Talk:Prostitution in the United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Northern Ireland[edit]

For completeness does anyone know the legal situation in Northern Ireland? --Achmelvic 16:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC) The official website of Belfast will tell you I think. Also it could be different to the rest of the U.K as Northern Ireland tends to follow the laws of Ireland, and not Great Britain. Wikisquared 12:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is different in some regards - the law against kerb-crawling doesn't apply, for example. Unfortunately, NI Law is seen as a rather specialist subject and few of the sources I have mention it at all. Lovingboth 12:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This line:

One of the most famous, but controversial, guides is the McCoy's British Massage Parlour Guide.

Is nothing more than spam. It is of dubious truth too, considering "most" famous is a subjective qualifier.

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland - imprisonment for fine default[edit]

I have removed the reference to there being c. 60 women in prison for defaulting on fines related to prostitution. Table 33B of Prison Statistics Scotland, 2006-07 [1] shows that the total number of receptions to prison in 2006-07 for females defaulting on fines imposed for crimes of indecency (which includes prostitution) was 15 - considerably lower than the figures in the late 1990s. As the average sentence imposed is around 10 days (see Table 34B in the same publication), the average daily prison population must be around 1, rather than 60.--George Burgess (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?[edit]

This article makes lots of claims that do not cite sources such as 95% of prostitutes in one area having addiction problems. Does anyone have these sources? Father Time89 (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Sources=[edit]

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/prostitution_and_offences_against_public_morals/
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030042_en_1

Neutrality[edit]

I notice several research reports were recently removed due to considerations of neutrality. Maybe they were not in the right place or context, nevertheless evidence forms an important base for public policy, and findings such as Nick Mai's at London Metropolitan (full report due October) do challenge the rationale for some government policy, as does Suzanne Jenkins and that of many others. A place should be found for them, evidence itself cannot be considered bias - only its interpretation. Mgoodyear (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Legality"[edit]

The article says that prostitution is "legal". I think that what it should actually say is that prostition is not a criminal offence (which is not the same thing). My understanding is that prostitution is illegal in the sense that the "contract" between the prostitute and her client is an illegal contract which is null and void and cannot be enforced by any legal means.James500 (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Griew's book on the Theft Acts says that the contract is unenforceable. He doesn't discuss its validity because it is not relevant to the context (obtaining services by deception, evasion of liability by deception and making off without payment). The remedies manual of the Inns of Court School of Law contains a passage to the effect that although prostitution is "illegal", this does not stop her from being liable to income tax on her earnings, in the context of the effect of taxation on damages. On the strength of this, I have changed "legal" to "not criminal".James500 (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

svenska oversattnng[edit]

is there a way to request this in articul to be translated into swedish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.116.166 (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out a statement without an attribution[edit]

The following passage: "Laws are not always strictly enforced, and many brothels in cities such as Manchester and London operate under the name "Massage parlours", with police forces often turning a blind eye to such establishments" is not attributed to any source. Because it is a serious allegation of police misconduct, I believe it should quote a research-based source. (I apologize if this issue has been placed in an incorrect area for discussion.) Samson3000 (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I've added [citation needed] to the passage. Polly Tunnel (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re Edit 11:53, 14 February 2017‎[edit]

Firstly apologies if this is the incorrect place to post this.

This concerns the use and reliability of sex workers in the uk as a source.

Polly Tunnel points out wikis not being used as a source in WP:RS. Looking at WP:RS, this refers to 'open wikis'. I'm not sure exactly what 'open' refers to in this usage, but assumes this means a wiki that anybody can edit? If this is the case, then this particular wiki would be a 'closed wiki' as only invited people can edit the pages.

Probably of more importance, every victim listed has a reliable source cited. If this page were a Wikipedia article then it would probably be regarded as reliable as it is well referenced. I would therefore suggest WP:COMMON would be the applicable guidance and the reference reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John B123 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your edit and for your contribution above. It's great to get some input for one of the much-neglected "Prostitution in..." series of articles. If you're interested there's a whole Wikiproject, the WP:SEX/SEXWORK task force dealing with the subject.
Oldestprof.com is certainly a curious website. Its home page appears to list advertisements from sex workers, making it a commercial website. The site's forum unsurprisingly includes user-generated content. It is unclear how one becomes a user, though the content of the forum would seem to imply that one first has to become an advertiser. Some content is provided by "admin", though it is unclear who runs the site – the only contact information I can find is an email address. That said, the information pages seem fairly well-written and accurate. The login to the wiki resembles that for the forum, making it possible that it is the advertisers who can edit the wiki. Alternatively, it may just be the admin. Strangely, I can't find a link from the home page section of the website to the wiki section, making me wonder why the wiki has been included – one possibility is that it is for search engine optimization purposes. The content of the wiki looks like a historic Wikipedia mirror (WP:MIRROR), with the content having been copied from WP at some point in the past (compare Oldestprof's Eliza Armstrong case with WP's Eliza Armstrong case). This would, of course, prevent it being a WP:RS.
Your point about every victim listed having a reliable source cited is well made, and I suspect that you are correct in saying that the number of sex workers murdered is greater than 160. Given the under-reporting of such things, I suspect that the actual number may be a lot higher. Normally I would consider simply including the primary sources in this article, but the very large number of them (143 in total) makes that impractical in this case. Hence the question is whether we can use Oldestprof as a source or whether we need to find an alternative source that makes the numerical claim. The figure of 150 given in the Telegraph seems reasonably close to 160, which is why I chose to leave that in the article, but there may be better sources than a newspaper out there.
In the search for consensus I'd be interested to know what others think about this. If someone out there has particular knowledge concerning other wikis and their use as sources it'd be great to hear from them.
Polly Tunnel (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick reply.
I am one of the admins at oldestprof.com. It's difficult to catagorise the site. As you point out the listings and forum are all user created by the many members. (You don't need to be an advertiser to be a member). The Sex Laws Info section was written by solicitor (a sort of 'Sex Laws for Dummies'). The Crimewatch section is an archive of (mainly) newspaper articles regarding sex work related raids, prosecutions etc. Some of these newspapers are now defunct so the articles from them are possibly not available elsewhere.
The wiki was a replacement for an earlier wiki that was hacked beyond repair. As a 'quick start' some core pages from WP were used as a base, the intention being to expand and replace with unique content over time. Only admins and a couple of trusted members can create/edit. Unfortunately as we all work full time, the time we can devote to this is very limited. The intention was not to link to the wiki until it was at a mature stage, although as it's now indexed by Google, that probably doesn't apply.
Whilst in some areas it's user generated, in others it's a mirror of WP etc, none of those are accurate for the site as a whole. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to look at individual pages on their own merit rather than use a blanket rule for the whole site?
As you point out anything to do with prostitution is either under-report or sensationalised and over-exaggerated. There are simply no accurate statistics available. Putting aside any dubious figures given for political or moral reason, the almost 'underworld' status of the industry prevents accurate data collecting.
Looking at the page in question, the victims listed are only those reported in the media. Only today I added another girl to the list who was murdered in July 15, but it was only mentioned today in the article about her murderer's sentencing that she was a sex worker. There may be cases where it's never reported that she was a sex worker. I agree the actual figure is probably much higher.
I would normally regard the Telegraph as a reliable source, but with no figures available, their best efforts can only be an 'educated guess'. The UK Network of Sex Work Projects have used the figure of 'about 200' but have never given an indication of where this figure comes from.
John B123 (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John. Thanks for your explanation of the Oldestprof site. It's great to have someone knowledgeable about sex work editing WP.
It's one of the ironies of WP that the rules make it difficult to write about a field simultaneously within WP and outside it. The rules about conflict of interest (WP:COI), original research (WP:ORIGINAL) and self-promotion (WP:LINKSPAM) all make it difficult to cite oneself. The convention is generally to post the information on a talk page and ask someone else to do it.
As it says on WP:RS in WP:USERGENERATED, "Content from a collaboratively created website may be acceptable if the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff." In the case of Oldestprof the understandable anonymity involved makes it hard to judge the reputations of those involved. And with regard to judging reliable source for citing, it is the source rather than the content which has to be judged reliable.
I've got couple of ideas for solutions to this:
  1. It occurred to me that if the UKNSWP has a figure of 'about 200', we might be able to use that, even if they don't say where they get it from. We could say in the text that it's the UKNSWP's figure. I suspect that, as a registered charity, they would satisfy the reliability criteria adequately even though they're a secondary source and not WP:INDEPENDENT. Unfortunately I can't find the figure on their website, nor in their library collection at the University of West Scotland. Do you know of a link or a published article we could use?
  2. More time consuming (though more beneficial to WP) would be create a new WP list article called something like "List of murdered sex workers in the United Kingdom" (there are a number of "List of murdered"... articles on WP). The content from the Oldestprof page could form the basis of the article (assuming that TOP Wiki content isn't copyrighted), as the page's quality is high and all the information and sources are there. The article would need to have a lead mentioning the "more than 160" figure, which would be justified by the page's contents. Then a simple wikilink from this article from that one should provide adequate citation to repeat the figure here.
What do you think of these ideas? Do you have any other approaches we might consider? Any suggestions you have for ways to improve WP's coverage of this subject would be appreciated.
Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
The figure from the UKNSWP was from a tweet during this year's International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers. I can't find it anywhere on their site, but did find it mentioned [2]. On the UKNSWP site they mentioned they had access to a 'database of sex worker murders which Hilary Kinnell began to compile in 1990' [3] This was published in 2011. In this later (2016) Statement they refer to the 'NUM UKNSWP murder database'. Possibly they have taken over Hilary Kinnell's database?
During the International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers they tweeted in memorandum of of murdered sex workers in the format 'Mariana, 24, Ilford'. I used these tweets to check my list on Oldestprof. Some I couldn't find, others I could find press reports on the murder and trials but found nothing in these report that mentioned sex work (so didn't include these in my list). Others were in the sex industry but not prostitutes (eg brothel receptionist). The UKNSWP's figure may contain some unverifiable entries and it's definition seems broader than perhaps applicable to this WP page.
The most reliable figure I could find was in the National Police Chiefs' Council's Policing Sex Work Guidance. Section 1.3: 'At the time of writing this guidance, 152 sex workers have been murdered in the UK since 1990.' (Guide published Dec 2015). Although slightly out of date, I don't think we will find a more accurate figure or a more reliable source. I suggest we change the page to read 'More than 150 sex workers were murdered in Britain between 1990 and 2015' (ie rather than 2016) and cite the police guide.
Whilst the page on Oldestprof is not copyrighted (I seem to remember one of the T&Cs of using Mediawiki is that content is available under a Creative Commons licence) I would prefer there weren't 2 versions, if only for ease of updating/spurious entries being added to the WP version. Perhaps there could be an external link to the Oldestprof page?
In general terms about improving this page (and the whole prostitution section) I notice some of the figures quoted are from seemingly reliable sources, but when you delve under the surface are actually politically motivated and biased towards a particular view. I'll try and find the most reliable statistics (and discuss here). Although my time is limited, I'll have a closer look at the page and see if I can think of any ways of improving it.
John B123 (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks John for your time and help. Your suggestion for using the National Police Chiefs' Council as a source is an excellent idea, and I've inserted it as you suggest. The Oldestprof page satisfies the WP:ELMAYBE rules for a possible external link and I've added it to the "External links" section.
You're right about the problems associated with some of the article's sources. I often find I have to use them judiciously to achieve WP:NPOV in the text. In many cases it's hard to locate any neutral sources consistent with WP:BESTSOURCES as research projects are often conducted to support a particular agenda. Anything you can do to help improve the sources and the statistics would be invaluable.
Polly Tunnel (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have added the page Murdered sex workers in the UK as I am closing oldestprof.com. Deleted the external link and added a link in See Also
John B123 (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a reliable source to able to attribute the higher number of murdered sex workers on the NUM's database so have updated that section John B123 (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Home Affairs Select Committee[edit]

Extent Section[edit]

Last paragraph: A major study into the sex industry in 2016 by the Home Affairs Select Committee found that Britain had approximately 70,000 prostitutes who earned an average of £2,000 a week. The research showed that sex workers in Britain charged an average of £78 for services and had around 25 clients per week. Around a quarter were street prostitutes, the rest working from brothels and massage parlours. Reasons for choosing to work in prostitution included homelessness and addiction to drugs. In addition, an increasing number of single parents were opting to work as prostitutes in order to provide for their families.

  • It was an enquiry not a study. Study suggests academic research or similar.
  • The figures quoted were from a submission of evidence to the committee rather than a finding of the commitee. Although the interim report appears to accept these figures it adds the caveat: The “facts” set out below have been submitted to the Committee in evidence but should be treated with caution and are open to dispute. See facts
  • Perhaps the most important thing to come out of the enquiry (as far as 'extent' is concerned) : We recommend that the Home Office commissions an in-depth research study to help develop a better understanding of the current extent and nature of prostitution in England and Wales, and to draw together and put in context any recent relevant research. The research study should be conducted within the next 12-month period and there should be a report to Parliament by June 2017. It should aim to publish and explain reliable statistics which can be used to inform future legislative and policy decisions, and to discard any unreliable data. ( see section 6[4] )

Decriminalisation Section[edit]

Last paragraph: In May 2016 the Home Affairs Select Committee, headed by Keith Vaz, investigated prostitution laws in Britain. The committee called on Brooke Magnanti and Paris Lees to give evidence about sex work conditions in the UK. The pair suggested that the past criminal records of those arrested for prostitution-related crimes should be eliminated. The committee's interim report was published in July 2016. It recommended that prostitution and brothelkeeping should be decriminalised. It also recommended that past criminal records for prostitution should be removed, as suggested by Maganti and Lees. Sex worker nonprofits called the apparent U-turn decision "a stunning victory for sex workers and our demands for decriminalisation" and "a giant step forward for sex workers' rights in the UK.

  • "It recommended that prostitution and brothelkeeping should be decriminalised". This is inaccurate. The recommendation was that soliciting should be decriminalised and that 'that brothel-keeping provisions allow sex workers to share premises, without losing the ability to prosecute those who use brothels to control or exploit sex workers.' (see section 10 [5] )

The "Nordic model" of prostitution Section[edit]

Last paragraph: In January 2016 the Home Affairs Select Committee began an inquiry into prostitution legislation, particularly trying to assess "whether the balance in the burden of criminality should shift to those who pay for sex rather than those who sell it". The inquiry is also looking at the impact the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and whether measures are needed to help those involved in prostitution to leave it.

  • "particularly trying to assess" This wording suggests the Nordic Model was a primary focus of the enquiry wheras it was one of a number of options to be looked at. Perhaps "including trying to assess" would be better.
  • This section hasn't been updated since the Committee published it's interim report.
  • The committee's conclusion was (with regard to the Nordic Model):
    • is based on the premise that prostitution is morally wrong and should therefore be illegal, whereas at present the law makes no such moral judgement.(see section 11 [6] )
    • makes no attempt to discriminate between prostitution which occurs between two consenting adults, and that which involves exploitation. Much of the rhetoric also denies sex workers the opportunity to speak for themselves and to make their own choices. (see section 11 [7] )
    • We are not yet convinced that the sex buyer law would be effective in reducing demand or in improving the lives of sex workers. (see section 12 [8] )
  • The Committee felt is was too early to asses the effect of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. As the Modern Slavery Act isn't part of the Nordic Model this isn't the right place to include it (if indeed it needs inclusion)?
  • Similarly prostitution exit help isn't appropriate to this section.

John B123 (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soho walk-ups[edit]

From 2nd paragraph of Extent section "private flats (such as the Soho walk-ups)"

Soho walk-ups are a very grey area legally and similar set-ups are not tolerated outside Soho. They are more akin to brothels than private flats (I can expand on this on the WP page Soho walk-up). As such they are not a good example of 'private flats'

John B123 (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some notes on the Talk page of Soho walk-up
John B123 (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reform of prostitution laws[edit]

Current Text: The debate about the legal situation of prostitution in the UK centres around whether the UK should follow the example of the Netherlands, Germany or New Zealand and tolerate prostitution, or whether the country should make it illegal to pay for sex, like in Sweden, Norway and Iceland (a situation sometimes described as the Nordic model of prostitution).

There are 3 main options for change not 2:

  • Regulation (as in Germany & the Netherlands)
  • Decriminalisation (as in New Zealand & parts of Australia)
  • Sex Buyer Laws (Nordic Model)

As such the 'Decriminalisation' section should be split into two ('Regulation' & 'Decriminalisation')?

"tolerate prostitution" infers prostitution is wrong and therefore questions the neutrality of this paragraph.

John B123 (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising of Prostitution (Prohibition) Bill 2015-16[edit]

(End of Advertising section)

2015/16 session of parliament has ended and this Bill will make no further progress.

John B123 (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

There is nothing in the History section before the 17th Century.

A few possible sources:

WP Pages that may be useful

John B123 (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prostitution_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1212408577"