Not Saussure

August 31, 2006

News Of The Screws seeks hookers (only Bulgarians need apply)

Filed under: EU, Politics, press, UK — notsaussure @ 3:16 pm

Not sure how true this is, but the Bulgarian Standart newspaper (not a paper I often read, to be sure, but it seems like a reasonably serious publication) reports that the News Of The World is trying to import Bulgarian hookers; not, I fear, as a special offer to readers not, I’m sure, as an executive perk, but to be sure that they’ve got at least one about whose exploits they can write when Bulgaria and Rumania join the EU and their nationals enjoy visa-free travel to other member states.

Features – British Tabloid Hires Prostitute for Black PR Against Bulgaria – Standart
The British tabloid News of the World wants to hire a Bulgarian prostitute wishing to leave for the UK after the accession of her country to the EU and the lifting of the visa regime. A team from this newspaper plans to write a series of materials about her in Bulgaria as well as articles about her future “deeds” in Britain. They have even planned to escort her when she, according to the editorial script, catches the first flight to London in the early morning of January the 1st, 2007.

They’ve also apparently been trying to find someone there to fake up a British Passport for them.

Hmm. Quite apart from the little matter of the false instrument (the fake passport) my learned friends suggest that what we have here is — assuming the young lady continues to work as a prostitute at the News of the World’s behest when she gets here — is an offence against Section 57 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Trafficking into the UK for sexual exploitation) and, quite possibly, Section 53 (Controlling prostitution for gain); the Act’s definition of ‘gain’ in this context is a wide one, and would certainly catch both the reporter’s earnings from this little wheeze and any brownie points he gained with his editor (or, as the Act puts it, ‘the goodwill of any person which is or appears likely, in time, to bring financial advantage’).

I must say that either the NOW can’t have much faith either in their predictions of our being swamped by Bulgarian hookers or in their investigative reporters’ talents if they think it’s necessary to go to the trouble and expense of recruiting the girls in advance rather than simply cruising round Shepherd’s Market when the hacks get back from their Christmas hols, but I suppose they know best.

Maybe they recall all their hoards of Slovakian gypsies who didn’t materialise in May 2004, despite all the dire warnings, and want to make sure they aren’t caught short again.

Honestly, after the debacle of the fake sheik (see also video here) and his red mercury, you’d have thought they’d give this sort of thing a rest.

Meanwhile, back at the Palace of Westminster…

it seems some more of Rupert Murchoch’s whores HMG are considering a work permit scheme for would-be immigrants from Bulgaria and Rumania. Leaving aside speculation about Mr Murdoch’s young ladies from Bulgaria will ‘show they have the skills needed to get the new work permits’, this is about as counter-productive as you can get. As David Rennie argued in the Telegraph the other week (see also his blog piece), there is no legal way to keep EU citizens en masse, be they from Belgium or Bulgaria, out of other EU countries. As he explains in the blog,

To simplify, any EU citizen with a passport has the right to enter any other EU nation and stay there for up to three months, no questions asked.

And if you are self-employed, a student, or a pensioner with your own means of financial support, you can stay as long as you like. Just ask the hundreds of thousands of Brits living in Spain, or settling into retirement in France.

In other words, once Romania and Bulgaria enter the EU as early as next January, the Government could stop people from Romania coming in to work legally, but it could not stop them coming in.

Given that average incomes in Romania are a tenth those of the UK, it is not rocket science to guess that opening borders to such poor people, while banning them from legal work, is going to have at least one result: a huge expansion of the black economy.

And, as he goes on to explain in his newspaper article,

Whitehall officials say stoutly that they have the power to impose limits on Romanian and Bulgarian “access to the UK labour market”. But what does that actually mean? It basically means the Government could create some new offences, specially to cover Romanians and Bulgarians: working without a work permit, or employing someone from those two nations without a permit.

Given that we cannot close our borders, and average household incomes in Romania and Bulgaria are a tenth of those in Britain, it is not hard to guess one major outcome of creating such new offences: thousands will come anyway, but this time as criminals.

As a convinced free-marketeer, I must admit to moral qualms about welcoming people to live in my country, then turning them into criminals, just because they want to work for a living.

But if moral arguments do not work, try self-interest. Expanding Britain’s black economy is not a good idea. It would be bad for the health of society. It would reduce tax revenues, and hurt British workers, too. As long as east Europeans are working legally, their broad pay and conditions can only fall so far. Once people are on the black, employers can treat them as near-slputsaves, putting far more pressure on legal workers.

I agree. By giving in to the tabloids’ frenzy about Bulgarians — or, as The Guardian’s un-named cabinet source puts it, allowing politics to over-ride economics (and common sense) — the government are creating the very thing they claim they hope to avoid. (Not for the first time, of course — wasn’t Iraq supposed to make us safer from terrorism?).



  1. As a qualified Joiner I have seen the number of foreign nationals workin in construction, steadily increase in recent years, thus reducing oppertunities for British Tradesmen. Supply IS exceeding demand and employers are exploiting this. It is a fact that Foreign nationals will work for less pay,thus forcing wages down, and as a family man, I find it difficult to compete with the younger, single, immigrant (With no proven qualifications, i might add) and with no financial commitments other than basic sustinance,willing to work for less.

    Comment by Ian Jones — September 8, 2006 @ 9:01 pm

  2. […] As has been pointed out in several places over the last few weeks, including this blog, talk by John Reid about restricting entry to the UK by Romanians and Bulgarians when their country joins the EU next year is so much twaddle. The government can’t legally stop them coming here; all it can do is make it illegal for them to work when they get here, thus making them work illegally; as the think tank Open Europe explain Supposedly tough “quotas” for legal work could potentially lead to the worst of all worlds: those who come to seek work legally, pay tax and contribute to society would be turned away, while criminals and those who come with no intention of working would still be let in. […]

    Pingback by John Reid about to get his collar felt by reality? « Not Saussure — September 24, 2006 @ 10:51 am

  3. I agree with Ian Jones (sept 8th) i am self employed working in the construction industry and cant compete with these low paid workers , its landlords and developers gaining out of this and those of us trying to hold on to our jobs and houses etc are under threat , how about some support for british tradesmen while we still have some !

    Comment by Trevor Wilson — September 26, 2006 @ 10:02 pm

  4. What support do you propose, though (from the government as opposed to the public, that is)? The point is that, whatever John Reid says, there’s no legal way he can stop someone from any EU country entering the UK (obviously if the chap’s persona non grata that’s a bit different, but in general he can’t). Once the guy’s here, there’s little anyone can do to stop him working illegally.

    And if he’s working illegally it’s that much easier for an employer to underpay him, and he’ll be cheaper anyway because the whole transaction will be on the black, so there’s no tax or anything for anyone to worry about.

    Comment by notsaussure — September 26, 2006 @ 10:21 pm

  5. Thanks for sharing this information. Really is pack with new knowledge. Keep them coming.

    Comment by My Kids Website — August 16, 2007 @ 9:48 pm

  6. Thanks for sharing this information. Really is pack with new knowledge. Keep them coming.

    Comment by Easy Shopping Life — August 18, 2007 @ 8:41 am

  7. Really nice site you have here. I’ve been reading for a while but this post made me want to say 2 thumbs up. Keep up the great work

    Comment by Power Point and Power Rangers — October 10, 2007 @ 9:41 pm

  8. Two new studies show why some people are more attractive for members of the opposite sex than others.

    The University of Florida, Florida State University found that physically attractive people almost instantly attract the attention of the interlocutor, sobesednitsy with them, literally, it is difficult to make eye. This conclusion was reached by a series of psychological experiments, which were determined by the people who believe in sending the first seconds after the acquaintance. Here, a curious feature: single, unmarried experimental preferred to look at the guys, beauty opposite sex, and family, people most often by representatives of their sex.

    The authors believe that this feature developed a behavior as a result of the evolution: a man trying to find a decent pair to acquire offspring. If this is resolved, he wondered potential rivals. Detailed information about this magazine will be published Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

    In turn, a joint study of the Rockefeller University, Rockefeller University and Duke University, Duke University in North Carolina revealed that women are perceived differently by men smell. During experiments studied the perception of women one of the ingredients of male pheromone-androstenona smell, which is contained in urine or sweat.

    The results were startling: women are part of this repugnant odor, and the other part is very attractive, resembling the smell of vanilla, and the third group have not felt any smell. The authors argue that the reason is that the differences in the receptor responsible for the olfactory system, from different people are different.

    It has long been proven that mammals (including human) odor is one way of attracting the attention of representatives of the opposite sex. A detailed article about the journal Nature will publish.

    Comment by GlumbImmupt — November 16, 2007 @ 9:16 am

  9. Hey bro.
    I the new user.
    The exclusive is assured it of 100 %,new Video

    Comment by Tixexcepric — July 8, 2010 @ 6:42 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: