Bristol City Council, Bristol's mayor and the Avon & Somerset police commissioner are all uniting in a proposal to ban lap dancing in Bristol.
Councillors will be asked to approve a new draft policy that would ban lap dancing venues from operating
anywhere in Bristol. The proposed ban, which would go out to a 12-week public consultation, appears in an appendix of an item to be considered by the licensing committee on Monday, March 8.
It seems heartless to ban workers in a sector that has
been forced to close during the last year due to coronavirus lock downs. Especially as surveys show most Bristolians are happy with them as long as they are away from certain areas, including schools , housing estates, parks, women's refuges and places
The prominent proponents of the mean minded proposal are Bristol mayor Marvin Rees, Avon & Somerset police and crime commissioner Sue Mountstevens and Bristol West MP Thangam Debbonaire .
If the policy is adopted by the
council, both of the existing venues -- sister venues Urban Tiger and Central Chambers -- would be forced to close. At the two clubs' annual licence renewal hearings in 2019, pole-dancers said they were feminists also and had a right to choose how they
earned a living.
The draft policy also includes the licensing of sex shops but no there no plans to change the current maximum of two each in both the city centre and Old Market/West Street and zero in other areas.
Update: Bristol Council takes the next step to banning lap dancing
10th March 2021. See article from thebristolcable.org Passions ran high as councillors
voted narrowly to send a proposed ban on lap-dancing clubs in Bristol out to public consultation.
Licensing committee members voted 7-6, with one abstention, on Monday (March 8) to ask residents and interest groups what they thought of a new draft
policy setting the maximum number of sexual entertainment venues (SEVs) to zero. But the decision, which could force the closure of the city's two city centre SEVs Urban Tiger and Central Chambers and put hundreds of mostly female jobs at risk, was
described as monstrous and pandering to the views of women's rights activists on moral grounds.