Tim wrote: 'Of course foxhunting is cruel - the fox is ripped apart by dogs.' But the fox is dead when it is ripped apart, that is no crueler than ripping apart a can of Pedigree Chum. It has already been killed. The Labour Government's own report concluded that foxhunting is not cruel.
The SM victim is very much alive. Personally I think that just because somebody wants to be a victim doesn't make it any better; they're still being exploited and the law exists to prevent this sort of cruelty. Doubtless you'll launch into an explanation of exactly what goes on and how the roles relate; I'd rather you didn't - but then I'd rather you kept quiet when it comes to discussing hunting of which you clearly have no experience. Lets keep our little foibles to ourselves and not try to regulate each other's lives.
I'm not sure which report you are referring to as the Burns Report clearly states that hunting with dogs "severely compromises" the welfare of deer (paragraph 51), foxes (56), hares (63), mink (67) pets (70) and the dogs themselves (72, I think).
But this is bye the bye, and I'm sure we discussed it all in great detail last year sometime.
Regarding the actual topic of the thread, I don't think the sexual proclivites of the people who attend Wicked should really be of any relevance to whether people support or oppose the granting of the sex licence. Are those people who are opposing Wicked opposing it because it is a fetish club, or because people will be paying to have sex there? Would people have the same objections if The General and Lady Caroline were presiding over a room full of middle aged couples doing it in the missionary position with the lights off instead of people engaging in BDSM sexual activity?
Thank you for clarifying the position over the sex licence. I had suspected that if the local licensing authorities had established that the Sheridans were not suitable to hold a liquor licence then I doubted whether they would be granted a sex licence.
I was surprised to note that the Club Wicked membership application form states that sex and stuff will take place on the premises and to apply for membership one has to accept this and “not be offended nor affronted by any of the activities that take place”. So does this mean that sex is going to take place and if so how without a sex licence.
As far as I can see this is a clear intention to break the law. Permitted and encouraged sex on a licenced premises is illegal whether part of the entertainment or not, unless there is a valid sex licence in place. If I am wrong I look forward to being corrected.
With regard to the revocation of the licence I see that the Sheridans solicitor has indicated that 10 days of court time may be required for the hearing ! Just how much damning evidence is there here to make the Sheridans feel they will need so long to defend themselves.
Seriously compromising the welfare stops short of cruel, if you read more carefully. SP - Pipewell?
Frankly, I don't see why it makes any difference whether it's a sex club or a fetish club, I'm not really certain I would choose it as a neighbour. That said, I doubt we'll notice it, so it doesn't really make much difference to us. I also don't see why they cannot have children's parties there during the day - just becuase King's Cross is unpleasant at night there's no need to ban small children & grannies from it 24 hours per day.
Tim Woodward said "I was certainly not vague about my so-called connection with the Sheridans. Mel's suggestion that I was not truthful is pure unpleasantness"
My aim was not to be unpleasant but simply to be factual. You do have a connection with the Sheridans; you are one of the photographers for their websites, you have conducted and published interviews with the pair in your magazine Skin Two, you have taken, and will no doubt continue to take, advertising for and from them. I am not suggesting that any of this is wrong or immoral, just that to the normal man it is a connection.
LMJJ asks "Would people have the same objections if The General and Lady Caroline were presiding over a room full of middle aged couples doing it in the missionary position with the lights off instead of people engaging in BDSM sexual activity?"
My answer would have to be yes. My answer in this specific case is merely amplified because of the illegal manner in which this couple continue to operate. I give an example.
On Saturday lunchtime I walked past the venue, above the door was a notice stating that the capacity was 500 whilst the legal capacity is in fact 300. I walked past again on Sunday and Monday the notice was still present. To me this indicated that they expected to be busy on Saturday night and were determined to take every penny they possibly could. A couple with such a cavalier attitude to the safety of their own patrons do not deserve to be able to operate a club, fetish or otherwise, in SE1 or anywhere else.
Brian and Caroline Sheridan and the Mysterious Mr Becker
The Sheridans have stated on many occasions on this forum and in the national press that they - Brian and Caroline Sheridan are the Owners of Club Wicked and have poured many thousands of pounds into the venue and paid all the licencing costs etc etc etc etc
So they wqould have us beleive that they and not anyone else nor any other body became the owners on 16th December 2002 as you have stated.
The premises but not the business was purchased from a Mr Becker.
Mr Becker has throughout the Sheridans tenure been the principal licensee of the premises as advertised at the venue and elsewhere.
The Sheridans state that the employee suing them for wrongful dismissal was an employee of the previous owner and not themselves. They go on to state that they employed some of the previous staff in their new business. So, if the wrongfully dismissed employee was working at Club Wicked after 16th December 2002 this is further evidence of Mr Beckers generosity, in that he was also providing them with staff aswell as acting as their nominee on the licence. The Sheridans were both found to be not suitable and responsible persons to hold these licenses as covered in this thread, elsewhere and in court, public and companies house records.
The generous Mr Becker sounds more like a partner than a “previous owner” and perhaps as his company's name remains on the leases even though the Sheridans have stated they purchased the lease from him some while ago, the puzzle twists again.
The financial dealings surrounding this purchase are of course private and will be respected for the time being but I think others may agree that this relationship between the three of them is a little peculiar. Perhaps Mr Becker is a member of the Fetish Scene which may explain his role in this threesome ?
Men of straw should not play with lighted matches.
One observation Mel Allen - I got the impression that you were asking if Tim had a personal connection with the Sheridan's. I would say that it is a professional relationship - which bearing in mind the size of the fetish scene is no suprise - there are limited venues and publications catering for this type of activity.
With regard to the legal capacity - I would be very interested to know why only 300. The club is capable of accommodating far more and certainly used to before the Sheridan's ever took over. I'm sure there are a number of pubs and bars in SE1 that do overcrowd at the risk of the health and safety of their customers - but this seems to be something of a Sheridan bashing excercise. The point I thought you were making is that you object to the activities of the people using the premises - not the Sheridan's themselves.