Legislative Assembly to investigate sex industry - next year

I’m mystified as to why the ACT claims to regulate brothels. I suspect it is only so that there is no need to police so called ‘illegal’ brothels. But in reality there is no substance to their ‘regulation’ at all, beyond filling out a form.

People die under their inadequate inspection regime.

That’s all.

I found the Vicki Dunne reference to the Office of Regulatory Services kind of amusing, particularly the statement “The fact that the Office of Regulatory Services failed to inspect a brothel for over five years, I think that is a failure of the regulation,”

What is it now… June 2010? Wasn’t the Office she refers to formed circa November 2006? As they didn’t exist four years ago (let alone for over five years) I would ask Ms Dunne “Political mileage much love?”

The fact that she has quite obviously never read the legislation (see previous comment from CanberraCreative in this post http://the-riotact.com/?p=22123) merely reinforces a lack of interest in her portfolio (unless political mileage can be made) as well as a lack of political credibility.

Please Ms Dunne, if you intend to represent Canberrans at some stage can I suggest you familiarise yourself with some of the legislation we live under?

Just curious here Johnboy…

Do you have something in particular against the Office of Regulatory Services? You seem to bash them at every opportunity. I don’t disagree that Public Servants aren’t the most efficient lot as a general rule (personally I find the ATO wearing) but this looks almost like a vendetta, feel like filling in the general populace?

“Don’t mistake this for action, they’re talking about doing it next year which will give the Office of Regulatory Services plenty of time to do some well-flagged inspections so they can be sure of not finding anything that might upset them, us, or the MLAs.”

Such as finding an MLA using, owning or working a 2nd job at one??

johnboy said :

And no painted toenails?

hot fluro pink would set the look off !

Why is there no cute and negotiable option? 😉

I’m disappointed that the lass in the photo is not wearing fishnets or FM boots. Although they seem to be mainstream fashion these days, not only the atire of ladi3es of the night.

hopefully the review will produce a result which is beneficial to the working conditions of the ladies and men in our local brothels and not just produce a report that the Minister can sit on for a year.

And no painted toenails?

OzChick said :

Those shoes are fugly.

Doesn’t mean that the person wearing them isn’t cute (or negotiable).

Those shoes are fugly.