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.