London SE1 community website

Wicked (part 4)

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Current: 6 of 9
Sunday 19 October 2003 7.09pm
James - I may have to dig out my wellies for next months
Monday 20 October 2003 2.19pm
BigDave wrote: "....It is a nightclub and those that would be attending would be consenting adults after all and I am sure that members of the public would be safer outside Wicked than they would outside the Union Jack on Union Street at 11pm on a Friday night."

What's unsafe about the Union Jack?
Tuesday 21 October 2003 1.06pm
I agree - this could be the first of many.
It's economics....Apparently London Bridge has 200,000 passengers per day...the area is thriving ... the City is on the doorstep; and sex clubs will always be able to outbid other businesses for sites. This is because
they will pull in more profit per square foot than any other business...even Starbucks !

I'm pro the free market and a lilly-livered liberal, so it hurts to argue against this. But this is not the right place for the sex industry to set up shop.
Tuesday 21 October 2003 4.24pm
Kevin, I'm not sure anyone could define the 'right place' for the sex industry, apart from it being virtually wherever there is human population and therefore potential custom. When I lived in Hammersmith there was a huge fuss and debate about the council sanctioning a lap dancing club. It was set up on a busy one way road on the edge of a network of residential streets almost next door to a secondary school [recruiting, perhaps?] and therefore did seem out of place with local surroundings. I didn't see the area at 'peak hours' but I suspect the local residents were nervous about their property values.

Regardless of what one thinks of the clubs activities, given Boroughs historical association as host to sleaze and activities illegal inside the city boundaries the venue [almost] seems appropriate.
Wednesday 22 October 2003 5.34pm
No, I'm sorry jane but that is the most complete load of bollocks I've read <today> - if I didn't know better I'd say you were Mapmaker or that other tool pup pup, whatever that's about - actually I don't know better, so maybe you are....

The area around Wicked is pretty miserable at the moment but considering everything around it, it shouldn't be for too long - the area will improve, get cleaned up a bit, etc.

Unless that is, this sex club gets the license it wants and becomes successful, then more clubs will follow and you'll have mini soho on your hands and the area will stay down.

Who will want to invest in fancy shops, redevelopments etc. next to a sex club?

And I don't think a dodgy past should condemn a place for the present and future.
Wednesday 22 October 2003 8.59pm
stiofan, top job - you have interpreted my post to suit whatever point you wanted to make, but what do you object to exactly? - pointing out that the area has historical links to the sex trade [undeniable] or the interpretation that you put on my words that I approved of Wicked and its intentions? For the record, I feel very uneasy about the alledged trade it will bring and whatever trails in behind it. It is also undeniable that it is trying to profit by exploiting human nature.

I also feel uneasy about the mis-interpretation of my words and your agressive response - please don't disguise that with 'sorry' when it is obviously not meant!

Thursday 23 October 2003 5.43am
One point I think I missed right at the start of all this - ddid the original application actually mention sexual acts would be taking place in full view of others? - would that not leave the owners open to charges of procurement...i.e. as members have to pay a fee ? and would be using the premises for sex?

Not that I have any axe to grind ( ouch! ) either way. But if thats the case and Southwark does agree to it opening, would legalised brothels all over the country be the next step?

The sex trade has been rife in all parts of the world since the year dot I should imagine, I would be absolutely horrified if my daughters/grand-daughters were in it - but if that was the only choice available to them for what ever reason, I would much prefer it to happen in licensed premises with health checks, safe surroundings, income tax paid and a pension, rather than in some seedy room / or car where they would be more vulnerable.

and being early and me going gaga I think I have wandered completely from the original thread..sorry.
Thursday 23 October 2003 12.31pm
Thanks a bunch, Stiofan. And I am not sure I even have a view on this topic. Except that the LMJJ writes a lot of sense!
Thursday 23 October 2003 2.51pm
The reason I object is because sex clubs are invariably in run-down seedy areas, and I don't think they recover until the sex clubs have gone; sure the area round the Dungeon is pretty horrible but I believe it has a great chance of improving as long as the sex club element isn't encouraged. You suggest it shouldn't be given that chance 'cos of its history - in another place you might be right, but not here.

Post edited (23 Oct 03 17:55)
Thursday 23 October 2003 3.10pm

Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Current: 6 of 9

To post a message, please log in or register..
September at a glance
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