Thread 25 Starmer - Cheers for a falling out among thieves

[DuncinToffee]

Previous thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5338688-thread-24-starmer-casting-the-net-wider?

Back to earlier comments, any law regarding paying for sex should apply to both men and women, even if in reality no woman would come in its scope.

The problem is not the principle of it, but could it reduce the number of people who pay for sex, the trafficking and other coercion.

I have a very sensitive nose for laws that are "needed" because existing laws are simply not applied or are applied incorrectly.

A good law doesn't need "updating" does it ? There was no need to amend the law on murder when guns were invented because it wasn't illegal to kill someone with a gun so we needed a new law.

I am also wary of magic bullet laws. Mainly because I've never read of one working, or seen one work.

But I (we ?) digress from the wider politics of this thread. I know where FWR is if I need to agree furiously.

I think you won’t have a law drafted for men only paying; it would be interpreted as applying to either sex, even if it were drafted “a man who”

its going to be “a person who….”

Well it’s politics because the Government intends to regulate.

Criminal offences do get very complicated; there’s now an offence of non fatal strangulation which is sometimes done as a form of domestic violence; however, this wouldn’t necessarily be ABH if the strangler didn’t leave a mark, and it’s clearly more an assault in terms of its seriousness. Unfortunately it’s a behaviour mostly done to women and children.

The law is getting better at criminalizing domestic abuse in the home which is different from the more obvious kind of male violence you might see in a street fight which is how the mainstream thinks about violence and it better directs institutions to investigate, rather than the “no marks no arrest” mode of “it’s a domestic”.

But then what is "payment" ? Cash ? A bank transfer ? NFT ? Jewellery ?

And what if the dynamic is that the person "giving" the "sex"* is the person asking the other person for payment ?

Now you can solve a lot of this questions by definition. However (as we all should know) that will just lead to a game of cat and mouse as courts grapple with the reality as opposed to the legal fictions.

*We have already established that a narrow definition of "sex" is fraught with challenges.

It's probably the heat but your posts are going straight over my head today Jane

And there definitely are women who pay for sex. Just as there are women who indulge in sex tourism. Smaller scale than men but still there.

I'm merely expressing a slight raised eyebrow at the sudden appearance of a measure banning people paying for sex will in anyway ameliorate a practice that really is as old as time and that possibly exists as a natural part of society.

And if you accept that introducing a law won't actually solve the underlying problem, then maybe it needs very close scrutiny.

After all, we've had 3 generations of the "war on drugs" and the only thing we have to show for it is a load of uber-rich drug dealers and their appalling taste in art.

Also laws intended to "protect" people often end up adding to their abuse and exploitation.

That said, it is hot today isn't it ? ChatGPT ran the last 6 months in my garden through some models and this year (in central England) is so far 1.6C above the norm overall ...

Average Jan–May CET: 8.19 °C, which is 1.69 °C above the 1961–1990 average (6.49 °C) metoffice.gov.uk+1en.wikipedia.org+1.
Year‑to‑date anomaly (Jan–Jun weighted): +1.61 °C above long-term norms metoffice.gov.uk

✅ Summary

• 2025 is running about 1.6 °C above long-term CET averages — firmly in the era of climate-driven warmth.
• Matching or exceeding springtime warmth and dryness raises flags for water stress and heat conditions.
• Projections point to further warming and increased climate extremes, reinforcing that this trend is both consistent and accelerating.

It's been this warm and dry. I had no idea these things even flowered. As you can see by the state of it, it's a bit harsh for them, here. The bees haven't been complaining.

(Of course, aunty Google revealed that it's flowered at least twice before, as it has to flower to grow a new stem)

That's splendid @PickAChew is it a yucca tree? Don't they only flower every 25 years? When my grandads flowered it was in the local paper!

We had a cactus that was supposed to flower every 10 years, since 1996. It flowered 4 times since 2008. Pretty little flowers.

Good weather for orchids ? (As if I cared).

And parch marks (which I do care about ....)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpd1qgpw08do

Excellent. Good for her.

Here is her letter

https://bsky.app/profile/vickyfoxcroftmp.bsky.social/post/3lryayp7pzc2f

It's a cordyline Australis. It's in next door's garden, which used to be tended to regularly but is now left to grow wild. The grass gets trimmed once a year and the pollen in our garden is quite painful at the moment. They also have a monkey puzzle that, according to a tree surgeon we hired, looks to be as old as the house, so about 90!

I love a monkey puzzle tree; a bit of prehistory in suburban gardens. They were here when the dinosaurs were in charge

my family home has 2 monkey puzzles in the garden. They were pretty big (taller than the house) when I looked for monkeys in them - about age 4!

They would probably be about 70-100 years old.

Vicky Foxcroft showing great integrity there. I particularly admire the part where she says she learned a lot in her role about the challenges people with disabilities face.

Resigning on principle? V retro.
Labour need to be careful that doesn’t come back in to fashion.

Much more focus on supporting people with suitable and sustainable work opportunities - less trying to score points with irate Tories (who previously were overjoyed to spaff money all over Rwanda).

I appreciate the Labour government have given greater powers to HMRC to investigate this but there remains a £46.8 billion tax gap according to HMRC (19/6/25)

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/measuring-tax-gaps/1-tax-gaps-summary#headline-tax-gap-estimates

Resigning on principle is very Labour. Robin Cook anyone?

I suppose her motivation was also a government whip that she would be in charge of making sure the vote went through and recommending discipline for MPs that did not back the Government. So fairly, she says she can’t do it.

Absolutely - she's assessed she can't whip for something she doesn't agree with.

It's unusual and I rather suspect she's rather bucked the longer term trend for Gov Whips & their principles (see Williamson - although I am not sure what his principles were)

Today's assisted dying timetable

0930 Debate on further amendments begins - Leadbeater expected to accept two.

1030 Third reading begins - return to the broader debate.

1415 Vote on third reading

1430 Result of landmark vote

By mid afternoon bill either falls or heads to Lords.

Many impressive women in the Labour government

Will freely admit I’m more of a couch potato than a participant these days but I’m pleased about this and can recognise the economic benefits.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/game-changer-for-the-nation