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."