IMPRESS and the anti-sex worker lobby
Julie Bindel ran training sessions for journalists in "accurate reporting" on prostitution
NOTE: I originally wrote a version of this as an experience feature for my investigative journalism MA. Due to a number of complications, I have only recently received my final grade. As such, at last I am able to publish some of the findings from my master’s dissertation, which—while a little dated now—I think are still worth sharing.
At the end of 2018, I returned to postgraduate studies after a long sabbatical. A year prior, I had been forced to put my journalism master’s on hold so I could care for my late father, who had been diagnosed with terminal lung cancer.
In early 2019, we were asked to submit proposals for our final dissertations; I proposed an investigation into the policing of prostitution, with a particular focus on brothel raids. Then in April, I was ecstatic to find out who would be my dissertation supervisor: the former investigations editor at the Guardian, David Leigh.
Prior to my leave, David had instructed the investigative reporting module on Friday afternoons, which were usually the highlight of my week (and also, coincidentally, to which I had been walking when I found out Dad had been admitted to hospital). He had since retired from formal teaching on the course.
Shortly after we’d been assigned our supervisors, I received an email from David with the subject line: “This may interest you”. He had forwarded something sent to him by IMPRESS, promoting an event they would be hosting on two dates later that month.
IMPRESS is a press regulator set up following the recommendations of the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, practice and ethics of the press. It is the only press regulator that has been approved as compliant with the Royal Charter on Self-Regulation of the Press by the independent recognition body, the Press Recognition Panel. IMPRESS has 125+ member publications. You can find a full list of IMPRESS members on the “Regulated Publications” section of the IMPRESS website.1
Unfortunately, I didn’t notice David had received the original email as a member of the “Board-Mail” email list, because he was (and remains) a board member of IMPRESS. You can see the email below:
Pimp lobby?
The first thing I noticed about the event was that it would be led by Julie Bindel and Fiona Broadfoot. I had spent several years researching and writing about the criminalisation of prostitution, getting to know many women who are—and/or who fight for the rights of—sex workers. I knew that Bindel was seen by most of the women in that group as one of the main antagonists to their cause.
As just one example, Bindel co-authored a 2008 report called ‘Big Brothel: a survey of the off-street sex industry in London’. Its findings gained a great deal of publicity,2 3 before 27 academics wrote a response outlining “grave concerns” about its “ethical protocols and procedures”, its “weak methodological rigour” and “the salacious nature of the report”.4
Furthermore, Bindel and her associates regularly accuse anybody advocating for decriminalisation of being part of a “pimp lobby” (i.e. that anyone advocating for decrim is in the pocket of pimps), often suggesting that many of them pretend to be sex workers in order to gain legitimacy. She even wrote a book called The Pimping of Prostitution, with this as a core premise.
I had never heard of Broadfoot, but a quick internet search indicated she shares Bindel’s ideological perspective on the sex industry. Indeed, she is the subject of glowing praise in the Acknowledgements to Bindel’s book:5
Fiona Broadfoot is the founder of the modern-day survivor abolitionist movement in the UK. Meeting Fiona in 1996 was a pivotal moment for me, and for the other feminists whose lives she touched.
I was stunned that someone as controversial and confrontational as Bindel was being granted the opportunity to run training sessions, from the head office of IMPRESS. So, while I went along with an open mind, I was expecting the session to be problematic.
Press for change
There were about 10 journalist participants, myself included. Some worked at local newspapers, others were MA students like me, and the average age was probably in the late 20s.
About an hour in, Bindel asked everyone to consider who they would approach for comment on a prostitution-related story.
There was general agreement that, while it would always be best to hear directly from and give voice to the affected sex workers themselves, it was usually unlikely they would speak to journalists. Failing that, it was agreed that charities supporting sex workers were probably the best option—to speak on their behalf.
Bindel then asked which charities came to mind.
A few names arose—National Ugly Mugs (NUM), the Sex Worker Advocacy and Resistance Movement (SWARM)—but principal among them was the English Collective of Prostitutes (ECP).
This was exactly the response Bindel had been anticipating. She lamented the fact it was always the same names, with similar ideologies vis-à-vis prostitution and sex work policy.
Why not broaden horizons; seek out alternative viewpoints?
Bindel suggested, just as an example, SPACE International (Survivors of Prostitution Abuse Calling for Enlightenment). She neglected to mention she sits on that organisation’s board.6
Bindel then pivoted to impugning the organisation most regularly approached for comment—the ECP—saying its members were “middle-class…Trotskyists” pushing a radical Leftist agenda and that most have “never worked in prostitution” in their life.
I had met several members of the ECP and seen first hand some of the extensive work they do in supporting sex workers. I also knew that many of the collective were either currently working or had previously worked in prostitution.
I challenged Bindel over her disparaging remarks, which I knew to be mendacious. She sidestepped my rebuttal, shifted focus, and shortly afterwards called time on the first half of the session, inviting everyone to take a short break.
In the second half, it felt as though my earlier intervention had caused Bindel and her co-host to take a more measured approach; that perhaps my presence prevented them from saying some of the things they had originally intended to.
When I left the IMPRESS headquarters later that day, I reflected that—had I not been there—Bindel’s attack on the ECP would have gone unchallenged. A group of young journalists might have gone home believing the ECP was, to all intents and purposes, a fraudulent organisation. They may also have believed this was a view supported—even promoted—by the independent press regulator.
David taught us that what most journalists refer to as a ‘right to reply’—putting allegations about a person/organisation directly to them, prior to publication—is better referred to as an ‘opportunity to respond’. His reasoning as I understood it was there was no ‘right’ to reply as such; rather, it’s a courtesy offered to minimise the prospect of inaccurate reporting that could lead to litigation.
Whatever one calls it, this was not a courtesy extended to the ECP by either Bindel or IMPRESS. Nevertheless, I chose to give all parties an opportunity to respond to my rendering of the training session.
Opportunity to respond: IMPRESS
I put it to IMPRESS that allowing somebody with such polarising views to define “accurate reporting” on the subject—in the organisation’s headquarters, no less—sent out a prejudicial message to journalists and publications.
However IMPRESS was keen to insist the event should not have been understood in strict terms as just a training programme:
This particular training opportunity was framed and announced as a critical reflection on the issue of sexual exploitation in the media which we acknowledge to be an issue which can be approached from different ideological perspectives.
In reality there was no mention of “critical reflection”, nor any acknowledgment that these events were being run by people from a very particular and contested ideological perspective.
The statement from IMPRESS also points to a disclaimer, which they “took care to publicise” in order “to make it clear that the event did not constitute formal IMPRESS standards training and guidance.”
In fact, you can see for yourself that there was very little effort “to publicise” the disclaimer: on the IMPRESS webpage about the event, it is right at the bottom in italics, beneath a hard line break;7 on the Eventbrite page, where participants booked their places for the event, there is no such disclaimer whatsoever.8 [Note: I have archived both the IMPRESS and Eventbrite webpages for posterity.]
I also raised specific concern about the fact there were two IMPRESS staff members in the room at all times, neither of whom did anything to challenge Bindel’s denigration (and possible defamation) of the ECP.
“Some of the criticisms you made about the session you attended were picked up by IMPRESS staff who attended the first event,” said the statement.
“These were addressed with the trainers and were not repeated at the second event. Our analysis of the feedback from delegates is that the second event received better feedback than the first and that appropriate changes were made.”
Opportunity to respond: sex workers
“We picketed another event like this, hosted by Bindel, because we wanted journalists to be aware that she is not the expert on this issue,” said a spokesperson for the ECP. “We—as sex workers—are.”
“[These events] should be geared by evidence—not a moral agenda—which would lead to decriminalisation, and not what [Bindel] supports, the Nordic model.”
The ECP was particularly angered by Bindel’s accusation that they were effectively lying about being sex workers.
“We have always said we are sex workers and supporters—and not said who is which—because we need to protect our anonymity. We can't be public in the media, because we have children and families [to protect].”
“Does she want us to break our anonymity and safety, just for her gratification, to prove we are sex workers? We won't.”
Opportunity to respond: Julie Bindel
“Well, I've definitely heard that argument put forward,” said Bindel, in reference to ECP’s reasoning, “and I think that it's an indictment of the danger of the sex industry, of the sex trade, and the fact that there are dangerous men involved at all levels of the sex trade.”
“I know that [the ECP] have definitely supported women who are seeking asylum, who I would very clearly define as trafficked. And who the ECP would possibly, probably, define as migrant sex workers. So, I think that there's a way of actually making that clearer, and I absolutely take note of what you said about that.”
Bindel did not take the opportunity to retract or apologise for any of her remarks.
The anti-sex worker lobby
The political divide between advocates of decriminalisation and of prohibition has come into sharp focus again recently,9 as Labour MP Diana Johnson tried to introduce the Nordic model into legislation via amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.
While the Bill passed its third reading in the House of Commons last night, Dame Johnson’s amendment was rejected.
However, this struggle is far from over. Dame Johnson has also proposed a Private Members’ Bill to criminalise paying for sex (i.e. the Nordic model), which is currently awaiting its second reading in the House of Commons.10 And while this parliamentary campaign would have national consequences, there are local policy battles being fought up and down the country.
Leeds City Council is moving ahead with plans to scrap the Managed Zone in Holbeck, despite evidence it was “more effective at reducing the impact of problems associated with on-street sex working than any other…model”. Opponents are adamant this decision will place street-based sex workers in Leeds in far greater danger.11
Bristol City Council is once again considering a ‘nil cap’ on Sexual Entertainment Venues (SEVs – better known as strip clubs).12 A nil cap on SEVs—capping the number at zero—is a euphemistic term for a ban on strip clubs. Local sex workers, including groups like the Bristol Sex Workers Collective, have organised in opposition to the proposed ban.13
In the coming weeks and months I will be sharing more findings from my dissertation, as well as other new material. Taken together, they will reveal—far from the ‘Pimp lobby’ that exists in the imagination of some—there is an established network of well-placed politicians, activists and academics, relentlessly lobbying for the introduction of the Nordic model, in opposition to—and over the heads of—sex workers themselves.
Information Commissioner's Office. n.d. Complaining to the Independent Monitor for the Press (IMPRESS). [online] Available at: <https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/data-protection-and-journalism/complaining-to-impress/> [Accessed 6 July 2021].
Bennett, C., 2008. Why women and snails still have so much in common. [online] the Guardian. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/sep/07/gender.equality> [Accessed 3 July 2021].
Bindel, J., 2008. Revealed: the truth about brothels. [online] the Guardian. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/sep/10/women.socialexclusion> [Accessed 3 July 2021].
Lipsett, A., 2008. Big Brothel research 'seriously flawed'. [online] the Guardian. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/education/2008/oct/03/research.women> [Accessed 3 July 2021].
Bindel, J., 2017. The Pimping of Prostitution: abolishing the sex work myth. London: Palgrave Macmillan, p.xxiii-xxiv.
SPACE International. n.d. Board. [online] Available at: <https://www.spaceintl.org/about/board/> [Accessed 2 July 2021].
IMPRESS. 2019. Press for Change: The media role in tackling sexual exploitation. [online] Available at: <https://www.impress.press/news/training-april-2019-press-change-media-role-tackling-sexual-exploitation.html> [Accessed 4 July 2021].
Eventbrite. 2019. Press for Change: The media role in tackling sexual exploitation. [online] Available at: <https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/training-press-for-change-the-media-role-in-tackling-sexual-exploitation-tickets-58441232299#> [Accessed 4 July 2021].
Waite, T., 2021. FKA twigs, Sisters Uncut & more sign letter against criminalising sex work. [online] Dazed. Available at: <https://www.dazeddigital.com/politics/article/52437/1/fka-twigs-sisters-uncut-sign-letter-against-criminalising-sex-work-decrim-now> [Accessed 6 July 2021].
UK Parliament. 2020. Sexual Exploitation Bill. Available at: <https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2813> [Accessed 6 July 2021].
Caradonna, L. and Hardy, K., 2021. Scrapping Britain’s First Red Light District Will Be a Disaster for Sex Workers. [online] Novara Media. Available at: <https://novaramedia.com/2021/07/01/scrapping-britains-first-red-light-district-will-be-a-disaster-for-sex-workers/> [Accessed 6 July 2021].
Oppenheim, M., 2021. Strippers accuse council of sexist ‘double standard’ for allowing men to strip but trying to block women. [online] The Independent. Available at: <https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bristol-lap-dancers-equality-men-b1864142.html> [Accessed 6 July 2021].
Laveau, T., 2021. Stop Bristol City Council from Closing Bristol's Strip Clubs. [online] Change.org. Available at: <https://www.change.org/p/bristol-city-council-stop-bristol-city-council-from-closing-bristol-s-strip-clubs?use_react=false&v2=false> [Accessed 6 July 2021].