This response is a collective reaction authored by a number of leading UK academics and
researchers following the publication of the Poppy Project’s (Eaves Housing) ‘Big Brothel: A
Survey of the Off‐Street Sex Industry in London’, which was depicted widely in the UK national
media as revealing the ‘truth’ of indoor sex working (or brothel‐based prostitution). This
collective shares a concern that the ‘Big Brothel’ report has been given undue weight in media
and public discussion of sex work in recent days and weeks, given it is one piece of evidence
among many – and one that exhibits serious flaws in its mode of data collection and analysis.
The authors and supporters of this response wish to see a balanced debate about sex work in
this country, with legal reform being evidence‐based and informed by the wealth of research
carried out on indoor and outdoor sex work by established academics and researchers, many
sponsored by the government’s own research councils and not informed by sensationalising
reportage purporting to be ‘research’ such as evidenced by ‘Big Brothel’.

The report builds a damning picture of indoor sex work on the basis of data whose reliability
and representativeness is extremely doubtful and a methodological approach that would be
considered unethical by most professional social researchers. It makes claims about
trafficking, exploitation and the current working conditions of women and men employed in
the indoor sex industry on the basis of that data. These claims cannot be substantiated in
terms of the methodology, the data presented or in terms of wider, ethically approved, peer
reviewed academic evidence. In short, the report does not provide any evidence concerning
the current working conditions of women and men employed in indoor sex work venues in the

The report does not adhere to scientific standards and only represents an anecdotal account
based on making hoax calls to telephone numbers obtained from sex venue adverts. The use of
such methods of deception does not meet the standard of ethics governing any UK University
or reputed research institute practices. The main data collection tool was telephone calls made
by male “researchers” pretending to be potential clients‐ a method which did not provide the
opportunity for respondents to consent or decline to participate in the ‘research’.

Notwithstanding the cavalier disregard of the issue of consent, there are serious problems
with the reliability of such data. The method of phoning up numbers taken from sex venue
adverts and then treating the information provided by receptionists as ‘fact’ is flawed.
Information given by receptionists to callers they think are potential customers does not
necessarily reflect anything other than the marketing process used to encourage clients to
visit. The ‘data’ reported is therefore accounts of receptionists and not any true picture of
sexual behaviour or the type women who work.

There has been a wealth of empirical research conducted on indoor sex work, and there are
established methods of gaining access to sex workers and others working in sex work venues.
The authors make no attempt to use these established methods, or efforts to contact sex
workers themselves. Some quotes from ex‐workers are incorporated in the report, but the
source of such quotes is unclear. Quotations from selected ex‐workers are not necessarily
representative of current working conditions across the range of indoor venues.

Information given over the phone from parlours/saunas and private flats is not a reliable
method for establishing the actual nationalities and ethnic identities of sex workers working in
parlours. However, the report appears correct when it suggests women and men of many
nationalities are employed in London’s off‐street sex work venues. This does not necessarily
imply these workers have been coerced or trafficked into sex work, and there is no evidence
presented (or available) to suggest that the majority of migrant workers in indoor sex work do
not do so legally and of their own choice. The anecdotal indicators of trafficking presented by
the Poppy Project report are just that, and cannot be considered as evidence of an accurate or
reliable nature, being obtained from those who answer phones in venues under misleading

This research suggests unsafe sexual practices may be available at many venues for additional payment, yet the evidence for this is not clear. In fact, most studies report high levels of safe sex amongst sex workers indoors, which is partly down to the harm reduction services that work tirelessly to access indoor premises. Indoor work has been found to be safer than street working in most reputable studies, contrary to the impression given in this report.

The attention‐grabbing headlines given at the start misrepresent the report’s content. For
example, one headline reads “full sex available for 15 quid”, yet it turns out that this was one
venue only and the majority of venues were quoting much higher rates, with an average of
more than £61. Another states “kissing, oral or anal sex without a condom for an extra

report finds that only 2% of venues offered oral or anal sex without a condom at any price
(with only one offering this for £10 extra), and 13% offered oral sex without a condom. Thus
the large majority of venues contacted were offering safe sex.

The ‘findings’ of this report are framed by a pre‐existing political view of prostitution. In the
foreword, the Chief Executive of Eaves (CEO) identifies prostitution as something which “helps
to construct and maintain gender inequality”. Prostitution is represented as violence against
women: this is not always the case. Not all clients are violent and not all workers claim to be,
or are, exploited.

Extensive quantitative and qualitative research on men who buy sex demonstrates that they
are from a wide range of backgrounds, ages, ethnicities, social class, and are usually employed
men in conventional relationships. They are no more likely to be criminal than any other cross
section of society (and there is Home Office research that bears this out).

Dr Teela Sanders, University of Leeds
Jane Pitcher, Independent Researcher
Rosie Campbell, Chair, UK Network of Sex Work Projects & Loughborough

Dr Belinda Brooks‐Gordon, Birkbeck College, University of London
Dr Maggie O’Neill, Loughborough University
Dr Jo Phoenix, Durham University