There would be no sex workers if there were no clients willing to pay for their services.

It's interesting that so much focus was put onto the Thomson allegations while almost none onto Kathy Jackson's ex-husband who allegedly did the same thing with his HSU card and even almost no coverage of her own apparent corruption. Maybe they have an agenda.

It seems to me that the media can be very selective in what they choose to report but the sex angle is a real headline grabber. If Thomson was alleged to have committed fraud to cover a gambling debt or to pay for his mother's eye operation in would not have been so scandalous. So who is profiting from sex now?

I think Elena raises some very good points about the way in which lefty journalists cover sexuality issues. In the 1980s there was always a freedom of speech and expression angle to the way Fairfax covered these issues. Now it appears to me that there's a new religious/feminist perspective on sex/porn/sex work/sex relationships led by the likes of Melinda Tankard Reist that are in the ascendency at Fairfax. Although it appears to come from an opposing philosophical position to the 'faux outrage' professed by the blokey blokes at the Telegraph and offered in these comments by Chris Seage as some sort of proof of Elena's naivety, I'm uneasy in the sameness of their conclusions. Elena Jeffries is right to point out that many of the lefty and feminist commentators on Craig Thompson's situation used the event to comment on the $5000 spent on sex workers or, as she says, used it as an excuse to 'spit out' the word 'prostitute'. Sorry...that's the way I read it too. Most of these journalists probably support the 'Swedish solution' to stop union officials from using sex services as part of their entertainment budget. No solution at all. Just a way of vilifying a portion of the working class that are legally still allowed to be vilified.