UK Sex Sells News

Spearmint Rhino lap-dancing club in Bournemouth  has been granted a new sexual entertainment venue licence, despite claims it exploited customers.

Spearmint Rhino's licence went before Bournemouth council's licensing board with the council receiving 15 objections to its application for a renewal.

Councillor and anti-lap dancing campaigner,  David Smith, produced three witnesses he claimed had been exploited .

The board's chair, Cllr Andrew Morgan, granted a six-month licence on a probationary period subject to conditions agreed with police. He criticised the club for being woeful in losing some CCTV footage, adding:

If you do not get it right next time, you will not get the result you want.

On November 24, some of  biggest names in the British adult industry and fans alike braved the hateful verbal abuse from an Object picket to attend the 2nd annual Paul Raymond Awards held at London's Spearmint Rhino gentlemen's club.

The show was hosted by TV personality Luisa Zissman and top comedian Russell Kane and the winners were:

• Paul Raymond Girl of the Year: Lexi Lowe
• Female Performer of the Year: Samantha Bentley
• Male Performer of the Year: Demetri XXX
• Newcomer of the Year: Carla Mai
• MILF of the Year: Rebecca More
• Adult Film of the Year: Benefits Treat produced by PureXXX Films
• Adult Product of the Year: Fleshlight Flight
• Mayfair Cover Girl of the Year: Emma Green
• Club International Cover Girl of the Year: Sophia Knight
• Escort Magazine Cover Girl of the Year: Brook Logan
• Photographer of the Year: Holly Randall
• PaulRaymond.xxx Fan Favourite: Jess West
• PRP Wife/Girlfriend of the Year: Sally from South London
• Lifetime Achievement Award: Steve Colby
• Editors Choice Award: Danielle Maye & Jenny Laird

A club on John Bright Street, central Birmingham, has been refused a licence by Birmingham City Council. This venue, which previously offered striptease before becoming a burlesque club ('Rouge') was refused a licence on the basis of being unsuitable within the locality and with reference to other land use in the vicinity.

What a load of bollox. John Bright Street is in a desolate corner of Birmingham city centre that is penned in by 2 legs of inner ring road dual carriage way, on the other side a busy little road which is one of the few ways in and out of the shopping area...and on the fourth side is the concrete monstrosity of New Street station. The only businesses that hang in there are a few pubs, a cinema and a theatre. It is the most suitable area in town.

There was only one public objection.

Update: Ludicrous and nimby claims

8th December 2014. See  article from  birminghammail.co.uk . Thanks to Trog

Birmingham Council has banned a new lap dancing club in the city centre following objections from a miserable campaign group based next door. The council's licensing committee chairman Barbara Dring ludicrously claimed:

The use of the venue would be out of keeping with the locality.

Action for Blind People formally objected to the license application for Lace Gentlemens Club on John Bright Street. The venue was previously used as a Spearmint Rhino lap dancing club until 2008, followed by an independent operator which closed several years ago. Cormac McCarthy of Action for Blind People whinged:

The overall nature of the street has changed remarkably since the development of the station. This use is not in keeping with the street. The street has improved considerably in the last two years with more people accessing our services.

Speaking on behalf of the Lace owner, solicitor Heath Thomas argued that John Bright Street is a suitable area for a lap dancing club. He said:

This is a street which is part of Birmingham's night time economy. No other individuals have raised concerns. There is no suggestion this is going to give rise to crime and anti-social behaviour.

He also pointed out there was, crucially, no objection from police.

Have a look at Pandora Blake's blog , she's got her own response, toughing it out and letting ATVOD do its worst, her complaint about ATVOD, and a useful list of hyperlinks, including the reaction of some producers: Nimue Allen , who doesn't say explicitly what she proposes to do, Dr Hywel Phillips (the brainiest fetish producer?), who is also calling ATVOD out, and Sarah Bright , who is making the sites she and her husband run resident in Spain.

Interesting that even the Daily Wail seems unenthusiastic about this latest authoritarian codswallop.

More generally, I wonder if any campaigner would go beyond the references to the obvious failure to find any link between exposure to porn and harm to people aged under 18. Is anyone prepared to stand up for the right of young people to view what they choose? After all, the teenage boy enjoying a J Arthur is the stereotypical viewer of porn. If my contemporaries at a boys' grammar school in the late fifties and early sixties were all enthusiastic connoisseurs of the photographic oeuvre of Harrison Marks, Arthur Howell and Russell Gay, I can't imagine that modern young men are slow to find a bit of smut on that internet thingy.

Comment: The problem with banning female ejaculation in porn

7th December 2014. See  article from  dailylife.com.au by Louise Lash

Pandora Blake runs a feminist adult website called Dreams Of Spanking. In a blog post condemning the law, she wrote:

It predominantly targets the cottage industries of women, couples, queers and fetishists -- people who are making enough to cover their costs or perhaps a little more, people who are making their own porn because the mainstream genres don't cater to our needs.

Our films are homegrown, niche, playful, political and sexy, documenting our authentic sexualities where they are not catered to by the mainstream. We work alone or with our partners and like-minded kinky friends. We dare to be different, and to reach out to others who are like us. For this we are criminalised.

Pandora points out that the laws seem to have been written by people who have no real understanding of kink. For her, the depiction of consent in her spanking films is vital and is a pillar of her commitment to ethical porn production. Unfortunately the new rules don't allow for that. It doesn't matter if an adult willingly agrees to be spanked, or caned, or tied up, their agency and ability to consent is not acknowledged.

A new push to save one of London's most famous nightclubs, Madame Jojo's, from closure was made on Thursday when Westminster's Labour councillors called for new management to be allowed to take over the Soho venue.

The council revoked its licence last month following an incident outside the club in October when its bouncers allegedly attacked a customer with baseball bats. The manager and security staff were replaced with workers approved by Westminster, but the council still decided to withdraw the licence.

Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg, leader of the council's Labour group, described the incident in which the customer was attacked as appalling but said that should not be used to justify the remorseless process of Soho gentrification . He said:

Madame Jojo's is a Soho icon and these premises should not be turned into yet another chain restaurant. We support the reopening of the premises under the same licensing terms should another responsible owner wish to take over.

Westminster council should not let Madame Jojo's die, but should do all it can to keep this unique Soho venue living on under new management.

The calls to save the club may fall on deaf ears given that almost a year ago the council approved plans submitted by Soho Estates , the company founded by Raymond, to redevelop the buildings around Walker's Court and Brewer Street in the next few years.

Waveney District Council's licensing sub committee voted unanimously against an application to open Jessy Fantail in Commercial Road, Lowestoft.

Applicants Hazel Wilson and Stephen Barrett had previously been given the go-ahead to open the Candy Lounge Gentleman's Club in nearby Station Square in February and said they would surrender that licence if they received approval to open in Commercial Road.

Speaking after the meeting, committee member Sarah Webb said councillors claimed the location of the latest venue at the gateway to the town and close to residential properties was 'inappropriate'. There were 26 objections and three petitions.

The Rev Matthew Payne, vicar of Christ Church spouted:

I think it is a good decision for the town. Although it is only 100 yards away from the previous application, it is a very different location. A family with children live in the next door building and there is also the Bridge View Centre nearby where there are vulnerable people.

It is basically something that degrades women for the titillation and stimulation of men. In this day and age, with all our emphasis on equality, it seems extraordinary to me that this would be allowed.

Westminster Council has revoked the licence of the famous Soho drag show bar, Madame JoJo's. The action is a response to a violent assault inflicted by the club's bouncers wielding baseball bats.

The incident that prompted the council to close the venue took place on 24 October, when its bouncers became involved in a dispute with a customer. The police report says members of the security team and their taxi operator violently assaulted the man after a verbal altercation. The man initially left, but returned and threw bottles at the bouncers and members of the public. The bouncers responded by attacking him with baseball bats. The police report concluded with a call to suspend the venue's license pending full revocation.

Madame Jojo's subsequently changed its manager and bouncers for a team approved by the council, but it was not enough to save its license.

Marcus Harris, who co-ran the now infamous White Heat night at the venue, said it was the first time in his decade at Madame Jojo's that anything violent had happened,l. He believes the speedy decision to close the venue permanently was indicative of the council's negative attitude toward the few older, late-license venues that still remain in the heart of Soho, an area now in the clutches of gentrification .

In my opinion, it seems that the council just used the incident as a good excuse to take away the license, he said. It's one of the few places left round there which has a 3am license, seven nights a week. If you look at the way the area is changing, they clearly don't want a late night drinking presence anywhere in Soho anymore. They want to make Soho about families - shopping, going out to eat, going to the theatre. The bars shut at 11 and you're home by midnight.

Update: Already doomed anyway

29th November 2014. See  article from  theguardian.com

It has emerged that the fate of legendary club Madame Jojo's had already been decided many months before Westminster council revoked its licence this week after a violent incident - in a move that was condemned by many as draconian.

Plans submitted to Westminster council in September 2013 by Soho Estates, which owns the premises, show the venue was already among the buildings intended to be demolished and redeveloped in Soho's Walker's Court and Brewer Street in the next few years. In December last year the plans were approved by the council.

Westminster council stands by its statement that the club's licence was revoked solely due to an incident at the club, in which security staff assaulted a member of public with baseball bats.

A poster for Dream Lounge ladies and gentlemen's club in Swindon featured an image of a woman from the waist down, taken from the side. The woman was shown leaning against a pole with one knee raised, and wearing stockings, suspenders and knickers. The woman's midriff and the side of her bottom were visible. Text on the poster stated Come and enjoy our intimate atmosphere at Swindon's Premier Nightspot .

A complainant, whose young child had seen the ad, objected that:

1. it was of an overtly sexual nature and likely to cause serious or widespread offence; and

2. it was unsuitable for public display where it could be seen by children.

ASA Assessment: Complaint not upheld

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted that the image featured a woman dressed in underwear and stockings, and was intended to promote a pole-dancing lounge. We noted that the woman was pictured from the side and that only her midriff and side of her bottom were uncovered and, although the model's pose was likely to be regarded as provocative, we considered that the general presentation of the image was sexually suggestive rather than overtly sexual. We acknowledged that some consumers might find the service and image distasteful, but did not consider that the ad was so sexual in nature as to be generally offensive or unsuitable for targeted outdoor advertising.

2. Not upheld

The ASA considered that, as the ad was sexually suggestive, it was unsuitable for untargeted public display where it was likely to be seen by children, and should be subject to a placement restriction to prevent it from appearing within 100 m of schools. However, we understood that in this instance the poster site reported by the complainant would not fall within such a restriction. We therefore concluded that the ad did not breach the Code.

The Consumer Rights Bill is progressing through Parliament is currently at the report stage in the house of Lords. It will next be debated on 24th November.

Elspeth Howe has again proposed her clause requiring age verification for adult content. It has been kicked out several times in the past as the government recognises the need to work with the telecoms industry rather than impose onerous new laws (of course the government hasn't shown the same pragmatic approach to the adult internet industry).

The new clause was proposed by Baroness Elspeth Howe, Baroness King, Lord Cormack and Baroness Floella Benjamin. It is titled amendment 50D.

"Duty to provide an internet service that protects children from digital content

(1)     Internet service providers must provide to subscribers an internet access service which excludes adult content unless all the conditions of subsection (3) have been fulfilled.

(2)     Where mobile telephone operators provide a telephone service to subscribers which includes an internet access service, they must ensure this service excludes adult content unless all the conditions of subsection (3) have been fulfilled.

(3)     The conditions are--

(a)   the subscriber "opts-in" to subscribe to a service that includes adult content;

(b)   the subscriber is aged 18 or over; and

(c)   the provider of the service has an age verification policy which meets the standards set out by OFCOM in subsection (4) and which has been used to confirm that the subscriber is aged 18 or over before a user is able to access adult content.

(4)     It shall be the duty of OFCOM, to set, and from time to time to review and revise, standards for the--

(a)   filtering of adult content in line with the standards set out in section 319 of the Communications Act 2003 (OFCOM's standards code);

(b)   age verification policies to be used under subsection (3) before a user is able to access adult content; and

(c)   filtering of content by age or subject category by providers of internet access services and mobile phone operators.

(5)     The standards set out by OFCOM under subsection (4) must be contained in one or more codes.

(6)     Before setting standards under subsection (5), OFCOM must publish, in such a manner as they think fit, a draft of the proposed code containing those standards.

(7)     After publishing the draft code and before setting the standards, OFCOM must consult relevant persons and organisations.

(8)     It shall be the duty of OFCOM to establish procedures for the handling and resolution of complaints in a timely manner about the observance of standards set under subsection (4), including complaints about incorrect filtering of content.

(9)     OFCOM may designate any body corporate to carry out its duties under this section in whole or in part.

(10)     OFCOM may not designate a body under subsection (9) unless, as respects that designation, they are satisfied that the body--

(a)   is a fit and proper body to be designated;

(b)   has consented to being designated;

(c)   has access to financial resources that are adequate to ensure the effective performance of its functions under this section; and

(d)   is sufficiently independent of providers of internet access services and mobile phone operators.

(11)     In this section, internet service providers and mobile telephone operators shall at all times be held harmless of any claims or proceedings, whether civil or criminal, providing that at the relevant time, the internet access provider or the mobile telephone operator--

(a)   was following the standards and code set out by OFCOM in subsection (4); and

(b)   acting in good faith.

(12)     For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in subsections (1) and (2) prevents providers of internet access services and mobile phone operators from providing additional levels of filtering content.

(13)     In this section--

"adult content" means an internet access service that contains harmful and offensive materials from which persons under the age of eighteen are protected;

"harmful and offensive materials" has the same meaning as in section 3 of the Communications Act 2003 (general duties of OFCOM);

"material from which persons under the age of eighteen are protected" means material specified in the OFCOM standards under section 319(2)(a) of the Communications Act 2003 (OFCOM's standards code);

"opts-in" means a subscriber notifies the service provider of his or her consent to subscribe to a service that includes adult content."

Update: Howe's amendment thrown out

27th November 2014. See  article from  parliament.uk . Thanks to Therumbler

Elspeth Howe's new clause was defeated by  124 votes to 64. Labour supported the bill, while most, but not all, Tories and LibDems opposed it.

  In recent years the spectrum of views on stripping has become even more polarised. On the one hand, national mores about sex continue to loosen. The flipside, however, is the concerted efforts of fourth wave feminist proponents to challenge what they argue are patriarchal relics woven into the heart of British culture, as spearheaded by the likes of The Everyday Sexism Project and the campaign against The Sun's Page 3.

Caught right in no-man's land (appropriately), we find the women who make a living by getting their kit off: the strippers themselves. Stacey Clare, founder of the East London Strippers Collective explains:

There's currently a moral agenda against stripping.

The legal decisions that have been made on strippers' behalves do not reflect their points of view as the people working in the industry. We're looking to challenge that status quo.

Stacey set up the ELSC this year. The group promotes the self-organisation of strippers in London and the UK, seeking to challenge prevailing attitudes about strip club activity and improve working conditions at an industry level.

In practice, the collective meets regularly to discuss the latest developments affecting dancers, acting as a network of information and solidarity for members. By hosting events such as talks, pop-up strip clubs and life drawing classes it raises awareness and creates a vibrant fusion of community and activism.

...Read the full article

A moral crusade has been launched against plans for a lap dancing club in Benfleet. Local prudes are objecting to the club on the Manor Trading estate.

Called Galore , the club is asking Castle Point Council for permission to open between 8pm and 5am.

Castle Point MP Rebecca Harris has been contacted by about 30 people asking her to run a petition. Many objectors raised the usual bollox about how close the club would be to homes.  Harris said:

It's not a moral crusade or prudishness ...[BUT]... it's just been placed too near the village.

Ordinary licensing hours are bad enough, but closing at 5am -- there will be an overspill into residential areas. Once the licence is granted, it's quite hard to rein back.

I just don't think being near the residential area is the right place for it.

Birmingham City Council has imposed a cap of eight lap dancing clubs in Birmingham city centre, saying they will allow no more to open.

The council's licensing committee claimed there are fears that any more strip clubs, particularly in the Broad Street and pub and club areas, would lead to the city getting a sleazy reputation [to go with its reputation for letting schools get out of control?].

Four years ago the committee decided not to set a limit on sexual entertainment venues, but now opinions have changed and they have decided to impose a limit of eight within the city centre ring road, the current number.

There have been as many as 12 active strip club licences in Birmingham, although not all businesses were active at the same time.

Coun Gareth Moore (Cons, Erdington) threatened a further reduction, albeit without closing down operating clubs:

Reducing it further would not be fair on existing businesses which have been operating for a number of years given us no problems. If a sexual entertainment venue were to go out of business, we could then consider reducing the cap further.

A bid to ban lap dancing clubs across all of Cheltenham was defeated by the narrowest of margins, but the venues will be still be banned in the town's residential areas.

Cheltenham Borough Council debated for more than three and a half hours whether or not to completely prohibit the clubs. The total ban was defeated in a ballot by 19 votes to 18. Councillors then voted by 25 votes to 9 in favour of allowing the clubs in the town centre but not in residential areas.

Councillor Andrew McKinlay (Liberal Democrat), the cabinet member responsible for development and safety, said the policy that was agreed was the best way forward for the town.

Councillor Flo Clucas (Not So Liberal Democrat) made the case for a complete ban of the clubs which she claimed have a negative impact on men and women.

Councillor Max Wilkinson (Liberal Democrat) said he was neither pro nor anti lap dancing clubs but is in favour of choice for consenting adults. He wisely observed:

Banning things you do not like might seem like a simple solution to life's ills but it will not solve the problems.

The council policy decision taken into account the results of  a public consultation about lap dancing restrictions which received 174 responses. The responses were majorly in favour of a zero limit in each area (85%-90% indicating that named wards were not suitable for clubs), though there were slightly fewer opposing the idea of clubs in industrial areas (around 75%).

If pressed, delegates like to argue that women are the power players in the porn industry, equivalent to football stars, well-paid and able to create global brands. But this cheerful characterisation is dismissed by Roz Hardie, chief executive of Object, who points to one site, whose owner is at the conference, based on the theme of exploited African immigrant women. We don't believe those women are well-paid. Industry representatives try to present themselves as no more saucy than a Carry On film, but it's a very superficial gloss. Some of these sites are very disturbing.

Everyone here is anxious to analyse the impact of new UK regulations that require owners of sites to conduct an age-verification check before allowing browsers to access hardcore material. There is considerable bitterness from the audience, because this has been the death knell for the already struggling industry. Age verification costs the website provider around £1.50 a visit, and discourages a large proportion of browsers. Since sites based outside the UK don't require it, people simply hop to another international site.

...Read the full article

Comment: Objectivity according to Object

7th October 2014. Thanks to Alan

Gentleman's piece in the Guardian's interesting, if predictably a bit po-faced. Couldn't she have found some female pornographers to interview? (I understand that a while ago somebody from the Graun interviewed Pandora Blake, but she mentioned on her blog several weeks later that nothing had appeared in the paper.) Gentleman also seems to take what the Object spokeswoman says as gospel. There does exist an exploitedafricanimmigrants.com website, but Rabbit's porn reviews slates it for not living up to its title.

Also worth noting, perhaps, is that in the same newspaper, within a few pages of Gentleman's less than enthusiastic article about porn, there appears Pamela Stephenson Connelly's sexual health column, with a letter from a bloke whose GF doesn't like giving him a blowjob, which might have appeared in Mayfair circa 1980, and an article about the photographer William Mortensen, some of whose work might fall foul of the Dangerous Pictures Act. (But it's in black and white and very arty - so that's OK, then.)