Another pantomimic skit in the bathetic spectacle that is the Labour conference.
Harriet Harman today urged movie star and California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to “terminate” a website which allows people to rate prostitutes.
The Labour deputy leader told delegates at the Labour conference: “There is now a website… where pimps put women on sale for sex and then men who’ve had sex with them put their comments online. It is PunterNet and fuels the demand for prostitutes.”
Harman said the site was based in California but had “pages and pages” of women for sale in London.
“I’ve raised it with the US ambassador to London and I’ve called on California’s governor, Arnie Schwarzenegger, to close it down.”
Harman said it should not be difficult for the star to “terminate PunterNet”.
“And I’ve got news for him: if he doesn’t, I’ll be back,” she quipped.
BOOM BOOM! Yes, what a hilaaaarious subject! Tell us that one again, Hatty!
Ok, so it was like this.
I was on the internet checking out Prestwich, where we have, subsequent to said checking, bought a house (hooray!). I’d done the usual local paper trawl, checked out Yell for delis, cafes, libraries, restaurants, pubs and the like (no decent real ale pub = minus 4 points, but almost compensated by presence of M&S Simply Food = plus 3), battled with the extraordinary stratification of Bury Council’s website, played with Acorn ratings on Upmystreet, zoomed around the crime maps on Fixmystreet (are you keeping up?) and I was now googling various significant word combinations (“horrible hideous crime fire rubbish terrible filth zombie gin palace yob Tory council Prestwich”).
One such combination turned up the sliver of dubious intelligence that there is a stretch of Bury Old Road, the north-south main road that bounds Prestwich to the east, that is known to be the local punter’s mile. Now, clearly the local punter’s mile has got to be somewhere, but were we talking about a few houses or a notorious wasteland where I might fear to tread after dark? It was germane because the tram stop I would use to get into central Manchester is on Bury Old Road.
So I googled further into the unlovely bowels of cyberspace, and ended up on, yes, Punternet (and I’m not linking because despite the sympathetic hearing I am about to give it, there are limits). Punternet is, I don’t know how else to put this, a gobsmackingly weird place to be for a sheltered gel like me. The jargon, the atmosphere, the underlying assumptions are all framed in the same terms as the contributions to TopTable or Fancy a Pint, except that these were human beings rather than the cask ales being critiqued. No, that’s not quite right – not Fancy a Pint. It’s a little weirder than that. It was exactly like trawling through the reviews of model railway enthusiasts.
So, not the most salubrious-feeling place on the internet, and, as you might guess from the model railway analogy, the contributions of the punters are generally permeated by a certain damp, sad sense of inadequacy and poor communication skills. But what I took away – what, perhaps, I chose to take away – was the emphasis on information-sharing in the interests of legal, mutually satisfactory dealings.
This is what it says on the front page:
This web site deals only with lawful activities involving consenting adults. Neither this site, nor any of its members or advertisers, are doing anything which is illegal under UK law. Nothing in this site should be construed as inducement to engage in any illegal acts. This webmaster will cooperate fully with the authorities in any matter regarding under-age persons or those forced to work against their will.
And then inside, it says this:
This web site aims to promote better understanding between customers and ladies in hopes that everyone may benefit, with less stressful, more enjoyable and mutually respectful visits
Now, it’s not altogether clear to me how said benefits accrue to said ladies as a result of being reviewed on the internet, and the fact that they don’t seem to contribute back suggests they are as puzzled about this as I am. That’s typical bloody men on the internet for you. But then when you get on to the “Field reports” (see what I mean about model railway enthusiasts?) page, it says this:
Have you been offered an underage girl?
Do you suspect that a girl you have seen is being forced to work against her will?Report child prostitution and sex slavery – ring Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111
You, the punters, CAN make a difference – Click here for a short film from Crimestoppers about trafficking
At the very least, we should concede that there is a self-policing element intrinsic in the aims of this site. The moral majority here do not appear to want to be offered underage girls, or women who are working against their will. The site owner is quite open about the fact that he will co-operate with the police in such matters. The police, I imagine, watch the site.
In short, though it’s not immediately obvious how this site makes the lives of prostitutes as a whole any better, it’s certainly not obvious how it makes them worse, and it may even make the odd life here or there quite dramatically better if and when the police do have occasion to intervene on the basis of information they read there.
This being the case, since no harm is being done and possibly a small amount of good may be being done, Harman’s posturing completely and comprehensively fails the liberal test. Imagine our universal surprise. (She also seems slightly misled about how the site is run. The owner claims to be an ordinary punter himself, and provides a classified ads section for the pimps, but the “field reports” are in a forum format and don’t appear to have anything to do with pimps.)
So the only question left turns on the legality of what Harman is demanding should happen. I have no idea whether the Governor of California has the authority to shut down a website that isn’t breaking any law, but I do reckon that California is the single worst place in the world for a politician to try getting heavy-handed with the internet. Harman has not, as some wise soul points out on the comments to the Guardian piece, cited a law, either English or American, that the site has broken. She just wants it closed because she doesn’t like it.
Of course, I don’t much like Punternet either. That’s why I haven’t linked to it. Would I feel more comfortable if it weren’t on the internet? You betcha. But decisions like that shouldn’t get made on the basis that sheltered gels like me and Harriet don’t much like seeing the evidence of prostitution. Closing down or banning something that does no harm and may do a small amount of good is a daft idea. In fact, if it means that women like me don’t ever run up against evidence of prostitution, it’s an extraordinarily counter-productive idea.
But then, Harman isn’t really and has never been on the side of women. She is actually, like all small- and big-c conservatives, on the side of the curtain-twitching classes.
Oooh, update: I take it back about the women not contributing back. They do, just not on the reviews. There are plenty of them on the forum (all currently highly indignant about Harman). H/t Paul Waugh.
September 30, 2009 at 5:10 pm
It also drives a fresh bunch of would-be shaggers onto Punternet, let’s not forget that, just as the reference to Michael Savage gave him wholly undeserved fame.
What does she want, for men to be out looking for action on the streets with girls who could be underage, diseased, trafficked or anything?
I don’t think we have a red light district- the health spas are fairly evenly spread, with a slightly higher concentration in student areas but not so great as you’d notice. Don’t know anything about which houses are used for prostitutin’ but the street girls are generally found in your usual run-down terraces.
You could try to find your MOSAIC type if you know how to get hold of it without paying (I don’t!) but maybe this helps.
http://www.uel.ac.uk/ihhd/Experian/type21.pdf
Hope for many more to follow- I’d like to see you veer onto culture & all sorts. I really missed your voice when that burqa debate was being held on about Sarkozy’s schemes in that department.
September 30, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Did I read that correctly, bought a HOUSE?! Cool.
I had the misfortune to watch the Harman speech earlier this afternoon, and I cringed at the bit about Punternet. Pushing it out of view doesn’t solve the problem.
September 30, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Ah, it’s funny (and brilliant) you’ve written about this. As it happens I’m going (fingers crossed) to be publishing a guest post by Dr Belinda Brooks-Gordon. She emailed me today up in arms about this, unsurprisingly.
I don’t want to tempt fate so I’m not going to mention how brilliant it is seeing you blogging again, by the way.
September 30, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Well I’m going to say it. It’s brilliant to see you blogging again Alix!
Great piece and gets to the heart off all that is wrong with the Nanny state. It is exactly this sort of “I don’t like it, therefore I am going to ban it” attitude that has got us into the mess we are in today with the drugs laws etc.
January 31, 2010 at 10:44 pm
She does not control the punternet publication BUT she can close down all the illegal, crook, criminal agency operators from the UK, specially the ones used by the punter net and illegal , using the girls, and when they want to leave, they ask for big pay outs to remove their photos, otherwise they keep them on thier illegal sites.. She should ban all these illegal sex trafficers from london and harrow (MR JACK RYDER, ) big criminal, gangaster tax evater, why her departement does not investigate his immoral tax free earnings…
September 30, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Found your blog a cut and paste taken from this page and pasted on punternet.
To answer your question, the benefit to us whores is that reviews on PN generate business. It’s free advertising. There is a message board attached to that site and if you look you’ll see that we DO contribute albeit with one eye on the marketing, lol.
Granted that site does have a rather misogynist tone but as you rightly say the punters there are “damp, sad” with a “sense of inadequacy and poor communication skills”. God bless em, that’s the reality of it what do you expect?
Pity the punters but don’t pity women like me. I make 72k a year and work flexible hours. We really are not the sad and downtrodden victims that Harriet Harperson wishes we were. I actually do like Harriet in some respects but she’s really gone off the boil with this one.
Thanks for the interesting input.
x
September 30, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Fenella, we’ve overlapped, I was just updating the post to say just that (I saw your cut and paste too, and thought, “Wha…?” Gee, the internet’s fast sometimes.)
I also noticed that someone on the forum, I think in another thread, mentioned “the other less respectable site” or words to that effect. Why is Hattie trying to make an example of the site which actually tries to have a care for legality, safety etc?? Typical of Labour’s tin ear at the moment.
Still, I don’t suppose the webmaster is complaining!
September 30, 2009 at 9:09 pm
All the above plus plus.
But can Bury contain Richard Baum, Tim Pickstone and the People’s Republic?
September 30, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Actually the vendor mentioned Tim Pickstone, who lives a couple of streets away!
But never fear. I will fold up the Republic by means of quantum and put it behind a molecule.
September 30, 2009 at 9:25 pm
As Asquith alludes to, if you don’t like a website, giving it lots of free publicity – especially if it’s not broken any laws – is pretty dumb. Until today, I’d never heard of PunterNet. (Not that I’m about to go there having heard of it, you understand, although part of me is now curious if there’s an Amazon style “Punters who liked this may also like…”)
September 30, 2009 at 9:38 pm
This reminds me, just a little, of an argument in America a few years back about whether ICANN should start registering websites with a new .xxx domain.
The idea was that any pornographic websites could be forced off .com domains, creating an internet ‘red light district’ which could then be easily blocked by parents and schools and those who generally don’t enjoy sitting by themselves watching strangers, *ahem*… committing carnal acts. Naturally, the porn industry hated the idea of being cordoned off, but what really killed the proposal was the bloody ‘Mothers Against Pornography’ groups who felt it would legitimise internet pornography.
Utterly counter-productive. Much like, as Asquith says, the idea of forcing ‘punters’ to go back out onto the streets to find underage girls touted by pimps, when they could be using this site to, ummm, make their arrangements.
As it were.
September 30, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Second Charlotte’s comment about your return.
Punternet is really just a modern version of Harris’s List of Covent Garden Ladies, though less well-written. I only know about it because on a CIF prostitution thread some time last year one or two self-declared “escorts” came on to say how much they valued it. But of course such people don’t and can’t exist from the point of view of Harriet Harman.
September 30, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Wow. New to your bole and new to this thread, both are excellent. You write so well and so do your commenters (very rare). Worringly, for me, I cannot add to the comments you have already had.
Good blog, I’m following.
October 1, 2009 at 11:06 am
Why thank you, Mr Cod. I do seem to get the class commenters, don’t I? I suspect it is because the sheer length of the posts bludgeons a lot of people into submission and only the long of attention span make it through. Hm. Probably a good thing I wouldn’t want to be a politician.
September 30, 2009 at 11:13 pm
As I trawl through my local blogging ecosphere I’ve found a flourishing community of ‘escort blogs’, which give a peculiar insight into the practices and attitudes at a very different end of the scale to the crack-addled streetwalkers who can occasionally be seen passed out on random front lawns in this neck of the woods.
Putting it simply the prostitution sector is obviously a skills economy, so it’s contrary to Labour’s economic message to regulate technological applications because they don’t like the purposes it is put to.
What next – banning knitting needles because they’ve become a popular murder weapon?
It’s micromanaging like this which distorts any sense of principle!
October 1, 2009 at 1:19 am
Also fisked over at my internet jotbook before Heresairch linked to your blog. Am following now on the good advice of the aforementioned Chief Heretic
http://protagonistknight.blogspot.com/
Forgive the shameless plug
October 1, 2009 at 9:19 am
Pity the punters but don’t pity women like me. I make 72k a year and work flexible hours.
At the risk of sounding, well, like this will sound, whenever I read the moral panic stories in the Daily Heil and others about ‘prostitutes with a £150/day crack habit” my first thought is not so much about the terrible way in which drug addiction leads people into prostitution but “£150 a day? That’s £50K/year just on crack, never mind food, rent, and overheads.”*
When one’s knowledge of such things is filtered through the media it’s hard to tell what proportion of working girls are making £50K+ salaries (putting them in the top 10% of earners) vs those trafficked and abused. I don’t necessarily buy the Belle du Jour myth, but from the sounds of things it’s not all grimy brick alleys and drizzle-soaked regret either.
*and I assume there must be some.
October 1, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Surely she should focus on seedier and darker aspects of prostitution rather than a “rate the hooker” site……
Seems like classic blame diversion….
October 1, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Someone has made the following comment on the original Guardian article, which I think is worth nicking in full:
“There are far more dubious escort websites than Punternet, which provides a good open forum for prostitutes and their clients, so why does HH alight upon it with such venom? Is it something to do with the fact that it was one of the first places where her, and the Poppy Project’s ‘statistics’ on prostitution were convincingly demolished?
At the end of last year the Poppy-influenced Home Office Tackling Demand report was asserting that there were 80000 prostitutes in the UK and HH, on Channel 4 (19/11), said that ’70% were forced, seeing up to 30 punters per day’. Assuming an average of 15 punters for these women and 5 for the others – that’d mean a total of 960,000 sex encounters per day in the UK ([70% x 80000 x 15] + [30% x 80000 x 5]). This simply isn’t credible, allowing that only 10% of the adult male population of 25 million are said to pay for sex, most of them only occasionally.
Debate on Punternet, and appeals there for funds by the IUWS have since allowed these points to be made to more open-minded MPS and peers.
Is it this political aspect that HH, in totalitarian mode, objects to?”
Interesting. The commenter’s name is Fakecharitybuster – that wouldn’t be the reverend Bishop Hill would it?
October 1, 2009 at 7:18 pm
I wonder when it will end up in the Internet Watch Foundation filter, and if anyone will notice.
October 5, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Congratulations, Alix, you’ve really made it when The Register – which I read for work (honest!) links to you as “leading political blogger Alix Mortimer”.
October 7, 2009 at 9:50 am
Oh WOW. Thanks for letting me know – they haven’t come up on my links thing.
Sod the Guardian. I have now Entered the Building.
October 5, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Putting it simply the prostitution sector is obviously a skills economy, so it’s contrary to Labour’s economic message to regulate technological applications because they don’t like the purposes it is put to.
Ah, but you’re forgetting that this government is the embodiment of the belief that things are either mandatory or forbidden. And they are incapable of leaving something be if they don’t like it. HH doesn’t like the fact that some people pay for sex, or that others are prepared to sell it. Therefore she will demonise it and them and anyone who thinks that it’s ok. But most people don’t use prostitutes or know a prostitute, so in order to work up a righteous moral panic, the debate has to be moved somewhere else, where people do have experience. Everyone has some experience of feeling exploited, so that becomes the central message, and any inconvenient manifestation of the sex industry that doesn’t support that model has to be ignored.
It’s amazingly telling that no-one ever mentions male and female prostitution in the same breath.* Again, because for Hattie and her fellow travellers, it has to be couched in simple nasty-oppressive-men-brutalising-poor-women terms. The same double standards creep into the pornography debate. Never mind the fact that anyone who reads anything at all about the porn industry first learns that women are paid on average more than twice what the men are, “pornography exploits women” is taken as an article of doctrine. Whether gay porn exploits men, on the other hand, is never really considered.
And the masterstroke is that when anyone complains that actually, they don’t feel that exploited, thanks, they are told that they’re culturally conditioned not to, or not self-aware enough, or brainwashed.**
*Equally, there seems to be a perception that women who hire male escorts are empowered where men who hire female escorts are socially inadequate. Don’t understand that.
** which fails Sockpuppet’s Second Law of Piss: “Anything not falsifiable stated by a politician should be treated as piss until ovewhelmingly proven otherwise.”
October 6, 2009 at 9:24 pm
[...] Last week Harriet Harman called on Governor Arnold Schwarzeneger to close prostitution website Punternet. This call had the inadvertant effect of making Punternet more visible than ever before. Numerous discussions about it (and Harman’s call for a ban) abounded in the media and blogosphere. The most sensible discussion I thought came from Alix – you can read and respond here. [...]
November 6, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Blog is such a nice one..i really enjoyed it reading the whole paragraph.
April 5, 2010 at 8:52 pm
The result of being reviewed on PunterNet is that it brings at least 1000+ more hits (in just one day usually) to our websites, thus bringing us many more lucrative bookings.
November 3, 2011 at 4:06 am
Kolkata Escorts…
[...]Cruising on Punternet « THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF MORTIMER[...]…
November 9, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Gilmar…
[...]Cruising on Punternet « THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF MORTIMER[...]…
November 17, 2011 at 12:57 pm
escorts london~london escorts~escorts in london…
[...]Cruising on Punternet « THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF MORTIMER[...]…
December 6, 2011 at 1:04 pm
High Quality Sex Free…
[...]Cruising on Punternet « THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF MORTIMER[...]…