Exclusion of Sex Workers from Justice Committee

CK73

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Maybe, but they are thought more highly of by their fellow workers than someone who is charging less and offer a better service simply because they are not seen as a threat.

Not necessarily, it can go the other way, if they charge more than the average. Believe me, it doesn't do to be too much lower or too much higher if you ware looking for an easy life. You have to have the courage of your convictions.

Hilly Bill

aare wrote: »

...and I suppose there is nothing to prevent people getting 3 quotes from sex workers too if price is REALLY that important to them...but having public discussions aimed at forcing prices down is just nasty and should never be encouraged.

The price is important to a punter. You have a look at what you can afford and pay the price asked.
I doubt if there are many girls that would entertain a haggler.
Where did you get the discussions aimed at forcing the prices down?

Hilly Bill

CK73 wrote: »

Not necessarily, it can go the other way, if they charge more than the average. Believe me, it doesn't do to be too much lower or too much higher if you ware looking for an easy life. You have to have the courage of your convictions.

True but what im trying to say is that you dont always get what it says on the tin and somtimes its a velcro moment.

The Th!ng

the_syco wrote: »

And holy fcuking christ, they know ALL about forcing enslaved women to do their dirty work!

And It'll be a long time before the clients, pimps, and traffickers rack up a 100+ body count in unmarked graves, too.

Grayson

CK73 wrote: »

Does this help? Stats

Nearly helps. It's interesting, but it doesn't say how many were trafficked for the sex industry.
But one of the interesting things is that of the children involved, all were irish nationals. It appears that they are using that law to assist in the prosecution of paedophiles. Which I don't mind, but it kinda blurs the line when it comes to prostitution.

CK73

Hilly Bill wrote: »

True but what im trying to say is that you dont always get what it says on the tin and somtimes its a velcro moment.

It's a fact of life with any trade, there will always be those that cut corners and sometimes that is done by building up a good reputation and then letting go, or maybe they just burn out?

It is wrong to discount all and label all as 'greedy' is all I was saying

David900

sexworkie wrote: »

If you'll excuse me plugging my own writing, you don't need to go as far as New Zealand to see other approaches. http://sexwork.ie/2013/01/29/denmark-and-ireland/

Your website states it is the blog of an escort advertising website.

Can you please confirm which site you belong to?

laugh

Sure you wouldn't let Turkeys vote for Christmas.

CK73

Grayson wrote: »

Nearly helps. It's interesting, but it doesn't say how many were trafficked for the sex industry.
But one of the interesting things is that of the children involved, all were irish nationals. It appears that they are using that law to assist in the prosecution of paedophiles. Which I don't mind, but it kinda blurs the line when it comes to prostitution.

I agree there is nothing concrete to say that x amount were categorically trafficked for prostitution, so you can only surmise that it is a percentage and not all. Still the numbers are a lot lower than you would imagine.

steddyeddy

sexworkie wrote: »

The Justice Committee is currently carrying out a review of prostitution legislation. They have heard from 15 anti-prostitution organisations already, including 2 Magdalene nuns, but they are only hearing from 1 sex worker.

This has been reported in the Sindo today
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/escort-web-firm-hits-out-at-rte-sex-work-expose-29076081.html

It is grossly unfair that the people who sell sex are being excluded like this from a consultation which is about their lives, and may lead to new laws brought in that further criminalise prostitution, drive it more underground and make selling sex more dangerous.

What do you think? Why will the Government not hear from the only people who can truly tell them what prostitution in Ireland is like?

This has to be a joke? Why would the opinion of life long virgins be valid in this instance?

The Th!ng

A friend of mine worked as an accountant in Riyadh, Saudia Arabia about 15 years ago. He said there were Saudi prostitutes working there, I'm wondering therefore how can the TORL campaigners hope to succeed when even the threat of sharia law has failed to stop it?

David900

David900 wrote: »

Your website states it is the blog of an escort advertising website.

Can you please confirm which site you belong to?

Apologies, I asked before I looked. There is a link to escort-ireland on your blog site.

That makes your argument redundant to me. You've thrown in the Magdeline nun references to most of your posts tonight to take advantage of current social opinion of these organisations at present. However, your the face behind a website which is owned by a convicted criminal clearly protecting their own interest. In fairness, if I had a business that generated as much cash flow I'd probably do what I could to protect it. You're lack of human decency is alarming though. A quick internet search gives quite an overview of your world. A son of the owner of the site is currently serving a sentence for organizing prostitution, and while that might not be trafficking, it is certainly profiting from prostitution.

There was an rte documentary last year which showed women being moved around Ireland to work in different apartments, and while it wasn't proven these women were trafficked, they certainly didn't choose the job out of choice.

If you want to come to the table and argue your point by tarnishing the other side, at least have the decency to declare your interest.

Sweet Rachel

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Well said. Its some of your fellow countrymen/women that gives the decent ones the bad name and thats all the likes of Rhuma and the media sees.

As far as I know the majority of sex workers helped by Ruhama are not from Romania..

The media sees lots of young, beautiful Romanian girls working in Ireland, in ocasions helped by someone else .. agencies / pimps / boyfriends / friends

Also, is very little information the media has on this as there is little coercing going on ( none of my knowledge) ..

Cork boy 55

The politicians would be afraid of being recognized LOl.

CK73

David900 wrote: »

Apologies, I asked before I looked. There is a link to escort-ireland on your blog site.

That makes your argument redundant to me. You've thrown in the Magdeline nun references to most of your posts tonight to take advantage of current social opinion of these organisations at present. However, your the face behind a website which is owned by a convicted criminal clearly protecting their own interest. In fairness, if I had a business that generated as much cash flow I'd probably do what I could to protect it. You're lack of human decency is alarming though. A quick internet search gives quite an overview of your world. A son of the owner of the site is currently serving a sentence for organizing prostitution, and while that might not be trafficking, it is certainly profiting from prostitution.

There was an rte documentary last year which showed women being moved around Ireland to work in different apartments, and while it wasn't proven these women were trafficked, they certainly didn't choose the job out of choice.

If you want to come to the table and argue your point by tarnishing the other side, at least have the decency to declare your interest.

Let's hope you don't discount all of us in the same manor

Sweet Rachel

David900 wrote: »

Apologies, I asked before I looked. There is a link to escort-ireland on your blog site.

That makes your argument redundant to me. You've thrown in the Magdeline nun references to most of your posts tonight to take advantage of current social opinion of these organisations at present. However, your the face behind a website which is owned by a convicted criminal clearly protecting their own interest. In fairness, if I had a business that generated as much cash flow I'd probably do what I could to protect it. You're lack of human decency is alarming though. A quick internet search gives quite an overview of your world. A son of the owner of the site is currently serving a sentence for organizing prostitution, and while that might not be trafficking, it is certainly profiting from prostitution.

There was an rte documentary last year which showed women being moved around Ireland to work in different apartments, and while it wasn't proven these women were trafficked, they certainly didn't choose the job out of choice.

If you want to come to the table and argue your point by tarnishing the other side, at least have the decency to declare your interest.

How was it proved those girls were forced into prostitution / work against their will?

I move around myself, driving or getting a lift .. Hate public transport in Ireland. What that makes me?

Not sure if E-I or Ruhama is worse , with both history ... One must think which pass the exam ..

David900

Sweet Rachel wrote: »

How was it proved those girls were forced into prostitution / work against their will?

I move around myself, driving or getting a lift .. Hate public transport in Ireland. What that makes me?

Not sure if E-I or Ruhama is worse , with both history ... One must think which pass the exam ..

Nothing proven but highly suggested in the piece.
Even if these girls weren't forced to work against their will, there was a 'pimp' involved - or whatever term you would like to use - who was profiting from prostitution. That kind of activity shouldn't be allowed in this society, which the government has a duty to prevent.

For you it seems to be a choice, to go from one place to another and how to arrive there.
It would be much different if someone came to your door, placed you in a car and brought you somewhere without your agreement. While these girls might be in the country by choice, that isn't acceptable 'employment'.

Which is better Ruhama or the site? I know which has a lot more to lose.

CK73

David900 wrote: »

Nothing proven but highly suggested in the piece.
Even if these girls weren't forced to work against their will, there was a 'pimp' involved - or whatever term you would like to use - who was profiting from prostitution. That kind of activity shouldn't be allowed in this society, which the government has a duty to prevent.

Show me a line of business where there is not some kind of corruption, manipulation and profiteering? It still doesn't represent the majority or discount the fact that we should have a fair right to representation.

Seachmall

David900 wrote: »

That makes your argument redundant to me.

It shouldn't.

You're lack of human decency is alarming though.

That's quite a statement given you don't know OP.

aare

steddyeddy wrote: »

This has to be a joke? Why would the opinion of life long virgins be valid in this instance?

No joke, and you would have to ask the Justice Committee why they consider such opinion to be valid.

David900

CK73 wrote: »

Show me a line of business where there is not some kind of corruption, manipulation and profiteering? It still doesn't represent the majority or discount the fact that we should have a fair right to representation.

I'd argue it does represent the majority. That is the problem.

I never said anything about not being represented, my point is the financial backers of this representation should be shown for what they are. These are people who primary interests are their own.

David900

Seachmall wrote: »

It shouldn't.That's quite a statement given you don't know OP.

I think it is quite a fair statement to make given the public information available about the website this person represents.

aare

David900 wrote: »

Apologies, I asked before I looked. There is a link to escort-ireland on your blog site.

That makes your argument redundant to me. You've thrown in the Magdeline nun references to most of your posts tonight to take advantage of current social opinion of these organisations at present. However, your the face behind a website which is owned by a convicted criminal clearly protecting their own interest. In fairness, if I had a business that generated as much cash flow I'd probably do what I could to protect it. You're lack of human decency is alarming though. A quick internet search gives quite an overview of your world. A son of the owner of the site is currently serving a sentence for organizing prostitution, and while that might not be trafficking, it is certainly profiting from prostitution.

There was an rte documentary last year which showed women being moved around Ireland to work in different apartments, and while it wasn't proven these women were trafficked, they certainly didn't choose the job out of choice.

If you want to come to the table and argue your point by tarnishing the other side, at least have the decency to declare your interest.

Frankly I think Ruhama tarnished THEMSELVES by being an extension of the Magdalene Laundries years before they were found out, let alone shut down.

Doesn't matter who states that fact, it still *IS* a fact.

aare

David900 wrote: »

I'd argue it does represent the majority. That is the problem.

I never said anything about not being represented, my point is the financial backers of this representation should be shown for what they are. These are people who primary interests are their own.

I don't think there are any "financial backers" involved in all the sex workers who have been excluded from speaking for themselves throughout the the consultation process in favour of agenda driven propaganda from their opponents and tabloid sensationalistion.

THAT is the point of this issue.

Sweet Rachel

David900 wrote: »

Nothing proven but highly suggested in the piece.
Even if these girls weren't forced to work against their will, there was a 'pimp' involved - or whatever term you would like to use - who was profiting from prostitution. That kind of activity shouldn't be allowed in this society, which the government has a duty to prevent.

For you it seems to be a choice, to go from one place to another and how to arrive there.
It would be much different if someone came to your door, placed you in a car and brought you somewhere without your agreement. While these girls might be in the country by choice, that isn't acceptable 'employment'.

Which is better Ruhama or the site? I know which has a lot more to lose.

Indeed, it was suggested that way , hardly I can argue on that one.
There is a law to punish the ones profiting from prostitution. I ask, why that "pimp" wasnt arrested? Sure, in the case of coercing / profit from prostitution / girls werent happy with the situation police duty was to act on it. The reporter should have ring the police and tell his thoughts ( as was portraited in the video - coercing/profiting)

Is it not accpetable for who? Yourself? Are you in a possition to tell them how to do the business? I guess not.

As for who will lose more...Lets see, prostitution will not go away and we will need a website to advertise on.

aare

David900 wrote: »

Nothing proven but highly suggested in the piece.
Even if these girls weren't forced to work against their will, there was a 'pimp' involved - or whatever term you would like to use - who was profiting from prostitution. That kind of activity shouldn't be allowed in this society, which the government has a duty to prevent.

For you it seems to be a choice, to go from one place to another and how to arrive there.
It would be much different if someone came to your door, placed you in a car and brought you somewhere without your agreement. While these girls might be in the country by choice, that isn't acceptable 'employment'.

Which is better Ruhama or the site? I know which has a lot more to lose.

I know which one trafficked tens of thousands of women and unlawfully imprisoned them against their will.

I also know which claims to speak for sex workers as though they are dumb animals who cannot even think for themselves let alone speak.

aare

David900 wrote: »

Nothing proven but highly suggested in the piece.
Even if these girls weren't forced to work against their will, there was a 'pimp' involved - or whatever term you would like to use - who was profiting from prostitution. That kind of activity shouldn't be allowed in this society, which the government has a duty to prevent.

...and how does excluding sex workers from speaking for themselves serve to prevent that ANYWAY?

CK73

David900 wrote: »

I'd argue it does represent the majority. That is the problem.

I never said anything about not being represented, my point is the financial backers of this representation should be shown for what they are. These are people who primary interests are their own.

Please do argue it, I am all ears.

I personally have adverts in many places. I pay for the advert slot, as I would if I was advertising my services as a hairdresser for instance. It doesn't make the paper that I advertise in responsible or profiting from me, as they are providing me with advertising space. Nothing more and nothing less. I also do not deem myself to be representing the sites I am advertising on. I might not read the daily mail, but I may still choose to advertise in it.

This article might be of some interest to you Marie McKinlay

enfant terrible

David900 wrote: »

I never said anything about not being represented, my point is the financial backers of this representation should be shown for what they are. These are people who primary interests are their own.

So your in favor of the sex workers voices being heard?

JonEBGud

Next Year!

No Prob.

How Much?