Tooley Street lapdancing club

If I were an enlightened 21st century gay man or woman believing in equal rights I might feel "something that impinges on the conciousness" passing a Mosque, Synagogue or some churches but I don't see Ken trying to move them on.

Possel wrote:

Jerry wrote:

500 in congregation, but 244,000, or more, people in Southwark. Just adding a little to the statistical background.

Your point being...?

I imagine it might be the disproportionate amount of publicity that is given to the views of this segment of the population.

I bet their collection is quite healthy though ... which reminds me young 'Hoe ...!!!

Ooooooooooops. Sorry. Cheltenham had washed everything out of my head in a fog of guinness. pm incoming.

A fog of Guiness? At least no increase on cider in the budget ... you'll be very relieved to know! And thanks for pm ... one on the way back ... JonR wasn't at Cheltenham with you perchance?



Edited 1 times. Last edit at 22 March 2006 1.14pm by Julie.

It's a dark mist that descends on the head on arriving within 30 miles of the course, and leaves about a week after the last race finishes.

No JonR, but he could have been one of the 50 odd thousand other foggy people wandering around and throwing money at the barstaff and bookies.

Possel wrote:

Jerry wrote:

500 in congregation, but 244,000, or more, people in Southwark. Just adding a little to the statistical background.

Your point being...?

I should think the point is obvious: why should the Dean of Southwark's views be viewed as representative when the average congregagtion represents only 0.2% of the borough's population? By that token, we should invite the views of the manager of the local Starbucks , since many people drink there!

Starbucks is equally entitled to object to a licensing application if it wishes. What's the problem?

You may not share the objections of the cathedral, LB Hospital and the Mayor (who is acting in his capacity as a local employer) to the licence, but why seek to deprive anyone, representing a faith community or otherwise, of their right to participate in the due process?

Jim,

I don't think anyone would seriously say that any community (faith or otherwise) should not have a right to air their views.

However, I personally find it anachronistic, to say the least, when news items seek a view from the church and then present that as if it's representative of a significant proportion of the population (as in this case).

(And if the Mayor was acting in his capacity as a local employer, why is he giving money to the Cathedral to complain for him? As a local employer, surely he'd be entitled to complain on his own behalf anyway.)

Ivanhoe wrote:

However, I personally find it anachronistic, to say the least, when news items seek a view from the church and then present that as if it's representative of a significant proportion of the population (as in this case).

Where? I have not seen this assertion made in any news report I have read on the subject. Only by people in this thread objecting to the objection.

Ivanhoe wrote:

(And if the Mayor was acting in his capacity as a local employer, why is he giving money to the Cathedral to complain for him? As a local employer, surely he'd be entitled to complain on his own behalf anyway.)

He would indeed - but if you read http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/2064 you will find a quote from the Mayor's monthly report explaining that his payment to the cathedral was in lieu of the GLA hiring its own legal people to pursue the matter.

SE1 wrote:

Mr Livingstone says that he considers the cost "appropriate, in view of the saving made by [the GLA] not making a full objection" in its own right.