I’ve just had word that Sunday’s fringe meeting on sex workers at the GMB Congress has today been cancelled following an intervention by the IUSW’s Catherine Stephens.
Apparently Stephens wasn’t happy that a representative from the Poppy Project had been invited to speak, so she managed to convince the GMB’s equalities peeps that Poppy were an anti-union organisation who shouldn’t be given a platform at a trade union conference.
Sorry, if you could just excuse me for a minute…..
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
The IUSW trying to dictate to others what trade unionism is all about?
What, the IUSW that allows pimps and punters into its membership so they can help set GMB policy on prostitution and the sex industry?
Don’t make me fucking laugh.
The IUSW is so committed to trade unionism and the GMB that their spokesperson, the one and only Douglas Fox, posted this comment on an escort agency forum recently:
With regard to our industry. The fact that a major union recognises our work as legitimate labour is very important and through the GMB we are able to gain access to government and through the TUC to other union and labour rights organisations. The communications workers recently voted to support decriminalisations and of course the GMB have now publicly supported decriminalisation as well and are putting pressure on the MP’s they support financially to also support sex workers rights.
By joining the GMB and by businesses supporting, joining and displaying that support openly it is sending out a clear message that we are free union members who support ethical standards. If sufficient members do this effectively the police and the government will be not just attacking individuals with little power but will be taking on the unions. Already through the GMB membership we are contacting other unions groups such as printers etc and getting a good response.
Union membership not only offers the possibility of a shield but also allows us to create our own frameworks to establish good working practises and to publicly challenge the stereotype that we are all evil pimps and trafficked, coerced victims.
Although the unions tend to be left wing (and I am a good old fashioned liberal Tory: ) I strongly support the case of a strong workers support and rights group and of course the recognition and support and access membership gives us as a union. Being part of the TUC actually gives us more clout than Red Thread in Holland. Union support has been so important in decriminalisation in New Zealand and parts of Australia. Union support is also very important in the struggle in Canada where various court test cases are in progress and of course the sex workers union in India has done amazing work.
IUSW…
The IUSW is able to campaign independently. Those who for what ever reason will not join the GMB can donate or join the IUSW by paying a subscription of your choice (min £5)… This will not give you any discounts at present as all discounts are through the GMB branch membrship. The reason we do not ask for or receive money for our IUSW campaign work from the GMB (the IUSW/GMB branch does for branch business which includes visits to businesses, running curses etc etc) is that we understand the complexities of sex work far better than the GMB because we are sex workers ourselves.
We are not affiliated to any political party and so we will talk to and negotiate with anyone and everyone with out any Pre conceptions. We do not have to ask permission for any statements we make or actions we take ie recently we stood outside Spearmint Rhino in London defending the establishment with rows of red umbrellas from hordes of screaming antis (we would have had to ask permission for this demonstration from the GMB if we were funded by them and they are restricted legally re demonstrations etc. Its complicated). We talk to ministers and various groups directly as sex workers and explain our views and opinions and we work internationally (the GMB cannot do this but our association allows us access).
Basically we want to be independent as a lobbying group and to grow as an independent international group that is supportive of the GMB but independent of the GMB. We are both important in different ways and provide different functions for sex workers and in the fight for our rights.
In other words, Fox and his pals are simply using the labour movement as a means of gaining access to the people in power, access they wouldn’t have if they didn’t have a major trade union name behind them, and access they most certainly wouldn’t have if those people knew they were actually dealing with agency owners and punters.
The IUSW want to be an independent lobbying group, but they know that without the GMB they’d get nowhere.
And I wonder if the GMB are aware that Fox et al are talking to and accepting money from anyone and everyone, like the conservative party for instance….
Here’s Dougie again:
Funds to the IUSW/GMB account go to the GMB. It is for the branch and branch activity. The IUSW cannot draw on those funds with out GMB permission.
The IUSW is separate. We are the ones who lobby on your behalf.
We are a small group at present to have achieved huge amounts of publicity and have seriously damaged the governments programme winning both media and public support. Also got the Liberals and conservatives on side. We have numerous academics also on our side.
We have done this with out any money. To go further we need donations. Cath (that’s Catherine Stephens obviously,not me) myself and a small group were given permission by the IUSW/GMB branch to organise the IUSW as a viable campaigning separate group (but still part of the whole). To do all the work we need we are asking for donations or subscriptions and for people to join and get involved. I was given the task of drawing up a constitution and opening a bank account. This has taken weeks to do. We have received nearly £1500 in donations the largest part being from the conservative party.
Hmmm, I wonder if Paul Kenny knows that one of his branches is being funded by the Tory party…..
I think he should be told.
Too Much To Say For Myself 
Ha ha – so Poppy is an anti-union organisation – yes and the moon is made of green cheese.
Poppy is solely concerned with providing support and care to women trafficked into sexual slavery and yet that is supposedly anti-union.
I do sometimes wonder at the credulity of some individuals and organisations because the IUSW is most certainly not pro-union but it is deliberately using the GMB in order to gain access and lobby individuals the IUSW would not normally have access to.
Shows how manipulation and stretching the truth works does it not? IUSW are nothing more than an arm of the very powerful sex industry which is determined to have any legislation annuled in favour of men’s unlimited pseudo sex right to women’s bodies. Not forgetting of course, the vast sums of money being made from selling women to men just so the Johns can masturbate into their bodies as well as commit sexual violence against them with impunity. No, I’m not going to document the evidence because CATW has all the necessary evidence concerning men’s sexual violence against prostituted women.
Now await the long, long list of pro -prostitution apologists descending and attempting to demonise myself, Poppy and of course the owner of this blog.
Doesn’t the Labour party accept money from anyone and everyone? Surely not!!
Ok: I’m puzzled. The tories have money to give away?
And they are giving it to the IUSW? Shurely some mistake…..
the poppy project had a taxpayer funded wage bill of £529,403 for 2008-9.
is the poppy project just a cushy number for middle class people who claim to be concerned about “trafficked” women?
the poppy project had a taxpayer funded wage bill of £529,403 for 2008-9.
is the poppy project just a cushy number for middle class people who claim to be concerned about “trafficked” women?
Depends on their client case load Peter.
Ha, yes don’t get me started on the IUSW.
As for ‘taxpayer funded’, er, I think civil servants pay taxes too.
And the issue of trafficking is of concern to everyone. It is exactly the kind of thing the government should be spending money on researching.
Ok, so Catherine Stephens is evil scum, and the GMB are ignorant cowards and fools, BUT, we can take from this that the ideas and information coming from the Poppy project are so powerful, that the IUSW has to sabotage and silence them.
We can now say, with clear evidence, that the IUSW is for prostitution, but against free speech on prostitution, and if you don’t self-identify as an ’empowered sex worker’, and follow their neoliberal line on the sex industry, they are going to do their damndest to shut you down and censor you.
And also, there is the still the question enquiring minds have wanted an answer to for a long time; with all the lobbying and research as a ‘radical anthropologist’ (http://www.altg20.org.uk/), when does Catherine Stephens actually find the time to do any actual sex work?
Thank you Cath for continuing to expose Fox, Stephens and the rest of the sham that is the IUSW. Have people been contacting the GMB in numbers to highlight to them what they are promoting and legitimising? Would they listen to the concerns of non-GMB members too if people were to write?
On a related note.. More propaganda by ‘sex work activists’ on Jill B’s blog:
http://deepthroated.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/no-boost-for-sex-trade-as-olympics-loom-says-report/#comment-9208
It’s staggering that anyone could have the nerve to deny women’s realities whilst claiming to speak for them.
I would be incredibly interested to know exactly what ‘sex work’ and how often Catherine Stephens and her buddies are involved. All I know is that she claims to be a ‘sex worker’. I haven’t been able to find any information about what she does. Under the IUSW definition, sex workers include bar staff and cleaners in lap dancing clubs to my knowledge? I am aware of Fox’s claims (changed from info in a TV documentary a year or so ago) of being a gay escort, and his involvment in running a prostitution agency. They all seem extremely busy running around holding meetings with the government to secure the rights of pimps and abusers and hijack Union platforms to spread their horrible message. Personally I would be far to cream crackered to service punters on top of all of this.
Well maybe we should try to book her and find out….
is the poppy project just a cushy number for middle class people who claim to be concerned about “trafficked” women?
Dunno Peter, I don’t know enough about them. Is “Punterpride” just a front for men who can’t get sex if they don’t pay for it?
However I see from the Eaves website that a lot of their workers are volunteers. So maybe not.
How is the controversial new blog coming along BTW Peter? Any readers? It’s hard to be controversial without readers…….
Sorry about the delay in some of the commets getting through. I’m away at another trade union conference (and yes, I so wish I could have gone to the GMB one and asked some questions!), so I’m only checking in on the blog intermittently.
But Douglas, if you’re still reading this, I saw your comment about it on NP – perhaps you’d like to post here and explain where exactly the innaccuracies lie in this piece…..
hi polly styrene
yes, its true that many men would’nt get sex if they did’nt pay for it,although its also true that the same men who pay for sex are paying for sex with a gorgeous female,is that what upsets the puritans?
Don’t know Peter, maybe you need ask the puritans, although I sincerely doubt they would be concerned about men fucking out-side of their league. Even without monetary exchange it remains a highly common and recognised phenomenon.
Thank you for this post (and others you’ve done) on the IUSW, Cath. I linked to it in my latest blog post – right at the end, in bold, is a little comment for anyone who’s interested. I’m hoping for more ahem, realistic alternatives to the word ‘punter’…
http://gts-kjb.blogspot.com/2009/06/there-aint-no-way.html
Well a lot of the street prostitutes I see are addicted to drugs Peter, so I doubt that they would fit the adjective ‘gorgeous’.
I have no idea what upsets the puritans, I’ve always been on the Cavalier side personally. But what upsets me about women in the sex industry is them being abused and forced to sleep with loathsome men that no woman would sleep with voluntarily. Because you do have to understand Peter. They don’t want to sleep with you. They do it for the money.
KJB
“I’m hoping for more ahem, realistic alternatives to the word ‘punter’…”
I would suggest that a far more realistic and legally valid alternative to the slang term “punter” would be “customer”.
As you will be aware, customers in this country have a considerable measure of legal protection against fraud. Exactly the same legal protection should apply where the customer is purchasing services from a sex worker by mutual consent, as in any other legal transaction.
The government’s bizarre attempt to make the purchase of sexual services into a lottery, in which the customer, who cannot possibly be expected to know whether or not the sex worker is being coerced, is automatically to be convicted and fined £1,000 if he makes an incorrect assessment, completely violates all present legislation on customers’ rights.
Sex workers are also entitled to expect corresponding rights, not police persecution as at present. One of the most egregious examples of the violation of sex workers’ rights must surely be the Ipswich scenario, in which twenty years of police crackdowns had led to a vicious circle of drug addiction, freelance street prostitution, a reign of terror due to police persecution, and social isolation so extreme that the women (all English) did not even feel able to contact their GPs or welfare services for help with their drug addiction. That is precisely the scenario which enabled the psychopath to attack so ruthlessly.
How many Ipswich sex workers have ever approached the police for help with their drug addiction? Precious few, I’ll wager. Yet if the police are there to help them, sex workers should be able to do exactly that.
One of the most egregious examples of the violation of sex workers’ rights must surely be the Ipswich scenario, in which twenty years of police crackdowns had led to a vicious circle of drug addiction, freelance street prostitution, a reign of terror due to police persecution, and social isolation so extreme that the women (all English) did not even feel able to contact their GPs or welfare services for help with their drug addiction.
What exactly is your evidence for the women ‘not feeling able to contact their GP or welfare services for help? Apart from your vivid imagination?
Also last time I checked the police weren’t actually dealing heroin (well not officially anyway). I’ve said lots of times that I think heroin should be available on prescription. However how ‘proud’ are you to be a punter Gulfstream 5 when you know you are having sex with a woman who finds you repulsive just so she can feed a drug habit?
ACTUALLY, after the ‘Ipswich’ scenario a report said that the local strategy on prostitution was working. But don’t let little things like facts get in they way eh?
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2008/oct/Ipswich+prostitution+strategy+working,+says+report
In just a few months, over 33 women have been helped to make positive changes in their lives. This includes reducing drug use, staying in stable accommodation and getting more regular access to health treatment. Many have reported that they found even the first steps rewarding. One young woman who has been provided with support via the voluntary organisation Iceni said:
“I was going to Iceni, I got a programme and the help that they gave us saved my life. They [the policewomen] were basically saying I could get a life, somewhere to live. I was worth more than I thought. I had never had people say that to me
Google is your friend, gulfstream5.
Polly Styrene
“What exactly is your evidence for the women ‘not feeling able to contact their GP or welfare services for help?”
The fact that they didn’t do so.
Can I suggest you actually READ WHAT I’VE WRITTEN YOU NUMBSKULL?
And also explain exactly how ‘police crackdowns’ lead to women being addicted to drugs in the first place? And provide evidence that such ‘police crackdowns’ actually took place? And prove that the women “felt unable” to contact their GP’s or social services for help with their drug addiction (as opposed to didn’t do so, they may not have wanted to)? And prove that none of them contacted GP’s or social services in any case? And then prove that ANY of this was to do with “police persecution”? Because that’s the most illogical bit of all……
And then I might believe you. But as it is I just gave you evidence of the complete opposite. Which you chose to ignore of course.
The real reason that drug users often don’t approach GP’s for help is that ‘help’ consists of methadone prescription. It is the remedy on offer that is at fault, it’s nothing to do with ‘police crackdowns’.
Here is a report from Channel 4 news, in which a woman is still using heroin, and still working the streets, despite being prescribed methadone. From a social worker and GP surprisingly enough!
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/the+prostitutes+tale/173580
Google is your friend, gulfstream5.
Let’s face it gulfstream5, it will be a cold day in mythological hell where we use John’s analysis to even begin to consider the dynamics of prostitution. Users and abusers are not afforded a platform you see.
I think ‘analysis’ is pushing it a bit Sparks, since that suggests some kind of thought based process rather than making wild statements based on no evidence whatsoever, as we have seen.
Ha, exactly Polly!
The only problem with this story is that, like so much commentary on sex work, it’s completely inaccurate. The facts of the matter can be confirmed by Kamaljeet Jandu, the GMB’s National Equality & Inclusion Officer.
Kamaljeet.Jandu@gmb.org.uk
Cath Elliot’s analysis of a pimps charter can’t be faulted.
The GMB do not do ‘facts’ they are complete eejits, and I know that because their would be affiliate members often end up coming to me for rescue or assistance.
If the GMB were any good, lap dancing agents would go to them, instead of me, to rescue their expensive artistes.
The other thing, which is worth remarking upon, is the GMB has yet to close a organized crime connected club, and I’be closed a couple of dozen.
Has the GMB blacklisted a single strip club for using kids?
Lastly. immigration laws are there, because they just are, one is either a supporter of ‘the law’ or one is in a black market.
Gregory