<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Prostitution</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.phillip-lee.com/politics-home/120-prostitution/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.phillip-lee.com/politics-home/120-prostitution/</link>
	<description>The Blog Of Phillip Lee</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:29:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: GHJ</title>
		<link>http://www.phillip-lee.com/politics-home/120-prostitution/comment-page-1/#comment-564</link>
		<dc:creator>GHJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2011 22:05:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/?p=120#comment-564</guid>
		<description>This is an interesting debate that has been ongoing for many years in Thailand, and if you wish to seriously research the relevancies of legalising brothels as opposed to decriminalising prostitution, then you could do far worse than checking through the online archives of CityLife ChiangMai magazine (http://www.citylife-citylife.com (if I remember correctly)).

They surveyed at length and reported deeply on the issues and feelings of the women involved, and included much input from NGO and representation groups for the women and the establishments where they worked.

The over-riding concensus was that all involved in the industry preferred decriminalisation to legalisation - the difference is subtle.  Legalisation would simply bond them via legal measures into working for legalised pimps.  Decriminalisation would allow them the same place of employment freedoms accorded to all other worker groups.  With decriminalisation, they would be free to form &quot;unions&quot; and support groups, to arrange collectives and health care etc.  With legalisation, they would be forced to accept only what employers were willing to offer, and would be &quot;herd&quot; managed in licensed establishments.

When the series completed (and it was/is a monthly publication) the debaters from the &quot;puritan&quot; side of the fence concurred that the arguments put forward by the women were more sensible and practical than those from anyone else.  

Agreed, licensed premises allow a modicum of locale control under planning and business use regulations, but run the risk of creating &quot;mafia-like&quot; control groups within those licensed.  All who have studied the topic consider the free enterprise model for the women themselves, to be the preferable choice from legislature.

The one aspect you did not address however, and extremely pertinent in today&#039;s post-Labour Britain, is the Immigration effect.  Not the trafficked peoples side of it - that is sufficiently covered already - but whether it should or would be acceptable for masses of EEA and non-EEA nationals from poorer countries to arrive in the UK and immediately set up as prostitutes and brothel staff.  

Should it be an employ reserved only for locals?  Is that a debate for the Euro MPs to handle, or should it be a matter for local rather than EU legislation?  

That is a whole new fence to sit upon, and one that has barbed wire along the top, so you&#039;d need to jump down on one side or the other, rather quickly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is an interesting debate that has been ongoing for many years in Thailand, and if you wish to seriously research the relevancies of legalising brothels as opposed to decriminalising prostitution, then you could do far worse than checking through the online archives of CityLife ChiangMai magazine (<a href="http://www.citylife-citylife.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.citylife-citylife.com</a> (if I remember correctly)).</p>
<p>They surveyed at length and reported deeply on the issues and feelings of the women involved, and included much input from NGO and representation groups for the women and the establishments where they worked.</p>
<p>The over-riding concensus was that all involved in the industry preferred decriminalisation to legalisation &#8211; the difference is subtle.  Legalisation would simply bond them via legal measures into working for legalised pimps.  Decriminalisation would allow them the same place of employment freedoms accorded to all other worker groups.  With decriminalisation, they would be free to form &#8220;unions&#8221; and support groups, to arrange collectives and health care etc.  With legalisation, they would be forced to accept only what employers were willing to offer, and would be &#8220;herd&#8221; managed in licensed establishments.</p>
<p>When the series completed (and it was/is a monthly publication) the debaters from the &#8220;puritan&#8221; side of the fence concurred that the arguments put forward by the women were more sensible and practical than those from anyone else.  </p>
<p>Agreed, licensed premises allow a modicum of locale control under planning and business use regulations, but run the risk of creating &#8220;mafia-like&#8221; control groups within those licensed.  All who have studied the topic consider the free enterprise model for the women themselves, to be the preferable choice from legislature.</p>
<p>The one aspect you did not address however, and extremely pertinent in today&#8217;s post-Labour Britain, is the Immigration effect.  Not the trafficked peoples side of it &#8211; that is sufficiently covered already &#8211; but whether it should or would be acceptable for masses of EEA and non-EEA nationals from poorer countries to arrive in the UK and immediately set up as prostitutes and brothel staff.  </p>
<p>Should it be an employ reserved only for locals?  Is that a debate for the Euro MPs to handle, or should it be a matter for local rather than EU legislation?  </p>
<p>That is a whole new fence to sit upon, and one that has barbed wire along the top, so you&#8217;d need to jump down on one side or the other, rather quickly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: arash</title>
		<link>http://www.phillip-lee.com/politics-home/120-prostitution/comment-page-1/#comment-142</link>
		<dc:creator>arash</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Feb 2010 19:52:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/?p=120#comment-142</guid>
		<description>hi
it was so good, please send me some more!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hi<br />
it was so good, please send me some more!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phillip Lee</title>
		<link>http://www.phillip-lee.com/politics-home/120-prostitution/comment-page-1/#comment-31</link>
		<dc:creator>Phillip Lee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Dec 2006 11:07:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/?p=120#comment-31</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt; I admit to being very uncomfortable astride this particular fence. Honestly though, I have problems with society legalising prostitution - how many women had dreams of growing up to be working girls? My difficulty stems from both the realities I have encountered in clinical practice and my own libertarian streak (which runs deep). Opiate drug users are very vulnerable because of the strength of their addiction - to get that hit a user will do almost anything. However, I am uncomfortable about denying a woman&#039;s right to choose to be a &#039;working girl&#039;. And if she does choose that form of emlpoyment, she should have access to appropriate and effective health services. &lt;/p&gt;
   &lt;p&gt; Hence this is why I find myself on the fence. If I had to commit to a policy, I suspect, as I indicated in my original posting, I would pragmatically support the introduction of legalised brothels (with the regulatory framework you suggest). More agreement Graeme. It must be the Christmas spirit flowing........ &lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> I admit to being very uncomfortable astride this particular fence. Honestly though, I have problems with society legalising prostitution &#8211; how many women had dreams of growing up to be working girls? My difficulty stems from both the realities I have encountered in clinical practice and my own libertarian streak (which runs deep). Opiate drug users are very vulnerable because of the strength of their addiction &#8211; to get that hit a user will do almost anything. However, I am uncomfortable about denying a woman&#39;s right to choose to be a &#39;working girl&#39;. And if she does choose that form of emlpoyment, she should have access to appropriate and effective health services. </p>
<p> Hence this is why I find myself on the fence. If I had to commit to a policy, I suspect, as I indicated in my original posting, I would pragmatically support the introduction of legalised brothels (with the regulatory framework you suggest). More agreement Graeme. It must be the Christmas spirit flowing&#8230;&#8230;.. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Graeme Hoskin</title>
		<link>http://www.phillip-lee.com/politics-home/120-prostitution/comment-page-1/#comment-30</link>
		<dc:creator>Graeme Hoskin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Dec 2006 09:35:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/?p=120#comment-30</guid>
		<description>Come on, come off the fence. The solution to this seems pretty obvious, I think. Allow only heavily regulated brothels which are closely inspected to ensure people trafficing is not taking place and that women with drugs problems are getting the help they need. Then make illegal the buying of and the organisation of the sale of sex other than at these licenced tax-paying establishements (a stealth tax we all agree with?. However, decriminalise the prostitutes themselves and lock up the pimps and curb crawlers. Is this too simplistic?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Come on, come off the fence. The solution to this seems pretty obvious, I think. Allow only heavily regulated brothels which are closely inspected to ensure people trafficing is not taking place and that women with drugs problems are getting the help they need. Then make illegal the buying of and the organisation of the sale of sex other than at these licenced tax-paying establishements (a stealth tax we all agree with?. However, decriminalise the prostitutes themselves and lock up the pimps and curb crawlers. Is this too simplistic?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

