Tis a Monday morning, the birds are wheezing and the skies are grey..time to award my world famous and internationally renowned "Prat of The Week" Award.This week it goes to Nanny's Home Economics Minister, Jacqui Smith.
Ms Smith has evidently had a rush of blood to the head, or is suffering from some form of delusion that she can change thousands of years of human socio economic history and human nature itself.
Her plan?
Banning prostitution (in a round about sort of way) and cutting down the number of lap dancing clubs (re the clubs...ermm didn't many of these sprout up during Labour's many years in orifice?).
Anyhoo, Ms Smith's great plan is that she will fine men who pay for sex with prostitutes who are "controlled".
Under the new offence, men would not be able to claim in court that they had not known the prostitute had a pimp or a drug habit.
"It won't be enough to say, 'I didn't know'.
What I hope people will say is, 'I am not actually going to take the risk if there is any concern that this woman hasn't made a free choice.' It would be quite difficult for a man paying for sex in the majority of cases not to fall under this particular offence."
Will she be prosecuting women who pay for sex with other women/men, or is that different in her eyes?
How will the state catch a man paying for sex with a "controlled" person, and prove that the person is "controlled"?
It sounds to me as though Ms Smith doesn't believe that women are capable of managing their own lives or making decisions for themselves without being drug dependent or "controlled".
Patronising isn't she?
Prohibition of booze in the USA didn't work and spawned the Mafia. Despite stringent drugs laws, Britain is awash with drugs and those that control the trade make a nice living.
This has no chance in hell of eliminating/controlling prostitution, the world's oldest profession, all it will do is drive it further underground thus pushing those who are most vulnerable further into danger and spawning further criminal activity.
When will Nanny learn that banning things more often than not causes even more problems?
Jacqui Smith, well deserving Prat of The Week.
Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.
Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.
Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.
www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
Celebrate the joy of living with champagne. Click and drink!
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Labour....It's a new fine everyday!!
ReplyDeleteIt sounds as if these prostitutes will in effect have two pimps....Their real pimp who receives his "cut" direct from the girl and Nanny who receives her "cut" straight from the punter via the court system.....Kerching!!
Ken,
ReplyDeleteAs we know, Nanny disapproves of sex, except under those circumstances in which it produces new little wards of the state.
Nanny must have been browsing through her dog-earred edition of 1984, using it - as you so often say - as a blueprint rather than a warning.
The sensible way to control "vices" such as prostitution and drugs is to regulate their provision and quality, protect the working conditions of those supplying them, and tax them heftily, as is already done with tobacco and booze. Although this would not entirely eliminate the criminal element which always thrives on individual choices which are frowned on by Nanny, it would keep the seedy side of prostitution within bounds, whereas what Nanny Smith is now proposing will ensure that pimping, racketeering, blackmail, and quite possibly murder will swiftly rocket.
ReplyDeleteAs Ken says, do these witless fools now running the country - not for much longer, I trust - know nothing of the history of Prohibition in America - the golden age of gangsterism?
As for attempting to buck the market for paid sexual services, if they can't even curb the reckless financial excesses of City bankers they should leave consenting bonkers well alone.
Kerry McCarthy (Labour) MP received her copy of '1984' and responded with a snippy comment with reference to this very subject (one of her pet projects, together with saving disabled gay whales). After receiving 50 comments on her blog, she shut down commenting.
ReplyDeleteWhy can so many people, and not NuLabour, realise that their 'solutions' are doomed to failure and, indeed, sometimes cause more problems than the original one?
Perhaps Margaret Beckett's comment on Question Time last week is applicable to her colleagues as well as herself:
"One of the reasons that I went into politics was because I didn't have the skills to be a social worker."
Jay
Most women who dance in strip clubs may do lap dances but thats as far as they go If a women has the stuff to strut, and men are willing to throw their hard earned dollars at them, why shouldnt she make her living that way? Drugs or pimps are most likely not involved, esp. in the nicer clubs.
ReplyDeleteBack in the 80's when I was in college, male strip clubs were in vogue (ala chippedales). I went once with friends just for a laugh and the women in there were crazy, stufing dollar bills down gstrings like there was no tomorrow. The guys got rich, and why not. It was just a fad tho, but I still fondly remember "Big John" Sigh.
Debbie
What about all those midlife housewives who frenziedly whipped off their knickers and flung them at young male pop stars [who were frequently gay!] and even at the odious Gary Glitter.
ReplyDeleteAs for whether their new laws will actually work or not, these ZanuLab feminist ideologues don't care in the least. For them, it's establishing the principle that counts. Someone else will have to clean up the resulting mess.
And let us look forward with glee to the first prominent New Labour politician to be "named and shamed" if these preposterous proposals ever become law. Perhaps William Hill will open a book on it?
ReplyDeleteHopefully then the first batch in front of the beak will be an assortment of Government ministers playing away from home, Judges and a few Lords a leaping.
ReplyDeleteOr is this another NuLab law that the elite have immunity for.
Awrr bless...
ReplyDeleteand there was I, thinking that our 'dear' Jacqui Smith would be far too worried about her own personal 'borrowed fingerprints'to be worried about other such 'pressing' issues....
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/06/smith_dabs_grab/
Take a look at this:
ReplyDeletehttp://antarena.blogspot.com/2008/11/potty-proposal.html
Very good blog post by anticant. Sums up the situation nicely.
ReplyDeleteMore bad law and dog whistle politics from Labour.
Thinking a bit more about this, it strikes me as being a very cynical proposal. We know that the original New Labour thinking was to follow Sweden and criminalise paying for sex per se, as advocated for over a year by Harmon.
ReplyDeleteWhat they propose effectively does just that though, without on the face of it appearing to, by shifting the burden of proof to the defendant. It also plays fast and loose with English law considerations of mens rea, the guilty intent. Not for the first time Labour intend to criminalise a person in the absence of proof of mens rea. It is the imposition of state morality on personal conscience which permeates so much of their bad law, ignoring the practicalities of enforcement in the interest of making a moral statement.
The question of the English law crime of 'abetting' a criminal offence has been raised elsewhere. As soon as this law comes into force the prostitute must also be guilty of abetting the primary offence. The only way round this is to exempt her from prosecution or for CPS to decide not to prosecute, presumably on the grounds that she is a victim not responsible for her acts. This will be difficult territory though because it is almost discriminatory against men. Maybe that is the idea.
Dixon
ReplyDeletere Sweden, prostitution is alive and well via the internet.
A few years ago a prominent Swedish politician (one of those who voted for the law) was found trawling through the internet looking for a lady.
Re "This will be difficult territory though because it is almost discriminatory against men. Maybe that is the idea."
Jacqui will be in for a shock methinks, women also pay for sex ...the law, if it is to be applied fairly, will also criminalise them.
I think it is unworkable, how do you prove that someone is "controlled"?
Does "pimp" include women who run brothels, or escort agencies?
Are escorts, because they work under contract for an agency, "controlled"?
Or is Jacqui merely thinking of some large bloke in a wide suit with a large white hat and fur coat, when she refers to a "pimp"?
This will end in tears as the lawyers will tear it apart.
Ken
Hopefully someone convicted of this will take the government to the European Court of Human Rights [which does have its uses!]
ReplyDelete