There is a point I'd be interested to know if anyone can tell me is covered by this legislation. That of 'liability'.

Having done more shows of various kinds than I care to remember in Supertents, Marquees, Exhibition halls, and having built outdoor stages for innumerable festivals of various kinds, I read all this with some bemusement, and a growing sense of irritation.

About 10 years ago, I was involved in the building of quite a large structure for an outdoor festival. It soon became apparent that a number of us on the project knew a lot more about what we were doing than they guys from the local council who were meant to be inspecting the event. As the weekend of the festival grew near, so the public liability insurance increased. Largely I suspect because one of the bands appearing was having a rather long stay at No1 in the charts. The promter complained bitterly at this increase as this was a pass through cost to him. His argument was that the council have inspected everything, it had been passed, so why did he have to pay more insurance?

The answer was simple. The Council was not responsible. They may inspect the site any any structures on it built for the event. They grant you a Public Entertainment Licence, but if, God forbid ,anything goes wrong, they just turn round and say, 'Terribly sorry we didn't notice your mistake, it's your event / structure You are liable."

I am aware of nothing in this legislation that alters this. The promoter pays the cost of a licence, gets put through the wringer by the Local Authority, and still carries the can if anything goes wrong.

Frankly, when it comes to putting up or doing anything a large tent, I'd take the advice of the tent guys everytime. The council officials largely check if you've followed the published guidelines, and have got the right pieces of paper. They are not experts in the particular field, and when it comes to tents probably don't know the difference between a king pole and a queen pole.

There is another matter alluded to earlier which also concerns me. More years ago than I care to remember I did a dissertation on the relationship between alchoholic drink and the theatre. (I would include all forms of public entertainment here.) The main arguement being that the relationship between the performing arts and the pub is an important one.

Had the coming legislation been around at the time, it remains an open question as to whether Shakesperean theatre would have had the opportunity of growing from Elizabethan Inn Yards; Whether Music Hall and Variety could have happened at all, and we would have all those Victorian and Edwardian theatres everyone loves to preserve today. In the years since I undertook the study, I also wonder just how many West End successes would never have reached a stage had it not been for a first showing in a pub theatre.

I rather suspect that the folk revival of the sixties & seventies would have never got off the ground in the way that it did if this legislation had been around at the time.

I percieve three possible reasons for this current legislation:

1) It is an act of quite staggering stupidity perpetrated by a bunch of music hating phillistines.

2) It is administrative incompetence on a quite mind boggling scale.

3) It is a deliberate attempt to control popular culture and the dissemination of radical grass roots ideas which are currently out of the reach of media magnates and party spin doctors?


Public Safety? Only if public liability lies with the people making the inspections and granting the licences, otherwise what is the bloody point?


SM