The Woozle's have returned.

TonyN here, as Chasmal has said it seems we have gone full circle and issues we have debunked previously are either already in circulation or feel like they are likely to come back. I have happily, even joyously taken on the fact, figures and misinformation that has come out over the years even though projects like the crime figure (here) have taken many hundreds of hours. If it takes freedom of information request we do dig deep and check any figure that is put out there painting the industry as Satan. I put down what I used as tools to get the figures so anyone can recreate exactly how I worked things out for themselves. It is a matter of honour for this blog that we are honest in any statistics we produce check here for the crime stats based on the claims of Coventry Women's Voices!

Reader's of this blog that go back a few years will remember the woozle effect, what they were and how, no matter how debunked or wrong they were, they would return and be viewed as the whole truth. Well it seems that "Irene Gladdison" was quoted in the Independent and referred to resource material on a pdf. I actually read the article but laughed so hard at basic errors I never dug deeper. However a long term supporter of the blog and and the industry that has often pointed out issues that we may have missed, Brute, noticed the link to the PDF and seeing all the woozles there once again passed on the details. So Brute thanks for this! Just to add in the main article Irene quoted that Hackney has a Nil Policy as does Camden. And I can hear the sniggers in that Hackney has a nil policy but three clubs and the fact that Camden still has venues as well. You do have to wonder who was briefing poor Irene but given the woozles date back to Sasha Rakoff being in Object we could hazard a guess.

The PDF is produced by the women's support project which aims to support women and girls who are being abused, I mean I don't approve of any sort of violence so that we agree on. However the linking to any and everything as a root cause doesn't help because abusers don't need excuses unless they are being prosecuted and then the easy way out for them is to blame something. I have been going to strip venues since 1989 and I don't abuse, you would have thought I would have after so long exposed to the industry but hey facts are important here it seems. Anyway to the point, the PDF and before we even start the last page refers to resources including the defunct Object! So I am guessing the document has been around for a while and no has checked it.

Img hunting woozles

Tracking Woozles can be such fun

First fact was the Julie Bindel report claiming how poorly paid the industry is, and on a bad night it may be, but painted a picture of dancers working for less than the minimum wage. Now I can tell you that Bindel was quoting about the defunct Flying Scotsman strip pub. The last time I went there was on a Friday night and yes girls were getting a pound in the pot from each guy. However there were 40 men each putting a pound in the pot so every dance was earning around £40 to £50 pounds basic not including larger tips from the drunker members of the audience. The channel 4 documentary on the strip clubs of Glasgow was showing dancers earning between £200 and £500 a night. So whilst not wholly inaccurate it does seem Ms Bindel was selective about the truth she presented and certainly the truth plastered on the PDF. They also quote Lucy from the old Object resources page, and all I would say if you couldn't earn why would you continue to pay to work? Yes we know there are bad nights and there needs to be changes so not leaves out of pocket. However closing venues will cost thousands of women their lifestyle/study or put people into debt.

The second big quote is it is just dancing, the project goes on to quote Holsopple who people may remember we debunked previously but just for clarity the report was written about American striptease around 30 years ago by a white middle class Christian group who were looking for more government funding. So no conflict therethen? So you can't claim the moral high ground about this based on a report that has nothing to do with UK never mind the UK under the current regulations. But never let factual accuracy worry you when you attack an industry that is a primary source of income for women especially dancers who study as well. Underneath is a quote from Bindel's report to Glasgow council where they deliberately interviewed drunk men without telling them that they are being interviewed. Apart from the appalling ethics in not telling someone they are being interviewed they chose to target men in a state that would give them the best possible outcome. However yes I can guess they can easily pick and choose what went into the report, not saying it was biased but Glasgow Council chose someone that was known for an anti opinion on strip venues. The other issue was accessing prostitution in Scotland via clubs. The big issue here is Bindel has never explained how the figures were obtained and exactly what was judged to be an offer and the structure of the interview leading to this point. a dancer trying to get a private dance from a customer may say things they never intend to go as far as or the interpretation by Bindel's unknown research that would judge by eyesight in some cases, well you can see how difficult it is to accept that work. To be honest if you wanted a fair report the one person you would not go to is Ms Bindel, you can read my previous pieces here  and here.

The issue of empowerment is not one I can answer as I am not a dancer therefore I have no idea, I have spoken to more dancers than I care to think about but all those I have gotten close to seemed comfortable and happy with the work. Interestingly Bindel is quoted on this page and no dancer was actually interviewed as such. They were approached by people wanting dances, one assumes the dancers did what they normally do to sell dances and that is act. Most dancers could make good actresses and social workers, without making it an open and honest interview with the questions and the structure available to review Bindel's quotes carry no weight. Remember I had to spread over two blog entries just some of the 62 issues I have with Bindel's report. You may want to compare what we publish on this blog to the standard of Ms Bindel's report. We always explain how we accessed the figures and how we got our results. Ms Bindel's vagueness would worry anyone producing work in this field.

Not Buying It finding out we are still awake?

And the best single woozle of them all women go to clubs to and they roll out the Lilith in all it's glory however they don't use the name Lilith. It is worded as Eaves 2003 lap dancing and striptease in the borough of Camden, you can see my the work we did are Lilith here. You can assign a different name to the source material but this blog took the figures and checked them, we went through freedom of information requests, we got population figures and we found a meaningful control council to compare with. To call a report a different name to hide the fact it has been debunked so thoroughly, in my mind, borders on dishonesty. I would ask the person who put this fact sheet together where they got the reference from in the first place as someone is being deliberately misleading. Of course using quotes from the defunct Object is a problem as a lot of the source material has disappeared, fortunately this blog has a lot of background on Object and their campaign of misinformation. Sasha is back but it appears that they are pointing the people in Sheffield at information that perhaps it would be best they confirm what other names the resource has been known as.

So long as the fight continues we will continue checking claims and information.

TonyN

tonyprince@acdcfan.com

And So It Begins - Again

We cannot afford to have our heads in the sand....

Hello there. It's been a while since we last posted, largely because in early 2017, TonyN and I reached the conclusion that we didn't really have much to write about anymore. Organised efforts to close clubs had effectively ceased after the recrimination splattered demise of Object in January of that year. 

But now it seems we have something of a problem...

NotBuyingIt is the vehicle of Sasha Rakoff, Objects first CEO who has decided to relaunch the battle against the strip industry in the UK. The detail of the Rakoff Strategy will be discussed in a future article, what I need at the moment is for every club owner in the UK to take the current campaign very seriously and to understand its objectives.

NotBuyingIt and the other members of the 'Times Up For Stripclubs' Coalition have one aim - the closure of every club and the redundancy of every stripper in the United Kingdom without any exceptions. For the sake of clarity, that achievement of this objective would lead to hardship for thousands of women is not an issue - the coalition simply do not care. Your venue might be an outstanding example of how a club should be run, it might embody the very best management practice, but it will still be targeted for closure. The coalition want one thing - for you to cease to exist as a trading entity and for your dancers to vanish back to where they came from.

If with the above cartoon I have offended anyone by comparing the strip industry to ostriches with their heads in the sand, then I apologise. However, there needs to be greater awareness of the forces that are acting against clubs and their performers and I remain unconvinced that this awareness is widespread. Awareness is essential to counter the forces fighting to destroy the industry and the lives of the people that it employs and engages with.

It was in January 2012 that I launched this blog in response to a fusillade of media abuse of strippers and venues where they worked. It almost seems that we are starting all over again but if that's what it takes - then so be it.

Words and Meanings

Firstly yes it has been a long time since anyone put brain power into the blog but there is a good reason. I am sure Chasmal will be filling us with his wit  at some point but basically the original issue this blog was created to combat has disappeared, I am sure there will be something else to fight and we are still keeping our eyes on councils to make sure the crazies don't get away with changing things without someone noticing. Certainly been watching consultations and hopefully I will get information that I can write about in the near future.

However right now I want to raise issues with the language many councils use in their formal documentation about clubs, the policies and guidelines that to be honest a lot of people would TL:DR (too long didn't read) and guessing most people would read the executive summary and the conclusion which leads to a very misleading interpretation for people would just glance at the documents rather than check each and every point. So what are the things that are bugging me so badly that it could actually inspire me to write something? It comes down to the wording in the definition of SEV which is in every single policy document councils produce.

Every single policy document that I have read (which covers nearly all of England and Wales) mentions Live Sex Shows. Now I have been going to venues for the best part of 30 years and in that time I have to say I have not seen anything that could be classified as such for the last 20 years. Even back then it was rare to see anything naughty at any venue apart from odd Sundays. Now I am sure that stag events would be much more along those lines but when we are talking about licensed venues I don't see how it is possible to have something you could describe as a live sex show and maintain the council policies. In the guidelines for clubs it clearly states in every policy document dancers should in no way allow any penetration or stimulation of the dancer's genitalia. And yes the language the council uses clearly forbids any form of sex show so why would they put it in the description of SEVs?

So I am sure everyone can guess exactly the other issue I have with the policy documents. Yes every single policy document mentions Lap Dancing... and every single policy guideline for dancers forbids contact between customer and dancer. Now unless there is a new definition of lap dancing that I haven't heard then it has been 14 years or so since any form of private dance could be classified as a lap dance. So we have two very strong and totally inaccurate descriptions of SEVs that every reader of policy would see at the outset, but it takes someone who is willing to read pages of councilese to realise that, in fact, the description in no way reflects what happens at clubs.

Now as to why that particular wording is used I am not sure but I do feel that it does automatically creates a belief about what happens in clubs that is in fact a fantasy. Yet it is a fantasy the councils seem to want perpetuate, perhaps to cover anything they miss but in my mind they use the wording to create a negative view of the clubs in a deliberate way. Now it may just be one or two councils that used the wording and it has been copied but I struggle to see how any councillor can approve a policy that is NOT a reflection of the reality of the club. In the future it will be a point I raise about any license or policy that a council produces which does not reflect the reality. If you are going to put the word lap dancing in a policy document and then ban it the council needs to make it clear at the outset as those people who fight against  the clubs have images in their heads that do not relate to reality. And yes they have probably never been in a club so they truly have no idea of what happens.

Now I don't answer as fast as I use to but if you have anything you want investigated obviously you can post it here or you can e-mail me. There will be no writing without something we feel is necesssary to at least discuss.

TonyN (tonyprince@acdcfan.com)

This Is The End....

Yes it's true. 

It was the 6th January 2012 that I published the first post on this blog and we see that 5 years and 5 days later that ObjectNow Ltd has been dissolved. I don't want to post a rambling retrospective, but there is one thing that I do wish to highlight. The first posting attracted a first comment, which you can see below.

I never found out who who wrote the above comment, but it defines why I started this blog. 

For a while, Object had a free rein and were never challenged, but then people started to question their objectives and fight back. The first serious resistance they encountered was the from the dancers of Shoreditch who protested outside Hackney Town Hall when the Council proposed a 'Nil Policy' which would have lead to the closure of 5 clubs. As we know this was Objects first failure. It should be noted that they failed to get a 'Nil Policy' in Tower Hamlets as well. In fact the word 'Failure' and 'Object' became almost synonymous. Actually, that's an unfair comment because there was one area where Object were very effective - fundraising.

Looking back, it is hard to work put exactly how much funding they received but it was almost certainly a low to middling 6 figure sum. The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust were big supporters. Do you remember the £50k Object were granted for some kind of 'exit programme' for dancers? I don't think there were any takers and I always wondered what happened to the money... There was however one donation they received that was never repeated and for the first time I can reveal that I might have had something to do with it...

About 4 years ago I received an email from someone who was interested to learn more about the Object campaign because they felt it was unfair and basically very wrong. I agreed to a telephone conversation and in the interim, tried to learn more about who this person was. I was delighted to discover that her father was a trustee in a charity that made a donation to Object. So a few days later, we spoke on the telephone and I can say that this person was horrified about what Object were getting up to.

"Where do they get their money from"? She asked.

"Well, they got £**,*** from your father". I replied.

"Sorry?" She said after a brief silence.

I told her about the donation that had been made, what is was for and how much and....

"I need to look into this". She said. 

I never heard from her again and I am fairly sure that Object never heard from that foundation again either.

Any other stories I didn't mention before? None that I can tell you without asking for trouble. For example I certainly cannot tell you about the now senior member of the ****** Party that happily accepted a ******** ******** from a club owner only to try their best a few years later to get the the very same club closed. I cannot say who the person in question is, but they like ******* ***** and was described to me as having '**** ****-**** ****'.

We were very respectful to Object and its members. We could easily have blogged about the Object member that **** her ********** in the **** ***** over her late ******* ****. It was in the ***** **** and I noted that she has a very nice ***** that cost a lot of money and was expecting a lot more in return if her **** had been ******. But sadly it *****.

What ever happened to Rania Khan?  I was glad to have stitched her up to Andrew Gilligan.

With all of that money, you would think Object would have been more successful. This blog however was successful and we take partial credit for fighting Object to a standstill because we believe in what we are doing. It was never about the money, although a couple of club owners did make donations in recognition for what we did and they were gratefully received. Not that I got a lot but I did have very nice night out in Leeds as I recall.

So with Object gone, who else is out there? Well Sasha Rakoff tried a reinvention under the name 'NotBuyingIt' and if I recall correctly even pulled in just over £45K from Joseph Rowntree for what amounts to a hastily laid out blog with a few links. The problem for 'NotBuyingIt' is that no one is, so I don't think we need worry about it for the time being.

A successful future for the club scene is now really dependent on the way the clubs are run. It's the same for any business, professional and courteous staff, nice premises and strict adherence to licensing conditions will mean clubs will remain open and viable businesses.

TonyN and I will continue to run this blog, something will come up that merits our attention at some point, but I want the blog to be an archive, a memory of what we all fought for and who we fought against. 

I really haven't got much more to say apart from thank you for visiting (I note that as of today we are at 199,256 page views so I guess before the month is out we will hit 200,000) and I wish you the very best for 2017.

Chasmal

There Had To Be At Least One

I will be honest, it has been nice and quiet for a while with little things brewing outside. But after Chasmal did his piece on the farewell to the White Horse in Shoreditch and the wonderful send off that ELSC did for the closing I was hoping that the world would settle back to market forces deciding if councils let clubs open rather than the prudishness of the council. But today I write about three levels of idiocy, even worse we look at what certain councils are doing including misleading the public.

So we have seen the FoI for York and we know that 50% is not the number of people against all clubs but on York Press they quote 50%! Not sure which but when you factor in the 25% of respondents objected on moral grounds you get an impression. What the council has done has elected to do is take 81 of 329 total respondents and call it 50% because one of the questions was a yes/no. In fact the overall figures 55% disagreed with the statement "it would not be acceptable to have lap dancing clubs in York". Only 39% actually agreed with that statement and many did so on moral grounds. I have commented on the article that someone is deliberately misleading someone either the council misleading the press or the press misleading the public.

Next we move onto the withdrawing of the application of the license for Villa Mercedes. I have read everything that was sent out by the council including an apparent questionnaire from SRASAC the Rape support people. Now I support the work they do, like any decent man (or pervert for the trolls out there) I believe with every fibre of my being Rape is wrong. But they only put forward answers that support their point of view. How many people did they ask? Was it before or after the session? In what way did they avoid coaching when they ask the question? Of course the Local MP is busy claiming credit for the withdrawal of the application but considering the club didn't rally any support and there was a lot of opposition especially from SRASAC the writing was on the wall. The MP had one of her staff involved and there was a lot of quoting that SEVs create misogyny and contributed to sexual abuse in Rotheram. I have yet to see the empirical data that shows a causal effect but we mustn't let facts blind us.

Finally good old Bournemouth have started a consultation that finishes on the 30th September. Having taken a glance there seems to be a common theme like Leeds and York in wording the consultation to try and get an end result that they want. The link to the council site from which you can get to the consultation is here . I am sure those in and around the area will want to write in and protect the clubs or will complete the survey. To be honest I think a lot of people will not even get their heads round how the questions are structured and what the answers mean.

TonyN (tonyprince@acdcfan.com)

So Farewell Then...

Going........going........gone.

As I write this post, it's almost 10.00am and The White Horse is gearing up for it's last day of trading. I have to say that I never imagined that I would open a blog post with that line, but here we are....

The Horse has been a cornerstone of the Shoreditch strip scene for 38 years and as I must have mentioned before, it was the very first strip venue that I visited. Can't remember the year, but it was in the early 90s and pubs were still closing a 3.00 til 5.00. Throughout this time, the place has remained consistently one of best run venues that I have ever visited. But it was also far more than a strip venue, it was meeting place for an interesting bunch of regulars from all walks of life that got together and discussed the issues of the day or anything else that crossed their minds.

Regulars are what a makes a pub and they come and go, some return after a few months, some never come back at all, but for the current bunch, well... some will move to Browns or The Horns but for some others, the closure of this pub means a change too far and they will seen no more.

We also have to consider those most directly affected by the closure, that is the dancers and the bar staff and we wish them the very best of luck in their search for a new place to work.

The reason for the closure is the same that faces many leaseholders in Shoreditch. Freeholders are squeezing their tenants with vast rent increases with a view to making as much as they can out of the floorspace they own and this is what happened here. The White Horse was hit with a 400% rent increase and the owner, Sue Bristow made a business like decision. But most importantly Sue made sure everyone knew well in advance of the last day of trading.

So on this last day we have about 30 dancers performing from about 1.00pm onwards and the roster includes many that have worked their in the past and it promises to be quite a party. The final dance will be performed by one of their most popular and long standing girls and will take place early Sunday morning and then, after a few last rounds, The White Horse will be no more...

What will become of the place? I have heard loads of rumours, but the most credible is that it is going to turned into some kind of pizza restaurant, which will be amazing and I look forward to what it will be next year and how it will change the year after that.

I did my last visit yesterday afternoon, I wanted to be there on the last regular day and I had a good time, said goodbye to the bar staff and some of the regulars and for me, that is enough. I read somewhere that rather than be sad that something has passed, it is better to glad that it existed and that sums up how I feel.

So, to Sue, the bar staff and the dancers, I wish you the best of luck and thank you for 25 years of great times and good memories that will never fade.

Chasmal

York and The Numbers are finally In (plus a little bit more)

Before I start just to say the reason why I haven't written more is there wasn't anything that really needed to be highlighted. Just so happens that I got a google alert, a reply to a FoI request and saw something on my facebook wall all within the same 24 hours so it sort of inspired me to write. I have seen a couple of online paper reports of licenses being granted even though 4 people and a dog have complained and the council received one valid objection (okay maybe not the dog). So here we go with my first for a while and more will depend on the google alerts outstanding FoIs and some research.

So this is a three piece article. Firstly I want to talk about the situation at York, as we know we had a consultation that hasn't been put in front of the committee and from my last piece we know that the view was more in favour of the clubs than against. I have now received answers to my follow up questions and want to highlight a couple of points.

So 78 people objected using such language that it was on moral grounds. So 25% of people are objecting on moral grounds which as we know would not be acceptable if the language was used in objections to a license application or renewal. I certainly see many people would want to discount these answers on the grounds morals should not come into the discussion. Secondly just under 10% of respondents objected to the structure of the consultation which does highlight the fact the language and structure need to be looked at for any consultations. We have seen the situation where Leeds used a structure and this appears to have been copied on more than one occasion now.

I found a google alert in my inbox about an application for a new SEV in Sheffield that would be called Villa Mercedes. Standard blah blah in the local on line paper which reads like it has been copy and pasted and only the names have been changed. However one thing caught my eye is a group called ZeroOption4Sheffield who are campaigning for no clubs in Sheffield which would mean the closing of Spearmint Rhino along with blocking the SEV application. As per usual the thinking for your readers with a template letter is on their blog and they do try to link clubs with child sexual exploitation from the macho culture. This is from no actual research just the belief of a senior policeman who is being quoted. Sort of reminds me of another Policeman saying things about clubs without any facts, unfortunately I cannot think of a way of proving or disproving these beliefs so when challenging that sort of comment I would just try to make people aware it is not a fact just a personal belief.

I have noted on twitter that ZO4S as I will call them have reached out to a few people and the template has probably drawn from other older templates. I find it amazing any group can feel they have the right to attack others in their work because of their moral system. Still the consultation for Villa Mercedes is open till August 2nd and if you want to comment I would suggest you write to Licensingservice@sheffield.gov.uk and anyone who has read this blog for any length of time will know the various arguments. And of course there is the implication that Spearmint Rhino scares women and changes their behaviour. How true this is I am not sure but given the research of Professor Phil Hubbard I doubt the truth of the claim. So I would ask anyone who Lives, Works or may do business in the area to write in... I would say it a third time but think my audience is savvy another to only need two nudges

Finally there is a new video from channel 4 featuring the East London Strippers Collective and you sort of wonder why the groups against clubs don't speak to dancers first but just make moral judgements. Anyway if you want to watch it click here this web episode is well worth a watch especially those campaigners who are against clubs and claim to speak for the dancers. Now go speak to the people whose lives you are trying to ruin (NSFW probably unless you own the company).

TonyN
tonyprince@acdcfan.com