London SE1 community website

Tooley Street lapdancing club

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Current: 11 of 16
fh
Tuesday 4 July 2006 11.46am
There probably isnt such a direct correlation in the stats as the stats may suggest. Also stats can be tailored to support arguments. For example, a 50% rise in rape could mean two female rape victims as opposed to one the previous year. I am not saying this would be the case but just pointing out the possiblity. However, there is no getting away from the fact that the Rembrandt will alter the tone of the area and will bring in a clientele that will spill out onto the streets or at least encourage others who will try to make a living off this clientele by hanging around.

Now to the other point: I wonder why men go to lapdancing clubs. The obvious reason of course would be to see naked women gyrate around wonderfully phallic poles that remind them of their unbelievable masculinity. But I'm sure there is more to it. It probably induces a certain camaraderie, a common appreciation of shared entertainment. The boys club. women entertain and men are entertained. So are the lunch breaks at More London going to change forever? I have terrible visions of a group of suits brokering deals at the Rembrandt.
fh
Tuesday 4 July 2006 11.49am
It seems Network Rail has come to the rescue! My terrible visions are slowly abating...
Tuesday 4 July 2006 12.16pm
If the market for this proposed club is supposed to be the increased/ing office population in and around Ldn Bridge, shouldn't we ban offices?

...if you press it, they will come.
Tuesday 4 July 2006 12.39pm
The Lilith Report showed a 57% rise in sexual assualts in a set time period in a certain area. It did not show causal links between strip clubs and sexual assualt (or give me any hint that the links are there to be proved). However, it strongly inferred it. This is not a good reason to object to a perfectly legal business.

I find that "report" (I'd call it a subjective essay) unhelpful. As a women, I am VERY curious to know if I really am at more danger in an area with a strip club. I want to live in a safer environment, but I'm not sure that encouraging pruience or modesty is a good thing, or that supressing someone else's business (and customers' pleasure) is justified. I need to know WHy people suggest it is, and I suspect my safety (and Muslim peoples' feelings) are being used as excuses for someone else's moral objections. (not meaning you TLMJJ)

Isn't it also a bit evil to MAKE women more scared by promlugating the idea that strip clubs make a street more dangerous, without having proof behind it? though I may yet be shown wrong on that as......

I have written to the mayor's office to ask what reports he referred to when he said "We've also seen studies of other lapdancing clubs which shows a clear relationship between the level of sexual assault, and rape, and general nuisance and intimidation in the area of a lapdancing club, and many women feel intimidated by this". If he includes the Lilith report within them, I despair.

So, for the moment, I cannot see any reason to believe that there is a risk to women should the Rembrandt club open. I perceive a serious risk to liberty if it is not opened through fear of offence to religious sensibilities. I perceive a triumph of local protest (not necessarily a good thing) if it is prevented from opening because enough local (vocal) people oppose it. (I reckon this is a sSouthwark planning issue and think Peckham people etc. should chip in all they like).



And I just have to vent (to no one in particular)about the Lilith Project.

Eaves Housing For Women (who run The Lilith Project)is a campaigning charity. Each charity (like a business), conducting OR commissioning its own research, will publish results to further its own agenda. Its a no-brainer. Eaves will not produce research to say "we oppose lap-dancing clubs because we belive they commodify women and think this is a root cause of violence but lap dancing clubs, despite being at the vanguard of this activity, don't really seem connected to a statistical increase in violence to women".

In fact, the Lilith Project are refreshingly open in this regard on their website:

"To date several petitioners have used the report to evidence their objections to lap dancing licence applications in their local area, with a high rate of success. Based on this success, the Lilith Project is currently collating research on the 33 London boroughs' responses to the Licensing Act 2003, which came into effect 24th November 2005. This research will be available online in Spring 2006."

(http://www.eaves4women.co.uk/Lilith_Project/Research/Research.php)

So, I won't be surprised to find out that late drinking causes rape to soar. Better brew more cider at home fast boys - in order to make the streets safe for the girls, you won't be allowed to have a drink except yummy soy milk in creche.

All this non impartial research reminds me of "The Ministerial Broadcast" episode of Yes Prime minister - how to write a survey http://www.yes-minister.com/ypmseas1a.htm#YPM%201.2

and don't forget
FEAR BREAD
97% of murderers eat it.
ADT
Tuesday 4 July 2006 12.40pm
fh wrote:
I would like to be able at night to use my normal route back home from the tube station without having to worry about passing a strip club on my way and without having to weave my way through the kind of audiences or hangers on it will probably attract.

Can we get rid of Starbucks and Costa as well, I don't get on with the kind of people that go to those kinds of places. They lower the tone of the area and you always end up with loads of empty paper cups causing a mess.
Tuesday 4 July 2006 12.45pm
ADT
you hit the nail on the head

(or does using words like nail and head make people feel intimidated? shut me dow, my batteries are running out anyway ;(
Tuesday 4 July 2006 1.07pm
Easyrecall: thankyou for writing so coherently about the absurdities of the circumstantial links that the Lillith Project attempts to make. I was in the middle of a long explanation similar to yours, but you beat me to it.

The Lillith report is a classic example of taking two attributes, X and Y, and somehow inferring that the correlation between the two is directly causal, without offering any further proof to back up those claims.

Nikita Krushchev once visited the United States, where he saw lush cornfields growing in Iowa. Attributing America's prosperity to its abundance of corn he immediately ordered that Soviet farmers must plant corn... the following year, the Soviet Union was plunged into food shortages.

How come the Lillith Project concentrated its study on a small section of Camden where the prevalence of strip clubs is low. Taking their conclusions we should expect to see that the crime rate in Shoreditch (where the density of "pound-in-the-pot" strip clubs catering to city workers is high) sky high. But strangely, their "study" ignores an area with such a high sample rate.
Tuesday 4 July 2006 10.53pm
Just a couple of things.

Who financed the deputation to the council last week? Tooley street TA produced its own leaflets.

Easyrecall: Lilith didn't show a 'causal link' between lapdancing club and sexual assaults? What do you want, for attackers to go around with badges saying: 'I attack because of the club.' ??

Also you:'perceive a triumph of local protest (not necessarily a good thing) if it is prevented from opening because enough local (vocal) people oppose it.'

The nerve of us Tooley Street residents eh? Triumphing through protest..
Wednesday 5 July 2006 12.09am
easyrecall wrote:
The Lilith Report showed a 57% rise in sexual assaults in a set time period in a certain area. It did not show causal links between strip clubs and sexual assault (or give me any hint that the links are there to be proved). However, it strongly inferred it. This is not a good reason to object to a perfectly legal business.

No it didn't show causal links, and I don't think it claimed there were causal links, either. But it did state that these increases were not due to a general increase in crime, or to a general increase in sexual offences. The fact is that in the Borough of Camden the rate of sexual offences increased after nude dancing was allowed, and there have been no other explanations of why this is. So, they can't prove it was because of the nude dancing, but can anyone prove it wasn't?

easyrecall wrote:
I find that "report" (I'd call it a subjective essay) unhelpful. As a women, I am VERY curious to know if I really am at more danger in an area with a strip club. I want to live in a safer environment, but I'm not sure that encouraging pruience or modesty is a good thing, or that supressing someone else's business (and customers' pleasure) is justified. I need to know WHy people suggest it is, and I suspect my safety (and Muslim peoples' feelings) are being used as excuses for someone else's moral objections. (not meaning you TLMJJ)

Isn't it also a bit evil to MAKE women more scared by promlugating the idea that strip clubs make a street more dangerous, without having proof behind it? though I may yet be shown wrong on that as......

Do you think this is what they are trying to do? Lilith stated very clearly that they started investigating lapdancing clubs and licensing because they were asked to by women's groups. In fact it says "Lilith first began researching licensing and its application upon striptease clubs at the behest of a member of the Camden Diversities Unit and several women's groups, who were concerned about the safety of women working and living near lap dancing establishments. When we discovered the above statistics among others, we realised that their fears were entirely justified. However, there was more to come.

Through our research, it quickly became clear that the increased number of these establishments is both linked to and at the forefront of the increased normalisation of exploiting women for sexual purposes. Thanks to aggressive marketing from the lap dancing clubs, who are careful to always field the student who strips to make more money to the Press, as opposed to the desperate women who speak no English, they are now seen as another space to go celeb-watching, as opposed to a cynical money-making venture built on the backs of women, some of whom, but not all, are there voluntarily.

In the past few years, it has become more apparent that the lap dancing networks have links with other aspects of the sex industry, and more troublingly, with the traffickers who often supply this industry. This is the darker side of the slickly marketed slightly naughty night out.

When big-name clubs like Spearmint Rhino and Secrets are allowed to get away with reduced responsibility and relaxed rules, it paves the way for smaller, less regulated establishments to do the same, which can only mean more danger for the women working in them."


easyrecall wrote:


I have written to the mayor's office to ask what reports he referred to when he said "We've also seen studies of other lap dancing clubs which shows a clear relationship between the level of sexual assault, and rape, and general nuisance and intimidation in the area of a lap dancing club, and many women feel intimidated by this". If he includes the Lilith report within them, I despair.


There is much literature about that shows that lap-dancing clubs have a detrimental effect on the safety of women. Just Google and you're bound to find some.

easyrecall wrote:

So, for the moment, I cannot see any reason to believe that there is a risk to women should the Rembrandt club open.

Why?

Why do you think women's action groups would take the line that nude-dancing clubs increase violence against women if they don't think it's true? Do you think they are just objecting because they don't think women should show off their t*ts and c**ts to men? I am sure that if there was research to show that clubs such as these had no impact whatsoever on women's safety or, in fact, improved women's safety, they wouldn't bother wasting their derisible budgets researching these issues.

easyrecall wrote:

I perceive a serious risk to liberty if it is not opened through fear of offence to religious sensibilities. I perceive a triumph of local protest (not necessarily a good thing) if it is prevented from opening because enough local (vocal) people oppose it. (I reckon this is a sSouthwark planning issue and think Peckham people etc. should chip in all they like).


I just don't know what to say. I suppose if you think it's all harmless fun, then, yes, not allowing it is a risk to liberty. But I think many of the groups objecting to it are doing so on the grounds of it is not right to increase violence against women and sex trafficking, etc., and all the available data suggests that nude-dancing clubs do just this. (I have to admit that I have access to lots of data that is not in the public domain because of my job.)

easyrecall wrote:

And I just have to vent (to no one in particular)about the Lilith Project.

Eaves Housing For Women (who run The Lilith Project)is a campaigning charity. Each charity (like a business), conducting OR commissioning its own research, will publish results to further its own agenda. Its a no-brainer. Eaves will not produce research to say "we oppose lap-dancing clubs because we belive they commodify women and think this is a root cause of violence but lap dancing clubs, despite being at the vanguard of this activity, don't really seem connected to a statistical increase in violence to women".

In fact, the Lilith Project are refreshingly open in this regard on their website:

"To date several petitioners have used the report to evidence their objections to lap dancing licence applications in their local area, with a high rate of success. Based on this success, the Lilith Project is currently collating research on the 33 London boroughs' responses to the Licensing Act 2003, which came into effect 24th November 2005. This research will be available online in Spring 2006."

(http://www.eaves4women.co.uk/Lilith_Project/Research/Research.php)



I'm sorry - this just doesn't make sense. As stated above, Lilith states very clearly their objections to lap-dancing clubs. I'm pretty sure that if they found data to suggest that clubs such as these didn't have a detrimental effect on women, they would stop campaigning against them. After all, there are plenty of other women's issues they could spend their money on. But the fact is, there is no data to suggest that the clubs DON'T have a detrimental effect on women
Wednesday 5 July 2006 12.12am
Martin Underwood wrote:

How come the Lillith Project concentrated its study on a small section of Camden where the prevalence of strip clubs is low

It didn't. It covered the whole Borough.
Current: 11 of 16

To post a message, please log in or register..
We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions