It's carry on trading, despite loss of licence for Mrs Palm
| Posted: July 14, 2011
TRURO'S sex shop has been told it can remain open, despite its licence being withdrawn by Cornwall Council.
Mrs Palm Ltd was given a waiver to carry on trading after legal advice warned the unitary authority it did not have the power to overrule the former Carrick District Council's 'zero sex shop' policy.
The licensing committee granted the Little Castle Street store a right to trade in R-18 material in August last year - after rejecting the former district's decision.
Shops wishing to sell Restricted 18 DVDs and magazines need a licence to do so.
However, the ruling was challenged by the Christian Institute and city councillor Armorel Carlyon who have sought a judicial review – prompting Cornwall Council to seek legal clarification.
The county's legal expert, Philip Kolvin QC, said in his view the licensing committee was wrong to dismiss Carrick's position – even though it was officially reviewed in January this year.
He also argued the committee should not have rejected numerous letters of moral objections which were originally thrown out on legal advice.
The ruling meant the shop, which has been open since November, could have been closed down.
However, joint owner Braxton Reynolds applied for an emergency waiver. Juan Lopez, the Christian Institute's barrister, told the hearing: "The decision in August 2010 was in error.
"As a matter of law that was an unlawful decision and the consequence was it was a purported act."
He argued the right to waiver the licence was only to be used in rare cases and this was not one of them.
Mr Reynolds argued he had taken a lease on the premises and fitted it out in good faith after being granted the licence.
He added Mrs Palm had received no official complaints and been exceptionally careful to adhere to the terms of trading. The licensing committee voted seven to one to grant a waiver. Speaking after the case Mrs Carlyon said: "I'm not surprised. This is just part of the procedures.
"It is now down to the policy they have made and the policy says extreme circumstances.
"The most dangerous thing is they have set a precedent yet again."
Mr Reynolds said he was losing patience with the Christian Institute's continuing war against him and warned the action could be considered "vexatious".
Comments
The Christian Institue clearly has a lot to answer for regarding the promotion and awareness to minors regarding Sexual behaviour and Sex! Just take a visit to the Christian Institute Website, on one page alone, out of 19 stories, 10 of them related to Sexual issues (more than 50%). The word SEX appears no less than 7 times, SEXUAL - twice and, PORN- once. Children walking past, playing near or even hanging around outside Mrs. Palm's shop would not be subjected to anything near the same amount of influence or, be presented with such high levels of sexual discussion, thus developing and influencing awareness, as they could obtain just by viewing the content of the CI website. One curious question;- If the Christian Institute is a registered charity, there will be strict remit regarding how it should spend its charitable funding. I am not so sure that using charitable donations to persue Judicial Reviews etc., is an appropriate or legal use of funds, let alone appropriate behaviour for it's directors. Strange how many of the moral objections all appear to follow similar formats, almost pro-forma you might say. Still, if that's the case, it can easily be revealed. Clearly the Christian Institute do not care about the loss of commerce to the town, they do not care about the lack of employment for local residents nor the revenue Mrs' Palm will generate for the council. The Christian institute obviously do not care about having one less empty retail outlet thus making Truro appear a more vibrante town and more attractive for other commerce to consider opening outlets. The CI appears to want to stiffle Truro in the name of Christianity. Sorry! But from all the articles, reports, case reports and actions on behalf of the CI that I have read, The Christian Institute is completely out of line and bordering on the edge of fanatisism. In another country, such behaviour could be considered as terrorist acts! CI members should just go to church, do good deeds to those who wish to receive them and leave good, hard-working, non-judgemental people of Truro alone.
The Christian Institute have simply exercised their rights of appeal on a decision made by Cornwall Council. It is a pity that some people only see the words 'sex' and 'christian' and make massive assumptions which cloud their decision making process, and ultimately costs the tax payer a fortune.
If the Christian Institute don't like it then I suggest they avoid it. I don't like Christian churches but I don't try to shut them all down, I just let them get on with it as long as they leave me alone.
A Judicial Review is a legal process regarding the decision making process by the County Council. The Council's own process was not possible for it's own QC to defend. The Committee that made the decision's actions were indefensible. The Judicial Review was not about the Sex Shop but about the process, and as usual Cornwall Council did not follow due legal process. Sadly the Committee only see the words Sex and Christianity and thus forget their own policies. It is they who are guilty of being vexatious, not the Christian Institute or the Sex Shop.
This is actually discrimination against the shop by the ''Christian Institute'' A sole religious sect ( Christians) objecting because they feel it offends Christians. So - what next ?? If another religious sect kicked off about pork being sold then there would be an outcry probably led by the Christian Institute. The Christian Institute has no right whatsoever in pushing for closure. They probably represent about 5% of the people in Truro and surrounding areas.
It seems that once again the Unitary Authority have made an expensive mess of things. And guess who will be paying the bill.
Did I miss the passage in the bible that says "Thou shalt not have fun in the bedroom", or how about "Thou shall not use plastic implements to increase variety in the marital bed"? Where do these killjoys get off hiding behind their interpretation of Cristianity to persecute the rest of society? Surely a married couple spicing up their own sex life with sex aids is preferable to one of the couple straying?