Southborough Mayor hits out as sex shop bids to renew its licence
A BID to renew the licence at a sex shop close to several Tunbridge Wells schools has prompted a string of objections.
Residents have levelled stark criticism at the application by Secret Desires, at 152 London Road, Southborough, to renew its licence – and their calls have been backed by the town's mayor.
This is a typical example of a modern moral panic.
The shop controversially opened in 2006 and had its licence renewed with relatively little objection a year later.
The shop has been there for two years already and had it's licence renewed once with 'relatively little objection'. But now it's a serious problem, so what has changed?
But the latest application, which will be decided at a borough council meeting tomorrow, has been met with concerns of the "sexualisation" of children.
If you want something banned, censored or regulated, bring on the kiddies.
It's not as though children are going into the shop and buying porn off the shelf (They can get it easier and cheaper online anyway, apparently), it's because the children might see the shop.
It's the 'plain cigarette packaging' argument. If children see a fag packet they will take up smoking. It's not good enough to age regulate adult products, children must not even be allowed to see them these days.
The shop is on a route used by pupils from several schools, including Tunbridge Wells Girls' Grammar, Tunbridge Wells Grammar School for Boys, St Gregory's Catholic Comprehensive, Southborough Primary School and St Matthew's Primary School in High Brooms.
I assume all these schools were there when the shop opened and when it had it's licence renewed a year later. If they were not, planning permission for the schools should have been refused as there was an adult shop in the area.
How about a display ban, like fags?
Mrs Jedrzejewski added: "They kept their word on keeping the windows obscured but it's still very much there. I think this is now an opportunity to not renew the licence.
"They have kept themselves discreet, I'm not against the shop – but there are better places for it to be."
Ahh. The shop is already obscured so this must be the 'next logical step'. I'm sure a 'better place' for it would be out in a field somewhere with a barbed wire perimeter and access only for registered porn users.
One former teacher said she was "dismayed" such a shop should be in the vicinity of five schools, another post read: "This type of shop is an extremely bad influence on the hundreds of young children who pass by every day to and from the school.
You know, I bet most of them were not even aware of it's existence until now.
Another objector said adults had a duty to protect children from "early sexualisation".
There is a certain duty to protect children from adult things. That duty was recognised a long time ago and sensible precautions were put in place, such as age limits for various activities.
We no longer live in a sensible age though. Now we must hide all these adult things from children and not even let them see them.
I think this is largely because intolerant people have found themselves a champion: The protection of kiddies. It used to be that if you didn't like fags, booze or porn you just didn't smoke, drink or bash the bishop.
Now you can bring on the kiddies and have all these things banned. They love it.
It's not about children, it's about the weak willed and small minded gaining power over others.