|
Kegluneq posted:There are already laws against rape, trafficking, exploitation etc. that will still be in effect even without the Nordic model. Driving sex work further out of public view is counter productive and harms women further, by exposing them to abuse and stigmatising their work using the legal system. Sex workers as a group includes women who are already often economically and politically marginalised (i.e. poor, single mothers, trans), which makes them even more vulnerable to systemic abuse. This is what worries me. The ECP article dismissed a lot of the arguments about coercion or trafficking by saying "only 22% of trafficking is for sex work", but notice that that tells us nothing about what percentage of sex workers are trafficked. Even without trafficking, like you say, the umbrella of sex workers includes people who are pressured into it, not even necessarily by a pimp or a trafficking gang, but by economic or political marginalisation, like poverty or addiction. Isn't that a form of coercion by circumstances (similar to the scandal a while ago of the DWP advertising sex industry jobs on the JCP web-site that JSA claimants could be forced to apply for)? I mean, I'm sure that sex workers who genuinely enjoy and freely consent to their work do exist, but I'm less worried about them than I am about all the rest of the industry and how anyone would ensure that it really is a consensual act and not just exploitation and abuse. I would agree with decriminalising the workers, but I don't think decriminalising the clients would help. It's difficult enough for our justice system to secure a conviction for rape or sexual exploitation even for victims who don't work in the sex industry - imagine if it became a legitimate defence to say "it's all okay, I paid her, and it's not my responsibility to tell whether my prostitute's consenting or not". The way the industry works means that it's impossible for a client to tell if the person he's hired is consenting or not - and there's a word for someone who likes to have sex when they don't know or care if their partner's consenting. Johns need to be criminalised or at the very least made to attend some kind of counselling to rehabilitate them for that reason, for the safety of sex workers and non-sex workers alike (and also because attempts to procure prostitution, like kerb crawling, usually border on or involve some kind of abuse). Ideally the industry would be shut down due to lack of demand, or it would only involve workers who were genuinely consenting. Whether that would be done by introducing a basic minimum income or providing easily accessible treatments for addiction and homelessness shelters and refuges, so people wouldn't be forced into it, I don't know, but the sex industry in its current form needs to stop.
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 19:07 |
|
|
African AIDS cum posted:For a rare event doesn't seem llike it'd be a big cost to someone gallivanting around the globe. Its not like its a $10,000 ambulance ride I'm not gallivanting around the globe like some feckless playboy from Monaco, I am visiting my fiancée and we are trying to save up for immigration and visa fees, wedding cost (and we are having one modest wedding) and other poo poo like that. Back in England I have basically no voluntarily spending outside of video games (mostly steam sales) and the few quid a month that Netflix costs. I don't go out to the cinema, I don't go out to eat, I hardly ever see my friends, all my clothes come from Primark. Granted that would be the case anyway because my anxiety makes it really hard to go do stuff (you won't believe how much diazepam I need to fly over) but there is no way I could be over here if I didn't sacrifice most luxuries, and we are in no way rich enough to be happily spending this sort of money. But the cost for me personally is not even the point, happy as I am to whine about it. I had a brief checkup, an anti inflammatory injection, and an anti-nausea pill. The injection cost $40, the pill $80. Putting aside any questions about my personal ability to pay, that is pretty goddamn steep and whilst the service was, as I said, good, where would I be if I had needed an ambulance ride? What about all the people who are struggling to get by? Obamacare has helped (more than many people realize) but the more the Tories do to the NHS the closer we get to paying two hundred quid for a doctor's appointment and two prescriptions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:It gave a few examples of police not harassing women in a particular context, in a country where their activities were still legal in said context. It's not an effective response to the discussion of police harassment in the UK, which takes a form that that study did not address (e.g. outing prostitutes to landlords). The study also outright disproves your earlier point by failing to find any positive effect with regards to sex workers taking complaints to the police. Even if you don't think the report is representative of every country, there is absolutely no way this report is saying there was no reduction in Police Harassment, which was the reason it was linked.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:You are building a straw man. Government support for propping up the finance sector was sadly necessary, though the government's half hearted attempts to shift away from the sector following the crisis betrays a general comfort with government support for the finance to the exclusion of everything else. I would not say it was obviously necessary, actually. Although deposit insurance is an undisputed good, there is a large difference between activating depositor guarantees versus betting on underlying solvency. Nothing requires that bailing out the <£50,000 depositor include bailing out the >£50,000 one, although there would certainly be a period of disruption - that is, the tradeoff is not between protracted Great-Depression-esque panic and emergency support, but between 'some' disruption and emergency support. How much disruption? Good question. I do not think I am building a straw man. Do you understand the mainstream financial crisis model being invoked? There is a subsidy, but do you know what is being subsidized? I do agree that this is the key issue. I say that you do not understand it. I explicitly stated what is unique about banks in the model: they perform maturity transformation, whereas the rest of the economy does not. The social necessity of maturity transformation is a hotly-contested point in heterodox-orthodox debates, so I take your non-response to suggest that you're not aware of its centrality to the dispute over emergency lending. I am not sure that 'socialism' is pejorative - I am not American, and presumably you are not, either. ronya fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Fans posted:Even if you don't think the report is representative of every country, there is absolutely no way this report is saying there was no reduction in Police Harassment, which was the reason it was linked. Note that the sex workers in your study still viewed the behaviour of the police as harassment anyway. quote:Inability to access police protections Stottie Kyek posted:I would agree with decriminalising the workers, but I don't think decriminalising the clients would help. It's difficult enough for our justice system to secure a conviction for rape or sexual exploitation even for victims who don't work in the sex industry - imagine if it became a legitimate defence to say "it's all okay, I paid her, and it's not my responsibility to tell whether my prostitute's consenting or not". The way the industry works means that it's impossible for a client to tell if the person he's hired is consenting or not - and there's a word for someone who likes to have sex when they don't know or care if their partner's consenting. quote:Johns need to be criminalised or at the very least made to attend some kind of counselling to rehabilitate them for that reason, for the safety of sex workers and non-sex workers alike (and also because attempts to procure prostitution, like kerb crawling, usually border on or involve some kind of abuse). quote:Ideally the industry would be shut down due to lack of demand, or it would only involve workers who were genuinely consenting. Whether that would be done by introducing a basic minimum income or providing easily accessible treatments for addiction and homelessness shelters and refuges, so people wouldn't be forced into it, I don't know, but the sex industry in its current form needs to stop. Kegluneq fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Stottie Kyek posted:This is what worries me. The ECP article dismissed a lot of the arguments about coercion or trafficking by saying "only 22% of trafficking is for sex work", but notice that that tells us nothing about what percentage of sex workers are trafficked. Stottie Kyek posted:I mean, I'm sure that sex workers who genuinely enjoy and freely consent to their work do exist, but I'm less worried about them than I am about all the rest of the industry and how anyone would ensure that it really is a consensual act and not just exploitation and abuse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:That's true. But it does tell us that there is 78% of trafficking that is being largely ignored due to the religious sensibilities and shame politics of many of the groups talking about it. Being trafficked for domestic work or sweatshops is abusive and coercive and needs to stop too. But no you see it's totally fine to buy £45 t-shirts to prove how progressive I am because 62p/day is above the minimum wage in Mauritius. :laboursay: (In all seriousness, there is a serious problem of sex workers, especially trafficked ones, being deported to work in sweatshops)
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
You don't even have to travel to Mauritius. There were (and I assume still are) illegal garment shops in Leicester paying illegal wages, with no safety equipment, and with no worker identity checks, acting as an endpoint for trafficked people. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/retail-giants-shamed-by-uk-sweatshops-2128022.html Sadly a lot of the conversation around those ends with talking about 'those illegal immigrants', not about human trafficking being inherently abusive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Stottie Kyek posted:Johns need to be criminalised or at the very least made to attend some kind of counselling to rehabilitate them for that reason, for the safety of sex workers and non-sex workers alike (and also because attempts to procure prostitution, like kerb crawling, usually border on or involve some kind of abuse). No, they don't, that's a terrible idea. You can build a legal, safe and above board sex industry. Other places have done it. And what on earth would "counseling" customers even be? Come to a useless group session where they all do an ice breaker and listen to someone patronizingly telling them that wanting to buy a gently caress is wrong?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:Er, the criminalisation of kerb-crawling has been a disaster for sex workers. If they are approached on the street they have the opportunity to refuse service in a public place. Banning it has made them a lot more vulnerable to abuse. A better solution would be to legalise brothels and soliciting so that sex workers could operate from a specific premises and advertise. The sauna system seemed to work reasonably well here in Edinburgh for that - we have brothels here and the local police used to turn a blind eye to them because it was better and safer for the sex workers and for everyone (until the police force was centralised into Police Scotland and they changed their policy on it and started harassing the staff and causing more trouble than they solved). The trouble with kerb-crawling specifically is that it's a form of harassment and it usually turns bad very quickly. And while some sex workers might have the courage to refuse service to the kerb-crawlers or be lucky enough to have passers-by nearby to help protect them, most of the time it's either run or fight, for whoever they approach. If a guy comes up to you and says, "hi there, sweetheart, how much do you charge?" and you say "I'm not a sex worker", he generally does not then say, "oh, sorry, my mistake" and go on his way, he either keeps pestering you or he gets violent. And that goes for everyone whether you're a sex worker or not, if you say "no thank-you" you have to hope that you can run faster than him or that passers-by will help you. A safe building where the prostitutes can hire security staff to stop the clients getting nasty and where they can advertise from so the johns know that that's where they can go without seeking it out, would be safest for everyone. quote:FWIW sex worker advocacy groups argue that the majority of their work is consensual, so there's more of a gulf between shutting down and removing coerced workers than you seem to be acknowledging. I don't think anyone is arguing that the sex industry is perfect as it is, and increased welfare support for vulnerable groups is certainly advocated by most left wing groups who also oppose the Nordic model. Absolutely, I'd support increased welfare too, that and the Nordic model aren't mutually exclusive. Guavanaut posted:That's true. But it does tell us that there is 78% of trafficking that is being largely ignored due to the religious sensibilities and shame politics of many of the groups talking about it. Being trafficked for domestic work or sweatshops is abusive and coercive and needs to stop too. You're right, and it does need more attention. Part of the problem is that it's less visible than sex work because domestic workers are kept hidden in rich people's homes, and sweatshops are a manufacturing rather than a service industry and so it happens out of view, where nobody needs to know it even exists, and indeed the retailers would rather pretend it didn't. And what with wage depression here, lots of people have to buy sweatshop-made goods because it's all they can afford, and they don't oppose it because they fear that retailers would pass the increase in wages for the makers on to the consumer instead of taking it out of their profits. Another problem with the capitalist framework of labour and goods. edit: HorseLord posted:No, they don't, that's a terrible idea. I guess the form it would take would be whatever can be shown to help to deter them or treat it if it's a sort of addiction, and to help them to see sex workers and women in general as human beings. Have a look at the reviews on Punternet and tell me those people have a totally healthy view of women, relationships and consent. Mental health services are horribly underfunded at the moment though so it'd take a lot of much-needed investment in the NHS too. Which places have built a safe, legal and consenting sex industry? I'm interested to know, because if the clients there are nice and respect sex workers' boundaries, perhaps the problem is with the culture surrounding it in the UK rather than the core concept of buying sex in itself. I did see a programme a while ago (it was Channel 5 so probably not the best source though) that interviewed a Czech prostitute who said that men on stag night holidays visit her from all over the world and the British groups were the worst, they say "I bought you, I own you for the next hour" and men from other countries were more respectful of what she was willing to do. Stottie Kyek fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:You can build a legal, safe and above board sex industry. Whilst that would be a sensible thing, you just know that the Sun/Mail/Express would park themselves outside the first legal brothel with telephoto lenses to name and shame the workers and clients, thus ending it on day one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Stottie Kyek posted:The trouble with kerb-crawling specifically is that it's a form of harassment and it usually turns bad very quickly. And while some sex workers might have the courage to refuse service to the kerb-crawlers or be lucky enough to have passers-by nearby to help protect them, most of the time it's either run or fight, for whoever they approach. If a guy comes up to you and says, "hi there, sweetheart, how much do you charge?" and you say "I'm not a sex worker", he generally does not then say, "oh, sorry, my mistake" and go on his way, he either keeps pestering you or he gets violent. And that goes for everyone whether you're a sex worker or not, if you say "no thank-you" you have to hope that you can run faster than him or that passers-by will help you. A safe building where the prostitutes can hire security staff to stop the clients getting nasty and where they can advertise from so the johns know that that's where they can go without seeking it out, would be safest for everyone. Men are also quite capable of treating women on the street like poo poo even without believing them to be a prostitute, that's a problem with men, not sex workers. quote:Absolutely, I'd support increased welfare too, that and the Nordic model aren't mutually exclusive. 
Kegluneq fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:I'm not gallivanting around the globe like some feckless playboy from Monaco, I am visiting my fiancée and we are trying to save up for immigration and visa fees, wedding cost (and we are having one modest wedding) and other poo poo like that. Back in England I have basically no voluntarily spending outside of video games (mostly steam sales) and the few quid a month that Netflix costs. I don't go out to the cinema, I don't go out to eat, I hardly ever see my friends, all my clothes come from Primark. Granted that would be the case anyway because my anxiety makes it really hard to go do stuff (you won't believe how much diazepam I need to fly over) but there is no way I could be over here if I didn't sacrifice most luxuries, and we are in no way rich enough to be happily spending this sort of money. But you said yourself you let your travel insurance lapse. Seems like a not very costly lesson and it could have been worse. Additionally, I can see where the rights grievances with health care lie with anecdotes like this, where it reads as if they are bearing the burden so someone can spend their income on videogames and netflix African AIDS cum fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:Whilst that would be a sensible thing, you just know that the Sun/Mail/Express would park themselves outside the first legal brothel with telephoto lenses to name and shame the workers and clients, thus ending it on day one. They already do that; when the Soho saunas got raided last December, literally the first thing the Met did was phone the press. Incidentally, a lot of the discourse other how sex work in particular is exploitative often (deliberately) misses the facts of labour under a capitalist system. As one of my friends who's in the sex industry has noted, "White Feminism™ demands that I stop dehumanising myself for five hours a week so that I can dehumanise myself for forty hours a week and make a rich white man richer."
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Stottie Kyek posted:The way the industry works means that it's impossible for a client to tell if the person he's hired is consenting or not - and there's a word for someone who likes to have sex when they don't know or care if their partner's consenting. The trouble is those economic conditions are absolutely there and they're not going away any time soon, so women in poverty or who are fleeing abusive partners etc often have no other option. It's a horrible situation, but taking that option away doesn't help. Until there's a very real effort to provide a safety net, the least bad thing is to make people in sex work as safe and protected as possible. Criminalising johns won't help that - it might lower demand (making it harder for those women to survive, potentially leading them to take bigger risks and do things they don't want to do), and it will mean all johns are criminals who are taking a risk. All their work will be with people who demand anonymity and isolation, it puts sex workers in more danger as a matter of course and encourages their association with criminal gangs, who can find and handle the client base. And those gangs are potentially involved in things like trafficking, which is easier to hide when those johns are already engaging in criminal activity and have something to lose by being outed. This is already how sexual slavery works, criminalising all johns moves legitimate sex workers into the same black market. I think the way the Canadian system generally works is that you have legitimate businesses doing the admin - someone calls up, requests someone, the office takes some details and a contact number and checks the client out. If they're traceable, one of the agency's women gets called up and they arrange things. If the client seems remotely sketchy, it's a no. The idea is that clients are working on trust - they know the agency can trace them and out them if they do anything wrong, so it generally means more safety for the women, even when they're working alone
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Criminalising johns won't help that - it might lower demand (making it harder for those women to survive, potentially leading them to take bigger risks and do things they don't want to do), and it will mean all johns are criminals who are taking a risk. All their work will be with people who demand anonymity and isolation, it puts sex workers in more danger as a matter of course and encourages their association with criminal gangs, who can find and handle the client base. Indeed. As experience from places where the Nordic model is in effect has showed, street workers – which are already among the most disadvantaged sex workers – are put in more danger by not being able to properly vet and/or assess clients.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:All their work will be with people who demand anonymity and isolation, it puts sex workers in more danger as a matter of course and encourages their association with criminal gangs, who can find and handle the client base. That is a very good point, and it's something I hadn't considered, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Aw hell don't apologise, it's bad enough defending the idea of more humane conditions for exploitation. But yeah, sex work is a thing people already have the 'choice' not to do, criminalising it just makes things worse for the people who 'choose' it. When it's not really a choice, it's really putting desperate people in a more desperate situation, and avoiding that should be the priority
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:Er, the criminalisation of kerb-crawling has been a disaster for sex workers. If they are approached on the street they have the opportunity to refuse service in a public place. Banning it has made them a lot more vulnerable to abuse. Kerb crawling has been illegal for longer than there have been cars on the road, and on-street prostitution has always been by far the most dangerous (to worker and punter alike) form of sex work, and also has always been the only one where the client has been a criminal by definition, so is the only one *not* particularly affected by the changes in PCA.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Kerb crawling has been illegal for longer than there have been cars on the road, and on-street prostitution has always been by far the most dangerous (to worker and punter alike) form of sex work, and also has always been the only one where the client has been a criminal by definition, so is the only one *not* particularly affected by the changes in PCA. Only since 1985, and prior to 2010 kerb crawling was only illegal if it was done 'persistently' or 'in a manner likely to cause annoyance', according to wiki. I'd definitely need to see a source for street prostitution being the most dangerous; every source I've read on the issue has described assault rates increasing as a result of the complete ban, and sex workers themselves are reportedly much happier when they are able to appraise clients on the street and not in their own homes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:Only since 1985, and prior to 2010 kerb crawling was only illegal if it was done 'persistently' or 'in a manner likely to cause annoyance', according to wiki. I'd definitely need to see a source for street prostitution being the most dangerous; every source I've read on the issue has described assault rates increasing as a result of the complete ban, and sex workers themselves are reportedly much happier when they are able to appraise clients on the street and not in their own homes. I'm using "kerb crawling" as a catchall term for "looking for an on-street prostitute". Loitering with intent to procure a prostitute was illegal within the City of London since time immemorial (which is why most of London's traditional street prostitution areas - Kings Cross, Commercial Street, Soho - are on the periphery of the City). Kerb crawling was added as a specific offence only because it was seen as a much easier way of attacking the problem without attacking the workers directly. Street prostitution is ridiculously dangerous and has been since at least the days of Jack The Ripper, and I've literally never heard anyone claim otherwise. Some workers prefer street walking for a variety of reasons (lack of venue, perceived anonymity, etc) but safety is never one of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
African AIDS cum posted:But you said yourself you let your travel insurance lapse. Seems like a not very costly lesson and it could have been worse. Am... am I being trolled? Are you Nodrog back from the ban? Yes, it lapsed, but not because I 'let' it. It expired on my original return date and, at least as far as I can see, there was no way to extend it, whether because this particular one doesn't allow it or because I was too dumb to figure out how, I can't say. And yes, we will get by and it is not the end of the world. It is a pain but I will make it through by that old standby of tightening my belt. My point was much more about how the supposedly glorious free market has resulted in a system that is decent enough for fairly minor things, but is far more expensive than the NHS.Additionally, I can see where a total cockhole might have grievances with this because apparently the fact a person sometimes gets sick means they should have no fun ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
You could have bought a couple of days insurance as a new policy. Also it's often hardly much more to get an annual policy as for a single trip.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:I'm using "kerb crawling" as a catchall term for "looking for an on-street prostitute". Loitering with intent to procure a prostitute was illegal within the City of London since time immemorial (which is why most of London's traditional street prostitution areas - Kings Cross, Commercial Street, Soho - are on the periphery of the City). Kerb crawling was added as a specific offence only because it was seen as a much easier way of attacking the problem without attacking the workers directly. *-'Loitering** with intent to procure***'. **-in one square mile in England. ***-which means pimping, not paying for sex. I can't find any particular evidence for this law, so I think you're possibly being rather loose with the facts here. Laws against sex work in the UK have historically been focused on regulating (and later punishing) the activities of women, not men, until the 20th century. quote:Street prostitution is ridiculously dangerous and has been since at least the days of Jack The Ripper, and I've literally never heard anyone claim otherwise. Some workers prefer street walking for a variety of reasons (lack of venue, perceived anonymity, etc) but safety is never one of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Stottie Kyek posted:I guess the form it would take would be whatever can be shown to help to deter them or treat it if it's a sort of addiction, and to help them to see sex workers and women in general as human beings. Have a look at the reviews on Punternet and tell me those people have a totally healthy view of women, relationships and consent. Mental health services are horribly underfunded at the moment though so it'd take a lot of much-needed investment in the NHS too. You're making a lot of assumptions, like that johns don't see workers as human beings, or that whatever punternet is is a majority of johns, or that the worker would even be a woman. Stottie Kyek posted:Which places have built a safe, legal and consenting sex industry? I'm interested to know, because if the clients there are nice and respect sex workers' boundaries, perhaps the problem is with the culture surrounding it in the UK rather than the core concept of buying sex in itself. I did see a programme a while ago (it was Channel 5 so probably not the best source though) that interviewed a Czech prostitute who said that men on stag night holidays visit her from all over the world and the British groups were the worst, they say "I bought you, I own you for the next hour" and men from other countries were more respectful of what she was willing to do. The best example I can think of at a quarter to eleven at night would be Germany's boutique knocking shops: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_(brothel)
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:You could have bought a couple of days insurance as a new policy. Also it's often hardly much more to get an annual policy as for a single trip. I mean I am not saying the bulk of the thing is on anyone but me, and had I made the effort and prioritized it I could likely have found a solution, but I didn't and it cost me so yeah lesson learned. You're right on the second part as well, in my experience, but I just didn't put that much thought into buying it this time round and just got it with my original tickets. I don't expect to be reimbursed or anything, but the presumption that I can easily afford it because I have prioritized visiting my fiancée to the exclusion of almost everything else, and African AIDS Cum's apparent determination to dismiss my thoughts that the NHS is something to be thankful for with my anecdote about why, is a bit galling. I was not expecting that experiences with other systems that highlight the positives of the NHS would be unwelcome in the UKMT.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Whats wrong with you if you dont mind me asking? You have given out all the drugs and stuff already anyway so might as well come out with the whole thing. Dont mind if you dont want to just might have some advice if its what I think it is. e: actually gently caress putting that public, skype me on pauldevbrighton if you want to talk about the culture and which book is the best 
Seaside Loafer fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:Am... am I being trolled? Are you Nodrog back from the ban? Being trolled by legitimate forums user African AIDS cum? How could you even suggest such a thing? Did you even read the OP? e: Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:'Kerb crawling has always been illegal!*' I was using the City as an example. Other laws in other locales were passed criminalising clients of street prostitutes in other ways and then it was banned at a national level in the 50s. The assault rate for street prostitution is nigh 100%. I'm really flabbergasted that you're trying to claim that it's safer than literally any other form of prostitution because that is the first time I've ever heard that claimed and flies in the face of every single study ever done on it. Some random quotes from literally the first Google hit: quote:Up to 75% of women involved in prostitution began when they were under 18 years of age and most teenage prostitutes are involved in street prostitution, which is estimated to be ten times more dangerous than working from houses or flats. [Benson, C. and Matthews, R. (1995), Street prostitution: Ten facts in search of a policy. International Journal of Sociology of the Law, 23, 395-415.] quote:More than half of women in prostitution have been raped and or seriously assaulted and at least 75% have been physically assaulted at the hands of the pimps and punters. 74% of women in prostitution identify poverty, the need to pay household expenses and support their children, as primary motivators for being drawn into prostitution. [Home office (2004). Solutions and Strategies: Drug Problems and Street Sex Markets. London: UK Government] vs quote:A report in the British Medical Journal about client violence towards women in prostitution stated that of the 125 women in indoor prostitution contacted, 48% had experienced client violence. etc etc. I don't even need numbers because you've offered only a vague anecdote, and as a counter-anecdote I offer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipswich_serial_murders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sutcliffe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_the_Ripper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitechapel_murders I mean that's just serial killers literally off the top of my head. Maybe there's a weird statistical anomaly here and street workers are only ever killed by serial killers but you're kinda gonna have to come up with some numbers to prove that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:Whats wrong with you if you dont mind me asking? It's only fair you answer this question before asking it of others.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Nobody's mentioned it I think, but there was a report published today on the economic impact of immigration on the UK's finances. Full thing is here, there's a summary at the beginning but there's also a press release here. The verdict? Immigrants are net contributors to the UK economy!  Here's the right-wing take: quote:Migration Watch chairman Sir Andrew Green said: "If you take all EU migration including those who arrived before 2001 what you find is this - you find by the end of the period they are making a negative contribution and increasingly so. Before 2001:  After 2001:  Because the BBC is all about balance they pointed out that EEA immigrants are net contributors but non-EU migrants have cost £118bn, instead of pointing out that the most recent timeframe shows every group making a net contribution. They also gave the Tory Minister For Foreigns a platform to say that the report doesn't account for the impact through use of services like health (it does) and schools (it does, and it even accounts for the negative cost when we get educated workers from other countries for 'free'). The report's methodology says it likely underestimates the true contribution being made by immigrants, and overestimates the costs, because of the way certain data is made available, so they've erred on the conservative side. Not that it will make a difference to the national conversation unless the media start pushing this, after all you can prove anything with facts
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
The cost thing is a red herring imo. I think we'd all rather have a slightly poorer country financially if it were richer in terms of community and ethnic homogeneity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:They also gave the Tory Minister For Foreigns a platform to say that the report doesn't account for the impact through use of services like health (it does) and schools (it does, and it even accounts for the negative cost when we get educated workers from other countries for 'free'). That Tory must hate my dad, he immigrated from Kenya* and then designed hundreds of schools for British children from the early 70s to around 1990. And then he went on to design on base housing for the RAF and Army, and then oversee the renovation of the roof of a Cathedral. Yes, my dad is awesome, thanks. *He was born a British citizen though, so maybe it doesn't count. He is a brown, so there's always that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Tax and benefits alone don't provide a complete picture. I'd be interested in seeing how much money is being lost from the UK economy through EU migrants' remittances.
kapparomeo fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
I initially read that as heterogeneity and was mildly shocked to be agreeing with a burqa king post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:Tax and benefits alone don't provide a complete picture. I'd be interested in seeing how much money is being lost from the UK economy through EU migrants' remittances. Good point, and we could go further and compare it to the amount that is sent to off shore tax havens so that the correct segment of society is appropriately demonized
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
I refuse to believe that any figure on the economics of immigration can be in any way representative unless it takes into account how likely different ethnic groups are to accidentally put a fiver through the wash, destroying it beyond having monetary value and acting as a black hole for British finances. Of course, in the case this gets accounted for this still leaves me open to endlessly going into fractal-like stipulations until we get a figure that reinforces what I believe, at which point it becomes gospel truth. On a serious note though, I doubt the figures will make much of a difference to public opinion on immigration. There's too much gut-feeling, rumors and "Well, it stands to reason..." behind anti-immigration policy, ignoring the fact that a lot of people in Britain are plain ol' racist. Spooky Hyena fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
Does anyone honestly think English people would welcome having our towns inhabited by immigrants if only they paid council tax and promised to stop at ten children? That Irish travellers would be ushered on to our commons by village elders as long as they paid nominal rent and left the place as they found it at a time of their choosing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
I can think of a few streets in Glasgow that mellowed down from shitholes where drunken fights and gang violence were happening every other night, because asylum seekers were essentially dumped in the most deprived areas. They weren't engaged with most of that nonsense, and as they became more integrated with the local community they became a real positive force for changing how it worked and violent gang related crime dropped. They're still run-down deprived areas with well above average crime and death rates because it isn't a panacea and not all immigrants are saints, but when people getting stabbed becomes a less frequent occurrence people are willing to put up with stupid hang-ups like Polish food shops and people talking Bengali on the bus. It's an anecdote, but it's a fairly clear one as far as the effects of immigration goes. So no, I don't expect more English people to be happy with an influx in immigration because none of that matters and endless worrying about eastern Europeans stealing jobs and benefits trumps all. Spooky Hyena fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 19:07 |
|
|
^^^ The news report had someone going around chatting to punters about the report, the negative comments generally went like this Reporter: the evidence shows that immigrants actually pay in more than they take in this country Someone: NO. It's not true!! That's what we have to deal with. People so taken with spooky stories that what they believe is more important than the facts, or even more important than what they see in some cases. It's too easy to push people's buttons, the electorate's running on emotion kapparomeo posted:Tax and benefits alone don't provide a complete picture. I'd be interested in seeing how much money is being lost from the UK economy through EU migrants' remittances. It's not 'tax and benefits', it's the contribution each demographic makes to the state's income versus their share of (and impact on) the various public goods and services that public spending provides, which includes things like defence, fire services, education, supporting current pensions and so on. Remember that handy chart of all government spending they've started showering the nation with? That, only with a calculation of the demand each group puts on each category, and the amount they contribute towards funding them. Even if there are remittances (I'm guessing you don't actually have that information) it's still working from the baseline that immigrants are net contributors, before they decide what to do with their money. Private capital is sent to other countries all the time, but it's only an issue when it's foreign workers doing it 
baka kaba fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 01:51
|
|