Tooley Street lapdancing club

Ken gets himself in enough hot water as it is - the notion of him being pictured outside a potential lap-dancing venue wouldn't be in his best interests. A few years ago I encountered a group of lesbians who were picketing Spearmint Rhino on Tottenham Court Road - they were rather intimidating. This is theoretically a free country and although lap-dancing is a legitimate business albeit involving ladies in their scanties I object to Mr Livingstone using our money to help oppose what he perceives as being undesirable. Meanwhile what I judge to be undesirable situations (illegal parking, eyesore flats etc) Mr Livingstone either ignores or fudges the issue, even though it's also happening on his doorstep.

Incidentally, Mr Livingstone's claim that the Rembrandt is "Virtually opposite" the Unicorn Theatre is evidence of his ridiculous position - I was outside the Unicorn (I wonder how many kiddie fiddlers it attracts to the area) earlier and would have needed binoculars to see the Rembrandt.

I'd prefer it was spent on that than on wars or promoting the causes of your friends in big business..
I'll go back to the earlier figures I mentioned, this is bad bad BAD..

Paul wrote:

Incidentally, Mr Livingstone's claim that the Rembrandt is "Virtually opposite" the Unicorn Theatre is evidence of his ridiculous position - I was outside the Unicorn (I wonder how many kiddie fiddlers it attracts to the area) earlier and would have needed binoculars to see the Rembrandt.

I currently lock my bike outside the proposed club when visiting the gym. Last Friday at 9.30pmish as I unlocked my bike I saw several familiies walk past on the way to the tube presumably coming from the unicorn. The walk to the tube is only minutes and the club is about halfway bewteen the two so I think it is fair to say it is virtually opposite. I'm not sure Id want to walk past with young children (although when the unicorn was on the move I once went to a show that was in the same complex as a fettish exhibition I thought then it was unappropriate) and I am certainly not looking forward to leaving my bike at night there once the club opens.

With the local elections coming up I wonder what the LibDems position on the lapdancing club is?
And how would Simon Hughes deal with an application to have a gay lapdancing night. The mind boggles.

phoney wrote:

With the local elections coming up I wonder what the LibDems position on the lapdancing club is?

The local Lib Dem councillors have quite clearly said they are against it.

phoney wrote:

And how would Simon Hughes deal with an application to have a gay lapdancing night. The mind boggles.

The same way he would deal with the application of a club that didn't have a gay night I'm sure. I have no idea why your mind is boggling.

Nick Stanton came to our TA last week, as did Anne Marjoram from the Mayors office. Our councillor said he was opposed to it, but was not allowed to make representations to the planning committee, as apparently no councillors are able to represent their constituents anymore. The planning committee was a mixture of all main parties including Labour and Libs that approved it, so there seems to be cross party splits at this time. Labour are using it in their election publicity as some of you will be aware.

Our TA voted against the club, and to campaign against it, only one abstention...
Karen

Ivan - well said.

I have no intention to visit a lapdancing club if it opens, but I don't endorse Ken's use of taxpayer money to challenge the licensing decision.

I'd be more than happy for him to spend the 4,000 getting the Dungeon out of London Bridge, however. What a ridiculous excuse for a tourist attraction!

It's all well and good for Ken to say residents don't want a lapdancing club - but they didn't want a congestion charge either.

I am on the edge of my seat waiting for the next mayoral election.

deek wrote:

they didn't want a congestion charge either.

Really? Ken was elected on a manifesto that said that he would introduce a congestion charge. Can't say fairer than that.

(But let's not turn this into a debate about the c-charge.)

James;

That may be, but to say the charge was in a manifesto is not to say that it was supported by Londoners. Voters are drawn to specific elements of a manifesto that they are particularly interested in. Wouldn't it be fantastic if a politician were to present a manifesto in which every single component was supported by 100% of voters?

The fact is, however, that prior to the charge being introduced 43% of Londoners were opposed, and 38% supported the charge. Support for the charge grew after implementation.

I would attach a link to this fact, but do not want this to turn into a c-charge string - as you suggest.

deek wrote:

The fact is, however, that prior to the charge being introduced 43% of Londoners were opposed, and 38% supported the charge.

The thing that bothers me most is that only 34% of Londoners could be bothered to vote at all in the 2000 Mayoral elections.

Likewise the local elections. The councillors who sit on the licensing committee that decides on applications by lapdancing clubs were elected on a similarly low turnout (IIRC less than 30% in most SE1 wards in the 2002 local elections). It's appalling.