Chester and the Rise of the Prickademics

There are a couple of things that have come up that I want to talk about. It has been a quiet time and all of a sudden you get hit by stupidity right in the face and you go just what the f***

So firstly I want to talk about Chester and the issues raised by the Council refusing to renew the license after 9 years of operating without any issues. Now I do find it strange that a handful of people managed to shut down a club the way it happened in Chester but you do feel that everything was being judged on moral standards rather than if the business was a problem. Certainly the police raised no issues and that to me is always a clue when an existing club is up for it's license renewal. Really you have to question what is behind this awful decision by the council. I hate to see this, where councillors morals creep into their representation of the public. I firmly believe that unless you can get 3% of the population of a borough or city council against a club you can't really feel that people are even bothered. And there in lies the problem, apathy by customers not to stand up for their clubs assuming the council will approve venues. We need to be active in the defence of the clubs, dancers you need to be pushing customers to write in. So long as you state that you do not want your details released the council cannot publish your details just a redacted print out of the letter/e-mail.

The local online paper (here) has noted the club intends to operate as a Burlesque bar with 11 full nude nights every year under the TENs regulations. Whilst reading the article I noticed that Debbie Lomas of the Rainforest Shop who has been at the forefront of trying to close the club pretend that her heart goes out to the "girls". No it doesn't you are busy applying your moral standards to other people and that is just wrong. And I would say that the dancers are no girls, you belittle them Ms Lomas while portray them as infantile and unable to make decisions. Now if a man calls gown women girls he is a misogynist so I can only assume that most feminists will see Ms Lomas's statement as Misogynistic.

Nice to see that personal attacks are a thing of the past.

Now onto twitter which I continue to have a love/hate relationship with. But I did spot an absolute classic in a snippet between our statistics heroine Julie Bindel and Gail Dines. In the photo you will see the lovely terminology that is being used by these two lovely ladies to judge others just because the research done by these "Prickdemics" (had to add that to the dictionary) shows that the views held by radical feminists may not be as accurate as they would hope. It sort of shows that blanket ad hominem attacks can and will be used when any research dares challenge the articles of faith of radical feminism. Now if I was to attack the two ladies using this language I would no doubt be called troll or even accused of using threatening behaviour which I have never and in now way ever condone. I would challenge Ms Bindel on her "research" for her report for Glasgow council which I have done in the past and to Ms Dines I have read your thesis and sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon. But I would never consider attacking their personalities or who they are, I just challenge the facts as they see them.

I was going to come up with amusing words to describe radical feminist journalists and academics but this would be sinking to their level and I have no need to do that as the facts are the facts and insulting those who produce them via peer reviewed research does not change the end results.

TonyN (tonyprince@acdcfan.com)