Comments on: DEMAND FOR CHANGE!

By: Believe

Believe — Wed, 06 Nov 2013 04:10:04 +0000

Slavery is endemic in much of the unzleiiicvd world, and especially in the muslim world. Religion is still a large part of the problem mainly because religion permits and even endorses slavery.

By: Anon

Anon — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:10:35 +0000

Human rights, yadda, yadda, yadda. I work in law enforcement and the last thing we need is more bloody human rights.

We need proper sentencing. How long do you reckon Madoff would have got had he been convicted in the UK? My bet is he would have got 10 years and served 5, most of that in a low security jail.

My personal preference would be a reintroduction of the death penalty for serious organised criminals, but failing that life should mean life and life sentences should be passed for people trafficking.

By: Dot

Dot — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 06:49:15 +0000

Ahem “reason” (or should we say ‘contempt trying unsuccessfully to masquerade as reason’), you nailed your colours to the mast in your first post. You left a rather ‘stalker in the bushes’ comment about the people who turn up to Object’s meetings. You come across as totally adversarial and yet you act like the organisation owes you some sort of explanation.

It can only be a weird form of narcissistic arrogance (akin to the kind that gives a person a weird sense of entitlement to subject others to unwanted sex, as long as you have the money to pay for it), which makes you believe that a) anyone from Object’s management comittee has the time or inclination to engage in debate with a adversarial punter/stalker, or b) that they are under any sort of obligation to do so.

By: Charlie

Charlie — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:02:08 +0000

A charitable, or ‘non-profit’ organisation does not have to be registered as a charity to receive/request public donations.

By: Reason

Reason — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 17:41:55 +0000

sarahcl
You really do have a warped view of the world!

I have simply asked why Object does not appear to be registered with the Charity Commission, while it describes itself as a “charitable organisation” and solicits donations from the public. This can hardly be described as “attacking”.

By: Catherine Stephens

Catherine Stephens — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:29:38 +0000

sarahcl, on July 1st, 2009 at 1:12 pm Said:
And how about Catherine Stephens shutting down a GMB fringe meeting on prostitution because a representative from The Poppy Project was speaking?

As has been stated on the blog sarahcl references:
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.

By: sarahcl

sarahcl — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:30:29 +0000

‘Reason’, you are attacking a feminist organisation with a level of scrutiny you evidently do not think needs to be applied to pimps and pornographers. The sex industry is huge and hugely profitable, and fuelled by sexism, poverty and inequality, but you don’t think that needs examining at all.

By: Reason

Reason — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:49:18 +0000

Interestingly, Object has not explained why it does not appear to be registered with the Charity Commission, although .its website describes itself as a “charitable organisation” and solicits donations from the public.

By: sarahcl

sarahcl — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:20:14 +0000

I was speaking for myself in my post, I do not represent The Poppy Project, and had no involvement with the GMB meeting, all the ‘abusive’ language is mine alone.

If you’re so keen on defending the IUSW, perhaps you could actually address some of the issues I have raised?

By: Campaigning for Transparency

Campaigning for Transparency — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 08:55:05 +0000

The GMB has every right to cancel a meeting that was about to be hijacked by those who are determined to harm it.

Look at the abusive language above: “pimps”, “brothel keepers”, “johns”, “representing the interests of the people who exploit them”, “not a legitimate union”.

Would there have been a constructive meeting with language like that? Of course not.