i have personally been to this club and the voluntary payment is not voluntary if you dont pay you dont go in.
the owner hasnt turnt it into a club he has rented it to someone who has turnt it into a club, that man is a seedy vile man and convinces female goes to give him sexual favors, and if you dont he makes it very difficult for you to go again.
me personally having been there i think the club should be closed down as it gives those clubs a bad names.
it also is more for a fetish club than a swingers club.
Seems like this quote from the article is the main issue:
Quote:
He said: 'It's up to them what they do in their own home, but this was a normal domestic dwelling house that was bought and someone thought there's parking and I can black out the windows and this has become a club and it does not have permission to be one.
And that it bothers the neighbours.
The photos aren't really relevant, an attempt at shock factor but besides the actual point of the article.
The daily mail really know how to pick them.
Stop thinking about what I want, what he wants, what your parents want. What do you want?
i have personally been to this club and the voluntary payment is not voluntary if you dont pay you dont go in.
the owner hasnt turnt it into a club he has rented it to someone who has turnt it into a club, that man is a seedy vile man and convinces female goes to give him sexual favors, and if you dont he makes it very difficult for you to go again.
me personally having been there i think the club should be closed down as it gives those clubs a bad names.
it also is more for a fetish club than a swingers club.
your opinions???????????
It's voluntary whether you go in at all, though. I would expect an owner of a place like this to be seedy etc. Where you say 'convince' it's only an issue if he crosses the all important line and actually assaults someone in any way. Why would you want to go again if you'd been coerced into a sex act you didn't want to get involved In?
It's a house converted into a sexual playden, I seriously wonder about the people who voluntarily set foot in the place at all. It's not even officially a club, so it doesn't have to follow standard regulations. How much of a mug would you have to be to take that kind of risk.
Last edited by Fry : 10-02-2012 at 11:04 AM.
Stop thinking about what I want, what he wants, what your parents want. What do you want?
Guessing this was your comment on the daily mail op
Quote:
i have been to this house and i can honestly say it is not a voluntary donation to the running of the house, if you do not pay you do not get in. the owner of the club himself hasn't turned it into a club he has hired it to another man called Martin, which Martin himself is a seedy vile man, who tries to and sometimes succeeds in convincing female guests to give him sexual favors. they hire people to run the bar and yes whilst you take your own ALCOHOLIC drinks you have to buy soft drinks there. half of the houses electrics has been done by friends of Martin and are not up to code. it is riddled with problems. they say drugs are not welcomed at these "house parties" but i myself have seen many people taking drugs at the house. they have alot of violations such as on many of the nights they have a guy who wears a security top but is not SIA approved which is illegal and they can both be heavily fined. all in all this is a place which gives proper clubs of this nature a horrible name!
If you dont like it dont go?
"Its not how long a star shines, what is remembered is the brightness of the light"
i dont go anymore as i got sick of all the hassle involved with going, there was too much drama
the thing is he is running it as a club which he is not allowed to do, he calls them house parties so he doesnt have to get the special licence needed to run a club and so he doesnt have to pay taxes on the money he earns.
From the little that I read in the article, I'd say that it is being run as a business, and as such needs to comply with the council's regulations on that. There is also an element of anti-social behaviour going on here with regards to the traffic and general noise, so that is another element.
As for what goes on in there, well, that's up to each individual person. If you don't like it, you don't go. What consenting adults get up to in private shouldn't be the business of anyone else.
Ok, maybe the council i being nit picky or maybe not, that for the courts to decide...
As for the swinging side, I have friends who are active swingers and if they wanna do it, who am i to judge! me and the mrs been invited to parties ourselves but could never go... never any disabled access lol (take that how you will)
"Damaged people are dangerous because we know we can survive"
From the little that I read in the article, I'd say that it is being run as a business, and as such needs to comply with the council's regulations on that.
Wrong.
My comments were based on having scanned the whole thing. Otherwise i wouldn't have said it
Hence:
Quote:
He said: 'It's up to them what they do in their own home, but this was a normal domestic dwelling house that was bought and someone thought there's parking and I can black out the windows and this has become a club and it does not have permission to be one.
Quote:
ption, the council is trying to close it down.New Forest District Council has issued an enforcement notice claiming the owner has allowed the house to become a business without planning permission.
Stop thinking about what I want, what he wants, what your parents want. What do you want?
What he says and what is actually happening are two different things, to me it seems like it has crossed the line and become a business. Either way, the anti-social behaviour (number of cars, noise, etc) should be enough to at least get the council's environment department in.
I have no problem with what is going on in the house, as long as everyone is there is legal and consenting and following the unwritten codes of respect that exist in these circles.
If the person is charging for those events then it turns into a business exchange, really. It's not a "house party". It's a club and I believe it needs to be regulated with things like electrical safety, fire escapes, licensing for alcohol etc.
I don't have a problem with the sexual element that goes on- as long as they are all consenting adults and nothing going on is illegal then it's their business.
All looks rather hard core to me, not my cup of tea.
Isn’t it funny how day by day nothing changes but when you look back, everything is different…
you once called your brain a hard drive, well say hello to the virus.
This "club" sounds to me like a sex-on-premises venue (like those that exist in the gay community) and which are properly regulated as businesses. The claim that these are non-business "house parties" doesn't sound credible nor would it likely stand up to legal scrutiny, and I think the owner trying to defend that position is going to invite additional scrutiny (tax authorities, etc) and further problems. The press will ensure that plenty of attention is given to the developing case, no doubt cloaked in claims of moral outrage and protecting the public whilst denying the reality that stories about sex where readers can feel superior will interest the public whether they are in the public interest or not.
As far as I understand, gay sex-on-premises venues in Australia are legal and licensed places that a man can go to meet up with other men. An entry fee is charged, the facilities include both private rooms and more public spaces, as well as a lounge and places to meet / talk / eat and drink. It is entirely up to the men there as to who they want to spend time with. This is not like a brothel in that the fee is only for entry and the men attending are not escorts / prostitutes. Staff on site are responsible for maintaining availability of towels, condoms, etc, ensuring cleanliness, and supervising the provision of alcohol in the bar area so that legally-mandated "responsible service of alcohol" provisions are followed. I have no idea if there is some sort of heterosexual equivalent, but the "parties" being described above sound to me like business operations like sex-on-premises venues and not like genuine privately organised parties. The pressure from organisers for sex sounds like a particularly unethical behaviour, and one that (as far as I am aware) would be illegal for operators of properly regulated sex-on-premises venues.
The following link is to the AIDS Council of NSW (ACON) website that describes the code of practice for sex-on-premises venues in Australia, and links to the websites of several such venues if you wish further information. I cannot provide any first-hand comment having never been to any of these places, but I do know they exist and understand that they are regulated and run reputably. I guess that similar places must exist in other jurisdictions, but that is only a guess.
