Have things progressed so little that references are still made to being chained to the kitchen sink?

Now, that's being just as patronising as the suggestion that seeing a waitress dressed in tight clothing will turn all chaps into slavering potential rapists.

Jon wrote:
Some people need to lighten up. If she is that concerned about exploitation of the female form why is she not wearing a Burkha. As with any commercial enterprise if you don't like don't use it. Will I go there; probably not. Would I object if my 21 and 19 year old sons went there; not at all. What does she make of the Forresters?

Fem wrote:
I can't believe what I'm reading. It isn't a matter of just not going there if you don't like it. Recent research has proved that venues like this make the local area less safe for women, and that means your daughters, your wives, your sisters and your mothers. It isn't at all that 'seeing a waitress dressed in tight clothing will turn all chaps into slavering potential rapists', these places have been proved to serve as fuel to the people who are capable of such crimes. Just think about the wider implications a bit!

Fem wrote:
I can't believe what I'm reading.
It isn't a matter of just not going there if you don't like it. Recent research has proved that venues like this make the local area less safe for women, and that means your daughters, your wives, your sisters and your mothers. It isn't at all that 'seeing a waitress dressed in tight clothing will turn all chaps into slavering potential rapists', these places have been proved to serve as fuel to the people who are capable of such crimes. Just think about the wider implications a bit!

Fem wrote:
<b> I can't believe what I'm reading.
It isn't a matter of just not going there if you don't like it. Recent research has proved that venues like this make the local area less safe for women, and that means your daughters, your wives, your sisters and your mothers. It isn't at all that 'seeing a waitress dressed in tight clothing will turn all chaps into slavering potential rapists', these places have been proved to serve as fuel to the people who are capable of such crimes. Just think about the wider implications a bit!</b>

Fem wrote:
See her letter earlier in the week. Good points, well made :
http://www.echo-news
.co.uk/search/displa
y.var.2116580.0.hoot
ers_bar_will_harm_ou
r_town.php

Fem wrote:
See Isabel Eden, ‘The Lilith Project Report on Lap Dancing and Striptease in the Borough of Camden’ (2003) http://www.eaves4wom en.co.uk/Lilith_Proj ect/Reports_and_best _practice.php It is quoted on the petition she mentions.

Fem wrote:
See Isabel Eden, ‘The Lilith Project Report on Lap Dancing and Striptease in the Borough of Camden’ (2003) http://www.eaves4wom
en.co.uk/Lilith_Proj
ect/Reports_and_best
_practice.php
It is quoted on the petition she mentions.

Fem wrote:
I can't believe what I'm reading. It isn't a matter of just not going there if you don't like it. Recent research has proved that venues like this make the local area less safe for women, and that means your daughters, your wives, your sisters and your mothers. It isn't at all that 'seeing a waitress dressed in tight clothing will turn all chaps into slavering potential rapists', these places have been proved to serve as fuel to the people who are capable of such crimes. Just think about the wider implications a bit!

Partyboy wrote:
'Me and a friend ended up accidentally in a strip club in Leeds the other week' - Did you mistake it for Wilkinsons or something?? :)

Teresa wrote:
She said 'I think a lot of people don't know what is going on in there.' I think this is an issue of a huge multi-national coming into Southend and hiding the nature of their business from the local community. People have a right to know about what the Hooters brand do and I think this is what she is trying to achieve (I certainly didn't know about the brand until I read this). Hooters weren't giving people who live nearby the right to make up their own minds about this, she is just pointing out the issue and you don't have to sign the petition. There is a lot of support for this already (including from me!)

Jon wrote:
Partyboy, Great idea but can\'t find site. This is really stupid. What is being suggested is that overt display leads to crime. Whilst this may be true in a minimal amount of cases the basic human nature is good not evil. If we were to progress Ms. Deboick\'s (Ms.?) protest further all personal property would be banned in case this leads to theft, sports in case they lead to violence and reproduction would only be allowed with the aid of turkey basters. For pity\'s sake have some fun.

Fem wrote:
Roger, there are clear paralells between the activites at Hooters and what is described in The Lilith Project Report, I think you\'ll agree. I don\'t suppose there is any British research into Hooters specifically because the article says there is only one in the country!

Fem wrote:
See Isabel Eden, ‘The Lilith Project Report on Lap Dancing and Striptease in the Borough of Camden’ (2003) http://www.eaves4wom en.co.uk/Lilith_Proj ect/Reports_and_best _practice.php It is quoted on the petition she mentions.

Scott wrote:
My gender is so deppressingly obvious. hooters seems like such a throwback, something which I thought we had got out of our systems. I particularly hate the way that blatant sexism (as displayed in many of these posts) is hidden behind a post-modern anti-pc facade. If life is as simple as you don't like it so don't go then let's open a XXX cinema in Southend, those that like that sort if thing can go in there and thes rest of us just have to walk past it with our children. A fool and his money are easily parted and that is the philosophy behind Hooters and reading above it is easy to see why, slavering idiots positively drooling at the idea of being served drinks by underdressed women, the returning home to their wives and daughters. This is easily passed off as harmless fun but actually it is insidious in the way in which it labels women and demeans men as simple minded idiots who will hand over any amount of money to a waitress in a tight top. These are the simple minded idiots who buy Nuts magazine week and and week out.

These are the simple minded idiots who buy Nuts magazine week and and week out.

The PHD student said...

Horace Wimpole wrote:

These are the simple minded idiots who buy Nuts magazine week and and week out.

Etc etc. A simplistic and desparately humourless post Scott, shame on you. I wouldn't be seen dead buying Nuts or FHM and their ilk, but absolutely defend the rights of other wee scamps to do so. To aver that such publications have no place in our society, that lap-dancing clubs should be banned, or that all men should worship at the feet of their earth mothers is snivelling middle-class drivel at its very worst (and most pious). Get a grip.

Partyboy wrote:
http://www.ipetition s.com/petition/welov ehooters/ Come on, lets smash her silly little petition.

Scott wrote:
My gender is so deppressingly obvious. hooters seems like such a throwback, something which I thought we had got out of our systems. I particularly hate the way that blatant sexism (as displayed in many of these posts) is hidden behind a post-modern anti-pc facade. If life is as simple as you don't like it so don't go then let's open a XXX cinema in Southend, those that like that sort if thing can go in there and thes rest of us just have to walk past it with our children. A fool and his money are easily parted and that is the philosophy behind Hooters and reading above it is easy to see why, slavering idiots positively drooling at the idea of being served drinks by underdressed women, the returning home to their wives and daughters. This is easily passed off as harmless fun but actually it is insidious in the way in which it labels women and demeans men as simple minded idiots who will hand over any amount of money to a waitress in a tight top. These are the simple minded idiots who buy Nuts magazine week and and week out.

S-S wrote:
As a female, and mother, I'm afraid I still can't see what all the fuss is about. As already said, the girls will choose to work there and not be forced, and at the end of the day it is a restaurant, what could be sinister about that? I think it sounds fun! I would be more worried about the amount of lap dancing bars or nightclubs in Southend. and the usual fights that go on at chucking out time. Also prostitution is a problem in the Southend area, along with drugs and alcohol etc. I don't see how a chain restaurant can cause any more concern at all! Good luck to the girls that work there I say!

Andrew wrote:
<b> My concern is the rise of the self appointed busy bodies, PC thought police and nannies in our society who think they have the right to censor and control what others wish to enjoy.

American corporations? So we didn't have any strippers in Britain before the Americans came here?

The more the Mary Whitehouses and frumps complain about such entertainment, the more I will support it, purely because I believe in freedom of choice. </b>

Doughnut wrote:
<b> Well done Ms Deboick ! 72 replies on here and countless people reading your article in the Echo. All publicity is good publicity, and you couldn\'t have advertised the establishment more if you tried !!If they don\'t get the go-ahead i\'m gonna open restaurants called \"Big Bangers\" and \"Mellons\" in the High St and hire you for my PR...</b>

schraube wrote:
<b> Lovely bring em on!!

Only the pullover brigade can object and that's because they are normally ugly.

It would be nice to be served by topless waitress's

Preferably puddings rather than pancakes!!

And for the Inquisition boys 5/10



















</b>

Andrew wrote:
<b>

Having read more on the web about this company. They do demean women and the UK & European sex discrimination laws should sort them out if someone decides to run with it (most American cases have been settled out of court).

Ever heard of Spearmint Rhino or Stringfellows? The ladies they employ don't wear any clothes, i hardly think a bar that requires its staff to wear skimpy but covering clothes will be banned.

Personally I'm no supporter of Mary Whitehouse, but I am a supporter of a society that defends reasonable norms of behavior and gives citizens rights in return for them taking responsibility (something most people forget is the responsibility bit).


And I defend freedom of choice. If you don't like seeing a bit of flesh put on a burkha and don't go to the bar.

I'm interested to read that you believe it is wrong to censor and control what others wish to enjoy.

Child ****, snuff movies, happy slapping on Utube, etc are all okay in your book then?

Snuff movies? Like people being blown to pieces in Iraq o the news and in war documentaries you mean? All that footage of precision missile strikes had real people at the receiving end.

A bar with staff in skimpy clothing isn't exactly in the same league is it? </b>

Geezer wrote:

Fem wrote: See Isabel Eden, ‘The Lilith Project Report on Lap Dancing and Striptease in the Borough of Camden’ (2003) http://www.eaves4wom en.co.uk/Lilith_Proj ect/Reports_and_best _practice.php It is quoted on the petition she mentions.

It wouldn't take much to drag Camden down into the dumps, believe me. You could pave the streets with diamonds and it would still be a dump. Sounds a bit like oversensitive feminism to me and I hate being portrayed as a potential rapist by her ilk because I might see a woman with minimal clothing. I mean, I hate the way the missus comes back from watching the Chippendales and then wants to have her wicked way with me. I feel violated every time and resent being treated as a sex object. Where is Ms. Deboick to fight the men's corner? :p Perhaps she would like to see Ann Summers banned as well. Perhaps she'd be happy if women only wore bubblegum white granny knickers :) Can't the women who choose to work at Hooters think for themselves?

Perhaps she would like to see Ann Summers banned as well.

Andrew wrote:
<b> This discussion is not about me. It is about the po-faced PC thought-police who would stop anyone else enjoying themselves just because they hate their own dreary little lives.

How many of those outraged 'feminists' on here have laughed at a Jo Brand man joke, have been to a hen night with a male stripper?

Get off your holier than thou hooby horses. </b>

Personally I'm no supporter of Mary Whitehouse, but I am a supporter of a society that defends reasonable norms of behavior and gives citizens rights in return for them taking responsibility (something most people forget is the responsibility bit).

Sam wrote:
A whole lot of fuss about nothing, I am more offended by oiks swearing down the high street than what I would be seeing a waitress in a short skirt!!!

James wrote:
This is absolutely breathtaking. The nasty, misogynistic, predatory bull**** on here makes you want to migrate. WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?! This is one person making a point and trying to make sure residents are aware of what will be going on on their doorstep. Why are you being so aggressive?

James wrote:
<b> This is absolutely breathtaking. The nasty, misogynistic, predatory bull**** on here makes you want to migrate. WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?! This is one person making a point and trying to make sure residents are aware of what will be going on on their doorstep. Why are you being so aggressive?</b>

Peter Pantsless wrote:
Obviously Ms Deboick has never been to a Hooters establishment.
If she had, she would know that they are safe and clean environments. Nothing sleezy about them at all unlike Ms Deboick would have you believe.
There is absolutely no nudity.
And besides she might like to visit any nightclub across the country on a friday or saturday night to see what young attractive females like to flaunt on the dancefloor, hotpants and bikini\'s would be considered quite tame!
Or maybe she might like to visit Chalkwell beach during the summer to see some women in nothing more than a g-string.
Hooters in America are often frequented by whole families looking for and enjoyable evening out with good food.

W wrote:
THIS THREAD NEEDS TO BE ENDED IMMEDIATELY. This is not a forum for debate, it is being used solely to attack an individual and make lewd remarks. TAKE IT DOWN.

Fem wrote:
See her letter earlier in the week. Good points, well made :
http://www.echo-news
.co.uk/search/displa
y.var.2116580.0.hoot
ers_bar_will_harm_ou
r_town.php

roger wrote:
This is actually pretty much a forum W. It's not soley being used to attack one individual. It's just that one individual went to the open free press about this matter and if that individual can make a public statement so can everyone else. I am glad of this comment page because it's giving eveyone a voice! That's right W let's take down/ censor anything that you do not agree with.

Marie wrote:

roger wrote:
This is actually pretty much a forum W. It\'s not soley being used to attack one individual. It\'s just that one individual went to the open free press about this matter and if that individual can make a public statement so can everyone else. I am glad of this comment page because it\'s giving eveyone a voice! That\'s right W let\'s take down/ censor anything that you do not agree with.

Absolutely Roger, a forum for serious debate going on here! After all, everyone has a right to voice their views: \'Needs a good portion of man meat and a jolly rodgering...\', \'Sophia just needs a bit of trouser snooker to cheer her up.\' Not at all sexual threats against one individual. Wholly acceptable and valid. You were masquerading as someone with a serious point earlier, Roger. Anyone with one ounce of decency would have expressed their disgust with these posts by now. I never knew such scum bags existed. Why is the Echo hosting this poison?

Marie wrote:
NO-ONE is entitled to make such offensive, nasty, predatory comments about ANYONE Roger. Why are you excusing it? THESE COMMENTS ARE NOT DEBATE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. Have you actually read what she has said? What is so offensive about it that personal, sexual comments need to made and excused by you? You are anonymous Roger, as are all the other posters on here, she is not. Her name, address and photo is out there - like to see you stick your neck out in the same way. What if those comments were made about your daughter or your wife? Where is your basic respect for other human beings?

Marie wrote:
WHY DID IT TAKE YOU SO LONG TO TAKE THOSE ABUSIVE AND INDECENT POSTINGS DOWN?

Marie wrote:
WHY DID IT TAKE YOU SO LONG TO TAKE THOSE ABUSIVE AND INDECENT POSTINGS DOWN?

Marie wrote:
WHY DID IT TAKE YOU SO LONG TO TAKE THOSE ABUSIVE AND INDECENT POSTINGS DOWN?

schraube wrote:
Lovely bring em on!! Only the pullover brigade can object and that's because they are normally ugly. It would be nice to be served by topless waitress's Preferably puddings rather than pancakes!! And for the Inquisition boys 5/10

June wrote:
Wow - I am surprised at so many positive comments re. Hooters. Makes one wonder why parents would take their children to such a restaurant. So, Ms. Deboick, here's to you and your values. Every success - even though I don't live anywhere near the proposed restaurant.

Marie wrote:
<b> NO-ONE is entitled to make such offensive, nasty, predatory comments about ANYONE Roger. Why are you excusing it? THESE COMMENTS ARE NOT DEBATE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. Have you actually read what she has said? What is so offensive about it that personal, sexual comments need to made and excused by you? You are anonymous Roger, as are all the other posters on here, she is not. Her name, address and photo is out there - like to see you stick your neck out in the same way. What if those comments were made about your daughter or your wife? Where is your basic respect for other human beings? </b>

Local Boy wrote:

Marie wrote: <b> NO-ONE is entitled to make such offensive, nasty, predatory comments about ANYONE Roger. Why are you excusing it? THESE COMMENTS ARE NOT DEBATE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. Have you actually read what she has said? What is so offensive about it that personal, sexual comments need to made and excused by you? You are anonymous Roger, as are all the other posters on here, she is not. Her name, address and photo is out there - like to see you stick your neck out in the same way. What if those comments were made about your daughter or your wife? Where is your basic respect for other human beings? </b>

I'd like to offer some words of support to your views. Except I'm struggling to find the right ones to use. The Echo website is not monitored so many posters get away with saying the things that you object to. Offensive comments are rife on these pages and they are deemed by many to be acceptable, the defence is always "freedom of speech". Sadly these comments accurately reflect how some of our neighbours view the world. The conclusion I have drawn is that I live in an poorly read, ignorant, bigoted area (and have done for 40 years) full of small minded "little Englanders". The sort who fly the flag and remind people of our proud history defending the free world. Then by their very words (and in some cases actions) devalue all of the freedoms that our forefathers fought for. These are the very people who are outraged when rapes and indecent assaults occur, yet they don't have the wit to associate that the general demeaning of women in our society is giving the green light to the perpetrators of these attacks. Look on the bright side, hopefully you're not married or living with one of these Neanderthals! Daily Mail and Express readers me thinks.

The Echo website is not monitored

I live in an poorly read, ignorant, bigoted area (and have done for 40 years)

giving the green light to the perpetrators of these attacks.

Daily Mail and Express readers me thinks.

Sadly these comments accurately reflect how some of our neighbours view the world. The conclusion I have drawn is that I live in an poorly read, ignorant, bigoted area (and have done for 40 years) full of small minded "little Englanders".

Local Boy wrote:
From the Hooters web site: "Hooters characterizes itself as a neighborhood place, not a typical family restaurant. Sixty-eight percent of customers are male, most between the ages of 25-54. Hooters does not market itself to families, but they do patronize the restaurants. Ten percent of the parties we serve have children in them. Hooters is in the hospitality business and provides the best possible service to anyone coming through the door. For this reason, the chain offers a children's menu." A restaurant not aimed at the family. "Hooters marketing, emphasizing the Hooters Girl and her sex appeal" " The chain acknowledges that many consider "Hooters" a slang term for a portion of the female anatomy. Hooters does have an owl inside its logo and uses an owl theme sufficiently to allow debate to occur over the meaning's intent. The chain enjoys and benefits from this debate. In the end, we hope Hooters means a great place to eat." The Hooters web site is very informative. If you want a restaurant in Southend Town Centre dominated by male clients who are primarily attracted by are attracted by "sex appeal" rather than good food that is your choice. But don't delude yourselves that this is a typical American family restaurant "like TGI Fridays" it does not make this claim and is clearly not! Furthermore it positively encourages this type of "debate" as to its intent as a means of raising publicity. Job done then!

Sherry wrote:

Local Boy wrote: From the Hooters web site: "Hooters characterizes itself as a neighborhood place, not a typical family restaurant. Sixty-eight percent of customers are male, most between the ages of 25-54. Hooters does not market itself to families, but they do patronize the restaurants. Ten percent of the parties we serve have children in them. Hooters is in the hospitality business and provides the best possible service to anyone coming through the door. For this reason, the chain offers a children's menu." A restaurant not aimed at the family. "Hooters marketing, emphasizing the Hooters Girl and her sex appeal" " The chain acknowledges that many consider "Hooters" a slang term for a portion of the female anatomy. Hooters does have an owl inside its logo and uses an owl theme sufficiently to allow debate to occur over the meaning's intent. The chain enjoys and benefits from this debate. In the end, we hope Hooters means a great place to eat." The Hooters web site is very informative. If you want a restaurant in Southend Town Centre dominated by male clients who are primarily attracted by are attracted by "sex appeal" rather than good food that is your choice. But don't delude yourselves that this is a typical American family restaurant "like TGI Fridays" it does not make this claim and is clearly not! Furthermore it positively encourages this type of "debate" as to its intent as a means of raising publicity. Job done then!

God, it's not like it's Spearmint Rhino. You need to come to London, that will open your eyes!

Partyboy wrote:

Sherry wrote:

Local Boy wrote: From the Hooters web site: "Hooters characterizes itself as a neighborhood place, not a typical family restaurant. Sixty-eight percent of customers are male, most between the ages of 25-54. Hooters does not market itself to families, but they do patronize the restaurants. Ten percent of the parties we serve have children in them. Hooters is in the hospitality business and provides the best possible service to anyone coming through the door. For this reason, the chain offers a children's menu." A restaurant not aimed at the family. "Hooters marketing, emphasizing the Hooters Girl and her sex appeal" " The chain acknowledges that many consider "Hooters" a slang term for a portion of the female anatomy. Hooters does have an owl inside its logo and uses an owl theme sufficiently to allow debate to occur over the meaning's intent. The chain enjoys and benefits from this debate. In the end, we hope Hooters means a great place to eat." The Hooters web site is very informative. If you want a restaurant in Southend Town Centre dominated by male clients who are primarily attracted by are attracted by "sex appeal" rather than good food that is your choice. But don't delude yourselves that this is a typical American family restaurant "like TGI Fridays" it does not make this claim and is clearly not! Furthermore it positively encourages this type of "debate" as to its intent as a means of raising publicity. Job done then!

God, it's not like it's Spearmint Rhino. You need to come to London, that will open your eyes!

Would you still work there if it was Sherry??? ;)

Bored wrote:

schraube wrote: Lovely bring em on!! Only the pullover brigade can object and that's because they are normally ugly. It would be nice to be served by topless waitress's Preferably puddings rather than pancakes!! And for the Inquisition boys 5/10

You're the sort of person that gives people the wrong idea about these girls. The dirty raincoat brigade!

ShipShape wrote:
I\'m glad that Ms Deboick is using a Lap Top, then she can take it between the sink and cooker. She shouldn\'t get so wound up, all those big thoughts in a pretty little head like that will only lead to ugliness and put pounds onto her hips. It really is nice to see a young lady having a hobby, although with the abundance of shoe shops in Southend, I wonder how she manages to get it all in before hubby gets home for tea. Now, that\'s being just as patronising as the suggestion that seeing a waitress dressed in tight clothing will turn all chaps into slavering potential rapists.

Jayne wrote:
PHD? What a silly women! Couldnt she campaign about a serious issue such as alcohol being sold to minors, that does often result in serious assaults on men as well as women. I feel embarassed to be associated by sex, oops sorry said a dirty word! I mean by being female.I have been in hooters in US a few times, there is nothing degrading or disgusting or rude about it, and the staff have loved their job, have been dressed far more decently than a lot of bar staff I have seen in UK, and the whole family have enjoyed the atmosphere and service/food and I\'m just an old granny. I apologise on behalf of women with more important things to worry about, to the men that are being classed as rapists not in control of their actions at the sight of a female not dressed demurely, as noted it\'s amazing there are not more indecent assaults in the High Street, let alone the sea front. I say lets start a petition FOR Hooters, bagsy first to sign! Lol PS I also apologise for the womens lack of irony re. the chained to the kitchen sink joke. Rock on shipshape.

laura eaton wrote:
I have occassionally wondered what Sophia was upto nowadays as we were good friends at SHSG. What a disappoint finding out was! Frankly, what a waste of time and energy. What is the PHD in I wonder, nothing that covers any of the millions of causes worth fighting before whether or not a few waitresses should be able to choose to wear their beach gear or not. If this petition is the kind of thing our educated women of the town are using their energy and 'brains' on then goodness help us all!