Urgh. *Red light district coming soon* to my home town.

Whirlpool you're raising some interesting points.

On the having an area away from residents, perhaps this could make it easier to police? Having a known area with everyone in. Not particularly saying I agree but just a thought.

I agree Ubi1. I'd also combine it with "shaming" them. Like a website publishing pics and names of johns.

I also think so.

There was a study in scotland a while back where a bunch of men (I forget what the makeup was) said they would not pay for sex / would think twice if it was illegal / if they thought they would get "found out" which obviously if they got arrested etc they might.

This is a situation like anything where some people will do whatever irrespective of the law, but another chunk will decide it's not worth the risk.

As ever with this conversation which side you fall on depends on whether you feel that any harm outweighs any benefits or not.

Obviously people who are involved, or have been involved, directly will have quite firm views depending on what their interest is.

I think its better that the men using prostitutes are criminalised.
I don't like the whole 'red light district' thing.

So when men slow their cars down next to you and ask you how much / get in / that sort of thing, is that illegal?

Interesting.

I think this might be current "It is not illegal to buy or sell sex, but sex workers break the law if they loiter and solicit on the streets, keep a brothel (by teaming up at a premises with another woman/women) or advertise their services.

Their clients break the law if they kerb crawl. Legislation passed in 2009 makes it an offence to buy sex from someone "subjected to force, deception or threats". This is designed to clamp down on pimps and traffickers."

Whichever way it falls, the basic fact is that street prostitution is not legal in the UK, and in this case the police are saying, actually we'll turn a blind eye, well more than that we'll give it the thumbs up, as long as you do it over there, out of sight (and out of mind?).

To clarify, street prostitution is illegal from the purchase perspective.

I am not sure whether soliciting on the street is still illegal. But I am sure it is illegal to purchase sex in this way.

I might look it up.

What Lurcio said.

Not sure what is going on with the rest of it

So the residents who live in areas with streets that women use to get clients don't like it, so the police want to shift it to a designated area which is not residential.

The police reckon this will improve matter for the women and girls working in this way.

I would ask:

• Street prostitution is illegal - you are facilitating it? Is this a new pragmatic approach we will be seeing in other areas of crime?
• Will it really be safer for women and girls to work in areas with no residents / locals / non-prostitute-involved people around the place?
• Is it appropriate generally for the police to basically say, we are OK with this criminal activity which is based on the exploitation of vulnerable females, just so long as they do it over there where people who are not involved can't see?
• If it is away from the general population, doesn't this reduce the risk for men buying women in this way, in terms of being spotted, and so encourage it?
• If there is an "official" area for people to commit this crime, doesn't that make it less criminal, won't men feel like it's "not as bad" if there is this kind of endorsement?

I read a thing ages ago with some women who worked the streets saying this was a shit idea that ghettoised them away from the general populaiton thus increasing risk and violence but I can't remember where it was now it was ages ago.

Unless the police are doing this in conjunction with some kind of really involved outreach program which is linked up with a whole bunch of relevant charities, support workers and the like? Even then, I've got reservations. It sounds like it's because people don't want prostitutes working on "their" streets, rather than to try and help anyone.

^Could I also take issue with your patronising attitude?
Some feminists find it hard to understand why so many women don't identify with feminism. The more I talk to feminists the more I understand why. It's not feminism they don't identify with it's feminists.^

Take issue with it all you like. Some feminists might care if you identify as a feminist. Some of us say we don't need certain types watering it down. I find it funny you take issue with my tone and yet you only posted on the thread to have a pop. What's your opinion?

I did read the paragraph. If you'd read as far bunique's post instead of just the last one the thread it would have been clear. or are we feeling goady tonight?

To be fair "gangs" will go anywhere they like surely?

Oh you think the gangs etc are only going to be confined to this specific district and won't spill out to those that live near by?

Could I also take issue with your patronising attitude?

Some feminists find it hard to understand why so many women don't identify with feminism. The more I talk to feminists the more I understand why. It's not feminism they don't identify with it's feminists.

Sorry for any typos ; on phone.

That should say "live" to "love".

Yes it has been a long day pops, thanks for asking. But I can still as far as paragraph 2.

Popcorn's only concern was about those living in these "zones" but the whole point of these zones is that they have been deliberately selected precisely because nobody lives there. Therefore her only point is pointless. So Stoned you are also worried about the those who love in these uninhabited zones?

AICM tries, but she seems to get a bit confused on some threads.

Long day AICM?

Well i guess I've missed the point too as I'd say what Lurcio AND popcorn said

You've totally missed the point popcorn.

All the things Lurcio said plus increase and drugs and gangs. Would you want to live in a redlight district?

why don't we just jail all the men who pay for sex like sweden does

Well, I can't answer for the OP, but from my perspective "Urgh" because most studies of the long term effects of officially sanctioned red light zones is that trafficking actually goes up, an it reinforced the idea that it's okay for men to buy women's bodies for sex. (Note that the coverage I've read suggests this is a zone where street prostitution will be tolerated, and regardless of where you stand on the issue of society tolerating comfortably off, non-coerced women entering prostitution voluntarily, this is not the sort of prostitution we are talking about here - I would hazard a guess that the percentage of women in street prostitution who are there voluntarily, as opposed to desperate, pimped, funding a drugs problem, damaged by childhood abuse is approximately zero).

Why "Urgh"?