Wicked (part 3)

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  1 2 Next
Current: 1 of 2
Monday 7 July 2003 1.58pm
Please continue any discussion of the ongoing Wicked controversy in this thread.

Editor of the London SE1 website.
Subscribe to our SE1 Direct weekly newsletter.
Monday 7 July 2003 7.50pm
Who's going to tell us what happened at the inquiry today?
Tuesday 8 July 2003 11.45pm
James, I think you can close this thread.

Looks like everybody was pleased with the result of the hearing.

Either that, or nobody got what they wanted..
Wednesday 9 July 2003 8.08am

At Mondays court hearing the liquor licence revocation was set for
December 2003 - the first available lengthy slot in the court diary.

Nemesis wrote "Another reaction to the thread is that the club
capacities were recently altered on its website so potential bookers of the club are no longer being mislead as to the full capacity of the
venue." But as I said earlier on it's not what you say it's what you do and I have to report that it looks like they are still at it.

This Friday night, July 11th, they have three events on: KCs Fantasy Friday (dance), Trees for London (charity), and The Gate (fetish). KCs Fantasy Friday is their regular Friday night event that regularly attracts a 'good' 300 people, with two more events on at the same time it looks certain that they will once again exceed their 300 capacity.

The Sheridans really don't care do they. But then as Nemesis also
pointed out as the club doesn't belong to them, neither are they the
licensees, what have they got to loose?

To use that oft used phrase: Wicked is an accident waiting to happen.

Wednesday 9 July 2003 9.40am

Can I ask a question? I hope you don't consider this impudent, but do you spend every night outside the Wicked entrance with a notebook and camera?

You do appear (certainly to an outsider such as I) to be someone with an unhealthy obsession with the comings (ahem) and goings at Wicked.

In light of the recent public humiliation of a certain cardinal metred out by a certain church, aren't you a little bit concerned about the parallels here, namely that just because you cannot tolerate the sexuality of the people organising and/or participating in fetish events, you seek to try your damnest to stop them from doing it?

You say that their Friday night events regularly attract a good 300 people. How have you quantified this? have you stood there with a click-counter and verified the number of people entering the premises? or are you just looking at the crowd and thinking "ooh, that must be too many people, so I'll try to state it as fact that they are breaking the law".
Wednesday 9 July 2003 7.12pm
If Wicked is operated by one set of individuals and owned by a separate holding company, it really concerns no-one except themselves and the Inland Revenue.

Let us hope they are fully paid up, unlike another business in the same situation, Rupert Murdoch's News International, which despite being owners of the Sun, NOTW and the Times, does not pay a penny in UK tax.

These papers, through their cynical, hypocrotical, exploitative approach to sex and blind support of Blair for Murdoch's personal political ends, are doing the British people a great disservice.

They infect our children with a diet of naked boobs and twisted Victorian views on sex, which daily penetrate right onto the family breakfast table.

Contrast this to Wicked, which is trying to continue its business in private and keep children away from what they are doing.

If Mel wants to be a crusader for public morals, I think he can do us all a real service by using his talents on a more worthwhile target such as Murdoch.

Post edited (09 Jul 03 19:18)
Friday 11 July 2003 2.31pm
Martin Underwood and others,

I don't entirely hold with Mel's views on the sexuality issue of this case, perhaps because I do not understand the whole picture but I do support him in his attempt to show the Sheridans up for what they are and for what they have tried to achieve on the sly.

I also would accept his statements as to capacities as he does not seem to have been wrong yet and the Sheridans themselves are responding to his posts.

It is, frankly a little boring having to read the posts of those who wish to ridicule him and his thread which for those who have just joined the party he started several months and a few hundred posts ago.

Stick to your guns Mel the end is now in sight and the auction is next Thursday !


Friday 11 July 2003 2.34pm
This story from today's South London Press may be of interest

For some reason it's been put in the Lambeth section of the SLP site

Editor of the London SE1 website.
Subscribe to our SE1 Direct weekly newsletter.
Friday 11 July 2003 4.02pm
S Pilot:
"It is, frankly a little boring having to read the posts of those who wish to ridicule him..."

So, it's boring to read posts from people against Mel's views, but not boring to read Mel's own posts? hmm.

Moving back on track, I read the article that James' last post referred to with interest, as I can't help feeling the Dean of Southwark is digging one almighty (pardon the pun) grave for himself. His hypocrisy here is scandalous. On the one hand he is vociforously fighting against Club Wicked and its immoral goings on, and on the other hand he pops up on Radio 4 wiping his hands clean of the Canon John affair. Most amusing!

I'll ask a question of Mel and the other opponents of Wicked: What would your opinion be of those who hold YOUR sexuality to account in such a bigotted way?
Friday 11 July 2003 4.29pm
Hello Martin,

To answer your question yes I do find it boring to read those posts by those of you who choose to ridicule Mel's posts and his stance here. I find his posts factual, well researched and to the point.

I thought I had mentioned that the sex thing is not the issue for me in this case. It is the legal and responsible operation of a venue in the borough and the apparent indifference of the local authority to the many and constant breaches, across the board by such an unfit couple as the Sheridans.

I believe the article you refer to, to be incorrect as it indicates that the Sheridans are the leaseholders when in fact they are not.

I am surprised that Mr Dick Becker of Cybernetic Applications in Andover has not been quoted in the paper as he is so closely involved with Wicked. He is the one person who could provide the answer to the question - who owns the lease to 2-4 Tooley Street as it is his company that appears as leaseholder and not the Sheridans in the sale particulars for the auction next week.

Perhaps he would oblige us.


Pages:  1 2 Next
Current: 1 of 2

This thread has been closed

Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

Proud to belong to

Independent Community News Network