Hands Off: women speak out over Hackney strip clubs
Film Strip Productions presents Hands Off © Winstan Whitter
Hackney Council’s consultation on its licensing of sex establishments closed yesterday, but the debate continues.
In response to Hackney Council’s consultation on its licensing of sex establishments, Hands Off, by local filmmaker Winstan Whitter, provides an insight into the views of some of the people who work in Browns, one of the venues concerned.
The council’s licensing committee is responsible for regulating sex shops, sex cinemas and sex entertainment venues such as lap dancing clubs and erotic dancing venues. It recently drafted a new policy to determine whether and how to grant sex establishment licences in Hackney.
This new document proposes a ‘nil’ policy, which would mean that no licences would be granted to strip venues, lap-dancing clubs and sex shops in Hackney.
Speaking in the film, a local solicitor Bill Parry-Davies said: “The future of a business and the livelihoods of hundreds of employees, most of whom are women, will turn on the recommendation of a single council official or even on the single vote of one committee member who sways the committee.”
Andrew Boff, Hackney resident and Conservative London Assembly Member, said: “The rights of the individual to appeal to a higher court have effectively been taken away. It goes against the very basics of law that a public official should be challengeable if you feel their decision has been partial in some way, and in all other cases of licence applications an applicant at least has recourse to the law to say the decision is unjust for some reason. Under this ‘nil’ policy, they will have no such right of appeal.”
Hackney currently has one licensed sex shop (Expectations) and four premises that are “licensed to provide live performances or displays of nudity solely or mainly to sexually stimulate audience members”. If the licences are refused on the grounds of a nil policy, each of these businesses will be affected.
While this may not seem like a large number in the grand scheme of Hackney’s nightlife, Mr Parry-Davies also points out that there will be consequences for other local traders, for example those in the business of costume making. Mr Boff suggests that the policy will also impact on local residents who might be employed at the venues themselves.
In contrast, OBJECT, a group which campaigns nationally against the porn and sex industry, supports the proposed ‘nil’ policy, saying: “OBJECT urges councils to set nil policies in relation to lap dancing clubs as part of their commitment to promote equality between women and men. Lap dancing clubs are often sites of commercial sexual exploitation, they promote sexist stereotypes of women as objects, they make sexual harassment seem normal, and they create no-go zones for women who feel unsafe walking past them at night.
“Councils across the country are considering setting the limit for lap dancing clubs at zero to stem the sexualisation of women and to take a stand against the ‘sex-object’ culture that lap dancing clubs promote. This is a crucial opportunity for local authorities to take action to help end commercial sexual exploitation for generations to come.
“Lap dancing clubs are not harmless fun. They are often sites of sexual exploitation, they make sexual harassment seem normal, and they create no-go areas for women and children who feel unsafe walking past them at night. Setting a nil limit on seedy and exploitative strip clubs is an issue of equality, it is taking a stand against the negative messages that lap dancing clubs promote about women and putting a stop to the sexual abuse which takes place inside and outside of clubs.”
This view contrasts with that of some of the dancers featured in the film, one of whom says she feels “much more sexually assaulted in daily life than in her own club”, whilst another dancer says that she finds working there “empowering”.
Denise Chandler, the owner of Browns also talks about the safety within a licensed establishment, and that without such measures the trade would be forced underground.
Costume designer Milina Berg agrees: “If this nil policy does come in, it will definitely push business underground and then people will be getting used in all sorts of ways – everybody from the dancers to the customers. It used to happen in Soho and then they cleaned that up. It’s better to have it licensed properly, fair and decent.”
In a recent interview with BBC news, feminist journalist Laurie Penny said that she believes that more fundamental issues need to be addressed in the sex industry: “We’re not going bring down the patriarchy just by preventing new lap-dancing clubs,” she said.
“Even in the legal clubs, women are subjected to ridiculously exploitative working practices and are in great danger.
“Rather than just banning them, there should be a proper investigation into the working practices that take place there,” she said.
The owners and the performers at the Hackney venues concerned have pointed out that they do not offer lap dancing, and establishments such as Browns has a strict hands-off policy.
Some other councils, such as Camden, decided to consult residents and businesses before proposing a new policy on the licensing of sex establishments.
Mr Boff is concerned over the lack of consultation with groups who would potentially be adversely affected by the proposed policy, and also with what he sees as the way the council is fomenting ‘moral outrage’ rather than facilitating the making of informed decisions.
Ms Chandler points out the benefits for the council in the revenue that licensed premises generate for the borough, and says that the funds that they might lose could be spent on increased security measures for people and places that need it, not banning somewhere which is “perfectly under control, has no police, fire or residents’ objections.”
Islington Council received 114 responses to its consultation on its draft Sex Establishment Policy which was published for consultation between 4 October and 25 November 2010.
Of the 104 online responses, 85% respondents were in favour of the council limiting the number of sex establishments operating in Islington.
71% were in favour of setting the limit at nil with an exemption for premises currently operating as sex establishments.
32 respondents submitted comments to support their views.
Ten direct responses were received, four were from businesses and six from members of the public.
Eight respondents were in favour of the council limiting the number of sex establishments operating in Islington and setting the limit at nil, with an exemption for premises currently operating as sex establishments.
One resident who did not live in Islington, was opposed to the proposals.
The other response was from researchers from the University of Leeds who are currently undertaking research on the erotic dance industry.
Islington Council adopted schedule 3 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 on 2 December 2010 which means that from 1 April 2011 it will able to license sexual entertainment venues (e.g. lap dancing premises).
The draft policy will be referred to the Licensing Committee for approval on 7 February 2011.
It has been amended regarding limits on the number of licensed premises: the council says it “will not apply this limitation when considering applications for premises that were already trading with express permission for the type of entertainment which is now defined as sexual entertainment on the date that the licensing provisions were adopted by the authority subject to certain criteria.”
Note: This article was amended on 30 December 2010 to include quotes from Winstan Whitter’s film, Hands Off.
Related:
Strippers and vicar unite to fight cleanup campaign
Hackney TUC condemns council’s proposed ‘nil’ policy on sex establishments
Sex establishments: the other side
this is not a documentary – it is an opinion piece. where are the interviews with people who object to these premises?
also I personally do not care how much revenue Hackney loses if the policy goes through. I do not want them in my neighbourhood anymore. It is not about being prude or disliking sex or feeling that sex establishments are immoral. I just don’t think sexual stimulation should be for sale and I do not think this qualifies as entertainment in the same way watching a football match does.
interesting film!
I’ve got nothing against these clubs generally, but I am getting tired of there being one on every streetcorner. where I work in the city, 2 have opened in the last 2 or three years and there is one near where I live as well. I think the limit has been reached and I think I’d like to see fewer of these places. maybe we can like halve them or something
I work at Browns as a bar maid and the establishments that Object are speaking about are nothing like the venue where I work. No abuse takes place there, sexual or otherwise. It is extremely well run, the owners care very much about the girls that work there, and every dancer there is a grown adult who is working there of their own volition. The idea that a well run establishment like Browns is a den of sleeze, exploitation and vice is just ludicrous. If Denise the owner got a whiff of any of the dancers doing drugs they would be sacked on the spot, and they only need to give the doorman a nod and any customer will be thrown out onto the street. Why on earth would a club like Browns need to employ trafficked women? Dancers are queueing up to work there as it is well known as the best place to dance in london. It has the best management, is the safest, the most friendly and the girls make the most money. The idea that it creates a no go area for women and children is insane, many of our customers are women, especially on a Saturday night. It is completely unobtrusive, many people come in accidentally because they think it is a restaurant, most walk out again but some, male and female stay and have a drink there. The person above who commented that she wants to see them banned from her neighbourhood because sexual stimulation shouldn’t be for sale, sorry, but this smacks of NIMBYism, censorship and yes prudishness. It is not just your area, it is mine too, I live and work in Hackney as do most of the staff and dancers. Browns has been there for 30 years. How long have you lived there for I wonder? It is a disgrace when people move to an area and then set about trying to change it to suit them. I’m sure there are areas of London that would suit you better if you don’t want to see men and women going about their lawful, if in your eyes morally questionable business. The place of local government is not to censor what goes on legally between consenting adults. I hope so much that this unlawful policy is rejected as I love working at Browns and would hate for my dancer friends to move to other clubs which don’t respect and care for the girls in the way that Browns does.
The countless kebab and fried chicken shops probably do more harm to Hackney’s residents.
I too would have like to have ‘heard the other side’ from a balanced documentary point of view. Does having these clubs do real harm to the people who work there, go in or walk by? There’s good evidence not having them anywhere in London would. The person who commented above ‘I just don’t think sexual stimulation should be for sale’ is probably misguided to think oldest trade in the world can be eradicated. Might as well ban burlesque nights too? Ban the Sun and page 3? Ban pornographic magazines? I’ve heard people from Amsterdam say that just because some drugs and prostitution is legal does it mean all Dutch people use it. No. Germany has regulation, are they debauched? No.
I lived in Hackney for many years very near these establishments and have never felt inclined to go in.
Morally Outraged Resident, people like you don’t derserve to live in a democracy, because you clearly don’t understand the concept! Do you seriously believe that, just because a few small-minded individuals like yourself see fit to throw a hissy fit about something to which most other people don’t object, you have the right to use your elected representatives to dictate to everyone else what they can or can’t see/hear/enjoy?
Claire description of Brown’s is an accurate one, unlike the smears and disinformation being peddled by the group of professional misandrists who call themselves Object. Maybe you should test your prejudices against the truth before posting; then again, I hear that property prices are quite low in China…
Morally Outraged guess we should ban any tv program or film which could be considered sexual stimulanting. Your morals are not mine, I do not force you to go to this places yet you enforce your morals on me. George Orwell had a couple of books that covered this and to paraphrase one “All morals are equal just some are more equal than others” The public voted and thank heavens the majority voted against the Nil Policy so now we should expect the councillors who represent the people to enforce the will of the people. Except they like you think pushing their morals onto people is better than acting on the will of the voters.
Tony N, I expect that the likes of Morally Outraged would like to see the return of the Lord Chamberlain’s ‘blue pencil’! 😛
Rich, I think you’ll find that market forces and other incidental factors mean that the number of striptease venues in London has probably reached its peak already; I can name at least four venues on Shoreditch High Street / Kingsland Road alone (Crown & Shuttle, Norfolk Village, Traders, Spread Eagle) which have either shut up shop altogether or ceased hosting strippers over the last decade.
Contrary to popular belief, running a strip club/pub is NOT a licence to print money – in fact, it’s actually very hard to do well, due to a number of variables. Given that licenced premises (pubs in particular – and the venues in Shoreditch are pubs, not clubs) in the UK are going out of business at a record rate at the moment, it’s a testament to the hard work and skill of individual owners, and the quality of the atmosphere they create, when a venue actually thrives.
Personally, I’m not a fan of the more ‘gentlemen’s club’/nightclub kind of venues myself, but I’d never wish to impose my own tastes on other people!
The first two commentors are horrible people who want everything to suit themselves but are not prepared to accept other peoples views or way of life. I bet Claire is right they will only have lived in Hackney for a few years and now think they own the place. I bet they are the type of people who complain about noise from nightclubs and the smell from fast food joints, well don’t live in Hoxton/Shoreditch for goodness sake.
We would like to see a nil rate policy. Women should not have to live near or work near or walk past sexual entertainment venues. Most women perceive areas that have sexual entertainment venues as less safe as a result of the presence of those venues. That is in law a valid ground for objecting to their existence. This country has an appalling problem of sexual violence against women on the streets and in the home. Tackling this must be a priority. These problems are caused by perceptions of women by some males and these perceptions are caused, exacerbated and perpetuated by sexual entertainment venues such as lap dancing clubs. Let’s make these pointless, outdated sexual entertainment venues a thing of the past in 21st century England.
I’m not a supporter of sexual entertainment venues, but I have to take exception to the following statement:
“Most women perceive areas that have sexual entertainment venues as less safe as a result of the presence of those venues. That is in law a valid ground for objecting to their existence.”
1) “Most women?” I think we’d need to see actual numbers. I know my wife doesn’t feel this way (or at least not any more so than she does about bars in general… we’ve discussed this issue). I’d imagine there are a lot of different opinions on this issue. Saying “most women” means, “I think most women do, because I do.”
2) A perception of threat is not necessarily a valid reason in law. Actual threat is, not perception of threat. Just ask Jim Crow about that one.
I find these establishments repulsive and I tend to (probably unfairly) judge the people who frequent them and work at them. And I don’t really want to live next to one. But I oppose a nil policy.
Tish And Simon, there are bigger and more pressing issues if you are talking about the perception of women by males. If you look at music videos (and this is a generalisation) and how they portray women I would think you would want to deal with that first. I have spent time in these venues and my perception is that the regulars have a lot of time and respect for the dancers. I have yet to see any direct correlation between domestic violence and strip venues. The Lilith report has been proved to be inaccurate so not sure where the backing for this idea now comes from.
Not every woman will want to go to these venues but I have taken 2 girlfriends to them and we have come away rather invigorated. Your most women statement is subjective and while you have your views and as it is a democracy with freedom of speech I accept and respect them whilst I disagree. Now as this is a democracy and the public consultation was against the Nil Policy should we not accept it?