« Labour's failed the working class on university admissions | Main | ConservativeHome in GQ »


If the jobs are legal, yes.

Its absolutely wrong that women are exploited in this way because they need work. No agency of the government should be involved in promoting and thereby supporting the sex industry.

We had a big debate on this very subject last year in webcameron after jobcentreplus were involved in promoting work offered by so-called 'escort services'. The temptation for some women to be drawn into this type of activity, particularly at a time when many families are facing debt and need to keep up mortgage payments is very real.

We must not let the pimps and spivs exploit poverty, the Labour government should feel ashamed that it has allowed the good name of jobcentreplus to be associated with sexual exploitation.

Of course they should be they are legal .Sex lines can be handled from home which is a potential useful earner for single mums.

Felicity's right.

What next - preventing job centres from advertising jobs that might potentially involve selling tobacco, alcohol or fatty foods?

Is Chris Grayling's objection that they are at the National Minimum Wage or what? no point in protesting about the state and then demanding it interferes more.

Too much chasing of a Daily Express headline, I fear.

I do not object as long as it's not one of the jobs that a jobseeker is required to take or they risk losing benefits. Noone should ever be forced to do such demeaning work. If the jobs are legal then I'm with Felicity.

If lap-dancers are earning NMW then they must be pretty rank.

I agree with Chris Grayling that if these jobs are on the minimum wage there must be exploitation involved. They should be much better paid than that. I agree with him that the jobs should be advertised in job centres only for decent non-exploitative wages.

The main problem with the sex industry is coercive recruiting practices abroad, trafficking etc. These people are unlikely to be recruited through job centres and, to the extent that job centres increase the supply of locally based labour, it might help choke off demand for these much more likely exploited imports. But Grayling is right that this strategy will only work if the pay is a lot more than the minimum wage.

Er, where can I find one of these ads? A friend of mine is interested.

Can I just say to Tony Makara that lap dancing is a very well paid job ,lap dancers are definitely not exploited by anyone. Most sex workers ( incl myself) are private individuals who earn good money , make a valuable contribution to society, who are not exploited and have chosen a career in the busines for the benefits it offers.
I have genrally a high opinion of Chris Grayling but for once he is simply not aware of the facts.
The Poppy Project is a good idea but it only deals with a minor part of the sex industry and it is about time politicians opened their eyes and got a better understanding of what is involved. I wrote in detail to both Harriet Harperson and Vernon Coaker ,Home Affairs Minister ,who was specially tasked to look at the business and offered my help , response came there none. Politicians dont want to know

Reading these comments I thought I'd stumbled on Guido's blog just for a minute!

If they are legal jobs, then why are there objections? Surely bringing these jobs into the mainstream is moving them towards regulation like many other industries and thus safer and less open to exploitation? The state is earning tax off of these jobs just like any other after all. Which brings me nicely onto the legalisation of prostitution...

"Should Job Centres advertise work in the sex industry?"

Most people will instinctively say no.

But I suppose that the real issue is that we should certainlynot be saying to women that unless they accept jobs like that, we will kick them off benefits.

Beverly Johnson, the fact that a 'job' is well paid does not necessarily mean that it is not exploitive. We all know that some prostitutes can earn a lot of money, but they are still being 'exploited'. I suppose all this boils down to how much one values the dignity of a human being. The exploitation does not end with the prostitute as the client becomes a victim of his own vice. How tragic it is that some men feel they have to pay women to beat and degrade them, when what they really need is psychological counselling.

The whole sex industry is based on degradation, for the sex worker and for the client. When women are continually portayed as chattel, to be bought, it changes the way that men perceive women. Those who advocate such exploitation do not understand the harm that it does to society and human relations as a whole.

Just another Labour cockup.


I think the problem is that those MPs who have any experience of the sex industry take care not to demonstrate it, leaving the field clear for the ignorant who do not. What do you do Beverly?

MPs can't say: "I have chatted to lots of girls at lovely sex parties and lap dancing clubs and most of them are well paid and happy in their work, but there is an issue about x, y or z" because the News of the World, and the prudes, would be on to them like a shot. But we on here in relative anonymity can be more sensible about it.

Maybe a major argument for Lord Laidlaw to end his leave of absence from the Lords is that, following his revelations at the week-end, he could share his experiences of the issues.

What I suspect the Poppy Project rep was saying was that we won't tackle human trafficking if demand continues to grow for sexual services. That demand is only going to grow if the government encourages its growth.

I don't have much time for the "if it's legal, then yes" answer.

There are lots of things that are legal (and should remain so) that the state should not encourage.

I'm reasonably liberal on the sex trade if nobody is exploited and where it does not impact negatively on the surrounding area, but I don't think it should be encouraged, and certainly not by the state.


No, never, absolutely not, no way!!!

I am fully in favour of sex industry ads being places in job centres.

That may surprise some regular readers of my posts. I know you all think I am a prude!

I simply believe in free trade. Let the market decide what is right and what is wrong.

We are all born with different talents. I for instance am intelligent and business minded and therefore very successful.

Some gals will find that their forte lies in being a temptress. So why shouldn't they be allowed to exploit their own full potential.

Whats more it will get a lot of these chavish gals from council estates off the benefits system.

They can drain the pockets of lonely gentlemen rather than my purse via the benefits system!

"Maybe a major argument for Lord Laidlaw to end his leave of absence from the Lords...he could share his experiences of the issues."

Londer, yes, that would provide us with great insight into the subject. I've often wondered what drives men to be interested in pornography, which is basically the same thing, re-done and re-sold, over and over again. Personally I would prefer to watch a Deanna Durbin movie than watch a porn movie. Pornography is about as boring as watching a weaving loom in operation.

Unless it's planning to discount their rates and taxes, government can't selectively deny its public services to legitimate businesses and their employees.

CCHQ and Grayling are being daft to try and make mileage out of this.

Londoner, you are so right about the value of confidentiality. I would hate anyone to find out I was blogging about sex - filthy topic.

Talking of "Lord" Moneybags, to whom no peerage was sold by the uncorrupt Tories, can anyone enlighten us as to what a 'tri-lingual bisexual' actually is. It sounds great (three tongues) but I don't think I've tried it.

Isn't it interesting that as soon as you mention sex you get dozens of posts.

I well remeber in my youth when I worked as a dancer (in a respectabledrinking establishment) in the 40s. I turned the head of quite a number of American GIs. I like to think I did my bit for the war effort.

I think these gals should be encouraged and taxed like the rest of us.

Yes, but only if an equal opportunities policy is rigorously enforced

It is disgraceful the way that lap dancing clubs discriminate against the elderly, infirm and male.

Stringfellows should be free to advertise but only as long as it takes its fair quota of paraplegic grandfathers.

Of course they should. It should be up to jobseekers to choose between available jobs, rather than self-righteous moralisers.

Legality is not sufficient justification

There are all sorts of things that politicians shouldn't ban by law but should nevertheless discourage

I'm amazed the Conservatives are taking a moral position on something. About time too!

Pisaboy, I too like to see the Conservative party stand up for what is morally right. It is a sad reflection of our times that the very term 'Moralizing' is seen as something negative.

If it is lawful then why block recruitment through jobcentres? If some types of jobs are to be blocked then who does the blocking and on what grounds? Should bar work be blocked too because some jobseekers are under 18 or Muslim? The filtering of what jobs can be advertised would be subject to either massive red tape to ensure that they followed the rules, or the personal agenda of dubious characters in the DWP.

If the plans to force jobseekers to apply for whatever jobs they are capable of regardless of opinions or suitability go ahead then why should such jobs be made an exception? What about other moral objections such as the company’s involvement in selling alcohol, meat, arms or their environmental policy? Just saying employers wouldn’t hire someone that didn’t want the job is not good enough as the DWP would use failure to get a job applied for as evidence that ‘you are not really trying to find work’ and close the claim anyway. Remember, we are dealing with ignorant and vindictive people here.

I got up to "Its absolutely wrong that women are exploited in this way..." and thought "why, if that isn't the unmistakable pious tone of Tony Makara!".

And I was right, you know...

It's amazing how few people understand how this country is run. Employment law is dictated by the EU (it's a "competence"). When a Job Centre refused to carry an Anne Summers ad, the firm took it to court and won, in 2003, using reference to EU employment law. Hence, govt Job Seeker websites must, in the words of the DWP, "carry adverts for any jobs which are legal". Pole dancing is legal. Got a problem with any of this? Blame the party that took us into the EEC and then signed the treaty (Maastricht) that formed the EU.

Machiavelli's Understudy, it strikes me that some people have become so morally debased these days they are unable to differentiate between right and wrong. I'd rather be seen as pious than sullied with a warped inverted sense of morality.

"Pole dancing is legal." Especially in Warsaw!

Simple answer: No.

Tory MPs are known for their inside perspective on the sex industry, so I think this is a good topic for them to address. Perhaps Cameron could go on another fact finding mission?

the Labour government should feel ashamed that it has allowed the good name of jobcentreplus to be associated with sexual exploitation.
It was something that the Labour government attempted to stop, it's nothing new - it went on under the previous government.

Avon successfully challenged the ban, arguing that it infringed their rights, that they were a legal organisation and so entitled to access to jobcentres, I forget which act it was. Presumably it would require amendments to legislation relating to business law as well to stop jobcentres advertising their services barring of course jobcentres simply ceasing to be involved in advertising jobs - I don't really see why employers should get free subsidies for recruitment, surely recruitment is something that employers should handle directly or through agencies, adverts in papers etc... and should pay for it themselves, if it is to be through jobcentres then the jobcentres should be commercialised and privatised.

Yet Another Anon, I agree that it is a difficult situation to resolve, particularly as the people trying to recruit for this type of 'job' have the time and money to force the issue legally. If the hands of jobcentreplus are tied legally then surely it is not beyond the power of a government to lay down conditions, within a legal framework, as to what type of jobs it advertises in its own centres?

Its good to see that Chris Grayling has raised this issue because it provides an opportunity for the DWP to define what exactly the role of jobcentreplus should be and where necessary tighten up a few loopholes to stop exploitative jobs such as escort-services or even paid work as a medical guinea pig. Those who are without work and facing the pressure of debt are vulnerable to such offers of quick-money.

If the hands of jobcentreplus are tied legally then surely it is not beyond the power of a government to lay down conditions, within a legal framework, as to what type of jobs it advertises in its own centres?
The government initially did that and then after a few years Avon successfully got this ruled illegal by the High Court.

When I say Avon, just to clarify, I mean as in Avon Calling, not the county in South West England.

Actually, just to correct myself it was Ann Summers not Avon - have to admit I know very little about either company and have no interest in anything either of them sell.

Jobcentre go-ahead for Ann Summers

Explains why I couldn't find the news articles on it

Margaret Hemmings is channeling the spirit of Joe Orton, and I claim my fiver!

plzzzzzzz i want to job sex work

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker