sentienthing (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} sentienthing) wrote,@ 2006-10-09 15:59:00 |
|
Letter to editor of student Direct
Dear Sir,
As much as I fear for the safety of students in the North Campus after reading your front page article in this weeks Student Direct(Issue 4 , 9/10), I must say that I was extremely disappointed with the reactionary views expressed towards the serious issue of prostitution in Manchester, views which I believe have done this paper a major discredit.
The article clearly illustrates that the writers share not an iota of understanding between them of prostitution in Manchester neither in regards its causation, effects or treatment (I infer this as none of these three were even commented upon save for the unclear “fact” that “in a great deal of contemporary examples, the arrival of prostitutes in an area has come(sic) coupled with drug use and violent crime”). This seems to suggest to me that these prostitutes are almost inhuman brutes who only bring all manner of horrible problems with them wherever they may go.
In passing it is mentioned by the “reporters”(I use this word lightly) that the traditional red-light district has been regenerated leading to a movement to the area around the North Campus. Should the prostitutes have just disappeared with the loss of their traditional area, as if by magic? It seems that this is what is being suggested. Further, why is it not mentioned that the real problem may lie with Manchester City Council for not taking this potential problem into account when planning the regeneration of the area around Piccadilly train station rather than with the prostitutes themselves?
Although I do recognise that this issue needs to be addressed I am saddened by the absolute lack of understanding that this article demonstrated. Prostitutes are some of the most vulnerable people in society whom it is very easy to demonize. Many have severe drug problems and very few become involved in this industry out of choice. In an effort to treat this issue what we need is a compassionate, caring and realistic approach to change, not, as this article infered, a “NIMBY” approach which leads the reader to believe that all that can be done is to scourge the area of the problem, not realising that it will not simply disappear until the issue of causation is addressed.
Yours,
Dear Sir,
As much as I fear for the safety of students in the North Campus after reading your front page article in this weeks Student Direct(Issue 4 , 9/10), I must say that I was extremely disappointed with the reactionary views expressed towards the serious issue of prostitution in Manchester, views which I believe have done this paper a major discredit.
The article clearly illustrates that the writers share not an iota of understanding between them of prostitution in Manchester neither in regards its causation, effects or treatment (I infer this as none of these three were even commented upon save for the unclear “fact” that “in a great deal of contemporary examples, the arrival of prostitutes in an area has come(sic) coupled with drug use and violent crime”). This seems to suggest to me that these prostitutes are almost inhuman brutes who only bring all manner of horrible problems with them wherever they may go.
In passing it is mentioned by the “reporters”(I use this word lightly) that the traditional red-light district has been regenerated leading to a movement to the area around the North Campus. Should the prostitutes have just disappeared with the loss of their traditional area, as if by magic? It seems that this is what is being suggested. Further, why is it not mentioned that the real problem may lie with Manchester City Council for not taking this potential problem into account when planning the regeneration of the area around Piccadilly train station rather than with the prostitutes themselves?
Although I do recognise that this issue needs to be addressed I am saddened by the absolute lack of understanding that this article demonstrated. Prostitutes are some of the most vulnerable people in society whom it is very easy to demonize. Many have severe drug problems and very few become involved in this industry out of choice. In an effort to treat this issue what we need is a compassionate, caring and realistic approach to change, not, as this article infered, a “NIMBY” approach which leads the reader to believe that all that can be done is to scourge the area of the problem, not realising that it will not simply disappear until the issue of causation is addressed.
Yours,
