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.
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.......