Last 40 Messages
Last 100 Messages
Last 250 Messages
Last 400 Messages
Days prior to yesterday:
Harvey [29929. Posted 27-Feb-2014 Thu 19:09]
"And does anyone believe the organized, vicious, genuinely abusive practices towards the vulnerable will be addressed at all by criminalizing all sex purchasers with a fine, and subsequently a line in the local free paper? "
That hasn`t been the case in Sweden. Groups who try to monitor the health and welfare of sex workers there (well Göteborg was the city I saw studied) say that women sex workers have been pushed into even more vulnerable situations. Punters demanding sex w/o a condom, operating on street rather than in hotels or flats.
The reason the Nordic model can be deemed a success in Sweden is that the headline numbers of sex workers and even more pronounced, the number of foreign sex workers has apparently reduced. But of course simply reducing numbers wasn`t the intended objective. It was reducing exploitation, and providing pathways out of prostitution. On those criteria, not a great success.
I think Honeyball recognises this, which is why the legalisation model isn`t dismissed out of hand and while being recommended the Nordic model comes not just as a Swede style law, but with a whole host of other bolt-on requirements.
Harvey [29928. Posted 27-Feb-2014 Thu 18:49]
"I`m sorry Braintree, but I cannot concur."
Whether you concur or not, is neither here nor there, phantom.
braintree votes `not guilty`.
phantom [29927. Posted 27-Feb-2014 Thu 18:14]
I want to take this opportunity to say hello to our friends at GCHQ!!!
Welcome to the forum. Feel free to introduce yourselves.
You seem to be watching everything else. So you`re bound to be reading this.
So when is Edward Snowden getting his knighthood for all this?
Oh? You mean, he`s the bad guy???
Therumbler [29926. Posted 27-Feb-2014 Thu 17:20]
phantom [29925. Posted 27-Feb-2014 Thu 15:10]
I`m sorry Braintree, but I cannot concur.
Like you, I too saw it that way for a long time while the scandal was growing. I thought it unfair to be accusing a man who could not defend himself, abusing the fact that he was `a bit weird`. Especially a national icon who had done so much for charity.
So my initial reaction to these claims was entirely hostile.
But eventually it simply became undeniable.
Some of the statements I have seen on television seem highly credible.
These people are not all fantasists and money chasers.
As for some folks debunking `myths`. I`m sure there will be such controversy claims regarding Savile.
Recently I saw a clip which provided `evidence` that Paul McCartney died in the 1960s. So I have no doubt that there will be some out there `proving` how anyone making allegations against Savile is a loon.
I like a good conspiracy theory like the next man, but with Savile we really seemed to have moved beyond that.
braintree [29924. Posted 27-Feb-2014 Thu 14:53]
The idea that Savile was able to keep all his victims quiet for 50 years is preposterous. While there could be some logic to the notion that his knighthood and national treasure charity fund raiser status may have made allegations against him liable to being ignored , the offences he is supposed to have committed are meant to have started many many years before his status was anything other than just another DJ presenter. There have been reports that the police were interested in him several times over the years but the idea they could not get credible evidence at the time off anyone until the DJ was no longer able to deny them is difficult to believe to say the least . I have seen online reports that debunk the allegations made by the girls in ITV`s first documentary and claim the girls are fantasists. Not hard to believe when the reason they were at these places to start with is because they were disturbed in some way . Of course the cynic would say that`s why Savile selected these places in particular. I`ve not followed all reports but I`ve yet to see anything from those that knew him that amount to anything other than suspicions .
However - I guess this is all water under the bridge now . We all knew at the time that money was the real target for many of these people and it seems the current climate has allowed them to get what they want . I have no doubt that Savile had sex with many groupies , some of whom were likely to be under 16 - however I`m dubious that any of it was non consensual .
Therumbler [29923. Posted 27-Feb-2014 Thu 14:37]
"The Tax Reform Act of 2014—a would-be GOP overhaul of the U.S. Tax Code—explicitly states that the new tax code would prevent "makers of violent video games from qualifying for the R&D tax credit."
phantom [29922. Posted 27-Feb-2014 Thu 13:38]
""Trafficking", yes indeed, that is their buzz word - for a very good reason. It`s the one which will be at the forefront of the propaganda when the not unlikely Miliband government (deputy PM one H Harman?) prepare the ground for legislation criminalizing all "buying of sex"."
Trafficking is an example of the politicians` adopting successful tactics from another area of politics.
Just consider the Bush/Blair anti-terrorism industry. It is gynormous.
Surveillance has gone stratospheric and liberties have been greatly reduced.
But have we any way of verifying what they`re up to? Can we possibly know that anything is true? No. It`s all top secret, national security, very hush hush.
And trafficking? All secret. Reliable numbers not available and the hyped estimates definitely not verifiable. (Just like the `hundreds` of terror plots being planned at any time in Britain.)
Trafficking is another invisible threat which is claimed to be of a certain size and a certain menace. But all relies on `intelligence`.
So yes, the phantom menace is out there. ;) We must do something about it.
We are telling you it`s there. We provide the solution. We get the powers. You pay for it and you lose liberties. Fair`s fair, right?
phantom [29921. Posted 27-Feb-2014 Thu 13:26]
Well, my guiding view is always that the citizen is the vulnerable party. The state has available to it vast powers and resources. And be it that it purports to have `the victim` at heart`, the state needs no help at all. Meanwhile, the accused citizen requires every bit of help he can to fight the gigantic machine arrayed against him.
We have a predatory CPS and an ever-swelling prison population (thus, more and more `guilty` verdicts).
I shudder to think what the prison population might have been back in 1970s compared to today`s. So making things harder in my view is merely a way of leveling the playing field.
And as for the K for kalumniator, if I`m not mistaken the Romans didn`t bother with another trial. If you led the case for the accusation and you were found wanting, then that was your trial. Out came the branding iron. They didn`t much like lawyers, those Romans. Especially not accusatory ones. Guess they knew why. :)
freeworld [29920. Posted 27-Feb-2014 Thu 13:23]
Harvey [29919. Posted 27-Feb-2014 Thu 01:33] "Trafficking", yes indeed, that is their buzz word - for a very good reason. It`s the one which will be at the forefront of the propaganda when the not unlikely Miliband government (deputy PM one H Harman?) prepare the ground for legislation criminalizing all "buying of sex".Said trafficking/exploitation facilitated in a large part by the the lack of any adequate controls over the huge levels of immigration into the UK; a policy brought about by members of a political class, some of whom are fulminating about the evils of sex trafficking and subtly equating it invariably with any and all "paying for sex". That is to say, any such widespread abuses brought into the UK (primarily England) owe a great deal to the "come on in entire world" policies of the party of the Honeyball herself (which Dave Snooty didn`t create, but has done next to nothing to address so far).
And does anyone believe the organized, vicious, genuinely abusive practices towards the vulnerable will be addressed at all by criminalizing all sex purchasers with a fine, and subsequently a line in the local free paper? The criminal traffickers and vile serial exploiters of young women (and men) would laugh their heads off. It might make John Respectable think twice about his liaison with a classy escort girl though - but John is not actually exploiting anybody, just intending taking part in an entirely consensual transaction, which should, in a free society, be no business of the state to interfere with using criminal sanctions. But the zealots are interested in using the situations they`ve in some cases helped make themselves, along with large dollops of polemic and partial "research", to forward a totalitarian control ideology which has more to do with "sending messages" about behaviour the extremists don`t happen to agree with, than righting appalling wrongs like abuse of the vulnerable. We may look forward to a well slanted and partial "consultation" document, for which Mr Goggins is unfortunately no longer available, and tours of the broadcasting organizations by sanctimonious MPs regaling the populace with shuddery tales - the equivalent of the fabled Guatemalan snuff victims of yore.
The ideology at work here has been adopted by a generation of suggestible wimmin, mainly indoctrinated during their higher education years, many of whom now hold highly influential positions through which they can agitate for, and maybe get implemented, policies based in dangerous repressive precepts. This vile ideology is, in its most extreme form, deranged enough to view all men as rapists, who in most cases simply haven`t been caught yet (we might even see paying for consensual sex becoming classed as "rape" at some point under legislation). Hopefully a younger generation replacing the cohort of aging sex warriors may be less inclined to swallow the misandry peddled by the Dworkin sisterhood.
I hope it doesn`t happen. But I fear it`s quite possible, even likely, depending on the election (the Tories might even do it if it became a noisy barnstorming "Daily Mail" campaign - which presently seems doubtful)
Presumably a woman who buys sex is, in the Honeyball mindset, a woman who treats a man`s body as a "commodity" too? Maybe women are congenitally incapable of actually purchasing sex?
Harvey [29919. Posted 27-Feb-2014 Thu 01:33]
As campaigners go, Honeyball seems to be low on the strident moralising scale. I can actually agree with quite a lot of her report. I don`t think it`s clear cut that the Nordic model is a success, though - it depends how you measure "success" - but to be fair while the report says this is their preferred approach it`s not hectoring towards those who have followed a different route. The main aims seem to be reducing vulnerable women`s reliance on prostitution, their exploitation, their physical and psychological health and providing routes out of the profession. The really tough stance is on criminalising the exploitation of young women, under 21yrs.
Just my own take on it, but seems to me the buzzword is "trafficking".
Whatever the disagreements on crminalising the transaction, everyone seems to see trafficking as the big problem, so if there is any EU-wide action it will probably be addressing that.
Typical story in the German news of measures taken in Saarland on the border with France. A big new brothel is planned to open in Saarbrueken to coincide with the imposition of the new French law. Understandably the state government is fearful of what will happen. They have reacted by bringing in new zoning rules for street prostitution and the introduction of a regulation making the use of condoms mandatory for paid for sex, following the local law in Bavaria. Not the slightest suggestion that they will follow France down the path of criminalization. But clearly with such a patchwork of different national laws, trafficking, or workers simply relocating to the new hotspots will cause problems.
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/prostitution-saarland-verbietet-kaeuflichen-sex-ohne-kondom-a-955655.html (In German)
Compare and contrast with the Mail`s coverage of the same story.