Sunday, December 9, 2012
An Ampthillian Speaks - Lou from the Hill
The opening of 'Shaylers' has, as you know provoked outrage from the residents of Ampthill and blog postings that cover the issue have attracted a number of comments from people both for and against the club. The most interesting comment was made by 'Lou from the Hill' and it embodies perfectly the mindset of the typical prohibitionist. 'Lou' commented on my posting, 'Carry on Stripping in Ampthill', which if you follow the link, you can read for yourself. Lets have a look at what 'Lou' wrote and ask some pertinent questions...
What an awful way to talk about the residents who have run a completely legal campaign (can you prove otherwise?
My posting commented about an act of vandalism to the site and also made mention to the fact that someone called 'Miss Rosy' suggested photographing customers as they entered and club premises. These are illegal acts that I guess were perpetrated/planned by a local resident. So the issue of the legality of the anti club campaign remains unanswered, although I do detect some sensitivity to the matter though.....
I believe the phrase innocent until proven guilty applies to us) about something which they genuinely believe (backed-up by evidence of other clubs) will have a significantly detrimental effect on the town they reside in and have been told numerous times the occupier is only doing to annoy people (I have heard this from him in person before you ask).
What evidence from other clubs? Are we talking Lillith here? Can you quantify the 'significantly detrimental effect' that the town will suffer? Are these effects documented somewhere or the product of your fevered imagination?
I don't want the club in the town centre - I walk around there every day.
The club won't be open in the day when you are walking around the town. Are you really trying to tell us that the presence of the club will, even when closed, cause you psychological discomfort? It doesn't really matter though Lou, you own the problem so its up to you to deal with. The town centre doesn't exist for your sole convenience and benefit.
A lot of the complaints about the application were because of lies in it (yes, we can and have proved this).......
What lies were told and by who? Where did you prove it? Did you tell the Council? How did the Council react?
.....and the fact that even before opening night, the owner was not running it according to the terms of the licence which have clear rules about the appearance outside.
Lou what are you talking about? How could the owner be running the club in violation of the terms of its license before it had even opened? The terms of a licence apply to open, trading clubs, not ones that are yet to open.
I should add the licence comes up for renewal in a year and there will no doubt be opposition again.
I have no doubt there will be.....
Also, as a woman can I say I hate the objectefication of women that stripping promotes - no, don't tell me strippers are empowered, that's not true and you're just lying to yourself if you believe that.
I never said strippers were empowered, just employed, but I understand your need to accuse me of something that I never said in order to try and make a point.
Also, you can't spell 'objectification'.
Lou accuses me of lying to myself. The reality as we can see from the comment is that the real liar is Lou. The comment made lacked cohesion, structure and supporting evidence. The lie that Lou was telling was the assertion that the existence of 'Shaylers' will have a negative affect on the town of Ampthill, a lie that is as flimsy as any anti club argument put forward by Object.
Postscript:
If you refer to the comments section of my article, you will see that Lou helpfully provides a link to Objects website, which at least explains why the comment they made was somewhat sense free.......
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It will be interesting to see how many objections there are to the renewal.
ReplyDeleteIn Accrington over 1,500 people signed a petition against iCandy before it opened. When the SEV licence came up for renewal recently there were only 2 objections.
Clearly at least 1498 people didn't think that the club had damaged the town in the way they expected.
When someone chants the "ob-jec-ti-fi-cat-ion of wo-myn" mantra, it's a racing certainty that they're involved in some way with Object Now Ltd. And the compulsive use of lies, disinformation and personal insults by the prohibitionists is a dead giveaway that they now that the relevant facts don't stack up in their favour.
ReplyDeleteBrute this is so true. From my recent time spent on Mumsnet it's so typical of their behavior. As has been mentioned on here a few times before, it's definitely an Object stronghold over there. They hold some of the most extreme and irrational views on LDC's, porn and page 3 that i ever witnessed on a forum. They also do a wonderful job of shooting themselves in the foot when they descend into the usual insults when the start losing the argument, which is always good for the observers to see.
DeleteIn many ways, Object Now operates like the SWP...which is probably a suitable subject for a future post to this blog.
DeleteI also note the double-standard of Lou from the Hill on the subject of legality: all "innocent until proven guilty" with regard to activities of the anti-club campaigners (as documented on this blog), whilst making accusations that, "A lot of the complaints about the application were because of lies in it (yes, we can and have proved this) and the fact that even before opening night, the owner was not running it according to the terms of the licence which have clear rules about the appearance outside.", whilst failing to prove the alleged proof or acknowledge that the council doesn't appear to have taken any action re these alleged 'infringements'.
ReplyDeleteI'm amazed that you posted an entry purely trying to discredit the protestors with all my comments on your blog. Love that you found a small typo to pretend I can't spell - really not the end of the world though is it, and I'm sure I'm not the first person who's done that and not noticed.
ReplyDeleteThe campaign against has been completely legal and as yet none on this blog have proven otherwise. I can however provide you with details of the licence infringements (was in a little rush last time, hence the small typing error which you took such joy in exploiting and my not having time to go into full detail). The campaign is going to be presenting these to the council but they have: not listed the entrance location correctly (said it was on the oxslip when it's actually on the car park), not decorated the outside of the building correctly (no reflective glass I believe was in the licence but it's on all the outer doors), the person who leased the building was listed as the owner and there is a small but still present difference there. Our campaign has presented evidence to our local council who are responsible for licencing instead of giving it to strangers on the internet who don't have the power to do anything but comment. As these are all visible from outside the building, we will be able to see change when there is some.
Lou, if you bothered to read Chasmal's posts on this topic properly, you'd find that he HAS addressed specific aspects of the campaign which have all the appearance of being illegal; that he hasn't felt it necessary to present evidence to the relevant authorities is a separate matter.
DeleteAs for the evidence you CLAIM to have re infringements of the licence, you've simply reeled off a list of alleged items without providing readers of this blog with documentary and photographic evidence of the same. And to judge from the contents of that list, you appear desperate to find ANY excuse to get the council to reverse their decision to grant the licence in the first place: the phrase 'clutching at straws' springs to mind.
"Our campaign has presented evidence to our local council who are responsible for licencing instead of giving it to strangers on the internet who don't have the power to do anything but comment."
That as may be, the burden of proof is on YOU - anything short of that is just idle talk.
P.S. It's notable that you haven't seen fit to comment on the link to the Object Now website which you so helpfully provided - funny, that...!
DeleteOK I don't think I'm going to have time to check here again so can I just add a final adieu? I'm not admitting defeat - I just have better things to do than argue endlessly with strangers on the internet (fun at first but not for long!). I'm not a troll before you ask, but they could really learn a lot from this (next time I see one I'll give them this address and tell them to take notes!).
ReplyDeleteFreedom of speech is for all - not just those that agree with what you've put on your free blog. Bye.
But Lou, you will have time to check here again because you're compelled to do so. This is a good thing because then you will see the next article I am planning that will discuss people being photographed in public places (the First Amendment doesn't apply to Britain), your spelling and other grammatical errors and a really brilliant challenge that I am planning to set for you.....
ReplyDeleteHave fun.....
Whilst you are correcting Lou's spelling and other grammatical errors, I do hope you will also afford the same courtesy to all the other posts on this site, including your own. You have misspelled 'Leveson', and don't seem to understand how to use apostrophes. Funny how contributors to this blog are so quick to call out those against LDCs for personally insulting those in favour, yet jumping on a few typos when you disagree with someone is fine, despite it having bugger all to do with the arguments at hand.
ReplyDeleteBottom line forgetting typos, spelling and grammar is Lou's support seems to come from Object's website which if you read my review of seems the research they quote about the current scene in the UK has no actual value. The most current researches from Leeds and Kent Universities are more realistic, better focused and not written by people with agendas. So for all the bickering if you like Lou quotes things from the Object website and takes them as gospel and not even looked at other research. I have looked at every piece that has come out in the last 8 years and produced my own study which was sent to both Kent and Leeds.
DeleteWhen someone comes out with valid research that proves conclusively object is right I will apologise to Lou, somehow how though the Mayans are more likely to be right than Object.
I look forward to your lesson on apostrophe use. I imagine you are the first of Lou's promised hoard of trolls and look forward to your further 'contributions'...
DeleteI wasn't planning on giving you a lesson; just a bit of free advice that people living in a glass house should probably keep their stones to themselves. So if you still plan on trying to belittle Lou in your next blog post by pulling apart her spelling and grammar, whilst making obvious and repeated errors yourself, it's going to make you look a bit silly. Furthermore, if you don't then also pull apart, for example, TonyN's garbled grammar in the reply just above yours, it will make you look like a hypocrite with double standards for those you agree with and those you don't.
Delete"Furthermore, if you don't then also pull apart, for example, TonyN's garbled grammar in the reply just above yours, it will make you look like a hypocrite with double standards for those you agree with and those you don't."
DeleteAs opposed to making oneself look petty, pendantic and desperate to find any small excuse to criticise this blog and its regular contributors?
But of course when Chasmal does the same thing he doesn't look petty, pedantic and desperate to find any small excuse to criticise? Can you really not see the point I'm making here? TonyN, I picked you arbitrarily simply because your post was closes to hand, I was only doing so to make a point that seems lost on you all. There's a real self-righteous air about this blog regarding how the 'prohibitionists' make personal attacks, demonstrating they have no better arguments, yet the regular contributers indulge in exactly the same behaviour, only with more sneer. If I'm trolling then fine, but goodness knows what it's called when Chasmal does exactly the same thing to belittle people like Lou. Constructive criticism?
DeleteStill the fact Lou has no arguments to back up her opinion. So she has an opinion which is frail to say the least. So forget the personal issues she cannot back up her claims. Making foolish claims without checking how correct they are is at best parrot like and at worst the act of a fool.
DeleteNo - at the very worst it's the act of someone who believes that everyone who's sitting on the fence is a fool, ready to take their groundless claims at face value, and to believe that their opponents are knaves. But I'd agree with you otherwise, Tony.
DeleteAnonymous, whatever my english and grammar is like (and I blame the pain killers) doesn't stop the fact that Lou was basing her arguments on the Object pages. If you care to read the appalling grammar and spelling on my earlier article about the resource she chose you will see that her arguments are not based on anything I would put up in court. In fact you can see I call object liars for leaving links on their pages which are incorrect.
ReplyDeleteBut please insult my grammar as the arguments I put forward are a lot more solid than anything Lou has quoted. Bottom line the research currently available is a lot more in line with this blog than Lou's opinion. So lets see your strong case I am wrong... or will you just show troll like behaviour?
Don't be ridiculous 'Anonymous, I hardly pulled apart Lou's spelling and grammar, I pointed out that she seemed unable to spell something that she seems to so deeply believe in. The comment that I made that has caused such a venal reaction was...
ReplyDelete'Also, you can't spell 'objectification'.
....Now we can see that this observation has lead to comments accusing me of hypocrisy and yet the real body of my argument lies essentially unchallenged. I am not the one that looks petty and pedantic, because I am not the one that has focussed so relentlessly on my supposed hypocrisy.
I am just glad that I didn't note that 'Lou' can't seem to spell 'feminist' correctly either.
But let me say that for the peace of mind of everyone that reads my blog, in the future, when grammatical errors are made, I will be far more 'discreet' when I comment.
ReplyDeleteAlso 'Anonymous', could please refrain from using foul language when you comment on this blog. Furthermore, in answer to your other criticism, I am not a fucking hypocrite either.
ReplyDeleteActually, for your information, it wasn't the comment 'you can't spell objectification' that prompted my reaction, it was your comment to Lou 'you will see the next article I am planning that will discuss [...] your spelling and other grammatical errors'. As you can see if you read my posts, I pointed out that if you did plan to pull apart Lou's spelling and grammar, as your words imply, that would make you seem hypocritical. Furthermore at no point have I called you a 'fucking hypocrite', that was your foul language, not mine. I'm sorry if my phrase 'bugger all' caused offence; I thought that fairly mild swearing, certainly compared to your f-word.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I have made my point, I shall bid you all a Happy Christmas and leave it there.
So you came here not to debate but to stir. Fair enough every opportunity given to you to show that Lou was in the right was ignored so understand that you cannot stop her being consider a fool by anyone who can read the logical arguments. Your point most definitely has been made and I feel sorry that you felt Lou's stupidity in believing Object's lies could ever be defended.
Delete