Lapdancing - London Bridge safe, but Peckham under threat?
We've had some good news about the plans for a lapdancing club on Tooley Street. The ultimate landlord for the club, Network Rail, have announced that lapdancing will not be permitted and they will evict the club if necessary. The club is still going to open, but apparently as a piano bar (whatever that is). The Southwark Stakeholders are not entirely convinced and plan to keep a close eye on the club as they still fear it will cause trouble in the surrounding area.
So some good news - but the fight to change the council's licensing policy goes on. It's just lucky in this case that the landlord has put their foot down. I'm sure that's largely thanks to the high profile campaign run by local residents, the Dean of Southwark Cathedral and Ken Livingstone. Southwark Council and its licensing policy did absolutely nothing to protect the interests of local residents, businesses and workers. We could easily see more clubs trying to open in the borough, especially as Westminster Council is taking such a tough stance on this.
The latest I've heard is that a club in Peckham is applying for a 24hr license and to have lapdancing. I don't know exactly where it is, but if Streetmap is right it's almost next door to St James the Great Primary School and opposite The Academy @ Peckham secondary school.
Fortunately, unlike the ones in Riverside, the local councillors for Peckham ward and The Lane ward have been quick off the mark and are working with local residents to fight against the application. I'd like to think that the proximity to the schools would be enough to stop this club getting a license, but the club on Tooley Street was right next to children's tourist attractions and that wasn't enough to stop it getting a license under the current Southwark policy regime.
The policy has to change. The consultation on this has started and goes on till the end of September. Have your say here.
Labels: Licensing
posted by Fiona on Thursday, July 13, 2006
10 comments
links to this post
10 Comments:
Fiona, are you now claiming you didn't vote for the policy back in 2005 when it came to full Council?
Only it's a bit odd to imply "Southwark Council and its licensing policy did absolutely nothing to protect the interests of local residents, businesses and workers." as though the policy had nothing to do with the Labour group, yourself included. What objections for example did Labour members on the licensing committee in 2004 raise against the policy in respect of adult entertainment.
Isn't it simply the case that none of you, Labour or Lib Dem, saw this coming until the Tooley Street application happened?
In that respect the Mayor did his first publicity stunt in March, the review was agreed in June and it's likely the revised policy will be at full Council in January. I'd say that was pretty fast turnaround for revision of a policy loophole.
On the subject of loopholes, could you also explain what you as a Labour party member are doing to lobby your Labour government about the elements of the 2003 licensing bill that mean licensing applications are subject to a lower standard of community consultation than planning applications.
Would it be unreasonable to expect the same changes in 9 months and for you to be protesting outside Tessa Jowell's surgeries if that doesn't happen...?
Thank you, Fiona, for making the important point that the Labour councillors in The Lane and Peckham wards are already working with local residents to make sure that the proposed table dancing "entertainment" does not come to Peckham. I really wish that people across the political spectrum - including right-wingers, like the ex-General Secretary of the Pro Euro Conservative Party and unsuccessful Lib Dem Council candidate Andy Meyer - could work together on this. Or perhaps Mr Meyer is not interested in doing this. Is this not the same Mr Meyer whose campaign organiser in Faraday ward and prospective co-candidate was Karl Lindon - the guy who runs Unabashed Hosting,a business that specialises in hosting adult websites including those for lap-dancing and strip-tease clubs? You can read all about Karl and his business interests at www.lindon.org.uk I am sure Andy Meyer would not mind taking a moment from his splenetic anti-Labour rants to let us know why he was quite happy to be a candidate in the same ward as someone who hosted sites whose very existence promote a degrading view of women.
Andy
I realise that you and the other Lib Dems refuse to take any responsibility on this issue, but I'd rather you didn't lie about me. The Labour councillors voted against the council's licensing policy as we felt in was inadequate in a number of areas, to the extent that minor amendments would not have been sufficient. That fact is recorded here http://www.southwark.gov.uk/Uploads/FILE_12062.pdf.
I have also seen the ludicrous claims on your blog that the campaign is all a publicity stunt by the Mayor.
The campaign has been running and supported by the Mayor ever since people found out about the application - again check your facts, a senior member of the Mayor's staff gave evidence at the licensing hearing in December. The campaign has forced the council to review its licensing policy and has suceeded in persuading Network Rail to find a way to stop the club from having lapdancing.
If that's a publicity stunt, I say let's have more of them.
So at the moment my focus is on making sure we have the best possible policy in Southwark within the existing legislation, but I am also very happy to support any sensible proposals to improve the national legislation (two frequent criticisms are about the ward councillor being stopped from giving evidence unless they have actually received complaints from residents and the levels of fees being too low to actually support the service).
If you have any constructive and properly researched proposals I'd be delighted to discuss them with you.
Fiona, on the actual licensing vote, fair enough, I was misinformed. Suggestion withdrawn. I would still though be interested to know what specific objections were raised at the time in relation to adult entertainment clubs that might have pre-empted this problem.
On the publicity stunt, I find it entirely objectionable that your mayor is using public rather than the Labour party's money to run political campaigns. Although I appreciate the source of the former is probably cleaner than the latter.
In respect of the ramblings of your colleague, I'm not sure a party that has taken donations from Richard Desmond is in much of a position to lecture others on the morality of their business interests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Desmond
It seems you are misinformed on a lot of things Andy - including what constitutes a proper answer. Let's try again. How can we believe you have any genuine concern on this issue when you were prepared to run alongside someone who runs a business that hosts adult websites, including those for lap-dancing and strip-tease clubs?
Susan, let's see what you're alluding to here. The stated position of the campaign is that they are not opposed to lap-dancing clubs, only the specific siting of such clubs near schools, tourist attractions etc. I agree with that. Seems sensible to me that if Westminster's policy is legal a version of it should be adopted here.
The campaign are not asking for an outright ban probably on the very sensible grounds that driving such businesses underground is far more likely to lead to the criminal exploitation of vulnerable women and men than legal regulation.
If we're talking about businesses who host websites for lap-dancing clubs I would assume the same standard applies.
So I'm not clear what your point is. Are you going beyond your own campaign to suggest the clubs and any associated business activity should be banned and driven underground or are you suggesting there is something amoral about providing websites for legal, properly regulated activities? Both sound a bit swivel-eyed to me, could you clarify?
Karl's business I note refuses to deal with "hard-core material". Material I believe like Asian Babes and other hard-core pornography that has funded the Labour party.
I think that there are two elements to the concern that people involved with the campaign have. Everyone is concerned about the potential for increases in crime and anti-social behaviour outside the club. Since this is a universal concern this is what the campaign has focused on.
In addition many, but not all, of the campaigners find the concept of lapdancing clubs, porn (soft or hardcore) etc distasteful and are concerned about the possible conections between the clubs and prostitution and sex trafficing.
Susan made the point at council assembly that the vast majority of women working in the industry are migrant workers. I know some people (mostly men like Damien Hockney AM) like to suggest that it is the men being exploited by the women who they claim are well paid exhibitionists. I think that's rubbish. I think the clubs are degrading to women and I very much doubt many of the women who work in them wouldn't prefer to be doing something else.
I don't think it's illiberal or 'swivel-eyed' to be concerned about the growth in these types of clubs. It seems to me that society is taking backwards steps re the equality of women and that the achievements of the feminist movement to reduce the objectification of women are being eroded.
I think it's only right that women in politics such as myself and Susan should be willing to speak out against this.
Re Labour donations, I'd rather the national party didn't take money from Desmond and I imagine you'd rather the LibDems didn't take money from dodgy foreign businessmen. Don't suppose there's much either of us can do about it though.
http://5thnovember.blogspot.com/2006/06/mings-speech-barefaced-quote-of-day.html
There is also the serious point - the whole thing about how banning things connected with the sex industry just takes the “industry” underground seems to have been disproven by what has happened in Sweden when the Govt took the toughest stance that has ever been taken in a democracy and banned a whole raft of things including prostitution. So you don’t have the case of the Courts having to decide with reasonable burdens of proof whether women who travelled from Slovenia or wherever were there consensually or not, the places just get shut down & their owners punished. Reports suggest that Sweden has far less of an “underground” industry than that other Social Democratic country, the Netherlands, that has taken the opposite route & legalised practically everything.
My own frustration with all this is the way it is so often presented as though the whole sex industry is peopled by Christine Keeler-like call-girls whose rights & those of their clients need to be protected . I first got concerned about this issue when I lived in Japan & came across migrant Asian women working in bars & restaurants who never appeared in any official statistics.
As for the “libertarian” argument, wasn’t that the argument some Victorians made for keeping it legal for children to work as chimney-sweeps?
I think this issue very much reflects what happens when you separate “liberal” ideals from socio-economic realities. I personally favour a tougher line than the one the UK Govt has but I still think the recent policy changes are much better than those that predeceded them.
S.
"The club is still going to open, but apparently as a piano bar (whatever that is" - that is rather small minded, isn't it? A piano bar is a bar where you can enjoy listening to live piano music and enjoy a drink without the usual, samey, piped music of most pubs. London is woefully lacking in pubs with live music and especially piano bars. Having made some useful comments, don't ruin it by making flippant, scoffing remarks as to the new plans for the venue - you should be encouraging a wholsome new alternative to the comparative lack of choice for drinking entertainment in the area.
I'm afraid I am still rather sceptical about this establishment, although I agree that a live music venue would be welcome.
I haven't had a chance to visit the bar as yet - I tried to persuade some council colleagues (2 LibDem cllrs and a senior council officer) over there after a meeting at the council's call centre on Tooley Street, but they weren't at all keen and we ended up in Skinkers instead.
Have you been in? Is it popular? What are the prices like?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home