Kirsty Whalley is a reporter for the Croydon Guardian, one of two free weekly newspapers in my locality. She has written a number of articles about trafficking. On the 20th of last month she did another one Police sex ads stance wins council approval. She's been running a campaign to get adverts for sex establishments banned from newspapers, principally her rival newspaper the Croydon Advertiser and its free edition the Advertiser Midweek.
The Croydon Advertiser had run a front page story Sinister brothel uncovered next to charity office. The Croydon Guardian criticised the Croydon Advertiser for carrying an advert for the same brothel the Croydon Advertiser had 'exposed'. The Croydon Guardian in turn scored an own goal when they had a picture of the offending ads in an article without having obscured the phone numbers. See here.
Kirsty wrote in her article 'It is estimated that 4,000 women a year are trafficked into the country, many of these pass through London forced to work as sex slaves against their will, seeing up to a dozen men a day'.
I sent her an email where I wrote 'I was interested to read your article about adverts for sex establishments in newspapers. You use the statistic of 4,000 women a year trafficked into Britain. Are you aware that this statistic is false? Do you think it is important to get the facts right?'
She sent an email back to me where she wrote 'Thank you for your email. The statistic quoted in the story is the is based on published research carried out by the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police Authority. If you have access to more recent, solid academic research on this I would be happy to receive it and use those figures in future stories. In the meantime I'll rely on the facts availble to me.'
I replied to her 'I have been to the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police Authority websites and I have not found the statistic that 4,000 women a year are trafficked into Britain. Last year Nick Davies wrote an article in the Guardian which says that in 2006 Home Office minister Vernon Coaker said "There are an estimated 4,000 women victims". That's 4,000 in total, not 4,000 a year. If you read the article you can see that there was no basis for this 'estimate'. I have included the URL below.'
This was last month and she hasn't replied to me. There are two possibilities here. Either she doesn't care enough about the issues or the 'victims' to get her facts straight. Or she knowingly stated something she knew to be false in order to manipulate public opinion. Either way she's not doing her job as a journalist. Nick Davies, however, is a proper journalist. I know she attended the 2010 annual meeting of CCAT (Croydon Community Against Trafficking) but I don't know if she is a member. She's obviously biased.
If it was really true that there were sex slaves in Croydon, who are raped up to twelve times a day, then the police would be smashing down doors to get to them and rescue them. I would be too. But whenever the police do something like that they don't find any. You may say that the police have identified victims, but many of them end up prosecuted by the police or deported or they disappear. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it is rare. Exploitation goes on in the domestic and agricultural sectors too but we don't ban them.
Would it not be more sensible for newspapers to ban adverts only for those sex establishments where trafficking is more likely to have occurred? Or for some kind of vetting process? Looking at the latest edition of Advertiser Midweek I can see two escort agencies advertized. They're not going to be anything to do with trafficking. I can also see two independent sex workers, Laura and Shakira. There are several brothels, but it's the oriental brothels where any trafficking is more likely to have happened.
Quite apart from not taking away the living of escorts and independent sex workers, a compromise would mean that punters would have less motivation to go to unwilling or unhappy prostitutes. If their needs are catered for by willing prostitutes then they aren't going to want to see unwilling ones. I don't think that people like Kirsty want compromise though, any more than they want dialogue. Even if it solves the problem they say they want to solve. People like Kirsty will never be happy until all prostitution is banned.
Kirsty has been working with CCAT and the police in her campaign to to get adverts for sex establishments banned from newspapers. Editors could be prosecuted for publishing sex ads. Vice squad detective inspector Kevin Hyland told the Croydon Guardian "It is an offence to advertise for prostitution. If newspapers do run adverts there is a possibility of prosecution. The legislation we are thinking of using is aiding and abetting offences of controlling prostitution for gain, offences of trafficking under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and possibly money laundering."
Money laundering? A newspaper editor prosecuted for aiding and abetting money laundering? Whatever next? I wonder if our MPs knew when they were debating money laundering legislation it would end up being used in this way. We all know what money laundering is, and this is not money laundering. It seems any business that breaks the law can also be accused of 'money laundering'.
This blog is not anti police and it is not pro trafficking. It is anti trafficking. It's just that my ideas are more likely to result in success than the ideas of people in organizations like CCAT. Their ideas are counterproductive, which is not surprising when you consider their real agenda.
When are people going to wake up to the fact that politicians are always trying to erode our rights, and will use external threats to make us compliant? It's not terrorists or paedophiles or traffickers or people on benefits who are the biggest problem in society, it's the politicians who want to take away rights and those who aid and abet them like Kirsty Whalley.
I don't like people with hidden agendas. I don't like people who say all they want is to rescue the victims when it is they who stand in the way of real progress. I don't like people who think that only people like them can see the truth and that they can tell lies to manipulate the public. I don't like people who campaign for laws that they know damn well are going to be used for something other than their stated purpose. These are the sinister ones.
No comments:
Post a Comment