Friday, 21 December 2007

Harriet Harman plans to make it illegal to pay for sex in the UK

Why is it with our current government that if there is bad way of doing something, amongst a host of other choices, they will inevitably make a beeline for it - and then compound the problem with incompetence.

Harriet Harman is at it again. Last heard of in connection with concealed donations. This time she wants to make it illegal to pay for sex. Her motives would appear to be reasonably honest, but her reasoning is certainly open to question.

Firstly you can pass as many laws as you like (and New-Labour frequently abuse this privilege) - but that won’t stop it happening if it is something people refuse to give up, or want regardless of the consequences. All you do is bring the idea of the law into disrepute and leave whatever it is you are legislating in the hands of criminals.

Take prohibition in the US – It is arguable that absolutely made organised crime in the US and effectively criminalised vast swathes of the otherwise law-abiding population. It failed and left a detrimental legacy felt to this day.

The ‘War on Drugs’ that is obviously highly effective. It has clrearly absolutely eradicated cannabis use in the UK – Not!.

Illegal drugs are even more lucrative than legal ones and almost certainly maintain an increased level of real crime to support habits. More to the point the illegality of it sucks people who are tying to deal with a habit into a world of crime that they might otherwise never have become involved with.

So paying for sex. How will you define it? What exactly is payment? Cash? Payment in kind?

When all is said and done under the ‘moral questions’ it is a ‘service industry’. The government should be more interested in protecting those who provide sex for money, ensuring that they aren’t forced to, that they will be reasonably safe and able to complain to the police if they are abused. That it can’t be concealed in the shadows.

The English Collective of Prostitutes are certainly not in favour of Harriet’s crusade/jihad. Their spokes woman pointed out that forcing prostitution further underground would only make women more vulnerable to violence.

With this government the first reaction always seems to be towards thoughtless reflexive additional ill-conceived legislation, with little or no consideration of the likely consequences - and a sound bite to go with it, to attempt to justify their existence.

4 comments:

Bretwalda Edwin-Higham said...

Great stuff. So now when we take the lady out, the state will pay for it. That's wonderful.

Phil A said...

It does rather open up a whole can of worms if you have an imbecile deciding to use poorly thought out legislation – and you just know sooner or later you will. What if you pay for a girl, or a man for that matter, to go on holiday and intimacy then takes place…

SACKERSON said...

What about paying *with* sex? Oh dear, we're going to get into deep waters here; and let's not even start on the political and business casting-couches.

Phil A said...

Clearly if someone pays with sex for goods or services then it is extremely difficult to distinguish it from paying in kind for sex.

And yes indeed, deep waters, an absolute can of worms, somewhere the state has no business going.

To my mind this simply demonstrates how dysfunctional the sound bite patrician political classes are becoming, especially the flavour in Government.