Let's Hear it for Mayor Marvin

So Marvin Rees the good christian politician has won the Mayoral race in Bristol for Labour, so now we need to see if what he said on International Women's Day was a soundbite of if he really does intend to try and make people unemployed because of his moral stance. Esme Worrell debated with Marvin on BBC Radio Bristol and then she then met up with him over coffee for a 1 on 1 chat. She produced this video as it seems Marvin has not followed up on a promise to stay in contact with Esme. Please watch the video and listen carefully.

Now you will note that I have suggested that Marvin is acting from a moral point of view rather than a conclusion based on empirical data. We have seen Eaves withdraw Lilith before they shut down and Inspector Drummond make comments on Newquay that were based on an opinion rather than fact because the opinion was proved to be wrong.

Marvin, let us point out to you that we claim no causation between the presence of clubs and the fall of rape figures. However the review conducted by Camden concluded that that there was no causal link between clubs and crime. We also saw that incidences of rape in Newquay reduced after the introduction of SEVs. Nor will we claim causation with the increase in rape with the closure of the SEV in Wandsworth over the same period as Camden. Is there a correlation? 3 figures suggest something but I would never claim them to be causation, I am never as arrogant as people with a point to prove that cherry pick data to fit their beliefs.

So Marvin, you haven't followed up on your discussion with Esme. I saw cherry picked figures and data by Bristol feminists using figures for the Police crime impact zone which contains nightclubs, bars, restaurants as well as SEVs which were used to make a point. Yet applying the metrics to all 254 clubs in 2011 we saw that 80% of venues were not causing issues in comparison to night clubs and pubs. Those that did have high figures all were based in the areas of local night time economy and it would be difficult to assign blame to the clubs, this is noticeable in the club license renewals when the police could shut down a nuisance venue which has happened. Some clubs may have problems associated with them but the vast majority have no links to any violence, no matter what so people might "claim". So Marvin you have had an opportunity to review the data and possibly change your mind, I sense however that your christian morals will be driving you down a certain track of opinion but remember clubs cannot be judged on moral grounds. So are you going to let your personal beliefs decide a political aspect of the governance of Bristol?

We would assume that Bristol would need to go to a consultation but given how such exercises Tower Hamlets, Hackney and even Leeds have unfolded, the supporters of the clubs have learned to become active. So if we do get an imperial edict from Mayor Marvin flexing his muscles, everyone will realise that he doesn't account for data, only his moral viewpoint. Marvin could read Leeds University research about dancers and their satisfaction with work or the collaboration of Kent and Loughborough on sexscapes and the impact of SEVs on local environments. Not everything is perfect but you would expect a Labour politician would support workers and encourage unionisation via Equity and GMB. But given Mr Rees strong religious convictions we suspect he doesn't want to see any data unless it backs his view of the world.

All we want is a level playing field and people not to apply their morals to everyone else. Now go follow Esme and East London Strippers Collective and show them the support of clubs, customers and other dancers because if we back down once we will see people impose their morals on us.

Marvin, one final point. In the midst of Tower Hamlets campaign to close every club in the borough, dancers organised and held a public forum, which was covered by the blog here. The keynote speaker at this event was someone called John McDonnel, a person who I feel you may be familiar with. John made the following observations...

"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 made this comment as well and Marvin, I strongly recommend you read this carefully, so as to avoid any embarrassment later...

"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."

Sadiq Khan has just been elected Mayor of London with the expressed intention of being a Mayor for all Londoners. Marvin, you are now Mayor of Bristol, so why not follow the example of Mayor Khan?


Esme twitter @esmeforeal and Instagram @cerebralslut.

ELSC http://www.ethicalstripper.com/ twitter @ethicalstripper

TonyN (tonyprince@acdcfan.com

Get Out Your Scissors

Back in October 2013 (here) I wrote an open letter to councillors about the usual misconceptions they have/had about SEVs and how they are portrayed. After a discussion on twitter with a dancer about the fact dancers and customers need to mobilise and write in when licenses are being renewed rather than the usual apathy that is shown I have decided to bring up to date the arguments and suggest how dancers could word things for themselves along with customers. Clubs and dancers may not always agree but the one thing that you do both agree on is that clubs should not be targets for a moral minority. As an example Wrexham turned down a new venue after a petition of over 100 names signed against the club. In favour 1 e-mail of support and the person who wrote it did not come from Wrexham. Local press piece here but you see from the arguments there is nothing new against the clubs. Fact there are already two is the given reason and that is the limit that was set but lack of support is a killer of clubs.

So this will be long winded but I don't intend to write a template that the brain dead can just cut and paste. I have no doubt some people will but the intention is to make people think so when they write in they can personalise their arguments. Some of the research has been done by myself so no peer review as such but all my claims are backed either by the police.uk database of crime or freedom of information requests. Anything I claim in terms of mathematics can be tested, and I am sure some feminists have looked at my figures because I know that Object at least will look at this blog. Guess everyone checks what the opposition is up to.

I want to discuss the claims that use to be made by many feminist groups that there is a link between SEVs and rape. The feminists have withdrawn the Lilith report on which this claim was made as when examined closely the figures are discovered to be cherry picked. This blog obtained the raw data for Camden and also for Wandsworth to use as a control, the Chelsea Reach was closed in Wandsworth in 1997 so a 12 year review was done based on this and in Camden the figures show a fall in rape whilst in the control where the SEV was closed rape increased. Add to this the claim made by Inspector Drummond about SEVs in Newquay where he claimed rape had increased because of the clubs. Instead under a freedom of information request by a local paper the figures show a 50% fall in rape and Inspector Drummond admitted he had just made an assumption without checking the facts. Finally Leeds recently closed 3 clubs, 2 were very close together. Since the closure sexual and violent crimes have increase 200%. Now none of these figures are claimed as causal effects but it does show that there is absolutely no link to rape or sexual crime because of clubs and it seems in fact the opposite could be true.

Of course there are claims of an increase in general crimes especially drunken and insulting behaviour. Whilst no one would ever claim this does not happen it is between 5 and 10 times less likely than outside an ordinary night club. The research done by Kent and Loughborough Universities show that people do not see clubs as causing a disturbance and they are much more likely to indicate a pub or restaurant as a nuisance than a SEV. It is noticeable how rarely the police raise issues with clubs when they apply for a license or a renewal, this should indicate to any right minded individual that SEVs do not cause issues in the way a nightclub might.

You often hear the ill informed make claims about SEVs and trafficking. This shows the person raising the issue has done no research and hasn't even thought it through. When you consider that both high profile investigations into Trafficking Pentameter I and II did not bring one charge against the clubs you realise just how stupid the claim of trafficking sounds. And into that the fact that the council can investigate dancers and clubs paperwork at any time and you realise that the claims sound more ridiculous than ever yet people will make this claim. And to add if I was a dancer writing a letter/e-mail I would add in here the years danced and the fact you have never seen a trafficked dancer.

And of course there is always the classic that dancers offer sex in the clubs. Now I will not claim that this has never taken place but the impression is that every dancer is offering services, part of the fault for this concept is the misuse of the words Lap Dancing? It implies grinding which under the current licensing regulations doesn't happen but because those people who make moral judgements want to close the clubs the use stigmatising language to create a web of deceit about what goes on in the clubs. Councils impose distances between customers and dancers and clubs have rules against dancers meeting customers outside of work which would be a pretty good reason why services don't occur. Of course dancers use suggestive language to encourage customers to have private dances which to the uninformed could sound like offers but this is a marketing ploy and not a reality.

Now everyone's favourite issue is the effect clubs will have on children, because people naturally want to protect children they assume the worst without performing any critical thinking. Children have no idea what goes on in the clubs up to a certain age and the fears that parents have that the clubs will corrupt the children are just superimposed issues from the parents own impression of the clubs. The statement how do I explain the SEV to my child makes an assumption the child will look at blacked out windows with x ray eyes because kids couldn't see in and wonder what is going on. Club operating hours are not exactly open during school hours. Kids can't get in either so the whole issue is down to the parent and their imaginary fears. Parents will imprint their moral views and judgements and use a statement that is in no way related to reality so councillors should realise the truth about these claims.

The press often create fears due to using the sexualisation of the clubs to sell papers or increase page clicks. Photos of scantily clad women will draw men to view the page and feminists to police the page. There are often no issues with license renewals from the police but a little scaremongering by the press can create issues that shouldn't exist. Millions of visits happen to clubs every year without any issues but that wouldn't sell anything so the press will often manipulate stories to create an image that can generate traffic to the web articles.  This is a deliberate scaremongering ploy but people will be suckered into it. hopefully sensible councillors will realise this.

And now I want to tackle objectification, this is messy at best because I am male and I can't answer for how dancers feel, certainly I have known dancers who have revelled in the attention, but I don't speak for the dancers, in any letter a dancer writes she will have to decide what she wants to include or not. Yesterday I wasted several hours of my life reading scholarly papers about Sexual Objectification and in my humble opinion a lot of it is dressing up natural reactions with big words to make it sound bad when in reality it is someone applying their moral standards to other people. I am personally use to being objectified, not in the same way but judged by others for my looks and also being judged for the size of my wallet, I accept it because human beings do these things subconsciously. As to the claim about objectification about policing women's bodies I would suggest those making those claims remember that dancers can work 4-6 hours a shift and with several shifts a week doing a very physically demanding job you will get a lot of exercise especially when working on the pole. I doubt that many other jobs are as physically demanding. Yet if you look at other jobs when body image is policed no one complains about that! Ballet dancers have to monitor their weight, sportswomen have to watch what their eat, drink and social activities. No one suggests that this is bad it only happens when people see the word sex and the dirty image it creates.

Finally there is the claims of exploitation and here is where the clubs may not be too pleased with what I am saying but yes we accept there are some exploitative practices in the industry but rather than just closing clubs and making lives difficult for those who people are talking about being exploited the councils should be working with clubs and dancers to create a better working experience, certainly this would make for a better experience all round and the customers would benefit from dancers that are even more happy. Leeds University research in 2009 showed that dancers enjoyed their worked and 87% had some form of higher education so we are talking about intelligent women making free choices and enjoying their work being policed by a moral minority. The research by Kent and Loughborough Universities showed only 3% of people felt there was no place for clubs so any claims of exploitation come from a small minority of people using terms to create a negative image. No job is perfect and many jobs are exploitative but the 2009 study showed that most dancers are satisfied or better with their work. Once again what we have is the use of language to conceal the moral outrage. If these people were truly concerned with exploitation they would be working with the dancers to improve conditions not shut down clubs.

I did say this would be a lot of verbal, but most of the answers to the objections that I could think of are here. If people want ideas of things that could be brought up when councils meet then this isn't a bad starting place. But we need dancers and customers writing in about every license renewal and if we hear of a new club then we should be supporting it. If clubs close it is not because the moral minority are write but the majority of us are lazy.

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)

The Hubbard Report - An Initial Reaction

TonyN has been looking at initial results of The Hybbard Report and has provided StrippingTheIllusion with his initial reactions....

Well, many readers may have heard of research being carried out by Professor Phil Hubbard on Sexual Entertainment venues. The initial results are in, and although the full results are not due until March 2013, I have been given permission to produce a synopsis of the report. I will say at the outset of this post that the majority of the report is not surprising and does no harm to the industry; there is one sticking point which I will discuss in more detail and explain why I feel that it is not likely to affect the industry.

There are 241 licensed premises regularly offering lap dancing or striptease in England and Wales. Nearly half (43%) of those applying for a Sexual Entertainment Venue (SEV) license have received no formal objections at all. This doesn't really come as much of a surprise: most people are not bothered about the venues and there tends to be only a small handful of complainants who may write in. Given that Portsmouth managed to obtain a massive response following a very vocal campaign by pressure groups to get the clubs shut down, with 113 against and over 3000 for the venues, the fact that some clubs receive no objections at all should not surprise anyone.

A survey of residents in towns and cities with lap dance clubs suggests that around one in five were not even aware there was an SEV operating in their town or city! Fewer than one in ten identified an SEV as a particular source of local nuisance, and in some locations this was considerably lower. Once again not a surprise, as we have seen previously from my report on crime that the belief that venues are an issue for police is a fallacy.

Some key quotes from the report follow:-

'Women, those over 40, those who have lived in their current home for over 5 years and those with children are most likely to argue there are too many lap dance clubs in their town. Women, those with children and the over 40s are least likely to suggest that striptease is harmless entertainment and most likely to suggest it attracts criminal elements and promotes sexism.' 

Without seeing the full breakdown of those commenting it is hard to judge how impactful this statement is.

'Around one in ten in our survey suggested there is no suitable location for lap dancing clubs. Very few believe clubs are suitable near schools, though the majority (55%) regard town and city centres as appropriate locations.' 

So here we have less than 10% completely against venues. And these would be women, those aged over 40, etc. And the fact that over half of the people surveyed were happy to have them located somewhere is a strong message in line with the responses to public consultations.

'Walk-along events were used to gauge the impact SEVs had on the night-time economy in four case study locations. These suggested that SEVs were not the most significant source of fear or anxiety for participants, with most instances of antisocial and rowdy behaviour being associated with other venues, notably pubs.' 

I am once again unsurprised by this. We have seen that violent and sexual crimes do not appear around venues on average and that pubs and night clubs are much more likely to have a history which would disturb people walking past.

'Women were more likely than men to pass comment on SEVs and express un-ease or anxiety about them. None argued that SEVs were a major source of antisocial behavior, or were able to cite any instances of harassment, noise or violence associated with such clubs: concerns appeared to coalesce around the normalization of male-oriented sexual entertainment and the encouragement of sexist attitudes among younger people.' 

This suggests that moral anxiety and disgust, rather than fear, may underpin many objections about SEVs. I almost burst out laughing when I read this! Mainly because the one thing that has been said by the new law is that moral grounds CANNOT be used as a reason to close a venue, and yet here we have research which shows that the only real objections are on moral grounds. Those local authorities that have put 'nil' policies in place might want to consider this.

SEVs which were discrete in terms of their signage, naming and exterior appearance appeared to generate least comment or concern. Sexist imagery and names were objected to by many of our participants. Well have to say this would be fair comment, after all some venue names were not well thought out. In terms of marketing signage should be appropriate.

Thinking about the days the barbers had a candy stripe pole to show who they were. Serious note though: when you look at Shayler's, the venue certainly doesn't look sexy; a balance between advertising and not embarrassing people as they walk past.

Well, the report goes on to outline methodology and the aims of the research. When the full report comes out, I may break these down, but wanted to get the results out. Here we go with the results:

'Our survey found that 22% of respondents who lived in towns with one or more SEVs present were unaware of these premises. One in four of those who were aware of such premises had visited a lap dance venue: of the rest, most had become aware of a venue by seeing on the street rather than reading about it in the media.'

Almost a quarter of people surveyed didn't even know that a venue was in the town. Also 18% of the people surveyed had been in the venues.

The issue with signage does come up here, the fact that venues attract their first time customers by the imagery. A discreet solution? Or maybe advertising that only works after the watershed. This could and should be discussed between venues and councils.

'One in five respondents identified a venue in their town that they thought caused particular nuisance: 65% of these were pubs or clubs, 20% take-aways or off-licenses and 15% SEVs. Pubs were most likely to be associated with noise, take-aways with littering and lap dance venues with crime and antisocial behaviour. This implies only around 3% of our respondents felt that an SEV was a source of particular nuisance. This can be contrasted with another UK survey (n=1875) where 57% of respondents felt clusters of sex premises would have detrimental effects on the vibrancy and vitality of their local high street (cf. 36% for fast food outlets and 19% for pubs/bars) (Local Government Association, 2012).'

Only 20% of people identified places as a nuisance and in real terms, just 3% of people thought venues caused issues. When you take this with the earlier research where people felt venues would cause a problem, it really puts pay to the claim of clubs causing a nuisance.

'Overall, 83% of people think SEVs are unsuitable near Schools or Nurseries, 46% near Universities/Colleges, 65% near religious facilities, and 45% near shops. Only 3% think SEVs are suitable in residential areas, 10% in rural areas, and 15% in industrial areas, though the majority (55%) feel town centres are suitable. Around 1 in 10 claim there are no suitable locations for SEVs. This group is most likely to regard SEVs as promoting sexism, and least likely to regard it as harmless entertainment. This group is most likely to report avoiding walking past SEVs at night. However, this group does not have an over-representation of people with children in the household, even though this was the population most likely to report nuisance from SEVs.'

Okay, everyone seems to have a different opinion here. The majority opinion is that Town Centres are okay. Interestingly 10% are against all locations so 90% are not against venues located somewhere. Very much expecting this with a NIMBY approach by some people colouring the results. I would take the 90% as a positive result although I think the researchers had to tone the results.

'The implication here is that SEVs are not regarded as a significant source of nuisance by the majority, but that a significant minority feel such clubs are inappropriate because they promote sexism, crime and encourage antisocial behaviour. This group appears to harbour concerns that SEVs might encourage and normalize particularly negative attitudes towards women. Perceptions of SEVs therefore appear to be strongly shaped by gender, though men living with children in their household, and those over 40, also appears significantly more likely to be opposed to lap dance venues. Religion and ethnicity made no significant difference to attitudes to SEVs.' 

The key phrase here is "a significant minority": without the actual figures, it will be hard to judge just how significant that minority is. Considering the fact the report said earlier that venues are not associated with nuisance crime reports, the fear of crime and antisocial behaviour is unfounded, and you then have to consider whether that minority willing to change their views, or if they have fixed opinions with little or no truth behind them. As to the negative attitude towards women, the people I have met over the years in venues are the least likely to have them: not saying we are all perfect or saints, but people would be much better looking at the imagery and lyrics in modern music as shapers of sexism in young people.

'Around one in three of our respondents claimed to feel reasonably or very unsafe walking in the city at night. This group was significantly more likely to say there were too many SEVs in their town than those who felt safe, and more likely than any other group to say they would avoid walking past a lap dance club at night. Women were significantly over-represented in this group, suggesting the presence of SEVs in the night-time city may have gendered effects. This was explored in our guided walks, which suggested women were more likely to note, and comment on, the presence of SEVs in their local towns than men. Here, unease about SEVs appeared more related to questions of class, morality and disgust than fear, with SEVs contribution to antisocial behaviour and rowdy behaviour deemed marginal, and in some cases insignificant, compared with other venues.'

Part of the methodology was to take people from the survey around town including walking past venues. The important thing to note is the claims of fear made to the survey suddenly seem to dissipate and become moralistic judgements. The statement we so often read about venues causing women to fear them seems not to be as accurate as we were lead to believe.

'Notably, SEVs that had discrete signage, were well-kept and did not overtly sexualize the public realm appeared least likely to provoke unease among participants in our walk-along events, who were concerned about the impact of advertising on children.'

This comes down to discussing signage with councils. I have no doubt that providing both parties are willing to co-operate a positive result will be forthcoming

We now move onto to the conclusions, some are no brainers others will require a little thought:-

'Opposition to SEVs appears mainly based on perceptions that clubs normalize sexism and promote anti-social behaviour rather than any direct experience of crime. Those who have children in their home appear significantly more likely to describe existing SEVs as a source of nuisance, while women are most likely to argue for fewer SEVs.'

So, belief that something is wrong rather than fact, which we have said so many times. Remembering that only 3% of respondents describe a venue as being a nuisance, this is such a small minority that until we see that full breakdown of figures, I question the significance of the statement.

'However, not all clubs are perceived to have similar impacts on their locality, and some communities seem more accepting of SEVs. Some clubs are judged to be better managed, and some locations as more suitable. This implies the need for considering each application on a case-by case basis. Irrespective, current approaches based on excluding SEVs from residential areas or near schools appear to be widely supported. However, few regard SEVs as a major threat to children’s safety, suggesting concern is primarily about the normalization of particular attitudes towards women among young(er) people.'

I do not doubt some people will worry about this, but discrete venues should not be an issue. The provision for venues in suitable locations should minimise exposure to children and considering the opening times of a lot of venues changes in signage will mitigate the risks to children. Although nothing will help them with the sexualisation on TV.

'The implications here is that licensing needs to take seriously its commitment to Gender Equity and Equality, and that objections based on grounds of sexism and morality might be considered when determining licensing applications given these might have implications for the appearance and naming of clubs (noting most people first become aware of lap dancing clubs in their city by seeing them on their streets).' 

This sentence took a little aback after all the positive messages in the report. However, we should note that the use of the moralistic approach to judging venues was not put in place in the previous change in the law; so currently trying to take a moral approach would go against the legal position. I would question morals being a guideline especially as they cannot give a standardised approach. So the question is if a moralistic view was taken on SEVs what would follow? It would certainly be interesting to see a test case before the European Court about whether a business be closed on moral grounds.

Overall a very positive report, certainly going back to a case by case review rather than this misfiring nil policy. I think that in a survey that was performed on 941 people and only 10% totally against venues once again shows the moral high ground is extremely wobbly, with nowhere near as much support as campaigners against striptease venues had hoped.