Article about strip clubs in the Guardian

The reason I'm nitpicking on the veracity of the claims by Newquay Voice is that you have to be very careful of who you listen to when you're talking about the sex industry. There are a lot of 'pro-sex industry' organisations/blogs that seek to sanitise the sex industry and you have to look at the motives behind them. They are not neutral - and if you dig below the surface they are generally funded by those seeking to profit from the sex industry.

From the BBC on the subject of Newquay:

Mr Drummond-Smith said: "I cannot prove any link, nor did I claim to prove any link.

"I said at the beginning of the hearing that we could not prove it.

"I will concede that the letter was a bit ambiguous, but I still believe it is an inappropriate place to have a sex club in an area which already has a higher-than-average number of sex offences."

He said the licensing committee also heard from a number of women who had been sexually harassed by men coming out of the same premises when it was lap dancing club Halos.

I still haven't seen the actual FOI that the Newquay Voice did - just the claims on the website. For all we know the writer may have a vested interest in the club.

Obviously, people may claim that Object and the like are equally biased - but I would argue that Object will not financially profit from the closing of strip clubs.

Interesting point Running, the Newquay Voice asked for figures on Rape and Sexual assault in 2010, the BBC asked if the Police could provide any evidence to support the claim that Lap Dancing clubs contribute to sex offences which the Police had no evidence to back that claim. This was done in 2012.

Which when you think about it is supports the original claim of the Newquay Voice. The are no figures to support the claim of Inspector Drummond.

So must stop posting.

Sausage - according to the BBC, the FOI request brought back 'no recorded information held' ? So what figures was the Newquay Voice using?

Running the figures are in the text.

However at this point I will do what I said and leave the discussion as it looks like all opinions will be worth nothing and it will be settled in european court.

Ah, so we're back to arguing most men go now, are we?!

We'll it's only last year that I left the UK after 13 years living there. I must have been the start of a mass exodus, if your stance that in any week c. 120,000 men go, and that's most men. What's the population of the UK again? Over 60 million, isn't it? Come on. Even taking the women and the under-agers out - in whose world is 120,000 - your entirely guesstimated figure - most men?

Even the men on this thread who claim to go, say that they hardly ever go any more (distancing themselves from it all - why would they do that?), but when they did, they really only went on 'special occasions'. I'd say then, that it's a significantly smaller group of hardcore regulars making up the basis of the audience.

And as I said before - a point that Jo took delight in scoffing, but that's obviously pertinent - if most men truly did frequent these places, they'd be on par in prevalence with bars, pub and clubs, etc. And they're clearly not.

In other words, most men do not go to SEVs. Most men do not need them. Most men can function quite happily without them. Most men's crime rates go neither up nor down with the absence of SEVs in their lives - because it's irrelevant to them.

As an aside, I name-change on a regular basis on this forum, but the one consistency is that I will always argue the toss and stick up for good, kind, decent men. I'm lucky to have only such men in my life and am raising my DS to be another one. I will always argue for every woman's right to have such a man in her life, and not to put up with anything less.

There's clearly plenty of these men out there who don't need SEVs in their lives - and as long as there are, then here I will be arguing against such places' existence (again: not by banning; but by challenging mindsets so that the demand dwindles of its own free accord). Clearly enough men don't need these places. They're not an essential requirement to function as a man.

Yes it is conjecture, so you think if the LDCs closed the demand would stop? Well personally I doubt it. But that is just my opinion.

Hang on, so it's OK for you to post based on 'conjecture' and 'opinion' but you'd like the rest of us to stick to hard facts? OK... Makes sense.

I have to get ready for work now. Will drop by later this evening.

Sausage - were the figures published then? I coudn't see them on the Newquay Voice website?

One local resident, Sausage. Just the one.

DoS I am for the right of choice. By taking choice away from dancers I believe we are heading backwards not forwards. Probably would in other minds say I am Pro club but I would say I pro dancers.

Running the Paper's figures were obtained from the police under a freedom of information request. So would appear to be true unless the police gave out the wrong details.

Line, I didn't know about the x in the home office computer. The deputations from local residents was positive for the safety aspect though.

The Home Office 'crime map' was actually quite controversial in Portsmouth, because the Home Office took a whole post code and mistakenly put the 'X' in Surrey Street instead of Guildhall Walk, didn't it?

Two years on, it has put the 'X' where it belongs. That would have the apparent affect of 'reducing crime' massively in Surrey Street.

Sausage, could you clarify for me - is the only evidence you have for Drummond's figures being wrong the 'Newquay Voice' website?

If all LDCs closed tomorrow, I wouldn't expect the patrons to immediately move on to illegal sexual purchases, no. Would you? Is that what you think men do - that they have such powerful sexual urges that they must buy sexual services at any cost?

I would expect them to go to normal clubs and pubs instead.

Insert "but" between "principle" and "want" above, sorry.

Sausage, are you against LDCs in principle want LDCs to stay legal primarily because you are concerned about what would happen if they were not legal? Or are you pro LDCs in principle?

Sausage - other things are taken into account when considering lap dance club licenses.

From the BBC:

When discussing the change in licensing law for lap dancing clubs:

Home Office Minister Alan Campbell said: "Many people have told us they don't want a lap-dancing club in their neighbourhood and feel that the existing legislation does not adequately take account of their concerns."

"The existence of a large number of lap-dancing clubs in a small area does have consequences for people who live and work there"
Chris White
Local Government Association

There are more things to take account of than just crime rates. I expect Coventry Council are aware of that.

Sorry should have added you need the police.uk database.

No Sabrina the council doesn't have to, neither did Inspector Drummond and look how right he was. The figure is easy to check get the post code for Heat in Coventry and see how many violent crimes took place within 50 metres (violent crimes includes all sexual crimes). It is easy enough to prove disprove. The figures I have seen was for the calendar year 2011 and the one crime took place in December. Doesn't say what the cause was just that it is under the violence classification.

Yes it is conjecture, so you think if the LDCs closed the demand would stop? Well personally I doubt it. But that is just my opinion.

Sausage, your comments on increased trafficking are pure conjecture. Are you seriously saying that men have to have access to sexual services provided by women? They don't. No demand for women for sexual services = no profit for traffickers.

Tackle the demand. Tackle the attitudes of the men who think they're entitled to pay for sexual services in seedy establishments. Men like daddancer, who can't see a difference between going to a LDC and going to see performers in a concert. Men who truly see women as equals don't expect to be able to pay for private wiggles in lap dancing clubs.

Perhaps Coventry Council don't rely on 'Stripping the illusion' for their information, sausage? Just a thought...

Can I ask what you mean by 'nil policy' exactly, Sausage, for clarity.

I've got the wording of the Portsmouth Licensing Policy Committee report here, and the options consulted on and considered.

Most women don't want to believe this is how men see them, and the people who turn out to voice their opinions on these matters when a lap dancing club is closing down, are the men who frequent the place and the staff who work there. The rest would rather it just went away quietly.

As our society slowly becomes more degraded by the wide use of violent Internet porn, the normalisation of naked dancing clubs, and the widespread and worsening prostitution use, and as more women become effected directly by this industry as they discover husbands and partners and sons becoming addicted to various sexual experiences outside of their marriages and relationships, there will at some point be more support for the closing of these places.

Sadly, at the moment, most men don't tell their wives and girlfriends they frequent these places, and so it is not something a lot of women think exists in as huge and as devastating form as it is. There are a LOT of men lying to people close to them about this, because they know women would be out in force to have these places closed down if they knew.

So couple of things I have picked up on

Firstly lets go over what would happen it clubs were banned.

10,000 women looking for full or part time jobs
Increased demand on council resources while the majority are looking for work.
Sudden decrease in women in further education (up to 3000 women)

Industry goes underground
Run by criminals money leaves the economy
Criminals would have no issues trafficking women as the council won't be checking up on them
No protection under law for dancers or customers.

So everyone who wants to increase trafficking go lets shut the clubs down as it is a very likely follow on.

Secondly DoS pointed out about guys paying for a sexual experience where they shouldn't be touching only looking (TD pointed out some people do abuse this point). So if we take the clubs away do we think men will suddenly change? Or that they will jst spend the money on other sexual experiences.

As for someone speaking for million of women question for you, why when a consultation took place in Portsmouth did 114 people want a nil policy and over 3000 against the nil policy? I believe in Hackney 67% of people were against the nil policy and that Tower Hamlets have never released their figures. The protest in Medway wasn't a consultation but it could be a regional issue. And most importantly why were Object who are the supposedly the force behind closing down LDCs have such a small membership? The stop page 3 campaign managed 1% of the female readership on the online petition. The millions of women you are claiming doesn't seem that big to me.

As to my claims and figures well that is my guesstimate if you can do better please let me see.

Coventry, interesting it is a councillor making a statement and claims about violence and sex crimes, oh wait has he got figures? Or is he doing what Drummond did? Seems that in 2011 Club Heat had one violent or sexual crime during the whole year within 50 metres which is the distance quoted before for Bristol. This was taken off the police database so not sure the councillor could back his claim up. Thanks to Stripping the illusion blog for the information.

I suppose we could all argue using 'plucked from the air' figures like you just have, sausage? Because that's what you've just done in your post at 10:05 today.

Or maybe we should just take the assertions from "Newquay Voice' as set in stone evidence for a so-called reduction in crime when LDCs open? When we don't have any info on the figures that were used?

You will just take anything on board, no matter what its source or credentials are, as long as it supports your case for lap dancing.

Have a read of this and see if you can still categorically say that there are no links between lap dance clubs and sex trafficking.

Lap dancing clubs also get an honourable mention here too.

Oh look, Coventry council doesn't agree with Sausage either.

You forgot one, sausage.

Paying money for a sexual experience.

10,000 women work in an industry that pays them too well to take their clothes off. Very few of them would work in the industry if it were for the minimum wage.

Why shouldn't I argue with feelings? Why shouldn't I feel the whole industry shouldn't exist and is a disgusting and huge problem in our society? Why shouldn't I feel that the women who choose to work in this industry are letting womenkind down in general.

I'm sorry if it offends you, but that is exactly how I and I'm sure millions of other women feel. These women are letting me and my daughters and your daughter down by stripping for money and letting men think that's okay. If it really WAS okay, wouldn't these men be telling their wives and their daughters where they go on a Saturday night?

I am NOT ashamed to point out the moral issue here. Whilst places like these exist women will never be considered equal to men, not in work, not in play and not in life in general. I say run the places underground, and then clamp down hard on it and put the bastards that are doing it behind bars where they belong.

Shame on them, and shame on you for arguing that this is okay. Your poor daughter.

If you were a daughter of mine and unable to see that 10,000 women making a choice was a pretty big statement I would be worried about you. My daughter has grown up using logic and reasoning as she wants to be a scientist. I have gotten use to needing evidence to back claims up rather than feelings.

Oh and the standard response round here when all the arguments don't seem to be going the right way you must be a man.

For me over the last year I have heard a lot about the industry, my view is banning it will make more women's lives a misery and the best way of dealing with the industry is to regulate better.

GTG boys are arguing about football (again)

Seriously - what is your motive for going to such great lengths to prove that an industry that is demeaning to women in general, that turns men into leering arseholes, and that adds to the general objectification of women in society is a good thing? If you are a man I am not surprised, and if you are a woman you should be ashamed. Either way, if you were a parent of mine I would be devastated.