Thursday, August 8, 2013

A Quick Round Up

Well currently buried in a pile of past research and applying 2013 standards to it to see how valid it is. Hopefully will get it out either  this weekend or soon after.  Because of this I wish to ask a question to Julie Bindel, do you hold that your 2004 Paper for Glasgow is a valid document for 2013 for the whole of the UK? Object quote it as such which is why I am reviewing it as such but would be happy to include the authors opinion on the paper if she so wishes. I will tweet this and hopefully there will be a reply either here or or even by twitter.

Now to move on to Tower Hamlets and the result of the framework policy. This is due at cabinet on the 11th September 2013. I think most people will be interested to see how the people of TH voted this time after ignoring the previous Consultation. Guess the venues will want to have representatives at that cabinet.

A quick run over to Oxford and the case there will be going back to court. Court of Appeal has granted the right to review the decision. Council say they will contest it as if the club wins they may have to revise some of the plans they have that I have a sneaking suspicion were in place before they moved the Lodge.

Finally Swansea has adopted a nil policy in what seems to have been the smallest consultation ever. There were 10 responses including the one from Prof Phil Hubbard at SEV Licensing. At least his findings were read into the minutes but 10 responses and you wonder how they got the message out to the public.

So we now have summer so hope everyone is enjoying themselves and making the most of it before we are told to cover up.


1 comment:

  1. Re the Bindel Report: I'd be particularly interested to hear what she has to say regarding her footnote on 'sex trafficking', which cites a report in the Daily Record, rather than any actual case notes; given that this is the sole piece of 'evidence' which the radfems have based their entire "stripping = prostitution = sex trafficking" rhetoric, both her answer and the specific details of the court case in question would be truly illuminating.