London SE1 community website

Wicked 2

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Current: 5 of 11
Sunday 15 June 2003 3.17pm
Mel Allen seems to be encouraging us all to object to the Wicked Club and stop them getting a sex licence. Fair enough - but what is Mel's reason? "because fetishism and BDSM go way beyond what most of us would recognise as normal consensual sex".

Firstly, this is plain wrong. How many women like men in uniform? Most, I suspect. How many men like women in high heels. Again, most of us! How many like to be spanked by, or to spank their partner? Quite a few, actually, Mel! Most people have some degree of fetishism in them.

It's true that some of us do go further, dress up in rubber, roleplay with domination and so forth. But we are responsible and consenting adults, so it's no business of Mel's, quite frankly. He/she can always stick to golf or caravanning.

If we stopped people doing something simply because we don't fancy doing it ourselves, churches would be the first to close. I suggest we live and let live, Mel

Tim Woodward
Tuesday 17 June 2003 12.09pm
Tim whilst I personally disagreed with your first post, (also those of Gill, MM, Scamp and Tony Hilliard) it was cogent in arguing for fetishists to be tolerated and indeed embraced by society.
Your second on the other hand adds nothing to the debate, and seems merely to be deliberately calculated into goading me into replying. To what end I don't know, but hey ho.

Tim, in your first post you claim to be "entirely objective - no connection with the Sheridans". Your definition of "no connection" I would suggest is "economical with the truth". How else can you explain your accreditation, on Club Wicked's website, for the main publicity photo of the Sheridans?

Gill says "The Sheridans have every right to operate a legal business", I think we can all agree with that. Unfortunately the Sheridans seem to hold the law in utter contempt, not just bending it but openly and repeatedly breaking it. My knowledge of the sub judice laws is sparse and so I don't intend to detail the infringements for fear of compromising the current court case for the revocation of the liquor licence. However I think I am safe in stating that the alleged offences are not limited to permitting unlawful sexual activity on licensed premises and operating without the necessary licences, which some may not consider to be hanging offences, but also include multiple infringements affecting public safety.

S Pilot asks if Wicked have been granted their sex licence. The short answer is no. The long answer is that the councils licensing panel were due to hear the application (and PEL transfer) on May 20. This was once again adjourned. My understanding is that the council would like to consider it before August. July 31 has been suggested but as far as I am aware no date has yet been set.
The Police application on June 2 at Camberwell Magistrates Court to revoke the liquor licence was briefly considered. Another hearing is to be held July 7 when court time for the full trial will be booked; it is suggested by the Sheridans solicitor that up to 10 court days may be needed to fully consider all the evidence.

Finally Tim, you suggest I stick to golf or caravanning, not my cup of tea thank you.

Tuesday 17 June 2003 12.48pm
My post of July 15 was very much to the point., in fact.

Mel's assertion that "fetishism and BDSM go way beyond what most of us would recognise as normal consensual sex" is plain wrong and someone needed to point that out, so I did.

It is also important to say that it is wrong to stop people doing something, just because we may not like it ourselves. The deciding factor should be whether they are doing harm to others. In this case, the fetish types at Wicked are not.

Mel seems to be implying that I have some connection with the Sheridans, though he/she is not straightforward enough to say so plainly. This is wildly untrue - they are actually business competitors, as anyone with a knowledge of the fetish world will know. (I have been taking photos in fetish clubs around the world for 20 years, Mel - your smear does you no credit.)

A wider question - why is it that people like those opposing Wicked in SE1 are so absolutely committed to stopping other people enjoying their sexuality? What is it that drives these people? Answers on a postcard, please!

The reference to golf or caravanning was a joke, but with a serious point. People who do really odd things should not be banned just because someone else thinks they're odd. The Mels of this world need a proper reason to support their crusades against others. In the case of Wicked in SE1, however they huff and puff, they simply do not have it

Post edited (17 Jun 03 13:49)

Tim Woodward
Tuesday 17 June 2003 2.17pm
Does this reference to people's not being banned for doing odd things just because they're odd extend to foxhunting?
Tuesday 17 June 2003 4.25pm
No, foxhunting should be banned because it is cruel and because it is non-consensual. Unlike the fetish folk at Wicked, the poor old fox is not having fun but actually being harmed and of course it's not consensual

This may sound irrelevant to SE1 but, believe it or not, I saw a fox near Waterloo not long ago. As to its views on local fetish clubs, I cannot say

Tim Woodward
Wednesday 18 June 2003 8.51am
Tim Woodward

You seem a bit vague about your connection with the Sheridans, what is there to be afraid of here ?

You stated in an earlier post “ I'm entirely objective - (I've)no connection with the Sheridans.” When Mel Allen suggested you were not being quite truthful you were quick to reinforce your independence and pointed out that you were a business competitor.

Well are you the photographer who has been credited on the Wicked website for the principal publicity shot of the Sheridans in their glam gear ? A simple yes or no will clarify.

I am slightly surprised that, if you are a business competitor of the Sheridans that they allow you or your name anywhere near their activities.

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't you have a link from their site under the name Tim Woodward to which is an organisation that runs the Rubber Ball, and publishes a magazine which features London's newest event “Wicked.”
I suggest that your link with the Sheridans may only be commercial because they hold pervy parties which need to be advertised, kinky gear that needs to be flogged and a venue that needs to be promoted - nice little potential revenue source from a seemingly wealthy pair.

I can quite understand that you need to keep on the right side of the Sheridans and to be careful, look what happened to poor Robin at London Fetish Scene - sacked in a public forum for rattling a few of the skeletons.

If you are not the Tim Woodward so closely linked to the Sheridans then forgive me, it must make life difficult to have two photographers on the scene with the same name


Wednesday 18 June 2003 8.57am

I don't have the answer to your question about foxhunting but there are so many similarities with the wicked lot. A sweaty pursuit followed by a bloody act, witnessed by a group of consenting hairdresser - types wearing leather boots, funny hats and of course waving the main accessory the riding crop.

Tally Ho !


Wednesday 18 June 2003 9.57am
Foxhunting is not cruel. The Labour Government commissioned a report called the Burns report which concluded that hunting is not cruel. What EVIDENCE do you have that it is cruel?

An animal is not a being that can consent. However it is perfectly natural for a pack of hunting dogs to chase a victim - packs of wild dogs roam the African plains hunting zebras etc.

I may be wrong but understand that The various BSM (?) activities are indulged in for the PLEASURE of seeing blood/inflicting pain/watching pain/feeling pain etc. Foxhunters go out for the pleasure of the chase, the thrill of riding horses and the fun of dressing up; not for the pleasure of the kill. Few people ever see the kill anyway - even if they want to.

The various goings on in the fetish scene are not natural. There is a question above as to whether consent is given. People definitely DO suffer and are taken advantage of, and it is therefore probably cruel.

I suggest that you stick to your fetishism in SE1, and leave the foxhunters to hunt in the countryside. We should be respecting each others liberties.
Wednesday 18 June 2003 10.25am
I was certainly not vague about my so-called connection with the Sheridans. Mel's suggestion that I was not truthful is pure unpleasantness

In my first post of June 3rd, I started out by clearly saying that I am Chairman of a company called SKIN TWO, saying what we do, etc., so readers know the background exactly. Wicked is a competitor of ours in several areas, as anyone with a knowledge of the fetish world will know

(Also, my name is really Tim Woodward - I'm not hiding behind a silly made-up name!)

I also stated clearly that I have been taking photos at fetish clubs for 20 years. I have taken several photos of the Sheridans. I think the photo on their web site was taken by me last year at the SKIN TWO Rubber Ball. It is clearly credited to me and they are very welcome to use it

I don't know why you are surprised that the Sheridans would allow me near their activities! I have been to their club, had a good time and intend to go again soon. They also came to my event (hence the photo) and are welcome to come again any time

I do not know Robin at London Fetish Scene, but I don't need to keep on the right side of anyone and, as I own my business, I can't really be sacked, unless I sack myself!

Could we keep this discussion to the important issues around what Wicked are doing in SE1 and why people are trying to stop them - rather than exchanging unpleasant personal remarks and accusations, like you and Mel?

Tim Woodward
Wednesday 18 June 2003 10.40am
We seem to have started an enirely new thread here - concerning foxhunting relative to fetish sex, rather than the Wicked club in SE1

Of course foxhunting is cruel - the fox is ripped apart by dogs. The evidence I have is the evidence of my own eyes

As you say yourself, an animal like the fox cannot consent - so the hunt is purely non-consensual. The fetish clubbers at Wicked are adults and do consent to being spanked or dresing up in rubber whatever else. There is no question about this. The evidence I have of this is 20 years in fetish clubs

You are right to say that hunting is natural - humankind has been doing it forever. But that does not make it right. We have also been doing rape, murder and war forever and they are not right

SM sex is entirely natural - lots of adults have also enjoyed it forever

So we should ban foxhunting because it is cruel and non-consensual.
But we should not ban SM sex between consenting adults, because it is not cruel and it is consensual

Tim Woodward
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Current: 5 of 11

This thread has been closed
Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

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