Exclusion of Sex Workers from Justice Committee

sexworkie

David900 you clearly have your websites muddled up if you think one you are talking about is owned by a convicted criminal. Please refrain from defamation.

Czarcasm

sexworkie wrote: »

David900 you clearly have your websites muddled up if you think one you are talking about is owned by a convicted criminal. Please refrain from defamation.

This is a bit rich coming from a corporate representative of Escort Ireland who tried to use public revulsion of the Magdelene laundries tragedy to support her case for the legalisation of prostitution.

It was a pretty disgusting attempt and skirting a fine line towards insinuations of untoward behaviour by other vested parties in the discussion, while failing to disclose your own vested interests.

So you registered today using your blog as your username, linking to an article that gave the opinion of a representative of your company, linked to an article your own blog, and you then have the balls to call someone else out for risking defamation for misleading information?

Honestly I'd say you couldn't lie straight in the bed, let alone in front of a public forum where you claim to represent the interests of all sex workers in Ireland.

Your lack of concern for anyone but your own business interests is embarrassingly but duly noted.

David900

CK73 wrote: »

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

Thats not a very good analogy. When the paper is at the front of trying to change legislation as its profits come from your trade, its in the public interest to display that fact.

Also, I don't know what you're trying to suggest with that article? That its okay to profit from prostitution if you're friendly with the prostitutes?

enfant terrible wrote: »

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

Didn't say I wasn't?

sexworkie wrote: »

David900 you clearly have your websites muddled up if you think one you are talking about is owned by a convicted criminal. Please refrain from defamation.

Sorry I should rephrase, bare in mind all the information has been sourced from news articles of court findings or other public information.

The holding company of the website was previously owned by a convicted organizer of prostitution. Then transferred his holding to his partner (does not appear to have ever been convicted). This can all be verified as the company is a registered company in the UK and the information is freely available at the Company Registration Office (for a fee).

The son of the previous registered owner is currently serving time or profiting from prostitution as convicted by an Irish court and reported by Irish news forums.

What part of that is defamation?

Grayson

There's a call center here where i work. It's got huge turnover. 90% of people here hate their jobs. That because call centre work is horrible. You sit there listening to people whinge and about 20% of the people who call are abusive pricks.
Before that i worked for another call center. This was one of the largest outsource call centre operators in the world. They have over 40,000 employees in different countries. Many of them are third world countries where the wages are cheap. Those guys have to listen to foreigners, who have no respect for them, scream abuse at them.

In the 10 years I've spent in different call centers I've seen people quit after a few weeks, some have gone on stress leave for months at a time. One guy smashed his computer and had to be moved to email support. Quite a few have just given up.

But nobody likes their job. We all did it for the money.

I'd imagine it's similar with prostitution. They deal with the public after all. they probably see guys of every age and background. Some are probably nice. Some are probably dicks. The girls probably didn't chose the profession because of the perks. They chose it because of the money. So long as it's of their own free will and no third party is forcing them to do it, I'm ok with that.
But that's the reason I'd like to see it legalized. If these girls are doing it, they should be afforded the same protections as call center workers or supermarket shelf stackers.

Czarcasm

David900 wrote: »

Sorry I should rephrase, bare in mind all the information has been sourced from news articles of court findings or other public information.

What part of that is defamation?

Damn, I was hoping to witness how a UK based company that facilitates prostitution was going to fare against a single Irish user on an Irish discussion board! Sure it would've been bad publicity but that's what happens when the monkey tries to speak for the organ grinder and goes off the script, threatening legal action with not so much as a leg to stand on!

And speaking of monkeys speaking for organ grinders, I despair for Romanian Rachel, the patsy Escort Ireland are using to promote their cause, who has barely a grasp of the English language, yet is expected to be able to speak for Irish sex workers (Escort Ireland couldn't find any Irish sex workers willing to put themselves in the firing line I imagine!).

Sure as long as she's able to tow the party line and stick to the script it'll be grand. How many times I wonder did she have to practice saying "I like the sex and I make lots of money and I do not feel I am being exploited".

Czarcasm

Grayson wrote: »

There's a call center here where i work. It's got huge turnover. 90% of people here hate their jobs. That because call centre work is horrible. You sit there listening to people whinge and about 20% of the people who call are abusive pricks.
Before that i worked for another call center. This was one of the largest outsource call centre operators in the world. They have over 40,000 employees in different countries. Many of them are third world countries where the wages are cheap. Those guys have to listen to foreigners, who have no respect for them, scream abuse at them.

In the 10 years I've spent in different call centers I've seen people quit after a few weeks, some have gone on stress leave for months at a time. One guy smashed his computer and had to be moved to email support. Quite a few have just given up.

But nobody likes their job. We all did it for the money.

I'd imagine it's similar with prostitution. They deal with the public after all. they probably see guys of every age and background. Some are probably nice. Some are probably dicks. The girls probably didn't chose the profession because of the perks. They chose it because of the money. So long as it's of their own free will and no third party is forcing them to do it, I'm ok with that.
But that's the reason I'd like to see it legalized. If these girls are doing it, they should be afforded the same protections as call center workers or supermarket shelf stackers.

Hell of a difference though between selling a phone package as a product for the company you work for, and an individual selling their body as a product, or working for a pimp.

SB2013

Czarcasm wrote: »

Hell of a difference though between selling a phone package as a product for the company you work for, and an individual selling their body as a product, or working for a pimp.

Are you against employing manual labour in general or just for sex workers?

Dravokivich

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.

Wasn't that IIE? EI has always had lots of links all over it with notices on how to report suspicious activity envolving possible trafficked/forced people.

All EI was, as far as I recall, was a directory.

to note, the article seems to refer to escorts ireland, which is a different site to escort-ireland.

aare

Czarcasm wrote: »

This is a bit rich coming from a corporate representative of Escort Ireland who tried to use public revulsion of the Magdelene laundries tragedy to support her case for the legalisation of prostitution.

It seems to me the real issue here is that the orders who ran the laundries have been trying to rebrand themselves dishonestly and force criminalisation of sex workers "for their own good" against their will and best interests through the use of a staggering amount of deceit and perfidy...

I do not think it matters if the person who stands up and blows the whistle on that abomination is sitting on death row for serial murder. It is still a hard fact that, if let pass, will do more damage to Irish sex workers and their families in the future than the wildest white slaver fantasies cooked by tabloids and salacious TV documentaries.

David900

Dravokivich wrote: »

Wasn't that IIE? EI has always had lots of links all over it with notices on how to report suspicious activity envolving possible trafficked/forced people.

All EI was, as far as I recall, was a directory.

to note, the article seems to refer to escorts ireland, which is a different site to escort-ireland.

Well the RTE documentary referenced EI, it named it quite a lot.

The blog is also linked to EI, if you click the link on the blog you're brought to the website with the large green banner.

Its not a secret or anything, I just think sexworkie should have made it clear of the organisation they are working for when they came on here.

aare

Czarcasm wrote: »

Hell of a difference though between selling a phone package as a product for the company you work for, and an individual selling their body as a product, or working for a pimp.

I would have thought that was entirely for the person doing the job to decide for themself, not for others to decide for them?

Czarcasm

SB2013 wrote: »

Are you against employing manual labour in general or just for sex workers?

Just to clear this up then-

I have nothing against manual labour.

I have nothing against sex workers.

What I am against is the exploitation of human beings, and faux concern and misrepresentation by vested interests on their behalf.

I also don't see any reason why any human being should be encouraged and facilitated in the use of their own body as a sexual commodity for financial gain. I do not see a reason why those who seek gratification from sex workers should be accommodated.


Before you jump down my throat and say "but you just said you don't have a problem with sex workers?", I don't, I have a problem with anyone encouraging or facilitating an individual's desire to become a sex worker when they should be encouraging them towards a career with real long term prospects and goals.

And before you say "but what if a sex worker enjoys their work?". Just because they enjoy what they do now does not mean they shouldn't be encouraged to do a hell of a lot better for themselves.

Sex workers are unnecessary in a modern society and in my opinion Ireland would be taking a step backwards were we to legislate for the encouragement of exploitation of another human being.

aare

David900 wrote: »

Well the RTE documentary referenced EI, it named it quite a lot.

The blog is also linked to EI, if you click the link on the blog you're brought to the website with the large green banner.

Its not a secret or anything, I just think sexworkie should have made it clear of the organisation they are working for when they came on here.

Just as an aside to keep this Red Herring going, as it is OBVIOUSLY of so much more STAGGERING importance than whether sex workers have the same right as anyone else to speak for themselves and make their own decisions, isn't that escort site owned by a guy called David?

:rolleyes:

Grayson

Czarcasm wrote: »

Hell of a difference though between selling a phone package as a product for the company you work for, and an individual selling their body as a product, or working for a pimp.

So, if went to a masseuse who covered me in oil and rubbed me all over, it's a little different to covering one particular part with oil and massaging that. But one is a respectable profession, the other isn't.

We all sell our bodies in different ways. I'll be honest, I wouldn't be comfortable sex work myself, but I wouldn't be comfortable with being a masseuse either.

Then again, I worked outbound sales once for a few days. Cold calling is a horrible job and I think I'd rather take it up the ass then do that again

My point is, we place our feelings about sex on our thoughts of what they (sex workers) do. people don't have to enjoy every single part of their job. they might want to do a different one or be working towards a different one. (I'm doing college and am applying for masters so I can get out of this job) but so long as they are doing it of their own free will, and there is no coercion, then who are we to judge their choices.

Dravokivich

David900 wrote: »

Well the RTE documentary referenced EI, it named it quite a lot.

The blog is also linked to EI, if you click the link on the blog you're brought to the website with the large green banner.

Its not a secret or anything, I just think sexworkie should have made it clear of the organisation they are working for when they came on here.

I know of the primetime thing alright, never got around to watching it. Remember of a show TV3 did too, which I think may have been the driver for RTE to do something. But referencing EI, isn't really getting a full view on such this subject. EI is out in the open and easily accessible with a quick google. Concern would be better placed with what isn't, IMO. Such as the primetime show that was done a few years back with the guy who was organising male prostitutes from a social welfare office and specifically targeting young men to use from there too.

To be honest, can't really check out the blog referenced earlier right now, as I'm in work, but will be giving it a look over later.

aare

Czarcasm wrote: »

What I am against is the exploitation of human beings, and faux concern and misrepresentation by vested interests on their behalf.

Good, than we can put you down as an opponent of Ruhama and "Turn Off the Red Light" who, historically and currently, specialise in intense "exploitation, and faux concern and misrepresentation" of sex workers and the sex industry and move on to expressing our disgust at sex workers being barred from representing themselves to counter that?

Seachmall

Czarcasm wrote: »

Just to clear this up then-

I have nothing against manual labour.

I have nothing against sex workers.

What I am against is the exploitation of human beings, and faux concern and misrepresentation by vested interests on their behalf.

I also don't see any reason why any human being should be encouraged and facilitated in the use of their own body as a sexual commodity for financial gain. I do not see a reason why those who seek gratification from sex workers should be accommodated.


Before you jump down my throat and say "but you just said you don't have a problem with sex workers?", I don't, I have a problem with anyone encouraging or facilitating an individual's desire to become a sex worker when they should be encouraging them towards a career with real long term prospects and goals.

And before you say "but what if a sex worker enjoys their work?". Just because they enjoy what they do now does not mean they shouldn't be encouraged to do a hell of a lot better for themselves.

Sex workers are unnecessary in a modern society and in my opinion Ireland would be taking a step backwards were we to legislate for the encouragement of exploitation of another human being.

Can you explain why working in the sex industry is different from (just an example) working in the construction industry?

The distinction seems intuitive to you but its not to me and I'd be interested in understanding where you're coming from.

David900

aare wrote: »

Just as an aside to keep this Red Herring going, as it is OBVIOUSLY of so much more STAGGERING importance than whether sex workers have the same right as anyone else to speak for themselves and make their own decisions, isn't that escort site owned by a guy called David?

:rolleyes:

I haven't said sex workers shouldn't speak for themselves. Do you want me to start using capital letters to emphasise sections of my posts as you don't seem to get the message?

What I said was, the people organising this campaign are doing it for their own financial benefit which should be known, as it would change a lot of peoples opinion on the matter. Both sides to an argument and all that...

Are you implying I run an escort website?

Seachmall

David900 wrote: »

What I said was, the people organising this campaign are doing it for their own financial benefit which should be known, as it would change a lot of peoples opinion on the matter. Both sides to an argument and all that...

In fairness the OP never hid it. Her(?) username makes it very clear she authors the blog, or at least works for it, and the blog makes it very clear it's owned by EI.

She never attempted to hid the fact that she works for EI. Nor does it make any difference in the discussion. Having a dog in the fight doesn't affect the quality of her posts. I don't see how it would change anyone's opinion.

David900

Seachmall wrote: »

In fairness the OP never hid it. Her(?) username makes it very clear she authors the blog, or at least works for it, and the blog makes it very clear it's owned by EI.

She never attempted to hid the fact that she works for EI. Nor does it make any difference in the discussion. Having a dog in the fight doesn't affect the quality of her posts.

Well then there shouldn't be any problem with pointing this out or the history/people connected to the site. Which might not be as well known but is still significant.

sexworkie

David900 wrote: »

Its not a secret or anything, I just think sexworkie should have made it clear of the organisation they are working for when they came on here.

Short of posting url to that website instead of blog I am working on (bearing in mind that posting escort website url is against rules here), I couldn't have made it much clearer? Did you even read the link I started this thread about?

This is a bit like the exclusion of sex workers from Justice Committee. Lets exclude all sex workers from Justice Committee. And lets stop sexworkie having a say on boards.ie as that blog is supported by an escort website (a perfectly legal business I might add, no criminals there), so lets brand her a pimp.

Ever occur to you that people like me who spend all day every day talking to sex workers might know industry well enough to have a useful opinion?

Grayson

Czarcasm wrote: »

And before you say "but what if a sex worker enjoys their work?". Just because they enjoy what they do now does not mean they shouldn't be encouraged to do a hell of a lot better for themselves.

better for themselves how? They probably earn more in a day than i do in a week. I personally wouldn't do it, but I can see why the money is a very good incentive.

But i expect you mean better in a moral manner. You're looking down on people rather than being objective. You're just as bad as the magdalene sisters.

Seachmall

David900 wrote: »

Well then there shouldn't be any problem with pointing this out or the history/people connected to the site. Which might not be as well known but is still significant.

No problem with it at all, although it does allow for fallacious argument.

Her posts should be addressed on their own merit, nothing more, nothing less.


Also, can you link an article for my own interest? (You might have done before but I haven't seen it and Google isn't doing much for me).

aare

David900 wrote: »

I haven't said sex workers shouldn't speak for themselves. Do you want me to start using capital letters to emphasise sections of my posts as you don't seem to get the message?

What I said was, the people organising this campaign are doing it for their own financial benefit which should be known, as it would change a lot of peoples opinion on the matter. Both sides to an argument and all that...

Are you implying I run an escort website?

Do you?

...more trying to find a way to distract you back to the point here.

I don't think there *IS* a "campaign"...I think there SHOULD be, and I know that, because of the stigma (not just to themselves, but to their families) it is almost impossible for sex workers to organise and protest in any normal way, and that "Turn Of The Red Light" and the Justice Committee have taken HUGE advantage of that all along, unchallenged, without the slightest concern for the detriment of their actions to the sex workers they will affect.

In the light of all that I really DO NOT CARE who feels they can afford to protest, as long as somebody does, and finds a way to MAKE A LOT OF NOISE, before it is too late and we have sex workers at greater risk, with drastically reduced incomes being driven like farm animals into the clutches of unscrupulous and fanatical organisations like Ruhama.

Fact is, if anyone other than sex workers were being treated in such a shabby, shoddy, dehumanising way the whole country would be protesting...and, last time I checked, sex workers were just as good as anyone else...

So if nobody else gives a bolix how they are treated they will just have to make do with whoever WILL protest.

David900

sexworkie wrote: »

Short of posting url to that website instead of blog I am working on (bearing in mind that posting escort website url is against rules here), I couldn't have made it much clearer? Did you even read the link I started this thread about?

This is a bit like the exclusion of sex workers from Justice Committee. Lets exclude all sex workers from Justice Committee. And lets stop sexworkie having a say on boards.ie as that blog is supported by an escort website (a perfectly legal business I might add, no criminals there), so lets brand her a pimp.

Ever occur to you that people like me who spend all day every day talking to sex workers might know industry well enough to have a useful opinion?

I do think sex workers should be included in the Justice Committee, however, I feel maybe the sex workers that would appear at the committee of their own free will would not represent all sex workers in Ireland today, but that is a separate point.

I don't want to exclude you from the argument either, I just thought it might be for the best to highlight the history of the website to let people decide for themselves.

You probably do have a good idea of the sex industry in Ireland, but in my view it is tainted by your involvement in a profit seeking website so closely connected to it.

David900

Seachmall wrote: »

No problem with it at all, although it does allow for fallacious argument.

Her posts should be addressed on their own merit, nothing more, nothing less.


Also, can you link an article for my own interest? (You might have done before but I haven't seen it and Google isn't doing much for me).

But surely then the work of Ruhama should be based on its own merits, not who is funding it? The other side of this argument has tried to drag the funders of their rival into the argument so it is only balanced to do the same?

I'm not sure I can as most of the articles have names printed?

Czarcasm

aare wrote: »

It seems to me the real issue here is that the orders who ran the laundries have been trying to rebrand themselves dishonestly and force criminalisation of sex workers "for their own good" against their will and best interests through the use of a staggering amount of deceit and perfidy...

See there's the thing. I personally don't give a damn about Ruhuma or where they or the other fourteen vested interest parties who want to criminalize sex work came from. I don't care about their reasons either. I'm only speaking from my own point of view, not getting up on my high horse or trying to be a part of the moral majority, etc. The whole "old catholic Ireland" argument of sex worker advocates is lost on me too as far as I'm concerned.

What does matter to me though is when a business with a vested interest in the subject comes on and tries to claim that they too are only interested in the welfare of sex workers, and use the same staggering amount of deceitful propaganda and misleading information to promote their business. There's hello@boards.ie if they want to advertise their blogs and their business like that. Otherwise it's just as deceitful and dishonest as the crap you hear from the anti sex worker side.

I do not think it matters if the person who stands up and blows the whistle on that abomination is sitting on death row for serial murder. It is still a hard fact that, if let pass, will do more damage to Irish sex workers and their families in the future than the wildest white slaver fantasies cooked by tabloids and salacious TV documentaries.

Ehh, it kinda DOES matter, obviously! What are we doing here if we are not examining the sources of where our information is coming from that is being fed to us? Just because a particular vested interest party supports your position does not mean you shouldn't question it's validity or it's credibility!

And I'm sure it also has occurred to you that the same media you accuse of fantasy writing and salacious tv docs, are the same media and tv channels whose investigative journalism led to the exposing of the Magdelene laundries? Or are you again picking and choosing what you want to hear from what sources?

Do you believe there are sexy girls waiting to meet you too at your location when you see the adverts on the internet?

Anyone

Seachmall wrote: »

No problem with it at all, although it does allow for fallacious argument.

Her posts should be addressed on their own merit, nothing more, nothing less.


Also, can you link an article for my own interest? (You might have done before but I haven't seen it and Google isn't doing much for me).

Hmm not sure I agree. If the OP has a financial interest in the site as opposed to being an advertiser, then I will view their opinions very differently.

Seachmall

David900 wrote: »

but in my view it is tainted by your involvement in a profit seeking website so closely connected to it.

In that single sentence you've dismissed the relevance of every lobby group in the world.

Anyone wrote: »

Hmm not sure I agree. If the OP has a financial interest in the site as opposed to being an advertiser, then I will view their opinions very differently.

It's not a question of their opinion (of course it gives a better understanding of why they hold their opinion) but it shouldn't affect the merit of their posts.

If they make a claim that is true it is true regardless of their reasons for making it, likewise if it's false.

David900

aare wrote: »

Do you?

...more trying to find a way to distract you back to the point here.

I don't think there *IS* a "campaign"...I think there SHOULD be, and I know that, because of the stigma (not just to themselves, but to their families) it is almost impossible for sex workers to organise and protest in any normal way, and that "Turn Of The Red Light" and the Justice Committee have taken HUGE advantage of that all along, unchallenged, without the slightest concern for the detriment of their actions to the sex workers they will affect.

In the light of all that I really DO NOT CARE who feels they can afford to protest, as long as somebody does, and finds a way to MAKE A LOT OF NOISE, before it is too late and we have sex workers at greater risk, with drastically reduced incomes being driven like farm animals into the clutches of unscrupulous and fanatical organisations like Ruhama.

Fact is, if anyone other than sex workers were being treated in such a shabby, shoddy, dehumanising way the whole country would be protesting...and, last time I checked, sex workers were just as good as anyone else...

So if nobody else gives a bolix how they are treated they will just have to make do with whoever WILL protest.

Just to answer your question. No I don't.