Tories - they never change

Darat said:
Apart from yourself I doubt anyone else in this thread thinks that. You hold some very, well the only word I can think to use is, disgusting opinions.
Click to expand...

I suspect he was attempting sarcasm.
 
Skeptic said:
Simple question, by the way.

What about those women who refuse sex work? Sure, they might consider it unpleasant, but hey, they must take many other jobs -- low-salary clerk, for instance, or worker in a factory -- if they are unemployed and qualified for it, even if they're unpleasant.

So why do people make exception for sex work? We all "know" the real damage of sex work comes only from making it illegal or unregulated. So as long as the job is in the open and regulated, it is just disgusting judgmental behavior on the part of those women to not do the job.

So, to be consistent, I suggest women who refuse a sex job should be cut off the unemployment benefits just like others who refuse a job they can do.

Why not? And don't tell me sex work is somehow bad or shameful -- that's judgmental thinking, which is, as we all know, a no-no. I fail to see how you can think it is wrong for the government to not list sex jobs while thinking it is wrong for it to threaten women who don't take those jobs with removing their benefits.
Click to expand...

Because one advantage of an open, above-the-board sex industry is it removes the element of coercion. What you suggest (or lampoon) reintroduces it.
 
Darat said:
I've not heard any official saying it is for the reason you [Prof. Yaffle] give.
Click to expand...


I listened to an item about this on the Radio 4 news yesterday or the day before, and that was exactly the reason given in that interview. It sounded reasonable. If you are going to insist that jobseekers take what is available at the jobcentre, or lose benefits, then you risk hitting a situation where some poor girl is being told she has to take a job as a lap-dancer, because the job-centre clerk just read the rules and believes they have to be applied rigidly.

Rolfe.
 
geni said:
Because common law doesn't traditionaly like to go in for that level of detail and the goverment may not be planning any legistlation in that area any time soon. So either it could take years to deal with like that or it would have to be attached as a rider to an unrelated bill. Neither are ideal outcomes.
Click to expand...

Surely it would just be a slightly different wording of the JSA legislation that says 'you must take any job'? I doubt it would be as hard to do as you seem to suggest, but I'll take your word for it.

No more difficult that introducing legislation to not allow sex industry jobs to be promoted in Job Centres surely?
 
Rolfe said:
I listened to an item about this on the Radio 4 news yesterday or the day before, and that was exactly the reason given in that interview. It sounded reasonable. If you are going to insist that jobseekers take what is available at the jobcentre, or lose benefits, then you risk hitting a situation where some poor girl is being told she has to take a job as a lap-dancer, because the job-centre clerk just read the rules and believes they have to be applied rigidly.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps it should give the politicians pause for thought if they don't like the consequences of their policies.... and I hear the price of bacon is soaring again.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
I listened to an item about this on the Radio 4 news yesterday or the day before, and that was exactly the reason given in that interview. It sounded reasonable. If you are going to insist that jobseekers take what is available at the jobcentre, or lose benefits, then you risk hitting a situation where some poor girl is being told she has to take a job as a lap-dancer, because the job-centre clerk just read the rules and believes they have to be applied rigidly.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

So young girl shaking her tatas for bucks = bad but highly qualified research scientist cleaning **** off a toilet = good according to our government?
 
Last of the Fraggles said:
So young girl shaking her tatas for bucks = bad but highly qualified research scientist cleaning **** off a toilet = good according to our government?
Click to expand...

Yes because one is morally good work and the other is not.

And of course we know there is no exploitation of workers in the cleaning industry.
 
Darat said:
Yes because one is morally good work and the other is not.

And of course we know there is no exploitation of workers in the cleaning industry.
Click to expand...

If the government doesn't want to uphold its end of the insurance deal on the JSA thing I'm fine with that. Scrap it altogether as far as I'm concerned. I'll make my own arrangements. Please stop taking insurance premiums from my wage from which I get no return though.
 
Rolfe said:
If you are going to insist that jobseekers take what is available at the jobcentre, or lose benefits
Click to expand...

Unless something has changed (and it may well have done) then there is generally an "out" for this though, in that you can refuse a job on conscientious grounds. Usually this is taken to mean things like working in abbatoirs, or where you want to be in a union but the job requires you to be a non-member, and things like that. I would suggest that working as a lap dancer would fall into this category. If faced by a jobcentre employee who took a strict line then I would certainly suggest it to any tribunal and I doubt that they would disagree.
 
richardm said:
Unless something has changed (and it may well have done) then there is generally an "out" for this though, in that you can refuse a job on conscientious grounds. Usually this is taken to mean things like working in abbatoirs, or where you want to be in a union but the job requires you to be a non-member, and things like that. I would suggest that working as a lap dancer would fall into this category. If faced by a jobcentre employee who took a strict line then I would certainly suggest it to any tribunal and I doubt that they would disagree.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure its the government's job to subsidise people's conscientious grounds though. In some sense you could argue that the government is not forcing you to take a job, merely removing your benefits if you choose not to.
 
Is the British government not an equal opportunity employer?

Would they not be obliged to offer me, as well as Rolfe, the post of lap dancer, being unable to discriminate on grounds of age or gender?

Or is the discussion now becoming too distasteful even for our open minded admin to permit ?
 
Soapy Sam said:
Is the British government not an equal opportunity employer?

Would they not be obliged to offer me, as well as Rolfe, the post of lap dancer, being unable to discriminate on grounds of age or gender?
Click to expand...

No - as I mentioned above there are exceptions in certain areas that means you can discriminate based on sex, for example casting actors for roles. (ETA: Age discrimination I am not sure of but since we've had the basic equality in employment legislation for decades now I would assume that they are lawful.)



Soapy Sam said:
Or is the discussion now becoming too distasteful even for our open minded admin to permit ?
Click to expand...

What on earth does this mean?
 
Last edited:
He means that the idea of him lap-dancing is something that might make us all want to scrub out the insides of our skulls....

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
He means that the idea of him lap-dancing is something that might make us all want to scrub out the insides of our skulls....

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

After you with the wire brush and dettol please, Rolfe.
 
Darat said:
No it doesn't - there is no evidence I know of that suggests that Job Centres have ever (as a matter of policy) allowed vacancies for the type of illegal positions you think they have previously accepted.
Click to expand...

So they only allowed legal prostitution, or as it is euphemistically called, "sex work"? Is prostitution legal in England?
 
Skeptic said:
So they only allowed legal prostitution, or as it is euphemistically called, "sex work"? Is prostitution legal in England?
Click to expand...

Prostitution is legal in the UK but since you are only allowed to do it if you are self employed (otherwise the employeer hits issues with living off immoral earnings) it could not be advertised in a job center.

The kind of jobs they are talking about are things like strip clubs, lap dancing and adult videochat.
 
Last of the Fraggles said:
If the government doesn't want to uphold its end of the insurance deal on the JSA thing I'm fine with that. Scrap it altogether as far as I'm concerned. I'll make my own arrangements. Please stop taking insurance premiums from my wage from which I get no return though.
Click to expand...

The various restrictions only kick in after 6 months of failing to find a job.
 
Skeptic said:
the best reply to this common, if totally erroneous, view, which was originally J. S. Mill's argument, is still James Fitzjames Stephen's in Liberty, Equality, Fraternity:
Click to expand...


I reject your moralizing puritanism on its face.

eta:To elaborate slightly, the argument that the state is incompetent if it can't realize that vice is bad both assumes the conclusion you're trying to reach (that prostitution is morally wrong) and, rather than being the best argument to address my harm claims as you said it was, ignores them completely.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom