By Jo Best, 27 August 2004 12:05
NEWS Westminster council has had enough with what it considers to be mobile operators' overly laid-back stance on prostitutes. The telcos aren't doing enough to stamp out hookers' cards in London phone boxes, say the council, so staff decided to mock up a few cards of their own - 20,000 to be precise - with telco bosses on them.
Instead of the usual 'blonde model new in town', the unfortunate recipients were treated to cards bearing business phone numbers of the heads of NTL, Orange, O2, Telewest, T-Mobile and Vodafone.
The cards will be given out to residents, businesses and charities. Those with strong opinions on the issue are encouraged to call the bosses and share their thoughts.
The councillors started the campaign after the mobile bosses refused to play BT-style ball with the streetwalkers, it said.
BT has been disconnecting the numbers that turn up on the ladies of the night's phonebox flyers since 2001. Back then, 98 per cent of the numbers were BT. Now, it's just five per cent because prostitutes have turned to pay-as-you-go and other mobiles.
The council has been requesting that the mobile operators follow BT's lead and sever the prostitutes' lines of communications and, according to Westminster, they've refused.
However, T-Mobile refutes the allegations that mobile operators aren't doing enough. The company says it has a "long-standing policy of barring phone numbers which are proven to be used for criminal activities" but is keen to bar numbers only in substantiated and legitimate cases.
A spokesman for fellow operator Orange added that new SIM cards can be bought for as little as £10, meaning prostitutes could change their numbers relatively easily and cheaply. Any change in number could also mean a rise in cards in circulation because the new number would have to be advertised, he said.
Kit Malthouse, deputy leader of Westminster City Council, said that if the bosses continue with their present 'do-nothing' stance, the council will press for changes in the law.
Comments
There are 12 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
Amusing, This post is tongue in cheek, no law suits necessary.
The mobile operators make money from every phone call made. It is against their interests to close the numbers down. Especially as it must be a high revenue earner for them. Imagine the drop in the graph when all the prostitutes numbers are disconnected. A 50% drop in calls made.
I can see this meeting with some resistance, or the mobile operators will put up prices to the general user to offset their losses.
Surprising Westminster want them closed though. I would have thought a vast majority of the girls clients come from that area (Joke, tease).
All that will happen is an increase in PC sales, as the girls increase their advertising over the internet. Whatever people do to shut them down, another way will be found.
And finally, why not leave them alone. Dont Westminster have better things to do than go around collecting cards from phone boxes?
2. Niff
So, the council want the telcos to pit their technical wits against the combined sex drive of the nations "punters" who have, as allies, the oldest profession in the world?
Should be an interesting battle...
3. Joel Watson
And finally, why not leave them alone. Don't Westminster have better things to do than go around collecting cards from phone boxes?
When I was young and naive I would like to have believed that, but now I'm a jaded, blue collar slob, and I know the truth.
The answer to this most prominent of questions is, i am afraid, No.
4. Guy Herbert
I imagine that if (say) a campaign group were to publish the private telephone numbers of the councillors and chief executive of a local authority with the implication that members of the public should phone them to complain and cause them inconvenience, its leaders might find themselves charged under the Protection from Harrassment Act. How come Westminster thinks it is legitimate to threaten to do this to private individuals?
5. anonymous
Surely Westminster Council is breaking data protection laws by handing out people's contact details without their permission? Corporate entities have to bend over backward to prove that we're not abusing the privacy of people we market to, but councils seem to get away with murder.
6. anonymous
Strikes me as more "knee-jerk" than "due process".
Great opportunity for some joker to knock up some cards, with a reputable company's number on it, and have their phones cut-off.
If someone has broken the law, then get the account details under the data protection act, and at least serve notice.
7. David Salgueiro
Westminster Council isn't breaking any Data Protection laws as the numbers being published are "business phone numbers", according to the article. The Data Protection Act covers the confidentiality of Private Individual information Business numbers are public domain. And for once, I agree with Westminster Council's actions. Bosses would be far more careful about their decisions if the fall-out directly impacted on them. As always, I think the message should be, "how would you feel if you were on the receiving end?"
8. David Salgueiro
Data Protection Act? What's that? It would seem from these responses that not alot of people have a clue! Scary, considering how long they've been out!... The laws that is...
9. anonymous
Surely the cards will disappear when BT have removed the Boxes anyway?
10. Andy Piesse
If the numbers are their business numbers then 'complaint calls' will just get rerouted
11. anonymous
How true, and what an excellent idea.
Imagine Microsoft being cut off in their prime, or better still, Westminster council itself..
Hee hee
Great opportunity for some joker to knock up some cards, with a reputable company's number on it, and have their phones cut-off.
12. john b
What's all this nonsense about 'businessmen facing up to the consequences of their actions'?
The positive consequences of the telcos' actions are that less soliciting goes on in the streets and that fewer girls get harmed by punters and pimps.
The negative consequences are, erm, erm, erm, can anyone help me out here...?
(I've written more <a href="http://www.stalinism.com/shot-by-both-sides/full_post.asp?pid=365">here</a> should anyone be interested.)