Lincoln gentleman's club rules criticised as 'sexist'
A gentleman's club, which voted to continue to prohibit women from becoming members, has been called "sexist" by a feminist group.Women can only enter the Castle Hill Club in Lincoln as the guest of a man who is a member.Paul Watson, secretary at the club which opened in 1922, said the rule "had always been the same" and "for the rights or wrongs of it, they wanted to leave it that way."Ellie Henshaw, 19, from the University of Lincoln's Feminist Society, said the decision was "frustrating" and "its not the default anymore that women should be excluded".
All 560 members were asked to vote on whether women should be allowed to become members.The vote closed on 7 May.100 members voted to keep the rule the same. 78 voted for change.Mr Watson said the vote was "democratic" and "all members had different views on it".He said he believed women who visited the club as guests of male members were "happy"."They keep coming. They're obviously comfortable in how the club is set up."Mr Watson said the venue was historical."A lot of it has to do with the history of the club and about not wanting too much change to keep the club running as it has done since 1922."
Ms Henshaw said "times have changed" and women should be allowed to join."I'm a history student. I think denying progress in the name of history is a very flawed argument," she said.Bee Moore, 18, from the society, said she understood men's clubs were "historic"."But we live in an age where everyone is equal and excluding people is wrong", she said."I would call this sexist. I don't see a reason why women have been excluded."
According to Mr Watson, the Grade II listed building dates back to the middle ages and used to operate as a pub called the Black Boy.In 1922, as the pub was struggling to stay afloat, he said pub regulars took over the establishment and made it a gentleman's club. Eventually, the members bought the pub together and it became the free house run by volunteers which it remains."When I was first there, there were 80 members. There's 560 now," Mr Watson said.Listen to highlights from Lincolnshire on BBC Sounds, watch the latest episode of Look North or tell us about a story you think we should be covering here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Record
18 minutes ago
- Daily Record
Calls to change free bus travel scheme for people over 60 nears important UK Government milestone
The national entitlement scheme operates UK-wide but there are different eligibility age rules under devolved governments. Pension Credit – Could you or someone you know be eligible? Nearly 80,000 people have signed an online petition supporting calls for changes to be made to the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme (ENCTS) and bring it into line with the same service provided by the Scottish Government for people over 60 living north of the border. People can sign the e-petition until Friday, June 27 and if it reaches 100,000 signatures of support, it will be considered by the Petitions Committee for debate in Parliament. Petition creator Karen Hickman argues the current scheme is 'unjust' and calls for 'equality for everyone over 60'. The campaigner explained people in England, living outside London, are not entitled to free bus travel until they reach State Pension age - 66 for both men and women - which she believes has 'changed dramatically.' The 'extend free bus travel for people over 60 in England' petition states: 'We call on the Government to extend free bus travel to all people over 60 years old in England outside London. We believe the current situation is unjust and we want equality for everyone over 60. 'Currently, people in England who do not live in London are not entitled to free bus travel until they reach the state pension age, which we believe has changed dramatically. As people get older some over 60s drive less and less, therefore we believe we need equality on public transport. 'It would mean England had the same provision as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.' Earlier this month, Labour MP Markus Campbell-Savours has urged the UK Government to consider the 'potential impact of introducing free bus passes for people aged 60 and over on social inclusion, the economy and the environment. The written question from the Penrith and Solway MP is similar to the proposal put forward in the petition by Ms Hickman. In a written response, Transport Minister Simon Lightwood, explained how the ENCTS costs around £700 million annually and 'any changes to the statutory obligations would therefore need to be carefully considered for its impact on the scheme's financial sustainability'. He continued: ' No assessment has been made of the potential impact of lowering the age on social inclusion, the economy or the environment.' However, he added that local authorities in England have the power to offer concessions in addition to their statutory obligations, which includes lowering the age of eligibility. He explained that 'additional local concessions are provided and funded by local authorities from local resources'. Mr Lightwood added: 'Funding allocated to local authorities to improve services for passengers can be used in whichever way they wish. This could include extending the discretionary concessions available in local areas to support the local economy and environment.' There are two broad categories of people eligible for the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme - older people and eligible disabled people. Both men and women are eligible for concessionary travel in England when they reach state pension age, 60 in Scotland. Eligibility for concessionary travel may vary depending on local authorities and the specific terms of the concessionary travel scheme in place. National Entitlement Card in Scotland In Scotland, people over 60 are eligible to apply for the National Entitlement Card (NEC), which is administered by the Scottish Government. It is Scotland's National Smartcard, offering access to many public services across the country. The card gives elderly and disabled people free bus travel across Scotland and, through the Strathclyde Concessionary Travel Scheme, also provides reductions on train, Subway and ferry fares. The NEC is valid for up to three years, but in a change to the renewal process, SPT no longer sends out renewal forms to disabled card holders. This means everyone with a card - sometimes referred to as a 'Saltire card' - should check the expiry date to make sure they will be able to enjoy uninterrupted entitlement to travel concessions. SPT recommends applying for a renewal card at least five weeks before the expiry date. It's also important to be aware guidance on the SPT website states the Concessionary Travel Card Unit at Buchanan Bus Station will be closed for in person applications until further notice.
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
MPs set to vote on decriminalising abortion in major debate
Pro-choice advocates are calling on MPs to vote in favour of decriminalising abortion as part of amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, which is expected to be debated and voted on this Tuesday. This renewed effort follows persistent demands to repeal sections of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, a 19th-century law, mirroring the decriminalisation of abortion in Northern Ireland in 2019. Prior attempts to debate similar amendments, aimed at removing the threat of prosecution for women acting in relation to their own pregnancy, were halted due to Parliament 's dissolution last summer for the general election. During a recent debate at Westminster Hall, pro-change campaigners argued against women being "dragged from hospital bed to police cell" over abortion. However, opponents have cautioned against such a "radical step", arguing that decriminalisation would leave unborn babies without any remaining protection. Speaking ahead of a debate in the Commons, Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi said her amendment would result in 'removing the threat of investigation, arrest, prosecution, or imprisonment' of any woman who acts in relation to her own pregnancy. Ms Antoniazzi said the cases of women investigated by police had motivated her to advocate for a change in the law. She said: 'Police have investigated more than 100 women for suspected illegal abortion in the last five years including women who've suffered natural miscarriages and stillbirths. 'This is just wrong. It's a waste of taxpayers' money, it's a waste of the judiciary's time, and it's not in the public interest.' She said her amendment will not change time limits for abortion or the regulation of services but it 'decriminalises women accused of ending their own pregnancies', taking them out of the criminal justice system 'so they can get the help and support they need'. Her amendment is supported by abortion providers including MSI Reproductive Choices and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (Bpas) as well as the the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). A separate amendment has also been put forward by Labour MP Stella Creasy and goes further by not only decriminalising abortion, but also seeks to 'lock in' the right of someone to have one and protect those who help them. The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) urged MPs to vote against both amendments, saying they would bring about 'the biggest expansion of abortion since 1967'. Alithea Williams, the organisation's public policy manager, said: 'Unborn babies will have any remaining protection stripped away, and women will be left at the mercy of abusers. 'Both amendments would allow abortion up to birth, for any reason. NC20 (Ms Creasy's amendment) is only more horrifying because it removes any way of bringing men who end the life of a baby by attacking a pregnant woman to justice.' Ms Creasy rejected Spuc's claim, and urged MPs not to be 'misled'. She highlighted coercive control legislation, which would remain in place if her amendment was voted through, and which she said explicitly identifies forcing someone to have an abortion as a crime punishable by five years in jail. Abortion in England and Wales remains a criminal offence but is legal with an authorised provider up to 24 weeks, with very limited circumstances allowing one after this time, such as when the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born with a severe disability. The issue has come to the fore in recent times with prominent cases such as those of Nicola Packer and Carla Foster. Ms Packer was cleared by a jury last month after taking prescribed abortion medicine when she was around 26 weeks pregnant, beyond the legal limit of 10 weeks for taking such medication at home. She told jurors during her trial, which came after more than four years of police investigation, that she did not realise she had been pregnant for more than 10 weeks. The case of Carla Foster, jailed in 2023 for illegally obtaining abortion tablets to end her pregnancy when she was between 32 and 34 weeks pregnant, eventually saw her sentence reduced by the Court of Appeal and suspended, with senior judges saying that sending women to prison for abortion-related offences is 'unlikely' to be a 'just outcome'. A separate amendment, tabled by Conservative MP Caroline Johnson proposes mandatory in-person consultations for women seeking an abortion before being prescribed at-home medication to terminate a pregnancy. The changes being debated this week would not cover Scotland, where a group is currently undertaking work to review the law as it stands north of the border. On issues such as abortion, MPs usually have free votes, meaning they take their own view rather than deciding along party lines. During a Westminster Hall debate earlier this month, justice minister Alex Davies-Jones said the Government is neutral on decriminalisation and that it is an issue for Parliament to decide upon. She said: 'If the will of Parliament is that the law in England and Wales should change, then the Government would not stand in the way of such change but would seek to ensure that the law is workable and enforced in the way that Parliament intended.'
Daily Mail
39 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
The lucrative reason Prince Harry and Meghan wrecked any chance of a compromise with the Royal Family during 'Megxit', royal author claims
Prince Harry and Meghan allegedly wrecked any chance of a compromise with the Royal Family during 'Megxit' because they wanted the 'freedom to make money and dip their toes into politics', a royal author has claimed. When Harry and Meghan stepped down as working royals in 2020, hopes were high within the Firm that a compromise could be found. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex claimed their decision to 'step back as senior members' was to become more financially independent and to enjoy privacy from the prying eyes of the media. At the time it seemed plausible that these wishes could be fulfilled alongside an agreement to represent the Crown at a select number of events every year. However, according to royal author Valentine Low, any prospect of a soft 'Megxit' was scuppered by the Sussexes over finances. Writing in his tell-all book Courtiers, Low claims that Meghan's desire to 'earn money for herself' led the couple to abandon their duties entirely. Low revealed that during discussions about how to reach a happy middle ground - which could please the whole family - multiple scenarios were explored. These ranged from Harry and Meghan 'having a month a year to do their own thing' to 'spending most of their time privately but doing a select number of royal activities'. There was apparently a 'positive atmosphere' in the room, with each party believing a deal was close. The one caveat for the Sussexes continuing royal duties - however small or minor - was that they must stick to the 'normal rules about royal behaviour'. Crucially, that would mean Harry and Meghan could not 'act or take decisions in order to gain financially'. Low writes: 'Some suspected that in the end she wanted to make money. And the only way she was going to do that was by leaving her royal life behind and going back to America.' On top of this, the couple wanted the 'freedom to dip their toes into American politics', which would represent a major breach of royal protocol for a family with a long history of being staunchly apolitical. 'There was no way for the two sides to reach an agreement on that point. 'Crucially, it was the Queen who took the view that unless they were prepared to abide by the restrictions that applied to working members of the Royal Family, they could not be allowed to carry out official duties.' Indeed, since 'Megxit' the couple have 'dipped their toes' into US politics. During the 2020 US presidential race, the couple endorsed Joe Biden in all but name in a video address urging voters to 'reject hate speech', while Meghan labelled it the 'most important election of our lifetime'. The duke said at the time: 'This election I am not able to vote in the US. But many of you may not know that I haven't been able to vote in the UK my entire life. As we approach this November, it's vital that we reject hate speech, misinformation and online negativity.' While Harry and Meghan did not name their favoured candidate, many viewers thought it 'obvious' they were backing Joe Biden over Donald Trump. As such, the Sussexes were accused of 'violating' the terms of their 'Megxit' deal. In September 2020, Trump said that he was 'no fan' of the duchess after the couple released their video. In the aftermath, Republicans and other critics called on the Royal Family to strip the couple of their titles, calling their interference 'inappropriate'. In last year's election, the couple stayed publicly neutral and instead urged Americans to go out and vote. The statement read: 'Voting is not just a right; it's a fundamental way to influence the fate of our communities. 'At The Archewell Foundation, we recognize that civic engagement, no matter one's political party, is at the heart of a more just and equitable world. 'By participating in initiatives like this, we aim to amplify the message that every voice matters.' Free from the shackles of royal protocol, Meghan appears more ambitious than ever. The former Suits actress reportedly hopes to become a billionaire by launching a career in media and as a entrepreneur. In March 2024, she soft-launched American Riviera Orchard before changing the company's name to As Ever. Announcing the venture, Meghan said: 'This new chapter is an extension of what has always been my love language, beautifully weaving together everything I cherish - food, gardening, entertaining, thoughtful living, and finding joy in the everyday.' The food products sold by the brand include an assortment of teas, edible flower sprinkles and a £20 jar of honey. Speaking on an episode of her podcast, Confessions Of A Female Founder, Meghan revealed she has decided to 'just pause' restocking her As Ever brand after previously selling out of products in less than an hour. Meghan has invested in a number of companies including the vegan coffee brand Clevr Blends and haircare line Highbrow Hippie. She has also invested in asset manager Ethic, which focuses on sustainable investments. Harry and Meghan signed a lucrative £18million deal with Spotify in 2020. However despite appearing to be a joint venture, the only show they produced was hosted by Meghan. In the series, titled Archetypes, Meghan interviewed various celebrities from Serena Williams to Paris Hilton. The deal was 'mutually ended' in June 2023 with sources claiming the music streaming giant did not see enough content to warrant the full payout. Earlier this year, the duchess launched her Confessions Of A Female Founder podcast, which saw her chat with female business owners from an array of successful companies. In a slight career change, Meghan also penned a children's book in 2021 titled The Bench. It follows the relationship of a father and son through the eyes of the mother and received mixed reviews from critics. In their television projects, Harry and Meghan have kept a much more united front, but even so, the couple appear to be working separately more often. Although an official figure was never announced, Harry and Meghan's deal with Netflix was allegedly worth around £80million, and the couple produced multiple shows. In 2022, the first Netflix series about the Sussexes was released aptly named Harry and Meghan. While it holds the record for the biggest debut for a Netflix documentary it received mixed reviews. The pair were also executive producers on the Polo sports documentary series which followed athletes at the US Open Polo Championship. In 2023, Meghan did not join Harry as an executive producer on the Heart Of Invictus series, although the duke and duchess did appear together in the show. Meghan's first major solo television project was her lifestyle programme called With Love, Meghan, which saw her team up with a number of famous guests to cook and create homeware products. Harry was almost entirely absent from the series, aside from a very brief cameo in the last episode. A source from the show has since reported that neither Harry nor their children will appear in the next season. Although The Mail On Sunday revealed in May that Harry is planning to launch his own as-yet-undisclosed commercial venture in the next few months, he remains focused on his charity work. Harry is still involved heavily with the Invictus Games and the foundation which supports the tournament as well as the HALO Trust - a charity working to remove landmines which Princess Diana supported. The duke has also launched other projects in recent years, including an eco-travel campaign through his non-profit Travalyst, aimed at encouraging sustainable travel. And in November 2023, he became the global ambassador for Scotty's Little Soldiers - a charity that cares for children whose parents died while serving in the Armed Forces. Earlier this year, Harry had his most high profile fallout with a charity to date when he and Prince Seeiso of Lesotho resigned from their roles as patrons of Sentebale.
