Get the gist: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5904446.ece - they're "cleaning up" Soho pre-Olympics to make it more family friendly.

This saddens me deeply. On a personal level, because I love Soho. I find the neons and filth charming. It's all a bit scummy, but the people are perfectly charming (even if they're not always wearing a lot). And the scumminess feeds back into why I like it - cheap bookshops, cheap music stores, cheap, bohemian and odd. I like the feeling of history, the atmosphere both in terms of appearance and the people who are there, universally friendly - perhaps the scumminess too? Being cold and judgemental becomes a bit redundant when you're selling porn. I mean, I always feel comfortable dressing "bizzarely" in London because nobody gives you odd looks. Maybe because they don't care, maybe because they don't notice - probably because they think I'll stab them up if they look at me funny. But Soho's the only place where I feel not only do people notice, they genuinely don't mind. Hence it's also an area where I feel very comfortable, and I often make a point of walking through it on the way home.

The problem is it gets driven underground. It is a red light district, and will remain one - just like Hiroshima, Pearl Harbour, Auswitz, Whitechapel - even Vietnam - can no longer just be place names. This reputation is a good thing. It means it gets closely watched - it's a bit sleazy, true, but not actually threatening. Any establishments there are open and easily monitored. After dark, there are always policemen. I've never seen that anywhere else in London. As it stands, there are only actually three streets of sex shops there - it's already being nibbled at by all the shops around it. The problem lies in Shame, because Jesu people - it happens. It's not nice, but there's a good percentage of the population who want to shell out for goodness knows what. Driving it out of Soho won't make it go away. At least, now, it's mostly in one place where we can see it. It'll dissipate, shudder back to backrooms and hidden away, has the potential to become genuinely criminal.

This money could be better spent, than destroying the individuality of a historic area. Why not clean up the real filth? I'm not going to go look on Wikipedia for examples, basically because I'm having a positive day, and don't want to go back into "this city screams like an abattoir of retarded children - hrmmm, let's go burn some criminals" mode. But it doesn't take too much imagination to presume that in a city of this size, somewhere right now, there are some very unsavoury, dangerous and illegal things going on - human trafficking to name just one. And they are not in Soho.

In general: although I admit this is not an area I've thought about much, if at all, my kneejerk reaction would be to legalise the vice as far as possible. If an industry is legalised, it can be properly regulated and policed making it safer for everyone involved. In an ideal world, prostitution and porn would both just go away - but it's never going to, and they call it "the oldest profession in the world" for good reason. Incidentally, Wikipedia feels the need to point out that this statement is probably erronious as the first profession would have been "hunter-gatherer". Headdesk.

Making prostitution illegal reminds me of 1920s gangster movies and the Prohibition. The mobs drew their power and influence from being able to provide, illegally, the booze which the government would not. When there is a demand, someone will supply it - and making something illegal, or in any case stigmatised, hands the revenue over to criminals. The tame aspects of the sex industry should just be gotten used to - we're only human after all. Not encouraged, but the Shame should be taken away.

I mean Shame in a general context too - nobody should be embarassed, afraid or persecuted because of something which is natural. And not big things like race or sexuality either, I mean lots of things. Going to the toilet. Everyone does it, so why is there apparently no polite way to say "er - I'm just going to go over, like, there for a bit will you hold my drink?". Periods: 50% of the population go through it every month, so why do women feel the need to talk about it very quietly, and why does it downright disturb men so much? You've seen footballers get injuries: they cry like little girls, and you just knew if men had a painful, monthly incapacity they'd whine like nobody's business. Even nudity is a topic I feel perhaps we are too touchy on, and even though I can't help being personally more prudish than I would like, an ideal future would break down the nudity taboo altogether. This has already been acnowledged by the British Board of Film Classification - non-sexual nudity can actually be passed at U rating.

The opposite of shame is acceptance. And things have to be accepted if they cannot be helped. Lets have a purely hypothetical situation in which I ended up pregnant. I'm pretty sure my parents would be supportive, but there's still a sufficiently large stigma that a lot of girls would feel too ashamed to. This is terrible, because if you get into a bad situation you need help. Same goes if I were hypothetically addicted to drugs, or hypothetically got an STD - the sensible course of action is to announce it to the world, get support from family and friends then visit a doctor. But Shame has driven these things into the shadows, meaning anyone in those situations is already in twice as much trouble and danger. Think Spring Awakening, which is all about the trouble Shame surrounding sex gets a bunch of 1880s teens into.

And this goes on a global scale too - homosexuality, for example, if it cannot be helped (I don't know what the current medical thinking is), it has to be accepted. Because it's terrible that Shame would make a family cease to love their gay son, drive him out of his community and leave him open to goodness knows what. The point at which someone is crying into their pillow about something not their fault is the point at which we have to accept. The heroes of Paris is Burning are asked to be ashamed by everyone around them - to a level, they refuse and the balls are proud celebrations. But at the same time the shame in the society is still there, and it's the shame which has forced them into that situation.

Now obviously, visiting hookers and accidentally getting pregnant are in different catagories, but I'm convinced that the less Shame the former profession has the better the world will be. Especially when you consider that most women in those careers have not exactly chosen to be there, whether through social pressures or bad support. I'd be happy to live on the same road as a brothel, except if I seriously thought it would increase drunkenness and rowdy behavior and put my family in danger. Which isn't terribly likely.

And when you take porn and prostitution out of the equation, both of which you can argue are bad things - even though it may all be a bit icky to some minds (which is also fine), there is nothing at all to be ashamed about in wanting to buy exciting underwear, or whatever else (use imagination) as long as it's part of a safe, consensual and happy relationship. Right?

The point is, why does the government feel Shame about Soho? It's actually an area many voluntarily visit as part of the London experience, and the member countries of the Olympics are hardly innocent prudes. The bottom line is this: sex shops exist. We all know this. So why is the government wasting resources trying to convince the world the Tooth Fairy is real? Some more constructive ways of spending the cash:

1. Solving the root problems of prostitution, like supporting the women forced into these careers.

2. Solving the root problems behind porn, like the objectification of women

3. Chasing down proper vice in London

4. Helping the homeless, victims of domestic abuse, AIDS charities, stray cats...e.t.c.

5. Buying me a genuine replica Dalek.

Because "cleaning up" Soho will destroy its soul, and is pointless on every level.