Lap dancing club stripped of its licence (From Oxford Mail)

It'll soon be no night-life Oxford

Darkforbid wrote:
It'll soon be no night-life Oxford

Oxford is supposed to be a multi cultural city, where we promote all different kinds of communities and entertainment. The lodge was a very well run and respectable business, like any other establishment in the city. Why is it that many other cities including tourist and university cities also see that it is just another part of the mult cultural and diverse ways of life to have such businesses within their entertainment offering. We are supposed to live in a free society, why then can 4 politically minded councilors just close a legitimate business which is frequented by a large number of the oxford voting public both men and women? Why does Oxford have to lose out again to forward thinking cities I ask?

I do wonder if it would have been the same result if it were a nightclub that had male dancers for the hen-night or gay market rather than female dancers for the straight male market.

I suspect not.

I wonder if Cafe Coco along the road at Park End Street needs a council licence for its Go-Go girls? I suspect not.

how can opinions like this even be considered "“Having lived next to one in London I can testify that it can produce a very unpleasant atmosphere on the streets.”

so what happened in London happens here?

Or this classic “I object to the location of this club. It is opposite an educational establishment which holds classes in the evening.”

yeah cos the club opens at 10pm. and the college isn't open then. real clash that one.

Or this beauty “These venues demean sexuality, demean women, and indeed demean men. They cast a pall of shame over the whole area.”

Yep because this resident is well placed to talk about the choices other people make.

Is there a way we as residents and tax payers can write to the council to object about this decision? and Has Mr Thompson set up any form of support community/group to back him? I'm very interested in having more options and diversity in the night life offered in Oxford.

"why then can 4 politically minded councillors"

Politically? No its councillors imposing 'Church' based morels,,, apparently is good for votes

Talk about stereotyping, and hearsay/guessing/opi
nions over hard facts, figures and statistics.

"We have evidence that the existence of the club has created a hostile atmosphere" - I'm sure you have mate!

It'll be interesting to see what the high court thinks of the 'evidence' when this decision goes to judicial review. My guess is they'll think it doesn't exist and that there was no reasonable grounds for the application to be refused and the decision will be reversed... and Mr Thompson will win a massive claim for costs against the City Council (I can imagine his legal team aren't cheap). In the end it'll turn out to be nothing more than a politically motivated stunt that taxpayers end up footing the bill for.

Well done to the 'fun police' who have refused this licence based on their own opinions and hearsay. It doesn't matter where you go you can always hear some derogatory comments, if indeed they were made and that lady does exist....and how many evening courses are happening at this time of night? Maybe time for a quick dance before last bus home eh????
Don't get me wrong I am not a regular at this place but I am a fan of freedom of choice. Personally I have no need for a church but I don't campaign to shut them down either!!
At the same time Oxford isn't allowed a casino either.
Shame on you all!

What are the rules for ladies baring their chests in public?

It would be terribly entertaining to see flustered councillors at home, in the street and at work being "doorstepped" by bare chested luvvlies in protest at council dictated job losses.

I wonder if this goes to court and is successful, if we as council tax payers will have to cover loss of earnings for these ladies.

If those kind of people want to do those kinds of things then they should be allowed to - I can't stand the vice addled rape shed personally, but others do, I can tolerate that.
.
Anyone overstepping the line of decency in the public domain should be dealt with as a separate issue; besides, I'm sure they have a militia of super-trained, dbol injecting, self important 'door people' to deal with idiots anyway.

Budowaah wrote:
If those kind of people want to do those kinds of things then they should be allowed to - I can't stand the vice addled rape shed personally, but others do, I can tolerate that.
.
Anyone overstepping the line of decency in the public domain should be dealt with as a separate issue; besides, I'm sure they have a militia of super-trained, dbol injecting, self important 'door people' to deal with idiots anyway.

When Debenhams tried to stop women showing the merest flash of nip in public last year there was a massive outcry in Oxford.

Should I be phoning the police when I notice a neighbour, in the summer, is getting a strap-free dose of Vitamin D? Or making the dash from the hot-tub to the house all year round?

Doormen know instinctively to keep their hands off luvvlies when there is a photographer about. The general rule is to keep your hands to yourself and smile at the camera.

I do worry sometimes about the very partial reporting that goes on in the Mail. Their abridging of a 3 page document from the Licensing Subcommittee which gave detailed reasons about the refusal of the license is extremely biased.

As someone who bothered to check the facts - the licensing hearing (and minutes) made clear that hearsay evidence was to be treat with proportional scepticism, direct evidence from objectors however was not. Here the owner conflates the two entirely to try and misrepresent views of local residents which the owners clearly don't like. This despite the fact that the Council apparently upheld every procedural objection the owners legal team made including excluding material from local residents which had mysteriously not made it into the Council's bundle, despite being submitted on time.

I seem to remember Mr Lockwood threatening legal action in the High Court before when his license on Pennyfarthing Place was revoked, now he threatens it again when local residents near Oxpens object... who know's whether this time he means it or whether he's just trying to present himself as a victim. Although his figures on "employment" are rather dodgy - lapdancing clubs don't "employ" dancers - in one of their multiple submissions to the Council hearing the owners claimed they had 100 dancers working at The Lodge, now it's down to 50 (what happened to the other 50 I want to know!). However these aren't employees, dancers are treated as freelancers and have to pay to work there despite the house setting their working hours, fees etc etc. Add to this that their security staff are contractors.... In fact, The Lodge has made a grand total of..... wait for it.... 12 jobs of which at least three are filled by people from well outside Oxford's boundaries. Amazing what a bit of spin does, isn't it... Mr Lockwood claims the Council decision has lost a host of people their "jobs" but the club is remaining open as a nightclub. So surely those 12 people (bar staff, managers etc) all keep their jobs?

Basically this article appears to be written by someone who has had a cozy chat with the owner, has done absolutely no fact checking and doesn't have any direct knowledge of what happened. Oxford Mail, please get your facts straight, or at least try and pretend you are interested in accurately representing both sides of the debate.

oxford103 wrote:
I do worry sometimes about the very partial reporting that goes on in the Mail. Their abridging of a 3 page document from the Licensing Subcommittee which gave detailed reasons about the refusal of the license is extremely biased.

As someone who bothered to check the facts - the licensing hearing (and minutes) made clear that hearsay evidence was to be treat with proportional scepticism, direct evidence from objectors however was not. Here the owner conflates the two entirely to try and misrepresent views of local residents which the owners clearly don't like. This despite the fact that the Council apparently upheld every procedural objection the owners legal team made including excluding material from local residents which had mysteriously not made it into the Council's bundle, despite being submitted on time.

I seem to remember Mr Lockwood threatening legal action in the High Court before when his license on Pennyfarthing Place was revoked, now he threatens it again when local residents near Oxpens object... who know's whether this time he means it or whether he's just trying to present himself as a victim. Although his figures on "employment" are rather dodgy - lapdancing clubs don't "employ" dancers - in one of their multiple submissions to the Council hearing the owners claimed they had 100 dancers working at The Lodge, now it's down to 50 (what happened to the other 50 I want to know!). However these aren't employees, dancers are treated as freelancers and have to pay to work there despite the house setting their working hours, fees etc etc. Add to this that their security staff are contractors.... In fact, The Lodge has made a grand total of..... wait for it.... 12 jobs of which at least three are filled by people from well outside Oxford's boundaries. Amazing what a bit of spin does, isn't it... Mr Lockwood claims the Council decision has lost a host of people their "jobs" but the club is remaining open as a nightclub. So surely those 12 people (bar staff, managers etc) all keep their jobs?

Basically this article appears to be written by someone who has had a cozy chat with the owner, has done absolutely no fact checking and doesn't have any direct knowledge of what happened. Oxford Mail, please get your facts straight, or at least try and pretend you are interested in accurately representing both sides of the debate.

Is this the same council that charges cab drivers to go to work, and then sets their fees etc, one rule for the council and one rule for the lodge then Oxford103. But looking at the bigger picture, once again Oxford has proved that it is nearer an inbred little village than the "world class city" that it pertains to be. With a city full of cheap chains to eat and drink during the day, and no real nightlife at all, how can the council put us in the same bracket as Berlin, Rio, Bangkok, Shanghai, New York, Copenhagen, Porto, Athens, Rome etc. And God forbid The Moulin Rouge ever wanted to relocate to the Oxpens.

hokuspokus wrote:
I wonder if Cafe Coco along the road at Park End Street needs a council licence for its Go-Go girls? I suspect not.

Very good point, but don't forget that Mr Thompson is not the golden boy that Clint is. But maybe a few objections about how coco is presenting women as sex objects, and is making the area around the train station dangerous for commuters having to pass this haven of vice, will have some effect.

Cafe Coco doesn't, I believe, need a sexual entertainment venue license because it doesn't come under the provisions of the relevant legislation. And Objections which were based on issues of morality/sex-object discourse were disallowed by the Subcommittee at a very early stage, as I understand it from people who'd submitted such things.

Good news. As a parent and local resident, I am delighted that our elected officials have decided to remove this sleazy establishment from our community.

purplepenny wrote:
Good news. As a parent and local resident, I am delighted that our elected officials have decided to remove this sleazy establishment from our community.

Define "sleazy". Based on your own primary personal experience of such establishments or just a preconceived stereotype from your head?

I have visited The Lodge. These are the facts...It is a safe place for the girls to work and they do so of their own choice and why do they work there?...Because they have lets say "an asset" that they can make money from. Let's call it supply and demand...and it's done in a safe and very business like way...The customer pays £20 for the goods which basically involves a dance and that's it...Yes the girls are naked but bloody hell I can go to Brighton Beach. It's a safe environment and the only trouble I've ever seen there was caused by a wasted student who the door staff dealt with quickly and he was ejected.

I personally don't see the point in churches or crown green bowls or lentils or wasps or the Labour party or NARROW MINDED PEOPLE who are too wrapped up in their own little world but that's life...I accept that there are people who like those things and that's up to them...It's their choice!

Live and let live and the only people who should really be listened to are the girls who work at The Lodge...If they say it's safe and they work there through choice...and I'm sure they do...then all of the comments about the place being degrading to women just doesn't wash with me...If I was better looking and had a body to show off I'd be a male stripper tomorrow...Why?...Be
cause I could make a shed load of money whilst I had the tools to do it which is exactly what these girls are doing.

ASK THE GIRLS WHO WORK AT THE LODGE FOR THEIR OPINIONS AND STOP GUESSING YOU IDIOTS!

This is supposed to be a FREE COUNTRY.

If the girls who work there turn round and say "we're forced to work there and held against our will and we get paid £2 per hour" then I would say shut it down but I would say the total opposite is the truth.

Wacky_A wrote:

purplepenny wrote:
Good news. As a parent and local resident, I am delighted that our elected officials have decided to remove this sleazy establishment from our community.

Define "sleazy". Based on your own primary personal experience of such establishments or just a preconceived stereotype from your head?

Dirty old men paying young women to expose their private parts in little cubicles, yep that pretty much sums up sleazy in my book.

purplepenny wrote:

Wacky_A wrote:

purplepenny wrote:
Good news. As a parent and local resident, I am delighted that our elected officials have decided to remove this sleazy establishment from our community.

Define "sleazy". Based on your own primary personal experience of such establishments or just a preconceived stereotype from your head?

Dirty old men paying young women to expose their private parts in little cubicles, yep that pretty much sums up sleazy in my book.

Wow, so now an expert in the overall demographic market of the establishment and industry.

Another preconceived information which somehow and somewhere you have gathered...ignorant is another word.

Don't judge a book by it's cover metaphor.

purplepenny wrote:

Wacky_A wrote:

purplepenny wrote:
Good news. As a parent and local resident, I am delighted that our elected officials have decided to remove this sleazy establishment from our community.

Define "sleazy". Based on your own primary personal experience of such establishments or just a preconceived stereotype from your head?

Dirty old men paying young women to expose their private parts in little cubicles, yep that pretty much sums up sleazy in my book.

That's a very outdated view, as this kind of entertainment has become more mainstream and women and couples visit these venues too. I would say the main age range is around 25-35 from the clubs i have visited.

Also It's not just exposing their private parts as you so crudely put it, it's a dance and a perfomance. Yeah it does involve full nudity but what's so wrong about the naked human body? There's pole dancing too which requires great skill and fitness to pull off, so please don not try and belittle the girls who do this.

OXFORD103, i have seen the minutes too. I would say the editor has remianed impartial, sticking to the facts in this case, which is unusual as most local papers and the media in general normally side with the objectors. Makes a pleasant change!

This really is a terrible decision from the councillors on the panel. I really do hope the owner takes them to court. It's very rare for these venues not to be approved, so this could be an important test case.

"so please don not try and belittle the girls who do this"

Please tell me the irony was intentional?

John Ridgely wrote:
OXFORD103, i have seen the minutes too. I would say the editor has remianed impartial, sticking to the facts in this case, which is unusual as most local papers and the media in general normally side with the objectors. Makes a pleasant change!

This really is a terrible decision from the councillors on the panel. I really do hope the owner takes them to court. It's very rare for these venues not to be approved, so this could be an important test case.

Can you cite evidence for your assertion about the rarity of these venues not being approved?

Bl**dy puritans are running the council. Why do they even pretend that they speak for everyone?

oxford103 wrote:

John Ridgely wrote:
OXFORD103, i have seen the minutes too. I would say the editor has remianed impartial, sticking to the facts in this case, which is unusual as most local papers and the media in general normally side with the objectors. Makes a pleasant change!

This really is a terrible decision from the councillors on the panel. I really do hope the owner takes them to court. It's very rare for these venues not to be approved, so this could be an important test case.

Can you cite evidence for your assertion about the rarity of these venues not being approved?

Actually a good place for this evidence would be to check out the 'Object' web site, with their colour coordinated hit list of councils. Please note a lot of the nil cap councils (green) didn't have clubs anyway. Either way they aren't doing too well with their list.

http://www.object.or
g.uk/council-decisio
ns-table

For some interesting information on the antics of objectors to lap dancing clubs, including Object. I suggest you have a look at the stripping the illusion blog:

http://strippingthei
llusion.blogspot.co.
uk/

"We have evidence that the existence of the club has created a hostile atmosphere"

Obviously so hostile and terrible that the police themselves didn't have an issue with it - well done!

“I do not think it is fair on local residents to have to put up with the kinds of noise and petty harassment that routinely arise out of proximity to a sex establishment"

Well done again, so only this type of establishment causes this, as opposed to the venue beforehand or around. I'm pretty sure this isn't the case!

Dirty old men paying young women to expose their private parts in little cubicles, yep that pretty much sums up sleazy in my book - are they?

Has anyone ever been INTO this club?

John Ridgely wrote:

oxford103 wrote:

John Ridgely wrote: OXFORD103, i have seen the minutes too. I would say the editor has remianed impartial, sticking to the facts in this case, which is unusual as most local papers and the media in general normally side with the objectors. Makes a pleasant change! This really is a terrible decision from the councillors on the panel. I really do hope the owner takes them to court. It's very rare for these venues not to be approved, so this could be an important test case.

Can you cite evidence for your assertion about the rarity of these venues not being approved?

Actually a good place for this evidence would be to check out the 'Object' web site, with their colour coordinated hit list of councils. Please note a lot of the nil cap councils (green) didn't have clubs anyway. Either way they aren't doing too well with their list. http://www.object.or g.uk/council-decisio ns-table For some interesting information on the antics of objectors to lap dancing clubs, including Object. I suggest you have a look at the stripping the illusion blog: http://strippingthei llusion.blogspot.co. uk/

Thanks for those - although the Object link is about the use of the 2010 new licensing powers rather than individual licensing decisions (although some are noted on there) and the other talks about specific incidents elsewhere but has nothing about Oxford. As far as I can tell none of the "antics" related there are relevant in Oxford and Object didn't have any involvement in the Oxford hearing, did they? Am I missing something?

Also on the minutes - I was referring to the article's implication that the objections heard at the hearing were on moral grounds. Whilst some of the submissions in July made that case, the minutes seem to me to be clear that the decision was not made on these grounds and what I've been told by people who were involved was that moral grounds were discounted pre-hearing and that repeatedly discounted at the hearing. Am I missing something here too?

One has to remember that the club that was three before hand was basically an hangar with people taking poppers (I think) or some kind of drugs that is allowed here and not in France. Anyway they were the wildest nights in Oxford in there I cannot think now it is worse than before.

Questions and more questions Oxford103. I was just using 'Object' as one example to demonstrate the lengths that some persons will go to to try an impose their morals on other people. I can't say for definite if they were invovled in this case or not. Although a couple of those objection letters do bear their hallmarks. The allegations of harrassment outside the club is also their typical style. See link below
http://strippingthei
llusion.blogspot.co.
uk/2012/02/objection
able-behaviour.html

and of course the licensing panel are going to deny making a decisions on moral grounds, but that doesn't stop them from using other reasons to try an disguise this. Funny how a commercial area can suddenly become residential area when it comes to these kind of venues. Also do you really think a mere 20 objections is a sufficient number to even be considered? As a percentage of Oxfords population this is statistically negligible.

John Ridgely wrote:
Questions and more questions Oxford103. I was just using 'Object' as one example to demonstrate the lengths that some persons will go to to try an impose their morals on other people. I can't say for definite if they were invovled in this case or not. Although a couple of those objection letters do bear their hallmarks. The allegations of harrassment outside the club is also their typical style. See link below
http://strippingthei

llusion.blogspot.co.

uk/2012/02/objection

able-behaviour.html

and of course the licensing panel are going to deny making a decisions on moral grounds, but that doesn't stop them from using other reasons to try an disguise this. Funny how a commercial area can suddenly become residential area when it comes to these kind of venues. Also do you really think a mere 20 objections is a sufficient number to even be considered? As a percentage of Oxfords population this is statistically negligible.

Sorry for the questions - the joy of the internet is that you can (as you have) just ignore them and that's fine.

You're saying, the allegations of harassment could be, erm, what lies caused by infiltration by a group called Object? Alternatively, the allegations of harassment could be true...? My personal feeling is that we are not in a position to judge without more evidence (irrespective of the usual thresholds of evidence in the UK I'm just working on a more Schroedinger principle). To make a judgement without more evidence would be based entirely on bias rather than evidence (not that that ever stopped anyone).

Is Oxpen's a commercial area - other than a garage and a very newly opened carpet place I don't see much commerce down there. I see lots of public services and leisure stuff and houses.

Do I think 20 is enough to even be considered? I don't think this is an issue of just percentage - it depends what they say, surely? One could be enough depending on what it said. If you are going to demand x% of the population before the local council takes note what should that figure be? And surely the same would have to be applied to the proposers as is objectors (and the numbers here were seemingly evenly balanced).

Well lets have an Objective view of the letters/e-mails sent in from the public. A lot of the people quoted the Lilith report as a source of their information, which is a real shame as it has been shown to be not worth the paper it was written on. Even better the figures when reviewed show a relative increase in rape in a borough which has no lap dancing when compared to Camden the base of the Lilith report.

Another brilliant piece of research quoted is the Holsopple report which was from over 25 years ago in America. So what relevance do that have with modern day Oxford?

Recently the legal team representing 5 clubs in Leeds won all of their licenses and based on their points about once a license has been given (http://www.woodswhu
r.co.uk/newsletter/4
1/) looks like costing the Oxford tax payers a ton of money for a legal bill when the council ends up in court. Hope the council remember those people who wanted to ban the club so they can foot the bill.

And speaking of the campaign, it included an on line petition with quite a few anonymous signers and a lot of people who have nothing to do with Oxford (like the CEO and a director of Object). Will they help pay the bill for legal costs the council are going to run into?

I've never been in the place, or any like it, but if it was so demeaning to women, why would they choose to work there?
Why is the club's location an issue, from what I gather, it's only open late at night, when nobody else is about.
Dirty old men paying young women to expose their private parts in little cubicles.........I doubt very much whether it's anything like that, unless you're speaking as a former employee, and know different. Also, what are you referring to when you say private parts, do you mean breasts and genitals, or are you of an age at which such words are never mentioned?
It's all pretty pathetic, live and let live, nobody's getting hurt, or being forced to do anything against their will, and no crimes have been committed.

TonyN1965 wrote:
Well lets have an Objective view of the letters/e-mails sent in from the public. A lot of the people quoted the Lilith report as a source of their information, which is a real shame as it has been shown to be not worth the paper it was written on. Even better the figures when reviewed show a relative increase in rape in a borough which has no lap dancing when compared to Camden the base of the Lilith report.

Another brilliant piece of research quoted is the Holsopple report which was from over 25 years ago in America. So what relevance do that have with modern day Oxford?

Recently the legal team representing 5 clubs in Leeds won all of their licenses and based on their points about once a license has been given (http://www.woodswhu

r.co.uk/newsletter/4

1/) looks like costing the Oxford tax payers a ton of money for a legal bill when the council ends up in court. Hope the council remember those people who wanted to ban the club so they can foot the bill.

And speaking of the campaign, it included an on line petition with quite a few anonymous signers and a lot of people who have nothing to do with Oxford (like the CEO and a director of Object). Will they help pay the bill for legal costs the council are going to run into?

I am not sure that report says what you say it does. And from what I've been told about this case I am not sure the same conclusions could be reached. However I suspect we could all get behind final sentence - that the Council needs better consultation, a good policy and standard conditions.

Who was running this petition are you referring to?

I have no idea who ran the petition, e-petitions are easy to create and even easier to abuse. It was accepted and included in the dicumentation put forward by the council when the license was cancelled.

Not sure what you mean by the same conclusions. The council issued a license meaning that they accepted that the venue was in a location where the council members felt it was okay to operate. The police have not complained about the vene and crime appears to be lower here than around other night time locations. So what has changed since the liicense has been issued? This is the key point from Leeds once the license is issued it is protected by european law unless there is a major change in the area. Anything that existed when the license was issued in terms of buildings etc in the area have already been counted.

I know that one women complained to the council about comments she received but I hope the council has better things to do than listen to a claim that was not filed as a police report.