a nice surprise in Soho yesterday

The first thing I did when I got to Soho yesterday was to go to Bar Italia, an independent coffee shop in Frith Street. I had not been there before but I have heard JoAnne Good go on about it on her BBC Radio London show. I had a latte and it did taste very nice. When I want to buy a coffee I usually only have Pret A Manger latte or their 99p filter coffee. I shall go to Bar Italia again, although it is a bit expensive.

I decided I wanted to see Alena again. I have mentioned Alena in a previous post. I said that it had been a soulless experience being with her, and how it had reminded me of when I had tried prostitution in Soho in the 80s but given it up.

I went to 26 Wardour Street a while ago looking for a girl called Alina. Someone had given a description of her and recommended her. She wasn't there and somebody told me she didn't work there anymore. I decided to go to nearby Romilly Street to see if Meena was there. She wasn't, but a sign said there was a girl called Alena. I thought maybe Alena and Alina could be the same girl. I knocked on the door and the maid opened it.

She encouraged me to take a look at the girl. Alena was sitting on the bed, a small skinny girl with dark hair. She gave me a big smile. She seemed to fit the description of Alina, but I didn't think it was the same girl and I decided not to stay.

As I was walking along the road I remembered that I had been with a woman called Alena at Romilly Street before, but that this woman had had blonde hair. I don't especially like blondes and she hadn't been that pleasant. I remembered that she had held up one finger to emphasise that she only did one position for the money I had given her. And yet I kept hearing good reports about her on PunterNet.

So yesterday I decided to give it another go. And it was one of my most pleasurable experiences in Soho. I paid 20 pounds for 10 minutes with Alena. I asked her to give me a hand job. While I undressed I said to her that I thought I might have been with her before, but that the girl I had seen had blonde hair. She said it was most probably her, she had had blonde hair but had changed it.

I lay on the bed and she started playing with my willy. She had a nice smile and seemed very relaxed. I asked if I could see her pussy and she got onto all fours with her bottom sticking up in the air. She had an all over tan. I gently pinched her buttocks and held her labia apart to get a good look inside her pussy.

I said that she looked like a teenager. She had small breasts and they were lovely. She smiled and thanked me for the complement. I said that she looked like a schoolgirl. I asked her if she had a schoolgirl uniform and she said no. I gently smacked her bottom. I didn't want to do it too hard or she might have wanted me to pay extra. Paris charges extra for spanking.

Then she did something that no other sex worker has done for me, something I hadn't asked her to do, something that I would not have asked a sex worker to do. She looked deep into my eyes and said "Fuck me, Daddy", and then "Let me see your sperm, Daddy". She wasn't doing it as a joke and she wasn't doing it in the bored mechanical way that some sex workers do. She was playing a role.

I expect that there will be some people who will be shocked by this and will see it as evidence of my depravity. I can imagine a radical feminist or a police officer reading my blog, not because they think like me but because they want to find out what is going on.

People can have sexual fantasies without wanting those sexual fantasies to come true. I am not interested in having sex with teenagers either above the age of consent or below it. I have never had children and if I did I would not want to have sex with a daughter. I saw a documentary once about feminists and women said that a group of them had discussed their sexual fantasies and had been surprised that a common fantasy for them was rape fantasy.

I was immensely excited by Alena but I only had 10 minutes. Not enough time for me to orgasm. As I was leaving I said to her "I liked it when you called me 'Daddy', I'll remember that for next time". I want to see her again. Now I have seen how willing to please she is, I want her to put her arms around my neck and her legs around my waist. I want to carry her around he room and then sit on the edge of the bed with her on my lap. Like I did with Meena (in the same room).

Sometimes people say "Would you want your daughter to be a whore?". To which I could reply "No, but sometimes I want a whore to be my daughter".

Seriously though, it would not bother me if I had a daughter and she became a prostitute. Better than being a banker or a journalist, more honourable. I don't have the old fashioned contempt for prostitutes. I don't define people by what they do to make their money. It's a question of alternatives. Is it better to have your house repossessed or go on the game? Is it better to be evicted for being unable to pay the rent or sit in the dark because you could not pay your electricity bill?

The best thing in life is to find out the thing that you are good at and that you enjoy doing. Prostitution must always be second best to that because I don't believe any woman actually enjoys the work. She may enjoy the company of other women and obviously the money. But even a nymphomaniac would get tired of doing it so frequently. And they say you should not make a job out of your hobby.

If you can't find something you enjoy and are good at then find something that you dislike less than other types of work. Or something where you can earn the same amount of money in a day as in a whole week of something else. Not everyone enjoys working.

Most women would just hate to do it and many women are tempramentally unsuited to prostitution. They shouldn't do it. Also I worry about things like National Insurance contributions. If these are not getting paid because you are outside the normal system of employment or benefits then it can be difficult to get benefits or a pension. I don't know much about it. I don't like the idea of a woman continuing to be a prostitute when she wants to give it up.

Some women want to make a fortune from prostitution or pornography and they do. Some women want to get a few thousand pounds in the bank to finance what they really want to do with their lives. This happens, but you wouldn't think it if you listened just to radical feminists.

I have been reading the blog of Rebecca Mott who I mentioned in my last post. I found a link on the OBJECT site on the testimonies page. What I was hoping for was her testimony, even though I knew it would not show the reality of prostitution for most sex workers. What I found was a lot of ideological claptrap. She refers to some of the things that supposedly happened to her but gives no details.

I have copied and pasted a few paragraphs to give you a flavour of the sort of rubbish she writes and women in OBJECT seem to belive in.

Know to be a prostitute is to rape to almost dead, but to continually be an open vagina, anus, mouth and hands to be fuck again and again and again.

There is no space, rest, time to remember you are human in those conditions.

Many of you may be fighting against factory farming.

But what about prostituted women and girls inside industrial rape factories named brothels, clubs, outdoors prostitution, massage parlours and whatever label hides the male violence.

and this

Tidy away the violence, don’t see the millions of dead bodies, refuse to know the hate and contempt that the sex trade has for the goods – never given permission to be real women and girls.

and this

Any women who named herself a feminist and thinks that is unimportant, or that for some reason prostituted women and girls don’t mind – they choose it don’t they – should think very carefully what is their definition of being a feminist.

It cannot be throwing women and girls under the train.

Feminism need to listen and learn from the voices of exited prostituted women, not to continually go to academia, and to meetings without their voices – the voices of exited prostituted should have a place of honour in feminism, not be a footnote that is sometimes remembered.

That's just the problem with people like Rebecca Mott. They don't listen to women involved in prostitution. My advice to them is to go and talk to prostitutes in Soho. Get to know them. Learn their story. Clayton Littlewood and Juliet Peston have done just that and they tell the truth. Clayton is a gay man and so no one can suspect him of being a punter with a vested interest in keeping it going.

Rebecca says she is an anarchist. She also says she goes to church. I didn't think anarchists went to church or supported using the police and the legal system to ban all kinds of things (prostitution, pornography, lap dancing, beauty contests etc). I don't really understand why anyone takes these people seriously, and why they seem to have influence on key members of the Labour party.

I have found out that Caroline Lucas, a leading member of the Green Party, is trying to change the current policy on prostitution from the sensible New Zealand Model to the Swedish Model, which will ban men from paying for sex. She has started believing all of the false statistics put about by radical feminist organisations like OBJECT, and all of the silly ideas such as the idea that prostitution is 'the buying and selling of human beings'. see this blog

There is an argument that Britain is becoming more like America in that there is a shift from public spending on benefits to public spending on prisons, the police and the military. In America they are very keen on humiliation as a means of control. It doesn't work, has never worked but it is part of their culture.

Harriet Harman is cutting benefits for mothers at the same time as criminalizing prostitutes even more. Prostitutes are also being humiliated by being 'named and shamed', with their photographs and names published in newspapers. For example, Michelle Lyn Smith. How can anyone believe that the aristocratic Harriet Harman cares about poor women in general and those of them who choose prostitution in particular?

Is this really what people call being progressive? Radical feminists sometimes get the criticism that they are puritans. Is that true?

Some people have always hated prostitution and tried to stop it. In previous centuries they justified their dislike through religion. We have listened to the justification of radical feminists, and it is dependent on statistics that academics have shown to be false and people like me who have experience of prostitution can see is wrong. They have been told their statistics are all wrong but they don't want to know.

I have been looking into the theory of objectification, which they use to justify their hatreds, and it doesn't make any sense. I might write more about this in another post. I am not against feminism but I am against the radicals. They are the reason why so many women don't want to call themselves feminists.

Their views are dangerous because they harm women. They stop women from being safe. It's not the punters who create the conditions where women are harmed, it is the radical feminists and the ignorant who support them.

Yes, they are puritans. Their personalities are deficient in the qualitites that we would expect of people in authority and with influence.

Meard Street and Dean Street again

I have been looking at Clayton Littlewood's Soho blog in more detail (mentioned in a previous post) and was especially interested when he mentioned Meard Street. I have been familiar with this street for decades but I didn't know about the two notorious clubs that used to be there.

The Mandrake and The Gargoyle were clubs where famous figures such as Jean-Paul Sartre, Tallulah Bankhead and Francis Bacon went. One web site says that opium smoking went on there.

In the 1980s there was a doorway in Meard Street where women would solicit men passing by. If the man was tempted he would be asked to hand over money and then told he had to meet the woman somewhere else. She would not turn up. This form of stealing is called clipping.

I read in a newspaper that there was a man who was saving up for a sex change operation. He would go to Meard Street as a woman and take money from men this way. I was walking along Meard Street one day and there were two people soliciting, not in the doorway but walking up and down the street. I could see that one of them looked like a man dressed as a woman. His shoulders were just a bit too broad and his hips were just a bit too narrow.

The other one solicited me. I said to her "Is this the sex-change person?" looking at him. She laughed and said "Do you want a sex-change person?". I walked away briskly but she must have told him what I had said because he followed me along the street and around the corner saying repeatedly "How did you know that I'm a sex change person?". I kept walking and didn't reply but he was persistent.

I didn't know what to say to him. I stopped and turned to him and said "It's obvious". I didn't know what else to say. He looked confused for a few seconds and then said sadly "That's all I wanted to know" and walked away.

The doorway is no longer open, and the brothel that was next to it has closed. I don't know if clipping still goes on. Sometimes women in the street ask me if I'm looking for a girl but I don't respond to them.

61 Dean Street seems to be functioning as normal now. I don't know why the door was closed on the first of April. There have been police raids since the introduction of the new law but Soho seems to be continuing as before.

I have read the blog that I mentioned in my last post in more detail. It gives a comprehensive and detailed criticism of the Policing and Crime Bill 2009. It shows clearly that women are being increasingly criminalised by the change in the law.

There is a link to an Evening Standard article that talks about the campaign to keep 61 Dean Street open. It also mentions Lizzie Valad, the prostitute whose flat was closed and was murdered when she worked on the streets.

Clayton's blog gives an amusing account of his involvement in the court case to keep 61 Dean Street open. I can't find any mention on his blog of the masked parade that the sex workers had in Soho last year to celebrate winning the case. I did not know about it or I would have gone. I have looked at photos of it though on different web sites. I tried to see if I could identify any of the women but I could not. The most interesting site is this one, you can see that one of the masked women dancing isn't wearing any knickers!

The OBJECT feminist organisation claim that they want men involved in prostitution to be criminalised and women to be decriminalised. The law criminalises women yet they have web pages called "Victory as Peers vote for women, not pimps and punters!.htm" and "Double Victory as Bill is passed on lap dancing and prostitution!.htm".

There's something irritating about those exclamation marks. Why are they supporting a law which criminalises women and is harming them? There is no indication on their site that women are being criminalised by the new law they celebrate. Either they are ignorant or they are deceptive.

In the first of these web pages mentioned they say " ... the Bill puts the rights of exploited women over those of punters and pimps by focusing the gaze of the criminal law on the men who perpetuate commercial sexual exploitation by choosing to buy women, children and men for sex." Can't they see that the bill harms women?

They have a page on prostitution which doesn't say much except "Prostitution is the ultimate form of objectification and for OBJECT, tackling the demand for prostitution is a crucial part of challenging this objectification." This theory of objectification is something they repeat time and time again like a mantra to justify their beliefs but doesn't make sense.

On this page they have links to other pages such as Facts (all proved to be wrong) and testimonies. The first of their 'facts' is "75% of women involved in prostitution started as children". One of their testimonies, from Rebecca, says "I am so p*ssed off with the ‘choice’ argument being used to dismiss so many women and girls. I, for one, would never deny there are some women who may choose to be in prostitution. But they are very privileged and a very tiny minority, maybe around 2-4% of prostituted women." I think that Rebecca has got things the wrong way round, the vast majority of prostitutes are not coerced with possibly 2-4% who are.

Rebecca has her own blog, which I intend to read. I had a quick look at it and it was saying something about men spitting on her frequently, as if this was something commonplace in prostitution. I have read a number of testimonies on the web. I'm not saying that they are all wrong, but they don't show what prostitution is really like.

I have a wide experience of prostitution at the cheaper end. This includes suburban brothels, Soho walk ups and street girls. I have never once seen a prostitute who was drunk, crying or in pain. I have once seen a woman who looked very unhappy, and I wrote about her in earlier postings.

On their prostitution page OBJECT also have a link to their Demand Change campaign. This campaign is in opposition to the Safety First Coalition supported by Women Against Rape, the Green Party, the English Collective of Prostitutes and informed feminists.

an interesting blog about sex work and the law

I have found a blog that has a lot of information about the legalities of sex work, including the Policing and Crime Bill 2009.

http://sexworkblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/07/policing-and-crime-bill-2009/

61 Dean Street

I like to listen to JoAnne Good on BBC Radio London at night. She is familiar with Soho and says she is fascinated by the sex workers. She said several days ago that she was sitting having her lunch outside Beatroot in Berwick Street looking at the doorway of one of the walk ups. She said she saw a woman go in who looked as if she was 25 stone. However, I don't think any of the sex workers are that big so maybe it was one of the maids.

A couple of nights ago she mentioned this again and she did a very interesting interview with Clayton Littlewood who lived and worked in Soho. He had a shop underneath the walk up at 61 Dean Street. He got to know the girls there and he helped to stop the place from being closed down.

Clayton said that he is sure none of the women working in Soho are coerced. JoAnne said that she was glad he said that because "every time I talk about prostitution people go on about - you know - the slave trade and how they're forced to do this". Clayton has had a blog on Soho for some time and also has a book, and now a play. The book is called 'Dirty White Boy: Tales of Soho'. Clayton is on myspace and has his blog there.

In one of my recent postings I said that I was wondering if the walk up at 26 Wardour Street was the one that the police tried to close down. I had remembered reading something in a newspaper about a 'brothel' where a vicar had defended the establishment in court, saying that there was no drug dealing near there or any form of anti social behaviour. It's not 26 Wardour Street, it is 61 Dean Street.

Juliet Peston is another one who has defended the place, and she has told of her involvement here. She has worked in Soho as a chef and has concerns about the welfare of the sex workers she has met. She is also concerned about the tactics that the police are using to get what they want.

I have not been to 61 Dean Street but I did notice that the big sign saying MODEL outside the doorway has been taken down. I went into Soho in the afternoon of the first of April and I noticed that the door was closed. I hope that the police have not managed to close it. I will keep you informed.

JoAnne also interviewed the two men behind Hummus Brothers. This is a new restaurant that sells hummus and other stuff. I am familiar with the one in Wardour Street in Soho. What I like about them is that you can get a meal there for £2.80. So when I am short of money I go in there. I have a small bowl of hummus with chickpeas. It has olive oil, tahini, and cumin and comes with hot pitta bread. They do different things apart from chickpeas with the hummus and they also do salads. In the summer I want to try their home-made lemonade.

I did go to Whole Foods Market in Brewer Street in Soho. This is a new store like their bigger store on High Street Kensington. I used to have a tub of salad. I would have chicken and salmon and different salad things. However, they seem to have stopped having balsamic vinegar pickled onions. So I go elsewhere.

Beatroot restaurant on Berwick Street Soho is good for cheap food. So is Stockpot. One of my favourite places to eat is somewhere in Holborn. There is a Hummus Brothers in Holborn which didn't get mentioned in JoAnne's interview although the new one in the City did. But the place that I like to go is the café at the Mary Ward Centre in Holborn. This is an adult education college where I studied once. The café is only open during term time and is vegetarian.

They do a wide range of inexpensive items from the Mediterranean region. Things like pasta and couscous. It's quite healthy. It seems to be run by an Italian family. Sometimes there is a beautiful older Italian woman there.

It's very convenient for me because I get my bus from near there back to south London. The toilets there are good too.

Women Against Rape and the Green Party

I have found two interesting web sites that have something to say about the Policing and Crime Bill and the Criminal Justice Bill. The first is the Against Rape site. The second is the Green Party site. They say that prostitutes are being further criminalised by these laws.

The Against Rape site makes a number of points on the Policing and Crime Bill on this page. Point number 3 is especially interesting and I have quoted it below.

3. Clauses 16, 17 and 21 will increase violence and exploitation.
Justice and protection for victims of rape and trafficking, and the prevention of these crimes, depend on the ability of survivors to come forward to report. That is the considered view of survivors of rape and other violence, including sex workers. Why is legislation aimed at women in the sex industry ignoring these views? Like the Royal College of Nursing and other members of the Safety First Coalition, we believe that criminalising prostitution forces women underground and into danger. Clauses 16, 17 and 21 are unsafe – women threatened with arrest for loitering or soliciting, forced ‘rehabilitation’, or having their premises raided and earnings seized, are not likely to seek help from the police. We know many who have not reported serious attacks for fear of being arrested; others who reported were told that they were “asking for it” or that “a prostitute can’t be raped”; others still were charged for minor offences such as speeding and petty theft. As a result their attackers were free to rape again and even murder.

The Green Party site talks about the Criminal Justice Bill on this page. Siân Berry, Green Party Mayoral Candidate for London, calls for the complete decriminalisation of sex work. I have quoted the more interesting bits below.

Siân also attacks the new Clause 124 of the Labour government's Criminal Justice Bill, which introduces a new 'order to promote rehabilitation' for the offence of 'loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution.'

She noted that this was effectively re-introducing imprisonment for the offence of soliciting, which was abolished by a Tory government in 1982.

She said, "The government with this Bill is treating prostitution as though it were an illness, and one for which women and men should be punished. Of course we would hope that sex workers who want to get out of the industry, and who need help with that, should find it immediately - and for that the government needs to provide greatly improved funding for, for example, drug addiction treatment programmes. But women and men arrested for soliciting should not be forced into 'treatment' against their will.

"And the government should note that it is often its own policies - inadequate support for women with children, the withdrawal of recourse to public funds for failed asylum-seekers, that is forcing women and men into the industry."

Siân added: "Centuries of criminalisation have not wiped out, or even reduced, the level of prostitution. Instead it has left on our streets, and our consciences, the bodies of many murdered women and men."

debate in the House of Lords about new legislation

In my last posting I wrote about the debate on the new legislation that I heard on Woman's Hour on the radio. This was about clause 14 and 15 of Policing and Crime Bill which makes men criminally liable for 'paying for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force'. It comes into force on April Fools' Day.

Two women debated each side of the issue, Cari Mitchell from the English Collective of Prostitutes and Anna Van Heeswijk from Object. I wanted to find out more about Object so I went to their website http://www.object.org.uk/

On this site was a lot of false statistics and false arguments. I will deal with some of these in my next posting, but the most interesting thing for me was a link on this page http://www.object.org.uk/index.php/component/content/article/3-news/78-victory-as-peers-vote-for-women-not-pimps-and-punters to a pdf file of the debate in the House of Lords in November of last year http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/lhan128.pdf

What was interesting was that 12 people spoke in the debate and 6 were for the new legislation and 6 were against it unless it was modified by amendment. Males and females were equally divided on the issue. 3 men and 3 women spoke on each side.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer spoke first and she said some very sensible things. After saying that coercion in prostitution was unacceptable she said this.

“I am not speaking to defend men who buy sex. I am moving this amendment in response to concerns about the effect that this legislation will have on some of the most vulnerable women in our society ...”

She went on to say this.

“Those who support Clause 14 say that making men criminally liable for, 'Paying for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force', will drastically reduce the demand for such services and reduce the incentive for traffickers to traffic women. That belief contains two assumptions that I do not believe are correct: first, that most prostitutes are trafficked women; and secondly and more importantly, that this legislation will make that trade lessen and disappear by further criminalising the sexual services trade. The supporters of the Bill do not accept that it will drive the trade underground and endanger the very vulnerable women that they seek to protect.

If I believed that the Government’s assumptions were true I would support Clause 14. However, I have looked carefully at the evidence and it does not support those two assumptions. First, there is the evidence on trafficking, which we have had a lot more of since debating this in Committee. The Home Office figures on the number of people working in the sex trade who have been trafficked have themselves been widely challenged. That was no surprise to us because we quoted in Committee the work that was just being published by Dr Mai and that had been funded by the ESRC.The Guardian report of 20 October also produced many more questions about the veracity of the Home Office figures.

Be that as it may, let us suppose for a moment that the Home Office is right about the figures. The next question to answer is whether as a result of the provisions the sex trade will disappear, or whether it will continue to exist but as a less dangerous place for women to work. There is lots of evidence on that from countries all over the world, including the US, which, with the exception of one or two states, has a highly criminalised system. For us, however, the most persuasive evidence came from those who work with women in the sex trade and those who work with the women themselves. I want to share with the House some of what I have heard since we debated this in Committee.

As far as those who are trying to improve the life of women in the sex trade are concerned, I shall simply cite, for instance, Georgina Perry from the Open Doors project in the East End of London. This project has been going since 1993, and it sees about 1,200 women a year who work in indoor sex and about 300 who work on the streets. Many are migrant women. They do not believe that the percentage of those who are trafficked is significant at all, but that the women who they work with are there because of economics, not force. They believe that it is essential to tackle health issues, first and foremost, and to support the women. They are deeply worried by these clauses.

In theory, many academics who have studied these issues for years and years are, equally, deeply against the Bill — I am sure that Ministers are aware of their names. Perhaps most persuasive are those who see the really terrible side. Women Against Rape are also deeply worried by these clauses. When we debated the provisions in Committee, the Government stated that this new offence, “is distinct from rape because there is no requirement to show that the defendant knew or ought to have known that the prostitute was threatened or deceived”. — [Official Report, 01/7/09; col. 278.]

As these provisions introduce a lower tariff, there will be a temptation to prosecute under them even in cases where prosecutions should be directed at the offence of rape. It is extremely rare to successfully convict someone of rape, particularly in such cases.

However, the most persuasive case for my amendment is made by the women themselves through the English Collective of Prostitutes and the International Union of Sex Workers. I am aware that supporters of Clause 14 are somewhat dismissive of these women’s comments and claim that they often represent the views of pimps and exploiters. However, that is not the case with the women I have met who have attended many meetings in Parliament. These women are very fearful that the trade will be driven underground.

We need to look again at the evidence from the JCHR, which made its case forcefully. It referred to the likelihood of the measure having unintended consequences, including driving prostitution further underground and increasing the vulnerability ofprostitutes. I do not think that the Government have provided new evidence to assuage the JCHR’s fears.”

She ended by saying this.

“However, in this instance I am deeply worried that the Government are pursuing a line that will increase these women’s vulnerability and will not solve the problem. We should be looking at better enforcement of existing law rather than creating this new offence.”

Lord Morrow spoke some rubbish about the bicentenary of the abolition of the slave trade and the 175th anniversary of the release of all British colonial slaves in relation to contemporary 'sexual slavery'. He went on to talk about the issue of forcing prostitution further underground.

“I am of course aware of the argument that says if you make it an offence to buy sex from someone subjected to force, you will push forced prostitution underground and women will suffer more. I do not believe, however, that this stands up to close scrutiny.

If we do not make it an offence to buy sex from people subject to force, women will continue to be drawn into forced prostitution and more and more will suffer.

If, on the other hand, we do make it an offence to buy sex from women subject to force, some men will think again, mindful of the fact that the shame of being caught buying sex from someone subject to force will be considerable, and fewer women will suffer.

Moreover, we must not forget what the Swedish police have told us; namely, that making buying sex an offence does not push prostitution underground in the sense of being beyond the law’s protection. Pimps have to advertise to their punters and reel them in, and it is in doing this that they give themselves away and the police can move in and take action.”

He is wrong because forced prostitution is rare in this country. The law will impact women who are not forced, and make their lives more difficult and dangerous. He seems to be suggesting that the police will always be able to find and arrest pimps. This seems such a strange thing to say. It's like saying the police will always be able to find and arrest drug dealers. If that was possible, there would be no drug-addicted street girls. Even I, who speaks out against drugs, can understand the argument for legalising some drugs (such as heroin) so that drug taking is no longer forced underground.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland decided that a few 'facts' were called for. She said this.

“Let me remind the House about numbers. The average age in Europe for entry into prostitution is 14.”

“Seventy five per cent enter before their 18th birthday.”

“Ninety-five per cent become hooked on class A drugs.”

Baroness O’Cathain then decided to give a few 'facts' of her own.

“According to the Home Office, as many as 70 per cent of the women involved in prostitution were drawn into—bullied into—prostitution as children.”

“Let me give you some facts: 85 per cent of women in prostitution say that they were physically abused as children; 70 per cent spent time in care; and 45 per cent have experienced sexual abuse.”

“We are so often told about prostitutes who regard prostitution as a business, one where some make much money, and can shut out of their minds what they are doing. But, if the research is to be believed, they are in a very small minority. According to that research, 90 per cent of prostitutes say that they want to escape prostitution, but they do not feel able to do so.”

“More than half the prostitutes involved in one study said that they had feared for their life at least once.”

I don't have to tell you that all of these facts are wrong. What do you think of a democracy where baronesses can make decisions that affect large numbers of women, some of whom are the most vulnerable people in society, based on false statistics, some of which are provided by a Home Office that is dishonest and has its own agenda? Remember that Baroness Miller had already stated that the Home Office statistics were not to be trusted.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland thinks that she can help poor mothers by taking their money away from them. She said.

"... or they are poor and are doing it to support their children. What kind of society allows the degradation of a mother, with all the social and health issues involved, to support her children? We can do better than that."

Both Baroness Howarth and Baroness O’Cathain talked about teen runaways and girls in care. These are common stereotypes of women who become prostitutes.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer restores my faith in baronesses.

One statistic is interesting. '90 per cent of prostitutes say that they want to escape prostitution'. If you did a poll of sex workers in walk ups in Berwick Street Soho, it would not surprise me if 90 per cent said they would prefer to be doing something else. I mention Berwick Street because I am familiar with it. There are many walk ups close to the market. I wonder how many of the sex workers would like to get up early in the morning in winter and work on Berwick Street market all day. Some would, some wouldn't, but there is nothing to stop them.

A lot of the talk was about strict liability which is a technical issue that I won't go into. Except to say that some people are trying to change the whole basis of how law works in our society for the worse.

prostitution debate on Woman's Hour this morning

There was a discussion of prostitution and new legislation on Woman's Hour this morning, on BBC Radio 4. If you want to hear it, it can be downloaded as a podcast at the BBC website.

Changes in the law will affect prostitution and the licensing of lap dancing clubs in England and Wales. Cari Mitchell from the English Collective of Prostitutes and Anna Van Heeswijk from Object debate the impact of the legislation.

Cari Mitchell stated that police have been given additional powers to arrest and criminalise women who work on the streets.

She also stated that the impact of the legislation is that women going to have to work longer hours and take more risks in order to earn the money that they need. In Scotland where similar legislation has already been introduced there have been nearly double the number of reported attacks on sex workers.

Anna Van Heeswijk was asked about the idea that this type of legislation will force prostitution underground and will make life more difficult and dangerous for the women involved. As you know if you have read this blog I have said more than once that I oppose recent legislation for exactly this reason. Anna Van Heeswijk gave her answer and I have quoted it below because it is crucial to the debate. I have given a point-by-point reply to what she has said below the quote.

I think the idea that prostitution will be pushed underground is a genuine concern of a lot of people. But if you think about it actually doesn’t work in that way. If punters can find women then so can those who are wanting to provide exit services and support services for those women. If we look at countries such as Sweden and Norway where they have completely criminalised the purchase of sex and completely decriminalised those who are sold for sexual purposes, the women have no fear of coming forward because they are not going to be criminalised in fact they are going to be supported and actually the number of women in prostitution has decreased with more women being helped to exit. And importantly the European police have said that now Sweden is no longer an attractive destination for traffickers. The number of men paying for sex has decreased and it just creates a whole shift in cultural attitudes so that is no longer seen as acceptable.

This is my response to what she said:

1. If punters can find women then so can those who are wanting to provide exit services and support services for those women.

The new legislation will make it more difficult for punters to find women and more difficult for people wanting to provide exit services and support services for them.

2. If we look at countries such as Sweden and Norway ... the women have no fear of coming forward because they are not going to be criminalised ...

As Cari Mitchell stated that police have been given additional powers to arrest and criminalise women who work on the streets. This means that women will be even more fearful of reporting to the police crimes committed against them, including violence. The legislation will not affect the readiness of women to come forward for exit and support services.

Some more women will accept services (if they can find them) because they will have had their choice to earn money through prostitution in relative safety taken away from them. Life will be made so difficult that some women will have to give up prostitution. Others will continue. The ones who continue will be the poorest and the most drug addicted, the most vulnerable ones.

3. ... the number of women in prostitution has decreased with more women being helped to exit ...

If you legislate against something and force it underground then there will be fewer people involved in it. However, the ones who are still involved are harmed. That's the point. No one is saying that the number of women involved in prostitution will stay the same.

The reason why more women are leaving prostitution is not because they are helped to exit. It's because they are being forced to do something that they don't want to do.

You may say that if half of all lap dancers or prostitutes give it up then that is something. However, these women will live in poverty and will no longer be able to pay a mortgage, rent or bills. Not such a good result for them. Why can't they decide for themselves what is best for them?

4. Sweden is no longer an attractive destination for traffickers.

The numbers of women who have been trafficked has been grossly overestimated. It is in the interests of people who want to ban all prostitution to overestimate it, and to talk about pimps and children, as Anna Van Heeswijk did. I object to coercion in prostitution but most prostitutes are not coerced. Anna Van Heeswijk used the phrase "those who are sold for sexual purposes" to imply that all prostitutes are coerced. It is people like her who are doing the coercing.

5. The number of men paying for sex has decreased and it just creates a whole shift in cultural attitudes so that is no longer seen as acceptable.

It is true that the number of men paying for sex has decreased in places like Sweden. I don't think that paying for sex is a bad thing. I believe in the liberal principle that people should decide for themselves what they believe is good or bad, if it does not harm others. It is not acceptable for lobby groups or the state to tell us what to do or to try to control our behaviour. They have no right to 'shift cultural attitudes' and tell us what is 'acceptable'. Especially when we know that they are dishonest. They pretend that they only want to help the vulnerable but they have a hidden agenda. They use false statistics and false arguments. And they know they are doing it.

It is very important for women to have the choice to make money out of what can loosely be describes as 'the sex industry' without having sex. Lap dancing clubs and some massage establishments offer women this choice. By closing lap dancing clubs some women will live in poverty while others will become prostitutes. This doesn't help women, and it seems strange that some feminists want to do things that harm women.

Middle-class feminists don't want to understand how poor and vulnerable women live, and I don't believe they actually care. It is puritanism dressed up as ideology. A nonsensical and dishonest ideology at that, opposed to the liberal values our society is based on. They are more motivated by the idea of restricting men than enabling women.