Believe me, I'm not an expert on the sex trade. Fanny P is adequate for my urges, that is if they ever materialise considering an inadvertent 'playtime' knee in the nads from one of the little Ps is enough to cool the ardour created by a dozen Emma Bunton videos.
However, isn't there something very wrong-headed about this?
Mobile phone networks asked to cut off sex trade before London 2012 Olympics
Kit Malthouse, deputy mayor for policing, said the mobile phone numbers are a valuable resource for those behind the sex industry.
He said an agreement must be reached between mobile phone networks and police that sees them taken out of use as soon as they are identified.
There appears to be an almost hysterical panic about the demand for sex services in the run up to the 2012 Olympics. All that potential clandestine, consensual paid-for sex is really bothering the righteous. The emphasis is always couched as a way of shielding against trafficking, but do they seriously expect that demand will simply dematerialise with moves such as this?
As far as I am aware, prostitution itself is not illegal, merely the solicitation. Street-walkers are a constant menace to people who live in such areas and the thrust of legislation to date has always been to minimise, or extinguish, the prevalence of these girls on the streets.
All that eliminating such mobile numbers will necessarily do is to force girls back to the dangerous, and anti-social, haunts in search of their 'johns', trafficked or not.
Malthouse is rather pissed off about the existence of large numbers of prostitution adverts in telephone boxes which give a bad impression of the capital to tourists. He is correct that it is a worry. The best place for such ads would be somewhere more discreet, one would assume, such as being squirrelled away in local papers where only those who sought out such services would find them.
Shame Malthouse put the kibosh on that idea a few months ago, then.
Deputy Mayor for policing Kit Malthouse said he will include the banning of sex ads in his recommendations as part of his bid to stop trafficking.
He praised Newsquest’s stand on the issue.
The publisher of the South London Guardian series as well as the Surrey Comet and Richmond and Twickenham Times, banned the adverts from its 305 titles.
But it won't stop trafficking, and it won't stop people wanting to pay for sex, nor wanting to sell it.
How bloody naive can these people be?
Prostitution is not called the 'oldest profession' for nothing. It is even mentioned in the Bible for chrissakes (oops). The sex trade cannot be snuffed out entirely, merely pushed from one method of publicity to another. The only solution which has been consistently proven to be effective is tolerance and decriminalisation.
Yet these idiots continue to push for policies which have comprehensively failed since time immemorial, and which could result in further harming the people they are claiming to protect.
It's disastrous righteous policy writ large. The triumph of moronic hope over realistic experience.