my strange day out in Manchester

The last time I went to Manchester was 2019. I have had many nice days out in Manchester over the years, visiting the numerous brothels. Yesterday I thought the time was right to see how many of them remain.

I got off the train at Manchester Oxford Road and went to Cosmopolitan first. This is the nearest brothel to the station. The receptionist said that a woman would be available in ten minutes. She invited me to sit on one of the plush sofas to wait. When I got talking to her she said that this woman is petite and slender. I said petite and slender doesn't do it for me and I will come back later.

There used to be a brothel very near to the centre of Manchester called Cherrys. I tried to find it in the backstreets but it's not there any more, as far as I can tell. So a bit of a walk took me to the Piccadilly Club. Two young women were available, both young blondes. One of them smiled and the other didn't, so I thought I might as well have the one that smiled.

I paid £35 and went upstairs to the room. When I got an erection I said that I wanted to get on top of her. Instead of lying down on her back she positioned herself against the wall, half sitting and half lying, with her legs apart. She invited me to penetrate her, which I did. I had to prop myself up on my hands, with my head up against the wall, which wasn't comfortable for me.

I told her I wanted her to lie down so that I could get on top of her but she said she doesn't do that, none of the girls do that. Several times during the half hour I had with her she said that I don't understand, she's not stopping me from getting on top of her, but I am asking for something special that none of the men who go there get.

So I left the Piccadilly Club without having had an orgasm. I could have walked to Passions but I decided to go in the opposite direction. I could see that the door of Manchester Angels was closed, but then I think they used to start around 7pm and go through the night.

My favourite brothel was Salon 24. As far as I knew it was closed, but I thought to be sure I could go there. It was indeed closed, with weeds growing up around the entrance and car park. The last time I was here I paid £120 to have sex for an hour without a condom with a big black woman. After that I went to the Red Light District where I started talking to a scruffy woman in a doorway who then urinated in front of me. I didn't pay her to or ask her to, she just needed to piss.

I walked through the central shopping area of Manchester and then Chinatown. I went to Tropical Palms which is a brothel in a seedy alleyway. There was a receptionist who said they have just one woman there. The woman was about 50 years old, but she looked very sexy. She had long blonde hair in tight curls and a sexy dress. I paid £40 and went upstairs with her.

She asked me what I wanted to do. I said I want to get on top of her and shag her. She said no, I won't be doing that, she is going to get on top of me. I thought not another one. I lay on the bed, she put a condom on and did some oral sex, then took off all her clothes. She said I could touch her. I didn't know what she was going to do but I thought I'll just let her get on with it. I wasn't in the mood for another argument.

She got on top of me, inserted my penis into her, then moved up and down. This continued for a long time but I didn't have an orgasm. Then my time was up. Many people think that when you pay for half an hour with a sex worker she has to do everything that you tell her to do. That's not true at all. They tell you what they will let you do with them.

Cosmopolitan is nearby so I went back there. There were 3 women available, all blondes. I chose the one who was the least petite and slender. Her name is Heidi. The receptionist asked me if I wanted a small room (£40) or a large room (£45). I chose a large room. In the room Heidi asked me if I wanted to use the shower. She also asked me if I wanted her to put a porn film on. None of these options were available at the Piccadilly Club or Tropical Palms.

Heidi is everything you would want a sex worker to be. She gave me some oral sex and when I had an erection she had no problem at all with me getting on top of her. I did ask her if she would let me use one of my thin condoms. She said no, which is fair enough. Still a very enjoyable experience.

If I went back to Manchester I would go to Cosmo and I would be happy to see Heidi again. I won't be going back though, because there is an even better option nearer to home. Six times this year I have been to Angel Lodge in Liverpool. Twice I have seen Megan, who lets me use one of my thin condoms. She said she is happy to let me use a thin condom if I give her an unopened pack. To show that they haven't been tampered with.

I have also seen Katy, Taylor, Alicia and Lucia at Angel Lodge. I will see Megan again. She takes the place of the big blonde woman I saw several times last year at Christys. I saw Jodie three times and I also saw Luisa, Paige, Becky, Maria and Charlotte. I would see Jodie again but she no longer works at Christys.

episode 3 of Taken

I watched the third episode of Taken: Hunting the Sex Traffickers last night. The oddest thing about it is that the deported sex worker Sylvia decided she wanted to return to Britain to be a sex worker again. Towards the end of the episode they showed her at the airport.

She said she wanted money for university. In the first episode they implied that these migrants are street sex workers. In an earlier post I said that few of them will be street-based sex workers but some will want money to go to university.

"For example if they're doing sex work on a street in Brazil, then they are happy to come and do sex work in a relatively controlled environment in the UK, that doesn't mean they're not exploited and that doesn't mean bad things won't happen to them here."

The justification for what the police do is that women will want to come to Britain to do sex work but they can't allow this to happen because women are getting raped and robbed. However, the police are raiding brothels. They have closed down the well-run brothels where nobody gets raped or robbed.

Sandra Hankin ran two brothels in Manchester called Sandys Superstars. Nobody was raped or robbed there. The police closed her down. So they have created this situation.

They said women are treated as commodities. Let's say that I brought Thai women to Britain to work as masseurs. Nothing sexual. Would I not be just as much treating women as commodities? What's the difference?

Rosana Gomes got ten pounds every time one of the sex workers got a customer. Is that exploitation? It doesn't sound as if she controlled them in any meaningful sense. Instead she was the interface between men enquiring about Brazilian sex workers and the sex workers themselves. She answered the phone and got ten pounds for each punter.

There is a Daily Mail article about all this that is very inaccurate. Sylvia wasn't the victim of a violent human trafficking network. Viner and Gomes weren't violent to her. She didn't escape to Brazil. She was deported. Viner and Gomes were not her captors.

episode 2 of Taken

I watched the second episode of Taken: Hunting the Sex Traffikers last night and there wasn't anything in it that has changed my opinion. What they seem determined to do is to deny agency to sex workers.

They know these women are not coerced but they need to show that they are victims. Throughout they have said that the women are exploited. That is a matter of opinion.

In last night's show they had a man talking about Learned Helplessness Syndrome. While he was talking they showed footage of street sex workers in Madrid, although I don't know how that is relevant to the subject of the documentary which is Brazilian women in Britain.

Learned Helplessness is not a syndrome. It is a theory not a fact. You can't just diagnose Learned Helplessness when someone does something you don't want. He said that the women are not threatened with having their families attacked. The manipulation is more subtle than that.

Mark Viner had relationships with some younger Brazilian women. The idea is that he psychologically manipulated these women into thinking that he loved them. I don't believe that. They say he had a million pounds. Do you not think that was the attraction for them? They lived the high life for years and then moved on.

I'm not trying to denigrate the women. I admire them. I'm not trying to blame the victims because I don't believe they are victims. They are just trying to make money and sex work allows them to do that. For themselves and their families.

Some of the women were raped and robbed. This happens because they have closed down all the well-run brothels. Such as Sandys Superstars in Manchester. And arrested women who work together. They have created this situation just as they have created the situation in which heroin addicts die of overdoses.

Then they say "Look how terrible prostitution and the drugs trade is, we must crack down on them". Give us more power. It's not working. It will never work.

In Cambodia and other countries women who are detained by anti-traffickers often run away. The anti-traffickers cannot accept that the women didn't want to be 'rescued' and instead say they are incapable of deciding what is best for them. It's called 'false consciousness'. See running from the rescuers.

There is a word for denying the agency of women: it is called objectification. I don't believe in the theory of objectification but if you do - or at least Martha Nussbaum's version - you can see that women are being denied the ability to choose for themselves. Not just the ability to choose, the very idea that they are capable of choosing sensible actions for themselves.

Taken liberties

I worked out why the documentary on trafficking that I talked about in my last post is called 'Taken'. There's a film about trafficking called Taken, 'about a retired CIA agent attempting to rescue his daughter from being sold into prostitution'. So they are trying to associate themselves with people who rescue women and girls, when we know that they end up getting deported.

That's not all. These women have their earnings taken away from them. I can't express it better than Molly Smith and Juno Mac have in their book 'Revolting Prostitutes'.

"As a result, the theft of sex workers' money in police raids on brothels is routine and goes beyond the mere confiscating the occasional eighty pounds. In October 2016, when the police raided massage parlours in Soho and Chinatown, London, and took seventeen women to deportation centres, they also removed thirty-five thousand pounds. They even took money from individual women's lockers. Sex worker Janice had thirteen thousand pounds taken from her in a brothel raid and it was never returned to her, even after she was found not guilty: 'They even tried to take my home. I was left with nothing after a lifetime of hard work. I'm not young anymore and don't know how I'll manage. My life has been turned upside down.' Anti-prostitution policing thus becomes legalised theft."

How dare these police officers pose as rescuers and do this? The public don't know about it and Channel 4 aren't interested in telling the truth. I will do everything I can to expose these thieves and liars. I think that someone should do some Freedom of Information requests to find out how much money was Taken from these women. I am happy to interview any of the women involved if they wish to contact me.

Taken: Shafting the Sex Workers

Taken: Hunting the Sex Traffickers

On Monday there was an interesting documentary about trafficking on Channel 4 called 'Taken: Hunting the Sex Traffickers'. I don't know why the first word of the title of the documentary is 'Taken' because it is quite clear that none of the sex workers had been coerced.

They didn't explain that the internationally accepted definition of trafficking as stated in the Palermo Protocol involves coercion. According to this definition none of these women were trafficked. I am aware that British law says something different. Documentaries like this don't intend to inform the public about trafficking, just make good TV.

Women from Brazil come to Britain on tourist visas. There are three set-ups (this was news to me). The first is that there is a 50-50 split between the sex worker and the management in the money handed over by the client.

The second is that the management get £10 for every client sent to the sex worker (or is it 10%, I can't quite remember). That's for answering a phone call and directing a client to the flat. The rest of the money she keeps for herself.

The third is that the sex worker pays rent then the rest of the money she keeps for herself. Even if the money from the first three clients goes in rent she will still be making lots of money. 10 clients a day is the figure mentioned.

None of these scenarios seem like exploitation to me. A police officer said that it may seem a good deal to a Brazilian street girl to come to Britain but it is still exploitation. She's in a bad situation and this is a bit better. However, very few will be street girls.

British street girls are usually drug addicts and are not accepted in brothels. It could be different in Brazil though. It could be that they are just poor. If that's true then working in Britain could be a permanent step up for them. Many of these women will be other types of sex workers and many of them will be ordinary women wanting to save money for a special reason, which could be paying for university.

Do you not think that for an 18 year old the prospect of coming to Britain on a tourist visa and making a lot of money having sex with men is an attractive one? Yet if the police find them they deport them, then pretend they are treating them as victims.

We heard the words of 'Sylvia' who was one of these women. I don't think it said in the documentary that she was deported back to Brazil. 'Sylvia, who now lives in Brazil after being deported, has given up sex work.' it says here.

Sylvia said “I was robbed by men with knives, which was very traumatic and left me with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder." Sex workers are not allowed to work together. So whose fault is it that sex workers are robbed by violent men? The clients? Men like me? Or people who stand in the way of any change in the law which allows sex workers to work together? I'm quite prepared to believe that Sylvia suffers from PTSD. They say that sex workers often do. If that is true then it's because of robbery, rape and other violence against them. All of it easily preventable. None of it a necessary part of sex work.

Sylvia was raped by a man without a condom who then told her he had HIV. She had to go to hospital and take drugs for 28 days. This could not happen in a well-managed brothel or a Soho walk up where there are always two women in the flat.

“We can’t let vulnerable people be put into dangerous situations. These are lives being ruined. We have to stop this and the way you do that is to take out people like Mark Viner.” says Detective Inspector Peter Brown (not his real name). No. It is the law that puts vulnerable people into dangerous situations. Stop prosecuting women who work together for safety.

He also said “We all know drug dealing is a crime but a lot of trafficking takes place much more in the public eye, not just in brothels but in nail bars, car washes or the exploitation of workers in food factories,”. Does he intend to 'take out' the owners of nail bars, car washes and food factories? Why not help the workers in nail bars to work for themselves - without deporting them.

even more about brothel raids

Since my last post I have read two newspaper articles which show even more the dishonesty of police performing raids on brothels. These two articles say that in the trial of Carl Pritchett, convicted of running Cuddles brothel, the police withheld evidence that prostitutes were not coerced.

Stourbridge News: "At Wolverhampton Crown Court, Judge Michael Dudley said paperwork suggested police had not disclosed a witness statement to Carl Pritchett that suggested prostitutes were working at Cuddles voluntarily. The judge said: “There is information in there undermining the conviction, that the police were in possession of a statement revealing people were working in these premises voluntarily 16 days before the raid took place.” He said police had stressed the raid was an organised operation to rescue women who had been trafficked into the United Kingdom to work in the sex market."

Express & Star: "A judge said he was "greatly distressed" by the claim that officers did not disclose a witness statement in the case of Carl Pritchett, which suggested prostitutes were working at the Cuddles Massage Parlour in Bearwood voluntarily."

Judge Michael Dudley also said it is 'blatant non-disclosure'. The police told the judge that they had rescued women, which is not true.

Carl Pritchett was given a two year sentence in 2006 for running Cuddles. In 2010 he was sentenced to another seven years because he could not hand over two million pounds. This is the amount that Pritchett is supposed to have made from running the brothel. This answers the question that I asked in a previous post of mine. Sandra Hankin and two men ran the 'Sandys Superstars' brothels in Manchester. She was told to pay two hundred thousand pounds. I asked what would happen if she couldn't pay. Would she go to prison?

The Express & Star article said that Cuddles brothel had an average of 490 clients per week. If there were 19 sex workers there that means each had about 26 clients per week. If they worked 5 shifts per week that means about 5 clients per shift. That's completely different from "submitting to sexual abuse from 30 strangers a day" which is what Catherine Bennett wrote in her article. Another Guardian article stated that migrant sex workers are "made to have sex with up to 40 men a day". This is what the police are telling journalists. They are not rescuing women though, just the opposite, that is a lie.

The only legal basis for removing the 19 women from the premises was assessing their immigration status. They were not doing anything illegal by being prostitutes. To pretend that they needed to be rescued was wrong. The police detained 6 of the women for deportation and later withheld evidence that the women worked there voluntarily.

These are the two articles quoted in this post:-

Stourbridge News Jailed Black Country vice boss may be freed 14/07/2011

Express & Star Evidence withheld over Cuddles brothel case 13/07/2011

These are the four articles quoted in my previous post:-

Guardian Raid on brothel smashes prostitution ring 30/09/2005

Independent Joan Smith: The ugly truth about 'Cuddles' 17/09/2005

Irish Times Women put under protection after raid on brothel 01/10/05

BBC News 19 women rescued from 'brothel' 30/09/05

This is the Catherine Bennett article in the Guardian

Guardian It's all very well condemning the sex traffickers, but what about the punters who keep the trade going? 20/10/2005

Emily Kenway's book is called The Truth About Modern Slavery

more about brothel raids

In my previous post I reviewed Emily Kenway's new book The Truth About Modern Slavery. I compared what Emily wrote about the police raid on the brothel Cuddles to what Catherine Bennett has written about it in the Guardian.

According to Catherine, the police freed 19 women who had been trapped in the brothel. According to Emily the police detained six of these women so they could deport them. So, who is doing the trapping? Who is doing the imprisoning? The police, of course, but aided by gullible or malicious journalists. The journalists stood outside the brothel as the police brought each woman out and photographed them. As can be seen in this photo the women were desperate to hide their identities and keep their privacy. This is violence against women.

this is violence against women

And they, the police and the journalists, are pretending that they are treating these women as victims. Catherine doesn't say anything about the deportations and doesn't say anything about the perp-walk.

In this post I want to compare what Catherine Bennett has written in her article with what others have written in their articles. It can be seen that Catherine went over the top to justify the raid and went much further than other journalists.

It is quite clear that Catherine wishes her readers to believe that the 19 women worked in the brothel and slept there too, never being let out. She used the word "immured" which means never let out. She wrote "What kind of person lives in a house like this?"

Yet the Guardian (in a different article), the Independent, the Irish Times and BBC News all write that they lived somewhere else apart from the brothel. The journalists were told by the police that the police think that the women were locked in a house. I don't believe that. I'm sure that the brothel and the house had sufficient security and like every house had locks, but that most probably was to keep people out not to keep people in.

Catherine writes "an electric fence stopped anyone trying to escape from the back of the building". By 'building' she means the brothel, she doesn't mention the house. None of the other journalists write this. The nearest is what the Irish Times wrote: "Detectives think the women may have been held against their will behind locked doors and an electric fence".

The Guardian said 'It was reported that the back of premises, on Hagley Road, was protected by an electric fence'.  The Independent didn't mention the electric fence.

So this is pure speculation on the part of the police. Or lies. Did they really think that or are they just trying to distract people from the reality that they are the ones holding the 19 against their will? There was no electric fence at the house where they supposedly all lived, and the electric fence at the brothel was probably to keep people out not keep people in.

Emily Kenway writes that some of the women 'asked for their passports to be kept in the safe to secure them from robberies'. All of the journalists - apart from Catherine Bennett - suggest that this is evidence that they were kept captive.

None of the women came from Romania, Moldova, Albania or Kosovo. They all came from Latvia, Poland, Japan, Hong Kong, Italy, Greece, and Turkey. None of these countries are desperately poor.

from the Cuddles raid

I have made a list of the rubbish that these newspapers have stated in their articles about the police raid on Cuddles, writing about what the police have told them about trafficked women in general.

• they are "expected to have sex with between 20 and 30 men a day" (Independent)
• they are "made to have sex with up to 40 men a day" (Guardian)
• forced to offer anal and unprotected sex at cheap rates damaging their health
• tricked into brothels when they thought they would be waitresses, au pairs or dancers
• raped, beaten and forced to work as sex slaves
• all the money they earn is taken from them
• they have to work to pay off inflated or invented debts
• told their families would be murdered if they ran away

Let's take the first two statements. There were 19 women in the brothel when it was raided. That means that there would have between 380 and 760 men turning up on the doorstep of Cuddles each day. That's like one every minute of a 12 hour shift. You can prove for yourself that that is nonsense by just waiting for an hour outside a brothel. They really do not have that many customers.

I'm not saying that none of these things have never happened. Emily gives an example of sexual exploitation in her book - that of 'Eva'. I'm saying that it is rare in Britain. It is not the reality of prostitution in Britain.