Grappling With Which Came First: The Hooker or the Entrepreneur

As police in the United Kingdom have nothing more pressing to do at the moment, they’ve decided the next big crusade to wokeify their constabulary – having trained them in the art of publicly browbeating and arresting social media miscreants – will now be to correct the terminology used when dealing with those in the sex trade.

The Sidewalk Princesses and Doorway Debutantes of lore.

The streetwalkers and hookers congregating on corners to attract the attention of random strangers passing by, who might be interested in what they’re offering for a fee.

Well, time for a vernacular shift, according to the ever-sensitive National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC). In their reasoning, if one is having sex for money because one wishes to, as opposed to being forced to, that changes the definition of what one is doing.

If it’s a ‘career choice,’ you’re no longer a ‘prostitute’ nor simply a happier hooker. Oh, no, sir.

Concerns have been raised over guidance issued by the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) suggesting officers limit the use of the word “prostitute” or “prostitution” to “specific legal meanings and offences”.

The guidance suggests using vocabulary such as “sexual entrepreneurs”, referring to those who “have chosen to engage in commercial sex as a career choice and for whom sex work is not necessarily a temporary arrangement that they seek to exit”.

The semantics refresh is already causing confusion.

More of a depositor I would think😉

— torrin kelly (@TorrinK42254) November 20, 2025

And, to be quite frank, a lot of anger, as the whole conception of prostitution as a crime seems to have gone the way of the dodo in the UK. At least it has if you’re judging by convictions, which have nearly disappeared while solicitations for paid sex have blown through the roof with the advent of the innerwebs.

COME ON BABY, LIGHT MY FIRE

Call it the virtual brothel, and it is virtually impossible to police and regulate.

Or…maybe we can’t anymore. I’ll have to check the new rules.

…At the same time, sex trafficking was being conducted on an “industrial scale” through “pimping websites”, with one alone promoting 15,800 adverts for prostitution, they said.

Convictions for “paying for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force” are down from 43 in 2010 to zero in 2023, soliciting has fallen from 208 to 25 in the same period, keeping a brothel has dropped from 32 to eight and “pimping” has decreased from 32 to eight.

There is what’s called an all-party parliamentary group (APPG) whose members are deeply concerned that this is one more step in normalizing and decriminalizing sex work and, by extension, sex-trafficking. The Labour MP who chairs the group, Tonia Antoniazzi, said the NPCC’s substitution of ‘sex work…normalizes the exchange of money for sex acts as a job’ and that the deeply contested term ‘sex work’ is not contained in any UK legislation.

  …It called for police chiefs in England and Wales to follow the example of Police Scotland, which did not use the terminology “sex work” and “recognised the exchange of money for sex acts as a form of violence against women”.

In their letter, the MPs asked to meet Ms Mahmood to discuss how forces across the UK could learn from Police Scotland’s approach and “explore how the Government can strengthen enforcement of laws against sex trafficking and sexual exploitation”.

And then it gets very weird, because it seems that the NPCC didn’t stop there with recommendations and guidance. They dove into the deep end on the police themselves, and when and whether they should pay for sex.

Seriously.

So, in general, the answer was ‘no.’ Like you would think.

But the chiefs’ council didn’t leave it at that, and the AAPG picked up on the ambiguities inherent in some of the guidance scenarios.

Such as a disabled officer having to choose between paying for sex(!), aka the only way he’s likely to get any, or his job.

…“No examples would have been necessary if the statement had unequivocally read, ‘Police officers should not pay people for sex acts,’” said the group.

It also criticised a “deeply offensive” statement in the guidance on the potential impact of banning disabled officers from paying for sex, because “using such services may be their only access to a physical relationship of any kind”.

The guidance goes on: “This could cause significant distress and force the person to choose between their job and sex life.” But the APPG said: “This deeply offensive statement normalises commercial sexual exploitation.”

This is…something.

For their part, the NPCC ‘looks forward’ to working with the parliamentary group while, I guess, ensuring their disabled officers continue to have access to… never mind.

Let’s just say they’re looking forward to building more ‘lived experiences,’ shall we? Leave it at that.

… “We welcome the opportunity to speak to partners about how we work to do this and have recently met with the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group to discuss the guidance, which was recently refreshed following extensive consultation with policing, partner organisations and those with lived experiences of sex work and sexual exploitation. Our focus remains on tackling exploitation and pursuing perpetrators who exploit or abuse sex workers and to work relentlessly to improve the safety of those involved in the sex industry.”

Mamdani might get more New York cops to stay on if he emphasizes ‘lived experiences,’ as he’s very much into prostitution being a ‘working girl’ kind of career choice.

Parliament’s done next to nothing for the rape gang children, and the British police cover themselves in woke glory every time a new video surfaces, but they all have time to tie themselves in knots over who’s getting laid and what to call it.

IT’S NOT A PIMP’S HAREM, IT’S AN ENTREPRENEURS’ CLUB

Refer to prostitutes as ‘sexual entrepreneurs’, police chiefs insist https://t.co/51qvFRAS68

— LBC (@LBC) November 20, 2025

And the little boats just keep coming.

At HotAir, we’ve been dealing with real government suppression of free speech for YEARS. Despite the threats and consequences, we refuse to go silent and remain committed to delivering the truth.

But we can’t do it without your support.

Please help Ed, David, John, and me continue fighting back against government censorship by joining our terrific HotAir VIP community today. Use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.

And thank you so much again for being here with us at HotAir.