Loz

Had to happen sooner or later...! :o)

Generous, SJ.

Can't see anything there that didn't have me nodding in agreement, LD. Legalise it and make it safe.

cordsm Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Personally, I find the Swedish policy very hard to argue with....although understand both p.o.v. > > "In Sweden, it is understood that any society that claims to defend principles of legal, political, > economic, and social equality for women and girls must reject the idea that women and children, > mostly girls, are commodities that can be bought, sold, and sexually exploited by men. To > do otherwise is to allow that a separate class of female human beings, especially women > and girls who are economically and racially marginalized, is excluded from these measures" But aren't all those good intentions essentially useless and, indeed, counter-productive when the actual effect of such measures is to put the prostitutes in more danger than they were in before? Plus, as I said originally, cut off their one and only means of an income? The obvious solution is to provide a way out for those that are not their of their own volition. Support, training, protection, drug help. But that seems to be an expensive path that no government seems to want to attempt.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I thing the bindel/gold etc articles are sticking > in loz's mind more than the opposing view As usual, I think that we will have to agree to disagree. But anyway, it seems we are arguing - even (gosh!) agreeing on the same view on the actual subject, just disagreeing about what the Guardian thinks.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Well, to be fair, it avoids having Rosie try to 'educate' me. > > You're in trouble now.. Now?

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe you're the only one who reads all the articles about hookers. Well, to be fair, it avoids having Rosie try to 'educate' me. *shudder*

Am I the only one that actually reads the Guardian here? They've supported the Swedish model of effectively banning prostitution (legalise selling of sex, criminalise buying of sex) for quite some time.

Jeremy Wrote: > > StraferJack Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > I always thought THIS policy was a Guardian type position > > Me too. Loz is a closet lefty Guardianista, etc etc How VERY dare you...

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "all we can so is make it as safe as possible and > listen to the workers themselves and what they > want/need." > > I always thought THIS policy was a Guardian type position Not in my many years reading it - they've always seemed to push the 'Swedish Model' of banning it and pushing it underground. They do get an occasional (very good) writer in from the English Collective of Prostitutes, but her's seems a lone voice.

But what is the alternative? Do we take this tired, middle-class, Guardianesque thinktheyknowitalls approach? "These poor women - look at them. They have no other option in life but to prostitute themselves." "What should we do?" "Ban prostitution!!" I understand why you are uncomfortable, but really, all we can so is make it as safe as possible and listen to the workers themselves and what they want/need.

Happy Ramadan! I've worked alongside Muslims during Ramadan - even working in IT it seemed really taxing on them, especially late afternoons. Good luck with it.

RosieH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And Loz, as for forced - this is generally recognised to mean by dire financial need and > mouths to feed, addiction, the threat of violence. There are doubtless other reasons, that you could > educate yourself about if you chose to. Big difference between those, Rosie. I don't really think 'mouths to feed', for instance, equates to 'forced', as it could equally apply to any job. And I don't really appreciate your rather snide 'educate yourself' comment, either. I am reasonable well educated about the topic, thank you very much.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not sure it's all that funny. It's a pretty > dangerous and depressing trade which many are > forced into. Would you care to define 'forced'...

Yeah, really. Because it represents a much bigger issue.

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This was to domestic violence what Punch and Judy > is to gritty and poignant documentary. > Equating the two in a snotty fashion is rather > guardianista shurely? OK, I'll bite - why do you say that? What is it about that incident makes it so dismissable? A guy being hit by a women? Celebrity - did you find the Chris Brown/Rihanna incident hilariously funny as well? Or is a punch in the mouth not a high enough level of domestic violence to take seriously?

Actually I think Grant Mitchell/Ross Kemp was pretty brave getting this out into the open. He risked (and it seems is still getting) a lot of derision from the hypocrisy brigade. Honestly, I am pretty disgusted with some people I expected better from.

Oh, god it's that Guardianesque hypocrisy again. Would you be so flippant if he's given her a bit of a slap? Really, I do not find any domestic violence a laughing matter. I'm really surprised at both of you. I expected better.

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it boils down to people just don't like > proper gingas, especially if they look vaguely > like a witch. > > Thogh beating grant mitchell up is pretty funny. Yeah, because domestic violence is just such a laughing matter.

I was reading the Independent at lunchtime and they said that just about all of the hacking incidences presented at the trial occurred under Coulson's watch. The one exception that was under Brookes' editorial reign, she was conveniently away on holiday at the time. Make of that what you will.

I watched the last hour or so yesterday and even this Aussie felt sorry for Anderson and the team. It was a truly great rearguard action. Not sure, though, why Moeen Ali didn't do more in the second last over to ensure he was on strike for the last. Anyone taking any bets on how long Cook lasts in the job? It's balancing up the fact he is a truly dire captain in the depth of a bad trot on the batting front, versus the traditional ECB refusal to change anything much at all.

Claire-T Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > She looked into the jury's eyes and turned them to stone. More likely slipped each one a note outlining exactly what information she had on each of them...

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Whaddya got?" > > (Marlon Brando in The Wild One and not James Dean (surprisingly) in Rebel without a Cause in answer > to the question - what are you rebelling against?) "Down with this sort of thing" "Careful now"

I can't say I followed the trial too deeply, but I had just hoped that one of the most evil people in the country would spend a lot of time behind bars. Sadly, not to be.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > > But surely you can see that, if a group of people creates a term that objectifies themselves, then > > surely the blame for this lies squarely with them and them only? > > Not really. According to the politics of oppression, if you can get a group to police > themselves you can sit back and enjoy the pay-offs, rewarding them for compliance and if > they complain blaming them for oppressing themselves. Yeah, now that is the sort of argument the Gruin writers employ that a) really annoys me and b) infantilises women. It implies women cannot take responsibility for their own actions because, when women do something bad, it is still that big ol' patriarchy's fault. Besides, whilst sex discrimination is still alive and well in the UK, saying that UK women as a group are still 'oppressed' is pretty damn offensive to the oppressed peoples of the world. This is especially ludicrous when you consider that, as a group, the YMs are generally the more privileged in society.