Two Years Late, But We Have a Sex Workers’ Strategy. Almost.

(Picture from Newham Recorder)

Previously, Newham had a strategy for combatting the problems associated with prostitution. It was not a new issue and was tackled in several ways.

The early years of the new century saw a growth in the number of brothels, often operating from private premises. Under the Wales administration, the council adopted a novel way to close them down. They used the planning laws. Brothels were businesses. They were operating in private premises without the required planning consents. These ‘businesses’ were closed down.

It was quick, it was cheap, and it was effective.

This did not deal with the matter of street prostitution. This is a problem that has blighted the residents either side of the Romford Road for years. The problem is both ‘moral’ and material.

The moral issue is seated in a religious community (in this case mainly Muslims) who object to ‘immoral’ sexual behaviour on the streets outside their homes. You might understand this, but it cuts no ice in today’s political climate. Fiaz’s response is effectively, “who cares?”.

The second issue is likely to elicit a more sympathetic answer. Women, even girls are approached on the street by men wanting to buy sex. This distresses the women and angers the men and although there have been incidents where violence was threatened, thankfully, objections have been largely peaceful.

Nobody, not even Fiaz, thinks that women should be subjected to harassment.

The issue is, what do you do about it?

Again, under Wales, the problem was tackled in two ways. The council and the police worked together using both civil and criminal enforcement measures to manage the problem. This did not cure it, and as critics have noted, success actually meant displacement. But it did mean that the impact was mitigated.

Alongside this the council funded access to support organisations which provided a way out of prostitution for those sex-workers that wished to take it. The numbers seeking support were significant. The numbers actually leaving prostitution were negligible.

In 2018, Wales was replaced by Fiaz. Fiaz appointed Carleene Lee Phakoe as her cabinet member for Crime and ASB. In turn, Lee Phakoe proposed the extension of Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs) to combat street prostitution. They would allow the police to ‘move-on’ women working on the streets. This appeared to be uncontroversial until Fiaz announced a volte face. Lee Phakoe resigned.

It appears that, under the influence of, the now suspended, Cllr Lewis Godfrey, Fiaz had adopted the strategy favoured by the English Collective of Prostitutes. (Our understanding is that Godfrey was suspended by the Labour Party, which makes the following entry on the council website, where he is registered as a Labour and Co-op member, a bit baffling.)

The new approach required the abandonment of any enforcement action against sex workers on the streets. Quite what would replace this approach was not explained, but we were told, a strategy would be forthcoming.

Now, almost two years later, and a year later than promised, a (draft) strategy has been presented to cabinet. 

This is what we can expect.

According to the Local Government Association, Newham Council is in place “to determine and deliver on local priorities”. This does rather suggest that the council is under some sort of obligation to listen to the views of their residents.

So, we read the opening lines of the strategy with interest. The point of the strategy is to “Develop a Tackling Sex Work strategy, to reduce the stigmatisation and exploitation of street and off-street sex workers”.

The clear aim of the proposals is to reduce “stigmatization and exploitation of… sex workers”

By redefining the problem, Fiaz has changed the nature of the work that will be done. One might read this as part of the council’s attempt to “queer” the borough; making that which was marginal, mainstream. What it does not do, is deliver on the priorities of local people.

We learn that the strategy aims to “improve our response to sex work in the borough”. That is nothing if not ambiguous. We do however learn in the same paragraph that “It sets out our work towards inspiring confidence and trust in all residents, including sex workers so they feel safe, feel heard, and are able to access the support they need.”

And “the need for a non-criminalising, multi-agency, strategic approach that gives sex workers a seat at the table and engages and connects with residents in a local area is best practice”, apparently.

One might substitute the missing sexual ovoids of castrated bovine males as the appropriate response to this contradictory nonsense. Bullocks!

Newham Council have abandoned the residents of the ‘five wards’ in favour of the policies of the English Collective of Prostitutes. 

To the feminists of the Collective, prostitution is a practical means by which women can earn a crust. There are other feminists for whom prostitution is nothing short of the sexual exploitation of women orchestrated by the patriarchy. It may be that readers feel that there is a contradiction between the two views and a slight inconsistency in feminist ideology.

Of course, both views might be true depending upon the circumstances. But residents have the right to object to the plying of the trade outside their front doors just as they would to a concrete works being built opposite or a massive entertainment venue being constructed nearby or even a scrap yard in a residential neighbourhood.

Residents might have that right, but Newham Council is not going to listen.

We haven’t even begun to dissect the whole strategy, but it is available to read on line. At best it is woolie verbiage. At worst it shows the contempt our politicians have for our residents.

An afterthought. Nationally and locally, the Labour Party seem determined to alienate the people who voted for them. Promising the residents of five vulnerable wards, uninterrupted prostitution on the streets outside their homes seems a clear way of gifting those council seats to the opposition.