Prostitution

Elle Collins

28064212 wrote: »

...and shop employees assume their clients aren't going to shoot them and make off with their money. Still happens though.

What exactly is your point? You know what, you can keep it to yourself because I am just going to step out of this discussion now. There is no point discussing prostitution with people whose beliefs are entirely formed of supposition and conjecture. Maybe some of you would benefit from spending less time defending brothels and more time working (as I have done) with charities that help women escape prostitution - then maybe you might actually have some clue of the area of life you're talking about.

Monty Burnz

Elle Collins wrote: »

I am just going to step out of this discussion now.

That's easier than answering the actual points put to you, I suppose.

28064212

Elle Collins wrote: »

What exactly is your point? You know what, you can keep it to yourself because I am just going to step out of this discussion now. There is no point discussing prostitution with people whose beliefs are entirely formed of supposition and conjecture. Maybe some of you would benefit from spending less time defending brothels and more time working (as I have done) with charities that help women escape prostitution - then maybe you might actually have some clue of the area of life you're talking about.

How do you help someone escape something that they, as a consenting and informed adult, willingly choose to do and can leave at any time? Because that is what we are talking about.

We are not talking about people who are trafficked, we are not talking about people who are forced to do it, we are not talking about people who are bullied, intimidated or threatened if they leave

Monty Burnz

28064212 wrote: »

We are not talking about people who are trafficked, we are not talking about people who are forced to do it, we are not talking about people who are bullied, intimidated or threatened if they leave

I think certain people don't like to acknowledge that there is a difference, for ideological reasons. That's an issue internal to their own psychology, we're not going to fix that in this discussion.

Distorted

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It would be worth looking up the fallacy "No true Scotsman" to understand why I think this question is irrelevant. We are talking about prostitution here, not murder or drugs.

Sorry, I have no idea what that means. Its a very basic foundation of most legal systems that immoral and illegal contracts are regarded as unenforcable in civil law, and this has nothing to do with any fallacies. If you want to make a case for a permissive civil law regime in relation to the enforcement of civil contracts in prostitution, you have to deal with this issue.

I think the drugs arguement is very on point. Many argue for the legalisation and consequent regulation of drugs which are currently illegal. On the basis that many are employed in the supply, manufacture and purchase chain of drug supply, using your arguement, would it not make sense to legalise and regulate it so that those workers may enjoy the same employment law and other benefits you believe prostitutes should be entitled to? As well as the health and quality checks as well? What is it that is attractive to you about regulating prostitution but not illegal drugs?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again this is guess work and assumption and again comparisons to countries where it is regulated does not seem to support what you are saying. Further to that you are, yet again, saying it as if it is defacto a bad thing. You are in essence trying to argue that prostitution is bad, by assuming prostitution is bad. You can not assume your point to make your point. If it increases, so what?

Sorry, you have lost me.
If I reply to what I think you are asking, I don't changing the present system would necessarily improve matters. It might just raise whole new sets of problems. I actually believe an element of prostitution is a necessary evil and is neither "good" nor "bad" but simply morally distasteful. What if a new regime simply provides yet another layer of control over some women who see prostitution as at least one area of their lives where they can be in control, to some extent?

In fact there is an arguement for the current situation being a form of regulation. It is currently tolerated and some assistance is available to those in the industry. By regulating it further, would you remove this assistance as a regulated type of employment, by your arguement, which is that it is not morally repugnant, should not require any extra regulation over and above any other employment field?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Same problem. The reason we encourage them out of it is because it is so badly regulated and the working conditions so risky. It is yet another argument that tries to keep prostitution illegal by pointing out a bad thing about it that is likely CAUSED by it being illegal. Regulate it, make it safer, protect the workers and you will find that the motivations for enticing women out of the career path will go away too.

So would you encourage women into prostitution as a career if it were better regulated? Why? What about male prostitutes? Would you also encourage them?

It is sometimes the case that people working in an industry which the general populace consider morally questionable develop compassion overload or similar, and their boundaries of what is generally considered normal or acceptable are eroded, along with their judgement.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Links to the aforementioned interviews please? What is the name of the study, who performed it, who conducted the interviews?

Its a very well known fact. See e.g. http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/nmCentre/news/news-comm-00/csoc00-042.htm

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/guest-commentary/should-prostitution-be-given-the-red-light-1.920882

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/guest-commentary/should-prostitution-be-given-the-red-light-1.920882

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/apr/30/drugs-charity-donations-bbc-drama

Note the claim in the middle article that 95% of prostitutes are drug addicted. Are prostitutes different in Ireland then? What if "regulating" the "industry" results in a lot of foreign prostitutes flooding the market in Ireland? No doubt the market will increase somewhat, as Ireland will then attract more sex tourists I guess.

Monty Burnz

Distorted wrote: »

Sorry, I have no idea what that means. Its a very basic foundation of most legal systems that immoral and illegal contracts are regarded as unenforcable in civil law, and this has nothing to do with any fallacies.

The fallacy is this: you are taking it for granted that it is immoral. I don't think it is immoral. Also it's not illegal in many/most countries, certainly not in this one.

You telling us that it is immoral does not mean that it is immoral. Your argument falls down there.

Monty Burnz

Distorted wrote: »

So would you encourage women into prostitution as a career if it were better regulated? Why? What about male prostitutes? Would you also encourage them?

I would not, personally. Nor would I encourage someone to be a burger-flipper, a coal miner, a toilet cleaner, or a reality TV 'celebrity'. Therefore, your point does not stand up - whether I encourage someone to do a job merely reflects my feelings on a particular job. If someone wants to do any of those things, that is their own choice. It does not make it immoral if I do not like it.

I stated earlier in the thread, if I could be a well-paid male prostitute (earning a few grand a week) catering for female clients (I am heterosexual, so that would be my chosen clientele) I would certainly consider it.

Denerick

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I think certain people don't like to acknowledge that there is a difference, for ideological reasons. That's an issue internal to their own psychology, we're not going to fix that in this discussion.

Unfortunately it is nigh on impossible for some to see the difference between crack whores and trafficked women from eastern Europe, and consenting women who in many ways enjoy their livelihood (See secret diary of a call girl for example)

Distorted

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The fallacy is this: you are taking it for granted that it is immoral. I don't think it is immoral. Also it's not illegal in many/most countries, certainly not in this one.

You telling us that it is immoral does not mean that it is immoral. Your argument falls down there.

Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that if a sizeable number of people didn't consider it immoral, it would currently be governed like any other employment contract. Whether or not I, as an individual, consider it immoral, is neither here nor there. What is important however is how many people consider it immoral and whether those people have influence over the way it is viewed and dealt with. Likewise, just because you and people you know might like it more regulated, does not mean that it is right for society that it should be.

The drugs issue is also one anomaly that would have to be faced if prostitution were to be subjected to the protections of mainstream employment law. Most employees would be sacked for repeated positive drugs tests. It is not unreasonable, if it is written into the contract, to test employees for drugs in their systems. Would prostitutes be exempt from such requirements, and if so, why? If not, would only drugs-free prostitutes be allowed to operate and would this not create a vast black market of unregulated prostitutes, since so many (and I accept there is no set figure) are drugs users? What if the system of regulation was so successful that it removed many prostitutes from the industry and, in order to meet demand, it was filled with immigrant workers brought into Ireland for the purpose?

Distorted

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I stated earlier in the thread, if I could be a well-paid male prostitute (earning a few grand a week) catering for female clients (I am heterosexual, so that would be my chosen clientele) I would certainly consider it.

I believe the more common demand is for male on male prostitutes at the lower end of the financial scale and there isn't too much demand for exceptionally well paid male escorts, except amongst the male model ranks. Although it is rumoured that Derek Hough (of Cheryl Cole renown) is one of the non-sexual variety...

nozzferrahhtoo

Elle Collins wrote: »

What exactly is your point?

His point is that you are attempting to indict a career path because the actions of those availing of the service are discreditable. This is not helpful.

Elle Collins wrote: »

There is no point discussing prostitution with people whose beliefs are entirely formed of supposition and conjecture.

Then thank you for removing yourself from the conversation so we do not have to discuss it with someone who's beliefs are entirely formed of supposition and conjecture.

Elle Collins wrote: »

Maybe some of you would benefit from spending less time defending brothels and more time working (as I have done) with charities that help women escape prostitution

Argument from authority and personal anecdote. Not helpful. In fact it is the opposite of helpful given that when you work with such charities you by definition come in contact with people who need help and it is a false extrapolation to assume that what you come in contact with in such circumstances is representative of the industry as a whole.

For example if a doctor working in A&E judged society by the injuries that come into him he would paint a picture of society as being a dangerous, malignant force that is to the detriment of us all. This is because the work he chooses to do by definition brings him into contact with the injured, the victims and the endangered. It is not representative of society as a whole however.

If your opinions on this thread are to be colored solely by personal anecdote formed by placing yourself in a position as to directly bring upon yourself a very particular subset of experiences which are not representative of the industry as a whole then it is a great service you have done us by removing yourself from the conversation.

This is before I add to this a reiteration of a previous point: That most of the problems in the industry are caused not by the industry, but by our societies insistence on making it taboo and pushing it underground. They are problems of our attitude to prostitution, not of prostitution in and of itself.

nozzferrahhtoo

Distorted wrote: »

If you want to make a case for a permissive civil law regime in relation to the enforcement of civil contracts in prostitution, you have to deal with this issue.

No, I do not have to deal with murder and drugs in a discussion on normalising prostitution. The thread has nothing to do with murder and drugs. If you want to discuss murder and drugs and legalising them then find or start a thread on those subjects. Legalising and/or normalising prostitution puts zero onus on me to discuss legalising drugs or murder.

Distorted wrote: »

Many argue for the legalisation and consequent regulation of drugs which are currently illegal.

As do I for some drugs, but again this is not a thread about drugs. Your desire to make a thread about prostitution into a thread about drugs is at best baffling to me and at worst highly suspicious hand waving and obfuscation.

Distorted wrote: »

What is it that is attractive to you about regulating prostitution but not illegal drugs?

I never said there is nothing unattractive to me about legalising drugs. I said this is not a thread about drugs and I am not about to be the one to derail it into a discussion on drugs as much as you would like that to happen. Find or start a thread about drug legalisation and I will happily discuss the topic there.

Distorted wrote: »

Sorry, you have lost me.

Odd as what I am saying is quite simple. You claimed that reguilating it "might" increase it and I replied that:

1) Several countries do regulate it and such increases are not apparent in those areas meaning your concern is baseless.
2) You are assuming an increase is a bad thing, but I see no reason to think it is meaning your concern is groundless.

Distorted wrote: »

So would you encourage women into prostitution as a career if it were better regulated?

I do not encourage people into, or out of, any career. Their career choices are neither my concern nor my business. I merely want to ensure the option is open to them and, if taken, that the career choice is a safer and more pleasant one.

It would be a mistake on your part to assume that wanting to legalise, normalise or regulate a career path has anything whatsoever to do with actually wanting to encourage (or discourage) people from taking said path. It is an entirely tangential discussion and not one I concern myself with. Their choice to follow that career is zilch to do with me.

Distorted wrote: »

Its a very well known fact.

No, it is not.

None of your links hold up what you are claiming. I asked where the interviews and studies are showing that “the majority of prostitutes, when interviewed, will admit they are only in prostitution due to drugs“. Rather than give me studies and research articles where such interviews were conducted you instead give me links to news paper articles and opinion pieces??? WTF???? You do know what a “study” is right? Clue: It is not a news paper article.

Despite this failing on your part I will still read and deal with your links in order however:

1) Contains absolutely no “interviews”. You spoke of interviews. I asked for links to those interviews and studies. This is not it.

2) This is an opinion piece, not a study of ANY kind, and it does not interview anyone. It merely mentions in one part that “some” end up working for drugs rather than money. This is hardly a study in significant percentages. In another part one Richard Matthews claims the same thing as you but similar to you provides literally no back up for the claim. So no support for your claim here. . I am confused… do you think you can back up baseless claims merely by finding someone in a news paper who makes the same baseless claims? Is this how you think it works?

3) Link three is the same as link too. I am again confused. Do you think that saying something twice makes it more true than if you say it once???

4) Entirely irrelevant article. The majority of this article is about the financial issues of a charity that has had to down size due to lack of funding. How is that relevant to anything??? Are you just hoping that if you paste enough irrelevant links that people will not be bothered spending time reading them and will not notice they are entirely irrelevant to the claims you are making? Wow, that’s honest.

Distorted wrote: »

Note the claim in the middle article that 95% of prostitutes are drug addicted.

Can you show me where? I have searched the entire "middle article" for "9" "nine" "percent" "%" and more. I read and re-read every paragraph where the letters "drug" appear. I see literally no reference to the number 95% at all. Did you dream it or am I missing it???


So I am afraid your claim is still entirely baseless.

However I will indict it a second way. Not only is it baseless it is irrelevant. The question here is whether the actual career path in and of itself is moral or immoral. You are making a “guilt by proxy” argument by saying that because the motivation of some of those who enter it is questionable, then the career path itself becomes questionable. This is not so. Your heart is in the right place but you are targeting the wrong thing.

Further to this it is irrelevant because in a discussion on how the career is pushed underground and held as taboo, we are in fact creating the environment in which pimps target the vulnerable, such as drug users. A regulated industry would counter that, not support it. It is yet another argument on this thread against prostitution that is actually created BY the arguments against prostitution and not by prostitution itself.

This is what makes this a frustrating and emotive area of discussion for most people. Many, if not all, of the problems people bring up in the discussion against prostitution are manufactured problems caused BY our attitude to the career. People talk about the vulnerability of the workers, their lack of access to help, support, medical aid, unions and protection in the law… yet all of these things are caused by the people who would use them as arguments against prostitution.

Distorted

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This is before I add to this a reiteration of a previous point: That most of the problems in the industry are caused not by the industry, but by our societies insistence on making it taboo and pushing it underground. They are problems of our attitude to prostitution, not of prostitution in and of itself.

Thats a great ideology and in many ways I agree with you - I think having a vast underground industry is distasteful. But like it or not, its a difficult industry to regulate. How would the following potential problems be got round in practice, not simply in theory:

- Would the secrecy of many of the users be protected, since this forms the backbone of much of the industry
- Would all sectors be regulated, not just the upper end or those working from fixed locations?
- Who would be the employers of the prostitutes, in order for them to benefit from employment law?
- Would other parts of employment law apply to prostitutes, such as requirements to work drug and alcohol free?
- How would you avoid a system of regulation being just another layer of control over vulnerable men and women, and that level of control being abused?
- You appear to criticise people's attitudes, but are the attitudes of people who comprise society not to be regarded as worthwhile if they do not agree with yours? Many people are uncomfortable with prostitution; it is a feature of many societies throughout the world. Those which aren't are frequently third world countries. Even in The Netherlands, where prostitutes are treated by law as self-employed persons and brothels are licensed, it is estimated that 80% of prostitutes are foreigners and that 70% of these are trafficked solely for purposes of prostitution. Despite their self employed status, prostitutes are routinely discriminated against in the provision of services such as mortgages. The stigma of prostitution is still very alive and well.

I also suggest you have to be very careful as to the motives for bringing prostitution out into the open. Is it really to benefit the prostitutes, or to benefit (some of) the end users?

Distorted

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Cross-posting! I am not an expert on prostitutes but it does not prevent me engaging in a discussion regarding prostitution. I am not a user of prostitutes, I know no-one who is. I do know what a study is (and indeed an interview) but it is not my academic area of specialism. I do not believe you are an expert either however - please correct me if I am wrong.

Your notion of prostitution seems idyllic, ideological and to have little foundation in practicality. You cannot found an arguement in favour of what you are suggesting without addressing the practicalities as it does not stand up to any basic level of scrutiny. For example, you appear to be in some denial as to whether a sizeable proportion of prostitutes have a drug addiction. Perhaps you could provide some links to studies which prove what you say?

Could you also confirm what it is exactly that you are argueing for? It seems to have become lost somewhere in the debate. Your arguement seems more theoretical than anything else.

drkpower

Interesting discussion. Distorted; your points about the practical problems that the Regulators of the prostitution industry may be valid, but the Regulators of every industry faces challenges and in almost every field, the method of Regulation has been on the whole succesful, or at least could/should have been succesful if the right people were doing their jobs. So the fact that Regulation may be difficult does not mean that it should not be embarked upon.

This whole issue centres on 'whether a state should be entitled to criminalise individual choices which it considers to be morally repugnant?'. Distorted has tried to bring 'drugs' into this debate, and I can see why, but the prohibition on drugs is slightly different; the core question on that is 'whether a state should be entitled to criminalise individual choices which have a significant health impact on the individual?' That is a big question, with no easy answers, but it is different to the question which prostitution poses.

Some may argue that prostitution has a significant health impact, but a regulated industry would significantly minimise that. So prostitution fundamentally falls under the 'morally repugnant' category. What many are saying is that criminalising choices for such a subjective reason, when those choices do not impact on other people to any appreciable degree, is simply impermissable. The real question is why do you think it is permissable to criminalise individual choices in such a way?

(and while technically the act of paying for sex is not illegal, pretty much every interaction around that act is illegal, thus making prostitution criminalised in any real sense)

Distorted

Firstly, I apologise if I appear to be monopolising this thread: I have been stuck at home for a week now by the snow! It is a very interesting debate though.

drkpower wrote: »

The real question is why do you think it is permissable to criminalise individual choices in such a way?

This is where you would benefit from someone's views who was more of an expert in this field than I! My suggestion it that it has something to do with human norms, in that physical contact, in terms of the exchange of bodily fluids or penetrative sex, in civilised societies is generally restricted by the physically weaker party to those for whom they hold affection. Going beyond that "taboo" (for want of a better word) is something that only a minority practise and therefore society as a whole has some discomfort with it? But maybe there are historical reasons for keeping it "underground"? When I visit places where prostitution and porn are more in your face than in Ireland and the UK, it makes me, as a woman and therefore representing over half of society, feel very vulnerable and uncomfortable. I would not feel safe to walk through one of the tolerance zones that exist in some UK cities.

Can I also point out simply quoting articles does not imply a great understanding of a subject when such information is readily available? It is the writers’ own analysis that is important in such instances. I slightly abhor Wikipedia, but in this context its very ubiquity serves a purpose as even a very brief internet search brings up the following information, complete with article references, on the Dutch experience of legalisation of the employment status of prostitution. It makes sobering reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_Netherlands

“An article in 1997... stated that 80% of prostitutes in Amsterdam were foreigners and 70% had no immigration papers. (^ Louis, Marie-Victoire (8 March 1997). ("Legalizing Pimping, Dutch Style". Le Monde diplomatique (La Vie-Le Monde). cited in Hughes, Donna M.; Sporcic, Laura Joy; Mendelsohn, Nadine Z. ([undated]). "Factbook on Global Sexual Exploitation: The Netherlands". University of Rhode Island: Coalition Against Trafficking in Women. http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/netherl.htm).
A study by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2000 estimated that there were a total of between 20,000 and 25,000 prostitutes in the Netherlands. Approximately 32% were Dutch, 22% were Latin American, 19% were Eastern European, 13% were African , 6% came from other countries from the European Union (aside from the Netherlands), 5% came from Northern Africa and 3% were Asian. Approximately 5% of the prostitutes were male, and another 5% were transsexual. An encyclopedia article published in 1997 claimed about 1,300 men are working in homosexual prostitution, and almost none in heterosexual prostitution. (^ Netherlands and the Autonomous Dutch Antilles, The International Encyclopedia of Sexuality, 1997–2001).

In 2008, Karina Schaapman, a former prostitute and former member of the Amsterdam city council, produced a report about the Amsterdam sex trade. She offered the police a face book with 80 "violent pimps", of whom only three were Dutch-born. She said that more than 75% of Amsterdam's 8,000 to 11,000 prostitutes were from Eastern Europe, Africa and Asia. (Simons, Marlise (24 February 2008). "Amsterdam tries upscale fix for red light district crime". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/world/europe/24amsterdam.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all; Charter, David (2008-12-27). "Half of Amsterdams redlight windows close". The Times (London). http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5400641.ece.

When the Dutch government legalized prostitution in 2000, it was to protect the women by giving them work permits, but authorities now fear that this business is out of control: "We’ve realized this is no longer about small-scale entrepreneurs, but that big crime organizations are involved here in trafficking women, drugs, killings and other criminal activities", said Job Cohen, the former mayor of Amsterdam. Recently, officials have noticed an increase in violence centered on this irregular industry, and have blamed this increase on the illegal immigration of individuals into Amsterdam to participate in the sex industry: "The guys from Eastern Europe bring in young and frightened women; they threaten them and beat them", said a resident of De Wallen. Prostitution has remained connected to criminal activities, which has led the authorities to take several measures, including detailed plans to help the prostitutes quit the sex trade and find other professions. (Mock, Vanessa (2008-10-06). "Dutch prostitutes offered 'whore miles'". The Independent (London). http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/whore-miles-plan-for-dutch-prostitutes-who-behave-952479.html.
In response to the problems associated with the involvement of organized crime into the sex trade, the Dutch government has decided to close numerous prostitution businesses…Concerned about organized crime, money laundering and human trafficking. At the end of 2008, Mayor Cohen announced plans to close half of the city’s 400 prostitution windows because of suspected criminal gang activity.

The Netherlands is listed by the UNODC as a top destination for victims of human trafficking. Countries that are major sources of trafficked persons include Thailand, China, Nigeria, Albania, Bulgaria, Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine, Sierra Leone, and Romania. ("UN highlights human trafficking". BBC News. 2007-03-26. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6497799.stm. Retrieved 2010-03-27.)
Currently, human trafficking in the Netherlands is on the rise, according to figures obtained from the National Centre against Human Trafficking. The report shows a substantial increase in the number of victims from Hungary and China. There were 809 registered victims of human trafficking in 2008, 763 were women and at least 60 percent of them were forced to work in the sex industry.
Within the Netherlands, victims are often recruited by so called "loverboys" – men who seduce young Dutch women and girls and later coerce them into prostitution. The phenomenon was highlighted in 2008 by Maria Mosterd.
Many victims of human trafficking are led to believe by organized criminals that they are being offered work in hotels or restaurants or in child care and are forced into prostitution with the threat or actual use of violence. Estimates of the number of victims vary from 1000 to 7000 on a yearly basis. Most police investigations on human trafficking concern legal sex businesses. All sectors of prostitution are well represented in these investigations, but particularly the window brothels are overrepresented.
At the end of 2008, a gang of six people were sentenced to prison terms of eight months to 7½ years in what prosecutors said was the worst case of human trafficking ever brought to trial in the Netherlands. The case involved more than 100 female victims, violently forced to work in prostitution. ("Nigerians jailed in Dutch 'voodoo curse' prostitution trial", Asia One, 2009-12-04). In December 2009, two Nigerian men were sentenced to 4 and 4½ years in prison for having smuggled 140 Nigerian women aged 16–23 into the Netherlands. The women were made to apply for asylum and then disappeared from asylum centers, to work as prostitutes in surrounding countries. The men were said to have used "voodoo" curses on the women to prevent escape and enforce payment of debts. (USA Today, 2008-07-11, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-07-11-Dutch-human-trafficking_N.htm) http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne+News/World/Story/A1Story20091204-183926.html)
Likewise, a very brief internet search will also inform you that several UK cities have “tolerance zones” and “tolerated brothels”, but that the experience is not always happy.

Monty Burnz

Interesting info Distorted, but again it all looks like an argument for more regulation, not less. Unless of course the counter-argument is that if we ignore or ban prostitution, all those problems will go away and we will have no prostitutes anymore?

This is how I see it in the simplest possible form: whatever we do, there will be prostitution. How can we best organise it so that the only participants are people who do it willingly (because they think there is a good trade-off between the required effort, education and skills and the money they can earn) and are not subject to threats or actual violence or coercion?

drkpower

Distorted wrote: »

When I visit places where prostitution and porn are more in your face than in Ireland and the UK, it makes me, as a woman and therefore representing over half of society, feel very vulnerable and uncomfortable.

Me too, as a man. But the fact that I am uncomfortable about other people's life choices does not mean that those other people should be criminalised. You need to show why it should be permissable to criminalise individual choices in such a way.

Distorted

drkpower wrote: »

You need to show why it should be permissable to criminalise individual choices in such a way.

I see it as being the other way around; the OP talked about changing the status quo, so show why this would improve matters?

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Interesting info Distorted, but again it all looks like an argument for more regulation, not less. Unless of course the counter-argument is that if we ignore or ban prostitution, all those problems will go away and we will have no prostitutes anymore?

This is how I see it in the simplest possible form: whatever we do, there will be prostitution. How can we best organise it so that the only participants are people who do it willingly (because they think there is a good trade-off between the required effort, education and skills and the money they can earn) and are not subject to threats or actual violence or coercion?

In effect, it is already tolerated and regulated to an extent. The arguement as I see it is more for changing the way this is done for reasons of ideology?

Most people might not be aware about the differences in Dutch society compared to Ireland. Its a very crowdy country with many more people crammed into a much smaller space. The Dutch like to regulate, codify and control much more than most countries. For example, if you wish to hack out your own horse from a Dutch livery yard, you must first sit and pass a test and obtain a certificate from the local authority! It is also the nature of Dutch people to be very open about things and to say exactly what they think.

Its one arguement that regulating and opening up the prostitution trade in NL has made it a target for sex tourism and more exploitation of vulnerable persons, not less.

drkpower

Distorted wrote: »

I see it as being the other way around; the OP talked about changing the status quo, so show why this would improve matters?

Strange way to look at it. You look at the current situation (no matter what that is based on) and ask why it should be changed.......?

Personally, I look at the reason for something being in place, and if that reason is entirely subjective (moral repugnancy), I ask that someone justify that position. Dont you think that he who advocates restriction of individual adult choices should be the one who has to defend that position, no.....?

But, having said that, ill give a very brief answer to your Q. It will improve matters by not criminalising adult citizens making adult choices about how they deal with their adult bodies. That really should be enough to win the argument, particularly in the absence of some overriding reason why individual adult choices should be criminalised in this sphere.

nozzferrahhtoo

Distorted wrote: »

- Would the secrecy of many of the users be protected, since this forms the backbone of much of the industry

That is not our concern when discussing whether to legalise/normalise the industry, nor the concern of the sex workers in the industry. It is primarily the concern of the users and is so irrelevant. If you want to buy a product and for your own reasons want to keep it secret that you buy that product, then that is no one elses concern but your own.

Distorted wrote: »

- Would all sectors be regulated, not just the upper end or those working from fixed locations?

Thus far I have directed my points at the industry as a whole, not any specific parts of it, so yes you can assume I am talking about all levels of it.

Distorted wrote: »

- Who would be the employers of the prostitutes, in order for them to benefit from employment law?

That would of course depend on whether they engage in the work through an employer, and agent, or as a freelancer would it not... the same as any work from modeling to language translation and everything in between.

Distorted wrote: »

- Would other parts of employment law apply to prostitutes, such as requirements to work drug and alcohol free?

What parts? I see no reason not to apply all the same laws to them that apply to everyone else.

Distorted wrote: »

- How would you avoid a system of regulation being just another layer of control over vulnerable men and women, and that level of control being abused?

Again the same ways we do in any career. Do you see employing a compositor in a printing company for example as a system of regulation to control people? Is this not what employment is?

Distorted wrote: »

- You appear to criticise people's attitudes, but are the attitudes of people who comprise society not to be regarded as worthwhile if they do not agree with yours?

I never said they were not worthwhile, I simply as I do in any realm of discourse espouse the reasons I think their attitudes are in error, baseless or even just plain dishonest. Is there some reason I should not, or are you maybe mixing up critiquing the positions of others as somehow suppressing them?

Distorted wrote: »

Many people are uncomfortable with prostitution; it is a feature of many societies throughout the world.

Then they are more than welcome to not engage in purchasing or selling the practice. Many people are uncomfortable with alcohol; is it a feature of many societies throughout the world. Whats your point?

Distorted wrote: »

I also suggest you have to be very careful as to the motives for bringing prostitution out into the open. Is it really to benefit the prostitutes, or to benefit (some of) the end users?

None of my arguments thus far have been directed at the benefit of end users. So why you would think my arguments have anything to do with end users I do not know. In fact the only person to bring up the end user at all was in fact you when you pulled out of nowhere a concern for their privacy.

Distorted wrote: »

I do not believe you are an expert either however - please correct me if I am wrong.

What you think of me is irrelevant. We can either back up the positions we espouse when we espouse them... or we can not. Simple as. You claimed the majority of interviewed prostitutes claim they are in it for the drugs. You have not backed this up. When I point out that you have failed to back it up you simply bandy about words like "youre in denial" which is too easy to do any says literally nothing on the topic at hand.

Distorted

drkpower wrote: »

Strange way to look at it. You look at the current situation (no matter what that is based on) and ask why it should be changed.......?

Not strange, just the other side of the spectrum. Why change for change's sake?

drkpower wrote: »

Personally, I look at the reason for something being in place, and if that reason is entirely subjective (moral repugnancy), I ask that someone justify that position. Dont you think that he who advocates restriction of individual adult choices should be the one who has to defend that position, no.....?

Its not just moral repugnancy, is it? It might also be because its a notoriously difficult sector to regulate and because changing it might bring in something worse. Presumably there is some reason that its not been done before now. What do you think this is and does it have no importance?

Living in a modern, civilised society entails observance of certain restrictions, the giving up of certain freedoms for the greater good. How do laws originally develop? They are generally based on morals, habits and cultures. I'm not sure that this is necessarily redundant. Morals do have their place in society and while they may be subjective by interpretation, do not necessarily not play a valuable part in that society.

drkpower wrote: »

, having said that, ill give a very brief answer to your Q. It will improve matters by not criminalising adult citizens making adult choices about how they deal with their adult bodies. That really should be enough to win the argument, particularly in the absence of some overriding reason why individual adult choices should be criminalised in this sphere.

They're not prevented from doing that at present. What they are prevented from doing is disrupting other people's lives while doing it.

Its the floodgates arguement, which like it or not, is one of the reasons most often used by judges for resisting extending legal boundaries. Once you use that arguement in relation to one area, the temptation is to permit other areas too.

nozzferrahhtoo

Distorted wrote: »

Could you also confirm what it is exactly that you are argueing for? It seems to have become lost somewhere in the debate.

I never claimed to be arguing FOR anything. I am arguing AGAINST those who would call for prostitution to be made illegal and those who wish to have it labelled immoral and wrong.

The fact is it IS legal and all the problems of the career listed on this thread so far are problems CAUSED by those who attack the career, call for it to be illegal, call practitioners immoral and push it further and further underground.

I can attack these attitudes and their basis without once having to argue "for" anything. It is merely an exercise in raising the consciousness of anyone who cares to listen to me that the arguments being leveled against prostitution, and prostitutes, are unsubstantiated, based purely on bias, and in many cases actually cause the problems that they then use as arguments in the debate.

nozzferrahhtoo

Distorted wrote: »

it makes me, as a woman and therefore representing over half of society, feel very vulnerable and uncomfortable.

Errrr no, if you feel uncomfortable then you, as a woman, are representing no one but yourself. You're being a woman does not make your views on this matter representative on any such arbitrary group. Far from it, given the opinions and attitudes on this subject are among women are highly diverse.

If you are uncomfortable then YOU are uncomfortable. This says nothing about other women.

nozzferrahhtoo

Distorted wrote: »

Presumably there is some reason that its not been done before now. What do you think this is and does it have no importance?

I do not think there is any one answer to this question. There are probably more answers to it than I could give in a small novel sized reply.

For example we live in a country that for many years was dominated by a religion which held sex as one of it's highest hobby horses. Even now when any subject to do with changing anything around the area of sex comes up the Church is usually at the forefront of those who rise up against it.

Another example is that any discussion on sex is traditionally taboo. People simply do not want to talk about it or see their party politics being attached to it. This is changing of course as we as a society become more open sexually, but it is far from gone.

Yet another example is that a lot of politicians simply feel they have more important things to be concerned with. Alas the safety of a few women by regulating their career choices does not get as much priority as many political topics.

I could go on for hours I am sure, but the examples I gave so far should at least serve to show that whatever the answers to this question they are likely to be numerous and mostly irrelevant. If something is to be done we should just do it rather than faffing around worrying about why it was not done sooner.

Distorted wrote: »

Once you use that arguement in relation to one area, the temptation is to permit other areas too.

I suffer from no such temptation and I think each debate should be considered on its own merits. You for example tried to suggest that by normalising prostitution I would therefore have some onus to consider doing the same with drugs. To me there is no such onus and the point is as non-sequitar as non-sequitar gets.

drkpower

Distorted wrote: »

They're not prevented from doing that at present. What they are prevented from doing is disrupting other people's lives while doing it. .

How are other people's lives disrupted by one adult providing a sexual service to another in a discrete manner? Other than in ways which could happen through marital infidelity which happens anyway, another morally distasteful issue wer dont see the need to criminalise.

Distorted wrote: »

Its the floodgates arguement, which like it or not, is one of the reasons most often used by judges for resisting extending legal boundaries. Once you use that arguement in relation to one area, the temptation is to permit other areas too.

Im not sure you understand the actual meaning and context of the judicial 'floodgates' argument.

It is a very different thing to the oft-used 'floodgates' colloquialism, which is how you use it, namely that by legalising one 'bad thing', you encourage other bad things to be legalised. What you are referring to is probably more comonly referred to as the 'slippery slope' argument, one you wont find in too many judicial pronouncements......:D

Distorted

drkpower wrote: »

How are other people's lives disrupted by one adult providing a sexual service to another in a discrete manner? Other than in ways which could happen through marital infidelity which happens anyway, another morally distasteful issue wer dont see the need to criminalise.

- Kerb crawling (amusing incident - I remember arriving at street level at a Milan metro station with 3 suitcases, having just travelled from the airport, only to be beckoned over by a man in a car shouting at me in English. I shouted back, unable to physically go over due to my suitcases, that I couldn't understand and he replied in English "How much?")
- Street prostitutes in tolerance zones which are also residential areas or in other ways used by other members of the public.
- Customers having sex in people's gardens and leaving used condoms behind (this happens regularly in a city I used to work in adjacent to the tolerance zone)

drkpower wrote: »

Im not sure you understand the actual meaning and context of the judicial 'floodgates' argument.

It is a very different thing to the oft-used 'floodgates' colloquialism, which is how you use it, namely that by legalising one 'bad thing', you encourage other bad things to be legalised. What you are referring to is probably more comonly referred to as the 'slippery slope' argument, one you wont find in too many judicial pronouncements......:D

I think you will find that I do. The floodgates arguement is used for any civil law application and applies to potential employment law claims in this area. See the leading case of Majrowski v. Guys & St Thomas NHS Trust [2006] 4 All ER HL - I assume you are already familiar with it. In fact Majrowski's floodgates arguement could certainly apply to potential stress at work claims by prostitutes! Obviously it is a different jurisdiction but the principle is exactly the same.

The floodgates argument is generally preferred in law to the slippery slope arguement and there is absolutely no valid reason it should not be used. Are you just making up things to try and sound condescending - trying to sound like a lawyer when you are not does tend to make a person look somewhat foolish to anyone who actually is one. And what do you seek to achieve by such a response - you will certainly not convince the person you are discussing with of your view - do you not enjoy debate/can you not deal with people who hold different views from your own?

By the way the "floodgates arguement" is not a colloquialism. It is a metaphor, in this sense perhaps also a legal doctrine but certainly not a colloqualism.

28064212

Distorted wrote: »

- Kerb crawling (amusing incident - I remember arriving at street level at a Milan metro station with 3 suitcases, having just travelled from the airport, only to be beckoned over by a man in a car shouting at me in English. I shouted back, unable to physically go over due to my suitcases, that I couldn't understand and he replied in English "How much?")
- Street prostitutes in tolerance zones which are also residential areas or in other ways used by other members of the public.
- Customers having sex in people's gardens and leaving used condoms behind (this happens regularly in a city I used to work in adjacent to the tolerance zone)

Again, all arguments for legalisation and regulation. Kerb-crawling and public 'transactions' are a symptom of prostitution forced underground. Tolerance zones are a ridiculous approach which are worse than either legalisation or prohibition

ofcork

As an aside to the whole prostitution argument if there is so much of it going on there are still alot of people with plenty of disposable income recession or no recession.

drkpower

Distorted wrote: »

- Kerb crawling (amusing incident - I remember arriving at street level at a Milan metro station with 3 suitcases, having just travelled from the airport, only to be beckoned over by a man in a car shouting at me in English. I shouted back, unable to physically go over due to my suitcases, that I couldn't understand and he replied in English "How much?")
- Street prostitutes in tolerance zones which are also residential areas or in other ways used by other members of the public.
- Customers having sex in people's gardens and leaving used condoms behind (this happens regularly in a city I used to work in adjacent to the tolerance zone) .

As someone already pointed out, these are all arguments for regulation, not criminalisation.

Distorted wrote: »

I think you will find that I do. The floodgates arguement is used for any civil law application and applies to potential employment law claims in this area. .

Well done, youve spotted why its not applcable here. Criminalising prostitution is not a civil matter.

Distorted wrote: »

-trying to sound like a lawyer when you are not does tend to make a person look somewhat foolish to anyone who actually is one. And what do you seek to achieve by such a response - you will certainly not convince the person you are discussing with of your view - do you not enjoy debate/can you not deal with people who hold different views from your own?.

Well, I am actually:D. And what I was trying to achieve was to show you that the 'floodgates' judicial principle is not applicable to the criminalisation and decriminalisation of certain activities given that criminal offences are almost exclusively the remit of the Oireachtas, not the judiciary. It has nothing to do with prostitution.

Distorted

drkpower wrote: »

As someone already pointed out, these are all arguments for regulation, not criminalisation.
Well done, youve spotted why its not applcable here. Criminalising prostitution is not a civil matter.

Well, I am actually:D. And what I was trying to achieve was to show you that the 'floodgates' judicial principle is not applicable to the criminalisation and decriminalisation of certain activities given that criminal offences are almost exclusively the remit of the Oireachtas, not the judiciary. It has nothing to do with prostitution.

I was under the impression that you wanted employment law to apply to prostitutes? Can you imagine the plethora of claims for stress at work?

Ofcork - presumably high prostitutes have seen a decline in trade with the recession! I'm not sure how you would quantify this. In fact I'm not entirely convinced that the notion of there being quite a substantial number of high end prostitutes plying their trade successfully and earning the figures previously mentioned in this thread is a bit of an urban myth. It might happen sometimes, for some prostitutes, but is it really that common? I'd love to hear someone describe it in more detail how it operates because I think the reality for the majority of prostitutes must be more mundane and involve far smaller amounts.

drkpower

Distorted wrote: »

I was under the impression that you wanted employment law to apply to prostitutes? Can you imagine the plethora of claims for stress at work?.

Not sure if I said that but anyway..... As many prostitutes would be sole practitioners in anyt regulated profession, they woulddnt be able to bring a 'stress claim'. But anyhoo, lets run with your concern (which are becoming more and more ridiculous...:D)

Do you think we should criminalise firefighters, or forensic pathologists, or glamour models, or escorts, any other careers that are stressful, or difficult, or demeaning, or morally repugnant (to you), because there may be a rise in employment stress claims?

And after you have answered that question, do you know the basis for employment stress claims and what you need to show to ground one? Because, again, it appears that, like the 'floodgates principle', you dont know what grounds a stress claim.

Clue: it isnt simply that you have suffered stress......:D

nozzferrahhtoo

Distorted wrote: »

- Customers having sex in people's gardens and leaving used condoms behind

What in the name of anything you personally think sacred has this got to do with prostitution?

This is as rational as saying "The Drinks industry is evil because people leave empty cola cans in gardens".

What your problem here is relates solely to the lack of prosecution of the laws of public indecency and littering. To bring this up as some kind of argument on the topic of prostitution is the single most opportunistic bottom of the barrel scraping I have yet seen on this thread.

It is, like the argument that pimps target vulnerable girls, an attempt at arguing "guilt by proxy".

Distorted

drkpower wrote: »

Not sure if I said that but anyway..... As many prostitutes would be sole practitioners in anyt regulated profession, they woulddnt be able to bring a 'stress claim'. But anyhoo, lets run with your concern (which are becoming more and more ridiculous...:D)

Do you think we should criminalise firefighters, or forensic pathologists, or glamour models, or escorts, any other careers that are stressful, or difficult, or demeaning, or morally repugnant (to you), because there may be a rise in employment stress claims?

And after you have answered that question, do you know the basis for employment stress claims and what you need to show to ground one? Because, again, it appears that, like the 'floodgates principle', you dont know what grounds a stress claim.

Clue: it isnt simply that you have suffered stress......:D

Yes, I do know the requirements regarding duty of care, breach of duty of care, causation, reasonable forseeabililty, standard of care, proximity, etc in relation to stress at work claims. Admittedly I am only a dual qualified solicitor in England and Scotland who lectures ad hoc at the local university at Masters Level in, inter alia, PIL and European Law. You will also be aware of the historical development of Irish law in this area and which principles it borrowed and from where. I did get the impression from the way in which you wrote that you yourself were not legally qualified. (the best explanation for this I could suggest is that you are qualified in an inquisatorial jurisdiction, although since I stuided at Leiden, I am familiar with the approach in such jurisdictions).

Perhaps you however would like to explain, with reference and brief discussiion of the main cases, for the benefit of others on this thread, how a party might go about claiming for stress at work?

As you claim to be a lawyer, you will be perfectly aware that in order to legislate for change in any area, there will be a report or inquiry into that area. Therefore such questions will be raised by the consultees of any such report or inquiry. To raise them is perfectly normal and to suggest that they are ridiculous is rather odd as such questions would certainly be asked before any legislation or regulation is promulgated. Even from a purely jurisprudential viewpoint, you will be aware that asking such questions is a normal legal approach and most lawyers enjoy such debate and parrying such questions. To suggest that awkward questions should not be asked is unethical.

I must apologise for my casting doubt previously over your legal claims. The internet is full of "barrack room lawyers" who have a little bit of legal knowledge but lack the relevant legal background to understand it fully. I can't stand fakes. I am not suggesting that you are one at all but I simply find your constant use of the word "ridiculous" and condescending remarks to another lawyer a bit basic in the normal array of legal discussive armoury.

If you would like to check the veracity of my qualifications, pm me and I will give you my name which can be checked with the Law Society as I am on the Roll. I would not of course normally do this on an internet forum but I am happy to do this on the basis that you are stating that you are a lawyer and will return the favour and, as such, will be bound by the ethics of your profession in the jurisdiction that you are qualified and hold a Practisting Certificate. I say all this because you appear to be one lawyer doubting the legal knowledge regarding basic principles of law of another lawyer and I find it rather unethical.

I can understand that you may not wish to discuss this further on an internet site but obviously, when one is a member of a profession, there is nothing wrong with claiming membership of that profession on such a site and therefore I invite you to respond as previously invited.

Distorted

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What in the name of anything you personally think sacred has this got to do with prostitution?

This is as rational as saying "The Drinks industry is evil because people leave empty cola cans in gardens".

What your problem here is relates solely to the lack of prosecution of the laws of public indecency and littering. To bring this up as some kind of argument on the topic of prostitution is the single most opportunistic bottom of the barrel scraping I have yet seen on this thread.

It is, like the argument that pimps target vulnerable girls, an attempt at arguing "guilt by proxy".

I don't think you have ever been to Aberdeen.

drkpower

Distorted wrote: »

Yes, I do know the requirements regarding duty of care, breach of duty of care, causation, reasonable forseeabililty, standard of care, proximity, etc in relation to stress at work claims. Admittedly I am only a dual qualified solicitor in England and Scotland who lectures ad hoc at the local university at Masters Level in, inter alia, PIL and European Law. You will also be aware of the historical development of Irish law in this area and which principles it borrowed and from where. I did get the impression from the way in which you wrote that you yourself were not legally qualified. (the best explanation for this I could suggest is that you are qualified in an inquisatorial jurisdiction, although since I stuided at Leiden, I am familiar with the approach in such jurisdictions).

Perhaps you however would like to explain, with reference and brief discussiion of the main cases, for the benefit of others on this thread, how a party might go about claiming for stress at work?

As you claim to be a lawyer, you will be perfectly aware that in order to legislate for change in any area, there will be a report or inquiry into that area. Therefore such questions will be raised by the consultees of any such report or inquiry. To raise them is perfectly normal and to suggest that they are ridiculous is rather odd as such questions would certainly be asked before any legislation or regulation is promulgated. Even from a purely jurisprudential viewpoint, you will be aware that asking such questions is a normal legal approach and most lawyers enjoy such debate and parrying such questions. To suggest that awkward questions should not be asked is unethical.

I must apologise for my casting doubt previously over your legal claims. The internet is full of "barrack room lawyers" who have a little bit of legal knowledge but lack the relevant legal background to understand it fully. I can't stand fakes. I am not suggesting that you are one at all but I simply find your constant use of the word "ridiculous" and condescending remarks to another lawyer a bit basic in the normal array of legal discussive armoury.

If you would like to check the veracity of my qualifications, pm me and I will give you my name which can be checked with the Law Society as I am on the Roll. I would not of course normally do this on an internet forum but I am happy to do this on the basis that you are stating that you are a lawyer and will return the favour and, as such, will be bound by the ethics of your profession in the jurisdiction that you are qualified and hold a Practisting Certificate. I say all this because you appear to be one lawyer doubting the legal knowledge regarding basic principles of law of another lawyer and I find it rather unethical.

I can understand that you may not wish to discuss this further on an internet site but obviously, when one is a member of a profession, there is nothing wrong with claiming membership of that profession on such a site and therefore I invite you to respond as previously invited.

Wow; you are a lawyer.... and one who hasnt learnt that because we are paid by the hour, we dont have to write an essay everytime we answer something yet still not end up answering it..... :D Or that

Anyway, any chance of answering the questions I asked:

Do you think we should criminalise firefighters, or forensic pathologists, or glamour models, or escorts, any other careers that are stressful, or difficult, or demeaning, or morally repugnant (to you), because there may be a rise in employment stress claims?

And after you have answered that question, do you know the basis for employment stress claims and what you need to show to ground one? .

Distorted

drkpower wrote: »

Wow; you are a lawyer.... and one who hasnt learnt that because we are paid by the hour, we dont have to write an essay everytime we answer something yet still not end up answering it..... :D Or that

Anyway, any chance of answering the questions I asked:

I'm really sceptical now. I know of no lawyer who debates using the word "wow" or multiple smiley faces or who would confuse a metaphor and a colloquialism (or refer to the floodgates doctrine as a colloquialism). You haven't pm'd me - what a surprise. You debate by being condescending and casting doubt on other's legal skills rather than by using case law or distinguishing cases quoted. I am trying hard not to resort to the same condescending tone, but you forgot that you had previously argued for employment law to apply to prostitutes and then got confused by my use of the floodgates arguement as a result.

What do you think of the application of Majrowski to Glencar - I've deliberately not cited it as you being a lawyer will be aware of it. Just remind me, on the issue of forseeability, which of the two schools of thought was followed and how would you distinguish the floodgates arguement in Majrowski using that school of thought? No doubt you will be glad to share your wisdom on this, since you are so sceptical that I understand the basic principles of tort?

By the way, I'm not against greater regulation of prostitution at all though I'm sceptical regarding recognising employment rights due to problems previously mentioned. I am not against prostitition, do not wish to see it "banned" or anything else - I simply enjoy a good debate and playing Devil's Advocate and raising concepts that logically arise - if employment rights and greater regulation were to be granted, these issues would have to be addressed and not just by saying that they don't apply because you don't like them.

nozzferrahhtoo

Distorted wrote: »

I don't think you have ever been to Aberdeen.

Irrelevant. Also false.

drkpower

Distorted wrote: »

I'm really sceptical now. I know of no lawyer who debates using the word "wow" or multiple smiley faces or who would confuse a metaphor and a colloquialism (or refer to the floodgates doctrine as a colloquialism). You haven't pm'd me - what a surprise. You debate by being condescending and casting doubt on other's legal skills rather than by using case law or distinguishing cases quoted. I am trying hard not to resort to the same condescending tone, but you forgot that you had previously argued for employment law to apply to prostitutes and then got confused by my use of the floodgates arguement as a result.

What do you think of the application of Majrowski to Glencar - I've deliberately not cited it as you being a lawyer will be aware of it. Just remind me, on the issue of forseeability, which of the two schools of thought was followed and how would you distinguish the floodgates arguement in Majrowski using that school of thought? No doubt you will be glad to share your wisdom on this, since you are so sceptical that I understand the basic principles of tort?

By the way, I'm not against greater regulation of prostitution at all though I'm sceptical regarding recognising employment rights due to problems previously mentioned. I am not against prostitition, do not wish to see it "banned" or anything else - I simply enjoy a good debate and playing Devil's Advocate and raising concepts that logically arise - if employment rights and greater regulation were to be granted, these issues would have to be addressed and not just by saying that they don't apply because you don't like them.

And more irrelevent detail. I dont care if you are a lawyer, or if I am. Its irrelevent to this debate, and to the questions posed to you. What I care about is whether you have answers to the relevent questions posed to you, which remain unanswered despite all of the irrelevent stuff posted above:

Do you think we should criminalise firefighters, or forensic pathologists, or glamour models, or escorts, any other careers that are stressful, or difficult, or demeaning, or morally repugnant (to you), because there may be a rise in employment stress claims?

And after you have answered that question, do you know the basis for employment stress claims and what you need to show to ground one? .

Distorted

drkpower wrote: »

Wow; you are a lawyer.... and one who hasnt learnt that because we are paid by the hour, we dont have to write an essay everytime we answer something yet still not end up answering it..... :D Or that

Anyway, any chance of answering the questions I asked:

I've already answered the second part of that. The answer to the third part is such concerns would have to be addressed by any agencies involved in challenging the current status quo. How many times would you like me to answer the same question? I can sit here until I'm blue in the face and quote cases, describe them and so on, with very little mental effort. I haven't seen you refer to one case yet yourself however. Which is fair enough, unless you are claiming to be a lawyer.

Why on earth would you fee a client per hour? The Law Society would find that rather strange. If I wasn't already sceptical (which I was) I am even more so now. Lawyers fee by units, so that they can break down the ways in which they have spent their time and justify it to clients.

This is getting stranger and stranger...the things you encounter on the internet.

Distorted

drkpower wrote: »

And more irrelevent detail. I dont care if you are a lawyer, or if I am. Its irrelevent to this debate, and to the questions posed to you. What I care about is whether you have answers to the relevent questions posed to you, which remain unanswered despite all of the irrelevent stuff posted above:

If its not relevant, why claim that you are one? I think pretending to have professional knowledge when you do not is relevant to any debate.

Let me state it clearly. I am completely unconvinced you are a lawyer, from the way you write and what you write and from the very basic mistakes you write. Would you care to prove me wrong?

Distorted

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What in the name of anything you personally think sacred has this got to do with prostitution?

This is as rational as saying "The Drinks industry is evil because people leave empty cola cans in gardens".

What your problem here is relates solely to the lack of prosecution of the laws of public indecency and littering. To bring this up as some kind of argument on the topic of prostitution is the single most opportunistic bottom of the barrel scraping I have yet seen on this thread.

It is, like the argument that pimps target vulnerable girls, an attempt at arguing "guilt by proxy".

So what are your proposals for the prostitution industry since you dislike tolerance zones, tolerated "licensed saunas" and suchlike?

What would be the relevant concerns of any consultees and how would you address them?

nozzferrahhtoo

Distorted wrote: »

If its not relevant, why claim that you are one? I think pretending to have professional knowledge when you do not is relevant to any debate.

You get used to that on forums such as this when you spend more time on them. I have a number of anecdotes to this effect myself including people who claim to be massively qualified in physics, and then they come out with doozys such as claiming the reason we have gravity here on earth is because the earth is spinning.... something even a 12 year old Secondary Level Student in an Irish Science class would know is hookum.

Distorted wrote: »

So what are your proposals for the prostitution industry since you dislike tolerance zones, tolerated "licensed saunas" and suchlike?

It would be worth trying to keep track of who you are talking to and what they have and have not said. I at no point in this whole thread said anything about tolerance zones at all, let alone expressed a dislike for same. If I did then maybe it was connected to some form of black out... but I can not find it and would kindly request that you link me to the post where I did?

No my point was entirely different in every possible way. I was merely pointing out that attempting to indict prostitution by proxy with the crimes of litter bugs and criminal public indecency is at best comical and at worst desperately opportunistic.

drkpower

Distorted wrote: »

I haven't seen you refer to one case yet yourself however. Which is fair enough, unless you are claiming to be a lawyer..

Why would Iquote a case? It is not a debate on the law. It is a debate as to whether something should be criminalised. You do not need to be a lawyer to debate that. You seem to take umbrage at the fact that I corrected you on the applicability of using the judicial floodgates principles in respect of a criminal matter and now you want to use as many long legal words and cases in a desperate attemp to show that you did a legal studies diploma or something.......:D:D

Distorted wrote: »

Why on earth would you fee a client per hour?

Oh stop embarrassing yourself! Every section 68 letter I send has my and my team member's hourly rate on it. While I certainly charge for parts of that, lawyers typically quote & charge by the hour.

Now back to the questions I asked you: There were actually 2 but you seem to think there were 3. You might try again:

ONE: Do you think we should criminalise firefighters, or forensic pathologists, or glamour models, or escorts, any other careers that are stressful, or difficult, or demeaning, or morally repugnant (to you), because there may be a rise in employment stress claims?

TWO: And after you have answered that question, do you know the basis for employment stress claims and what you need to show to ground one? Clue: it isnt simply that you have suffered stress......

Distorted

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You get used to that on forums such as this when you spend more time on them. I have a number of anecdotes to this effect myself including people who claim to be massively qualified in physics, and then they come out with doozys such as claiming the reason we have gravity here on earth is because the earth is spinning.... something even a 12 year old Secondary Level Student in an Irish Science class would know is hookum.

Oh I know. I was just letting him dig himself deeper.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It would be worth trying to keep track of who you are talking to and what they have and have not said. I at no point in this whole thread said anything about tolerance zones at all, let alone expressed a dislike for same. If I did then maybe it was connected to some form of black out... but I can not find it and would kindly request that you link me to the post where I did?

No my point was entirely different in every possible way. I was merely pointing out that attempting to indict prostitution by proxy with the crimes of litter bugs and criminal public indecency is at best comical and at worst desperately opportunistic.

Perhaps its time for others to also summarise what they are and are not arguing for. I have taken up enough space on this debate and I'm sure people don't want to hear me repeat it again but for the sake of debate, it might help if others did?

drkpower wrote: »

Why would Iquote a case? It is not a debate on the law. It is a debate as to whether something should be criminalised. You do not need to be a lawyer to debate that. You seem to take umbrage at the fact that I corrected you on the applicability of using the judicial floodgates principles in respect of a criminal matter and now you want to use as many long legal words and cases in a desperate attemp to show that you did a legal studies diploma or something.......:D:D

Nope just the standard LLB DipLP and added LLM with conversion course and traineeship and appropriate PQE. You wouldn't quote a case because you're not a lawyer. Indeed if you were you would be referring to yourself as a solicitor or would have pointed out that barristers do indeed charge per hour.

drkpower wrote: »

Oh stop embarrassing yourself! Every section 60 letter I send has my and my team member's hourly rate on it. While I certainly charge for parts of that, lawyers typically quote & charge by the hour.

Now back to the questions I asked you: There were actually 2 but you seem to think there were 3. You might try again:

Why do you feel the need to pretend to be something you are not? You're holding up the debate by doing so. Are you aware of the legal implications of holding yourself out to be a lawyer? I sincerely hope you don't give people legal advice on here.

drkpower

Distorted wrote: »

If its not relevant, why claim that you are one? .

Because you specifically said that I wasnt one, when I had never said a word about my professional background and when it wasnt part of the debate!!!! I was simply setting the records straight. And now it has started you off on an irrelevent detailed description of your CV.

Distorted wrote: »

Nope just the standard LLB DipLP and added LLM with conversion course and traineeship and appropriate PQE. You wouldn't quote a case because you're not a lawyer. Indeed if you were you would be referring to yourself as a solicitor or would have pointed out that barristers do indeed charge per hour. .

You really are keen to get those qualifications out there; to the point that you have left behind any attempt to actually stand behind your own arguments on this issue.:D

Now, are you going to actually return to the questions asked of you or have you withdrawn from any substantive discussion of the topic?

Btw, are you really saying that solicitors dont (often) quote and charge by the hour? Puzzling.

ONE: Do you think we should criminalise firefighters, or forensic pathologists, or glamour models, or escorts, any other careers that are stressful, or difficult, or demeaning, or morally repugnant (to you), because there may be a rise in employment stress claims?

TWO: And after you have answered that question, do you know the basis for employment stress claims and what you need to show to ground one? Clue: it isnt simply that you have suffered stress......

Distorted

drkpower wrote: »

Now, are you going to actually return to the questions asked of you or have you withdrawn from any substantive discussion of the topic?

Btw, are you really saying that solicitors dont (often) quote and charge by the hour? Puzzling.

[1]

Trying to cover your fraud by repetition now? I have answered your questions twice now and reminded you of this fact twice now. You have answered none of mine. Note particularly the adoption of the almost scholarly in tone use of "Now" which he has confused with a legal tone.

[1] Solicitors do not charge by the hour but by the unit. Solicitors may quote by the hour although more usually by the piece of work with reference to their hourly rate.

Apology to others on this thread - I really can't stand barrack room lawyers or people who pretend to be lawyers when they are not. They have to be one of the most irritating lifeforms out there. I will try to ignore it from now on but please do not take anything you read on an internet forum as the law and if in doubt, obtain independent legal advice. Although I have to admit I'll have a few anecdotes for the pub from this!

nozzferrahhtoo

Distorted wrote: »

I'm sure people don't want to hear me repeat it again but for the sake of debate, it might help if others did?

Erm... bit of a non-sequitar there. I am not concerned with what you choose to repeat or not repeat. I merely thought I would point out that it would be nice if you would try to, when replying to me, only reply to things I myself actually wrote. You however just replied to me but replied to a position I never once espoused, essentially putting words in my mouth and claiming I hold a position I not only do not hold, but never once in any way indicated I did.

If I could kindly and peacefully request: Please keep your words out of my mouth, I clearly have more than enough of my own.

To attempt once more to put the derailed topic back on topic however I will repeat my concern…

… you mention condoms in gardens in a conversation about prostitution and I am agog to hear the relevance of this. To me it seems like an attempt to indict prostitution by putting on the industry the crimes of litter bugs.

You would clearly recognise how ridiculous it would be of me to claim the drinks industry is evil because some people discard empty cola cans in gardens. Surely then you can recognise why mentioning the discarding of condoms in gardens is equally ridiculous?

To put it in letters terms. People who engage in X who also do bad things Y, does not equate to saying X is bad because of Y. It is a total non-sequitar and is a clear attempt at straw grasping to bolster an otherwise baseless argument point.

drkpower

Distorted wrote: »

Trying to cover your fraud by repetition now? I have answered your questions twice now and reminded you of this fact twice now. !

Where? You have told us your CV but havent answered either of these Q.s:
ONE: Do you think we should criminalise firefighters, or forensic pathologists, or glamour models, or escorts, any other careers that are stressful, or difficult, or demeaning, or morally repugnant (to you), because there may be a rise in employment stress claims?

TWO: And after you have answered that question, do you know the basis for employment stress claims and what you need to show to ground one? Clue: it isnt simply that you have suffered stress......

Distorted wrote: »

[1] Solicitors do not charge by the hour but by the unit. Solicitors may quote by the hour although more usually by the piece of work with reference to their hourly rate. !

What exactly are you saying I got wrong when I said that 'lawyers quote & charge by the hour...?'? Is it that I should have said that ''lawyers quote & charge by the hour, or part therof'??? Well, sorreeeeeeeeeee!! Your pedantry knows no bounds.

28064212

Distorted wrote: »

Trying to cover your fraud by repetition now? I have answered your questions twice now

Actually, you haven't. You raised the issue of stress claims as a reason for not applying employment law to prostitution. drkpower pointed out that many jobs which operate under employment law have similar or greater stress levels. You haven't responded to that

Distorted wrote: »

Apology to others on this thread - I really can't stand barrack room lawyers or people who pretend to be lawyers when they are not. They have to be one of the most irritating lifeforms out there. I will try to ignore it from now on but please do not take anything you read on an internet forum as the law and if in doubt, obtain independent legal advice. Although I have to admit I'll have a few anecdotes for the pub from this!

Neither of you will convince the other (or anybody else on this thread for that matter) that either of you are qualified. If you want that, you're in the wrong place. The point of an internet discussion board is to have a discussion on the merits of your position alone. nozzferrahhtoo could be a lawyer. Hell, I could be a prostitute. Neither of us claims to be, because any such claim is meaningless, so we argue our positions instead