Well it seems a lot of responses based a lot of their claims on the Lilith report, now not sure but if you are basing your claims on a report that is wrong does your belief because of that report become wrong? Really not sure but the fact is respondents thought so, I could make comments about stupidity but that would be a tad foolish. Having read the claims from the public re sexual crimes around these venues the people have been told to believe Lilith, make claims based on Lilith and by god ram Lilith down councils throats. Notice that some people have made the usual comments on prostitution, nothing like making it up as they go along of course.
Now it seems that 52 people used a standard letter, only 31 even bothered putting something in to individualise it. As we saw with Northampton there is always a risk that it could be one person doing multiple entries. The ease of setting up multiple e-mail accounts is well known. Also the standard letter came in many times via post which considering the fact that 37 letters came in with the consultation for urban tiger in Northampton shows again the organised hate campaign basing claims on sexual violence that doesn't exist. Even better there is one "personal" statement that is repeated by several people. Actually even to the council using the term positive to describe the people against the strip clubs seems a little play on words to shape councillors thinking.
The exercise was originally started by a working group that was set up after the public told the council to leave the clubs alone. Having looked at the membership a few questions come up... Why is there no representation from the clubs? Why is there no active dancers involved? Why is a policeman from the children sex exploitation unit involved at all (clubs are for adults and dnacers need to prove their age)? Do they not think the working group is so one sided it is laughable (my apologies to Rosie Campbell but feel you are tokenism at best) but at least the work of Leeds University was taken into account. Now people may remember (here) that Rebecca Charlwood was on the Working Group and yet her name is left off the mentioning of the working group. Now having seen people realising that Reeves and Charlwood are in cahoots and manipulating behinds the scenes not seeing her name after her tweets about the working group would raise a question or two in my mind.
A message to all the councillors that will be voting on what to put forward the standard letter and the almost standard "personal statement" are at best questionable. And with organisations such as Leeds University was this the whole university or one person claiming to represent the university? This whole thing seems a bit of a mess after the first consultation and a desperate attempt to placate campaigners against the clubs. I hope they realise the clubs will in all probability take the council to court as they have a license and to take it away without evidence that demonstrates a failure to comply and that Article 1 of the First Protocol applies to club licenses which means to deprive a club of a license is going to be a mess legally. Of course the reading of the legal aspect does suggest that if someone takes your property away (denies a license renewal) on grounds other than breaking regulation should pay compensation.
Personally I expect Leeds council to end up with several multi million pound court cases.