Shoe stickers for call girls

kitten_caboodle · 22 Aug 2006 at 14:12

Interesting little snippet I found in the Daily Express earlier this morning:

Daily Express said:
Apparently, thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money is going to be used to provide anti-crime stickers for prostitutes to put on their shoes.

In what the article calls a ‘bizzare move’, ministers are apparently urging the women to stick the Crimestoppers hotline number on the soles of their shoes so that they can report violence against them quickly.

Association of Chief Police Officers spokesman, Tim Brain said : ‘Many prostitutes work rising injury and abuse. They are entited to the full protection of the law’

James Frayne, campaign director of the taxpayers alliance said ‘the things the Government wastes our money on get more bizzare by the week.’

What do people think about this if it is true? After all, prostitution is illegal, so can it really be justified that taxpayers' money is used to help the safety of those involved in illegal 'professions'? Does that mean we have to start supplying drug-dealers with bullet proof vests to at the expense of the average UK worker?

Edit: As pointed out by everyone who read the thead, prostitution isn't actually illegal, although the act of soliciting for sex is. Which is what most prostitutes do by definition.

For clarification: Wiki:

prostitution is not formally illegal, but several activities surrounding it are outlawed. In England and Wales, the legal situation is :-

* for a prostitute to loiter or conduct solicitation in a street or public place is illegal, therefore outlawing street prostitution.
* it is also illegal for a potential client to solicit persistently, or solicit from a motor vehicle ("kerb crawling"). (In 1992 the head of the Crown Prosecution Service, Sir Allan Green, was caught committing this offence and resigned.)
* owning or running a brothel is illegal.
* child prostitution is specifically illegal for the person paying (where child is defined as below 18, although the age of consent is 16)
* controlling prostitution for gain is an offence, banning pimping.

kitten_caboodle · 22 Aug 2006 at 14:16

yeah ok i think we've established that thanks. Only needs one to say it really.

Everybody know exactly what I meant, so lets not split hairs about the term used and just answer the question

kitten_caboodle · 22 Aug 2006 at 14:18

Visage said:
Of course its justified.

If you beat up a prostitute you're just as guilty of GBH as you would be if you assaulted a random person in the street. You cant claim 'Oh, she was breaking the law so I attacked her'. The only way guilt can be ascertained and punishment given is through the justice system. And until that process happens then these women deserve just as much protection fromthe law as anyone else.

but you wouldn't give a drug dealer a bullet proof vest to stop him being shot would you? Why do they deserve more protection than anyone else?

kitten_caboodle · 22 Aug 2006 at 14:23

Visage said:
Why not? It would mean that there was no point in other dealers carrying guns as they would now be in-efective......

Actually it would more likely just mean an increase in headshots.

Visage said:
Not more. The same protection as everyone else. Everyone has the right not to be beaten up.

I'm not being given stickers for my shoes though.

Werewolf said:
No, but there is a different, a prostitute is not actively harming anyone,

That's very open to debate.And comes down to your definition of harm. Drug dealers aren't harming anyone either, they're just selling a service. As do prostitutes.

kitten_caboodle · 22 Aug 2006 at 14:26

I'd wonder if the coppers were doing this so they could arrest more 'ladies of the night' too. A-ha!! You have a shoe sticker! You're under arrest!

kitten_caboodle · 22 Aug 2006 at 14:28

Visage said:
Do you regularly put yourself in a dangerous position with strange men?

Irrelevant really, majoritively they're doing so by choice. If I chose to go to a nightclub alone and go home to a flat with 7 blokes, most people would say it was my choice and why the hell should they pay for me to have stickers on my shoes in case I got attacked? And that's not illegal - stupid maybe, but not illegal.

kitten_caboodle · 22 Aug 2006 at 14:32

Visage said:
Hmm...so women who turn to prostitution do it freely? There's no element of coercion, or feeling that its the only option open to them?

I said majoritively. The fact is, if you do something illegal, you don't expect the protection of the law. Or at least you shouldn't. If they're beaten up, then fine, they need to be able to get in touch with the police. But then, what about university students who get attacked on their way home and can't get a copper for love nor money because all the money has been spent on looking after those who flaunt the law on a daily basis because it brings in more money than benefits?

There shouldn't be special treatment.

kitten_caboodle · 22 Aug 2006 at 14:33

Samtheman1k said:
I'm sure if you asked at the police station, they would give you some stickers...

I dont think so somehow

kitten_caboodle · 22 Aug 2006 at 14:34

Werewolf said:
but shoe stickers aren't any indication of a crime being commited.

the full definition is in the opening post. And I'm not sure what you're answering there... was it the coppers picking people up with them?

kitten_caboodle · 22 Aug 2006 at 14:38

Visage said:
*snip*.

Fair point. Well made

kitten_caboodle · 22 Aug 2006 at 17:24

manveruppd said:
Why the sole of the shoe though, I wonder? Is it because they spend a lot of time with their legs wrapped around their necks? Or is it to make it easy for OTHER people to read after they discover the prostitute's corpse lying face-down in an alley after she's been caught due to hobbling along on one foot trying to call Crimestoppers on her mobile?

I shouldn't have giggled.

kitten_caboodle · 22 Aug 2006 at 17:34

DAVEM said:
Hmmm. IMO more danger should warent more protection.

The army get bullet proof vests and guns to protect themselves, so those poor girls should get what ever they need IMO.

It's very dangerous industry and those ladies need any help they can get.

but they are partaking in an illegal industry. And the last time I checked the armed forces weren't an illegal service (though the legality of the wars they are involved in is debatable) And before anyone says that prostitution isn't illegal (WE KNOW), if they ain't soliciting, they won't get beaten up by the punters...will they??

kitten_caboodle · 22 Aug 2006 at 17:43

DAVEM said:
So it isn't illegal but these girls are going to do it anyway, BUT you dont want them to be protected... then your sick IMO... they don't deserve that, they don't WANT to do it (in most cases), they do it because they need the money or are forced into it.

Interested to know how you know that tbh. Seems to be a common misconception - just so happens that prostitution pays better than benefits. And lets not forget that prostitutes don't pay tax. What it does pay for is satisfying plenty of drug and drink problems. Not all, but a fair amount.

I never said it was fair to attack them. However if I chose to do something illegal and I was injured, people would say 'your fault' rather than throw money at helping me do it again safely.

I mean, wft are these people on if they can't remember 999? The whole industry should be legalised and taxed, then they'd be putting something back into the system rather than just taking out.

kitten_caboodle · 22 Aug 2006 at 17:46

DAVEM said:
Jesus these forums are getting worse

No, people's ignorance and refusal to see facts is getting worse.

If they can't ring 999 they can hardly go ringing the number on their feet then can they??

kitten_caboodle · 22 Aug 2006 at 17:57

DAVEM said:
No offense, but your comments are very worrying. The fact that they sleep with people for money is no excuse for them being treated badly and yes as tax payers we SHOULD pay to protect them, otherwise who else will??

This is not drug selling or murder these girls want to make some money and don't deserve what they often get,

No you are misreading my point and reacted angrily my post rather than finding out what I mean. I am NOT saying that they should not be protected. I am saying that if we are protecting people carrying out an illegal 'profession', then what's the point of having laws against it?

I question the precedent this sets though Visage did put forward a good argument for this a page or so ago.

As I said earlier, prostitution should be legalised (people paying for sex should be able to if they want to - we're not kids) and then girls selling sex would be protected and safe - it's the very system that makes it illegal that puts them into dangerous situations. Instead of giving them stupid stickers on their feet they should be putting the money into something more useful, like sexual health clinics and places that they can go to make sure they stay safe and protected. Making it illegal just demonises the women that do it, and many of them have enough problems as it is.

I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear

kitten_caboodle · 23 Aug 2006 at 09:49

Psyk said:
People here still can't seem to grasp that prostitution IS NOT ILLEGAL! A prostitute that gets all her business through word of mouth, does not have a pimp/mistress, and does not live with another prostitute has not commited any crime whatsoever.

I'm sorry but you are wrong. If she has sex for money then she has still solicited for sex. If she has slept with a client who knows that he will need to pay for her services, then it is illegal and she has committed a crime. I can't see how people can make such a point of the actual definition of the crime when the fact is that although to be a prostitute isn't illegal, the actions needed to become a prostitute are - therefore they are all breaking the law, even if they've only done it once!
(check out the first post for a legal definition from wiki).