Leeds Redux Mumsnet Strikes Back

So this was a piece I was intending to write after the ELSC exhibitions and performances. However certain feminists have been busy commenting on my flying penis avatar on twitter, which of course would be very easy for me to comment on and mock. But to be honest the way these feminists have been carrying on they need no help from me on creating a highly amusing set of comments. So who are these warriors of truth, justice and the feminist ways? Well it is our good friends on the Mumsnet feminist boards, you know the ones who raise a hue and cry based on beliefs rather that facts. No apologies for the length of this piece nor on the lack of images.

As people who read the blog regularly know I have a fascination with crime figures and when I did a comparison on the Lilith report with a control being Wandsworth and allowing for population changes which Lilith didn't do the figures changed a tad with rape falling over 12 years in Camden and increasing in the control being Wandsworth. So we were seeing pointers towards the fact that any claims of links to sexual violence were in fact a little off. Add to this the figures produced by a local paper in Newquay after a certain Inspector Drummond opened mouth and engaged foot and any claims about the fact that SEVs cause sexual violence seem to have disappeared. However facts can never keep a good Woozle down.

So if people remember I produced figures around every single SEV in England and Wales back in 2012 for the year 2011. Now the methodology wasn't mine but one used by Bristol and Coventry feminists in the campaign against clubs in those areas. They took an arbitrary 50 metres around each club and assumed any and all violent and sexual crimes were linked to the SEV at the centre of the zone, now I have no idea why 50 metres but it does create an image of what happens around SEVs apparently. The methodology was created by Bristol and they passed the figures for Bristol to Coventry Women's Voices for them to use in their campaign. So I had figures for 2011 for the Headrow in Leeds where 2 clubs closed and now the clubs have been clubs long enough that I can do a comparative analysis of what has gone on since the 2 clubs in the area closed, the clubs were fairly close to each other and created overlapping fields of influence so I have taken the two as a single entity.

Looking back at 2011 we saw a grand total of 15 sexual and violent crimes whilst from August 2014 to July 2015 37 violent and sexual crimes in the same area. So 12 months and allowing for any residual impact of the clubs on the area I worked back from the latest date for one year. Not rocket science and to be perfectly honest I am not sure if proves much other than the claims made by radical feminists in an effort to close clubs are not based on any sort of reality. If I was a victim of sexual or violent crime in the Headrow area since the SEVs closed I would be questioning the council about the fact that no impact analysis was done on the closing on venues and losing bouncers and CCTV. I e-mailed the licensing committee to ask if anyone had thought to consider what might happen if the clubs closed and was told the licensing committee had no interest in doing an impact analysis as they could not see any possible reason. And this is where the ignorance created by claiming clubs cause Sexual Violence people will not think that losing CCTV and door staff could possibly have a negative impact.

The fact is after looking at every venue in England and Wales back in 2012 I can be certain that the only places that have localised issues with sexual and violent crimes are night clubs. So I am certain there will be a backlash from this after all this is only a blog and I don't get peer reviewed as I don't publish papers. What I do is look at claims pointing SEVs as being linked to sex crimes. The clubs are no more linked than banks or even women's centres. The claims were made and the fact is the claims have no bearing on reality, so please if you are going to make claims about the clubs please be aware I will be here to double check any claims. I could pick a woman's centre in a locality that has a lot of sexual and violent crimes close by and make the whole thing look incredibly edgy.

One thing that has had me laughing about Mumsnet boards is that one section of the feminists have basically ignored all evidence including Eaves withdrawing Lilith and still believe that SEVs cause localised sexual violence, this might be called cognitive dissonance? And on the other hand some being accepting of the facts are now trying to justify the attitude of close all clubs because they allow men to let off rabid misogyny and come out of the club worse than when they went in. Now apart from the fact there was almost two separate groups of radical feminists with diametrically opposed points of view the thing that I found most funny (apart from the fact I am supposedly crazy enough to post on mumsnet boards posing as a feminist) was that certain people on the board quoting Lilith and associated gems was on the board when Object were forced to remove Lilith from their resources (well played Sausage) so they surely knew what they were saying had no basis in fact but they just couldn't manage to hold back. So the fact that Leeds has such a dramatic change since the club closed it does raise a question why? I will be going back over my 2011 figures and comparing them to clubs that have closed elsewhere and see if the issue is consistent or does it take a large City for this sort of thing to happen?

Finally I know those who accept there isn't a direct link between clubs and sexual violence are already looking for ways to still blame clubs but now the club is a breeding ground of misogyny that will be brought out of the clubs and will affect women everywhere. Interesting that any time one argument fails there seems to be a rush to find another excuse to back the belief system that clubs are evil and need to be eradicated. I am amazed that the belief system refuses to die amongst those who want to close clubs and that claims still rattle out regularly because to actually realise the claims are based on nothing other than a belief and that clubs are not the evil they imagined.

TonyN (tonyprince@acdcfan.com) for flying penises everywhere!

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)

What If? Crazy but What If

So this goes out especially to Kate Smurthwaite who blocked me on twitter, she apparently works with survivors of the sex industry but I have spent a long time looking through her Twitter time line and her business website and I must be going blind or something as I can't see anything. So if anyone could point me to the bit I have missed I would really love to she who she has worked with and hear their experiences. This all started off after Dr Brooke Magnanti pointed out that Lilith was not empirical data, now Kate hadn't said anything directly but was busy with her campaign buddies Object outside Spearmint Rhino in Camden so seems a legit thing to point her at. So rather than empirical data today I want to explore a what if scenario. Based on figures from the daily mirror that came out recently that linked to violent behaviour and porn (see article and graph here). This works if your belief system is that there is a link between porn and SEVs with sexual violence.

So we see a decrease in violent crime which would include sexual violence such as rape as the growth of the internet and gaming start and take hold. Now we also know something that fits that time line and that is the increase in SEVs. So why am I so interested in this you may ask? Well obviously something must have sparked my interest and that was the outcry about the increase in Rape last year and it really set me thinking about what has been happening in the last year that could (please note I said could it is only my thoughts) have had such a negative impact that rape has risen back to 2003 figures when it had been falling before hand. In the last year or two what has been changed in the environment that could have such a profound effect? Well we have seen the closure of SEVs all over the Country and it does seem a little coincidental that when clubs close rape goes up. If you extend this to porn you would think the application of filters being part of the reason rape increases

Could we be seeing the closure of what are in fact a pressure valve for sexual tension which dissipate relatively harmlessly inside clubs. Dancers are often seen by those associated with the industry as almost like social workers who engage with guys on an equal footing based on what we are prepared to spend. Doesn't matter if you are ugly or disabled they don't objectify their customers beyond being a walking cash point. We know this and accept it. Add into this the club etiquette and you have an environment that educates guys to respect women, if we don't the dancers can easily have a guy kicked out. Not saying every guy is an angel or that we learn this in one visit but clubs often are a fantastic way to teach guys that dancers are more than just body parts. There are guys that will never learn, there are the guys who want to be in control but their control only lasts as long as their wallet which is why I suspect a lot of guys who have control issues will want to find other ways of controlling women.

Now I can't prove this but when you consider the really figures over an extended period for Camden saw rape drop and that the same applies to Newquay and also when Wandsworth saw the Chelsea Reach close rape went up you ask questions. Add to this a downturn in the number of clubs at the same time as an increase in rape you brain has to go just how coincidental is it? Could it be that the campaigns by radical feminists are in fact part of the reason rape has increased? No it can't be can it? I mean just because the figures seem to say that I have no empirical proof and I would never claims causal effect without hard facts but what if?

This is a pretty silly statement that I could never prove but then I have seen claims by radical feminists that are loopier with less data to back them up being used as absolute proof. What feminists should be doing is working with dancers to better working conditions but they want to help free choice by taking it away. The above only really make sense if you operate on the belief system that certain sections of radical feminism seem to operate on. At this point I would suggest the real reason for a 31% increase in rape was cold cases being re-examined and the backlash from Yewtree as factors.

TonyN (tonyprince@acdcfan.com)

Once Upon a Time Councils Were Less Lazy

TonyN here. Something I never got my head around was the disjointed way each council approaches dealing with SEVs, seeing recently the situation in Scotland where you would question the way they put their message out and how some peoples points of view were conveniently edited so it looks like everyone really wants nil policies. Certainly given the report by Julie Bindel that was done for Glasgow Council back in 2004 you would say certain sections of the political spectrum were busy justifying their approach to dealing with clubs even though any sane person would at least question the report's methodology and we certainly did here and here.

Normally I don't discuss the issues that crop up when dealing with councillors but I think the very brief "discussion" I had with Councillor Nevins of Southend highlights that the way a Councillor thinks is made up long before logic, reason and empirical evidence come into play. Once the original thoughts had been shown to be a misconception it is easier to ignore any future questions.

This sort of highlights the issues we have when dealing with "elected members" they don't have to explain what they think on every subject they may have to vote on. So green reflected a lot of things on how I view the world but some have very strong religious beliefs and this they bring to the table when discussing SEVs even though moral objections should be ignored. So why are we now having all the confusion about what is right and what is wrong. I have at the time of writing this had no reply from Nevins about if she had even bothered to read the links I sent her. The first was Lilith and the second was the crime figures from 2011 for England and Wales which would show that her electorate should have no issues with clubs (except probably in their minds.

So we have a complete mess in that no council has an even handed procedure, the approach of each council is such that they operate on complete random structures and worse no one knows who is being fair and who is judging on a moral basis. We know that crime is less likely around SEVs from my study in 2011, we know that there is no link to rape so we know there is no empirical data that would cause councillors to feel they can judge what clubs are like without even looking at proposals. We have seen how some councillors have pushed and manipulated situations like Rebecca Charlwood in Leeds and her "working Group" that had all but one of it's members against clubs and no input from clubs or dancers (and customers don't count).

So what am I asking for? A standard approach to how councils deal with club renewals, a standard approach to how councils deal with new applications. The concept of nil policy abandoned and each case judged on its merits, if there are issues then there should be no reason a council cannot turn down a club. This has been shown in Birmingham that a council can say we feel the club would be inappropriate. So why is it necessary for a council to say they have a nil policy? Basically that says the licensing committee don't want to have to think and that they are judging that the venues are linked to crime in their heads. The number of renewals that I have heard of where the police have no issues because there are no problems is massive and yet we have this situation where councils are fixed on issues that don't actually exist. Yes we know that certain organisations are happy to scaremonger as they try to take the livelihood away from dancers which is obviously an aspect of feminism I never understood that making women who are exercising free choice lose that free choice.

I want to see license fees fixed so clubs know what they are paying and can't use a massive license as an excuse to justify high house fees. If a club doesn't tow the line and breaks the rules then fines/restrictions/loss of license on a sliding scale. One thing that does annoy me is that when you have a population of 200,000 you find 8 or 9 people with complaints (usually based on the fictions trotted out and debunked in the past) and that should not be enough to have an effect. The number of times I have read that the populace is up in arms in an online local "newspaper" only to find that it is a tiny handful just shouting very loudly and giving the press a chance to put up stock photos with scaremongering headlines. There is no trafficking, there are no links to rape and no link to violent crime around venues. We know this, it is time the press and the councils stopped putting their heads in the sand and living in their little fantasies of what they think. Maybe a bit of mandatory research would stop discussions and me needing to e-mail/tweet councillors with the facts they have not discovered. I will mail councillors and/or tweet them from now on if I see the issue of zombie stats or tiny minorities. And I need my readers to point them out to me.

TonyN (tonyprince@acdcfan.com)

Violent Crime Report 2

TonyN has completed perhaps the most comprehensive analysis every undertaken of the incidences of violent crime around lapdancing and striptease clubs. For those of use that know the scene, the results were unsurprising. You can read Tonys first series of conclusions here. In this article, Tony examines the effect that bars not offering striptease have on their neighbours, which in a number of locations in the UK, includes lapdancing clubs....

One thing did strike me when researching crime is why so many had such a low crime rate and whilst a handful had such horrible violent crime rates around them. I was extremely lucky as one City has two venues within 500m of each other and yet the volume of crimes was so different it was remarkable. One had the highest crime rate of any venue and the other certainly did not. I will not name the venues or City as the venues should not be punished for council decisions and I am certain that Object read this blog (wonder why they never say a word?)

When comparing the two venues the results are dramatic. One is located in an area shared with Bars and Clubs and the other has no bars nearby. In 2011 the one sharing with the bars and clubs had 311 violent crimes and yet the other which is very close by had 2. After investigating it seems that the one with bars and clubs is located in an area the police and council has created an artificially closed area to help manage the crime. However with the violence in the area where many bars, clubs and restaurants are located so close together it has made it almost impossible to assign blame to the individual bars or clubs. It is very striking that a SEV located within 500m of this area but outside of it has a negligible amount of crime.

So I have looked into other venues with high crime rates. One similarity possessed by them all is the fact they are located in amongst the towns and Cities night life. When reading council minutes for those areas the police and council has yet to assign any blame to any of the 14 venues with high crime rates around them. Information received from police (which is still minimal) has certainly not shown any venue having any involvement in violent crime.

You have to wonder why Object and other feminist groups speak of violence when the figures show so little. I have no doubt that they will claim that Objectification and that the violence is enacted when the men reach home on their partners. I have never seen any statistically accurate data that would prove that but Object never worry about facts when they would affect a good story line.

I think that Object and their supporters suspect that clubs create 'zones of objectification', areas where violence against women is seen to be acceptable because of the presence of a club. Its rubbish I know, but that is my best guess...

Chasmal

Violent Crime Report

Blog supporter TonyN has just completed a comprehensive analysis of incidents of violent crime in locations around strip clubs. The findings are summarised below and Tony makes a great offer to any club owner who finds themselves under siege by prohibitionists....

I always wondered why Object has never produced a report on violent crimes associated with Strip Bars and Lap Dancing Clubs. After the Lilith report failed so miserably you would think if there was even a grain of truth about the violence they would be broadcasting it all over their site. However the only attempt to use crime figures, that I know of, was the attempt to use Bristol's figures by Coventry Women's Voices. And that was a clever use of figures by putting all 4 venues in one group and using a catchment area that was in the middle of what the Police called a Crime Impact Zone. Obviously I was interested and it turns out that 3 of the venues are in the middle of the area riddled with Bars and Night Clubs. The Police and Councillors were very careful when discussing the venues to assign no blame to any venue.

Anyway this sparked an interest in why I had never seen any figures on the web from the anti striptease supporters. So I did some research based on the same distance parameters as Coventry's presentation and a publicly available tool so anyone could check the figures themselves.

Number of Crimes	Number of Venues	Percentage total of number of venues
Zero	32	13.01
1 to 12	92	37.4
13 to 24	31	12.6
25 to 36	20	8.13
37 to 48	17	6.19
49 to 60	12	4.88
61 to 120	28	11.38
121 and above	14	5.69

These figures include all violent crimes over 2011 near SEVs (as the councils call them) in England and Wales.

I don't need to say too much the figures pretty much speak for themselves. I have contacted the Police about the larger crime figures and so far not much in the way of usable answers but the 2 that were usable both showed NO violent crime associated with the venues in question.

I have written a short report that I am happy to send to venues or their solicitors. If any venues know that there has been a number of violent crimes near them and would like to put their view forward. In both cases my e-mail address is tonyprince@acdcfan.com