Done.

Will tweet it out also.

Same old same old...

Dame Diana Johnson will, tomorrow, propose:

"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to criminalise paying for sex; to decriminalise selling sex; to create offences relating to enabling or profiting from another person’s sexual exploitation; to make associated provision about sexual exploitation online; to make provision for support services for victims of sexual exploitation; and for connected purposes."

SOURCE: https://commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/document/43648/ html  TO USE THIS LINK, PLEASE JOIN THE HTML WITH THE / THAT PRECEDES IT.

I have since sent my local MP a further personal request to oppose the motion for the Sex-Buyer Law today:

***
Dear Mr Lammy (or representative),
This is a follow-up to my message to you of yesterday regarding Dame Diana Johnson's motion, due to be proposed at some time after noon today, to make the purchase of sex a criminal offence.  I write again with knowledge of the content of the motion which I did not have yesterday:

"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to criminalise paying for sex; to decriminalise selling sex; to create offences relating to enabling or profiting from another person’s sexual exploitation; to make associated provision about sexual exploitation online; to make provision for support services for victims of sexual exploitation; and for connected purposes."

I urge you to oppose her motion for the following reasons:

1)  Suggestion 1 and suggestion 2 contradict each other.  Obvious (and overwhelming) stupidity, such as I feel is shown by this fact, should never be a basis for any law.
2)  Suggestion 2 is already enshrined in law, the intrinsic act of exchanging sex for payment being fully legal.
3)  Suggestion 3, similarly, is already enshrined in law.
4)  If Mrs Johnson's aim, with her motion, is to reduce sexual exploitation, as implied in point 3 of this list, this matter is already addressed by law.  It is against the law to have sex, whether wittingly or unwittingly, with someone who has been coerced or exploited, for example.  The laws against sexual exploitation / sex trafficking, slavery, rape, false imprisonment, and physical assault, amongst others, further address the problem of sexual exploitation.
5)  There is evidence showing that most prostitution is autonomously-engaged and consenting in nature, not forced.  SOURE: National Ugly Mugs.
6)  Law-abiding adults, which I believe includes the vast majority of adults in England and Wales, deserve sexual freedom.  We do not deserve a "nanny state" in which we are treated like children.  Understanding this, and legislating in accordance with it, takes nothing more than common sense, in my view.
7)  The Sex-Buyer Law serves to create a class of criminals who are, in principle, easy to catch but who in reality (and in general) do no harm whatsoever.
8  The fact that the Sex-Buyer Law is in place in some countries does not necessarily make it a rational, meaningful, and fair law.  Hurting prostitutes, which the Sex-Buyer has been proven to do both in Sweden and in other countries that have this law, was amongst its key objectives, for instance.  SOURCE: 1) National Ugly Mugs.  2) Dr Jay Levy 2014: "Criminalising the Purchase of Sex: Lessons from Sweden".  Irrational, meaningless, unfair and blatantly vindictive laws are wrong, to my mind, so, in my opinion, the purchase of sex should not be criminalised.
9) The proven increase in the level of violence against prostitutes is arguably the main way in which the Sex-Buyer Law has hurt prostitutes.  It is not, however, the only way.  SOURCE: 1) National Ugly Mugs  2) Levy 2014.
10) This very evening, I, a 44-year-old woman, shall be paying someone to come to my home and have sex with me.  What has this got to do with anyone except me and him?

I've had a quick read up about it, but I'm not really sure what this means. Is anyone able to explain in layman's terms? 

I've had a quick read up about it, but I'm not really sure what this means. Is anyone able to explain in layman's terms?

A bill is a proposal for a new law or a change in the law, and the ten minute rule allows backbencher MPs to make a 10 minute speech proposing a new bill in the hope that it will become a bill and eventually become law. That's how I understand it although I'm not an expert.

The Nordic model is a name for making it illegal to buy sex in all circumstances. Its been tried in a few countries and is known to drive sex workers underground and into situations where they are unable to negotiate boundaries, it's also been shown to increase violence and harassment towards us. (Sorry if I'm telling you stuff you already know I just wasn't sure what bit you wanted explaining)

Bet they’ll use the most dramatic examples like that MP has on her Twitter. Zero interest in the majority who was never coerced into anything.

A bill is a proposal for a new law or a change in the law, and the ten minute rule allows backbencher MPs to make a 10 minute speech proposing a new bill in the hope that it will become a bill and eventually become law. That's how I understand it although I'm not an expert.

That's about it. There are two slots each week that the Commons sits. The MP makes that speech, someone else can speak against (only), there might be a vote. If it passes, it goes into a queue for a 'second reading' it will probably never emerge from, because another sort of backbench MP bill gets priority and some of those never get to a second reading.

They're a bit of gesture politics, really.