Ha ha - that's funny. It reminds me of an anecdote I read once: two old women were chatting on the train out of London Bridge, and one turned to the other and said "What a shame they built the cathedral so close to the railway line."
Dear General and Lady Caroline or is it Admiral of the Fleet and First Mate today
(my apologies as I cannot see which of your collection you are wearing being after 4pm!),
Yes thank you for not keeping silent, your replies are such good value.
A minor correction to your reply to my earlier post about the animal thing, which was not suggested as having taken place in any of the clubs you may have tenanted but in one of your homes. Your suggestion that we do not share the same taste in clubs is of course quite correct but then as you now know who I am this goes without saying.
On the point of knowing who we all are I am glad we have dealt with the “CID officer” story (ref: Eve Standard last post). Did CID officers really issue parking tickets in those days ? Times have changed !
The licence issue has been delayed for so long as I believe you were both found to be unsuitable holders for such a position of public trust - nothing else. This still leaves the question unanswered as to why Mr Becker would still be your ongoing nominee when he had sold you the business on the 16th December 2002 as you say. Surely rather a risky thing to do under the circumstances bearing in mind that the childrens licence was still in force and the Cynbar website still inviting families onto the premises during this time.
The tribunal record will show that you took over certain employees from the previous business and then illegally sacked one or others. It seems pointless to me to attempt to argue with public record but you are the historian so probably know better than many how it can be rewritten.
In case my points seem to personal on the Sheridans my area of concern is credibility and to ensure that the truth be told where possible and not to allow the Wicked spin Herr doctor to cloak the facts with a blizzard of rant, cant and French almond rock !
More power to your elbow and I am sure you and your colleagues on the London Fetish Scene will be around long after Mr and Mrs Burble have been moved on, like the other bully boy occupants of those “glamorous” nazi uniforms.
I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. I have an independent position but, having read all of this thread, I'd have to say that there's a lot of pettiness and spite involved in this whole debate.
The Sheridans have every right to operate a legal business and, it seems to me, they are making every effort to ensure that any expansion of their enterprise stays well within the law. Those who oppose them are not require to take part and, providing they stay out of the club I wouldn't imagine they'd even notice what goes on there.
Those whose views are not represented here are the people who attend the fetish events. They are voting with their feet/membership. It's a free country, isn't it? If all of this rocks their boat and they're informed consenting adults then they should be free to get on with it. When we start to persecute people for their sexuality, aren't we in much graver danger of behaving like Nazis than anyone who dons a German Army uniform for a bit of kinky fun?
By the way, I write this as a sexually-active adult who is a local resident and a church-goer so I feel qualified to have my say! :)
Regardless of the merits of this establishment and its owners, I do object to the fact that Southwark cathedral objects to the club on the grounds that it "causes moral outrage to the clergy and congregation of the cathedral by reason of our Christian faith" (direct quotation of Dean of Southwark). If we are to use moral outrage as a justified basis for opposing licensing applications, why the hell has the church stood by, as knocking shops across London have their licenses renewed every year? If you don't believe me, then look through the (unopposed) license renewals of the Westminster sauna, Westminster Bridge Road (SE1) as well as other blatant knocking shops in Westminster and Lambeth- all three councils are more than happy to license these late-night "saunas", and turn a blind eye to their true purpose. Don't get me wrong, I am all in favour of licensing this sort of establishment, but I do object to the highly selective moral outrage that has been adopted by our Christian soldiers from the cathedral.
Frankly, if ever this was a case of NIMBYISM, this is it. However, if we are to let the Church determine what is to be licensed and what is not, then surely we should also be asking the other minority faiths of the borough too. And I can tell you, it won't just be the fetish clubs that get shut down. There is always somebody out there who thinks you are a sinner.
It's a pity the clergy have forgotten the historical relationship the church and sex establishments have had in London Bridge - the Bishop of Winchester used to allow prostitutes to operate on his land surrounding Winchester Palace (now Clink Street). Not only that he also demanded a tenth of their earnings. One of the reasons for the establishment of the Clink Prison was to put away the prostitutes who didn't pay the Bishop.
The proximity of this nightclub to the cathedral doesn't bear any relevance - surely it would be better to place a sex club there, away from residential areas where the comings and goings of the club patrons would go largely unnoticed. Like it or not, people will explore their sexuality. No one outside of the club is any the wiser about what goes on inside, they might be whipping each other, might be just admiring each others costumes, they could be playing Monopoly for all we know, so far all the objectors have to go on is their imagination and guesswork as to what could go on there. Before the objectors condemn what goes on behind those closed doors between consenting adults please consider that they are not doing anything to each other that they do not want done to them and they are not harming anyone outside of the club. Where is the harm in that?
Did anyone hear the discussion about this on BBC London on Friday morning? I listened with interested (and called in) and it seems Club Wicked has the broad support of Londoners. It's a shame any meaningful discussion seems to break down into petty name-calling.
I can't really add much that MM hasn't already said other that to say that I think the objectors to this really have no idea what is going on in literally hundreds of other establishments in Central London on a Saturday night, nearly all of it unlicensed. Open your eyes, and hopefully your minds too.
Back in 1983, the London fetish world started off with SKIN TWO, a friendly Soho club for people into all kinds of sexy dressing-up, spanking, SM and so forth. Great fun it was, too. Now, we publish a magazine, make fetish clothes, hold the big annual 'Rubber Ball' and discuss serious aspects of sexuality on TV and radio, etc, etc. As SKIN TWO's Chairman, I have some experience and I'm entirely objective - no connection with the Sheridans. So, I am constantly asked what I make of the controversy over the Sheridans and Wicked.
First of all, fetishism and SM have been with us for thousands of years. It may seem a bit odd but, if you don't fancy being spanked while wearing high heels, you don't have to do it, do you? Just mind your own business and leave us to it. People who reckon that we are harmful perverts are generally the same people who dislike gays, or blacks or Jews - anything different, really. It's not worth taking them seriously. Opposition from religious groups towards particular sexualities is their problem, not ours. Just like the gay scene, the fetish scene has a reputation for good behaviour. There is far less drug-taking, drunkenness or rowdyness than in general nightlife. Ask any club proprietor, bouncer or police officer who has dealt with a fetish club night. MM's earlier comment (2/6/3) that the cathedral has no business objecting to Wicked is plain common sense.
Enter the Sheridans. They have stirred up more controversy within the fetish world itself - as well as in the local SE1 community - than anyone else in twenty years. They are a colourful pair, seemingly well off, and have launched their business with planning and investment - which the rest of us 'pervs' can only dream of. Needless to say, there is a tidal wave of jealousy from our little community. We would rather whinge about them than get on with our lives. How sad. Are Brian and Caroline Nazis or otherwise a danger to society? Somehow, I doubt it. If they offer customers what they want and if they establish a reputation for fair trading, they will deserve to flourish. If they don't, they won't. Time will tell.
Gay clubs were once seen as evil and outrageous, but we now have openly gay cabinet ministers and police officers. (So cute in those uniforms - it's the hats that do it for me.) A few years from now, SM and fetish clubs will be just another fringe culture, like fly fishing or caravanning - nothing to fuss about. If you don't believe me, check the fetish clubs already flourishing in Birmingham, Glasgow, Bristol, Derby - and all over London every week. If you don't think you'd suit a rubber dress, just stay away. If you do, I'd recommend the Rubber Ball (but then I would, wouldn't I).
Meantime, I suggest that the Dean of Southwark consider fighting the good fight against poverty, homelessness, starvation and war instead of against Brian and Caroline Sheridan.
Hi Tim - The Dean doesn't have to "consider", - he is already fighting the good fight against poverty, homelessness, starvation and war.
The issue of the club and the many similar others, throughout the UK, is merely a matter of an individuals "free will" to choose what do in their own time.
From an alternative perspective, maybe the ever looming presence of the Cathedral could persuade, maybe one member of the club to visit during the day. The Cathedral is a haven of peace and tranquility, particularly on a Saturday afternoon.The Dean's selfless words for the disadvantaged are inspirational.
Why are the Dean's objections to the club causing so much offence. The Sheridens have plainly verbalised the legality of their establishment, so what do they have to fear from the Dean's protests ? - Surely in the democracy that we live in, the Dean has a right to express his views. Who would like to live in a society whereby the Dean wasn't able to speak freely and openly ??