By decriminalising brothels, the government can regulate the sex trade and create laws to protect the most vulnerable within it.
The sex trade is the oldest profession and it is about time that people realised it is never going to go away. It should be accepted and regulated.

If it protects vulnerable women (who, like it or not, are working and earning a wage) and reduces murders, rape and general harm to these women, I fully agree.

If it could stop a sexually frustrated man from raping a woman then I fully agree.

I have nothing against this in principle. It might not appear to be detrimental to a society but it might be detrimental to a community. A brothel shouldn't be allowed to open up just anywhere. So the regulation should include consultation with the community before a licence is granted.

I think that men and women who commit such acts should also face going to prison. Its a crime dont forget, they to should be trated as criminals. They should be given up to 5 years plus for such acts and while in prison be given a programme to help them get a proper paid job like the rest of us tax payers.

If HMG needs any further motivation - just think of the extra VAT, income tax and rates income this would bring in from the "black" economy, while further undermining the case for oppressive "money laundering" regulations.

As a representative of a sexual health charity, I believe the current law and recent measures to drive paid for sex further underground is to the detriment of sex workers, clients and other sexual partners of clients. Sex work should be decriminalised and sex workers should be allowed to work from safe, secure premises, with other staff present and should have the full protection of the law against assault. They should be able to access sexual health services without discrimination or fear of prosecution.

I agree, but with reservations. The safety of the women (or men; men do sell sex too) is paramount.

I would suggest the Kiwi approach: brothels are legal, but only in the form of cooperatives run and own by all the 'staff' (both sexual and admininstrative) in it, plus all the other sensible safeguards and rules mentioned here.

Present legislation on prostitution is both abusive and an infringement of human rights and equates to state persecution. The state now encourages the police to specifically target brothels as both easy and lucrative targets which is a human rights abuse. It is a fundamental right enshrined within the human rights legislation that we all all have the right of free assembly and association. This is denied to sex workers. We should all regardless of race, gender or class or labour choices be deserving of the full protection of the law. Sex workers are however persecuted by the law which denies our right of choice over both our labour and how we choose to use our bodies.
The law discriminates against sex workers and forces sex workers to work in dangerous conditions and denies us the right to choose to work together or to have represention through a third party ie a manager who would organise our work, provide premises, provide security and deal with our advertising, promotion etc etc.
Brothels, escort agencies etc are safe places for sex workers to work, be supported by friends and work colleagues, receive support from out reach workers ie re health and safety etc etc.

Brothels already exist through out the UK but work in fear of the law rather than in expectation of the protection of the law. This is wrong. Small brothels ie up to 3/4 people should be able to operate provided they are not creating a nuisance and larger brothels should have to apply for a licence and be governed by health and safety legislations like any other business. We need total decriminalisation and then protection from the law and recognised as a part of society not an embarrassment to society and something that has to be persecuted quite unjustly by badly thought out legislation based not on evidence but on prejudice and ignorance.

I agree with most of the commenters above (with the exception of FDEWING who obvioulsy does not have a single clue about how the sex "industry" in the UK currently operates). There are many sex workers who would probably love to change their "occupation" but, through circumstance, have no option but to do what they do. Regulating this would improve the situation greatly and go some way to removing those who exploit sex workers for their own gain. I also agree that there should be some regulation about where a brothel would be allowed to operate - VaguelyIntrigued's mention of the cooperative idea is welcome.

I definitely agree with the sentiment of this idea. It's a shame that there are other similar suggestions on this website; I hope that this does not dilute support for this well-thought-out one.

I agree with the proposal.

Prostitution will always be here, illegal or not.
The women that work in the industry must be tested, taxed and most importantly, protected from harm.

Who says prostitutes dont pay tax now?
I believe many do

Not sure how much VAT tho. cant see many being above the threashold....

Who says prostitutes dont pay tax now?
I believe many do

Not sure how much VAT tho. cant see many being above the threashold....

I totally agree with this idea, as has already been stated whether the government or individuals like it or not prostitution has been around since time began and it will never go away. Control it - yes, try to fight against it and you will lose. Prostitution can been controlled, and is being controlled in other countries which have legalized brothels, the girls can have medical check ups and be certified 'clean', it would take prostitution off the streets therefore protecting areas of towns and cities which red light areas, it should also help to prevent incidents like the famed 'Ipswich murders'. I am totally in favor in supporting this issue of legalizing brothels.

To start, a simple clear point of principle for a free society: It is no business of the state if two consenting adults choose to have sex together, on whatever terms (love, marriage, night out, cash in hand) that they agree. To quote Paul Theroux 'People go to bed for the daftest of reasons; why shouldn't money be one of them?'

And, if it is for cash, why should it become illegal if the prostitute, for safety and companionship chooses to work with others in a brothel, rather than independently? This is against common sense and in contravention of Clause 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that workers should have free association. If prostitutes are working together, with the brothel having some sort of license, it is easier to ensure (i) that all the women are working voluntarily (ii) that taxes are paid and (iii) that they are woking safely.

And, safety is a serious issue, particularly away from the milieu of the high class call girl. Might not three recently murdered Bradford prostitutes be alive today had they been working in the safety of a brothel? And the earlier victim in Ipswich? How many murders are needed before common sense replace moral posing?

The point has been made, on this thread and others, that 'Politicians don't want to be remembered as the men and women who licensed brothels.' Why ever not? New Zealand legalised in 2003 and the roof did not fall in on its politicians. Subsequent analysis has shown that the effects of decriminalising have been wholly beneficial see--http://www.justice.govt.nz/[…]ostitution-reform-act-2003.

Of course prostitution should be decriminalised. I would only favour the establishment of brothels if they were owned and managed by the women who work in them and that pimps, who curently control so many sex workers, were excluded from profiting from the business. Unfortunately that would involve the retention of the crime of 'living off immoral earnings' or something similar. Tricky, tricky.

Absolutely. This trade needs legitimising, taxing and regulating properly.

Sex workers should not be ostracized from society. They deserve greater protection and allowed to work in safe brothels.

Prostitutes should be entitled under law to at least half the money the punter pays rather than having the brothel taking everything.

The brothel owner should also be given the responsibility of insulating his premises to such an extent so that the sights and sounds created by the activities inside do not disturb those members of the public who happen to be passing by.

The brothel owner should also be compelled to provide high standards of hygene in his premises. This should be strictly enforced.

The tax income derived from this trade should go into providing the prostitutes with;
 
regular STD/STI tests,
drug rehabilitation if they are addicted,
shelter if they have been forced into the trade,
self defense courses and finally,
intensive education about STDs in order to persuade prostitutes to always wear condoms and not be tempted by a punter who offers more money not to use a condom.

In early May this year, a trial took place at Luton Crown Court where a lady named Claire Finch was arrested for running a brothel. Prostitution is not an offence in this country, but it seems she had several friends who used to work at her house ... And that constituted a brothel, according to the prosecution.

I am aware that the lady works in a quiet part of a village with the full awareness - and consent - of her neighbours, and she has done so for many years. Indeed, it was through support from her friends, neighbours, and the English Collective of Prostitutes that she was able to afford a decent defence ...

In the end, after a week's trial, the case was laughed out of court. She was found not guilty by a unanimous decision from a jury of eight men and four women. However, the arrest (which involved a raid at her home by over 20 police) was traumatic for her, as you might imagine. And for the fourteen month period between her arrest and her trial, she stood - not only to go to prison - but to have her life savings - and her home - confiscated by the police and the local authority (this kind of State-sponsored pimping is allowed, I believe, under a law which was introduced by the last Government).

What made matters worse - far worse, in my opinion - was that during that fourteen month period between her arrest and trial she was forced to work alone. And this was the point of her defence. She had not had any client problems during her ten or so years in practice, but she was always aware of her potential to be isolated - and therefore vulnerable. Prostitutes are allowed to work alone, but not as a group. Therefore, if they wish to stay "legal", the law as it stands forces them to work at risk. They therefore become vulnerable to the deranged and insane - like the Yorkshire Ripper, the Essex Murderer, and the more recent Sheffield murderers ... And others, as everyone must surely know.

I think the law should be changed - and as a matter of urgency - to allow those who choose to work in the sex industry (never mind the hype, there ARE those who choose to) should be allowed to work together on grounds of safety and personal security.

This is not so much about the rights and wrongs of prostitution, but about our responsibility as a Society to protect its citizens. A law that forces women to work alone in sometimes appauling circumstances is iniquitous. It HAS to be wrong!

As it stands now, the law facilitates street walkers, abused teenagers, drugs use, pimps and murderers. And I would urge that the laws that allow courts to ruin prostitutes be repealed - and with some urgency. Also, that some system of licensing and controlling brothels be introduced before we have any more terrible - and avoidable - tragedies.

Drawing again from the Australian example, it's notable that even though brothels are legal (which I fully support), street-walkers still exist. These are the among the most vulnerable (and do the most damage to the community in which they operate) individuals in the sex industry, and any legitimisation of brothels should include provision to move sex workers off the streets, and into brothels.

Prostitution should be widely recognised as violence against women. Claims that countries that have lagalised or decriminalised prostitution entirely are wrong, as it is widely documented that in these countries the levels of woman and child trafficking has increased, the legal and illegal sectors have expanded, and state legitimisation of this abusuve industry has given the green light to pimps, traffickers and punters, who under a legalised system are recognised as 'legitimate businessmen' and 'clients' with minimal intervention from the state into the illegal sector (why interfere in a perfectly 'acceptable' activity?), while the abuse and stigma of the women involved continues. Sweden has successfully implemented a law which decriminalises those that sell sex (prostitutes should not be criminalised for their own exploitation) and provides support services for women to exit the industry, whilst criminalising the purchase of sex, sending a clear message that it is unnaceptable to buy women for the purpose of using them as a disposable commodity. There is now wide public support for the law, which has just been reviewed by an independent board and found to be highly successful. Sweden is no longer an attractive destination for traffickers. This is the model that the UK should be working towards. Harm minimisation measures do not work. For example, it is often suggested that prostitutes should get health checked. Surely if prostitutes should be screened and carry a license then so should every john; all johns would have to be screened regularly for STIs and carry a 'john card'. In Australia programmes are in place to teach women how to defend themselves from violent johns, and measures to limit the physical impact of being penetrated by multiple men on a daily basis. These types of measures just illustrate so clearly how inherently dangerous and damaging this industry is. The state becomes a pimp in the exploitation and harm of women when they support legalisation, or full decriminalistion (effectively legalisation). In a survey, 92% of prostitutes said they would leave the industry if they could. Women don't want to sell sex

Repealing this act will in no way protect women involved in prostitution. What is needed is legalisation concerning the root of the problem - male demand. We must adopt the Swedish model and criminalise all men who attempt and/or do purchase women involved in prostitution.

Women and girls are not men's sexual service stations. No man ever died from lack of masturbating into/on a woman's body. Men do not have the pseudo right of sexual access to women 24/7. Adopt the Swedish model.

some people on here obviously hav'nt grasped what this is about,this is about repealing unjust laws that are dangerous to women,its not about creating more dangerous laws that harm women
sex workers are modern day suffragettes and much of that suffering is caused by those who have a whorephobia
women have the right to sell sex in a safe and secure environment like a brothel
new zealand repealed their harmful & outdated prostitution laws with more enlightened legislation that empowered sex workers(especially women)
new zealand has a history of enlightened legislation as they were the first country to give women the right to vote

some people on here obviously hav'nt grasped what this is about,this is about repealing unjust laws that are dangerous to women,its not about creating more dangerous laws that harm women
sex workers are modern day suffragettes and much of that suffering is caused by those who have a whorephobia
women have the right to sell sex in a safe and secure environment like a brothel
new zealand repealed their harmful & outdated prostitution laws with more enlightened legislation that empowered sex workers(especially women)
new zealand has a history of enlightened legislation as they were the first country to give women the right to vote

Westminster badly needs a 21st Century Wolfendon Committee to thoroughly review the statute, common and civil law relating to sex work. This needs to concentrate on proposing evidence-based policy rather than attempting to amass policy-based evidence, and thus must be well divorced from the Home Office.

As things stand, not only does the common law definition of 'brothel' put sex workers at unnecessary risk by requiring outdoor or solitary working, but the draconian penalties attached to defiance make brothels attractive to criminals on the grounds that proper, real crimes will go unreported.

As I write, a trial is underway in Bradford over a brothel murder in which the accused allegedly broke into the brothel in a quest for £25,000 they believed hidden there.
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/[…]/?ref=rss

There have no dount been several cases since I wrote "Who dials 999 in a brothel?" last August:
http://stephenpaterson.wordpress.com/[…]/

Prostitutes perform a good service to men and help to reduce rape and sexual asault by satisfying men's natural desires before they become uncontrolable. It is only in a few situations where prostitutes are forced into the business, and I have know several who are very happy to perform the service without recourse to drugs. Introducing legalised brothels will take the women off of the streets where danger can exist and give them, and their clients a safe environment in which to meet.

Religious objections shoult be ignored - people with religious bias against the idea do not have to become involved if they don't want to.

"Prostitution should be widely recognised as violence against women. "

No it should not because that isn't what it actually is.
The vast majoity of transactions involve NO violnce at all so stop trying to change the language to make your hysterical point. Violence is physical abuse without consent. Also not all prostitutes are women, and not all clients are male. Do you are doubly WRONG.

If you try to redefine the language and distort the facts in this way, your argument loses credibility and you make yourself look like that which you probably are. This is a shame because some of your other points might even have some merit.

I for one wouldn't believe a word you write as you can't even get the basic definitions correct.

No solution to this problem is entirely satisfactory, or effective. For me the best solution is to legalise it completely and regulate it.

You won't make it go away. It has been around for as long as there has been humans on the planet. It exists in all cultures, even in those countries where the penalties are very severe such as the death penalty in some Islamic countries, so I would favour a completely pragmatic approach rather than a hysterical punitive one apparently favoured by SOME (not all) feminists.
 

Above I was referring to the post(s) by "itmentalot" where this incorrect point has been made in threads on this site.

"Prostitution should be widely recognised as violence against women. "

Others have also made this incorrect point and my argument applies to them equally.

Absolutely agree.
Adopt the prostitution policies of Germany, New Zealand and Australia.

The previous administration only looked at the Swedish model because it suited their dogma fueled agenda.

Some aspects of this debate is really starting to annoy me.
Posters such as "itmentalot" and others keep saying "decriminalise the girls" implying they are always innocent and "criminalise the johns" implying they are evil/guilty/the cause of it all, and similar. There are some points to be made about all this:

1: If the service wasn't available, then those "johns" could not possibly purchase such a service either, now could they ?

2: Not all women who are debt ridden, and/or hard up, and/or completely poverty stricken sell themselves for money. Some manage to live a completely virtuous life regardless of what horrors it throws up at them. So the assertion that the women are always victims is simply untrue. Many know EXACTLY what they are about and what they are doing. Some even go on to get physics degrees for goodness sake and you don't get much smarter than that.

3: Hiring oneself for sex is not illegal. Therefore there is no criminal element to move from "one side to the other" in respect of the act of prostitution itself as some gave suggested.

4: It is the peripheral activities such as soliciting or working in a brothel which are illegal. I presume it is these acts that people are suggesting be de-criminalised, if the act of purchase is to be made illegal.

5: Not all clients are at all bad people. Some are just simply lonely people in need of some intimate company, and an act of solicitation or other advert from a provider can easily tempt them into hiring someone for a sexual encounter even if it were illegal. There can be other reasons why people pay for sex, most of them by far, are not based on any ill intent whatsoever.

6: There will be victims on the side of the purchaser if that is criminalised. Their wives/mothers/daughters/sons/sisters/brothers did not commit that "crime" did they ? Doubtless though they would suffer if they were to be told of it, especially though public channels.

7: If the purchase of sex is to be criminally illegal, it is completely unreasonable to try to argue that there is NO culpability on behalf of the seller who will somehow have demonstrated to the prospective client that her/his sexual favours are available to them at a monetary price. If paying that price is to be illegal, then the provider has commited an act of incitement for the other party to pay that price. IE: To commit a criminal act. It is impossible to remove that seller's culpability, regardless of what some feminist posters on here might suggest.

8: Poverty and other difficult circumstances are NEVER an excuse for commiting a crime, or to incite a criminal act. Therefore why should the provider be free to openly incite someone by whatever means, to purchase sexual favours from them, if doing that were to be a criminal act ? One might as well argue that a poverty stricken woman should be free to persuade someone to go rob a bank or something. It would not be right, and it would not be fair, and it certainly would not be JUST.

9: The only reasonable options open therefore are to either criminalise both the sale and purchase of sexual favours completely, or allow it with some degree of proper regulation. I would of course allow it and regulate it.

10: No solution is ideal, and people will have wildly differing opinions on this, but prostitution exists in all cultures, where-ever there are people, even when the penalties are very severe even extending to execution. It isn't going to go away, so a pragmatic solution surely is the best.

I agree with the proposal. If brothels are illegal, there may be more rapes as a result.