| The
day a rector spoke in defence of Soho's brothels The Times, February 12, 2003.
Prostitutes and their “maids” attentively took notes in Pimlico as lawyers put their case to an inspector, who will report to John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister. Soho’s residents argued that not only were prostitutes vital to the area’s traditions, but that the women and the community would be less safe if they were pushed on to the street. Clare Herbert, Rector of St Anne’s Church in Soho, said that her congregation valued the tolerant attitude of the area. “They prove no difficulty for us and we are sure women are safer working there than when they are pushed out on to the street or forced to move to different areas of London,” she said. “If these women get pushed out it increases the chance that they become workers on the street and therefore become a greater problem to the local community.” Opponents of the council accused it of wanting to profit from the sale of the properties, worth up to £1 million each, to private developers. But Westminster council said that the women were dragging down Soho, both by their work and the poor repair of their flats. The council has asked the Government for a compulsory purchase order on ten properties, which house about a third of the prostitutes working in Soho. The inquiry centres on the first property which could be compulsorily purchased. It consists of two flats in an 18th-century house in Peter Street, in the heart of the red light district, where two prostitutes — who prefer to be known as Penny and Ms M — work legally and pay business rates. Robert Marshall, the grey-haired inspector, asked to visit Peter Street to see conditions for himself. Jonathan Ferris, representing Westminster City Council, was keen for him to do so as soon as possible. However, Stephen Cottle, counsel for the landlord, Ainsdale Investments, which is based in the British Virgin Islands, advised the inspector that a surprise visit would not be welcomed. “It would be nice to let them know that you are coming,” Mr Cottle said. Mr Marshall will visit this morning. The increasingly acrimonious debate hinged on whether Penny and Ms M could prove that they were legally resident at the property. The inquiry was told, record-keeping was not a strong point of the sex industry. A written statement from one of the women said that she had been sub-let the house by another prostitute, called Elsie, in 1987. The house had been a fish-and-chip shop but had been used by prostitutes since 1959, when Parliament passed the Street Offences Act to clean up Soho by imposing much stricter penalties for street-walking. Unfortunately neither of the women was on the electoral roll and did not appear at the inquiry to be questioned. Mr Cottle said that this was because the women had no money and could not afford legal representation. Mr Ferris rejoined: “There is no financial reason why the two women could not be here today, unless they were busy elsewhere.” Mr Cottle called this remark, “disgraceful, a pure smear”. Bryan Burrough, president of the Soho Society, a resident’s association, said that they had received no complaints about the flat, and the Soho Housing Association said it would be wrong to evict the women. Later Penny spoke from her flat to say that she was tidying up for the arrival of the inspector. “This flat has been my life, home and work for all these years. I don’t want the council to take it away for rich property developers.” Trevor Beattie, whose advertising agency TBWA is near by, said: “The sex industry in Soho has been there longer than Westminster council. They are targeting vulnerable women to make some money.” Sex in Soho The facts on prostitution: Albanian gangsters control more than 70 per cent of brothels in Soho. By smuggling East European sex slaves into the country, they have undercut local women’s rates.
|
