you should do fnar fnar

 

[Athos]

Not really, any property could be a brothel regardless of the gender of the person who owns the premises. Men already run brothels and this idea of sex workers being allowed to work together doesn't decriminalize non sex workers from running them.

The point is that women who currently work as sex workers won't have the capital required to buy and run brothels. And, practically, how would you ensure that the owners are sex workers?

 

[Dowie]

The point is that women who currently work as sex workers won't have the capital required to buy and run brothels. And, practically, how would you ensure that the owners are sex workers?

for those who can individually rent apartments now they can collectively rent an apartment together, legally, under what I've suggested - it isn't just renting a full on traditional 'brothel' type establishment. Sex workers represent a diverse bunch of people I don't see how you can state that some of them are collectively are unable to do something such as run a small business beyond being a sole trader. If we're talking about legalising the formation of partnerships between sex workers then they'd need to be open to visits from the police or relevant local authority to ensure it is the workers who've formed the partnership who are working there and that they're not employing others.

In some areas where brothels are semi-legal/tollerated they're already visited by the police frequently however these places are generally not owned by the workers.

 

[pengaleng]

no one wants to form partnerships unless they are stupid, no one likes paying house fees or a cut of their earnings, people do sex work to gain independence

having a drug addiction and being desperate enough to walk the streets not caring about risk isn't something that should be defended, people do it, I'm not looking down on them, but as I've stated earlier in the thread they are not doing sex work out of any real choice are they, it's understandable that if they are selling themselves on the street whatever high value personal possessions they had would be in a pawn shop and no they wont be paying for internet

 

[Athos]

for those who can individually rent apartments now they can collectively rent an apartment together, legally, under what I've suggested - it isn't just renting a full on traditional 'brothel' type establishment. Sex workers represent a diverse bunch of people I don't see how you can state that some of them are collectively are unable to do something such as run a small business beyond being a sole trader. If we're talking about legalising the formation of partnerships between sex workers then they'd need to be open to visits from the police or relevant local authority to ensure it is the workers who've formed the partnership who are working there and that they're not employing others.

In some areas where brothels are semi-legal/tollerated they're already visited by the police frequently however these places are generally not owned by the workers.

How, practically, would it be checked that the sex workers who own or rent are working there, or, indeed are sex workers?

 

[Dowie]

How, practically, would it be checked that the sex workers who own or rent are working there, or, indeed are sex workers?

currently visits are made to check that the workers working there are not being kept against their will etc.. in this instance you check that they are who they say they are

 

[Dowie]

no one wants to form partnerships unless they are stupid, no one likes paying house fees or a cut of their earnings, people do sex work to gain independence

allowing people to form partnerships if they chose doesn't stop others from working as they chose, some might feel safer not working alone

 

[Athos]

currently visits are made to check that the workers working there are not being kept against their will etc.. in this instance you check that they are who they say they are

How will they confirm that they are sex workers? And what if they're not there? Or do they have to stay there 24/4?

 

[Dowie]

How will they confirm that they are sex workers? And what if they're not there? Or do they have to stay there 24/4?

they won't - but a brothel that doesn't have any sex workers isn't going to be in business for long

 

[Athos]

they won't - but a brothel that doesn't have any sex workers isn't going to be in business for long

Your point was it was owned by the sex workers. My point is that's impossible to police in practice.

 

[Dowie]

Your point was it was owned by the sex workers. My point is that's impossible to police in practice.

Not impossible really, not perfect either but an improvement on the current situation.

 

[bimble]

If you look at the law on this as it stands currently, it seems (to me) impressively nuanced - look at the aggrataving & mitigating factors that are taken into account when someone is found guilty of brothel keeping. Sentence can range between non custodial to 7 years depending on the situation:

"The degree of coercion, both in terms of recruitment and subsequent control of a prostitute's activities, is highly relevant to sentencing.
The degree to which a victim is exploited or controlled, the harm suffered as a result, the level of involvement of the offender, the scale of the operation and the timescale over which it has been run will all be relevant in terms of assessing the seriousness of the offence.."

Section 33a Keeping a brothel used for prostitution: Sentencing Manual: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service

 

[Athos]

Not impossible really, not perfect either but an improvement on the current situation.

Describe to me what this regime looks like.

 

[Athos]

Describe to me what this regime looks like.

And, more importantly, why it will be introduced i.e. whose interest are served.

 

[Dowie]

What 'regime'? The suggestion that sex workers should be allowed to form partnerships and operate from the same premises etc..? That would be to serve the interests of the sex workers who might chose to work in partnership with others. Why should that be illegal - whose interests are served by keeping that sort of thing criminal?

 

[Athos]

What 'regime'? The suggestion that sex workers should be allowed to form partnerships and operate from the same premises etc..? That would be to serve the interests of the sex workers who might chose to work in partnership with others. Why should that be illegal - whose interests are served by keeping that sort of thing criminal?

Because the reality is capital would ensure that these workers co-ops doesn't happen. The same as it does in pretty much every other industry. It's a nice fantasy, though. Men with capital would own and run these brothels, to the great detriment of sex workers.

 

[Athos]

What 'regime'? The suggestion that sex workers should be allowed to form partnerships and operate from the same premises etc..? That would be to serve the interests of the sex workers who might chose to work in partnership with others. Why should that be illegal - whose interests are served by keeping that sort of thing criminal?

Yeah, because capital allows lots of measures that benefit sex workers. Jesus!

 

[Dowie]

Because the reality is capital would ensure that these workers co-ops doesn't happen. The same as it does in pretty much every other industry. It's a nice fantasy, though. Men with capital would own and run these brothels, to the great detriment of sex workers.

Men with capital already run brothels - whose interests does it serve to keep it illegal for sex workers to form partnerships in order to work from the same premises?

 

[Pickman's model]

Men with capital already run brothels - whose interests does it serve to keep it illegal for sex workers to form partnerships in order to work from the same premises?

think about it...

 

[Dowie]

think about it...

thanks for the snide non answer but the question wasn't aimed at you, cunt

 

[Pickman's model]

thanks for the snide non answer but the question wasn't aimed at you, cunt

yeh. well, given your posting history expecting you to think about it was unrealistick.

 

[Dowie]

yeh. well, given your posting history expecting you to think about it was unrealistick.

given your posting history random comments and snide remarks seem to be pretty standard for you

 

[Pickman's model]

given your posting history random comments and snide remarks seem to be pretty standard for you

so?

 

[bimble]

Why single out this industry alone for protection from the usual problems with capital though? You know that's not what the existing laws are there for, seems an odd angle to take in defence of them.
Anyway, I think the law is so flexible according to circumstances as it stands that it seems OK as it is.

 

[Dowie]

so?

so you're a cunt, essentially

there isn't really much more to add beyond that, you've not added anything yourself in this instance you've just entered the thread in order to make a snide comment

 

[Pickman's model]

Why single out this industry alone for protection from the usual problems with capital though? You know that's not what the existing laws are there for, seems an odd angle to take in defence of them.
Anyway, I think the law is so flexible according to circumstances as it stands that it seems OK as it is.

do you mean "the law is flexible" or "the enforcement is flexible"?

 

[Pickman's model]

so you're a cunt, essentially

there isn't really much more to add beyond that, you've not added anything yourself in this instance you've just entered the thread in order to make a snide comment

yes, i'm a cunt. well spotted. but you seem to have missed 30-odd posts, i didn't enter the thread just now you know. now, have you reached a conclusion about whose interests are served by preventing sex workers forming partnerships?

 

[Dowie]

yes, i'm a cunt. well spotted. but you seem to have missed 30-odd posts, i didn't enter the thread just now you know. now, have you reached a conclusion about whose interests are served by preventing sex workers forming partnerships?

'in this instance' - I'm aware you've posted in the thread previously