Sex worker ban - legit?
Poll: Sex worker ban - legit?
Total Members Polled: 56
Discussion
I read that Met are now explicitly banning the police visiting sex workers off duty.
Does this seem right to you? It doesn't to me - it's a perfectly legal thing to be doing and any blackmail risk can surely be dealt with by other means.
I wouldn't have a problem with this if being a sex worker client was illegal, but it's not. You may as well ban them playing golf.
Also what are single ugly short policemen with bad teeth supposed to do? Sounds like a recipe for making them aggressive.
Does this seem right to you? It doesn't to me - it's a perfectly legal thing to be doing and any blackmail risk can surely be dealt with by other means.
I wouldn't have a problem with this if being a sex worker client was illegal, but it's not. You may as well ban them playing golf.
Also what are single ugly short policemen with bad teeth supposed to do? Sounds like a recipe for making them aggressive.
Somewhatfoolish said:
I read that Met are now explicitly banning the police visiting sex workers off duty.
Does this seem right to you? It doesn't to me - it's a perfectly legal thing to be doing and any blackmail risk can surely be dealt with by other means.
I wouldn't have a problem with this if being a sex worker client was illegal, but it's not. You may as well ban them playing golf.
Also what are single ugly short policemen with bad teeth supposed to do? Sounds like a recipe for making them aggressive.
Simply because there is ZERO means of ensuring the sex worker is not subject to exploitative conduct, and as a strict liability offence you can be found guilty regardless of whether you knew or asked.Does this seem right to you? It doesn't to me - it's a perfectly legal thing to be doing and any blackmail risk can surely be dealt with by other means.
I wouldn't have a problem with this if being a sex worker client was illegal, but it's not. You may as well ban them playing golf.
Also what are single ugly short policemen with bad teeth supposed to do? Sounds like a recipe for making them aggressive.
Evanivitch said:
Somewhatfoolish said:
I read that Met are now explicitly banning the police visiting sex workers off duty.
Does this seem right to you? It doesn't to me - it's a perfectly legal thing to be doing and any blackmail risk can surely be dealt with by other means.
I wouldn't have a problem with this if being a sex worker client was illegal, but it's not. You may as well ban them playing golf.
Also what are single ugly short policemen with bad teeth supposed to do? Sounds like a recipe for making them aggressive.
Simply because there is ZERO means of ensuring the sex worker is not subject to exploitative conduct, and as a strict liability offence you can be found guilty regardless of whether you knew or asked.Does this seem right to you? It doesn't to me - it's a perfectly legal thing to be doing and any blackmail risk can surely be dealt with by other means.
I wouldn't have a problem with this if being a sex worker client was illegal, but it's not. You may as well ban them playing golf.
Also what are single ugly short policemen with bad teeth supposed to do? Sounds like a recipe for making them aggressive.
It seems like something which would be done to protect the reputation of the organisation at the expense of individual liberty.
I would say the organisation should find other ways of ensuring their good reputation before coming after the off duty pursuits of a small subset of individual officers.
It seems to me there must be something else wrong if what officers get up to in their private lives has the possibility to harm the reputation of the organisation.
This is endemic in a whole range of organisations though... I don't think it only effects the police. Maybe a matter for society on the whole to just grow up a bit and stop getting giddy over individuals who choose to engage in slightly unorthodox (but not illegal) pass times outside of their contracted hours.
I would say the organisation should find other ways of ensuring their good reputation before coming after the off duty pursuits of a small subset of individual officers.
It seems to me there must be something else wrong if what officers get up to in their private lives has the possibility to harm the reputation of the organisation.
This is endemic in a whole range of organisations though... I don't think it only effects the police. Maybe a matter for society on the whole to just grow up a bit and stop getting giddy over individuals who choose to engage in slightly unorthodox (but not illegal) pass times outside of their contracted hours.
ingenieur said:
It seems like something which would be done to protect the reputation of the organisation at the expense of individual liberty.
In the same way the ships I work on ban alcohol and the consumption of alcohol ashore.You aren’t allowed aboard at all if you are over the UK drink drive limit.
Now, I am sure that more than one person has gone ‘up the road for a few wets’ and returned, slept it off & started work with no issues over the years.
The key difference is that if the did something which was detrimental to the company after drinking the company could dismiss them & protect their position.
In the same way if the Met wish to ban their staff from visiting sex workers, online or IRL, then they can’t hope to police it (pun intended) but if anyone was found to have subsequently had any conduct detrimental to the force they can dismiss for gross misconduct & state the fact this behaviour isn’t even tacitly accepted.
Somewhatfoolish said:
Eh? There's ZERO means of ensuring the guys at hand car washes are not subject to exploitative conduct (and bluntly much more chance of it). Or is this all about the chance of being found guilty of some strict liability thing without mens rea? If that's the case then they should be banned from trains as well for a start.
No strict liability for using services of a sex worker is a specific offence.If you're visiting a legitimate business (and that can be anything from a takeaway to a landscapers or a warehouse) then you don't have the same liability in law.
Perhaps the plod will need to BPSS their sex workers first?
ds do. Do we want creepy, seedby bsoad said:
Caddyshack said:
That is totally daft. People really need to be allowed to get on with life after they leave their work for the day.
That’s like saying you’re free to inject crack into your eyeballs, in your own time. I think its a difficult subject to discuss.
While I would like to respect peoples privacy during out of work time. I can't decide whether I'm prejudice, or normal in this respect.
I do think there is a standard for some jobs which require the person to hold a high standard in their personal life.
I wouldn't be happy in my teenage daughter having a middle aged teacher who paid for particularly young sex workers for instance. I wouldn't be too happy to be getting marriage guidance advice from someone who had been convicted of beating their partner, but of course still able to work.
There are a long list of things especially in places of trust that I wouldn't want people to have record of in their private lives. So I can't be absolute with the idea of total respect for someones private life.
While I would like to respect peoples privacy during out of work time. I can't decide whether I'm prejudice, or normal in this respect.
I do think there is a standard for some jobs which require the person to hold a high standard in their personal life.
I wouldn't be happy in my teenage daughter having a middle aged teacher who paid for particularly young sex workers for instance. I wouldn't be too happy to be getting marriage guidance advice from someone who had been convicted of beating their partner, but of course still able to work.
There are a long list of things especially in places of trust that I wouldn't want people to have record of in their private lives. So I can't be absolute with the idea of total respect for someones private life.
Stick Legs said:
ingenieur said:
It seems like something which would be done to protect the reputation of the organisation at the expense of individual liberty.
In the same way the ships I work on ban alcohol and the consumption of alcohol ashore.You aren’t allowed aboard at all if you are over the UK drink drive limit.
Stick Legs said:
In the same way if the Met wish to ban their staff from visiting sex workers, online or IRL, then they can’t hope to police it (pun intended) but if anyone was found to have subsequently had any conduct detrimental to the force they can dismiss for gross misconduct & state the fact this behaviour isn’t even tacitly accepted.
Reading between the lines (as you often have to do with newspaper articles) it looks to apply only to newly vetted officers. They must maintain their vetted status while in service. So if that really is the case then the force is just saying you can't use sex workers if you're a police officer in the met. That really is just a restriction of personal liberty. If they state this is a condition you must adhere to ahead of any potential incident then they have a 'get out of jail free' card to play if such an occurrence were to come about. i.e. they would say 'we ban the use of sex workers for vetted officers' (i.e. we actively state we are against it) Here's a link to the story
https://metro.co.uk/2023/07/18/met-police-bans-usi...
I can't really make a judgement on it, as I have no idea how common the use of sex workers is either in the police, or wider society. I certainly can't recall anyone I've worked with, been friends with or chatted to ever admitting to doing using them (accepting it's not the sort of topic you would bring up of course).
And the above group of people is not particularly statistically significant, but the met must feel it's significant enough to include it?
Also, if I become bankrupt, I lose my ability to perform my job (charted accountant).
Teachers would similarly lose the right to teach if certain relationships or activities are persued.
Doctors are unable to treat family members
So there are plenty of examples where specific roles have restrictions placed on them that are not necessarily illegal in of themselves.
Then there's the whole issue about enforcement of it.
On balance it seems more of a "look like we're doing something" thing than a measure that is addressing a real problem.
https://metro.co.uk/2023/07/18/met-police-bans-usi...
I can't really make a judgement on it, as I have no idea how common the use of sex workers is either in the police, or wider society. I certainly can't recall anyone I've worked with, been friends with or chatted to ever admitting to doing using them (accepting it's not the sort of topic you would bring up of course).
And the above group of people is not particularly statistically significant, but the met must feel it's significant enough to include it?
Also, if I become bankrupt, I lose my ability to perform my job (charted accountant).
Teachers would similarly lose the right to teach if certain relationships or activities are persued.
Doctors are unable to treat family members
So there are plenty of examples where specific roles have restrictions placed on them that are not necessarily illegal in of themselves.
Then there's the whole issue about enforcement of it.
On balance it seems more of a "look like we're doing something" thing than a measure that is addressing a real problem.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff