Tories - they never change

[Darat]

It really has started, we have had all the slogans about "big society" , personal choices, less government in our daily lives, personal responsibility but what they actually mean is "You have the choices we approve."

The moralising and marginalisation of those they disapprove of has begun:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10831614

...snip....

Job centres will no longer be able to carry adverts for jobs in the sex industry under a ban announced by the government.

The curb, which will come in with immediate effect, will cover jobs such as lap dancers and strippers.


...snip...

And why is the ban being imposed?

"The ban will only affect jobs which could lead to exploitation, Employment Minister Chris Grayling said."

Since these jobs will not disappear what they have done is moved the jobs that apparently can lead to exploitation (their claim) further into the shadows ensuring there is less oversight, less monitoring and so on.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

There is less 'liberal' in this coalition with each passing day (and with the reduction of MPs also less 'democrat').

What bill is this in?

 

[andyandy]

It really has started, we have had all the slogans about "big society" , personal choices, less government in our daily lives, personal responsibility but what they actually mean is "You have the choices we approve."

The moralising and marginalisation of those they disapprove of has begun:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10831614



And why is the ban being imposed?

"The ban will only affect jobs which could lead to exploitation, Employment Minister Chris Grayling said."

Since these jobs will not disappear what they have done is moved the jobs that apparently can lead to exploitation (their claim) further into the shadows ensuring there is less oversight, less monitoring and so on.

Hariet Harman, Jackie Smith and the other angry Labour feminista have been banging the drum on this already - i'm sure Labour would had done the same with another term in power.....

Still seems little more than a tabloid gimmick. It's hardly as though the jobcentres are overflowing with lapdancing opportunities.

But if we're talking about exploitation, goodness how about the recruitment companies? They'll take 25% of your gross wage for doing nothing more than placing an ad on the job centre computers. I guess exploitation's all right when it allows companies to circumvent employment law whilst underpaying their employees?

 

[Darat]

There is less 'liberal' in this coalition with each passing day (and with the reduction of MPs also less 'democrat').

What bill is this in?

None - it's just imposed by the ministry.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

When would such a change need to be passed in a bill?

That's what I've never understood about the spending cuts. They don't have to be approved in the house?

 

[Darat]

Hariet Harman, Jackie Smith and the other angry Labour feminista have been banging the drum on this already - i'm sure Labour would had done the same with another term in power.....

...snip...

I really doubt it - the likes of Harman and Smith are concerned about women in the so-called "sex industry" being exploited and this has nothing to do with protecting women in those jobs from being exploited, it does the opposite.

Still seems little more than a tabloid gimmick. ...snip...

Like Section 28 was a tabloid gimmick?

 

[Darat]

When would such a change need to be passed in a bill?

...snip...

If the ministry did not have the power to make such calls.

That's what I've never understood about the spending cuts. They don't have to be approved in the house?

It's off-topic - but no only if by making the cuts they would be (for example) no longer meeting a statutory obligation, or doing something that was against a piece of legislation. On those grounds this is apparently happening: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10833190

 

[commandlinegamer]

I'm sure I heard of Job Centres banning adverts for sex positions some time ago; maybe it was individual ones, though, rather than across the board.

 

[Darat]

From 2008: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/145278-jobcentres-accused-of-pimping-girls

Given the info in that I can't see how the ban won't fall foul of the previous court decision.

ETA: Another article from 2009: http://www.heraldscotland.com/job-centres-in-row-over-sex-industry-ads-1.826478

 

[andyandy]

I really doubt it - the likes of Harman and Smith are concerned about women in the so-called "sex industry" being exploited and this has nothing to do with protecting women in those jobs from being exploited, it does the opposite.

Like Section 28 was a tabloid gimmick?

I'd disagree about the labour feminista's motivations - firstly i'm sure i've heard Jackie talking about the very issue of job centres and lapdancing - (can't guarantee it though....), but more fundamentally if they were actually concerned about protecting women from exploitation they wouldn't have enacted the recent prostitution law changes which are opposed by prostitutes....if they were really concerned with this sector it would be completely legalised and regulated. What we have instead is the melding of Christian puritanism and anti-objectification feminism - it's ideology rather than pragmatic methods to actually reduce exploitation.

re section 28 - i don't see the relevance. This is just mild judgemental prudishness not out and out discrimination.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Do I have it completely wrong? - I thought (last time I heard it discussed) they were going to ban the ads because they were going to make it a condition of receiving job-seekers benefit that you apply for any job (on their books so to speak) that you were qualified for and they didn't like the headlines that might be generated by people being forced to apply for jobs in the sex industry.

 

[andyandy]

looks like it was Harman talking about newpapers...

Meanwhile, the deputy Labour leader, Harriet Harman, has run a vigorous campaign persuading newspapers that they mustn't carry ads for escort agencies and massage parlours, because these businesses are fronts for organised prostitution and human trafficking. She wants society to send a clear signal that it disapproves.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/07/prostitution-sex-industry-economics

Jackie smith commissioned the report published in Feb this year that recommended:

Escort agencies, lap-dancing clubs, massage parlours and television sex channels should be banned from advertising vacancies in job centres arguing that it promotes the "normalisation" of the adult entertainment industry as a "viable career choice".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...nification-of-society-says-study-1911324.html

and their approach to lapdancing:

Lapdancers today hit back at government plans to introduce tougher legislation on strip clubs.

They warned that the laws would put thousands out of work and could push women into riskier establishments.

Peter Stringfellow also criticised the proposals, accusing Harriet Harman of “feminist hysteria” by backing the reforms which could lead to venues being forced to close.

The Home Office consultation document published on Monday proposes that all venues will have to apply for a new sex establishment licence, which
must be renewed annually.

The law was suggested by former home secretary Jacqui Smith, and supported by Ms Harman, the equalities minister, after lobbying by women's rights groups such as Object and the Fawcett Society following a boom in lapdancing bars.

But lapdancers believe it is safer to work in “legitimate” clubs which could be forced to close.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...ange-could-leave-us-jobless-say-lapdancers.do

I really don't see much difference between labour's approach and the Tories' approach. Seems pretty much on a continuum to me.

 

[uk_dave]

From Darat's link....

Adult industry job adverts have been allowed in job centres since 2003, when lingerie chain Ann Summers won a legal fight to advertise for shop staff.

I suppose Ann Summers is a bit of a kinky grey area as they sell naughty dvds and battery powered personal massage units (so I'm told).

But I wonder if a lap dancing club would have to word their advert to be non-gender specific.

I've always wanted to be in showbiz.......

 

[geni]

It really has started, we have had all the slogans about "big society" , personal choices, less government in our daily lives, personal responsibility but what they actually mean is "You have the choices we approve."

The moralising and marginalisation of those they disapprove of has begun:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10831614



And why is the ban being imposed?

"The ban will only affect jobs which could lead to exploitation, Employment Minister Chris Grayling said."

The ban is a leftover of a labour proposal that didn't get sorted out before the election. No one able to create a mainstreme poltical party at this time would do otherwise.

Since these jobs will not disappear what they have done is moved the jobs that apparently can lead to exploitation (their claim) further into the shadows ensuring there is less oversight, less monitoring and so on.

You belive there is monitoring and oversight of jobs that are advertised at job centers?

In practice you are talking about something that impacts less than 400 jobs and sidesteps a seriously messy issue. Problem is that after 6 months of JSA you have to accept basicaly any job offer. Goverment fairly reasonably doesn't want to be forcing people into the sex industry.

 

[Rolfe]

Do I have it completely wrong? - I thought (last time I heard it discussed) they were going to ban the ads because they were going to make it a condition of receiving job-seekers benefit that you apply for any job (on their books so to speak) that you were qualified for and they didn't like the headlines that might be generated by people being forced to apply for jobs in the sex industry.

That was approximately what I heard on the radio this evening. It sounded perfectly reasonable, put like that.

Rolfe.

 

[andyandy]

Do I have it completely wrong? - I thought (last time I heard it discussed) they were going to ban the ads because they were going to make it a condition of receiving job-seekers benefit that you apply for any job (on their books so to speak) that you were qualified for and they didn't like the headlines that might be generated by people being forced to apply for jobs in the sex industry.

JobSeeker Worker: "well, Miss Smith, I see you've been unemployed for some months now. Now, you're quite the hotty, I'm sure there would be plenty of men willing to pay to see that lovely pair. Why don't you give this company a try?"

yes, you can see it might cause problems

 

[Ian Osborne]

Does the military still advertise in Job Centres? I remember when they closed the dedicated recruitment offices and started using the Job Centres instead, some commentators pointed out this was in effect, unintentional conscription. Does anyone know how this was dealt with?

 

[Zep]

Wait... Job seekers might be FORCED to work in the sex industry??

What andyandy said, plus wouldn't there be some people who would line up to do work like that? So isn't increased employment a GOOD thing?

 

[Skeptic]

Imagine that. The government will no longer be carrying ads by pimps looking for fresh meat.

Damn Tories. So judgmental all the time.

 

[lionking]

I don't have a problem with what the UK government is doing. I worked for the Australian government employment service (the CES) some years ago under both Liberal and Labor governments, and we didn't take vacancies like this. We would have to screen applicants to criteria set by employers, and it was something we did not want to put our staff through. It was likely to be degrading to both parties. There's nothing to stop the employer from advertising on websites and so on.

I also thing that the prof has a valid point.