The House of Commons select committee is considering the Crime and Policing Bill including the following amendments relating to sex work =
and
National Ugly Mugs has published the following guide How to respond to the UK Police and Crime Bill.
The deadline for submitting a response is 13th May 2025.
If you would like to make a submission of written evidence to the committee, please email Yvette Cooper.
On Yvette Cooper's Members and Lords page, it says "When contacting this Member, they should be addressed as Yvette Cooper."
So please begin your email "Dear Yvette Cooper" and then detail in your own words why the Nordic Model is a terrible idea and why full decriminalisation is the most desirable outcome for sex workers.
You will need to sign off your email with something that looks like a real name. eg not "Oz Bigdownunder". They won't ask for any proof of identity, but they will reject your evidence if it's obviously submitted under a pseudonym.
I emailed as follows =
Dear Yvette Cooper,
I would like to make a submission of written evidence to the House of Commons select committee considering the Crime and Policing Bill.
Please don't adopt the Nordic Model in the UK.
I am a male sex worker based in London. I have been a sex worker for over 20 years.
I am one of the moderators on the sexworkers and sexworkersonly subreddits with combined users of around 500,000 people.
If you would like to talk to sex workers about the proposed amendments, I can arrange an AMA (ask me anything) whereby if you have a reddit account, or you register one, you can receive questions and comments from people on the subreddit.
I'm also in group chats for the UK Sex Workers Union and I have a broad and extensive network of friends and colleagues in the industry.
I hear the opinions of hundreds, if not thousands, of sex workers every single day and I've never heard anyone say “I wish it were illegal for my clients to pay me.”
The Crime and Policing Bill currently making its way through Parliament includes a proposal to adopt the Nordic model, a legal approach that criminalises buyers of sex while purporting to protect those who sell it. In reality, this model has consistently resulted in increased harm for sex workers. Evidence from France, Northern Ireland, and Sweden indicates that criminalising clients drives sex work further underground, compromises workers’ ability to screen and reject clients, and heightens exposure to violence. While its stated goal is to reduce exploitation, its actual impact is greater isolation, diminished safety, and deeper stigma for those most at risk.
I also oppose the proposed criminalisation of adult services websites. These platforms provide a crucial safety infrastructure for independent sex workers by allowing them to advertise, set boundaries, screen clients, and work without relying on exploitative third parties. Removing these tools would push many into street-based work or dependency on others, as seen in the United States after the introduction of FOSTA/SESTA. Banning these websites would not prevent exploitation — it would strip away one of the few tools that protects workers’ autonomy and safety.
In addition, I strongly object to proposals that would further restrict or censor legal pornography on moral or ideological grounds. Pornography is a legitimate form of adult expression, labour, and pleasure. Attempts to sanitise or criminalise consensual adult content because some find it uncomfortable undermine freedom of expression, and disproportionately impact marginalised creators, especially LGBTQ+ and disabled performers whose realities often fall outside the mainstream. Ethical adult content should be supported, not silenced.
I urge the Government and the Committee to listen to sex workers and adult industry professionals who are directly impacted by these proposed changes. Full decriminalisation of consensual adult sex work, not further criminalisation or censorship, is the only approach supported by public health and human rights experts worldwide. It is time to move beyond ideology and implement policies grounded in harm reduction, safety, and respect for bodily autonomy.
Key Facts & Supporting Links
1. The Nordic Model increases violence against sex workers
-
In France, 63% of sex workers reported worse living conditions after the criminalisation of clients, and 42% reported increased violence.
Source: Médecins du Monde, 2018 – “What do sex workers think about the French Prostitution Act?” -
In Northern Ireland, violence increased after the Nordic Model was implemented, with no significant reduction in demand.
Source: Queen’s University Belfast, 2019 – “Sexual Exploitation and Sex Work Policy and Practice in Northern Ireland”
2. Criminalisation drives sex work underground, reducing access to safety and support
-
Fear of arrest makes clients less likely to provide identifying information, undermining screening practices.
Source: Amnesty International – “Sex workers’ rights are human rights” -
Sex workers in criminalised settings report more barriers to reporting violence and abuse.
Source: UNAIDS – “Sex work, HIV and the law”
3. Adult services websites are essential safety tools
-
These websites help sex workers screen clients, work independently, and avoid exploitative intermediaries.
Source: Sex Work Research Hub / University of Leicester – “Internet-based sex work” -
In the US, the shutdown of online platforms under FOSTA/SESTA resulted in loss of income, increased violence, and reduced access to safety tools.
Source: Hacking//Hustling – “Erased: The Impact of FOSTA-SESTA” (2020)
4. Full decriminalisation is supported by global human rights and health organisations
Amnesty International, UNAIDS, Human Rights Watch, World Health Organization, and Open Society Foundations all support full decriminalisation.
Sources:
- Amnesty International
- UNAIDS
- Human Rights Watch
- WHO / The New Humanitarian
- Open Society Foundations – “10 Reasons to Decriminalize Sex Work”
5. Decriminalisation improves health, safety, and access to justice
In New Zealand (where sex work is decriminalised), sex workers report increased safety, better relationships with police, and improved working conditions.
Source: New Zealand Ministry of Justice – “Report of the Prostitution Law Review Committee” (2008)
Decriminalisation is associated with reduced rates of HIV transmission, greater access to healthcare, and lower risk of exploitation.
Source: Lancet Series on HIV and Sex Workers (2015)
6. Pornography is a form of expression and should not be censored
Legal adult content is protected by UK law and human rights frameworks, including Article 10 (Freedom of Expression) of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Source: Equality and Human Rights Commission – Freedom of Expression
Attempts to restrict legal pornography disproportionately impact marginalised creators (LGBTQ+, disabled, non-mainstream kink communities).
Source: Woodhull Freedom Foundation – “Sex Work & Free Expression”
On Decriminalisation
Decriminalisation is not radical — it’s evidence-based public policy.
Every major human rights organisation agrees: decriminalisation saves lives.
You can’t support public health and criminalise sex work at the same time.
Decriminalisation gives workers the power to protect themselves.
The evidence is clear — what’s missing is political courage.
On Pornography and Expression
Sexual expression is not a crime.
Not all adult content is for everyone — and that’s exactly why it matters.
Pornography is art, labour, protest, fantasy, and pleasure — all protected forms of expression.
Sanitising porn doesn’t make people safer — it erases identities and realities.
The answer to bad porn isn’t banning porn — it’s creating better conditions to make it right.
On Adult Services Websites
Adult services websites are not the problem — they’re part of the solution.
Shutting down online platforms doesn't reduce harm — it removes safety nets.
The internet is how we screen, negotiate, and say no.
Removing online infrastructure is like pulling the brakes off a moving car.
If you care about exploitation, don’t take away the tools workers use to avoid it.
On the Nordic Model
The Nordic Model punishes clients, but the consequences fall on sex workers.
When clients fear arrest, workers lose control.
Screening clients is the first line of defence — the Nordic Model takes that away.
If the goal is safety, the Nordic Model fails on every front.
Sex workers shouldn't have to choose between rent and safety.
General Opposition
You can’t protect sex workers by making their work more dangerous.
Criminalisation doesn’t end sex work — it just ends safety.
Policy based on ideology will never solve problems rooted in inequality.
If the law can’t tell the difference between violence and consensual work, the law needs to change.
Stigma kills — and criminalisation is state-sponsored stigma.