Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

I don't believe that many prostitutes make a genuinely free choice to work the streets. Addiction, a history of abuse and direct coercion often plays a role. For some people I guess it's just difficulty seeing any alternatives. It can be debated ad nauseum and people will have their own views on it, but personally I think it's depressing.

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.

Salsaboy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you ban prostitution, it will just move

> underground. At least this way the well meaning do

> gooder outreach workers know where to find the

> girls.


At least if it moves underground it will be no where near my back yard until the bakerloo extension reaches us in 2028

So it's some kind of 'middle class' indulgence not to take pleasure in seeing girls involved in street prostitution (which by any measure is an extremely dangerous trade)?


Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 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.

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.

Baggs Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> At least if it moves underground it will be no

> where near my back yard until the bakerloo

> extension reaches us in 2028


Do not fear, Bakerloo line will be going via Old Kent Rd, not ED or Peckham Rye! So come 2028, eastern European labourers won't be the only ones looking for jobs in the B&Q car park.


StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I always thought THIS policy was a Guardian type position


Me too. Loz is a closet lefty Guardianista, etc etc

EDF's Law - 'As an EDF discussion grows longer, the probability of the term 'Guardianista' or 'middle class' being used as a pejorative approaches 1'


RosieH Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What's the Guardian equivalent of Godwin's Law?

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Weren't there some posts on this a while back? I

> seem to remember someone saying they were worried

> about their children being approached by potential

> punters.


xxxxxxx


I remember a thread like that, and I thought it was a wind-up?


ETA: I mean I thought the original post on the thread was a wind-up, not the person who was worried about their children being approached (and I'm assuming the references to "children" in this case to be teenage girls)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • why do we think we have the right for the elected local council to be transparent?
    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...