The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) is being commended for taking a significant step toward modernizing the policing of the sex trade. By issuing guidance that refers to sex workers as "sexual entrepreneurs" and acknowledging sex work as a valid career choice for some, the police are finally moving away from stigmatizing language and towards a reality-based approach. However, this progressive leap has drawn criticism from the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Commercial Sexual Exploitation, a body that appears entrenched in an archaic view that conflates all sex work with exploitation.
Modernizing Language and Recognizing Agency
In a refreshing departure from traditional moralizing, the 'Sex Work National Police Guidance' identifies that for many, selling sexual services is "an active career choice" or a pragmatic "survival strategy."
By adopting terms like "sex work" and "sexual entrepreneur," the police are aligning themselves with human rights organizations and worker advocacy groups that have long argued that respect and safety begin with the correct terminology.
The Police Perspective: Recognizing agency is crucial. Not every transaction is a crime, and not every worker is a victim. The new guidance aims to strip away the stigma that often prevents workers from seeking help when they truly need it.
The APPG's Outdated Resistance
Despite the NPCC's attempt to foster trust between officers and the sex worker community, the APPG—led by Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi—has labeled the guidance "harmful and inappropriate." In a letter to policing minister Sarah Jones, the group condemned the terminology simply because it is not currently enshrined in UK legislation, a stance that critics argue ignores the evolving social landscape.
The APPG’s refusal to accept the term "sex work" and their objection to the police lead holding a title containing the phrase suggests a refusal to engage with the industry as it actually exists. By insisting that all prostitution is inherently "exploitation," the APPG risks alienating the very people they claim to want to protect.
The Debate Over Inclusivity and Rights
The divide is perhaps starkest regarding the police guidance on disabled officers. The NPCC guidance compassionately noted that a ban on officers paying for sex could cause "significant distress," acknowledging that for some disabled individuals, commercial services may be their only route to physical intimacy.
Rather than viewing this as a nuanced understanding of disability and human needs, the APPG attacked the statement as "deeply offensive," claiming it "normalises commercial sexual exploitation." This reaction highlights the APPG's rigid ideological framework, which appears unable to distinguish between consensual transactions and abuse.
A Step Backward?
The APPG is now urging the government to follow the "Police Scotland approach," which refuses to use the term "sex work" and frames the exchange of money for sex as violence against women. Critics of the APPG argue that this prohibitionist model drives the industry underground, making it more dangerous, whereas the NPCC’s evolving language represents a vital step toward safety, regulation, and respect for sexual entrepreneurs.