Memorandum submitted by Adrian Nicholas (PC 24)

 

Dear esteemed committee,

I am writing in response to the Policing and Crime Bill regarding the Committee discussions on Thursday, having already written to my constituency M.P., the RH Andrew Turner, IOW.

 

One cannot feel extremely concerned about the safety and the human rights of people who work and participate in the sex industry. I would particularly urge members to scrutinise carefully the implications of proposals and drop section 20, which gives the police wide ranging powers to seal premises on suspicion (i.e. with no proof) that a wide of activities related to prostitution have happened or will happen. This will remove the protection of the law from many people in the indoor industry as people will not call the police if they know doing so risks closing the premises so we will suffer increased violence, robbery and rape.

Also regarding section 13 and criminalisation of clients? will do nothing to stop violence or trafficking, but will play into the hands of traffickers by decreasing reporting by clients of anxieties about trafficking.

 

Commonsensely, it is quite clear that will further marginalise the vulnerable and single mothers, etc. at a time of widespread economic depression and to pretend that this bill will eradicate or prohibit prostitution or the sex industry is palpably absurd. The moral case is for decriminalisation and proper regularisation- the obverse is middle class guilt and blatant hypocrisy particularly as many of people are aware of the deregulation and 'greed is good' fallacy that permeates financial market 'ethos'.

 

Moreover, despite a further attack on personal freedom and liberty which this anticipates in a judgemental albeit politically altruistic manner given the underlying motivation and abstraction of deplorable use of child and women from overseas and eastern Europe in pert a direct consequence of financial deregulation and the use of cheap labour by changes in EU employment legislation!

 

A genuine enforcement of equality, diversity and social inclusion with regard to marginalised British subjects human tights should be the priority- not forcing and criminalising sex, since one might add that arranged marriages and inequality by economic advantage outlined in Dickens time has also been convenient in higher echelons for economic marriages and alliances of convenience and property ownership.

 

You cannot distinguish between those ethical, if indeed there are any? In this day and age, albeit you could damage the ambit of pursuing communities in control with regard to common people.

 

One must perhaps ,remember ,the last time a government pursued a highly suspect and selectively judgemental 'moral crusade; during the late 1980's - members would be well advised to have regard to public scrutiny and perceptions of this in a blatant and misguided attempt to avoid proper health and safety of the most marginalised and economic disadvantaged in society.

 

Please re-evaluate and apply practicality not misjudged 'morality' or sweep under the carpet and cause distress to many British subjects whose human condition is for you to reguaralise and apply honest concern to health and safety in a responsible regulatory manner with regard to consequence of her majesty's good subjects.

 

February 2009