London SE1 community website

Tooley Street lapdancing club

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...LastNext
Current: 5 of 16
Wednesday 22 March 2006 3.57pm
Jerry wrote:
If I were an enlightened 21st century gay man or woman believing in equal rights.

Following on from Jerry's point, what about the Human Rights of young ladies wishing to cavort in their scanties for the titillation of saddo's - no-one's breaking any laws. If the Rembrandt wish to have anyone make a deposition on their behalf, I would be willing to. The hippocracy of Mr Livingstone is unbelievable. As I have mentioned ad infinitum, if he deals with ongoing issues in the Locale first, then he can chip in his pennysworth on businesses he perceives as being inappropriate. Personally I find the sight of tour coaches ignoring the Highway Code and Road Traffic Act directly South of City Hall, somewhat inappropriate.
Wednesday 22 March 2006 4.00pm
Jerry wrote:
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.

It'd be quite unlikely, not least hypocritical, to see Ken doing that. Don't think he cares that much about gay men and women really, considering he is great mates with Dr Qaradawi. Qaradawi has 'interesting' view on gays saying that "the death sentences meted out to homosexuals only "seem" cruel, but are suggested "to maintain the purity of the Islamic society and to keep it clean of perverted elements".

Good old Ken!
Wednesday 22 March 2006 4.15pm
Jim,

When you see a headline along the lines of: "Church objects to xyz", I think it's more common to read that the implied message there is: "Body representing a lot of people objects to xyz" than: "Body representating not very many people at all objects to xyz".

If the church isn't supposed to represent a lot of people, then it its views are not news. It's a pretty clear implied link that by putting it in the headlines it represents a lot of people.

And as for the Mayor claiming to not have the resources to represent himself, I would suggest that that is tosh of the most utter order. When has Ken ever done a sidestep on a matter of principle, or held back from one because of cost?

[Just like to make it clear that I've got nothing against any religion, but I do find it annoying when people like the Archbishop of Canterbury get wheeled out to proclaim on behalf of the nation when he has no such mandate, given today's rate of church attendance. ]

...if you press it, they will come.
Wednesday 22 March 2006 5.30pm
Jonathan K wrote:

.... considering he is great mates with Dr Qaradawi. Qaradawi has 'interesting' view on gays ...

...Good old Ken!

Fascinating how inviting Qaradawi to talk at a confererence equates to being great mates in your eyes. Perhaps you've let the facts cloud your judgement? Ken even went on to say that despite not agreeing with Qaradawi's views one bit, he would grant him the right to speak them.

Reminds me of a quote attributed to the defence lawyer Alan Dershowitz (paraphrased here in the film Reversal of Fortune):

Alan Dershowitz: Reminds me of my Hitler dream. You know, Hitler calls up, he's alive... needs a laywer. I say, "Sure, come on over." Then I have to decide: do I take the case, or do I kill him?
Elon Dershowitz: You? No question.
Alan Dershowitz: I would take the case.
Elon Dershowitz: THEN kill him.
Thursday 23 March 2006 9.47am
All

I was curious about the piece in James' revered organ about the GLA pitching in with 4k for the Southwark Cathedral appeal against the lap-dancing club on Tooley St. How does that work?

Will concerned members of the public be similarly supported if they have to take a planning decision to appeal? Who does one write to? Ken?

The public should be told.

Niall
Thursday 23 March 2006 10.04am
[merged Niall's thread with ongoing thread, and renamed for clarity]

Just to be pedantic, the payment from the GLA to the cathedral was in relation to the cost of the original objection to the licence application, not any appeal as such.

What's now being proposed - as I understand it - is that the GLA should underwrite the cost of an appeal against that licence decision in its entireity, but in coalition with the Cathedral, London Bridge Hospital, the Unicorn Theatre and the Pool of London Partnership.

Editor of the London SE1 website.
Subscribe to our SE1 Direct weekly newsletter.
Thursday 23 March 2006 12.38pm
Martin Underwood wrote:
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!

The obvious thing is that the statistical analysis is erroroneous. Just because there is only one cathedral in Southwark does not mean that all the christians in the borough worship there, but the cathedral does represent all the Anglicans in the diocese. Assuming that the 244,000 figure is for the residents of the borough of Southwark you should get your figure from the number of worshippers at the Anglican churches throughout the borough. Then you could just possibly count the other Christian denominations as well, because they are probably right behind the Mayor and the Dean on this one. I would be most surprised if the total was less than 10,000 and it could even be more than 20,000.

But even so, is it not a wonderful free country we live in where you can suggest that the views of one sizeable section of the population can be ignored on the grounds of dubious analysis?
Thursday 23 March 2006 12.59pm
Possel,

Equally, you are assuming that all Anglicans feel the same way as the Dean.

What makes you think they don't go to lapdancing clubs too....?!

Regards,

Loafer
Thursday 23 March 2006 2.34pm
I've seen members of Southwark Cathedral congregation frequenting places far less salubrious than a lap-dancing venue. I'm not joking.
Thursday 23 March 2006 6.30pm
Possel wrote:
The obvious thing is that the statistical analysis is erroroneous. Just because there is only one cathedral in Southwark does not mean that all the christians in the borough worship there, but the cathedral does represent all the Anglicans in the diocese. Assuming that the 244,000 figure is for the residents of the borough of Southwark you should get your figure from the number of worshippers at the Anglican churches throughout the borough.
Agreed

Possel wrote:
Then you could just possibly count the other Christian denominations as well.
Strongly disagree. I think that the point of having different denominations is, erm, that they are different and have decided to set up different systems and people to propagate/air/repeat/celebrate their different brands of faith.

Possel wrote:
I would be most surprised if the total was less than 10,000 and it could even be more than 20,000..
Let's look at this objectively, as you suggest. I am sypathetic to your concern that someone is putting a spin on this in order to support their own views at the expense of fact, so let's do a bit of rough analysis. Figures for attendance at the Cathedral (using a mid-range estimate between the 500 to 1,000 suggested by James above) = 750. Using your mid-range estimate of 15,000, that assumes that the aggregate congregations of the other C of E churches in the diocese is the equivalent of another 19 Cathedrals. Is this likely? It may well be, and I'm waiting for someone to tell me that it is, but in my very unscientific way I think it unlikely.

Possel wrote:
But even so, is it not a wonderful free country we live in where you can suggest that the views of one sizeable section of the population can be ignored on the grounds of dubious analysis?
Indeed. But getting front page coverage is hardly a lack of representation. My POV is that the C of E are routinely given a disproportionate amount of representation. Some generations ago, they may well have held a position of feudal leadership over the morals of a big percentage of the population. I would contend that this influence has decreased sharply, but that the media will still give Rowan Williams (or similar) headline billing.
Again, I really don't mean to offend any religion. I've got nothing against them, but I think that we now live in a country where there are less believers, and the remaining believers are spread between more religions, thus making it imbalanced to claim that any one religious leader is likely to represent a significant proportion of the population.

...if you press it, they will come.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...LastNext
Current: 5 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