Sheffield strip club keeps licence despite opposition by feminist coalition

[stumbledin]

From the way the Guardian reports it (but does anyone think their reporting is unbiased) the undercover filming that campaigners organised has worked against them.

I think the licence will be reviewer again in a year. Have a horrible feeling that if it hadn't been "feminists" campaigning but "local" people the council would have acted differently. The patriarchy likes to be seen to slapping down uppity women.

They didn't even value the opinion of the local Rape Crisis Centre which works nearby.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/17/sheffield-strip-club-keeps-licence-despite-opposition-by-feminist-coalition

I've seen a couple of prostitutes pretending they weren't anything other than dancers slip into a club I worked in. In our case we caught them up to no good. We reported to management and they were sacked when they turned up for the next shift.

Clubs won't stand for it. At all. But I guarantee if you spoke to either of them, would you get the honest version "we don't have the skills to entertain someone for an hour as a dancer, but want the dancers hourly rate, so we turned up, masqueraded as dancers, were actually prostitutes, got caught and got told to leave immediately(and banned for life from the premises entirely)"

Or. Would you get... "We got sacked because all the girls in there do extras and we were forced to if we wanted to keep our jobs. Poor exploited us. Nasty evil club. Wasn't us guv'nor"

I'm just pulling this comment of Courtney's out for anyone who missed it, so they can see the level of sheer, blatant contempt for prostitutes in it. No compassion, no empathy, just pure I'm better than you loathing.

Solidarity for women in the sex industry, eh?

I don't disagree with whistleblowing at all.
It must have been needed in this case.
What I'm disagreeing with is the METHOD of whistleblowing by randomers off the street taking naked photos without consent.
There's laws against that.

No you're not. You've repeatedly ignored the case at hand and instead gone off on one about women having the choice to flash their vulva as empowered counsellors as per the other posters spin. You've nary uttered a word about the women involved in this case and the regulatory failure to protect them in their work environment. You've just repeatedly agreed with the posters denying that anyone ever does any of that seedy stuff.

You shift with the wind.

I've said through the thread that it's the method I disagree with, as in you just don't do that.
I've not said that there obviously wasn't a problem for there to be whistleblowers on the first place.
In fact I've said abusers and violators should always be dealt with and need to be.
Crack on pretending I haven't though by all means.

I can't believe so much evidence was dismissed and the club has remained open. It seems no-one is denying the rules have been breached on many occasions so what's the point of the rules if they're not enforced?

If I'd brought up a man who was capable of appreciating dancing and athletics and all the showmanship that goes with it without sexualising women I'd be bloody chuffed. I can't think of a happier ending that men and women being capable of appreciating each other and the mad and inspiring things our bodies are capable of without focusing on the nudity.

That hypothetical son might cheer on women's football, or have a season ticket to the ballet. He would not be going to a strip club to fulfill those needs because, no matter how much some would like to deny it, that's not what strip clubs are for. The sexualization is the point, if it wasn't the dancers wouldn't have their boobs out and the women wouldn't be in the men's laps.

And most people who were secretly filmed at work might feel slightly upset if the footage was embarrassing but ultimately wouldn't think it was some horrific thing. In this day and age of mobile phones surely the risk of filming exists in any public place, club, bar etc? I find it hard to believe the punters at this venue don't take films on their mobiles too. Like in theatres, unless you're really blatant about it there's not much anyone can do to enforce a no filming rule.

So would you like to venture an opinion on the regulatory failure here that has meant the club stays open despite breaching the rules repeatedly, now you've had a jolly good long moan about the evil women who recorded the evidence and were ignored, Roses? As you are so very concerned about things being proper, like?

If I'd brought up a man who was capable of appreciating dancing and athletics and all the showmanship that goes with it without sexualising women I'd be bloody chuffed

I did and I'm also married to one. This is such a weird comment. Are you not aware millions of men go to circuses, ballet, contemporary dance, classical ballet, athletics, physical theatre and sporting events where they can appreciate the amazing grace, skills and agility of the human body with no expectations whatsoever they will see a performer's cunt or tits.

Is this ever levered at the ever present voices who always agree with you?

If dog had posted almost 200 messages over a period of 36 hours on one thread, I might well reach out to see if she was okay, yes.

HTH.

There are clearly barristers that will defend the club by using women's lack of consent to being filmed against the women's lack of consent to being touched in breach of the licence.

This is no doubt why the commitee capitulated as this threat has been made. So in the hierachy of criminal intent and actions here the consent given to be watched by men who do not comply with the licencing laws and the contracts signed by the women who have been sexually abused has been given precedence despite it's ineffectiveness, over the non consent to recodigns of crimes by women and their supporters who want the compliance enforced. So unassalted women are being used legally against assaulted women by the men refusing to comply with the law.

Mmm. I know which side I'm on.

Not Dog
Miss what I said again, wouldn't expect anything less

Not Dog

Dog didn't say:

Just a bit strange to spend so much time on an internet chat thread

And you didn't quote it and reply:

Is this ever levered at the ever present voices who always agree with you?

Gosh. And yet...

Still waiting to hear from our pompom waving sex-pozzie supporters what a woman who is being groped while working in a club should do - given that her managers are giving her no support and the regulatory body doesn't give a shit.

C'mon. You're the ones saying sex work is work. So what about worker's rights? How do you suggest we protect workers in these environments?

You can twist what I'm saying all you like.
Everyone can see it.
I said (slowly this time for those at the back)

• Is Dogs question ever levered at the ever present posters on this board or is that saved just for the dissenters? Not. To. Dog. OK.?

Oh Roses! Before you launch into a long gnat-syraining session about whatever tiny irrelevance has dazzled you, that question is still hanging in the air from so many now - what would you like the women who have been subject to touching etc. at work to do given that the regulatory body and the bosses won't do anything? What do you think whistleblowing is?

Please stop making this all about you.

It is not all about you.

It is about women being groped by men, against their consent, while working as dancers in a branch of Spearmint Rhino. It is about whether that is reasonable behaviour for them to have to put up with. It's about whether their management is in the wrong for not living up to the conditions of their licence. It's about whether the local council is wrong for renewing that licence, knowing about the violations of its conditions going on.

It is not about you. Stop trying to make it about you.

(That was to Roses, btw, in case it wasn't obvious).

I'm not trying to make it all about me at all - I just call out bullshit tactics and don't sit down and take it. I know people would rather I just let it slide.
No.
Soz about that.

Take it up with the two confusion posters if it's that fucking annoying to you.

So women are being used as sheilds for assaults on other women in this legal wrangling and the dominant argument in support of this legal argument here is "choice". They can choose to work in this demonstrably unenforceably "safe" job where the employer has made it clear they don't do what they contractually agree to and will fight against any attempt to make them comply by pointing to unassaulted women who haven't complained and who have "contracts".

The "method" of exposing the assualts is deemed to be a breach but the actually breaches of contracts are being positioned as lies by our friendly visiting vulva display people and unacceptable by Roses. Despite them being on film likely also held by the club owners themselves, obtained by consent. I am glad this has been gish galloped so much, its made me think more closely about it.

Object Now! and Not Buying It I say, that's a thing by the way for hole digging.

Yes, that's it in a nutshell, I think, Waterl00.

"I'm not trying to make it all about me"...proceeds to use "I" four times in two sentences.

Which bit are you letting slide there though Roses? Clearly your biggest outrage is for the method used to expose the lies and assaults.

The rest, meh, all part of the chice huh? Let that slide, in slippery Sperming Horno world.

Well, when you keep being referred to and asked shit, it's pretty hard to refer to yourself without the use of I.
It's not me making it about myself.
It's all this bullshit they do that ends up making it so.

Sperming Horno World - good name for it, Waterl00.

Still wondering what women who work there are supposed to do to stop the punters groping them.