Monday, June 24, 2013

Leeds and the Crowds were Bitterly Disappointed.

Okay well guess it is about to hit the fan tomorrow in Leeds as I have just seen the report (here)going before the licensing committee and have just one or two (or six issues) with the report. Clubs please take note for if and when you need to take legal action.

Well it seems a lot of responses based a lot of their claims on the Lilith report, now not sure but if you are basing your claims on a report that is wrong does your belief because of that report become wrong? Really not sure but the fact is respondents thought so, I could make comments about stupidity but that would be a tad foolish. Having read the claims from the public re sexual crimes around these venues the people have been told to believe Lilith, make claims based on Lilith and by god ram Lilith down councils throats. Notice that some people have made the usual comments on prostitution, nothing like making it up as they go along of course.

Now it seems that 52 people used a standard letter, only 31 even bothered putting something in to individualise it. As we saw with Northampton there is always a risk that it could be one person doing multiple entries. The ease of setting up multiple e-mail accounts is well known. Also the standard letter came in many times via post which considering the fact that 37 letters came in with the consultation for urban tiger in Northampton shows again the organised hate campaign basing claims on sexual violence that doesn't exist. Even better there is one "personal" statement that is repeated by several people. Actually even to the council using the term positive to describe the people against the strip clubs seems a little play on words to shape councillors thinking.

The exercise was originally started by a working group that was set up after the public told the council to leave the clubs alone. Having looked at the membership a few questions come up... Why is there no representation from the clubs? Why is there no active dancers involved? Why is a policeman from the children sex exploitation unit involved at all (clubs are for adults and dnacers need to prove their age)? Do they not think the working group is so one sided it is laughable (my apologies to Rosie Campbell but feel you are tokenism at best) but at least the work of Leeds University was taken into account. Now people may remember (here) that Rebecca Charlwood was on the Working Group and yet her name is left off the mentioning of the working group. Now having seen people realising that Reeves and Charlwood are in cahoots and manipulating behinds the scenes not seeing her name after her tweets about the working group would raise a question or two in my mind.

A message to all the councillors that will be voting on what to put forward the standard letter and the almost standard "personal statement" are at best questionable. And with organisations such as Leeds University was this the whole university or one person claiming to represent the university? This whole thing seems a bit of a mess after the first consultation and a desperate attempt to placate campaigners against the clubs. I hope they realise the clubs will in all probability take the council to court as they have a license and to take it away without evidence that demonstrates a failure to comply and that Article 1 of the First Protocol applies to club licenses which means to deprive a club of a license is going to be a mess legally. Of course the reading of the legal aspect does suggest that if someone takes your property away (denies a license renewal) on grounds other than breaking regulation should pay compensation.

Personally I expect Leeds council to end up with several multi million pound court cases.

TonyN (


  1. The usual game of smoke 'n' mirrors gone wrong? ;-)

    1. I think this is more a case of the mirror's cracked.

    2. I'm reminded of the following poem by Berholt Brecht, The Solution:

      After the uprising of June 17th
      The Secretary of the Authors' Union
      Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
      Which said that the people
      Had forfeited the government's confidence
      And could only win it back
      By redoubled labour. Wouldn't it
      Be simpler in that case if the government
      Dissolved the people and
      Elected another?

  2. For lapdaning in Leeds: 148

    Against lapdaning in Leeds: 135

    For lapdaning in Leeds wins.

    1. The limiting has always been on the cards, the council may pretend there are no backroom shenanigans going on but having seen the early tweets between Reeves and Charlwood they have been bringing pressure to bear on the local labour party. To be perfectly honest I am glad things have come to a head so the council either try to close 3 clubs and end up in court facing massive legal bills or they do a Hackney and not do anything in real terms.

  3. I really don't understand what motivates these people. Just amazes me, that with all the cuts to the public sector, they can still waste money on nonsense like this.

    1. The Charlwoods are religious if that gives any clues. Sometimes I think they use public funds for personal agendas, it no longer surprises me that money is wasted in closing businesses down.

    2. People like Rachel Reeves and the Charlwoods appear to be motivated by a desire for social control and personal self-aggrandisement: why else would they be so determined to (ab)use public funds in order to close down legal, licensed businesses? That they've chosen to do so within a year of a city-wide consultation exercise also demonstrates their contempt for public opinion, and brings into question their regard for democracy itself.

      If they DO manage to close down any of the businesses in question, are they proposing to replace them with other sources of employment, drawing on their own funds to do so? No, of course not! The power (unearned, in the case of the Charlwoods) which they exercise in this matter is purely destructive.

    3. They are quite happy talking themselves up. Remember the Charlwoods have strong links to the church so what we are seeing is imposing of their morals on others. If Leeds do try to close venues down their will be no support for the workers but I can see the club owners being paid off. Being reading around article 1 and a lot of pointers to if there is no legal foundation to stop a business (property) then compensation is required. So Leeds could end up with a massive legal bill and all the clubs open or a massive legal bill and having to pay to close 3 clubs down. No sure why but seeing the Hackney stand off in the future here.

    4. If their honest aim is to see three of the seven clubs close, they'd simply leave it to market forces - after all, how can a city the size of Leeds really support all seven clubs during a prolonged economic downturn? But that would overestimate their common sense, and underestimate their appetite for political grandstanding at the public's expense.

  4. Rachel Reeves, the MP who is so in touch with ordinary Yorkshire working class folk, and who cares so much about the downtrodden, excluded and oppressed in society, and who, er, has an intern from Harvard University to answer her letters?!?!?

    She is also one of 36 MPs who complained about her expenses, but we are not allowed to know what she complained about. It probably wasn't that she gets too much though:

    1. Reeves has an agenda that does not seem to be with the labour party and after being parachuted into a safe seat you wonder exactly what that agenda is.

      I pity the poor intern flooded with letters from people that Reeves talks about but has no understanding of.

  5. If you want your ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend to come crawling back to you on their knees (even if they're dating somebody else now) you have to watch this video
    right away...

    (VIDEO) Why your ex will NEVER get back...