1. Journey

It seems harmless, doesn't it? A journey. A gentle voyage on a boat. A train ride to the south coast. An ocean crossing to a new life. It seems Victorian - picnics and sandwiches, lemonade and a squalling baby. Not any more. Not now that Tony Blair, toned and tanned, has thrust his moody face on to the cover of a book and called it . . . The Journey.

Tony, why are you so effortlessly irritating? Whether it's cosying up with hedge funds, or accumulating cash like a panic-shopper in a fuel strike, or telling us all what to think about Iran even though it's not your job any more, you aggravate for a living. And you top it all off with that book title. Because "the journey" - in the context of a Blair memoir - doesn't actually mean journey any more.

This is not a book about the time Blair flew from saving Sierra Leone to sort out the Middle East and what he watched on the in-flight entertainment. This is a journey. It is something waffly spiritual, something abstractly internal, something indistinctly emotional. Some other examples of journey books - The Journey: an Extraordinary Guide for Healing Your Life and Setting Yourself Free; The Journey for Kids: Liberating Your Child's Shining Potential; and Where's Wally? The Fantastic Journey.

With the honourable exception of Wally, none of these journeys is a journey at all. They're all intangible efforts to do something about your life or someone else's in a way that is definitely going to make everyone cry at the end. Good old Wally, flying the flag for hard truth in the midst of psychobabble. There's even "journey therapy" now, a "healing process" that "gives you the tools to resolve your issues and let them go". Maybe Tony has sampled its powers, resolved his "issues", and let go. No wonder he could simper his way through the Iraq inquiry.

So, a rallying cry: let us reclaim "journey" from the hands of these empty emoters. Let's get back to its basics - the gentle act of going from A to B, getting on and getting off, a sketched line following a contour on a map. This is a journey, Wally-style, the real deal.

Sophie Elmhirst is features editor of the New Statesman

This article first appeared in the 15 March 2010 issue of the New Statesman, Falklands II

Photo: Getty Images/AFP
Show Hide image

Why is the government charging more women for selling sex but turning a blind eye to buyers?

Since 2013, the number of women charged for selling sex gone up while the number of men charged for buying it has gone down.

It’s no surprise that prostitution policy is an area rarely visited by our legislators. It’s politically charged - a place where the need to prevent exploitation seemingly clashes head on with notions of liberal freedom; where there are few simple answers, a disputed evidence base, and no votes.

There’s also little evidence to suggest that MPs are different from the rest of the population - where one-in-ten men have purchased sex. It is little wonder therefore that our report on how the law should change, published in 2014, was the first major cross-party intervention on the subject in twenty years.

Some take the view that by removing all legal constraints, it will make the inherently exploitative trade of prostitution, safer. It’s not just me that questions this approach, though I accept that - equally - there’s no consensus that my preferred measure of criminalising the purchase of sex, while decriminalising the sale, would fundamentally change the scale of the problem.

Where all sides come together, however, is in the desire to see women diverted from the law courts. It is still possible for women (and it still is women; prostitution remains highly genderised) to go to prison for offences related to prostitution. Today, in 2015.

The total number of prosecutions for all prostitution offences in England and Wales has been decreasing since 2010, but not in a uniform fashion. This does not reflect a reduction in the size of the trade, or the violent nature of it.

There were once consistently more prosecutions for kerb crawling, profiting, and control of prostitution. But since 2013, there have been more prosecutions for soliciting or loitering than for profit from prostitution and kerb crawling each year.

In simple terms, offences committed by men with choice, freedom and money in their pocket are having a blind eye turned to them, while women are being targeted - and this trend is accelerating. In the law courts, and in prosecutions, it is the most vulnerable party in the transaction, who is taking the burden of criminality.

Take on-street sex buying as an example. In 2013-14 just 237 prosecutions were brought for kerb crawling, but there were 553 - more than twice as many - for loitering and soliciting.

There is a similar pattern in the 2014/15 figures: 227 charges for kerb crawling reached court, while 456 prosecutions were initiated against those who were selling sex. Just 83 prosecutions for control of prostitution, or ‘pimping’, were brought in that same year.

These are men and women on the same street. It takes a high level of liberal delusion to be convinced that prostitution is caused by a surge of women wishing to sell sex, rather than men who wish to buy it. And yet women who sell sex are the ones being targeted in our law courts, not the men that create the demand in the first place.

This situation even goes against the Crown Prosecution Service’s (CPS) own guidance. They say:

“Prostitution is addressed as sexual exploitation within the overall CPS Violence Against Women strategy because of its gendered nature… At the same time, those who abuse and exploit those involved in prostitution should be rigorously investigated and prosecuted, and enforcement activity focused on those who create the demand for on-street sex, such as kerb crawlers.”

Why then, is this happening? For the same reason it always does - in our criminal justice system stigmatised, poor women are valued less than moneyed, professional men.

My debate in Parliament today raises these issues directly with the government ministers responsible. But to be honest, the prosecution-bias against women in the courts isn’t the problem; merely a symptom of it. This bias will only be tackled when the law reflects the inherent harm of the trade to women, rather than sending the mixed signals of today.

That’s why I welcome the work of the End Demand Alliance, composed of over 40 organisations working to end the demand that fuels sex trafficking and prostitution, advocating the adoption of the Sex Buyer Law throughout the UK.

This would criminalise paying for sex, while decriminalising its sale and providing support and exiting services for those exploited by prostitution. Regardless of these big changes in the law, I don’t see how anyone can support the current state of affairs where there are more prosecutions brought against women than men involved in prostitution.

The authorities are targeting women because they're easier to arrest and prosecute. It goes against their own guidance, common sense and natural justice.
And it needs to stop.

Gavin Shuker is MP for Luton South and chair of the All Party Group on Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade.