One of the enduring memories of the recent Rochester and Strood by election will be that now famous “Tweet” of the Unfortunate Emily Thornberry. It was seen to encompass all that was wrong with what used to be called “New Labour” – that gentrified version of “Old Labour.”
The architects of “New Labour” were of course Tony Blair and Lord Mandleson. Their logic was straightforward. Take the core voters for granted and set one’s stall out to attract non core voters in the centre and gain power. It worked up until 2005.
The Unfortunate Emily Thornberry is seen as representing this now discredited strategy. Emily Thornberry however is a minor player in this. She paid a very heavy price for what actually was a VERY small infraction. Before UKIP members start throwing those metaphorical stones in her direction, let them not forget the gaffe prone Mr Bloom, now no longer within UKIP’s ranks.
The problem the British People are faced with insofar as their ruling elite is concerned – for Labour is not the only offender, we have the Tories and the Lib-Dems after all – is that these characters often espouse policies that run counter to the facts.
Most grievously of all we have the outrage of the Great Glow Bull Warning Scam that declares that the TINY amount of CO2 that is produced by humanity somehow poses a threat to civilisation. This belief is and will continue to cost lives of the poor and the elderly who increasingly are unable to afford to heat their homes and die of hypothermia as a result.
The Rochester and Strood by-election however brought to light another victim of the ludicrous self delusion of the ruling elite.
One of the independent candidates was a woman by the name of Charlotte Rose (below):Ms. Rose described herself as “sex worker and sexual trainer” Her main policy seemed to be; “….bringing sexual freedom to her potential constituents…..”
She told the BBC her political focus was on ‘sexual freedom – taking control away from others’.
Ms. Rose gained 43 votes. A small number but it was nevertheless one eighth of the number of votes achieved by the Liberal Democrats!
Ms. Rose entered the sex industry at aged 17 when she agreed to take part in a dominatrix-themed photo-shoot. She then had a seven-year relationship and two children before her partner had an affair. After moving to Devon and working as a teacher at Exeter College, Charlotte decided to combine two of her passions – people and sex – and became a “sex worker.”
She was the subject of a Channel Four documentary and subsequently was evicted from her rented house in Exeter by her landlord (who resided in Switzerland) following a complaint from a neighbour. Whilst this may appear reasonable it was in fact anything but for Ms. Rose conducted her business from different premises some distance away.
Rather than staying in Exeter, the former teacher moved to London, because she reckoned people were “less judgemental”.
If Labour achieve the aim of being part of the next government – their strategists have probably written off Scotland and are assuming the necessity of a coalition with the SNP – Ms Rose and her clientèle are destined to be victims of the new government’s policy towards what is called “the sex industry.”
The chief architect of Labour’s policy towards this industry will of course be Harriet Harman AKA Harridan Hatemen.
Ms Harman’s policy towards “the sex industry” are based on the assumption that ALL sex workers are and have been coerced to perform the tasks they undertake and none of them are performing these tasks willingly. As a result ALL clients of such sex workers will be regarded as having sexually abused or raped the sex worker in question and will be punished accordingly.
An early event in the life of a new Labour-SNP coalition government will see Ms Harman aided by Ms Sturgeon put through legislation criminalising the procurement of sexual services for money or monies-worth. It will be a strict liability offence where the “client’s” presence at a place where such services of offered or with a person who offers these services shall be enough to secure a conviction. Where there is actual evidence of coercion either directly by the client or a third controlling party the penalty will likely be a prison sentence with the possibility of being suspended. Where there is no actual evidence of coercion either directly by the client or a third controlling party, coercion will be statutorily assumed and the penalty will likely be a fine. A criminal record will accompany both and in the case of the former inclusion on the sexual offenders register. Such inclusion on this register might apply to the less serious cases, if not on a first offence, on subsequent offences.
This legislation will not only be unjust – it cannot be right to convict on the absence of evidence – it will also achieve the very opposite of what it sets out to achieve as mainly organised criminals using trafficked persons will continue to operate.
This of course will affect those such as Ms Rose for it will be impossible for her to give evidence in defence of her clients that she was not coerced (of course we have had no communication with this woman as we are assuming that she is not coerced) as such coercion will have been assumed.
Now it seems that some one the services that Ms Rose offers is that of a dominatrix. This, believe it or not is a woman (note the feminine suffix “trix” not the masculine “tor”) who inflicts such as corporal punishment on her paying customers! As is said in the West Riding of Yorkshire; “There’s nowt so queer as folk!”
Now let us speculate upon a future scenario – to demonstrate the absurdities of what Ms Harman intends:
Imagine that you are a police officer and that you are taking part in a raid on Ms Rose’s business premises. One of your colleagues uses one of those small battering rams to force the door and you all rush in. You are in the lead and you run into a room and see before you the following strange spectacle:
There is a man you recognise; he is a very well known MP. However you never expected to see this MP as he appears before you. Entirely naked, he has been secured by large cable ties to a wooden saltier (an X shaped cross). Ms Rose (who is wearing an outfit said to resemble the uniform worn by matrons at Eton) has clearly been beating the MP with the cane she is holding in her hand. You release the MP from his bondage and after he has put his clothes on you arrest him – as required by PACE. Note, you do not arrest the other party (Ms Rose) to this strange consensual act as Ms Rose is the supposed victim in this with the MP being the abuser.
Let us say the MP decides to plead not guilty to the charge. Subsequent conviction is however assured, not least because the police surgeon examined the MP and recorded the injuries to the MP’s buttocks. These injuries could doubtless have been used by the prosecuting solicitor as evidence that the MP had been abusing his victim, Ms Rose.
Presumably the prosecuting solicitor would not wish to use any victim statement made by “the victim” who may well in such a statement seek to suggest to the court that she is no way a victim.
So there you have it! Law and Order Harman style!
Women in Ms Rose’s occupation are already hindered by the law. They cannot form any co-habiting relationship with another for this other would be subject to prosecution for living off immoral earnings; an offence which invariably results in a custodial sentence.
This situation in the British Gazette’s opinion needs to be rectified. Note; the British Gazette does not approve of Ms Rose’s activities but does not think the criminal law should be applied to them in the way it is applied at present and most certainly not as Ms Harman would wish to apply it.