Prostitution and legalisation

Less · 13-10-2006, 15:02

I was reading grego's thread about escort services and it reminded me about an article on BBC 24 hour news early this morning, which I can't seem to find any reference to on the BBC site so please forgive me while I try to give you the information, (anyone that finds a reference please post).

The article was stating that women that have been duped into coming over here then forced into prostitution should be treated as victims not illegals, I think thats fair enough.

They then went on to say that 10 years ago 85% of the women involved in prostitution were British.

Now however, it has been estimated that 85% of women within this trade are of foreign nationality, they then went on to say that it is unknown how many of these foreign women are forced into the trade.

Obviously anyone forced to do something against their will is wrong.

There are customers out there and there are providers for that service. But if as one member of our police force mentioned in that article the number of women forced into it is unknown, rather than wringing their hands and saying, Oh dear me how terrible something needs to be done, by our representitives, they should (and so should the men involved in purchasing this commodity), act.

Like the idea or hate it, for the protection of these women, legalise prostitution then at least we can keep a check on what is going on, any brothel that isn't legal, doesn't have legal, card carrying whores to be shut down and the owners prosecuted to the maximum. Any man that uses illegal brothels similar.

I don't think any women should be forced into this situation. Most of this seems to be happening around our larger Cities but how long before the Lancashire Evening Telegraph starts reporting 'foreign sex slaves' in our neighbourhood?

chav1 · 13-10-2006, 15:05

theres 2 brothells in blackburn which dont seem to be getting into trouble and eben have their own website and if i am remembering correctly advertise in the telegraph or possibly the observer

oh hang on they are MASSAGE parlours

well i suppose massages do relieve stiff parts so i guess technicaly they arnt lying

Tealeaf · 13-10-2006, 15:05

My only concern about all of this involves the amount of tax evaision that goes on...no Income, VAT or Corporation tax..no NI either. Bloody disgusting.

chav1 · 13-10-2006, 15:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

My only concern about all of this involves the amount of tax evaision that goes on...no Income, VAT or Corporation tax..no NI either. Bloody disgusting.

i would love to see the tax returns at the inland revenue lol

bj £10 plus %17 vat

buisness expenditures

1 set of cuffs , whip,candle wax and a lighter

1000 condoms

Less · 13-10-2006, 15:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

My only concern about all of this involves the amount of tax evaision that goes on...no Income, VAT or Corporation tax..no NI either. Bloody disgusting.

T' that is another point, legalised they would have to pay their taxes like everyone else and just think how good it will look on their adverts,

My pimp is the Prime Minister!

lettie · 13-10-2006, 15:31

There are valid arguments both for legalisation and against. I am all for legalisation. This would ensure the safe employment of 'working' girls, regular sexual health checks, tax and NI contributions and compulsory use of condoms. The staggering rise in HIV and other STI's over the last few years in this country is downright disgraceful. These rises aren't just down to foreigners coming here but down to the ignorance and stupidity of our young people and the government's failure to act.

Yes, the government has ploughed some money into services. I'm sure that Greg Pope could come on here and say exactly how much. Unfortunately the money earmarked for these services has been too little, too late. Many of these funds have been swallowed up by other portions of the health service. Therefore large sexual health campaigns which hit every household, like the AIDS Monolith TV Campaign of the 80's are a thing of the past. The government knows that current sexual health services could not cope with the amount of people coming forward for sexual health/HIV screening should they run a campaign of this nature. Therefore, they choose to sweep the problem under the carpet.

My solution would be to legalise and monitor prostitution and plough the extra gains in NI and taxation into the sexual health services.

The argument agianst legalisation would be 'NIMBY' Not In My Back Yard... Let's face it who would want to live next door to a brothel?

(except maybe Less...

)

Less · 13-10-2006, 15:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by lettie

The argument agianst legalisation would be 'NIMBY' Not In My Back Yard... Let's face it who would want to live next door to a brothel?

(except maybe Less...

)

Strange as it may same lettie I have never (knowingly) been with a whore, and as for being next door to a brothel? Well, it would save on bus fare home.

Definition of knowingly? She may have been just as unexcited about my prowess but at least she didn't take any money for the service she provided!

lettie · 13-10-2006, 15:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Less

Strange as it may same lettie I have never (knowingly) been with a whore, and as for being next door to a brothel? Well, it would save on bus fare home.

Definition of knowingly? She may have been just as unexcited about my prowess but at least she didn't take any money for the service she provided!

I reckon that you wouldn't even save your bus fare. It will get swallowed up by the price hike which will be imposed when they have to start paying tax...

garinda · 13-10-2006, 16:59

I certainly believe in legalisation.

Love it, loath it, or indifferent to it, it certainly won't go away.

I can't think of one valid reason why it shouldn't be legalised.

WillowTheWhisp · 13-10-2006, 17:01

I can see the logic in all the arguments in favour of legalisation.

garinda · 13-10-2006, 17:23

On a similar vein, because of the risks to health, there was a recent Panorama programme on television, were it showed that the waiting time for an appointment at a sexually transmitted disease clinic had gone from an average wait to be seen from two days ten years ago, to an unbelievable six to ten weeks!

In those six/ten weeks someone who may have used these services, may be spreading God knows what to his unknowing wife/partner/girlfriend.

Labout government hang your heads in shame.

Even bloody Thatcher eventually targeted money into sexual health care and prevention.

lettie · 13-10-2006, 17:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

On a similar vein, because of the risks to health, there was a recent Panorama programme on television, were it showed that the waiting time for an appointment at a sexually transmitted disease clinic had gone from an average wait to be seen from two days ten years ago, to an unbelievable six to ten weeks!

These waiting times are unacceptable. The government would probably say that they have already put several million into sexual health care but much of this money is mis-used by being swallowed up by other services and petty paperwork. The national Chlamydia screening programme which has now been rolled out to several health districts will account for some of the rise in Chlamydia diagnoses because of increased screening, but where's the prevention??????

In those six/ten weeks someone who may have used these services, may be spreading God knows what to his unknowing wife/partner/girlfriend.

That is very often the case Rindy. A person waiting for services could spread these infections to several partners in a 6-10 week period. I know that it sounds far fetched but some people sleep around regulary. You only have to look at young people on a Saturday night after a few scoops to see that they are copping off and probably won't use any protection. How else do we account for the rise in the incidence of STI's and the resurgence of Syphillis.

Labout government hang your heads in shame.

Even bloody Thatcher eventually targeted money into sexual health care and prevention.

Thatcher's government also gave us needle exchange schemes which undoubtedly slowed the spread of HIV amongst intravenous drug users at the time. I never thought much of the Thatcher government but at least they made the effort with this.

garinda · 13-10-2006, 17:56

Quite agree with everything you say, and remember an interesting conversation we had about it in the summer.

A whole generation are growing up without knowing the risks of unprotected sex. This needs to be an ongoing campaign, as each generation comes along and think they have discovered sex, and are ignorant of the risks.

The long term effects will far outweight the much needed investment now in a viable sexual health infrastructure and adequate health education.

slinky · 13-10-2006, 18:06

I do agree with what you're saying Lettie. But you use the word "young people" quite freely in what you write. I don't think sexual health and the passing on of STI's is all down to young people. Some older people I know should be absolutly ashamed of themselves. You don't have to be young to sleep around.

garinda · 13-10-2006, 18:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by slinky

I do agree with what you're saying Lettie. But you use the word "young people" quite freely in what you write. I don't think sexual health and the passing on of STI's is all down to young people. Some older people I know should be absolutly ashamed of themselves. You don't have to be young to sleep around.

Very true, but those idiots know the risks. It's their own stupidity which puts themselves and their unknowing partners at risk.