This just in re Trish Godman...

...from the Journal of the Law Society of Scotland.

It looks as if:-
1. It will not be implemented unless both WGs and punters are criminalised.
2. The Committee thought it was totally impractical anyway.

"Purchase and sale of sex;

Trish Godman MSP has been holding a public consultation on her proposed Criminalisation of the Purchase and Sale of Sex ( Scotland ) Bill. This looks to criminalise the purchasers of sex and related selling activities and seeks views on a number of areas including penalties and whether to criminalise the purchaser only or the purchaser and seller. The Criminal Law Committee is submitting a response. It notes the intention of the Bill to reduce demand for the purchase of sex in Scotland, and to strengthen existing legislation in order to make Scotland an unattractive market for prostituting and related trafficking.

On the main question, the commmittee feels on balance, that if the bill were to be passed, both seller and purchaser should be criminalised, as this would be consistent with the gender balance in previous legislation and also would allow intervention and support with regard to those involved in prostitution.

The committee welcomes any objective which reduces the risk of harm to women involved in prostitution, but has concerns with regard to the practical effects of this proposal."

Meanwhile, herewith an excerpt from a letter I received this morning which I really liked ;


Dear Laura,

As instructed I followed the link http://weareequals.org/blog/guest-blogger-belle-de-jour/ blog, and I now have you to blame for my high blood pressure! I must have scanned most of the ~200 replies and the only one I agree with is Eva’s. Who is M. Smith? Who is Eva? Smith has a self-destructive approach if his intension is to educate people. Rather aggressive and insulting in many replies and particularly to Dr M.

Perhaps it’s important for you to know who I am. Well nobody really. A well established scientist at the University of *********, who has never enjoyed the company of an escort or any other sex-worker. But there are a few things that get me really annoyed. Bad data, bad statistics, biased documentation, poor scientific methodology any form of prejudice or injustice. I think most of the documents I’ve seen from the anti-lobby qualify for all of the above.

Previous high blood pressure was caused my T. Godman and that document ‘Challenging Demand Scotland’ which she frequently uses to justify her Bill, along with documents from news papers and TV shows. Not exactly peer-reviewed academic research! I did respond to her Bill, although got stuck on question 1 and found myself constrained by not being able to express my view within the boundaries of the questions. But why only 38 individuals? You must have more clients than that? Why did they not reply? There are problems with the sex industry but they can be tackled in a more sympathetic, helpful and constructive manner. This Bill will not achieve its aims.

There is also so much information within the peer-reviewed journals that there is no excuse not to be well informed. It’s rare that you can delve into another research area and understand the articles. Most of the time you need at least a couple of degrees and years of specialisation before you stand a chance. So even less excuse for MSP’s to be so ignorant! Perhaps I’ve been selective but most peer-reviewed papers are very positive about your occupation and equally aware of the problems and their solutions. But I should read the anti-lobby even if their research is not peer-reviewed and financially supported by anti-prostitution groups: As long as you know, its OK. I don’t wish to be accused of being biased.

I really don’t know how you survive, and I apologise for this rant! – Don’t know why I find the need to contact you other than to demonstrate support.

Sir, your support is very much appreciated and the voice of common sense is always welcome.

LL xx