Christmas in London — what better way to celebrate than carol singing in the streets of Soho with singers from Westmister Abbey and the International Union of Sex Workers? The Rector of St Anne’s parish in Soho swished out in front in long robes and fuschia beret but it was this banner, carried by Nico and Thierry, that really led the way. Note the trick photography — by the time we got out on the streets it was dark and floating with magical snowflakes; the boys were definitely wearing more than body paint.

Soho was full of good cheer; lots of people joined in the carolling and a couple of crusty punks pulled out descant voices that rivalled the cathedral choir’s. There was much cheering for hookers; it made me wonder how many people knew that the jurassic feminists in this Nanny government had just the month before pushed through new legislation that will make it more dangerous for women (and men, and transgenders) to sell sex in the UK.

My challenge the evening of the carol singing was to tear myself away from the Glo-ooooo-ooooo-rias in time to heat up vast vats of mulled wine. I rose to that occasion ok. My challenge for the New Year is somewhat more daunting. TED has announced the programme for its next conference in California, and I’m hugely honoured to be speaking there, in some very great company.

TED talks are not very often about sex. But the best of them can even make statistics sexy. I leave you with this classic from Hans Rosling, an ally in the war on Data Hugging Disorder, but here popping some of the bubbles of the HIV narrative.

I’ve been following this issue a bit recently — in fact I wrote a little a piece about it for this month’s Prospect — and I was keen to go to the meeting in Parliament which Cath mentions. Sadly, I’m unable to assess her contribution to the debate. I got through parliamentary security with a bottle of wine and a cheese knife (!) but couldn’t get past the feminist bouncers who were turning away anyone who is interested in actually debating the future of prostitution in this country. Also turned away: colleagues from the World Bank, staff from the offices of MPs supportive of rules that will make sex work safer, and (needless to say) anyone who actually chooses to sell sex for a living — the people the meeting organisers don’t believe exist.

“As everyone in the room agreed, it’s time to bring an end to the selling of women and girls: who could possibly disagree with that?” concludes Ms Elliot. The organisers didn’t need to police the crowd to get everyone to agree on that point. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t believe that selling people is wrong. Not anyone outside the Premier League, anyway. Selling sex, on the hand, is not wrong, in the eyes of the hundreds of thousands of women and men who choose it as a profession. Oh but wait, they don’t exist….

The truth is that they do exist, just as the ex-Nevada hooker who left the profession with debts because she hadn’t managed to save any of the $2000 + a week she earned while on the game exists. Some women who sell sex do it because they are forced to. They are trafficked, and we already have laws against that. Some do it for the same reason people work in McDonald’s — because it is the best job they can get for the skills they have (though you tend to earn more selling sex than burgers, and the hours are more flexible). Helping people who hate their jobs (in prostitution or McDonalds) to “exit” is surely a worthwhile thing to do. But some women (and men, of course) sell sex because they want to. Forcing them to stop by criminalising punters would be like promoting welfare in the restaurant industry by outlawing fast food. The distinction between the voluntary and involuntary sale of sex is an important one, and one that the draft policing and crime bill is inching its way towards recognising. Trying to keep willing sex workers out of the room is both undemocratic and unhelpful.

I’ve fretted before about the bill, which criminalises men who buy sex. But a fantastic lobbying effort by UK sex workers (notably the International Union of Sex Workers and the English Collective of Prositutes) has meant that the version of the bill which gets its third reading today is a VAST improvement on earlier versions. Most importantly, only men who buy sex from women who have been “subjected to force, deception or threats” can be nicked. While it’s still a wide net, it’s not one most people in the indsutry object to — no sex worker wants to work alongside colleagues who have been trafficked or forced into the business. The wording is certainly a damned sight better than earlier versions, which made it illegal to buy sex from people who are “controlled for gain”. That includes anyone who gives an agent a cut of their fees for finding clients (or for finding a publisher, a gig at Wembley, a part in the new Stephen Spielberg movie… No, let’s not go down that route).

There are other proposed ammendments worth supporting too. Catherine Stephens, one of IUSW’s most energetic and dedicated campaigners, draws attention to the following:

• new clause 4 which decriminalises anyone under 18 who is selling sex
• new clause 37 which defines a brothel as more than two people selling sex plus a maid
• new clause 38 which decriminalises “associated workers” (e.g., maids) in brothels
• amendment 6 to clause 15 which defines persistently for street sex workers as “twice a week” rather  than the current “twice in three months”
• amendment 7, which removes clause 16 (compulsory rehabilitation for street sex workers as a substitute for fines or jail time)
• new clauses 25 and 26, which, like the government amendments, require that the person selling sex has been coerced and that the client knows this.

Of course the abolitionists are yelping about the changes. If you’re a voter in the UK, you’ve got til 2pm to call your MP and ask them to support the changes, which will make sex work safer and more rewarding for people who want to do it, while helping to protect people who don’t. You can call your MP on +44 20 7219 3000 (and find out who to badger here).

Congratulations to those sex workers who have shown that reasoned, evidence-based engagement in the political process is worthwhile. You’ve brought some wisdom to parliamentarians. Of course one could be forgived for expecting a sympathetic ear from our elected representatives; they know a thing or two about selling themselves to the highest bidder…