TonyN here, as Chasmal
has said it seems we have gone full circle and issues we have
debunked previously are either already in circulation or feel like
they are likely to come back. I have happily, even joyously taken on
the fact, figures and misinformation that has come out over the years
even though projects like the crime figure (here) have taken many
hundreds of hours. If it takes freedom of information request we do
dig deep and check any figure that is put out there painting the
industry as Satan. I put down what I used as tools to get the figures
so anyone can recreate exactly how I worked things out for
themselves. It is a matter of honour for this blog that we are honest
in any statistics we produce check here
for the crime stats based on the claims of Coventry Women's Voices!
Reader's of this blog
that go back a few years will remember the woozle effect, what they
were and how, no matter how debunked or wrong they were, they would
return and be viewed as the whole truth. Well it seems that "Irene
Gladdison" was quoted in the Independent and referred to
resource material on a pdf. I actually read the article but laughed
so hard at basic errors I never dug deeper. However a long term
supporter of the blog and and the industry that has often pointed out
issues that we may have missed, Brute, noticed the link to the PDF
and seeing all the woozles there once again passed on the details. So
Brute thanks for this! Just to add in the main article Irene quoted
that Hackney has a Nil Policy as does Camden. And I can hear the
sniggers in that Hackney has a nil policy but three clubs and the
fact that Camden still has venues as well. You do have to wonder who
was briefing poor Irene but given the woozles date back to Sasha
Rakoff being in Object we could hazard a guess.
The PDF is produced by
the women's support project which aims to support women and girls who
are being abused, I mean I don't approve of any sort of violence so
that we agree on. However the linking to any and everything as a root
cause doesn't help because abusers don't need excuses unless they are
being prosecuted and then the easy way out for them is to blame
something. I have been going to strip venues since 1989 and I don't
abuse, you would have thought I would have after so long exposed to
the industry but hey facts are important here it seems. Anyway to the
point, the PDF and before we even start the last page refers to
resources including the defunct Object! So I am guessing the document
has been around for a while and no has checked it.
Img hunting woozles
 |
| Tracking Woozles can be such fun |
First fact was the
Julie Bindel report claiming how poorly paid the industry is, and on
a bad night it may be, but painted a picture of dancers working for
less than the minimum wage. Now I can tell you that Bindel was
quoting about the defunct Flying Scotsman strip pub. The last time I
went there was on a Friday night and yes girls were getting a pound
in the pot from each guy. However there were 40 men each putting a
pound in the pot so every dance was earning around £40 to £50
pounds basic not including larger tips from the drunker members of
the audience. The channel 4 documentary on the strip clubs of Glasgow
was showing dancers earning between £200 and £500 a night. So
whilst not wholly inaccurate it does seem Ms Bindel was selective
about the truth she presented and certainly the truth plastered on
the PDF. They also quote Lucy from the old Object resources page, and
all I would say if you couldn't earn why would you continue to pay to
work? Yes we know there are bad nights and there needs to be changes
so not leaves out of pocket. However closing venues will cost
thousands of women their lifestyle/study or put people into debt.
The second big quote is
it is just dancing, the project goes on to quote Holsopple who people
may remember we debunked previously but just for clarity the report
was written about American striptease around 30 years ago by a white
middle class Christian group who were looking for more government
funding. So no conflict therethen? So you can't claim the moral high
ground about this based on a report that has nothing to do with UK
never mind the UK under the current regulations. But never let
factual accuracy worry you when you attack an industry that is a
primary source of income for women especially dancers who study as
well. Underneath is a quote from Bindel's report to Glasgow council
where they deliberately interviewed drunk men without telling them
that they are being interviewed. Apart from the appalling ethics in
not telling someone they are being interviewed they chose to target
men in a state that would give them the best possible outcome.
However yes I can guess they can easily pick and choose what went
into the report, not saying it was biased but Glasgow Council chose
someone that was known for an anti opinion on strip venues. The other
issue was accessing prostitution in Scotland via clubs. The big issue
here is Bindel has never explained how the figures were obtained and
exactly what was judged to be an offer and the structure of the
interview leading to this point. a dancer trying to get a private
dance from a customer may say things they never intend to go as far
as or the interpretation by Bindel's unknown research that would
judge by eyesight in some cases, well you can see how difficult it is
to accept that work. To be honest if you wanted a fair report the one
person you would not go to is Ms Bindel, you can read my previous
pieces here
and here.
The issue of
empowerment is not one I can answer as I am not a dancer therefore I
have no idea, I have spoken to more dancers than I care to think
about but all those I have gotten close to seemed comfortable and
happy with the work. Interestingly Bindel is quoted on this page and
no dancer was actually interviewed as such. They were approached by
people wanting dances, one assumes the dancers did what they normally
do to sell dances and that is act. Most dancers could make good
actresses and social workers, without making it an open and honest
interview with the questions and the structure available to review
Bindel's quotes carry no weight. Remember I had to spread over two
blog entries just some of the 62 issues I have with Bindel's report.
You may want to compare what we publish on this blog to the standard
of Ms Bindel's report. We always explain how we accessed the figures
and how we got our results. Ms Bindel's vagueness would worry anyone
producing work in this field.
 |
| Not Buying It finding out we are still awake? |
And the best single
woozle of them all women go to clubs to and they roll out the Lilith
in all it's glory however they don't use the name Lilith. It is
worded as Eaves 2003 lap dancing and striptease in the borough of
Camden, you can see my the work we did are Lilith here.
You can assign a different name to the source material but this blog
took the figures and checked them, we went through freedom of
information requests, we got population figures and we found a
meaningful control council to compare with. To call a report a
different name to hide the fact it has been debunked so thoroughly,
in my mind, borders on dishonesty. I would ask the person who put
this fact sheet together where they got the reference from in the
first place as someone is being deliberately misleading. Of course
using quotes from the defunct Object is a problem as a lot of the
source material has disappeared, fortunately this blog has a lot of
background on Object and their campaign of misinformation. Sasha is
back but it appears that they are pointing the people in Sheffield at
information that perhaps it would be best they confirm what other
names the resource has been known as.
So long as the fight
continues we will continue checking claims and information.
TonyN
tonyprince@acdcfan.com
No comments:
Post a Comment