Why were the posts by Jan deleted? A lot of those posts had very valid arguments.

For some reason posting a link to the consultation response by Scot-Pep is "against mumnet talk guidelines". There must be something about that document MNHQ don't want us to see?

scot-pep.org.uk/sites/default/files/reports/scot-pep_response_to_rhoda_grant_consultation.pdf

Report

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 03/02/2013 23:20

Ah, well. At least MN are getting on top of the more obvious trolls. Mwah mwah, dahling.

Report

badinage · 03/02/2013 23:58

Huh? That link is a 2006 study of prostitution in Canada, whereas the question was about the percentages of prostitutes working on the streets, in brothels and as independents in Scotland where the consultation is taking place. At a push I'd have accepted ratios for England, Wales or NI, but none of this answers the questions. Especially as even the Canada report isn't precise, stating that "street prostitution accounts for just 5% to
20% of all prostitution activity in the country". It doesn't break down percentages of the remaining 95-80% in terms of where they work.

The poster claiming that the main objections to the proposals related to safety, appears to have been banned. As other pro posters were earlier claiming that working as an independent would give them no safety concerns, we're still none the wiser about what these posters fear from the proposals.

Report

OldLadyKnowsNothing · 04/02/2013 01:54

The link was in support of my earlier claim that only "about 10%" of prostitutes are streetworkers. I was asked to supply evidence, and did.

Report

badinage · 04/02/2013 02:09

No that's not what I asked for and I've repeated the specific request several times now.

In a discussion about criminalising prostitution in Scotland and what yours and other posters' practical fears about the proposals might be, the issue of threats to safety was raised by Jaans.

You didn't reply. Earlier in the thread, you said you would have no such concerns about safety yourself.

I queried why safety would be a concern when as I understood it, a significant proportion of prostitutes currently work on their own or clients' premises. You said that only about 10% of prostitution was street-based and that the majority worked in brothels. I asked you this:

"Got any stats for that?

The internet's been around for 20+ years now. How do you know there aren't now more prostitutes working as independents than in brothels or on the street?"

to which you replied with a link to a 312 page thesis that didn't contain the answer - and consistently evaded my polite requests for you to direct me to it.

Then you linked to a 2006 report about Canadian prostitution that mentioned nothing about how many prostitutes in Scotland (or even GB generally) work in brothels compared to own/clients' premises.

If you don't know, just say so.

Report

FloraFox · 04/02/2013 02:55

The Suzanne Jenkins study you linked to OLKN was written as a PhD thesis. Suzanne Jenkins now seems to be a Policy Officer at Staffordshire County Council. She doesn't seem to have published anything else on this topic, that I can find on the internet.

This article in the New Statesman questioned Brooke Magnanti's reliance on the study:

www.newstatesman.com/blogs/helen-lewis/2012/04/how-belle-de-jour-got-her-figures-wrong

Interestingly, Ms Jenkins seems to have commented BTL on that article:

"Just for clarity, as author of the study under discussion, I certainly don't claim my sample to be representative of the population, the sex-working population, or even escorts advertising on the internet. I would add that although I aimed to study 'escorts, many men, and women, work in more than one way/place simultaneously. e.g., many escorts work some of their week in a parlour, many started as street walkers or parlour workers before going independent. I personally interviewed over 100 sex workers and their experiences were wide-ranging - but that doesn?t mean others didn?t experienced sex work differently. Also, the question about plans to leave escort work were one of large bank of questions, and respondents were able to add explanatory data to their response, so some clarification of their meanings were elicited. Having said all that, my intention is not to promote sex work or to condemn it ? it more about how the law infantilises and pathologises women and how in the name of protecting women it can place them in a more vulnerable position."

This is the only public statement I can find from Ms Jenkins.

Her belief that the law infantilises women is a subjective, political belief. She states herself that she does not believe her sample to be representative. I don't see that her paper adds anything of value to the discussion.

Report

FloraFox · 04/02/2013 02:56

Another link fail!

This

Report

FloraFox · 04/02/2013 03:11

The thing is, statistically, it's not possible to devise a meaningful representative study on harm or consent by asking prostitutes for a number of reasons.

Those who are in forced situations will not be able to participate.
Those who have left would be unlikely to participate or too difficult to find.
The responses are largely subjective and therefore unverifiable.
Dilbert always has something useful to add
To paraphrase a famous prostitute: they would say that, wouldn't they.

Report

Writehand · 04/02/2013 18:01

I worked briefly in an old people's home and the matron there was quite vigilant in making sure none of them developed sexual or romantic relationships. It was horrible. She felt it was up to her what they did, as if they were kids. One old boy liked going to the pub for a few pints, and she tried to stop him too. He didn't get drunk or difficult, she just felt it wasn't appropriate. I thought she was a cow, and was very pleased to see this news story. If the residents want to do private things in their private space, good luck to them!

Report

Flip

1 2 ··· 6 7 8 9 10 11

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.