New Cross campaigners launch "Stop the Strip" campaign

A new website www.stopthestrip.org has been produced by the local group campaign against the White Hart pub operating as a strip club.

The group plan a major demonstration planned for the Friday May 22nd (6-9pm) outside the pub.

125 comments:

Headhunter said...

That's an impressive website, someone has time on their hands...

Anonymous said...

Free thinking mung eating artisans strike again... some peoples thinking is clearly free-er than others.

drakefell debaser said...

More effort than the landlord put into the interior of the strip joint - http://tinyurl.com/dls3ag

Anonymous said...

Bunch of nimby dogooders

Brockley Nick said...

This line is quite telling:

"As a group we believe all workers have the right to Unionise and seek support when they are being exploited. We would extend support to any and all women working in the venue."

drakefell debaser said...

oh come on the place is a dive and should be shut down.

Brockley Nick said...

It certainly is and was a dive.

Anonymous said...

Who cares? Its a legal enterprise. I don't like shop on the hill but I'm not campaigning for it to be closed.

david said...

why is it that every comment on this entry prior to mine which supports the right of the owner to run this particular business is from an anonymouse?

Brockley Nick said...

3/9 anon posts? Par for the course, unfortunately.

The Cat Man said...

I have no problems with a stip club - IF - the establishment has sensible policies to protect the clients/employees who use it/work there.

Are they just for female stripping or men as well?

Maybe New Cross will become the next Soho!!! :o)

Anonymous said...

Perhaps you could open up one yourself to cater for that market, Catman. Situate it in the west side of brockley with a neon sign saying "Saveloys"

drakefell debaser said...

catman, putting your sensible hat on, would you pay money to sit in one of those shitty arm chairs while someone gets their kit off?

tyrwhitt michael said...

I don't understand why these campaigners are demonstrating against the pub which is operating within the law - I assume.

Shouldn't they be demonstrating against the laws which allow it operate and lobbying their MPs accordingly.

Isn't there a law going through at the moment anyway to reclassify such establisments and make them harder to open in such locations.

In the meantime I can't work out which seat the performer uses and which one the customer sits on? Any ideas?

drakefell debaser said...

Perhaps they do a group discount hence the sofa.

The short curtains allow you to see the ankles of the strippers either side as well.

The Cat Man said...

Admittedly I have never been there, and kind of stepped in half way through this conversation.

I personally have no problems in going to a stip club as long as I know it is safe for both customers and workers. And it would have to be one of those posh places, not some sort of dirty hell-hole like half the gay places in soho.

I take it from where this conversation is going that this place is a 'dirty old man' type of affair?

Headhunter said...

It's not so much the strip joint I particularly object to, it's the potential dregs of society that may flock to it. New Cross has enough of its own dregs without having to handle more.

taki said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
taki said...

i'm pretty sure all the cynics here would change their tune if a strip pub opened down their road.

the pub is in a residential area with 4 schools within a mile radius. it's also in a regeneration area in a grade 2 listed building.

"free thinking" isn't the point, it's a morality issue and community issue.

fred vest said...

looks like a decent campaign, i wish them all the best

catman, out of interest how do you know if workers in strip joints are safe or not?

Brockley Nick said...

Taki I can fully understand why people might not want it near them or have a moral objection to it, but we donkt have the right to unilaterally impose our personal moral standards on others. Planning laws are there to try and navigate the contrasting needs and wants of different parts of society. This is a legal establishment. The protestors have been wise enough not to drag morality into it.

Ross said...

As someone who lives very near to this venue i don't have any real 'anti' opinions and to be honest i haven't noticed any more 'dregs' than the usual crowd that frequented the place in it's pub form.

i couldn't honestly tell you if i'd prefer to see it running as a strip club or boarded up.

i do think it's funny that there's a shop that i could purchase illegal substances from about 50 meters further down the road, yet people chose to campaign over this.

BrockleyBiker said...

"i do think it's funny that there's a shop that i could purchase illegal substances from about 50 meters further down the road, yet people chose to campaign over this."

Hmmmm. I think subtelty comes into play. Having a strip joint on such a busy corner will make the place look scuzzy (or scuzzier for those who seem to have a thing against New X). 90% of people walking past places that do stuff on the side never notice it is going on.

Taki said...

All statements of morality aside, no-one in their right mind can argue that this is a good thing for New Cross. Especially in an apparent "regeneration" area.

By the way, I understand the system they use is that the dancers pay money in order to work there, then they make money on their tips. Doesn't sound like a system with many rights for the workers to me.

Anonymous said...

The tips are plentiful

Comment said...

A lap dancing club in a residential area? It's like an open invitation to degenerate the area. What kind of people is that going to attract? What kind of message does this send out about New Cross? Words fail me...

Graeme said...

"By the way, I understand the system they use is that the dancers pay money in order to work there, then they make money on their tips. Doesn't sound like a system with many rights for the workers to me."

Much like a hairdresser, a mini-cab driver, or an independent derivatives trader on a US exchange who buy the right (aka a chair, a circuit fee, or a seat) to work in an established set-up. Unfortunately, being self-employed doesn't really entitle you to a whole bunch of rights. It's take it or leave it.

Anonymous said...

I don't think anyone can really equate hairdressing with lap-dancing. I can't be sure but I don't think the exploitative aspect is there in hairdressing, for one thing.

Anonymous said...

Boooooobs!!

Graeme said...

Actually, I will concede that the hairdressing analogy was a bit poor; they generally take a percentage. But in what way exploited?

I've chatted to a few lap-dancers, and most are/were well-educated eastern Europeans after quick, easy, probably tax-free cash. One nice (posh) student I met in Edinburgh was going to use the filthy lucre to buy a couple of polo ponies. OK, these might not be entirely representative, but then again neither is the idea that all the girls are smuggled in by Albanian crime-lords and work with a gun to their head.

BrockleyBiker said...

"OK, these might not be entirely representative, but then again neither is the idea that all the girls are smuggled in by Albanian crime-lords and work with a gun to their head"

You say that as though the balance is somewhere in the middle of those two things. The balance is nowhere near the middle. Far fucking from it.

Graeme said...

No need to swear. Give us the stats. I'm just relaying personal experience.

The Cat Man said...

I fear middle class lefties, henriettas and hoo rahh henrys feel that some how these dancers need protecting, while in actual fact they might even want to work in these places to earn fast money.

Rather than helping them, you could even be hurting them finanicially.

Tyrwhitt Michael said...

I have to say the torture to death of two French students and the shooting of an innocent Polish health worker in the crossfire between two crackheads come much higher up my "agenda of things to stop happening in New Cross" than a few young girls taking their clothes off.

Get some perspective please.....

Anonymous said...

www.eaves4women.co.uk/Lilith_Project/Documents/Reports/Lilith_report_lap_dancing_striptease_camden.pdf

BrockleyBiker said...

Sorry for swearing. My personal view is this: The normalisation of establishments such as these is a negative move which is harmful to society as a whole and in particular its treatment and attitude towards women.

'Upmarket' gentleman's clubs, suburban brothels, the failures of police towards those who are a victim or rape and sexual assault, they are all part of the same thing: expressions of mysigony and patriacrchy. None of it can be taken in isolation. And the more we normalise and accept such objectification the worse the problems will become.

BrockleyBiker said...

"than a few young girls taking their clothes off.

Get some perspective please....."

'Girls'?

fred vest said...

"Rather than helping them, you could even be hurting them finanicially"

typical tory line - alongside things like adequate health & safety provisions for workers and minimum wage can only but hurt workers and the paternal/benevalant tories are here to help by rolling them back

sex workers like most of us are dependent on the market for means of access to their means of subsistence & reproduction, and unfortunate as it is that we live in a society that perpertuates this situation, we have to aknoweldge that these industries exist and as much as possible should be done to ensure the safety of those working in those industries and also to ensure that the existence of such places do not have material adverse impact on the communities they are situated within - i support the right of any community to mobilise against things that they feel are adverse to them and their community, the problem is that up and down the country certain communities, due to the material & social status of those within them, are much better equipped to mobilise against such things than others

also 100% agree with brockley biker about the normalisation of mysogny (ditto drug culture) and that none of these things can be taken in isolation

Anonymous said...

"I have to say the torture to death of two French students and the shooting of an innocent Polish health worker in the crossfire between two crackheads come much higher up my "agenda of things to stop happening in New Cross" than a few young girls taking their clothes off."

Agreed.

fred vest said...

it's easy to play top trumps with shocking stuff till you get to the stage of reacting to nothing

and as has been alluded by others earlier, you can't just look at things in isolation - the exploitation of workers and crime/violence in society are just symptomatic of the fundamental economic values/structure of the society we live in today, it produces all these things in abundance - thatcher's aim was to change the soul using economics as the method, well she suceeded

fred vest said...

"the shooting of an innocent Polish health worker"

out of interest if the health worker was 'guilty' would their shooting have been ok?

Tom said...

Personally, I think the Daily Mail is probably the most misogynistic force in the country. Constantly judging women solely by their fat content. For example.

fred vest said...

they're not alone by a long shot though - look at the shock horror that everyone experienced a few weeks ago when it was revealed that being a fat ugly middle age woman from scotland was not incompatable with having talent - that screwed with many peoples' heads

Anonymous said...

"out of interest if the health worker was 'guilty' would their shooting have been ok?"

Yes

Brockley Nick said...

Oh God, please don't drag Susan Boyle in to this. That story is indicative of nothing other than the fact that the format of the show has programmed us as viewers to expect that a funny-looking, awkward person whose introductory clip shows her confessing to never having kissed anyone, will come on and screech and jibber.

It does not shed any sort of light on wider society, even if it does give columnists an easy topic to write about.

fred vest said...

it's indicative of and reflects attitudes that do exist in society nick - stuff like that are (in part) both a product and a cause of those attitudes

things don't just exist in a bubble completely isolated from everyday life you know

Brockley Nick said...

If you base your arguments on the reactions of Piers Morgan et al in a tightly formatted and edited TV show it does you a disservice.

And I agree with Tom, I don't see that this grotty strip club "normalises" anything very much, in comparison with say, Page 3.

Anonymous said...

What's wrong with laughing at fat ugly people?

fred vest said...

"If you base your arguments on the reactions of Piers Morgan et al in a tightly formatted and edited TV show it does you a disservice."

not for the first time you misunderstand and confuse the particular (the show/incident in question) for the general point being made (these attitudes do exist in society, and extend for wider than piers morgan)

re point about this and page 3, brockley bikers point about not taking things in isolation is an apt one (although again doing so is another example of the particular/general trap)

Brockley Nick said...

No Fred, you fail to distinguish between good evidence and bad evidence. Of course I don't deny that appearances matter in this and every society. That's obvious.

What I'm saying is that the case of Susan Boyle is not good evidence of the prevalance of this social phenomenon. But carry on.

fred vest said...

given that i was talking about the existence and impact of social phenomoenn (and it's root cause) way before the throwaway comment about xfactor came up, and then when it did i presented it as being reflective/mirroring attitiudes that do exist in society (can you tell the difference between this and evidence?), i'm not sure what point you're trying to make about it's suitability or not as evidence, it's not exactly been offered as evidence, it doesn't have to be infact as anyone who goes around with their eyes open can see for themselves, because as the name suggests phenomenon is something that appears to us, it's root cause may be something to be contested, but it is in itself evidence of itself

Brockley Nick said...

So you agree with me then, let's dwell no longer on Susan Boyle and her relevance to this issue.

fred vest said...

if 'art' (loosest sense obviously!) imitates life, no one actually would believe that that art is evidence for the life it seeks to imitate, but purely reflective of it

does that make my point clearer?

wrong end of the stick said...

Never mind philosophical point scoring - lets move this debate on or should I say closer to home.

The Talbot should re-open as a Gentleman's club - discuss.

Comment said...

No as a nursery.

The Oracle said...

LEWISHAM STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS 2007/08
(c) Members and Chief Officers
Declarable related party transactions are as follows:

• The Mayor's wife is an employee of London Councils, to whom Lewisham paid £1.459m.

• The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Alexander, is a member of the Lewisham Local Education Partnership, to whom Lewisham paid £1.593m in 2007/08 and is a member of South East Enterprise to whom Lewisham paid £0.191m in 2007/08.

• Councillor Fletcher is a board member of the Ilderton Motor Project, to whom Lewisham paid £0.082m in 2007/08

• Councillor Keogh is employed by Envirowork Lewisham to whom Lewisham paid £0.019m in 2007/08

• Councillor Long is Chair of the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust whom Lewisham paid £3.189m in 2007/08.

• Councillor Milton is a member of the Advisory Board of Envirowork Lewisham, to whom Lewisham paid £0.019m and board member of Voluntary Action Lewisham to whom Lewisham paid £0.592m in 2007/08.

• Councillor Muldoon is a member of Noah's Ark Children's Venture to whom Lewisham paid £0.066m in 2007/08.

• Councillor Nisbet is a member of Age Concern Lewisham, to whom Lewisham paid £0.102m in 2007/08.

• Councillor Paschoud is a member of Lewisham MENCAP, to whom Lewisham paid £0.001m, a member of Lewisham Disability Coalition, to whom Lewisham paid £.010m and a member of Platform 1 (Forest Hill)Youth Project, to whom Lewisham paid £0.032m. in 2007/08.

• Councillor Smith is Vice Chair of Trustees of Groundwork Trust London South East, to whom Lewisham paid £0.049m in 2007/08.

• Councillor Till is a member of Noah’s Ark Children’s Venture, to whom Lewisham paid £0.066m, a member of North Downham Training Project, to whom Lewisham paid £0.255m, a member of Rockbourne Youth Club Management Committee, to whom Lewisham paid £0.001m, a member of Ilderton Motor Project to whom Lewisham paid £0.082m, a member of the Marsha Phoenix Memorial Trust, to whom Lewisham paid £0.217m, a member of Goldsmith’s Community Association, to whom Lewisham paid £0.030m and a member of Parent Support Group, to whom Lewisham paid £0.085m, in 2007/08.

• The Director of Childrens’ Social Care’s wife is Director / Chief Executive of St. Michael’s Fellowship, to whom Lewisham paid £0.339m in 2007/08.

• The Executive Director for Regeneration is the Director of Interea Consulting. Lewisham paid Interea Consulting £0.189m (excluding VAT) for the services of the Executive Director of Regeneration.

With so many snouts at the trough, is it any wonder we have dancing dens, drug dens, and swine flu ?

Comment said...

Can you link the source please?

Anonymous said...

And one day, if you work hard, you will get paid a lot too.

Anonymous said...

Let me see now? Could the link be "Lewisham Statement of Accounts 2007-2008"?

We all know that mob have their own pet projects.

Frank said...

Nice little earner for whoever is on the regeneration kick.

Anonymous said...

Very hard.... for £189k.

Val said...

It's the VAT that annoys me on that one. I'm sure he's worth very penny.

Tressilliana said...

Not all of those by any means are snouts at the trough. Many of the items you list are councillors sitting on boards of charities or community projects, and they won't be getting paid for that - probably won't even be getting expenses. You might as well say that a good many councillors are governors of local schools to which the LEA distributes millions and millions of pounds annually. If the councillor and his family/friends don't get any financial benefit from his/her membership, where is the issue?

I certainly can't see a problem with Cllr Long being Chair of SLaM. She probably gets paid for that as it involves a significant amount of time and responsibility. The money going from Lewisham to SLaM is a tiny fraction (about 1% in fact) of SLaM's total income.

NB I'm not a member of the Labour (or any other) political party, and I don't work for Lewisham council or SLaM. I'm just a pedant who likes to confine her outrage for things that really merit it.

Anonymous said...

It is believed The Oracle hides within the Nebakanezer whilst cruising the matrix but nobody can be sure.

I think he saying that the funds are going the way the councillors want it, not the voter. Save for those who aint councillors, and I wonder why they're paid like that.

Val said...

Well, the last two are not councillors and I would really like it if The Oracle posted more on this. Who poices all this?

Val said...

OOPS. Should have written 'polices'.

The Oracle said...

You do.

Comment said...

The electorate

fred vest said...

an other intereting fact - all lewisham's 3 MP's have married other labour MP's (not that that in itself means anything, but it's a cosy wee club, and doubles the expense claims for each family as well)

fred vest said...

the mayors wife used to be a councilor as well did she not?

The Oracle said...

Fred knows Vest. They have eyes and yet they could not see.

tyrwhitt michael said...

I was disappointed to see Joan Ruddock was not one of the Labour rebels who voting against the Government on the Gurkha's right to sttle issue.

Glad to see sense prevailed though. Lets hope Labour now do the right thing.

Anonymous said...

"Not all of those by any means are snouts at the trough. Many of the items you list are councillors sitting on boards of charities or community projects, and they won't be getting paid for that - probably won't even be getting expenses."

That's a matter of conjecture.

It's the Director of Childrens’ Social Care’s association that interests. Plus the Executive Director for Regeneration. Why is this paid via what appears to be a private company? Is that normal? Seems like a lot of money.

The Oracle said...

Any other way may be 'taxing'?

fred vest said...

it's a rare event when ruddock votes against the govt (unless the vote is about clamping down on MP's expenses, or more admirably trident)

Anonymous said...

The question one should be asking is why so little of this money seems to come to Brockley? Now we know.

Where are these bozos when we need them on our pet projects - which is Brockley?

How about Brockley Cross ('a hard one to solve' we're told), Hilly Fields childrens playground('fine'), Lewisham Way ('is what it is') etc.

It does make me mad!

max said...

The Executive Director of Regeneration is hired through an agency.

Comment said...

Don't bother to get mad, get involved with local democracy, maybe even become a councillor.

Val said...

It's well known that all the money earmarked for Brockley goes to Telegraph Hill, Deptford, or Ladywell.

Frank said...

My neighbour calls it the Brockley Triangle. Because, by the time the cash comes our way, it disappears. It's called a paradox.

Anonymous said...

@Max. What agency? Says there that it goes to HIS company! How do I form one, Catman?

Comment said...

This is incendiary stuff...

max said...

It's a big job where you really want somebody that knows his stuff, so I'm not sure that using an agency is that wrong. I'd rather that than somebody whose main merit is a big political patronage.

I don't know the details of the relationship between him and his agency, it says there that he's a director, seems a bit odd but I'm not sure why it shouldn't be a legitimate thing.

max said...

Sorry, I was thinking of agencies as a way to select a person to hire, why he is employed through an agency rather than the Council itself may have to do with his pension situation. I think he's already retired from a previous job.

Tamsin said...

Tresiliana is quite right - and it's not conjecture. You could look these things up they are in the public domain. For example North Downham Training Project, referred to because Cllr Alan Till is a Trustee/Director is a registered charity, with its accounts on-line and open to view and - as Tresiliana suggested - he did not even get any expenses.

Some of this may look like funding for pet projects (why they have to declare their interests) but with possibly one or two exceptions it is not personal gain or paid employment.

@ Fred Vest - MPs marry each other because it is such unsocial hours - and they can keep an eye on their spouse's "research assistants".

@ Joan Ruddock finds it hard to vote against the Government as she is a minister. Notoriously she was accused of talking out the Fuel Poverty Bill when it came before Parliament in March. There is a public meeting to discuss the Bill (to which she has been invited) on Thursday 28th May, at the St. Andrew's United Reformed Church on the corner of Wickham Road and Brockley Road 7pm to 9pm.

@ Anon (and declaring my own interest here) when has money that should have gone to Brockley been siphoned off to Telegraph Hill. What Council funding are you saying that the Telegraph Hill Ward has received?

Tressilliana said...

' "Not all of those by any means are snouts at the trough. Many of the items you list are councillors sitting on boards of charities or community projects, and they won't be getting paid for that - probably won't even be getting expenses."

That's a matter of conjecture. '

Indeed it is, as indicated by the use of the word 'probably'. The Charity Commission requires full disclosure of all monies paid to trustees so that would be easy to check.

As for who polices this - we do, by having discussions like this, and the Audit Commission also has a good look, I think. The Oracle has not (I assume) dashed off to post this from a document s/he nicked from a photocopier in Lawrence House - it is all published information. Council accounts are all in the public domain for any taxpayer to inspect.

If proper procedures are being adhered to (always worth checking too) councillors should not be voting on matters where they have a declarable interest.

Tamsin said...

Sorry - last bit at Val, you weren't hiding as an "Anon"

Val said...

@Tamsin. Wasn't that lovely cafe and park reconstructed with money from Lewisham?

Anonymous said...

@Max. I'm due to retire. Where can I get a job that pays £189k (with or without a pension I no doubt have on top)?

fred vest said...

"Joan Ruddock finds it hard to vote against the Government as she is a minister"

she found it just as hard to vote against them in the 7 years or so between 2001-2008 when she was just an MP (no doubt partly explaining why she is now a minister)

Tamsin said...

What Cafe - there isn't one. Cafe Orange was operated by Carr Gomm and funded through various European and lottery grants.

The Park restoration was a £1.25m Heritage Lottery bid and took the best part of ten years hard slog on the part of a group of residents to bring about. I think we may have got £10,000 towards the initial feasibility study - or possibly a few thousand more - and crucially a lot of officer time and the commitment to running costs and maintaining a warden presence in the future without which the capital grants would not have been made.

Greg said...

@Tamsin. "If proper procedures are being adhered to (always worth checking too...)"
You seem like an apologist.
Are you suggesting that as long as procedures are followed there can be no suggestion of wrongdoing? If so you are more naive than I imagined.
This was a defence recently put forward by several individuals involved in a process called Rendition. I seem to recall that it was also used during Watergate. But perhaps you're not old enough to know of the latter.

fabhat said...

Does Rockbourne Youth Club Management Committee, to whom Lewisham paid £0.001m actually mean they paid them a thousand pounds? putting all this figures as .m definitely makes them more inflammatory.

Tamsin said...

Not at all - there can always be suggestions of wrong-doing, just look at this site!

But I do object to the Oracle citing the voluntary, unpaid work that various councillors are doing for third sector bodies as if these were nice little earners when on the one of them that I actually checked (the NDTP) it obviously wasn't. And it is not naive to suggest that this probably goes for quite a lot of the other ones as well. This is the way those bodies work. Get a councillor on your board because they are clued up and usually committed and competent. In fact if you have a signficant amount of Council funding the usual set up is to have a Councillor on the Management Committee (with or without voting rights) just to keep the channels of communication working effectively.

How sweet of you to suggest that I am too young to remember Watergate. What were you doing when you heard that Kennedy had been shot?

Tamsin said...

Fabhat - yes, £1000 does sound like what could be paid to a Youth Club for a bit of equipment - just look at what comes from the localities fund applications. And you are so right about the way the figures are presented. £0.03m sounds terribly generous, where £30K is hardly a bean in the scheme of things.

Anonymous said...

I was sailing the seas.

The fact that so many officers get behind Telegraph Hill, even to present an appeal for funding from other parties is a huge push. It never seems as if the officers are rooting for Brockley in that way, certainly not the conservation side. Surely that £1.2m grant would have to have been match-funded by Lewisham?

Tressilliana said...

@Fabhat - yes, I thought that too.

@Greg - you are responding to me, not Tamsin. No, I'm not an apologist, I just like to see people getting their facts straight. As an avid reader of Rotten Boroughs in Private Eye I am perfectly aware of the potential for wrongdoing in public life, especially where money is involved. I just think it's worth bearing in mind that there are some safeguards there. If they're not working or if they're being flouted, that's the time to get all aerated about it, as my father-in-law would have said.

(I remember Watergate vividly, as it happens. Don't know how old you are but I'm in my late 40s.)

max said...

Anon says:
"@Max. I'm due to retire. Where can I get a job that pays £189k (with or without a pension I no doubt have on top)?"

Apparently there are good agencies but it depends on your cv.

I'm not saying that he's not doing exceptionally well but I sure know that following the departure of his predecessor he was landed on a job with a lot of big projects going on at once and you really want someone you can trust for that so if he could give that guarantee that was a good opportunity for him to negotiate a good deal for himself.
I don't know who the other candidates were but he seems to be doing ok in his job.

You may disagree on some of the Council's regeneration projects but to follow them all at once requires quite some skill.

Comment said...

How is this lapdancing club supposed to 'regenerate' New Cross?

Tamsin said...

@Anon No - the only funding was a contribution to the original "seed-corn" for a first stage lottery bid that then got the grant to enable a full survey and proposal to be bespoken for the full scale bid for £1m+. Hardly any cash at all from council coffers. Officer time, certainly, but they were doing similar in other parks in the Borough, notably Manor Park and Beckenham.

We were lucky in the timing, perhaps, in that Park restoration was the flavour of the decade, but you did need to have a group of residents prepared to put a lot of hard work into it themselves with meetings and open public consultions.

Tamsin said...

BTW - Telegraph Hill Ward assembly tonight - Crossways Academy at 7pm. Relevant to the West side...

Tamsin said...

and there will be an update on the White Hart campaign/issue...

Brockley Nick said...

Tamsin, I have tweeted that, thanks.

Comment said...

Just going back to moral and social implications of such places as lap dancing clubs. I am reading the guardian online today and in the 'sexual healing' section a man has written in asking for advice on how to get his wife to have a specific type pubic wax, because apparently it turns him on.

The question is where has this desire come from? He had from what can be gleaned a loving relationship but suddenly he wants specific things, my contention is that it is porn, lad's mags, and genrally overtly and arguably over sexualised nature of mainstream society that invading people's relationships.

Having a lapdancing club in a RESIDENTIAL area, is just more of the same. I think it's psychologically unhealthy. Men should see and interact with women in non commercialised settings where women have been primped, preened and waxed into fantasitised forms.
The link to the article is here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/apr/30/sexual-healing-bikini-wax

fred vest said...

well said!

(although i don't think the location of the club, residential or otherwise, makes any difference to the points being made)

Anonymous said...

I'm confused by the insistence that the strip club is in a residential area. It's clearly in a commercial area, on a main road, surrounded by shops. If one is going to put a strip club somewhere, then it seems as good a place as any.
Also, noone has considered whether it brings the area down compared to an empty shell, because that would be the alternative.
And in all the talk about the welfare of the dancers, noone has suggested putting them in contact with the Union of Sex Workers, a branch of the GMB to represent workers like these.
Finally, while there may be corruption in Lewisham council, that list of interests doesn't seem to show any. Unless people are shocked that councillors also sit on the boards of charities/NGOs.

Danja said...

Also, noone has considered whether it brings the area down compared to an empty shell, because that would be the alternative.I doubt that the Wellington Pub Company would leave it empty for long should Mr Linwood go bust.

Headhunter said...

There is a new apartment development pretty much next door to the lap dancing club and one one side, across the road, there is a street full of houses

fred vest said...

"And in all the talk about the welfare of the dancers, noone has suggested putting them in contact with the Union of Sex Workers, a branch of the GMB to represent workers like these"

i'm sure sex workers are far more aware about the benefits, if any, of unionisation in their place of work than those who do not have any contact with the sex industry, whether as worker or customer

tyrwhitt michael said...

Danja

Believe me there are plenty of pubs left empty for quite some time.

I live near one......

tyrwhitt michael said...

Danja

Believe me there are plenty of pubs left empty for quite some time.

I live near one......

drakefell debaser said...

Perhaps the chap writing in to the Guardian has always had a preference for less hair – just as he states and no other reason. There is no mention of age or how long the marriage has been nor is there any suggestion that he loves his wife any less than he did before he found out she doesn’t have a landing strip. The guy is asking a question and appears to be willing to accept the fact that he might be acting selfish. He just wants to know. I personally wouldn’t write into a newspaper to ask this sort of question but hey, each to their own.

There are plenty of women out there that prefer less hair as well and they have made this choice on their own. They also might prefer their other half to do the same which is only fair. This is not necessarily down to porn as it could be for hygiene reasons or better sensuality.

But, the old fella on the comments makes a good point.

As an older man I would give anything for regular sex - hairy or otherwise. The years fly by much quicker than you think, so make the most of what you've got and quit quibbling over detail

Monkeyboy said...

This thread is getting weird..... I'm off.

Comment said...

Nick I just wanted to enquire should this lapdancing get the go ahead. Will Brockley Central be doing a review?

Anonymous said...

an accompanying picture would be necessary as well...

Headhunter said...

IF it gets the go ahead? It HAS ALREADY got the go ahead!

Comment said...

So the club is operational, with working lap dancers?

Headhunter said...

Not sure if it's open yet as a lap dancing club. I assume so as the windows are already blacked out and it looks like the interior has been kitted out. They have the full go ahead from the magistrates in Greenwich who overturned Lewisham BC's decision to reject the application.

fabhat said...

I went past on the bus the other week and it looked open - bouncer on door, punters going in...

Comment said...

Well if it's open I think we do need to have a review. I acknowledge that I have pre judged the place. But I do feel it is an poor decision to place such a place in a residential area however it is a tasteful, burleque type place it may mediate some of the exploitative elements. (But I doubt it)

mum in NX said...

I didnt notice any change about the pub until those plonkers made it public and gave it all that free publicity. This is not just a small bunch of residents who want to close the pub,its the local Labour clique and the the NDC again cause they want to knock down the pub cause its next to their private flats. Isnt it amazing, due to all the interference we have Soho in town. What do they expect the pub to do when there is not only a smoking ban, but also other vital business has been wiped out by the NDC, ie the Clutch Center, Renolds, Senario Night Club etc. Well done NDC so this is what you have produced 9 years later after spending £45 mil. And not a Youth Center in sight. I am much more concerned for our young with nothing to do and nowhere to go. Oh yea, How many pubs have closed down in the last 10 years? Well I dont know about you but I am gonna support the Landlord. But I prefer naked men myself. I think it would be much more wise to get rid of the rip off NDC and its testosterone driven style of management. Perhaps we should start counting how many snouts have been in the trough and how did they get away with it? I heard that someone in the 170 community center is paying themselves more than £60k per year, some charity eh? So lets get real shall we?

patrick1971 said...

"What do they expect the pub to do when there is not only a smoking ban, but also other vital business has been wiped out by the NDC, ie the Clutch Center, Renolds, Senario Night Club etc."What do we expect the pub to do? Hmmm. Well, the smoking ban is a non-starter as that affects every pub in the country. The White Hart occupies a prime position. It could have cleaned itself up and actually looked like a welcoming place to stop in for a pint, rather than the sort of place where you'd get glassed if you looked at someone the wrong way. As for Scenarios nightclub, yes, what New Cross really needs is a nightspot where there were regular shootings and violence. Great!

See the nearby Marquis of Granby for a pub which has managed to remain traditional and successful whilst attracting a broad mix of clientele from across the area. Without strippers!

And as for "[the local Labour clique] want to knock down the pub cause its next to their private flats", really? Do the members of our "local Labour clique", whomever that may comprise, really all live above that chemists?

Monkeyboy said...

Mung beaners 1, grubby old men 0

http://transpont.blogspot.com/2009/07/last-lap-at-white-hart.html

Brad from Brockley said...

You guys are crazy! Why the hell shouldnt New Cross Gate have a strip club. Its not a family neibourhood. Brockley is, Ladywell is, but the High st of New Cross Gate is not. Its businesses and pubs.

Dont be prudes. As long as the venue behaves themselves, doesnt advertise it (cause u guys r doin it for them), keep it out of public view to children- the only people who can make it dangerous is YOU!!!! YOUR the ones that will make it negative, not the owner.

As someone said earlier on. If you didnt say anything, no one would know..

Grow up guys..

And I will leave my name,

Perv from Peckham said...

A strip club is not in keeping with aspirations of the area for gentrification. Capisce?

Brockley Central Label Cloud