Leeds: The Final Act (for now)!

We have written pieces about Leeds for the last few years and to be honest I sometimes feel like I am bashing my head against a brick wall. The chances are that no matter what the actual truth is there are people out there who have made their minds up and no matter what will push their agenda to get their moral attitude into everyone else's lives. I have got to the point where this will be the last major post till either someone tries to drive through another change or a major story breaks about Leeds. I want to briefly sum up a few points as I will be tweeting at Leeds MP and Councillor this blog has seen as the original driving force including shaping the working group. This entry is a personal opinion but the statements about crime are based on a 2012 study by myself into crime around SEVs using the Police.UK database, no dragging figures out of thin air. Also I spent 4 years as a senior professional officer in a council and I have seen how councillors can influence officers to operate against their own better judgement, I know because I have done it in covering up for a councillor.

This could turn into a massive rant so I will try to keep the piece as short as possible whilst covering the issues. I will include a couple of responses to FoI requests from Leeds Council, I wont timeline the events rather I will try to use the issues as I see them to guide me in the way I word this.

Leeds Council what responsibility do they take?

Firstly I want to cover the response I got about if anyone checked if there would be any impact to crime in the area when the buildings closed. The response was that as the venues were closed on locality and proximity to sensitive premises (jokes in the comments about this will be fine). The statement was the clubs were not closed because of crime so they didn't analysis it. Which makes the assumption that the venues are the cause rather than a resource that will provide security to the area it is based in. The fact sexual and violent crime has doubled during 6 months in The Headrow in comparison to when the venue were open with security and CCTV running does suggests councils HAVE to take responsibility for the increase because they only view clubs as an issue and failed to acknowledge that the external security for clubs would have an impact in stopping crime. This is something that all councils should be aware of and if I was a victim of crime in the area I would be blaming the council. However no doubt as the Council points out they just didn't have any idea that closing venues could have such a negative impact which suggests a very blinkered attitude.

Leeds Night Life losing something?

Now I want to cover some of the issues that came out of the consultation and citizen panel. The consultation was based on the City of London questionnaire but had been adjusted to be quantitative rather than qualitative. Which is strange as when you look at the figures 48% wanted 4 SEVs or less and 52% wanted 5 or more SEVs, for me if you were going to set a figure then surely the arithmetic mean would be the correct point which would mean there should be 5 clubs rather than 4. The numbers ranged from 1 to 8 or more which is no surprise as the first consultation showed that people DID NOT want a complete ban. Now the e-mail from the council says the information was analysed by the council officer in charge of the citizen panel. This would be a person who would probably be a professional grade rather than management and having been there myself you do feel exposed should councillors decide to flex their muscles, no proof that anything happened just a feeling.

Part of the input into the questionnaire was based on the "Working Group". The working group had Object, a lobby group, represented and no representatives of the actually industry. The two police officers one was a child exploitation officer who was seen as a stakeholder (really that is stupid) and one representing the City Centre which is interesting as the police haven't raised issues about the clubs for child exploitation or that the clubs should be closed. It is therefore even more surprising no one thought of the risks in losing cctv and feet on the street. Section 3.1 said the licensing board put together the working group but tweets from Reeves and Charlwood at the time suggest a heavy involvement.The walk around town discussions with club management which clubs and where? The whole working group issue is one that makes me seethe just a little and I feel for Rosie being stuck in a group that had taken legal advice to ensure that their agenda could be pushed through (not exact wording of course).

After all the research the council still drive their own agenda.

We saw claims be made as a result of the citizen panel, Claims that 85% of the citizen panel was against clubs is a bit misleading as only 32% were against clubs in the city centre. The whole work has been to mislead and drive an agenda. When you add to that the fact that in the consultation there was a standard response template that was used quite a bit. 52 responses (39% of the response used the template). There is no point in the document that I can find that refers to the standard letter being one that the council provided so this would have be provided by Object or another feminist lobby group. Knowing that the consultation could easily be manipulated so that one person could easily make multiple responses the template presents a danger to the democracy. So long as someone clears their cookies in the cache of their web browser then there was nothing that would stop a simple cut and paste and repeat. Yet at no point was this even mentioned, I would have hoped that the Council would have had their eyes opened about these sort of risks of flooding by a handful of moral objectors. Remember one council actually spotted one person sending in multiple letters with different signatures because a template was used so any use of a template could be because of a single individual using the flaw in the council's system.

Finally to keep this reasonably short Having read the response from those against the clubs there is a constant reference to violence against women which there is no proof of in any shape of form in the UK. In section 3.27 the council seem to suggest that they took the Lilith research as valid but ignored press stories. They also mention the West Yorkshire Hollaback as a valid source it seems which I would question the site as it was based around street harassment and it is difficult because a lot of the claims have never been reported to the police so how do we judge how valid the "research" is and of course Hollaback has disappeared from the web so there is no way to check claims and Hollaback was only ever anecdotal evidence. So really the only thing it seemed that the claims were based on was Lilith and as we know that report has been withdrawn and in fact the figures show a drop in rape over 12 years rather than just the 3 years Lilith highlighted (once again based on figures obtained by this blog under FoI).

So to sum up, the whole thing seems to be taking figures and manipulating them. The fact only 32% of people were against clubs in the City Centre and that the mid point of the consultation was 5 clubs rather than 4 hints that people were not adverse to ignoring the public and that the agenda behind closing the 3 venues did not worry about any impact that the closure would make on anything. Sensitive premises would have benefited from CCTV and bouncers but now those protections for the public have been removed and people are suffering an impact of more sexual and violent crime with the blame laying at the feet of the architects behind the closure Rachel Reeves and Rebecca Charlwood in my humble and simple opinion.

TonyN (tonyprince@acdcfan.com).

Repeat, Repeat and Repeat Again

So my life can be very boring it seems as I was sitting through a live update on the license application for Chronicles in Reading to get its SEV. All seemed very normal no police objections, 8 letters sent in and only one objector turn up to speak against and that was a worry about noise which he venue covered but at the end when all was discussed the license was refused based on the demeanour of the area. So I started writing this piece about the stupidity of closing venues or stopping new licenses based on an area when there are no objections or at east no really valid objections that are not covered by the application. I was going to post this a couple of days ago but health issues, a family birthday and trying to find out details of a couple of things meant this piece is 3 days late.

No SEV because of the area apparently

Anyway yesterday morning I was checking my mail and a google alert flagged an article in the Yorkshire Evening Post about the 3 closed venues in Leeds and how they have remained empty since they were forced to close. Anyone reading my posts will know that they has been an increase in violent and sexual crimes since the venues closed and my got reaction was they must have opened night clubs or similar but it turns out the building are just empty. Which raises the issue when do morals migrate into excuses? We know that Leeds forced the issue hiding behind the Tour de France starting in the Headrow with two clubs right by the start. So to the rest of Leeds there was this facade that the campaign was all about image rather than morals which we know councils shouldn't raise in these debates.

So we see yet again the stupidity about location. Is there a school near by? Probably in most towns but since when do most schools operate in the middle of the night? We have said again and again this what about the kiddies thing is stupid. How many parents let their kids out in the middle of the night? So long as the clubs use discreet signage and avoid overt language in the names kids won't take a blind bit of notice. The real issue is some parents are imposing their own morality onto the club and this causes unfounded fears. The research is out there, Professor Hubbard's research showed that many people could actually walk past the clubs without even knowing they were there. However this has been ignored by councils who now play the moral guardian game and doing the thinking for the public.

I do get annoyed by having the same stupidity occur again and again. If it was Object and their ilk then yes I can understand it as they will not read up on any research that may show their thinking is wrong in the same way that they wont engage with dancers because the possibility that some real people who know the industry disagree with their paid for ex dancer who co wrote their book that they quote and quote. So if you see a councillor in the press getting on his or her high horse then we must show them that the facts are out there. It becomes a really simple question/message why are councils ignoring academic work? It plays like they are pushing their own agendas which never sits right for me.

Finally just before I was going to publish this I stumbled on an article in a local Barnsley Online Newspaper about a man being attacked near Wildcats. You will note it is near Wildcats not UK Pizza, Sizzlers, The Shakespeare or even Hope House School. The article doesn't claim that the attack was anything to do with the club, which it may be, but it could be anywhere else in the area. Just seems it makes a good story assigning blame without actually being sure who is to blame or why, just no need when a SEV is close by as it it brings a little sex to the story rather than actually trying to report just the facts. This is not the first time we have seen this style of reporting where the first instinct of a reporter is to create a scare about a club without having proof to back this up.

TonyN (tonyprince@acdcfan.com)

The Dancer and the Politician No Crime Committed!

I would like to thank Brute for pointing the article in the daily mail (here) out to me that has got me writing again. My health hasn't been as good as I would like but I needed to get back to writing and seeing the article it sort of get me in the mood to say a few things. And it was nice to see all this happening in Tower Hamlets just to rub salt into the wound.

Firstly I would like to explain I have no problems with anyone going to a club even a politician providing they are not campaigning to close them in public, two facedness while a politician (or prospective politician) is expected but to say one thing and do another is going to be an issue for me around the clubs. So if it isn't the fact a guy went to a club on his stag, got drunk and forgot (ignored) the rules what is. I guess for me it is the fact he has been a spokesperson on religious matters and at one point an extremist who is now seeming to be the exact opposite. So I want to split this into two parts now. Firstly the poor behaviour by Nawaz and then I want to pick up on the issue of the daily mail and highlight the case of stigmatisation of someone doing something that is not illegal and that many guys do every weekend (hopefully with more self control).

So your having a private dance in a booth/room with CCTV, your best man has got you reasonably loaded but the fact is the UK is a non contact environment, every time a rad fem claims about bumping and grinding we all know they are lying because we have had a lot of years go past since contact in private dancing was allowed. Seeing the dancer point to the CCTV camera shows she explained the rules and it was Nawaz who was trying desperately to break them. With Nawaz trying to get the contact details of the dancer we run into the issue that rad fems would claim that the details were exchanged to arrange the selling of sexual services. I have had dancer friends who I would go to coffee with just to discuss issues about venues, music, babysitting and a few other problems but nowadays no matter how much of a connection I may feel to a dancer even if we have a hobby in common you can't exchange personal details as no doubt how innocent it may be the imaginative minds of sections of the feminist movement will imagine the trafficking, rape and selling of sexual services no matter how far from the truth it is.

So really the issue here is the breaking of club etiquette which occurs more than we would like usually by guys who are not regulars and who don't really get the why we have to avoid this sort of behaviour. Tell me something an hour ago throw in a couple of drinks and I am not sure that I would remember something I haven't heard other than on one occasion. Perhaps here it would be wise to suggest that unless a customer is a known regular he is reminded of etiquette each time he has a private dance. I would have liked to have seen Nawaz ejected but if it is a stag do we have no idea how large the party was so how much income was at risk if the centre of the stag party was asked to leave. To the club owner/manager who sold the footage I would say bad form on you for selling anything to the daily mail. Finally Nawaz claims to be a feminist and I don't see the issue here except that the terminology is wrong. Equality issomething we all have a right to and the right to choose our employment (if we can). The blog has said in the past over 2 million guys go to clubs each year and I am sure a lot more of us believe in equality than the religious groups who preach sex is a sin. As a quick aside on that point BBC2 in the UK has a 3 part series on sex and the church and part one was well worth watching.

So do I have issues with the Daily Mail? Damn right I do, the wording of the article was so biased you could feel the whole of middle england draw in it's collective breath and breathe a huge sigh. At the start of the article they point out that Nawaz is now married but you only find out digging deeper into the article it was before he got married and he was on his stag. Once again we see the fervour that comes from the traditional religious patriarchy that radical feminism so keenly supports creating a stigma around a perfectly legal evening. The church, and by this I mean all religions that apply moral codes, has guidelines that many of us break and I offer you odds that most of the mail reporters couldn't give a damn about observing religious practices unless it means a free holiday. Yet here we have a right wing "christian" paper commenting on someone not observing a religious holiday, so what, I have seen myself guys who drink, club and gamble when their religion says they shouldn't but here we have an effort by a paper to target someone for doing something legal. So long as the public allow papers to stigmatise a legal profession we are basically supporting the old structure that radical feminism claim they want to break down but in reality they reinforce.

I could go on about the hypocrisy of the daily mail and the breaching of Club etiquette by Nawaz but the guy is as human as the rest of us and the mail is built around supporting the Selfservatives so nothing I can do but bemoan the fact that having ago about a legal but stigmatised job is par for the course in medieval, I mean modern Britain.

TonyN
tonyprince@acdcfan.com

Councils Talk About Impact Analysis?

TonyN here continuing with the research into the impact of closing Venues, I spoke recently with Chasmal and this was going to have a flash graph but I don't think there is any real need for a graph to show what has happened. And I am going to focus on Leeds and the impact on crime of losing three venues and ask the question was any impact analysis done by the council on what happens when councillors and a MP push a personal agenda. As I pointed out on my previous piece councils and more important councillors have to have some idea of what happens when you move from clubs with people wanting to enjoy and pay for private dances to people in restuarants, fast food joints and most importantly the sort of £1 a pint pre loaded drinkers that wouldn't get into a SEV.

First I want to explain that I have e-mailed both Rachel Reeves and Rebecca Charlwood to ask them about their time line and what they expected to happen when clubs closed especially around violent and sexual crime. At the time of writing this entry I have had no response and I will be honest I wasn't expecting any. After all what would they say? That they were either ill informed and therefore had no idea of what would happen or that they knew and they just didn't care? Neither message is that impressive so lets start with the time line of the pressure to close venues and we can then look at the results.

1. Question put to Citizen Panel, which is not a formal consultation process and is formed of people who are vocal on their opinion which is interesting because it seems 70% of them did not bother when the first consultation came out.

2. First Consultation took place which was a very black or white situation in yes or no to SEVs. The result was in favour of SEVs which I believe both of you were unhappy about.

3. A “working group” was established of supposed key stakeholders including an anti striptease lobby group. There was a token academic and no representation of dancers or clubs which presents the view that the only reason for the working group was to find ways to close clubs.

4. Second consultation takes place with a much more structured format designed to provide the best opportunity to get the result required by splitting the pro striptease vote between those for the 7 clubs being the correct number and those who are more interested in the free market approach of as many clubs as the city can support financially in terms of customers. No option for people to say zero.

Having spent several years in local government I have seen the use of structured questionnaires and consultations to get the end result required. So merging the opinion of those against clubs with those who want a small number of clubs was clever.

Now lets move on to the impact of closing the 3 venues in Leeds in terms of violent and sexual crime, remembering the research this blog did in 2011 we have figures for all the clubs operating in Leeds and we can now compare them to the 6 months from August 2014 to Jan 2015 and in another 6 months I will be able to compare a year's data with a year's data. This is really in two parts the first and almost minor one is around Deep Blue where back in 2011 there was no violent and sexual crime in the surrounding area around the club. Yet in 6 months there have been 3 incidents, as I said it is minor and no one is going to blink an eye except the victims of course who might want to question would they have been attacked if Deep Blue was open?

There were two venues in the Headrow that were closed Red Leopard and Wildcats which had overlaying areas of influence so I have had to combine them in terms of results. Now this is the one that is a sore point with me as the 2 clubs combined saw a grand total of 12 violent and/or sexual crimes in a year back in 2011, now move forward to 2014/5 and we have 26 violent and/or sexual crimes in 6 months. So we have moved from averaging 1 a month to 4.5 a month. Now I am sure Leeds will point out there are worse places in Leeds but for the victims that doesn't really give answers.

So the question remains did the council not bother researching what might happen or did the pressure from certain quarters push through an action where councillors had an idea what would happen but just didn't care. Not sure which is actually worse but closing established venues without adjusting for the lack of bouncers and and cctv by not increasing the police presence seems a recipe for disaster and we can only feel for those people who may not have been victims if the clubs had of stayed open.

TonyN (tonyprince@acdcfan.com)

Are Councillors in Favour of Violent or Sexual Crimes?

First apologies for the delay in getting this out but I wanted to double check the figures and I have been struggling a little health wise but nothing keeps me down for long. Secondly this is not full of funny remarks, the facts whilst very dry are important so trying to be serious on this.

I have been revisiting the crime figures that we did in 2012 relating to sexual and violent crimes in the proximity of venues. We could only use venues that had closed before January 2014 and that data in 2012 research that covered a full year. This gave us 11 venues that fitted the base requirements in terms of previous data and a full year of data where the club was no longer open. As some clubs had fought to stay open we had less data than we had hoped but the figures were never going to be conclusive anyway.

So of the 11 we had 7 venues that saw increases to violent crime figures, 3 that saw drops and 1 that was the same. However of the 10 venues that saw a change two had a change of two or less (one was up and one was down) so realistically we had 8 venues that saw variences that were quite pronounced. So 75% of the venues that saw some real change saw increases to violent and sexual crimes, in and of itself not much to get people excited but I was glancing at other venues that have closed that would be valid next year and the ones I looked at would suggest that the increase in violent and sexual crimes will occur in places where venues have closed.

I do have one sticking point on one venue that saw a fall as the night club that was located in close proximity and had been the centre of the issues in the previous research has been closed. It was hard to separate out the crime previously so I would be wary of 12.5% of the data. But I never try and hide things because that would come back and bite me in the backside. So at least we have some idea of what has happened when councils or finances have shut venues. And whilst it is not a good thought for any of us males we have to question why the increase and will this be reflected more and more over the next few years as venues close and no new venues open?

So what in the environment in and around clubs would encourage people not to commit crimes? Well feet on the street? We have bouncers outside venues and they know that the clubs could be closed IF violent and sexual crimes occur close to the club so they are probably more watchful than bouncers at nightclubs. And the Eyes in the Sky? Clubs have CCTV outside as part of their operating conditions so people would think twice knowing there is a chance they would be on camera.

And finally the clubs in a lot of ways teach people to respect and view people as human beings in ways you would never see at nightclubs. The alpha male issue that night clubs have is displaced in SEVs as everyone is equal, a person of limited funds, who isn't good looking, who may be socially awkward is accepted just as much as anyone else if they are willing to spend money on dances. I have seen some guys come in and flash money but never spend it on the dancers more than the bare minimum to keep the club happy. So certain types of behaviour within clubs generates better treatment which in turn decreases resentment of entitlement that some may feel because of issues such as social awkwardness.

I would say when you look at the numbers there is not enough data points to establish a trend BUT I have looked at one or two venues that if we do this next year will certainly be on the list. Looking at Leeds certain councillors will have some questions to answer as two months worth of data produced results that were almost double of a year with the clubs. I would think carefully about trying to explain how my morals were more important than the number of victims of violent and sexual crimes if I was a certain Leeds councillor,

I am not a sociologist so I can't explain the proper terms for it nor do I have a big enough data sample to truly show anything other than blips. However looking at locations for next year and just glancing at the figures seeing over a years worth of crime in two months suggests that there is something that people with degrees need to be looking at because the figures do seem to be pointing at something going on after clubs closing. Wonder how many people would vote for councillors who increase violent crime in their local area because of moral judgments? And I would ask anyone in the research field of crime and adult entertainment there may be some value in researching if closing venues does increase crime especially looking at venues being re-purposed as night clubs! Remember the research that showed most people thought night clubs and even restaurants were more likely to be a nuisance so this just continues that theme.

TonyN (tonyprince@acdcfan.com)

Language of Disgust or Just Language of Hate?

So I have been thinking, something that is dangerous and not recommended as it results in very strange ideas. I am sure there are people out there with a PhD who will laugh and think I am a very misguided individual but I have over the last 3 years or so had people judge me who have never met me, have no idea of my social background, my life or any of the other things that have shaped me. If it wasn't for the fact I have the ego the size of a small moon I would have probably stopped long ago after the first bout of personal attacks. So this is probably going to ramble a bit but I hope people will understand where I am coming from.

So I am male (wooo hooo got a thingy between my legs) and I enjoy seeing women perform striptease. Now before we get to anything else about me I have already been labelled by sections of the radical feminist movement as a rapist, pervert, creepy, loser and w****r. They have no idea about me but it doesn't matter because they are projecting their beliefs and their moral disgust on me as I dare to admit I enjoy seeing the female form naked. Let's face it I am reduced to a few words by a belief system based on a view of the world that has been shaped by religion and the state. If you like the Patriarchy who want women in the home and those of us not born into the wealthiest strata producing good little workers that can be shaped by whatever message they give us. From the dirty old man syndrome to how women who dare use their bodies are wrong and in the case of the religious patriarchy evil.

And isn't it strange that radical feminism that for so long was about sexual freedom and choice has been rolled back into the moral minority slaving for the establishment. The fact someone will project their loathing for people who do not conform to their belief system is exactly like the extremist religious groups. The language the radical feminist use to describe women and men who dare to choose to live outside their belief system is exactly the same as a radical cleric or overtly devout priest would use. And this got me wondering about the language that is used in letters to councils by the handful of protesters. The dancers are gender traitors and those who protest using stigmatising language believing that it will change how self assured young women view themselves.

Professor Phil Hubbard has mentioned in his work how disgust and fear is project on to venues and customers. The constant fear of venues near schools is a projection of a parents fear on to the child, clubs don't tend to be open when schools are and apparently blacked out windows are as scary as overtly sexy windows are? So why do we see the projection of these mental images that some people hold continually rolled out even though the reality is different? Well those who do not like clubs have realised use of language can create sub conscious fears among people even if the reality is different. The scaremongering of Lilith and Insp. Drummond was because people believed something was true. Doesn't matter what the reality is we will have to fight the misconceptions every time. The worst thing is there are people out there who know that the beliefs have no empirical data to back them but will continue to roll these stories out because it does the one thing they need and that is create fear. And the problem I suppose more than anything else is the target audience for the disinformation, being councillors and religious establishments.

So back to me (my ego needs the attention). I could go straight past these moral guardians even though they obviously know everything about me they need to with the labels they use to describe me. Wait someone as obviously evil, disgusting and repugnant as I am suppose to be must be easy to spot in the street. One would assume my personal hygiene is lacking, that I go everywhere in a dirty mac, I look awful so that the only way any woman would go near me is for money and obviously I have a couple of horns on my head. See this is where applying the beliefs goes wrong I mean I hang round with friends for which I guess me circle like a pack of wolves waiting to eat our prey. I am a working class junkie that no doubt is a dealer that uses what I sell to fund my abhorrent lifestyle. I don't rate as a member of the pimp lobby yet according to Bindel but if I work hard I have no doubt I can get in there. And I could go on and on and on and on. Which is where I have the biggest problem of all and that is the fact that reading what these people write I can't separate out the radical feminist from the religious objectors the language and the people have become interchangeable.

Now I am not saying I am perfect but I can't think of anyone who actually really knows me who would use any of the labels and names I have been given over the last 3 years. But every time someone labels me with their loathing from their beliefs I see that as a victory. The fact that people need to create villains shows how little validity the arguments they use have so the constant use of scaremongering and labeling is something we will continue to see. After all people who have no idea of who I really am label me as creepy because I am willing to challenge their preconceived ideas with facts and data. It would be easy to stop blogging and just get on with my life, no one would judge me or label me. I wouldn't be the face of evil but I believe too strongly in the right to choose and free will so every time that a zombie stat rears its ugly head I will blow it up!

TonyN (tonyprince@acdcfan,com) aka the dirty old man

An Adventure in No More Page 3 Land

So I have been on the no more page 3 facebook page as it was pointed out that people there were using Lilith (again, thank you John) as part of the argument to draw validity for the position on NMP3 and the closing of clubs. The link to the facebook article is here  although I do have a lot of screen shots of the discussion if the link disappears. Sorry if it appears halfway through the discussion but the usual pat on the back brigade were there sabre rattling. What the piece and the discussions does bring up is some issues that anyone who tries to have a reasonable debate should know before they start.

Firstly there was 3%ers as I call them. Those that were shown in the Kent/Loughborough research that think clubs have no place in society, they don't really care what the rest of the world think they are right and that is an end of it. Then you have the occasional posters who ask questions because they want to understand these will at least try to engage civilly and accept that I don't and can't speak for all men and nor would I ever want to. Then there are some who are willing to actually go read the articles I linked to, and those who asked for links to research that I didn't put in. These realised they might get a bit of stick from others so did not ask for links on the thread for links and it was only 3 of them that pm'd me but I am hoping more will look at it and question the methodology and belief system that operates with some NMP3 campaigners.

As I said I was on there because of Lilith and I was surprised (and in many ways not really surprised) when someone said they had put in Lap Dancing and rape into google and came back with a 2012 article from the telegraph. Strange, I thought I knew of every claim and certainly any that were even remotely thought to be valid. But of course this turned out to be our friend Drummond from Newquay and we all remember how that turned out. Of course when I pointed out that the fact that Drummond was wrong not an apology for not checking sources just a set of replies about how rape has gone down recently because Newquay has become more family orientated. No one actually checked on the dates of the claim and the dates of the FOI from the Newquay Voice. I have no problem that someone used Drummond because of what google threw back but a simple acknowledgement that the particular story they had used was in error would have been civil.

I quoted Leeds University Research, I quoted Kent/Loughborough research, I pointed out that I have over 20 years knowledge of the good the bad and the indifferent. I suggested that they get behind the dancers and go read the ELSC Manifesto and was told I love my facts and figures too much. I guess I might because for all the talk and claim and counter claim the research is as close to Objective as we are going to get in the world. I will admit that I have a subjective point of view and that colours my opinion, it not rocket science or news. Others though will not accept that they are operating on an opinion which has less and less facts behind it each day. Subjective? never how could they be because they are right and any other opinion is totally invalid, lies or half truths because they say so. As I bowed out of the conversation I pointed out that Roz Hardie had gone to a meeting and wasn't strictly accurate with the slides. They implied that there were several interviews with dancers that quotes were taken from when in fact it it was all from a book co-authored by Object which let be honest would be like a book on immigration co-authored by Nigel Farage (this is my new favourite saying).

We will always see people quote Lilith and Drummond because of search engines and "lazy" newspapers not amending or deleting incorrect articles. So keep your eyes out and if anyone spots the miss use of these reports and press releases please point me at them as I really don't mind being the most hated man on No More Page 3 time line or anywhere else.

TonyN (tonyprince@acdcfan.com)