fortunateone

i actually would say the same thing. I can compare last year, same time of December, number of appts, income, etc almost exactly the same. For the OP, it is possible that weather and 'newness' contributed to being busy busy. You might find that things plateau once the shiney penny newness rubs off. there is a certain percentage of clients who only see sps once or twice, when they are new. They rarely return, and the total # of clients in a month drops once they've all shown up lol

the outcome of this will be good to know regarding c36, if c36 actually is something anyone in any city is going to have to be concerned about.

There is all kinds of wrong with the show, but what really offended me the most was the write up by ET referring to hookers, and so on.

I have seen two articles quoting from Edmonton officers that they don't think much will change due to C36. Both seemed to only refer to street workers anyway. One was worried that the program they use for support would disappear because they would be unable to arrest the SWs in order to take them to this outreach centre which is how they were getting them there. Another report was mentioned, regarding Montreal not going to enforce anything that wasn't already inline with their current anti trafficking procedures. http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/426200/prostitution-pas-d-arrestations-de-masse-en-vue-a-montreal http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/12/08/new-prostitution-bill-may-put-edmonton-outreach-programs-in-jeopardy http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/12/08/gunter-anti-prostitution-law-usless-at-best

The experience with sex work laws is that the lower courts do not side with the law. That is how the challenge got to the SCC, it was the govt who wouldn't accept the lower court ruling. Had they kept quiet after the first one, the SCC would never have been able to overturn those 3 items in a way that affected the entire country. The point of the Ontario govt doing something is that they don't actually need any client to represent.

NR has in the past done a couple of things to get profiles/ads up. Scrape from bp, the escort posts her own, or the client doing a review has to set up the escort profile in order to do the review. I think they revised the client putting up info, but it doesn't mean that the info you are seeing with these names is accurate, that they are still working, or the ads/profiles are even local to you. try using a more local site to cross reference, or google the contact info in those ads first, to see if you can't find something more accurate or current.

Dear Mr. Harper. Clients don't contact me until/unless i advertise. Which means that they seek out the services that are being offered, they are not demanding that said services be provided to them based on male entitlement. If I did not advertise, they wouldn't be expecting that I provide them at all. And that's only one thing that is misleading about this legislation and the lies it was built on. Signed Clearly smarter than a Con.

Because abortion rights means giving the sole right to terminate to the woman, which basically means a lack of any rights of the man. This sort of radfem is big on not letting men be able to do anything in regards to women, including whether or not their child is born or not (note i am a pro abortion, and really don't think it is a men's rights issue, however we are talking about why radfems don't view abortion as they do sex work when it comes to choice about what women can do with their bodies. ) Basically a radfem of this type does not want men to have anything, whether it is access to sex or access to children. To them the two things are not contradictory, because it is basically based not on woman's choice to do as they wish with their own bodies, but making sure that men do not have a choice at all. And basically, there is somewhat of a movement to not allow this type of anti sex worker person to call themselves 'feminist'. Instead, you can refer to them as SWERFs Swerf = sex work exclusionary radical feminist. A person who espouses to be a feminist but who does not believe that women engaged in ANY form of voluntary sex work should be included in the fight for equality, especially in employment or salary parity. This rabid exclusion of an entire class of women is usually a belief based on misplaced uptight morality. Terf is used for that special brand of SWERFer who does not believe that any male transitioning or transitioned to female should ever be considered a woman. Because, according to a TERF, that person did not 'live' as a woman, and therefore does not count.

It seriously seems like the antis/abolitionists are scrambling now. They figured done deal, and it must sting to see that the major Canadian cities refuse to comply, major advertising venues refuse to comply, heck many LE services refuse to comply. I'm not sure about Montreal, but do seem to have a thought that they weren't going to comply either?

there should be a link to a story about some research done in the DTES Vancouver when only the clients were targeted in stings (using the public solicitation laws, that is). The results were quite significant, and it includes comments from some street workers as well.

i was confused by some words in the article, particuarly when Alan Y's last name was changed to youthful. censorship lol

it did seem like a deflection to me. Why the study, she must have known about the issue for months.

I didn't realize that there was any words being replaced. That could be awkward. I did see some words replaced with explanatory phrases in brackets, and maybe people would prefer that to just automatically come up with any censor word. it is sometimes hard to figure out what the one problem word is, let alone a few lol.

I think you would benefit from a very thorough read of all the posts, and click all the links, in this thread. To be here, on the 5th, and this be a concern of any escort right now is disturbing. It means that the way the bill is being presented is causing a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation, imo. it is also drowning out the fact the effects of the SCC ruling will also be noticed this month.

For someone new, your city's response to C36 is going to make a difference. finding out what your city council or local LE is planning, or not planning, is kind of important at this stage.

You could ask for input from the city council. For Toronto, Vancouver and Victoria it has been the city's decision to protest C36 and suggest that LE does not enforce. The VPD is different in that talks have gone on over several years with sex worker groups in order for them to come up with their new policies regarding sps.

Even if money was the first reason someone decided to do this, it would not be the reason they would continue to do this.

KC, this should also eliminate agencies or mps from being able to continue to post menus of sexual services on behalf of their employees. Most agencies and mps post the ads and have websites for the employees (i call them employees for the purpose of explanation). Currently, even tho it is actually illegal, most agencies and mps have relaxed their ads to include these lists. It has always been illegal for them to 'procure' or offer the sexual services of others, anyway, this bill is kind of simply reinforcing that with additional (albeit unnecessary) legislation. The current criminal code should have been sufficient, all that was needed was enforce it. shows that in general tho, LE doesn't really care about this aspect of the law of procuring, given that working for an agency or mp tends to be safer

What i would like to see is exact copies of what some of you are trying to post including ad titles.

Please show the Rose Alliance (Sweden's sex worker organization) your support [url]https://www.change.org/p/the-governments-of-norway-and-sweden-recognise-that-the-criminalisation-of-the-purchase-of-sex-the-so-called-swedish-model-is-of-considerable-harm-to-sex-workers-2?share_id=VWcAAlnVsZ&utm_campaign=friend_inviter_chat&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition&utm_term=permissions_dialog_false#[/url] [QUOTE]Recognise that the criminalisation of the purchase of sex â?? the so-called Swedish model â?? is of considerable harm to sex workers Rose Alliance We, the undersigned, would like to criticise in the strongest possible terms the evaluation of the Norwegian criminalisation of the purchase of sex, which was published in August 2014. The report is inconsistent and misleading in its assertions, and plays down the very real damaging outcomes of the legislation. The report claims that the law has been successful in decreasing levels of sex work. However, the only thing that can be demonstrated is that levels of street-based sex work have decreased. Most sex work is off-street in Norway, and levels of indoor sex work cannot be accurately estimated (and the report concedes this). It therefore cannot be claimed that overall levels of sex work have reduced. We note a concerning similarity to Swedenâ??s 2010 evaluation of the Swedish criminalisation of the purchase of sex, which suggests that the law has successfully decreased levels of sex work whilst only providing evidence of a decline in street sex work. The report also notes that economic conditions of sex work have declined following the legislation. This serves only to exacerbate harm and danger for sex workers, and arguing that it reduces levels of sex work is erroneous given that overall levels cannot be shown to have declined. The report indeed notes that dangers for sex workers have increased, with shorter negotiation times with agitated and stressed clients, and an unwillingness to report violence and difficulties to the police. Though the report asserts that there are no indications that violence has increased, this is again misleading, since the report also notes that sex workers do not report such violence to the police due to the law. Since the law has made sex work more dangerous and made sex workers more vulnerable, the report would do well to emphasise how concerning these side-effects of the legislation are. It is noted that both sex workers and service providers reports increased harassment by the police, including condoms being used as evidence of prostitution and sex workers being accused of encouraging a crime. The focus on condoms, and the avoidance to carry them it has resulted in, is noted as potentially affecting sex workers health negatively, yet there is no concern expressed in regards to harmful and abusive police practices. Again, there is similarity to the Swedish evaluation of the Swedish model, which notes that sex workers experience more harm, danger, and stigma due to the law, and then suggests that this should be regarded as positive in efforts to reduce levels of sex work. In short, the law cannot be accurately asserted to have decreased overall levels of sex work, as it sets out to do. As with the Swedish model, the law has made sex work more dangerous. The report plays down the harm the legislation has done, whilst it presents its findings in such a way as to suggest the legislation has been successful, when it has been anything but. We demand that Swedish and Norwegian governments focus on the welfare, health, and safety of sex workers. We demand they recognise that the criminalisation of the purchase of sex â?? the so-called Swedish model â?? is of considerable harm to sex workers, especially those who are already heavily marginalised and stigmatised. [/QUOTE]

These kinds of posts violate their terms . Instead of posting a counter reply, report the defamatory types of posts and staff will remove them In general, CL every time they adjust their site in some way, there is more flagging. I attribute this to changes in their auto filtering and/or some internal issues. If you are using words or terms that are not blocking the ad, it is still a trigger word. The auto filter kicks in when you notice your ad is deleted before it hit the site. That is not flaggers. it is not the jealous competition. If you want your ad to stay up, fix your ad. It is rare to see enough real flags bring down any ads. The site simply seems to do it's own 'cleanup' if you ask me. For a real report or flag to bring down any ad, my guess is the person has to use their contact us forms and report links that way. Even then if you can't do that 2 or 3 times with spammers, and see their ads come down, then you know the reporting and flagging is not doing the ad removal. Clean up and disinfect your ad. If you can't do that, take all but one or two sentences out of your ad, screen cap the info you want people to know in the form of a picture, and add that info in as an image. Keep your name, phone number out of the text of the ad, and possibly out of the contact section. put your phone number or website name into a picture and add that as an image. the first photo is the first thing people see. I've put up ads where the first photo is a screencap of the text of a much longer descriptive ad posted on another site, like cerb. then the actual photos are the next images. since you can't post an ad with nothing in the text part, i include a few lines. there are words that we can figure are filter words. you won't know what the words are, they don't block the ad if you use them, but something is filtering those ads and that sends the message they don't want ES ads in there.

Last year i recommended getting those tiny candy canes that are set up with gold bows to be tree ornaments. they can be easily explained if an explanation is required, or they can be eaten after the appt. they are too small to be considered a gift that needs explanation, is the main point. you can set them up in a decorative bowl. I know you mentioned non denominational, but it isn't a direct christian ornament, and it is also a minty candy.

BC, but there are not a lot of us wet coasters.

I think call display is pretty simple. One of those numbers, the top one, is the one that has been specified to show up as 'name'. the other would (i believe) be the actual number they are calling from. One possibility is that the common number is the lower one, and a business switchboard line. The top one would then be the direct line of the person calling you. That is just a guess. You can google both numbers and see what comes up of course.

Yes, and provided that they do not charge escorts higher fees than they would charge any other type of client. Goes for a variety of services any escort may require. I assume that includes escort licenses in Edmonton. At over 1500, escorts are charged 10 x the average cost of a biz license than any other biz.