Watched it last night and I have mixed thoughts on it.

Clearly the investigative journalists were concerned about the trafficking aspect, which if that guy is anything to go buy is no bad thing. What an absolute prize c**t!! It was clear that VS had allowed these adverts to go on and when it was fairly easy to work out that the same number was being used on something like 73 separate escort ads, it should have been flagged. That said, AW are no better are they? I'll be careful about how I word this, but all you have to do is look at the home page of AW some days and see the featured escorts to see a definite pattern there...

Tell you what pissed me off the most about the programme though...the idiotic journalist man who kept booking and turning up for appointments (under the guise of journalism) and then walking out after getting his questions on film. He's a fucking deviant and should be on UM for that for multiple look and go! Twat. Not to mention that all of those coerced women were probably given black eyes for not earning money for the pimp. Absolute bellend.

I watched it last night. I wasn’t impressed at all.
Yes, trafficking exists and there have always been people who skirt around the law. But to say a website is a pimp is a bit much. I do agree additional checks such as not having the same phone number on more than one advert and maybe not allowing the same bank card to be attached to more than one advert either might be ways to reduce this. I would also ban agencies.

I started working at 16 due to having to leave home. I met two men, one who would drive and one who would set me up in his home. Both got me appointments and charged me a large chunk of my earnings to do so. I had limited say in who I saw as I didn’t book them. As an adult, I’d say this was close to pimping. Money and the idea that I was “protected” were the two drives that kept me in that situation for months.  Fix the money and safety issue, as well as making it harder to operate as a pimp are the only ways to stop pumping.


The whole piece seemed anti-sex work. Whether you agree with it or not, you should be aiming to make it as safe as possible for those that do it.
Banning websites like Viva Street and Adult Work will not stop people selling/buying sex. As with drugs, they’ll just go underground or use terms such as Sugar Babies in a way to get around the law.


I do wonder why they picked VivaStreet as opposed to something like Adult Work? I think they sensationalised the cost too. I don’t pay “around £50 a week to advertise”. I pay £10.

I watched it last night. I wasn’t impressed at all.
Yes, trafficking exists and there have always been people who skirt around the law. But to say a website is a pimp is a bit much. I do agree additional checks such as not having the same phone number on more than one advert and maybe not allowing the same bank card to be attached to more than one advert either might be ways to reduce this. I would also ban agencies.

I started working at 16 due to having to leave home. I met two men, one who would drive and one who would set me up in his home. Both got me appointments and charged me a large chunk of my earnings to do so. I had limited say in who I saw as I didn’t book them. As an adult, I’d say this was close to pimping. Money and the idea that I was “protected” were the two drives that kept me in that situation for months.  Fix the money and safety issue, as well as making it harder to operate as a pimp are the only ways to stop pumping.


The whole piece seemed anti-sex work. Whether you agree with it or not, you should be aiming to make it as safe as possible for those that do it.
Banning websites like Viva Street and Adult Work will not stop people selling/buying sex. As with drugs, they’ll just go underground or use terms such as Sugar Babies in a way to get around the law.


I do wonder why they picked VivaStreet as opposed to something like Adult Work? I think they sensationalised the cost too. I don’t pay “around £50 a week to advertise”. I pay £10.

The men if this was in England were committing an offence or organising under 18 prostitution, and those paying for the service were also committing the offence of paying for sex with an under 18.

I would have to look at the CPS website to be accurate about the specific offences, but definitely deeper than a bit of pimping.

What programme was this?

[split and merged from unrelated topic]

Viva Street was also recently on BBC Panorama because of a lack of check etc and people were being pimped easily and held as slaves but Viva Street did not carry our due diligence.