Punishment for the perpetrators of the sex trade, not its victims

It is only too right that men who buy sex should face potential prosecution and punishment.

The current legislation surrounding prostitution penalises prostitutes themselves, a large proportion of whom have been illegally trafficked into this country for use as sex workers, or driven to prostitution through poverty and drug abuse. Hardly the "free choice" that some people cite as a reason for legalising prostitution, or evidence that poverty-striken, crack addict or otherwise desperate women are often better off earning money in the sex trade than anywhere else. Nor is this a demonstration that prostitutes "know what they are doing" when they enter the sex trade; research has found that four fifths of London prostitutes are from abroad - mainly from eastern Europe and south east Asia - and a large number have come to this country on the understanding that they would be provided with jobs in restaurants or cafes, security and "a better way of life".

Current laws do, fortunately, crack down harshly on those men (and occasionally women) involved in the supplying of sex workers from foreign countries to the streets of Britain, but the men who actually pay for their services, provide the money and thus create the demand in the first place, get off scot free.

Eight years ago Sweden took the step of criminalising men who buy sex, and decriminalising the act of selling it, which has led to a huge decrease in the number of brothels, as well as significantly lowering the level of trafficking into the country.

Discussions at this stage in Britain include the naming and shaming of men caught kerb crawling, and changes in legislation to see the criminalisation of men paying for sex, though no concrete proposals have yet been made. The sooner the better. It's about time that in this country, where women's rights, the pay gap and gender equality are so high on the government agenda, something is done to punish the men who undermine the whole concept of women's rights, not to mention the self-respect of the individual women concerned. This rather than penalising the women themselves, who need help, not punishment.

Sources:
The Guardian
The New Statesman

First prize a box of Quality Street. Second prize breast implants.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Great Crested Dweeb

What on earth is going on with the fashion for Russell Brand haircuts?

Besides the fact that the man is a total prat, he looks like he's opted for a home haircut with no mirror after several glasses of wine, having had an unfortunate run-in with a bramble bush or three. As a consequence he bears an uncanny resemblance to the great crested grebe :

A bit harsh on the bird, perhaps.

This hairstyle is usually accompanied by punk/indie-style attire, comprising baggy, colourful tops, lots of eyeliner, Converse All-Star basketball boots and skinny jeans, which would look a lot better if the waistline was worn on the decent side of the arsecheeks. A centimetre or so of pants sticking out the top of your trousers is acceptable, providing they're not the ones that you've had since you were fifteen that you found at the back of your underwear drawer because your hair isn't the only thing you haven't washed for weeks, but some people go that one inch too far. Do you not understand? I don't want to see your bum.

History has shown us that fashion and good taste don't always go hand in hand, but the overgrown, lost-my-hairbrush-and-can't-afford-a-new-one, great crested grebe, arse-to-the-air look is just too silly for words.

For Christ's Sake...

Until recently, if you wanted to become a member of Exeter University's Christian Union you had to self-define as Christian. The group is now taking the Guild (the Student Union) to court after it was decided by an independent body that non-Christians could become members.

Having read several newspaper articles about the matter, and found no reasonable argument as to why only those of the Christian faith should be allowed membership, I can only conclude that the Christian Union is behaving in an absurd and unjustifiable way.

Aside from the fact that the ECU (which, incidentally, has been forced to change its name to the Evangelical Christian Union) is explicitly breaking the rules and regulations of the Guild -

"it shall be an offence for any society ... to discriminate in any way against an individual or group of individuals based on their gender, ethnic origin, disabilities, sexuality, beliefs (including political and religious beliefs), physical appearance, or other personal attributes" -

if the ECU's principle of excluding those with alternative or non-defined viewpoints is applied to all societies, does this mean that Student Unions should exclude non-gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people from their LGBT societies? What about people who decide they don't want to attach a label or definition to their preferences? What about individuals unsure about their religion or sexuality, who are perhaps hoping to find reassurance, comfort and clarification by associating with a group of people who have supposedly similar motivations? Should the Lib Dem Society deny anyone without Party membership access to meetings, thus eliminating any possibility of debate or varied discussion? Should the French Society grant membership only to those in possession of a carte d'identité?

For me (despite being an Atheist), the essence of religion and of Christianity in particular, is charity to all, regardless of faith, gender, ethnic origin etc. For this reason and because there are so many different branches and sets of beliefs within the Christian faith itself, it seems anti-religious, not to mention fruitless, to try to separate Christians from non-Christians. Things just aren't as black and white as that.

Wars motivated by religion have been fought for centuries. However, in today's climate, where technology, warfare and the media are all far more sophisticated and therefore more destructive than they have ever been before, it is imperative that instead of engaging in constant battles against one another, different religions, ethnic groups and nationalities try to co-operate with one another so that we can all live in a safe, peaceful world. And that also applies to societies and groups on the smallest scale, like student societies.

Aside from all that, the Exeter ECU probably didn't need to be so cautious as to specify being Christian as an entry requirement. If you weren't Christian, you probably wouldn't want to go anyway.



Sources:
http://www.blogger.com/www.guardian.co.uk
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2136297,00.html

Green Smokescreen

Is it me, or is there a rather glaring contradiction in these two particular government moves?:

1. Criticising airlines for not trying hard enough on carbon offsetting, and
2. Giving its permission for a fifth terminal to open at Heathrow airport.

It seems that the British government will go to great lengths to demonstrate to its citizens that it is concerned about and doing something to combat climate change. In January it imposed higher APD (Air Passenger Duty) charges on all flights from and into the UK. It is currently attacking airlines for not offering their passengers enough opportunity to offset carbon emissions. Politics have never been so green. Even the Tories plan to introduce higher APD charges if they are elected.

Its policies, though, are more green PR than real action. Green has become the fashion, a fashionable lifestyle, a fashionable set of morals. This is why it is so important for the Labour government, a government in danger of being ousted from power at the next general election, to paint itself in the greenest possible light.

APD might seem like a good thing, but what does it actually do? Does it deter people from flying? I doubt it. At the following rates:

Economy class flights in Europe, internal UK flights - £10
Business and first class flights in Europe - £20
Economy class long-haul flights - £40
Business and first class long-haul flights - £80

I hardly think that an extra £10 per head is going to stop people going on holiday, or that even £80 extra per person is going to convince somebody able to pay for a long haul, first class flight to Japan, to spend a fortnight on the trans-Siberian railway or to nip across on a boat instead. So where do these government taxes go? At present, the Ministry of Transport is planning an extension to a 51-mile section of the M6, costing an estimated mindboggling £2.9billion. So you tell me.

What about offsetting carbon emissions? A tree planted in a forest for each weekend break. Trees die prematurely and are burned in forest fires, not only destroying the so-called "carbon offsets" but also pouring more smoke into the atmosphere. And anyway, is the opportunity to "offset our carbon emissions" really anything more than the opportunity to legitimise our destructive actions?

The attitude of most of the major political parties towards climate change is somewhat worrying. Given the gravity of the threat, surely raising awareness and cutting carbon emissions in as many ways as humanly possible should be the priority, not sacrificing the truth of the matter in favour of political power.

Summer School Scam

If you know of any wealthy foreign parents who are thinking of sending their children on a summer school program in Oxford to learn English, tell them to choose carefully.

There are scores of "language colleges" in the city, such as Oxford International Study Centre, claiming to:

1. provide students with "high calibre tutors and visiting speakers from academe or business"

2. have "good links with Oxford, Cambridge and other leading universities, and provision of individual educational counselling for students who wish to apply to a British University"

3. provide homestay accommodation; "all family rooms are inspected by our accommodation manager"

4. offer "a regular programme of cultural activities and excursions in the summer"


Sounds good, doesn't it?


Having worked for a grand total of two days in the accommodation office of the summer school in question, however, I can confirm that:

1. Four hours after starting my job, one of the other administrative workers in the office suggested to me that I do some teaching in the school, on the grounds that it paid more generously than the admin positions. When I pointed out that although I have a languages degree, I have neither qualifications nor experience in teaching, she laughed. "Oh, they don't care about that." Due to a shortage of teaching staff, the director of the company had asked a couple of the admin staff, unqualified and unprepared like me, to give English lessons to a group of young Chinese students.

2. The only link that I can reasonably see between the summer school and Oxford University is the fact that the word "Oxford" appears in the title of both. This makes me think that summer colleges rely on the prestigiousness of Oxford to attract customers and their money, rather than having any real link with the University itself.

3. Unsuitable accommodation arrangements were made in several cases, resulting in a 12-year old Russian girl being placed in Abingdon with three 16-year old Chinese girls for two weeks of her four-week course. I was forbidden to tell her parents that she would have to be re-housed halfway through her stay; "We'll cross that bridge when we get to it", said the boss. I was also at a loss as to how the girl in question was going to get to central Oxford every day for school. On the bus, age 12, alone in the UK and not speaking a word of English? Moreover, the claim that all homes are inspected before placing children in rooms, is simply not true. I don't think I need to point out why this is atrociously irresponsible.

4. This claim is also untrue. Due to staff shortages, there was a period of two or three days when the only "cultural and social" activities organised were walking tours of Oxford. Doesn't sound too bad, I hear you say. Think again: the walking tours consisted of one 22-year old girl on her own taking groups of up to forty five young children round the streets of the city. This is not only irresponsible on the part of the people in charge; it is also illegal, and leaves absolutely no room whatsoever for anything to go wrong. And let's face it: when you've got forty five kids with you, there's bound to be a crisis at some point.


I couldn't decide whether or not to post the name of the language school I worked at, on the grounds that I don't want to offend any of the good people who work there who do the best job they can in a difficult situation. I don't particularly want to get sued for libel, either. However, besides the fact that my blog has not (yet) reached great heights of fame and doesn't quite top the Blogrolls of the national press, none of what I said is untrue. Which is more, if revealing the name of the school means saving one parent from paying extortionate amounts of money to be maltreated by an organisation into whose hands they have placed their trust as well as their child's safety and happiness, I reckon I'll risk it.

Broken Records

Whilst I'm supportive of live music and buskers in general, it has come to my notice that the people who get their musical instruments out on Cornmarket to try and earn a few quid from the hordes of tourists swarming the streets of Oxford at this time of year, cater rather more for passers-by than for the people working in nearby shops and offices who have to sit and listen to them all day: the most extensive repertoire among them consists of three tunes. I've also discovered that Amazing Grace and Scotland the Brave, lovely melodies though they are, stay stubbornly lodged in one's brain after they've been on repeat from 9 til 5. And I've nothing against Pachelbel, but if I hear his Canon one more time I think I'll shove it.....

Ahem. Oh well, at least the man selling the squeaky bird toys is on his day off, and the weather's getting better.