Charlie Dacke Unleashes The Furies (On Herself)

As its a bank holiday and I am a little bored, I thought I would give you all a special treat and complete the Charlie Dacke Facebook article series. What you see below is the last frame grab of the hole that Charlie dug for herself....

The comments made by Charlie at this stage of the debate are quite priceless. She is of course correct when she states that dancers are self employed, but once again we see childish comments being made when she refers to club owners as being 'pimps'. I have to ask if the comment about 'cuts of earnings' and 'fines' refers to Elegance and if so, where her evidence is for this comment. Charlie then goes onto to throw every bit of mud at the wall she can find when she reveals that self employed people have 'no sick pay, no maternity pay, no pension'. This as I understand it is fairly typical of self employed people throughout the land, so why it is being employed as a reason to close Elegance and Wiggle is beyond me. Lets face it, if Charlie gets her way, the dancers will have no sick pay, no maternity pay, no pension and no income as well.

Next however comes the comment that I promised you in my previous posting, so lets look at it some detail....

".......They (dancers) have the opportunity to join unions; Equity, GMB etc, but they don't because they don't really want to be selling sexual services........"

But hang on, in the posting that Charlie made in the same thread (go here) she explained to Kathryn Rimmingtom that Elegance is place where.....

"........men go to buy young girls to strip for them and grind their shaven pubic areas in their faces while they often attempt t [sic] stick their fingers inside the women's vaginas and grab their breasts........"

I don't know about you, but grinding shaven pubic areas in mens faces sounds very much like sexual services to me, but a few hours later Charlie then says this actually doesn't happen because 'they don't want to be selling sexual services'. So basically, Charlie just admitted that she lied.

Lets look at this from another angle, according to Charlie, any dancer that is a member of Equity and GMB is selling sexual services. This comment in itself is outrageous, but when you consider that it comes from a Unison activist in Fareham Borough Council, you really start to wonder what her agenda is. I think that the comment that Charlie made about Equity and GMB members is one that she should be held to account for and on that basis I will be informing the relevant people in both unions about Charlies slur.

Ben Norman continues his struggle for reason and makes the fair point that if the clubs are going to be closed, then those affected have the opportunity to get another job and do not end up unemployed because it suits the outlook of a group of political activists. By making this comment, I really think that Ben was offering Charlie a lifeline, in order to ensure that she didn't make any more comments that made her look bad in the eyes of casual readers. The problem is that Charlie didn't see it...

"...........If a sweat shop opened up down the road from me,and was then threatened with closure, I wouldn't fight to save jobs for the sake of jobs........."

This comment informs my view of Charlies mindset. If something exists that she disapproves of, it must be destroyed, irrespective of the social and human cost. I wonder what Charlie thinks the workers of the hypothetical sweatshop are going to do to live, while she and her cohorts are 'chip-chip-chipping away' at their vision of a social paradise?

Ben then throws Charlie yet another lifeline and it seems that she still doesn't understand what is happening.

".......I suspect you'd campaign to better the workers pay and conditions..........."

I am not sure Charlie would. Her viewpoint is purely binary, her view would be that any worker she feels is exploited is better off being unemployed and she has to think that, because if she didn't, it would undermine her campaign to close Elegance and Wiggle. If Charlie really cared about improving incumbent workers rights, she would be engaging with the management of Wiggle and Elegance and seeing what happens inside for herself. Because if she did, she would see for herself that there is nothing to worry about. Mind you if she had bothered the read the dancer testimonies in this blog, she would know that there is no exploitation and that the biggest issue that the dancers face is Charlie Dacke trying to take their jobs.

Can we get to the bottom of this? The campaign on Portsmouth has never been about exploitation of workers, its never been about objectification, its never been about crime, illegal parking or a shooting that we are told took place some years ago. Its been about one thing and one thing only, that a group of women saw an opportunity to guarantee their futures by dancing naked in a club. By doing this they violated a viewpoint held sacred by designer feminists, that being that income and social standing must never be achieved by reliance on looks and personality.

We see that Kathryn Rimmington provides us with the benefit of her analysis of the local labour market. Yes Kathryn I am sure there are alternative jobs, but I doubt they pay as much as working in Wiggle or Elegance or Heaven Sent, something that I am sure you would be aware of if you had the slightest clue about what you are eagerly trying to close.

In the first article in this series we saw that Kathryn Rimmington warned Charlie about unleashing The Furies.

For those that do not have the benefit of Kathryns knowledge of classics, let me explain that The Furies were the three goddesses of vengeance. Each had a specific role that they were to fulfill. Tisiphone was the avenger of murder, Megaera revenged those that had been wronged by the jealous and Alecto punished those afflicted with constant rage. They were the guardians of the law when the state had not yet intervened or did not exist, or when the crime was a crime of ethics and not criminal law.

When Kathryn mentioned The Furies, she was totally on the ball, especially given that a formulaic oath in the Iliad invokes them as "those who beneath the earth punish whosoever has sworn a false oath".

Given the amount of false oaths that we seen sworn by Charlie Dacke and her crew, I am surprised The Furies aren't flying over Portsmouth right now.

Postscript: As mentioned earlier, I have contacted representatives of both the GMB and Equity with regard to the comments that Charlie Dacke made on Facebook.

Facebook Fun with Charlie Dacke

In a previous posting, we looked at the reactions to Charlie Dackes call-to-arms style attempt to get Portsmouth lapdancing club 'Elegance' closed down. The debate, held on the 'Portsmouth Against Cuts Together' Facebook page, became very interesting as various prohibitionists competed for the 'Radder Than Thou Award' . Lets re-join the debate and see who was saying what....

So as we can see, Kathryn Rimmington seems to be unable to remember what she did last time and if we recall my previous article, didn't even understand what 'Elegance' actually was. But hang on...I thought 'Wiggle' and 'Elegance' were having a big impact in womens lives in Portsmouth and yet we see that an active prohibitionist doesn't seem to see where Elegance fits into the local 'objectification' scene.

Next we see that its not only Kathryn Rimmingtons memory that is failing, because Charlie Dacke goes on to thank Rachael Victoria Wisniak for her support, forgetting that Rachael has been active on many Facebook debates and could hardly be described as a supporter. In fact we see that she makes the perfectly reasonable point that Charlie Dacke shouldn't be campaigning to make people redundant on a site that is apparently dedicated to saving jobs. Its interesting to note that Charlie scurries away from the debate at this point, largely because she knows when she is on to a loser.

That said Charlie supports Tim Dawes and asks him to consider the effect that the clubs (Wiggle, Elegance but not Heaven Sent for some reason) have on him, his family and the women in his life. Unless Charlie knows Tim personally, she has just made a whole raft of assumptions, but at least she is being consistent in her approach to debate....

Paul Nelson then drops into the debate and makes some impressive comments. Rachael Victoria Wisniak made the perfectly valid point that people who live for example in London or New Zealand should not be able to object against a licence application in Portsmouth, largely because they won't be affected by it. Paul of course takes a different view, because the 'zone of objectification' created by places like Elegance spreads across the world, in an almost quantum like manner and like the butterfly that flaps its wings in Hong Kong, a lapdance in Portsmouth could easily cause objectification in Argentina.

Paul then goes on to deliver lines that are reminiscent of 'Rick' from The Young Ones (look it up on You Tube if you have never heard of it). To my knowledge, and I prepare to be corrected, fox hunters and slave traders have never employed arguments that are remotely similar to any argument that Rachael proposed. So I really don't understand what Paul is talking about, but he probably thinks its a devastating one liner, but sadly the only thing that is speaking volumes is the superficiality of his arguments.

But hang on, because Paul gets even better when he compares campaigning against 'Elegance, to saving the Amazon Rain Forest. According to Paul the impact of losing 224,000 square miles of rain forest since 1980, is the same as a lap dancing club staying open in Portsmouth. Pauls stupidity is compounded when we remember some months ago how a group of loggers in the Amazon tied up and burned alive a six year old native girl. That's a serious issue and it deserves world wide attention, what goes in the Amazon will absolutely affect the rest of the world, what goes on in 'Elegance' in Portsmouth will only affect local crime rates if the place is closed. I say this because I have already demonstrated that incidences of violence flatline in areas where there are clubs.

Paul Nelson - Radder Than Thou

Sanity comes in the form of Ben Norman, who seems to know Paul Nelson of old and we love the 'cringe' comment. Ben talks some sense when he says that 'no true socialist supports the loss of jobs', but it seems that its not true socialists that we are talking about, its designer socialists and their designer feminist pals that are running these shows. Ben explains that nothing comes for free and that if anyone is calling on the council to close clubs, alternative jobs must be made available for those that are affected. Nice idea Ben, but its not going to happen.

That said, it's possible that Ben doesn't really understand how the industry works, especially when he states that it's social and economic problems that force women to seek employment in clubs. No one is forced but we do seem to keep seeing this viewpoint crop again and again.

We bring this article to a close, with Kathryn Rimmngtons comment, where sadly she demonstrates that she either doesn't understand what Ben Norman said or doesn't care when she mentions some kind of long term planning that apparently accords with Bens views, apart from the fact that the 'long term plan' will make loads of women redundant.

I don't know what you think, but debates like this only convince me that the participants aren't fully in sync with the real world. This isn't 'Sim Portsmouth', this is real life with real people who will suffer as a result of the imposition of a groups twisted principles to local society.

Anyway, stay tuned for the next and final episode where Charlie Dacke accuses Equity and GMB members of being prostitutes. No I'm not joking, it's about the best comment that she has ever made and will be one that comes back to haunt her.

Postscript: I have learned that since this time Charlie refused to debate with TonyN on the basis that she will not engage with people that 'buy women', best of all however is the fact that she deleted just about everything she could find. The problem for Charlie is that she deleted everything about three weeks too late...