The amount of women condoning prostitution

My understanding is that criminal biker gangs control prostitution and the drugs trade in both Australia and New Zealand. It is a major problem. They get young women addicted to drugs and then pimp them out.

https://hivlawcommission.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/FinalReport-RisksRightsHealth-EN.pdf page 38

Sexwork is now more violent in Sweden and it is extremely difficult to convict clients because sexworkers are unwilling to testify against them. Sexworkers are still criminalised for working together, can be evicted and have their children taken off them.

Also legalisation is different from decriminalisation (used by NZ, some of Australia and now Belgium).

Sex trafficking is a huge problem in Nordic-Model Iceland, despite the fact it's a small country in the middle of nowhere (compared to Germany, large population bang in the centre of Europe).

https://www.icelandreview.com/news/iceland-destination-sex-trafficking-victims/

https://decrimnow.org.uk/open-letter-on-the-nordic-model/

Also this, a letter opposing the "Nordic Model" whose signatures include many sexworkers and sexworker groups.

Great post; I too get annoyed by the toilet cleaner comparison. Sanitation is the bedrock of civilsation.

I wonder how many other household name men, smugly married, wholesome and outwardly respectable, are getting a bit nervous about chapters of their past they'd like to keep quiet? Sick of men thinking they can get away with anything.

Cleaners and prostitutes can be male or female. Looking at the number of public toilets with the sign about male cleaners I'm assuming there must be a fair few male toilet cleaners.

So are the kids being used to courier drugs and they are in danger like the prostitutes who can be women or men.

@TheHoover given the amount of money involved- and how easy it is to get this stuff for relatively peanuts-I'm very suspicious of blackmail too

The thing is though I'm sure there are plenty of high up highly paid people in all sorts of public service roles paying for webcams and pics and other sleazy activities out of their publicly funded salaries - the public don't have a right to say what people spend their salaries on if it's not illegal.

The only difference here was it got in the news because they are 'celebs' of a kind.

I think it's sleazy as hell but then in my opinion so is constantly watching porn multiple times a week behind your partners back unless you know they are 100% fine with it --but it's not illegal.

The issue to me in this case should be between the accused and his wife . I would have him out the house faster than he can pull his trousers up and yes I can see his employer might think twice about whether to keep him- however if untruths were said , (for example the person was over 18) then you are on dodgy ground for being sued -

OT I know, but aside from the undue influence / conflict of interest issues, it could be that there's another powerful figure who's also had contact with the teen and who obviously has a vested interest in them issuing a denial and is effectively buying their silence by arranging the lawyer, etc. I'm not saying that is what happened as I have absolutely no idea (and obviously the specifics of that case aren't relevant to this thread), but that might be one explanation as to why the lawyers weren't conflicted out if someone else is paying.

That's another issue if you're used to selling your body, though - it becomes easier to go along with other aspects of your life, such as your voice, freedom and welfare, being bought when someone offers you cash to control them too.

Yes that, and also many people on this thread have forgotten the adage ''you did not make good choices, you had good choices''.

"Equating cleaning with prostitution is misogynistic and shows the person making the comparison up as a misogynist who believes women are domestic appliances."

This.

Thanks, if the Edwards matter does go to court, whether criminal or civil if Edwards sues The Sun, Edwards and the young person must be separately represented if there is a need for the young person to have legal advice.

Just being a witness doesn't need legal representation in court but if asked to be a witness in a civil matter it would be legitimate to seek advice on (a) do I have to (b) if I agree , what can I say/ omit? (c ) if I don't agree can I be compelled to attend?

Also that taking drugs causes harm to the person taking the drugs, not the supplier of the drugs. The converse is true for prostitutes.

Go after the people causing the harm, not the people being harmed.

There is so much wrong with that whole "toilet cleaner" example I don't know where to start.

Everyone shits and everyone's toilet needs cleaning. It's a necessary job, either for people to do themselves or to pay someone else to do. Having sex is not a necessary job. It's something that should be done through choice of both individuals.

Cleaning is not inherently a low value or exploitative job. It's a manual job like many others. I think its up to people to choose what job they do and if my son decided to clean toilets I'd be happy he was working and supporting himself.

Equating cleaning with prostitution is misogynistic and shows the person making the comparison up as a misogynist who believes women are domestic appliances.

NatashaDancing Thank you for clarifying that legal stuff.

Exactly.
Instead we have created privacy laws and moral codes which means men who use sex workers can hide it more easily because "None of our business".
It's all swept under the carpet leading to a circumstance where there has to be a crime before a conversation. And when the crime happens its "what could we do to stop this in the future?"

Conflict of interest isn't the right term but I'd want to be very sure that the young person hadn't been coerced into contacting his solicitors.

And the thing is if all the solicitor is doing at this stage is issuing a statement that the facts are wrong any solicitor in the country can do that - wouldn't be more than an a couple of hours chargeable time, max.

A solicitor for the young person issued a statement. I think the firm involved are Child & Child who are based in St. James London. They seem to specialise in high value divorce work. I occasionally have dealings with the posh private client London firms but haven't come across them. The Queen's solicitor was Farrar & Co. I haven't seen anything about which firm , if any, is representing Edwards.

As to who is paying the fees for the young person, fees can be paid on a client's behalf by a third party provided the person paying has gone through, and cleared, anti money laundering and source of funds process. Alternatively the third party can simply pay money into the young person's bank account and they can pay direct. In the situation here I think there is a potential conflict of interest in taking on the young person as a client in the knowledge Edwards is paying the fees.

Just to note there is no such thing as a firm of barristers. No one would instruct a barrister to issue the denial given and it's not what barristers do.

I do think it is interesting that with prostitution it is go for the punters but with drugs it is go for the suppliers. In the end I suppose you have to do both but we would need a huge increase in police numbers and I'm not sure people want to pay for that.

Of course the difference between drugs and prostitution is that prostitution isn't illegal in itself but pushing prostitutes to work alone isn't going to improve their safety.

I think you may be overlooking the other key difference between women and drugs, in that women aren't inanimate objects.

Can you tell me how a drug addict manages to afford the same barrister firm the queen uses
On a technicality, isn't it HE using that barrister, rather than the young man? That said, the young man has expensive legal representation, but we don't know how it's being funded.

Also we don't know that prostitution is involved in that case, although it may be. Some young gay men arrange hookups and no money is involved, and often it is with much older men. I used to hang out with gay friends when I was very young, and the dynamic was very different from young girls (or vulnerable boys, obviously).

None of which detracts from the evils of prostitution, but we don't know for sure the facts in this particular case, and no doubt more will come out. It just seems wrong to me to extrapolate the facts, when both HE and the young man have family that are caught up in all of this, and they haven't done anything wrong.

@TheHoover "Well according to the reports the young person in the Huw Edwards case made a huge amount of money, so clearly it does happen.*

Not as much as he would have earned as a barrista though!

I wouldn't want my children to be toilet cleaners either, but I accept that there are people who have decided to do that as a profession.

I only have a son and assuring he was cleaning toilets rather than running a cleaning agency, yes I'd be disappointed. But would I prefer that he was doing a necessary and useful job or selling pornographic photos or performing pornographic acts for men ? hell yes, no contest.

My disappointment would be because (a) the expensive prvate school may have been a waste of money and (b) cleaning toilets won't pay well. But that pales into insignificance compared to the disappointment I'd feel for him and myself if he were prostituting himself.

MrsTerryPratchett
your post really should be a sticky.

And can I just add how much I hate that "oldest profession" excuse which I see has appeared on at least one post. It's meaningless bollocks.
**

I don't know how you control it and I've seen officers doing their best, trying different tactics e.g. focusing on street prostitution/brothels/pimps/punters. None of it did much good. I don't know if it would work elsewhere but the thing that worked best where I worked was the local people saying "no more" and working together to push it out of their area. They mounted street patrols, took number plates, made it obvious what they were doing where prostitutes were working so punters moved on. It really did work well but the problem moved a mile up the road so I suppose that would depend on the whole of society getting involved as it didn't stop the activity just moved it on.

I do think it is interesting that with prostitution it is go for the punters but with drugs it is go for the suppliers. In the end I suppose you have to do both but we would need a huge increase in police numbers and I'm not sure people want to pay for that.

Of course the difference between drugs and prostitution is that prostitution isn't illegal in itself but pushing prostitutes to work alone isn't going to improve their safety.

It's a real conundrum isn't it.

We REALLY need to be talking about men. And to men. And having public discussions about men who use sex workers. Men who don't need to speak up about it. Men need to step up and take responsibility for their own behaviour and that of other men. We need to create a society which isn't based on the premise that men have the right to use women's bodies. Or that they cannot help themselves using women's bodies so we have to think of the safest ways for them to access women's bodies.