Strip Club to keep license after employing 12 yo dancer

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2008-03-30 01:16am

Not to sound incredibly creepy, but we really need to see a picture of this girl.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2008-03-30 07:08am

Alex Moon wrote:
Isolder74 wrote:
Alex Moon wrote:The owner probably figured that she was 17 and wanted to let it slide.
17 is STILL UNDERAGE!
You really can't see the difference? I never defended the owner. In fact he's still a scumbag for hiring her. However, when it comes to the sex industry, the age of consent has always been porous. I was merely responding to the conversation, which seemed to be jumping between "He's a paedophile!" and "How could she really look 20?".

What are you a complete idiot? The minimum age allowed by the law right now is 18. As long as that is the case a strip club hiring an 17 year old is breaking the law. As such until the law changes making hiring the 17 year old legal justifying that it was ok because they thought she might be 17 and that 'close enough' is no better.

Any discusion on why this place should be shut down because they can't comply with the laws as they currently are written why would they if we changed the law to allow 16 and over?

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2008-03-30 07:25am

orignal article wrote:The sixth-grader danced at Diamonds Cabaret over a two-week period late last year, authorities say. They also say they found a 17-year-old girl working in the club in January.

"If they're not shut down, it's like they're giving them permission to have underage girls dancing and working in that club," said the mother of the 12-year-old. The mother is not being named because her daughter, a runaway at the time of the incident, is considered a sexual assault victim.

Before they had hired this 12 year old they had already shown their unwillingness to comply with the law. How can you justify the actions of this place in any way I would really like to know.

Zixinus · Post by **Zixinus** » 2008-03-30 08:01am

Can't believe all the understanding towards the people behind this. They skipped out on the paperwork, that makes them assholes who don't care if she was under aged even with all the red flags. The exploited the situation and there's sexual assault charges pending that's sickening how people can say "hey maybe she looked older".

It's a strip club. The people running the place are most likely don't pay too much attention to the law to begin with.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2008-03-30 08:13am

Zixinus wrote:
Can't believe all the understanding towards the people behind this. They skipped out on the paperwork, that makes them assholes who don't care if she was under aged even with all the red flags. The exploited the situation and there's sexual assault charges pending that's sickening how people can say "hey maybe she looked older".
It's a strip club. The people running the place are most likely don't pay too much attention to the law to begin with.

More of a reason to throw the book at them now isn't it.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2008-03-30 08:28am

I don't know what it's like in the US, but in AU this sort of thing is pretty heavily regulated. For me the issue isn't whether the girl 'looks 18' or whatever, or even that a dodgey operator let it slide with no reliable ID, but that city law doesn't allow the licence to be revoked under this circumstance. I mean, they bust the guy for 'aggravated kidnapping' but can't revoke his adult entertainment licence? How can a sex industry licence for a business like this even exist without 'you break the rules you lose your licence' provisions? The article doesn't even say he was fined by the adult licencing authority for having underage performers, or having underage people on site, or whatever, but criminal charges.

Am I stupid or is it bizarre that the guy can be charged with 'sexual performance of a minor' and hold an adult entertainment licence?

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2008-03-30 08:37am

Stark wrote:I don't know what it's like in the US, but in AU this sort of thing is pretty heavily regulated. For me the issue isn't whether the girl 'looks 18' or whatever, or even that a dodgey operator let it slide with no reliable ID, but that city law doesn't allow the licence to be revoked under this circumstance. I mean, they bust the guy for 'aggravated kidnapping' but can't revoke his adult entertainment licence? How can a sex industry licence for a business like this even exist without 'you break the rules you lose your licence' provisions? The article doesn't even say he was fined by the adult licencing authority for having underage performers, or having underage people on site, or whatever, but criminal charges.

Am I stupid or is it bizarre that the guy can be charged with 'sexual performance of a minor' and hold an adult entertainment licence?

But Stark, don't you know that if something is ignored, or made blanket wide illegal then it will go away through the power of being tough on crime

.
This reminds me of the whole nasty business of prostitution. Make it legal, and regulated and the sex crimes, rapes, deaths go down dramatically (Along with STDs), but hey, that would be immoral, so let's leave it on the streets. Rather like illegal pharmaceuticals. (Also known as Einy Juice).

That aside, surely there must be some process to disbar the fellow? Something like this (12, not 15 or up) and not losing his license sounds preposterous. As a sidenote, I support there being a massive difference in underage between 17 & 12. there's a physical difference, not a nebolous one of a few months.

Zixinus · Post by **Zixinus** » 2008-03-30 11:04am

More of a reason to throw the book at them now isn't it.

Yes, however expecting a strip club to be pristine clean legally is a bit like expecting dogs to not lick eachother's balls.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2008-03-30 11:22am

Zixinus wrote:
More of a reason to throw the book at them now isn't it.
Yes, however expecting a strip club to be pristine clean legally is a bit like expecting dogs to not lick eachother's balls.

I'm not expecting that. I am expecting that they at least try to comply with the laws that exist. The problem I see with this place was that the owner was actually coaching the girl on how to at least try and pretend she was over 18.

If you were 19 you have been born in...rather then come back when you have an ID! That make this place not worthy of even giving wiggle room to.

Zixinus · Post by **Zixinus** » 2008-03-30 12:21pm

If you were 19 you have been born in...rather then come back when you have an ID!

I'm sorry, but I can't see the implies sentence.

As for why people are less empathic, if the girl DID look much older for some bizarre biological reason, then things are a bit different.

Also consider that this girl was a runaway. Viewing the story from that perspective does give the guy a little break, not much as he is still committing an illegal act, but may speak of his intentions differently.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2008-03-30 02:09pm

Zixinus wrote:
If you were 19 you have been born in...rather then come back when you have an ID!
I'm sorry, but I can't see the implies sentence.

As for why people are less empathic, if the girl DID look much older for some bizarre biological reason, then things are a bit different.

Also consider that this girl was a runaway. Viewing the story from that perspective does give the guy a little break, not much as he is still committing an illegal act, but may speak of his intentions differently.

You don't get it do you? THE GUY WAS HELPING HER FORGE THE PAPERWORK! Does not that imply intent on his part and the fact that he knew the girl was a minor?

Whether she look 20 or not is not the issue here. The fact the the club did not operate itself in any manner that shows any attempt to comply with the law means that the place does not have any right to remain in operation. As such we know that the stripper that brought the girl in to work had to know that she was underage and that she was a runnaway which means that this place was knowingly exploiting a minor.

Gaidin · Post by **Gaidin** » 2008-03-30 02:29pm

Isolder74 wrote: More of a reason to throw the book at them now isn't it.

Did I totally misread the article when, as I understand, they did try to throw the book at them but found that the book had a loophole?

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2008-03-30 02:41pm

Gaidin wrote:
Isolder74 wrote: More of a reason to throw the book at them now isn't it.
Did I totally misread the article when, as I understand, they did try to throw the book at them but found that the book had a loophole?

The place is up for a renewal os its license soon and the owner is being charged with crimes assoiated with the girls stripping there. I surmise that once the trial start this guy will find himself in jail as long as the judge can amange and the place will not be able to renew its liscence. The loophole the city is now rushing to fill to make sure that no other place will be able to get away with this next time, which I hope wil never happen,

Gaidin · Post by **Gaidin** » 2008-03-30 02:47pm

Isolder74 wrote: The place is up for a renewal os its license soon and the owner is being charged with crimes assoiated with the girls stripping there. I surmise that once the trial start this guy will find himself in jail as long as the judge can amange and the place will not be able to renew its liscence. The loophole the city is now rushing to fill to make sure that no other place will be able to get away with this next time, which I hope wil never happen,

Of course there are ways around the loophole. They're just not as immediate as any person would like. And except for refusing license renewal, I'm not sure any of them have anything to do with city ordinances as much as they do criminal code.

Swindle1984 · Post by **Swindle1984** » 2008-03-30 04:06pm

My sister is 20 and looks like she's 12. Another friend of mine, who is 25 now, still gets handed a child's menu when she goes to restaurants.

While I can see why it's possible that this could be an honest mistake, the odds are severely against it. They knew what they were doing and they did it anyway.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2008-03-31 01:33am

CaptainChewbacca wrote:Not to sound incredibly creepy, but we really need to see a picture of this girl.

She's 12, so the press won't print her name, much less take a picture of her.

bilateralrope · Post by **bilateralrope** » 2008-03-31 02:04am

Swindle1984 wrote:My sister is 20 and looks like she's 12. Another friend of mine, who is 25 now, still gets handed a child's menu when she goes to restaurants.

While I can see why it's possible that this could be an honest mistake, the odds are severely against it. They knew what they were doing and they did it anyway.

How could it possibly be a mistake when the club owner helped her forge the paperwork ?

Raw Shark · Post by **Raw Shark** » 2008-04-01 08:30am

bilateralrope wrote:
Swindle1984 wrote:My sister is 20 and looks like she's 12. Another friend of mine, who is 25 now, still gets handed a child's menu when she goes to restaurants.

While I can see why it's possible that this could be an honest mistake, the odds are severely against it. They knew what they were doing and they did it anyway.
How could it possibly be a mistake when the club owner helped her forge the paperwork ?

I really think some of you guys are assuming malice in a situation that can be perfectly accounted for by stupidity here. Pretend you run a strip club for a second: The vast majority of the girls you talk to are coked out of their gourds. A little help filling out those pesky numbers on the application is probably not that unusual. Throw in the fact that she probably doesn't have any track marks, stretch marks, tattoos, scars from broken bottle fights, etc and any signs of sexual maturity start to look like a big green light to you. Plus one of your existing employees is vouching for her. , and "Jewels" wouldn't screw the whole company over like that right? Right?

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2008-04-01 10:52am

The point seems that this was not the first time they had employed a minor. A few months before they found a 17 year old working there. It's just that this time they really went over the line, way to far for any ind of justification at all.

Whoever the stripper is and her vouching for the girl does not change anything. The owners of the place made no effort to ensure that the girl was old enough to work.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-04-01 11:18am

Why aren't businesses required to demand proof of age before hiring workers? For that matter, isn't it also a violation of IRS rules to hire someone without getting a valid social security number?

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2008-04-01 11:30am

Darth Wong wrote:Why aren't businesses required to demand proof of age before hiring workers? For that matter, isn't it also a violation of IRS rules to hire someone without getting a valid social security number?

It is indeed. One more thing we can get the place with.