And the Fiasco's Go On

Well been quiet but  a couple of things have occurred that need to be brought up. I was planning to do a review of what we have covered as we are about to hit the 100k mark for page views on the blog but the activity must revolve around current interests.

So according to Rania Khan Tower Hamlets has finally taken a nil policy even though they never got a clear mandate for it and it revolves around a bit of a con that they put in the earlier consultation around boundaries. This blog warned that this would be the ploy and that using what seemed an innocent question worked to cause a lot of issues. but we now have a nil policy with exceptions. Now the claim is that the council will only judge existing venues on merits but I wonder how long before the council try to push their luck and close a venue. Now the minutes haven't come out yet so this may get edited.

Will say it is a nice little earner for the council as the fee for each venue is £9,070. A big chunk (£2625) is allocated to compliance visit costs. Which depending on venue and time of day works out as 100 dances a year roughly with a bit of beer and the occasional glass for a dancer. So for all those lovely ladies out there here are a few tips on what to watch for in compliance officers. And not sure what the compliance officer will do in the case of the Swan.

Shoes and watches, most dancers will know exactly what I mean by that. Poor council employees are usually struggling with a mortgage, kids etc so expect a wad of cash flashed but they don't look like it should be theirs.

Tired eyes.... over a year they will see 300 dances or so. Too much in too short a time gives an overload on the senses.

Flashing the cash too quickly. They will be wanting to entrap dancers but have a limited time so they will act like really big spenders.

There will be other more subtle signs like forgetting to put away their council id card.They will also be worried in case regular council employees come in as they could identify them. Depending on venue and its relative location to the council buildings. So please dancers do not give those guys an excuse to close venues. Force the council to show that they have another agenda.

So across London to Camden and Spearmint Rhino who have been told that the council are withdrawing their license. Rather than go back over the power couple and their collision course with the venue which we commented on here. Just to bring you up to date we now have a fifth member of the licensing committee who is Labour and you have to feel that with the couple pressing for a vote with them we will see constant issues. Now I am sure when SPMR get the official notification they will appeal as it is all about curtains that create a private booth which is what the council don't want along with CCTV in the toilets by the sounds of it which the council do want.

So off we go to court, I cannot see the SPMR flagship rolling over and playing dead. And they will continue to operate up until a judge says the council are right which is definitely not certain. And even if the judge does I can see the place adapting to the regs. The power coule will find excuses to try and shut the venue every time and even claiming that Tottenham Court road is a residential area.... I mean really the 100 club and all the shops and bars are so obviously residences. However the Fitzrovia area has some people that want to try and close the place down (probably over property value in their eyes) and no doubt they will be supporting the two councillors behind the closure attempts. I will say these two are the most socially media savvy Councillors I have come across so far with very little connecting them to anything suggesting they are applying personal morals and yet reading the statement made by Thomas as chair of the committee it does come across as moralistic in my humble opinion.

Anyway this will no doubt rumble on just like the Tower Hamlets fiasco. And not that this blog should be saying we told you so, but on Tower Hamlets we told you so.

TonyN (tonyprince@acdcfan.com)

Big Round Up (get a coffee)

Well this is a round up of all the stuff flying round with licenses and the moralists trying to close clubs. There is quite a bit to cover as so much is going on and it is hard to keep track of all the battles being fought.

Okay firstly I want to pick up on TENs or Temporary Event Notifications as they are formally known. These are used any clubs and pubs to put on things that are outside their current license and has included dancing. Now it has come to the attention of a politician and she wants to stop TENs being used to provide adult events. Venues can use 11 TENs over the course of a year and there are rules governing them. So of course venues testing the waters to see if dancing would work for them is now out. However I wonder if the politician has realised that TENs is how male strip troupes perform at different clubs. Will places that have male dancers need to get SEVs? I can see a lot of angry Hen Parties if the male dancer events are harder to find. And there is also a chance this will impact on the LGBT clubs if they have performances with nakedness in. The implications of taken TENs away from clubs to try striptease or have fairly regular events is interesting to say the least.

So with the TENs issue in mind I want to jump over to Chester where the Platinum Lounge lost its License. Not for crime or infringements of the license but because of the claim the area had become more residential. The club which has been going since 2005 has had no issues with the police and reading articles about the refusal the dancers enjoyed working there. Now I am not a resident but investigating the area seems to have a lot of businesses for a residential area. So this is where the council uses excuses to close a venue because they don't like it. This based on a grand total of 8 objections and a representation from local business lead by Debbie Lomas. Said Debbie Lomas has made sweeping statements even though she has never been inside the club and she was challenged back in 2011 by a dancer to come to the club and talk face to face which of course she hasn't done. The management haven't decided yet on if they will ask for a judicial review but under the circumstances such tiny opposition should not be allowed to dictate as it sets an awful precedent for those councillors who want to be our moral guardians. Management has talked about using TENs to get events all over Chester but if the law changes this could be a very short term plan. So management of Platinum Lounge I would suggest you challenge this, if you do you will be able to continue to trade (Oxford has done this and are awaiting their court case). BEST OF LUCK

So speaking of moral guardians Leeds has popped back up on the Radar, you may remember that we reported that planning permission  had been granted to Black Diamond to expand from 2 to 4 floors. Well the licensing committee has overturned that decision as they have not granted a change to the license citing the policy to reduce the Leeds to 4 clubs. The venue is currently closed and the management has not made a decision on if they should re-open under the current terms. We have suggested this is one that the council will target but this is not the stopping of dancing just the expansion. However it is a suggestion the club maybe a target for the council.

And back to Hounslow who was looking to adopt a Nil Policy, well they have as they had 20 letters of support for the Nil Policy and 9 Against. Nice to see the enthusiasm in the borough peaked which such a massive turnout.... Interesting to note the council does state that the council will listen to applicants on merit although it will have to demonstrate why the council should depart from its policy. And - guess what? - the initial license fee is non -refundable people can read into this what they may as money earning potential one way or another.

Okay some amusement in the middle as Bristol renews the license of Central Chambers after only 9 Objections (where is everyone who attacked the clubs last year?). Best bit though was the attack from a campaigner (7 of 9 maybe?) used some interesting language to describe the head of the licensing committee a “sexist, misogynistic fuckface“, much respect to Bristol_Jane for such an intellectual and well thought out argument.

Next we are off to Tower Hamlets (again). I spent a pleasant evening watching live tweets from Ted Jeory from the council meeting where the Licensing Policy was to be confirmed and although we didn't get tweets that far into the evening it was a debacle. Councillors had signed up to not use language that would insult the physically and mentally disabled so of course that one went by the wayside pretty quick. One councillor was called Susan Boyle, a member of the public tried to ask a question in Bengali and was told no and that a translator would be provided next meeting at council expense but then his friend offered to translate and got involved. They have agreed that livestreams of the council meetings will be available in the future and as a fan of comedy I will be watching.

So to the Nil Policy which as we remember had two consultations. Now the report about the 2011 consultation has just over 4000 responses with 121 duplicates and some discounted because they were not sure they were in the borough. I would love to see what they decided was acceptable or not as their online submission did NOT have mandatory fields which might explain why some people did not put in locations. However the original claim was for over 6000 response so somehow around 2000 responses have disappeared. Not one to accuse people but..... Anyway second consultation was 2.2% for a nil policy and 97.8% against a nil policy so obviously the council decides the public doesn't know what is good for it and makes its own decision. All I will say is the first effort to close a club and this will be bounced in front of the court and the council will have a hell of a lot of explaining to do.

And Twitter has been an amazing tool, yesterday I sat and watch the debate between "feminists" and feminist sex workers who were denied access to the Nottingham Women's Conference. Now I know some people will point out that this blog is about striptease and lap dancing but there are key points here. Firstly that the sex workers have representation on the GMB the same as the dancers so things that affect them should interest us at least. And secondly and more importantly #NWC2013 was to discuss sex work and things like the scandinavian model, which would be fine but the organisers refused to let current sex workers into the conference including the SW Open University. Now to speak about a group of women at a feminist meeting and yet deny them a voice is tactics you will see again and again as the whole premise that feminist book writers and speakers rely on is victimhood. To allow these women to speak and show that they have got a GCSE or two (the comments yesterday included uneducated) and are free thinkers exercising choice would knock their house of cards over. Women like Dr Julia Long whose book drive we covered earlier in the year and here again allowed to speak and promote herself and her book.

So busy that the things I have wanted to work on, being 2012 crime figures and SEVs as a community safety valve, have been put on the back burner. But they will resurface when time and health allow.

TonyN (tonyprince@acdcfan.com)

May the Farce Be With You, Tower Hamlets Strike Back

Well I have to say thank you to Brute to pointing me at the report from the Tower Hamlets council on SEVs (here). Now the thing that really matters to me that was brought to my attention is a very small part of the actual report and in any other case it might have just got noted in the next round up. BUT the council has really made me annoyed with this.

The sections that really hit home are 6.6 to 6.9 where the council shows it's two faced nature and its bitterness towards people who coordinate to defend their businesses. The fact is the council made a massive effort to ensure they got the result they want and it backfired.

So the council wanted to ensure it got the result it wanted that they could adopt the powers to regulate SEVs. To try to ensure the council got the power they used the council paper, local and Bengali media and the council's website. They also  contacted Faith Groups, Community Safety, Women's Organisations (not named which though), Networks and Forums, Advocacy Services and even Housing associations. This looks like a damned concentrated effort to make sure the council can say they are operating with the backing of the public remembering the first consultation was more or less split down the middle.

However the council got a very nasty surprise, A total of 4,973 responses (526 online and 4,447 paper returns) were received, with 1,424 forms being returned from the Pleasure Lounge. The responses were as follows:  108 (2.2%) ‘Yes’ responses, in favour of adopting 4,865 (97.8) ‘No’ responses, not in favour of adopting.

Now the council had tried to get a co-ordinated response to back themselves but they go on to decry the clubs who ask customers to fill in forms when the are at the club. Considering the number of clubs that operate I am only surprised that the response was not bigger. Trying to be clever and thinking that the clubs are not following what is going on only to find that the clubs not only are following and responding but also have a pretty active customer base that is more than happy to fill in the forms. When you consider that with the agencies the Tower Hamlets area has around 1,000 dancers working then you only need each dancer to find 5 customers who would fill in forms and this is the result you would get.

So the council got a surprise and is now trying to say that what the clubs did was wrong when all they did was do the same as the council and engage with their stakeholders. Personally this is amusing as it has made the claims in the report seem pedantic and childish and very much a case of wahhhhhhh I didn't get my own way. Next we will probably see the passing of the nil policy with exceptions like Hackney but as Brute pointed out to me just done over a much longer period and with a much greater expense.

A Very Amused TonyN (tonyprince@acdcfan.com)

Haters Keep Hating - Tower Hamlets

What did you think of the Olympic opening ceremony?

I was watching it with a friend in Browns in Shoreditch and what was going on at the Olympic Stadium held me transfixed. One of the dancers came up to me and said "I have never been so proud to be British" and she was right. I sensed then that maybe all of the effort and anticipation was not only going to pay off in terms of a great performance from our team, but maybe also start to infect the whole country with some kind of feel good momentum that could last throughout the summer and hopefully longer. I really thought then and still do now that the Olympics could inspire everyone the country to move forward in the same direction...

That said someone else had other ideas....

Rania Khan attended a marvellous ceremony before the opening night, where the Olympic Torch arrived at the Tower of London and quite rightly she blogged about it. You can read her post here. In it she made some good comments about Olympic inspiration and community cohesion and then she said this....

Why is it 'natural' that the elderly white and young Bangladeshi population don't mix? I don't understand why that is 'natural'. It's sad, but not natural. It makes me wonder if Rania remembers last October when people of all communities from Tower Hamlets marched at the 75th Anniversary of The Battle of Cable Street. Nice shot below of Rania marching with Max Levitas (he took part in the original battle) who is clearly a member of the 'elderly white population' and everyone seems to be getting on fine. Maybe Rania would like to spend some time explaining her views on community cohesion in a little more depth. Maybe could ask Max Levitas for his views but I doubt it because lets face it she because she can't even be bothered to spell his name correctly. Also note the way in which the caption in the frame grab below can be taken in two ways....

Anyway, back to the ceremony at The Tower of London. Ranias attendance of this great event was marred by the fact that Peter Stringfellow had been invited. Why shouldn't he have been there? He is a businessman in the City and I am sure he enjoyed his time there very much,  but Rania really went into one.....

Rania you are not a strong supporter of the reclassification of  SEVs and lap dancing clubs, you just want them all closed down. Was it really 'horrible and sickening' to share space with Peter Stringfellow. Did the presence of a human being that you happen to disagree with really have such a marked affect on you? You wanted to jump in The Thames? Would it have been that hard to made an effort to engage with Mr Stringfellow and tell him your views about people trafficking and clubs and the crime that they cause. I would have thought it would been a golden opportunity for you...

Recently Rania attended another event, 'We Are The Waltham Forest Public', where a number of speakers, Rania included, spoke out against those that spend their sowing hate and division in society. I wonder if anyone spoke out about those that sow hate against strippers, but I doubt it somehow. Anyway, you can read her blog entry here or if you wish, just read the frame grab below and spot the interesting error....

I really don't think that Owen Jones passionately defended Islamophobia, but nonetheless I would be interested in what he said.

Finally Rania was interviewed here for an article in 'London Loves Business', where she made the usual claims about clubs and the apparent social problems that they cause, largely, according to Rania due to groups of men that hang around outside the venues. Isn't it amazing, I thought the main reason for going to a club was what was going on inside, so why do customers spend all of their time being outside...

Still Rania did make a new claim when she mentioned the '4000 letters of complaint'  she received from constituents during the SEV consultation. Well this is interesting because the consultation took place almost nine months ago and Tower Hamlets council have never released the results. So Rania better get all of those letters ready for examination by the clubs lawyers if her campaign to close every club in Tower Hamlets  ends up in court, which of course it will....

I like what Owen Jones said....

"We must fight together, stand together and win together"

.....and we will.

Tower Hamlets Councillor Cleared Of Threatening To Kill Rania Khan

Do you remember in May that I made a posting about Rania Khan and her Wikipedia page? In the article I provided a link to a story detailed an apparent death threat made to her by another councillor, Kosru Uddin. Well it seems the police got involved and found there was no case to answer. The Labour Party made this press release on the matter, which I found on the excellent 'Trial by Jeory' blogspot

Labour Tower Hamlets Councillor Kosru Uddin has been cleared by the police of all allegations regarding his conduct at a Council meeting in May.

Uddin, who was accused by independent cabinet member Rania Khan of threatening violence, was told that there was no case to answer and that police would not be pursuing the matter further.

Cllr Kosru Uddin said: “This week I was officially informed by the police that they believed that there was no case to answer and therefore would not be pressing charges.

“Whilst I do not want to comment on my accuser’s motives or actions I have been clear from the start that I was innocent and I am glad that the justice system has now put that beyond doubt.

“The last few months have been extremely hard for both me and my family. I would like to thank my Labour colleagues who have stuck by me throughout this hard time. Politics is often described as a cut-throat and malicious business but I am privileged to have my fellow Labour councillors not only as colleagues but as friends.

“The residents of Mile End East elected me to stand up for them in a time of great change and uncertainty. I take that role very seriously and I am very much looking forward to putting this unpleasant matter behind me and focusing on standing up for my constituents.”

Labour Group Leader Joshua Peck said: “The Labour Party takes any allegation against a Labour councillor extremely seriously. We expect the highest standards from our councillors and we cooperated fully with the police investigation. I am pleased that councillor Khan’s allegation has been thrown out as I always knew it would be and I am glad that this difficult period for Kosru and his family is over.

“This allegation was just the latest in a number of unfounded allegations made against Labour councillors by independent councillors. I would urge them to stick to trying to win the political argument rather than trying to destroy their opponents with these baseless claims.”


As you can imagine its the final two paragraphs that I find the most interesting. Rania Kahn making baseless claims......surely not? Oh maybe they mean like this in a 2006 Tower Hamlets Council Meeting....

"...There is almost-total unity across Tower Hamlets people of all ages, ethnicities and faith groups in
opposing the exploitation and degrading of women associated with sex and strip club...".

Or maybe this when she blogged about the lap dancing debate at the Bancroft Library

“.......There had been worries that advocates of lapdancing and the sex industry would try to break up the discussion - there had been threats on the internet....."


Could they mean this when Rania mentioned how every club owner had been invited to the above debate....

"......Though, surprisingly, none of the people running lapdancing clubs took the opportunity to speak up - despite being invited by us to participate......”

Maybe they mean this from her blog, where she quotes Lilith.

"......In Camden sexual offences have doubled since the introduction of sex encounters in the borough. Lap-dancing clubs are also heavily linked to people trafficking and crime....."


Or this.....

".....It is horribly neat that the bankers, the engineers of the economic downturn, who are also the biggest clients at these clubs....."


No, Rania Khan never makes baseless claims at all....

The Troubled Times of Rania Khan

Oh No!!!..........

Oh Yes!!!........

Its been a challenging time for Cllr Rania Khan, who as you know is the would-be architect of the destruction of the strip club scene in Tower Hamlets.

First she has seen that her prohibitionist campaign has seemingly ground to halt while the boroughs legal team try and exempt The White Swan from the 'Nil Policy' and escape accusations of homophobia...

Soon after the above, the Ministry of Decided that Bow would make a jolly good location for a battery of Starstreak High Velocity Missiles and it looks as though they will be located there, irrespective of Ranias view on the matter...

Then, only days ago, a fellow councillor allegedly threatened to kill her after a frank exchange of views conducted in Bangladeshi in a difficult council meeting...

But all of the above must pale into comparison with the latest misfortune to darken Rania's path to personal glory, because it seems that someone wants to delete her Wikipedia entry. So lets look at what has been going in a little more detail....

It seems that Ranias entry first appeared on 1st May 2012, the work of a contributor whose username is 'Tanbircdq'. Happily for us, Wikipedia is gloriously transparent and we can see what happened in the days after the article was published.

Wikipedians were all over the article, largely it seems because of the reputation for 'Tanbircdq', whose efforts seem rarely uncontroversial. Like me, I am sure you appreciate the edit made on 18th May at 21:29 where 'NJ Wine' 'Removed puffery and opinions'. But it gets better, lets look at what people were saying about the article...

As we can see many expressed reservations about the article, but some of the issues raised are of great interest, particularly when we see the first paragraph where 'Atheling1125' seems to raise the possibility that
'Tanbircdq' may in fact be Rania Khan herself and that the media sources quoted are 'trivial'. Now we see that 'Atheling1125' retracts the comment later when challenged by 'NJ Wine' but don't worry, because it is this user that gives the best quote of all.....

"..I understand your perspective, because there was a certain amount of crap in the article that I removed...."

Just loving this I really am, so lets have a look at the article as it first appeared. I have underlined the 'crap' and the 'puffery' for you to see.

Please note the authors spelling of 'Gandhi' and no I don't think Charlie Dacke wrote the article.

We see that the original version that unreservedly supportive of Cllr Khan and this in itself is going to make people suspicious, but it is good to know that Rania plans to 'continue her further education, especially in the areas of Science and Philosophy'. In fact maybe she should focus on the science part, because that way, when the next person asks her on Twitter about her views on evolution, she can give a credible reply, certainly better than the last one she gave....

Love to know her opinions......

I don't know who the author of the article was, but they have done Rania no favours at all with their approach, but its good to see such conceptually flawed crap being made public. I don't know about you, but Tower Hamlets is just so much fun.

If you want to know how the article ended up, I suggest you follow this link to see for yourself, I'm not being lazy, but revisions seem to happen on  fairly regular basis and where it could end up is anyones guess.

Dancers Speak Out - Full Report

Dancers Speak Out was a public meeting held in Tower Hamlets on 18th April and marked what in my view may a tipping point in the battle that clubs and dancers have been fighting against prohibitionists and their supporters within local councils throughout the United Kingdom.

The event drew a respectable crowd of around 50 people, comprising local residents, local trade union representatives, club owners and of course the dancers whose jobs are threatened. Sadly I have to report that I was the closest thing to a media representative that attended the event, which is a pity because many important things came out of the meeting.

The first speaker was John McDonnel, MP for Hayes and Harlington since 1997. He was one of the members of the group that helped develop the legislation that lead to the current SEV Licensing structure and consequently his views on the matter have great weight. It is Johns view that the current prohibitionist campaign was not an intended outcome of the legislation and that was happening was, in his words ‘mad’. He expressed the view that the entire situation was clearly about one group imposing their morality on another and that people needed to accept that a city offers a range of things for a range of people.

John also touched upon the consultation, making the observation that after 6 months there had still been no result. He expressed concern that the submissions had been sent to handwriting experts but half the responses were done online. Speculating that the entire affair had probably been motivated by the Olympics, John asked how Dow Chemicals, BP and Rio Tinto Zinc were fine and striptease was not. Recalling meetings with survivors or Bhopal and people from South Africa who'd suffered under RTZ mining projects, he was struck by the hypocrisy of the council welcoming these companies to the borough but then trying to ban striptease.

Perhaps most importantly, John stated clearly that if Tower Hamlets council attempted to push through the ‘Nil Policy’, he will raise the matter in Parliament, possibly in the format of an early day motion. Sadly he had to leave early on Parlimentary business, but he made a great impression on everyone.

Next up was ex dancer and Equity member, Edie, who spoke with expected eloquence and commitment about the prohibitionists and their campaign against the club scene.

Speaking about a job which she found stressful and abusive that gave her terrible anxiety – a PA in a City media firm, she revealed that working as a stripper in the evening was a marked contrast and was one of the few things that kept her sane in this time.

Edie also recalled the rise in anti-stripper articles in the media, particularly those written by Caitlin Moran that in many respects were the first straws in the wind of the situation that we find ourselves in today. Perhaps most importantly, Edie commented about how important it was for women ‘have a space where they are allowed to be sexually expressive’ after centuries of being denied ‘any sexual expression at all’. Throughout the darker periods of history, female sexuality has been repressed, and its exhibition could lead to ‘incarceration or worse’ and Edie quite rightly questioned the motivations of those that would seek to turn the clock back.

Vera Rodriguez (GMB) has been a dancer in Tower Hamlets for 12 years and stated that although her job was seen to be controversial it was nonetheless a ‘real job’ and that she had been ‘grateful to be able to earn a living entertaining people’. Vera then spoke about Tower Hamlets council who in her view are ‘not so good’ on the basis that they do not have the right to tell anyone how to make a living and that ultimately the jobs of 500 to 600 people are at stake on the basis of the Councils views.

Vera argued eloquently the need for dancers and their colleagues to be able to keep a job in todays depressed economy and perhaps most importantly of that everyone is part of a community, a family that must become organised and stand together in order to save the jobs and also to start to look at working conditions as well.

“Those that call themselves feminists – Are you really defending our right to do what we want with our lives? Let is keep the right to work and fight to get better conditions and unionise”.

The above was Veras closing comment and for me it represented the subtstrate of the whole argument. How can anyone that calls themselves a feminist actually try and campaign against an industry that employs upwards of 12,000 women in the UK.

The meeting Chair supported this view and asked….

“…….Are present day feminists defending womens rights? I think not. They haven’t bothered to ask the women themselves. Maybe they should listen to people like Edie and Vera. If you are a worker you have the right to be heard".

……..a question that any Object activist would surely have difficulty answering with any degree of honesty.

The next speaker was arts school graduate and dancer Stacey, who explained that after moving to London she had worked in many different clubs and this experience had helped her define her key criteria for working. Essentially she needed to feel comfortable, protected and unexploited. She also made the perfectly valid point that in some venues the house fees amounted to ‘extortion’. Happily for Stacey, she found in The White Horse in Shoreditch, a venue where she could settle and works there to this day.

Interestingly Stacey wrote a dissertation about UK Licensing Law and stated that she agreed with the change but that was disappointed to see the new legislation abused by councils.

Stacey also made an important point that objectification of a group or a race is the first step toward violence and that reducing people to sub-humanity was in itself a violent act. In my view this is something that Object have been guilty of, they claim to be fighting objectification, but in doing so have objectified dancers as either helpless victims or the root cause of societies ills.

‘Montana’, another dancer from Tower Hamlets explained that she herself used to be part of the radical feminist movement, but along the she realise that it didn’t really represent liberation for women, or even its members…

“…….It created other norms, more limitations and no space to listen to anyone else, for example those joining the group with high heels and long hair…..”

Like Edie and Vera, Montana stressed the point that dancers are ‘not abused, exploited or dehumanised’ and work to support themselves and their dependants, in an environment that is ‘safe, secure and protected’. It was at this point that Montana really got into her stride, with a powerful statement in support of her career choice….

“There is no space for oppression against women. It is the time that I choose to be objectified and it is my choice to work in the club, on my terms and conditions, reclaiming the power of my body and myself”.

Perhaps Montanas’ most thought provoking comment was when she made the observation that if lap dancing clubs cause violence toward women, then on that basis religion should be banned and for good measure violent films as well.

She also touched upon the issue of womens safety, because the inevitable consequence of prohibition would be illegal, unsafe venues, something that Object vehemently deny as being even remotely possible.

Montanas summary encapsulated the whole campaign….

“….Within contemporary dance and art, the body is sexualised. If this is my body it is my right to decide what to do with it….”

The meeting was very fortunate to have Keith Henderson of the GMB. Keith is a Regional Organiser of the Entertainment Section who stated that the GMB will seek advice to mount a legal challenge to Tower Hamlets Council if they decode to proceed with their Nil Policy. This one statement was perhaps the most important of the meeting, as it means that the council will be facing challenges from not only clubs, but one of the most powerful and influential unions in the country.

The role of local religious institutions was briefly discussed as well and Edie recalled the Lapdancing – Choice or Exploitation debate held last October, where many speakers admitted that they had no idea that strip clubs even existed in Tower Hamlets but nonetheless resolved that they must be banned.

Thierry Schaffauser, the GMB London Entertainment Branch President made the point that to win the battle that people have to fight and to do that within the context of a union. Recalling Hackney and the protest activities that fought Object and Hackney Council to a standstill, Thierry stated that the same model needed to be employed in Tower Hamlets.

“…We can win, we will win by organising together and joining the GMB and Equity….”.

Links to the membership pages for GMB can be found here and for Equity, here.

A member of the public made an interesting observation about Tower Hamlets Councils increasing need to control its environment and the businesses that reside in the borough, recalling how the difficulties faced by the owners of The Troxy were being reflected today by the situation facing strip club owners.

Finally, there was much discussion about the issue of self employed workers rights and whether maybe all dancers should be directly employed by the clubs that they work for. This point was made by some representatives of the NUT, who maybe failed to appreciate the advantages that self employment brings and also maybe weren’t fully up to speed about the strip tease industry. Maybe the best observation on this matter was from Catherine Stevens, GMB Branch Secretary who said that ‘If I am self employed, I expect to be treated as such’ and that the key focus should be on transparency of dancers terms and conditions.

In summary it was an outstanding meeting and virtually every contributor made valid points. As for the future, there was talk of meeting to formulate strategies and I for one hope this takes place as a matter of urgency. It is my view that the strategy should focus initially on ensuring jobs keep open, then and only then can we start to work on conditions.

After listening to the trade union speakers, I must say that I strongly urge dancers to join the GMB and Equity. Without large scale support, we may win the odd battle such as Hackney, but the war itself is a different prospect. Dancers and club owners have to be lucky everytime, Object only have to lucky once and it is vital that a blanket Nil Policy that empowers a council to close every club in their borough never happens.

On behalf of the speakers, I want to thank everyone that contributed to the ‘jug round’ for meeting the cost of the hall, particularly Whites Gentlemans Club, the Nags Head and Metropolis who themselves put in £100.

The full text of the speeches will be published on this blog in the coming week.

As I wrote in a previous posting about Object, I never imagined that we would ever have to fight for right of clubs to exist. It was always my fear that the legislation would be abused and with gay venues being targeted along with strip tease and lap dancing clubs, we can see that sadly I was right. That said, it could be that out this conflict comes something good, maybe that is for everyone to never take things for granted again.

Anna Van Heeswiijk was interviewed recently in The Guardian and as always there were many comments about the article. A surprising number were from people critical of Object, that said there was one comment, that I found quite chilling…..

“…..studies that take into account the opinions of women who are still stuck in the industry are highly suspect because so many will be in denial about how traumatised they are and how that trauma manifests itself……”

In other words, the public shouldn’t listen to dancers who defend their jobs because basically they are crazy and need help. It reminds me of Joseph Hellers Catch 22. The only sane dancers are those that denounce the profession and therefore they must be listened to. Those that defend the profession must be insane and therefore must be ignored. They may act normal and present reasoned arguments but all really that demonstrates is that they must be incredibly insane to be so normal.

These attitudes and justifications seem to be becoming more commonplace among the prohibitionist community as they struggle to justify their behaviour. Furthermore, what kind of people denounce their opponents as insane and try to legislate against them? I think we know the answer from history.

I hope this marks a new stage in the recognition of strip tease and lap dancing as legitimate employment activities. Stacey stated her support for the SEV legislation, if she meant that it would result in a new and better understanding between club owners and dancers, an understanding that is supported and defended by union expertise and muscle, then only good can come from it.

We know we have union support and also a prominent member of Parliament essentially condemning a prohibitionist council. We must not allow momentum to slip or allow ourselves to be caught up with other  issues or side agendas. This is about working, we can worry about how to work when the jobs have been saved.

It is my view that the choices and ways forward are clear…