So we need to talk about consultations. A couple of events have happened over the last week or two and it has caused a few people to think. To be honest there have been discussions behind the scenes with Edie, Brute, Chasmal and myself about the issue of consultations and whilst we don't have a proposal yet I can see us seriously working on concepts in the future.
So what has caused the discussions? Well firstly Birmingham, they had a consultation along the lines of Leeds about the number of clubs to try and keep the number below 12. So one of the UK's largest Cities as the public for a response and gets a grand total of 41 responses, of which 27 want to set a limit. Now this is a population of over a million people and the people wanting to limit clubs is 0.0002% of the population. Such a ridiculously small figure and yet there is still the possibility that the council will be able to pass legislation based on this.
As pointed out about this on the SEV Licensing blog (here) the agenda refers to violence around the clubs. Yet we have seen previously that when clubs are co located with Nightclubs the violence/sexual crimes are much greater than when clubs are not near the nightclubs. Also it seems the press just can't help themselves and have to use scaremongering by inflating figures and disregarding the fact that the clubs are located in the same area as nightclubs, bars and take-away's. This sort of poor reporting unfortunately can influence politicians as the facts are not checked and policies can be made based on misinformation. I am sure there will be more about this coming out as the council decide what they are going to do.
Next we have Bolton which seems to have implemented a nil policy with exceptions for existing venues, now this came as a bit of a surprise because as far as I knew there has not been a consultation about this which is suppose to be mandatory. I know that this is being checked by Brute so when the information becomes confirmed we will add to the story. But if councils can act without a consultation then there will be long term issues. Strange because Bolton are working on the basis we have to have a policy so lets make it a nil one. If councils can do things unchecked then we would see blanket bans for the simple reason that the councillors would never want to be seen as enjoying adult entertainment. Amazing considering the number of people in the industry but there is still a stigma.
I do want to say when we have seen larger responses to consultations that have been put out to the public clearly the response tends to be in favour of the clubs. However it does seem that councils do not want to publicise consultations for fear of the people coming out in favour of the clubs so they push through ones that no one knows about. Somethings we only find out because the consultation details get published in the social media for the Anti brigade and of course if we spot it we will highlight it. But clearly when a minute part of the population of an area respond to a consultation there is an issue. Did the clubs even know that something might affect them. And if councils can put in place policies without consultations or against the wishes of the public there is major issues.
So perhaps it is time that the government did something about the consultations and more importantly made sure that if the public want clubs councils cannot close them using claims based round citizen panels which are never an accurate reflection of the general population. Or because the Council think they know best causing situations like the nil policies in Tower Hamlets and Hackney.
TonyN (tonyprince@acdcfan.com)
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Sunday, April 13, 2014
On Marathon Day I Exercise my Fingers
So the blog has passed 100,000 page views so firstly and most importantly I would like to thank those who started this journey with us both as readers and supporters. I would also like to thank Object, UK Feminista and all the councillors who have made fools of themselves (in my eyes anyway). I was hoping to do some blockbuster statement that would surprise everyone but for certain reasons I am having problems with my pet project and at present the only real figure that came as a surprise to me is that I estimate that there are around 2,000,000 private dances every year. Now that is a lot of worn down heels if you ask me. If I can get the figures to make sense then I hope to expand on that at some point.
First thing I want to mention to people is that there is an event as part of the troublemakers season at the Bishopgate Institute in London on the 8th May (here) about Raunch culture. Now the speakers are Barabara Haigh a a former Bunny girl and Sarah Mathewson of campaign group Object (nice that the BI didn't mention human rights). It is on a Thursday evening so if people want listen and if allowed question Sarah maybe? I would suggest any dancers not working that evening that can get there a strong showing may upset the apple cart so to speak. Object have broadcasted on their facebook page so people if you got the time maybe now would be good to show support for the industry we love.
Okay now onto the various bits and pieces that are a concern. Certainly I am concerned and upset by the treatment of the Lodge by Oxford council who suggested the club move, it moves next to a night club which runs the risk of trouble and in fact the Lodge bouncers have help the club next door from what I have been finding. Yet the club gets shafted as "New" plans suddenly appear this year about redeveloping the area. I would suggest the council knew all along and have been working to close a legitimate business because of one person in the form of Bob Price saying he doesn't want a club like that in his City. Personally the whole business stinks to high heavens and how a judge did not at least question the council behaviour I nwill never know. The Lodge looks like putting on Burlesque from now till Xmas when it seems it will close.
Next stop in my whirlwind tour is that Wildcats is mounting a second appeal. Once again the whole issue or councils be carte blanche to do what they want based on a belief. As this blog has stated before the only mandate the council got was from the citizen panel which is not a public consultation but a self elected group. Certain we are not sure about the make up of who responded to the question from the CP as the details from Leeds council have disappeared. Certainly on the TWO public consultation the council did NOT get a clear mandate but hey why let facts bother you?
Finally I would like to visit good old Tower Hamlets just like the Auditors did last week. The council has passed the SEV licensing and will be adopting schedule 3 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 from 1 June 2014. This after letters from two law firms stating that the council does not have the power to take the decision and even if it did the report put forward by the council does not set out a legal basis for the decision. Worth noting as well that the response to the letters basically ignores the questions and comes over as if we want to do something then we can. Which given the current issues facing the council and what has lead them to this point actually comes as no surprise. Nice to see the council is still insisting on funding 70 - 100 private dances a year per club and pub for it staff though which is what the money for investigating the clubs seems to be for. Shoes, ladies, shoes... you will not see Churches or the like on the council employees, most will be wearing marks and spencer type suits and ladies I am sure you can better identify the quality of watches. Bad habits I saw a lot of with council employees is to tuck their identity card in the top pocket of their shirt.
One thing that has struck me about Tower Hamlets is that the Panorama programme pointed out that funds may be being used to encourage religius groups to get their adherents to support the mayor, now I could never prove that the slow pressure building on the clubs is part of the mayor acting to encourage religious leaders in the area to back him but when you consider what was claimed by the BBC it would certainly not be beyond the realms of possibility that other acts by the mayor could cause religious groups to back him. So is this another attempt at getting support and have the council fallen for it?
As always you can comment or e-mail me on tonyprince@acdcfan.com
TonyN
First thing I want to mention to people is that there is an event as part of the troublemakers season at the Bishopgate Institute in London on the 8th May (here) about Raunch culture. Now the speakers are Barabara Haigh a a former Bunny girl and Sarah Mathewson of campaign group Object (nice that the BI didn't mention human rights). It is on a Thursday evening so if people want listen and if allowed question Sarah maybe? I would suggest any dancers not working that evening that can get there a strong showing may upset the apple cart so to speak. Object have broadcasted on their facebook page so people if you got the time maybe now would be good to show support for the industry we love.
Okay now onto the various bits and pieces that are a concern. Certainly I am concerned and upset by the treatment of the Lodge by Oxford council who suggested the club move, it moves next to a night club which runs the risk of trouble and in fact the Lodge bouncers have help the club next door from what I have been finding. Yet the club gets shafted as "New" plans suddenly appear this year about redeveloping the area. I would suggest the council knew all along and have been working to close a legitimate business because of one person in the form of Bob Price saying he doesn't want a club like that in his City. Personally the whole business stinks to high heavens and how a judge did not at least question the council behaviour I nwill never know. The Lodge looks like putting on Burlesque from now till Xmas when it seems it will close.
Next stop in my whirlwind tour is that Wildcats is mounting a second appeal. Once again the whole issue or councils be carte blanche to do what they want based on a belief. As this blog has stated before the only mandate the council got was from the citizen panel which is not a public consultation but a self elected group. Certain we are not sure about the make up of who responded to the question from the CP as the details from Leeds council have disappeared. Certainly on the TWO public consultation the council did NOT get a clear mandate but hey why let facts bother you?
Finally I would like to visit good old Tower Hamlets just like the Auditors did last week. The council has passed the SEV licensing and will be adopting schedule 3 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 from 1 June 2014. This after letters from two law firms stating that the council does not have the power to take the decision and even if it did the report put forward by the council does not set out a legal basis for the decision. Worth noting as well that the response to the letters basically ignores the questions and comes over as if we want to do something then we can. Which given the current issues facing the council and what has lead them to this point actually comes as no surprise. Nice to see the council is still insisting on funding 70 - 100 private dances a year per club and pub for it staff though which is what the money for investigating the clubs seems to be for. Shoes, ladies, shoes... you will not see Churches or the like on the council employees, most will be wearing marks and spencer type suits and ladies I am sure you can better identify the quality of watches. Bad habits I saw a lot of with council employees is to tuck their identity card in the top pocket of their shirt.
One thing that has struck me about Tower Hamlets is that the Panorama programme pointed out that funds may be being used to encourage religius groups to get their adherents to support the mayor, now I could never prove that the slow pressure building on the clubs is part of the mayor acting to encourage religious leaders in the area to back him but when you consider what was claimed by the BBC it would certainly not be beyond the realms of possibility that other acts by the mayor could cause religious groups to back him. So is this another attempt at getting support and have the council fallen for it?
As always you can comment or e-mail me on tonyprince@acdcfan.com
TonyN
Friday, March 28, 2014
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)
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)
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Object Recruiting New CEO
A little fun from blog founder Chasmal
In a move that we find surprising, Object are looking for a new CEO to replace Anna van Heeswijk. But who will they find that can live up to the standards that Anna set? We've been thinking about it and if we were a betting shop, these are the odds that we would be offering.....
In a move that we find surprising, Object are looking for a new CEO to replace Anna van Heeswijk. But who will they find that can live up to the standards that Anna set? We've been thinking about it and if we were a betting shop, these are the odds that we would be offering.....
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Object's Resources on Lap Dancing, Not Really Improving
So this week saw an interesting turn of events when Object decided to re-promote themselves via Mumsnet by writing a piece about the Channel 4 programme Strippers. Now I am not going to write about the programme as the superb Plastic Dolls Head blog has written about them here and here and as a former dancer the blog has great validity talking from inside the real world rather than the fantasy that Object thinks exists. What I do want to discuss is the result of Object posting on Mumsnet.
Well the usual attitude from the usual crowd so I wasn't expecting much, however a liberal feminist who is on Mumsnet, and has a neighbour who is a dancer, also posts in the feminist section of Mumsnet decided to ask a question. Sausage (screen name) has swapped e-mails with myself and reads the blog so when Object tried to big themselves up she asked why there was still dead links on their lap dancing resources page including the dead Lilith report. Now I tweeted etc at Object back at the beginning of August 2013 about the issues with their page and surprise surprise I was ignored. If does seem though that if the feminist section of Mumsnet ask questions then finally a response in that they have updated their page twice in the last 4 days. The first time they deleted the Lilith report from their resources as it does not exist and they had the dead links removed. Object has also done a second up date to find new links for the reports that were dead so now I intend to look at what after all the time trying to help them that links had died we see what they now think is relevant.
So at the top of list is that joke of a report by Julie Bindel which has been commented on here and here.
The we have the Mindy Bradley report which focuses on the poor and women of colour working in American Clubs which as we know have a different set of rules. Importantly she is not worried about women overall just a specific demographic in the industry.
We still have the report It’s just like going to the Supermarket: Men buying sex in East London which is a study on street prostitution in Tower Hamlets. Having read the report there is nothing referring to sex in clubs just a vague passing reference to the fact that some men who go to SEVs may pay for an Escort. Interestingly they do not comment on the number of men who may not and given how the sample was obtained by adverts in papers the response would be tainted by the type of person who would respond to that.
Okay Holsopple I have said before and will say again the report has no relevance to SEVs in the UK in 2014 but as Lilith is dead they have to hold on to this to try for the claims of violence.
Now on to the Industrial Vagina by Sheila Jefferies, which merges so many arguments that the message is all adult entertainment is wrong. Having not read the book don't know what she says about UK SEVs though. However not expecting much reference at all to the current UK position.
The next two links both go to a page on Spinifex that has nothing to do with Striptease, guess someone didn't check their page editing.
And on again to Raphael and Shapiro dealing with the violence of prostitution in America. Still can't see the relevance to the clubs but there is this desperate attempt to link violence to SEVs even though the figures show that this is not the case.
Scottish Executive report which is the rehash of the disaster that in Bindel's 2004 "work" (and I use the word work in the loosest possible terms). Reads a bit better given the quality of its foundation.
Next is suppose to be a link to work by Rebecca Stark next but links to an ethics book on Prostitution and Pornography which is a moral judgement if it is the work they meant.
Finally Jennifer K. Wesley work in West Florida dealing with dancers who were/are abused, but doesn't identify the percentage of dancers who have this issue and thus implies it is the whole industry. Standard practice to create an image by using specific target research data to create a squiffy view of the industry. And of course this is Florida so we can see how it applies to the UK.
To be honest it looks like Object are not really any better off and the whole of the UK argument hinges on the appalling work by Bindel. The rest is an attempt to imply violence and prostitution inside UK SEVs. So even after removing the car crash that was Lilith the page still has all sorts of rubbish with no relevance to today's clubs.
TonyN (tonyprince@acdcfan.com)
Well the usual attitude from the usual crowd so I wasn't expecting much, however a liberal feminist who is on Mumsnet, and has a neighbour who is a dancer, also posts in the feminist section of Mumsnet decided to ask a question. Sausage (screen name) has swapped e-mails with myself and reads the blog so when Object tried to big themselves up she asked why there was still dead links on their lap dancing resources page including the dead Lilith report. Now I tweeted etc at Object back at the beginning of August 2013 about the issues with their page and surprise surprise I was ignored. If does seem though that if the feminist section of Mumsnet ask questions then finally a response in that they have updated their page twice in the last 4 days. The first time they deleted the Lilith report from their resources as it does not exist and they had the dead links removed. Object has also done a second up date to find new links for the reports that were dead so now I intend to look at what after all the time trying to help them that links had died we see what they now think is relevant.
So at the top of list is that joke of a report by Julie Bindel which has been commented on here and here.
The we have the Mindy Bradley report which focuses on the poor and women of colour working in American Clubs which as we know have a different set of rules. Importantly she is not worried about women overall just a specific demographic in the industry.
We still have the report It’s just like going to the Supermarket: Men buying sex in East London which is a study on street prostitution in Tower Hamlets. Having read the report there is nothing referring to sex in clubs just a vague passing reference to the fact that some men who go to SEVs may pay for an Escort. Interestingly they do not comment on the number of men who may not and given how the sample was obtained by adverts in papers the response would be tainted by the type of person who would respond to that.
Okay Holsopple I have said before and will say again the report has no relevance to SEVs in the UK in 2014 but as Lilith is dead they have to hold on to this to try for the claims of violence.
Now on to the Industrial Vagina by Sheila Jefferies, which merges so many arguments that the message is all adult entertainment is wrong. Having not read the book don't know what she says about UK SEVs though. However not expecting much reference at all to the current UK position.
The next two links both go to a page on Spinifex that has nothing to do with Striptease, guess someone didn't check their page editing.
And on again to Raphael and Shapiro dealing with the violence of prostitution in America. Still can't see the relevance to the clubs but there is this desperate attempt to link violence to SEVs even though the figures show that this is not the case.
Scottish Executive report which is the rehash of the disaster that in Bindel's 2004 "work" (and I use the word work in the loosest possible terms). Reads a bit better given the quality of its foundation.
Next is suppose to be a link to work by Rebecca Stark next but links to an ethics book on Prostitution and Pornography which is a moral judgement if it is the work they meant.
Finally Jennifer K. Wesley work in West Florida dealing with dancers who were/are abused, but doesn't identify the percentage of dancers who have this issue and thus implies it is the whole industry. Standard practice to create an image by using specific target research data to create a squiffy view of the industry. And of course this is Florida so we can see how it applies to the UK.
To be honest it looks like Object are not really any better off and the whole of the UK argument hinges on the appalling work by Bindel. The rest is an attempt to imply violence and prostitution inside UK SEVs. So even after removing the car crash that was Lilith the page still has all sorts of rubbish with no relevance to today's clubs.
TonyN (tonyprince@acdcfan.com)
Monday, March 3, 2014
A Reminder and Suggestion:- Don't Take Your License For Granted
So after all the pressing for Johnson's bill it didn't get heard on Friday. But that combined with some recent news out of Birmingham (thanks Melon Farmers for this) about letters pouring in against a new club did make me think.
So how comes when the local press claim 8 whole letters poured in didn't we hear more? And if such a massive number of objections can cause an application to fail we see issues about just what people power can do when councillors let their morals do their thinking for them. So perhaps we are seeing people power at work.
So this is a message to dancers, customers and clubs never assume that a club is safe. When license renewals come up there will be letters from objectors so now is the time not to be lazy or we wont have venues to go to. The councils have to redact the name and contact details of anyone who writes in so any worries that people who don't know about your hobby/work/interest are something you no longer have to worry about.
Clubs this short para is for you. Mobilise your customers and dancers, speak to your suppliers and ask them to support as loss of jobs will interest councils. Also local businesses that may get work from your customers such as restaurants, taxi firms and even hotels. Take note of what councillors are on the panel and especially if they are connected to groups that would oppose the club/pub. Any new clubs starting up there is a lot of this that will apply to you, the councils are driven by the vocal minority as it is the only voice they hear. So lets start making our voices heard.
We should all be aware that councils are driven by what the public want, if more people speak out on behalf of the clubs the less likely councils will act to close them. We see e-petitions pop up that get over half the signatures from outside the area of the club so lets see local support. If clubs get shut down on a handful of letters then a real flood of real people writing real letters will make a difference. The fact that boiler-plates are the stock tool for those writing in against clubs shows that these are people that don't think for themselves that they are told what to think.
So perhaps not the best call to arms but laziness is going to be one of the reason we lose clubs. Get active, get aggressive and don't make assumptions that everything will be just hunky dory. Letting the sheeple win is not something we should be proud of or even let happen.
Was thinking on twitter this AM about the number of tired arguments out there that are produced by rote by the anti club brigade. What about the kids and what about the church is one that really gets me, considering the incidents with sexual assault by the religious hierarchy perhaps they would be better closing religious centres to protect the kids. Also even though we have seen lilith debunked by just abut everyone we still see veiled references suggesting sexual violence around SEVs, the maths show the lie behind that argument but it will continue to be trotted out even if police have no objections. And speaking of the police you always see the claim of anti social behaviour, now if a SEV had loads of that I would guess the police would be asking to close the club, strangely I can only think of a couple of cases and if venues don't look after the locals then they will get stiffed eventually. And that sort of leads into the no go area, which if there is CCTV and security sounds like the sort of place you would not be scared of, however it is a perception in peoples' heads, I remember walking through Brixton in London at 2am with a friend who was terrified they would be attacked but nothing happened. No go areas in general are a lot less real but changing peoples perceptions takes time. Friendly security that interacts with the public and puts out a positive attitude to the public will help clubs.
Okay not where I was going when I started but a reminder of what dancers, clubs and customers face. If we want to have SEVs operating in a few years then we have to start acting now. And yes before I forget a few lines in this were meant to be in the sarcastic font.
TonyN (tonyprince@acdcfan.com)
So how comes when the local press claim 8 whole letters poured in didn't we hear more? And if such a massive number of objections can cause an application to fail we see issues about just what people power can do when councillors let their morals do their thinking for them. So perhaps we are seeing people power at work.
So this is a message to dancers, customers and clubs never assume that a club is safe. When license renewals come up there will be letters from objectors so now is the time not to be lazy or we wont have venues to go to. The councils have to redact the name and contact details of anyone who writes in so any worries that people who don't know about your hobby/work/interest are something you no longer have to worry about.
Clubs this short para is for you. Mobilise your customers and dancers, speak to your suppliers and ask them to support as loss of jobs will interest councils. Also local businesses that may get work from your customers such as restaurants, taxi firms and even hotels. Take note of what councillors are on the panel and especially if they are connected to groups that would oppose the club/pub. Any new clubs starting up there is a lot of this that will apply to you, the councils are driven by the vocal minority as it is the only voice they hear. So lets start making our voices heard.
We should all be aware that councils are driven by what the public want, if more people speak out on behalf of the clubs the less likely councils will act to close them. We see e-petitions pop up that get over half the signatures from outside the area of the club so lets see local support. If clubs get shut down on a handful of letters then a real flood of real people writing real letters will make a difference. The fact that boiler-plates are the stock tool for those writing in against clubs shows that these are people that don't think for themselves that they are told what to think.
So perhaps not the best call to arms but laziness is going to be one of the reason we lose clubs. Get active, get aggressive and don't make assumptions that everything will be just hunky dory. Letting the sheeple win is not something we should be proud of or even let happen.
Was thinking on twitter this AM about the number of tired arguments out there that are produced by rote by the anti club brigade. What about the kids and what about the church is one that really gets me, considering the incidents with sexual assault by the religious hierarchy perhaps they would be better closing religious centres to protect the kids. Also even though we have seen lilith debunked by just abut everyone we still see veiled references suggesting sexual violence around SEVs, the maths show the lie behind that argument but it will continue to be trotted out even if police have no objections. And speaking of the police you always see the claim of anti social behaviour, now if a SEV had loads of that I would guess the police would be asking to close the club, strangely I can only think of a couple of cases and if venues don't look after the locals then they will get stiffed eventually. And that sort of leads into the no go area, which if there is CCTV and security sounds like the sort of place you would not be scared of, however it is a perception in peoples' heads, I remember walking through Brixton in London at 2am with a friend who was terrified they would be attacked but nothing happened. No go areas in general are a lot less real but changing peoples perceptions takes time. Friendly security that interacts with the public and puts out a positive attitude to the public will help clubs.
Okay not where I was going when I started but a reminder of what dancers, clubs and customers face. If we want to have SEVs operating in a few years then we have to start acting now. And yes before I forget a few lines in this were meant to be in the sarcastic font.
TonyN (tonyprince@acdcfan.com)
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Diana Johnson MP, how local is ‘local’?
I would like to thank Brute for writing this article and his work in getting the FoI.
Some readers of this blog may be aware that Diana Johnson, MP for Kingston-upon-Hull North, made a speech to the House of Commons on the 28th of January, outlining a Private Member’s Bill which proposed making the adoption of Sexual Entertainment Licences (SEVs) mandatory for all local authorities with regard to striptease venues.
As part of her speech to the House, Johnson quoted three letters which she said she had received from ‘local residents’. I was unaware of there being any striptease venues within the Kingston upon Hull North constituency, and some of the content of these letters seemed strangely familiar to me, so I decided to investigate matters further by sending a Freedom of Information Request to Kingston upon Hull City Council the following is their reply:
"Freedom of Information Act 2000 – Information Request - 000304/14
With regard to your Freedom of Information request received on 7 February 2014, please find our response below.
'I am making an enquiry under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act, and I would grateful if you would provide me the following information:-
• Details of premises within the city currently licenced for striptease (either under the Police and Crime Act 2009, or the Licensing Act 2003);
• Details of any premises which were licenced for striptease (under the Licensing Act 2003) over the last ten years, i.e. from February 2004;
• Records of any official complaints made against the above premises, either to Kingston-upon-Hull City Council or Humberside Police.'
The only two premises that have been licensed for striptease are Fantasy Bar (now the Honey Trap) and Purple Door. There have been no official complaints made against either of these premises.
We hope that you will be satisfied with our response and should you require any further information then please do not hesitate to contact us."
The Honey Trap and the Purple Door are both clubs in the city centre of Hull, which comes under the neighbouring constituency of Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle.
Johnson’s Bill is due for a second reading before Parliament this coming Friday, the 28th of February; thankfully, it has little-to-no chance of becoming law. However, the content of the above speech has sparked off a few questions for her in my mind, starting with: is a ‘local resident’ the same thing as a constituent; and if not, what constitutes ‘local’ in this context?
Some readers of this blog may be aware that Diana Johnson, MP for Kingston-upon-Hull North, made a speech to the House of Commons on the 28th of January, outlining a Private Member’s Bill which proposed making the adoption of Sexual Entertainment Licences (SEVs) mandatory for all local authorities with regard to striptease venues.
As part of her speech to the House, Johnson quoted three letters which she said she had received from ‘local residents’. I was unaware of there being any striptease venues within the Kingston upon Hull North constituency, and some of the content of these letters seemed strangely familiar to me, so I decided to investigate matters further by sending a Freedom of Information Request to Kingston upon Hull City Council the following is their reply:
"Freedom of Information Act 2000 – Information Request - 000304/14
With regard to your Freedom of Information request received on 7 February 2014, please find our response below.
'I am making an enquiry under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act, and I would grateful if you would provide me the following information:-
• Details of premises within the city currently licenced for striptease (either under the Police and Crime Act 2009, or the Licensing Act 2003);
• Details of any premises which were licenced for striptease (under the Licensing Act 2003) over the last ten years, i.e. from February 2004;
• Records of any official complaints made against the above premises, either to Kingston-upon-Hull City Council or Humberside Police.'
The only two premises that have been licensed for striptease are Fantasy Bar (now the Honey Trap) and Purple Door. There have been no official complaints made against either of these premises.
We hope that you will be satisfied with our response and should you require any further information then please do not hesitate to contact us."
The Honey Trap and the Purple Door are both clubs in the city centre of Hull, which comes under the neighbouring constituency of Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle.
Johnson’s Bill is due for a second reading before Parliament this coming Friday, the 28th of February; thankfully, it has little-to-no chance of becoming law. However, the content of the above speech has sparked off a few questions for her in my mind, starting with: is a ‘local resident’ the same thing as a constituent; and if not, what constitutes ‘local’ in this context?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)