UndressedToKill.com

Seems to be a campaign against clubs in Leeds - usual bollox.


http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... -1-4474858

An update and an alternative point of view from Dr Teela Sanders, reader in sociology at the University of Leeds:

Leeds lap dance ban call ‘dangerous’ (Yorkshire Evening Post)

A letter from a young woman in Wednesday's Yorkshire Evening Post, opposing the prohibitionists:

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... -1-4481536

Some informative insights from Chasmal:

http://strippingtheillusion.blogspot.co ... s-who.html

http://strippingtheillusion.blogspot.co ... sy-of.html

http://strippingtheillusion.blogspot.co ... eeves.html

Council chiefs in Leeds are due to annouce their SEV policy for the city on Friday the 15th:

Yorkshire Evening Post article

And here's a piece from Chasmal, about the content and quality of some of the objections to licence renewals:

http://strippingtheillusion.blogspot.co ... berte.html

The Leeds Uni group have set up a web site to give dancers info on tax, employment rights etc www.dancersinfo.co.uk .

Tyke

Victory! All seven Leeds clubs have been relicenced successfully!

The Guido Fawkes blog has commented on Rachel Reeves,

http://order-order.com/2012/07/03/rache ... -defeated/

Tyke

Well, it would appear that Leeds City Council is now drafting a policy which will close three of the seven clubs:

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... -1-5476582

Have Rachel Reeves and the Charlwoods been meddling to get their own way?

Noticed this comment on comments page of the article that I happen to have strong sympathy with.

sugarmouse
7:47 PM on 07/03/2013
To throw a totally different point of view into the mix, the more lapdancing clubs there are, the less money the dancers make, which in turn means less profit for the club owners. The more there are the quicker the lapdancing trade dies.
(Source, been a lapdancer for 11 years. No I'm not also a prostitute, yes I am aware I am now going to get lots of misjudgements of my character, yes I went to university and no I do not have 'Daddy' isssues).
(I'm joking by the way, we can have a sense of humour and humility. But the more is not the merrier and maybe they'll all shut down if more pop up. If you want them shut down let them open more of them! There's not that much money any longer and Leeds is not a large enough place to have a tonne of clubs.

This may be heresy to say on this site but it might be that a limit of clubs is the right decision for the wrong reasons. The right reasons being to preserve quality in adult entertainment (probably not a winning election pledge), rather than have the race to the bottom and an industry fuelled by wannabe dancers trying to hit the jackpot. Rachel Reeves' smugness may be a price worth paying, if the debate is about a limit a lot higher than zero.

How the Council could fairly decide which 4 from 7 could stay open is anyone's guess, Maybe they would put in bids like for the Olympics or mobile phone licences.

tonester72 wrote:This may be heresy to say on this site but it might be that a limit of clubs is the right decision for the wrong reasons. The right reasons being to preserve quality in adult entertainment...

Then let market forces decide: politicians - local or national - should stay out of what ought to be a purely commercial matter.

tonester72 wrote:Rachel Reeves' smugness may be a price worth paying, if the debate is about a limit a lot higher than zero.

No, because it still sends the wrong message to self-appointed activists. If Leeds City Council made a firm decision about the SEV licences back in June of last year, why should this reversed on some flimsy pretext of 'local concern'? If there's a problem with a particular venue or venues, requiring the intervention of the Licensing Committee, that ought to be addressed on its merits alone.

tonester72 wrote:How the Council could fairly decide which 4 from 7 could stay open is anyone's guess, Maybe they would put in bids like for the Olympics or mobile phone licences.

That'd be a recipe for corruption, as anyone familar with the workings of local government would tell you. And why should legal, licenced businesses have to go through a bidding process in order to remain open?

They tried to do something similar in Leicester and 1 of the closed clubs won a court case.

Tyke

Can Leeds City Council afford to lose three judicial reviews in the current economic climate and with central government grants being cut? Can it afford to lose the annual revenue from SEV licences?

I am only pointing out that there may well be good reasons to determine it is desirable to place a restriction on licence numbers, e.g. some of the dancers think it is a good idea. Guess which city the Kate Hardy/Uni of Leeds report looked at and concluded that clubs were financially exploiting dancers through excessive house fees in comparison to the level of custom. Local authorities can and do restrict alcohol licences if they feel that there are too many in one place or the wrong place so it is not completely a big deal if they say they want to do the same with SEV's.

It is just that these morality campaigners only give bad nonsensical reasons for authorities to do so.

It is of course obvious that practical implementation of such a policy would be such a minefield that like in Hackney, Tower Hamlets, and Portsmouth it gets put in the box marked "too difficult" resulting as business as usual in practice.

tonester72 wrote:Local authorities can and do restrict alcohol licences if they feel that there are too many in one place or the wrong place so it is not completely a big deal if they say they want to do the same with SEV's.

If Leeds City Council wishes to go down that route, it needs to set clear criteria and be absolutely transparent in the way in which it goes about it. And not allow activist groups any say in the matter.

tonester72 wrote:It is of course obvious that practical implementation of such a policy would be such a minefield that like in Hackney, Tower Hamlets, and Portsmouth it gets put in the box marked "too difficult" resulting as business as usual in practice.

In the case of Hackney, half of the striptease venues in the general locality of Shoreditch High Street had already either shut down or changed use by the time SEV legislation was introduced, making the cap on the number of venues allowed redundant. I really think that Leeds should also let nature run its course, so to speak.

The Great Smell Of Brute wrote: If Leeds City Council wishes to go down that route, it needs to set clear criteria and be absolutely transparent in the way in which it goes about it. And not allow activist groups any say in the matter.

Absolutely. But they won't because this is all about playing politics to the gallery. I lived in Leeds in the 90's when the Council had a strategy backed by the politicians,of the city centre nightime economy driving growth and regeneration, supporting late night licences and new bars and clubs moving into the city centre. 2am opening was normal when most of the countrys pubs closed at 11.00.

I suspect that this same attitude still remains. If the Council wanted to reduce the licence numbers it had the opportunity last year. The current exercise is about appeasement of Reeves and co. rather than a genuine desire to close places down. The figure of 4 venues has come from the consultation with a Citizens Panel (self appointed talking heads), and what these people thought was a resaonable number. It is not a genuine public consultation, and given the dubious process I am amazed that Leeds came up with a figure as high as 4.

tonester72 wrote:Absolutely. But they won't because this is all about playing politics to the gallery. I lived in Leeds in the 90's when the Council had a strategy backed by the politicians,of the city centre nightime economy driving growth and regeneration, supporting late night licences and new bars and clubs moving into the city centre. 2am opening was normal when most of the countrys pubs closed at 11.00.

Hackney Council had a similar attitude towards Shoreditch at that time, which explains the number of 'hipster' bars in the area and the weekly influx from Essex. Sadly, now that it's firmly established as a 'trendy' area, the anti-booze puritans are on the march to get as many bars as possible closed down and the major retail chains have their eyes on the shop units. Do you reckon that Leeds City Council could be banking on similar developments in the long run?

tonester72 wrote:The current exercise is about appeasement of Reeves and co. rather than a genuine desire to close places down. The figure of 4 venues has come from the consultation with a Citizens Panel (self appointed talking heads), and what these people thought was a resaonable number. It is not a genuine public consultation, and given the dubious process I am amazed that Leeds came up with a figure as high as 4.

The description of "self-appointed talking heads" is apt: it seems that any halfwit with an axe to grind is admitted to the political process nowadays, provided that their prejudices chime with the opinions of an elected decision-maker or two.

I suspect that the figure of four venues was arrived at on the basis of roughly halving the number, given that any attempt to close more than half would generate similar problems to that of drafting a 'nil' policy.

The Great Smell Of Brute wrote: Hackney Council had a similar attitude towards Shoreditch at that time, which explains the number of 'hipster' bars in the area and the weekly influx from Essex. Sadly, now that it's firmly established as a 'trendy' area, the anti-booze puritans are on the march to get as many bars as possible closed down and the major retail chains have their eyes on the shop units. Do you reckon that Leeds City Council could be banking on similar developments in the long run?

I don't think Leeds are thinking about it that deeply. It looks like a knee jerk reaction to Reeves' pressure. I have not been to the City recently but I think that the "controversial" venues on The Headrow, near the City Hall are conversions from mainstream bars that were struggling.

In some ways the process in Leeds seems to be the opposite of that in Shoreditch i.e. the stripclubs have filed the void at the end of the 90's/00's nightlife boom, whilst in Shoreditch the trendy bars have filled the void left by traditional strip pubs, putting pressure onto the existing venues that look out of step with the new image.

The "panel" Leeds used does not seem very representative, roughly 50% want a ban on lap dancing clubs here while Kent Uni's survey suggested that nationally only 3% wanted a ban. I suspect that the public consultation in the summer will kill this idea but if it does not chosing which 3 of the 7 to close and explaining why will cause the council great difficulties and the unsuccesful clubs will be able to appeal. Lots of expensive court time will follow.

Tyke

Leeds consultation opens 18 March.

http://www.leeds.gov.uk/Business/Pages/ ... ments.aspx

Note the new policy section on a 'Child Friendly City': it's the "WHAT-ABOUT-THE-KIDDIES?!!" excuse, isn't it?

Here's a link to the current online consultation:

https://consult.leeds.gov.uk/leeds/KMS/dmart.aspx


You may wish to note that, whilst fields are provided for personal details, completing them isn't mandatory.

TonyN has written a piece for the Stripping The Illusion blog about the ongoing situation in Leeds:

http://strippingtheillusion.blogspot.co ... eally.html

Well, it would appear that, by hook or by crook, the Charlwoods have managed to get their own way (at least, until the venues affected call for judicial revues):

Leeds City Council to limit number of lap dancing clubs (BBC News website)


TonyN is staying on the case, via the Stripping the Illusion blog:

http://strippingtheillusion.blogspot.co ... s-one.html