Monday, December 9, 2013

Leeds Council - If This Isn't A Conflict of Interest..........

Chasmal write again on the crazy situation in Leeds

On the first day of Christmas
Leeds Council gave to me:
The loss of my job and social insecurity.....

Well it's getting very interesting in Leeds. On the Yorkshire Evening Post, someone tried to draw a comparison between the clubs being axed and the recent closure of the local Remploy factory. The person that made the comparison was trying to say that the only reason that people were protesting against the Council with regard to the clubs was that they wanted them to stay open and if they were being genuine about things, they would have complained about the closure of the Remploy factory, which none of them did.

The two situations bear no comparison and the person making the comment is a fool, but nonetheless, they did give me an idea about presenting the situation in a different light....

I want you to imagine that within Leeds there are a number of gay clubs, all of which have been threatened with closure. One reason for this is that certain people within the Council believe that gay clubs lower the tone of the area and put families off from visiting the City. So the Council do a survey about the future of gay clubs and maybe their best location. One thing becomes clear and that is that it has been decided that there should be no gay clubs near the town hall, largely because what people imagine goes on inside them. The Council have a committee that will decide what to do about gay clubs as well and they are going to decide.

There is an issue however.....

One of the people on the committee has publicly stated her distaste for gay clubs and homosexuals and has been campaigning for years to have them chased out of town. Furthermore there are a number of religious organisations in the City that loudly campaign against gay clubs, in fact they have a report, published by a grossly homophobic organisation that states that incidences of male rape sky rocket in areas where there are gay clubs and that men fear walking down any street where there are gay clubs because they are terrified that they will be assaulted and bum raped.

The day of the big decision arrives and the Council decide to close three of the gay clubs, because they are in 'sensitive locations'. But what are sensitive locations though?

Well, obviously you cannot have gays near schools because, you know.....This is despite the fact that school closes at 4.00 and the clubs don't open until 11.00.

You can't have gay clubs near places of worship because as the Westboro Baptist Church state, 'God Hates Fags'.

You can't have gay clubs near a railway station because of........well, something or other but it can't be allowed to happen anyway.

You can't have a gay club near an art gallery because the gays might start hanging around outside or even try see some of the artworks.

Play areas are right out because, well you know what they say.......

Youth facilities ar the same, they must be protected from gay clubs....

Gay clubs near a cinema? No way, the last thing that cinema goers want to see after going to a movie is the gay cub opposite.

Places of celebration or commemoration? Forget it, the people celebrating or commemorating would be put off by what they imagine goes on inside a gay club and wouldn't feel able to celebrate or commemorate anything.

Retail shopping areas cannot have gay clubs near them just in case the gays do some window shopping after the shops have closed.

Historic buildings? Gay clubs play Jimmy Somerville records and his falsetto might damage the foundations of the town hall.

Sports facilities? Can't have gay clubs near sports facilities as the gays might try and peer into the gents changing rooms.

Banks. No way for anyone of a number of reasons, but actually no one bothered to ask the banks what they thought, they just decided to decide for them.

So as I said, three gay clubs are closed. The Council committee that decided to close them down was made up of five people, two of which were ardently homophobic so in the light of objectivity they pulled out so it left just three people to do the deed.

Just one problem...

One of the directors of the most vocal anti gay club organisation (the one that rejoiced about the closure of the three clubs and said 'three down, three to go') is Facebook friends of the chairman of the committee that decided to close the three gay clubs.

Now if this was reality, there would be uproar. In fact if any city council made a move against gay clubs on any grounds they would be finished by next week. But if the decision to close was made by a person with homophobic friends, the police would be knocking on their door tomorrow morning.

So whats the point of the story?

Well, Cllr Ghulam Hussain, Chair of the Licensing Committee for SEVs, the same one that decided to close Wildcats, Red Leopard and Deep Blue is Facebook friends with Miriam Leontine Moss, who is a director of SARSVL, the same organisation that campaigned against lapdancing clubs, the same organisation that were deliriously happy to see them closed and implied that this was just the beginning of the closures.

You see minorities are protected in this country and a good thing too because if they weren't, all sorts of arseholes would spend their waking moments thinking of ways to persecute them. Stripper aren't protected though. They can be blamed for anything and lets face it we all know what goes in those clubs don't we. wink wink. So they can be deprived of their income at a weeks notice, who cares, they're only strippers or 'gender traitors' as someone on Mumsnet once said.

Leeds City Council have, in concert with others behaved in a manner that is despicable and cowardly and will be held to account.

Oh before I forget.....

You should also realise that Deep Blue, one of the lap dancing clubs closed by Cllr Hussain, seems to be geographically close to the building used by SARSVL, one of whose directors is Miriam Leontine Moss, his Facebook friend...


If you want evidence, have a look at the frame grab below before Miriam changes it.....


  1. Totally agree Chasmal, I think you could be onto something there. Funnily enough whenever I have written into support an SEV application I have always cited the councils policy of supporting sexual diversity and stated that closing the local club would be discrimination against people who enjoy striptease/ enjoy performing striptease and hence be a conflict of policy.

    I am not that familiar with Leeds, I have only visited it once on a night out and I didn't go to any of the lap dancing clubs. However looking at the Google street view from 2012, I am baffled to what the problem with their location is?. They are tasteful, low key type establishments and certainly don't look out of character. There appears to be couple of bars nearby, along with a betting shop and a Greggs bakery. So drinking, gambling and fatty foods in the vicinity are fine, but striptease is a big no no. I therefore fail to see how a selective moral decision hasn't been made in this case.

    1. John, TonyN here. The fact everything has been done behind closed doors and 3 clubs closed with 3 remaining open does worry us. Open government or in this case close friends with the objectors so not prepared to let people know this was a complete fit up. There is a lot more behind this and we will be digging deeper and deeper into this. It is not something we are just going to let go.

  2. Hi Tony, yeah i'll be interested to see how this case develops, it all appears to be very dodgy to me. I have been checking out the comments on the Yorkshire Evening post article, it's looking like nearly everyone is against the Councils decision, other than some of the thumbs down the comments are getting. Whoever's doing it are obviously not brave enough to write anything.

    Also some good news, I see that the club in Worcester is now going ahead. There's also some excellent and very balanced comments from the clubs manager (Blackcherry Manager):

    1. Interesting John, left a comment of my own. Next time I do a round up I will see if I can add more to the story.

      Yes the whole Leeds business stinks. From the original "working group" that was put together to kill the clubs or as they put it see what is best for the clubs and leeds. Strange no clubs were invited and the only invite that was remotely balanced was the University. But we were pointing out the issues back then and nothing has changed. Word is the lawyers are busy and the clubs expect to continue operating until at least a judicial review but we will try to get more details.

  3. Great to hear that Wildcats and Deep Blue have won a stay of execution and can continue operating over Christmas. Looks like the anti brigades rejoicing has been cut short (sob!).

    Going back to the original decision, i am amazed that something that can effect so many persons jobs can be made by just 3 councillors. Even Shades licencing panel had 9 or 10 councillors. Surely there has to be a minimum amount to get an accurate representation, especially for a major city centre like Leeds?

    Speaking of Shades, we should hopefully be paying a visit for our office Xmas party next week. I haven't been to a club in ages. Looking forward to it.

  4. Sports betting system makes +$3,624 profit last week...

    Z-Code System winning picks and predictions for NFL, NBA, MLB & NHL...