This is the latest on the Blue Bell, from Alan Wood.
alan.wood27@btopenworld.com

Hello all
Enclosed is the reply which Jane Bosworth has sent me to the letter I sent on 8.11.02.
There is a lot of scope for analysis.

City Councillors have contacted by e. mail and telephone and have expressed great concern about the whole Bluebell affair. A 'white knight' would be welcome at the moment.

Dear MrWood
Bluebell Ph House. Helpston Musical Folk Eveninas
PETERBOROUGH
CITY COUNCIL
ENVIRONMENTAL AND LEGAL SERVICES
Bridge House Town Bridge Peterborough
PE11HU
OX 12310 Peterborough 1 Telephone: (01733) 563141
21 November 2002

write in response to your letter dated 8 November 2002.

The current position is that investigations are still being carried out in respect of the Bluebell Public House, Helspston in order to piece together the full picture before any decision is made.

As you rightly say in your letter, we do have procedures and guidelines laid down for us to follow and these comply with the rules of natural justice. Also as the enforcing authority we have a duty to implement this legislation. In this particular case, it is the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.

For your information, a licence is required under the 1982 Act for 'public dancing or music or any other public entertainment of a like kind'. A licence is required whether or not the public are entertained by a performer or music or dancing, or where the public themselves take part in the dancing or music.

Payment to gain admission is not relevant to deciding whether the public is being admitted to an entertainment that requires a licence.

I trust this helps to clarify the reasons why a licence is needed.

In response to the remaining points mentioned in your letter, I will reply to these in the same order.


1        It is not the intention of this Council to stop these folk sessions taking place; indeed the contrary. Once a licence has been obtained then members of the public can again enjoy these sessions.

2        The consistent enforcement of public entertainment legislation to ensure public safety and minimise nuisance from noise also ensures fairness between businesses whilst complimenting the Council's promotion of cultural well being in their area.

3.        Environmental Health and Community Services work closely together on a range of events requiring public entertainment licences to ensure that they are safe and do not cause unnecessary disturbance to residents in the area. I have discussed your letter with them and requested they reply direct to you on the issues within their areas of responsibility.

4.        We have a statutory duty to investigate all complaints received. In the case of the Bluebell we received an anonymous complaint alleging that entertainment was being held without the benefit of a Public Entertainment Licence and this was happening on a regular basis. Our impartial investigation confirmed that the matters raised in the complaint were justified.

5.        Until changes have been made to the relevant statutory requirements we have an obligation to implement the relevant legislation as it has been enacted and interpreted by the Courts. It is not acceptable for officers, or the Council, to act outside the law as it stands. If the Government, or Government Ministers, consider that the current law is not acceptable it is for Parliament to amend the law or introduce new legislation.

If you have any questions, or queries, which you require answering please contact me on the above direct dial telephone number. I will not be available this coming Friday 22 November or Monday morning 25 November. If you wish to leave a message for me I wiJI contact. you when I. return.

Yours sincerely
Jane Bosworth
Technical Officer (Licensing) Environmental Health and Legal Services

Director of Environmental Services: Trevor Gibson
Director: Gillian Beasley Solicitor to the Council


I wrote back to Alan as follows.

So far so good..........But

Note that Mrs Boswell has not mentioned the S 182 Licensing Act exemption and that had there been only two 'performers' the Blue Bell event would NOT have required a licence under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act.

They will not mention this unless they have to, for they feel safe with the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act.

Having clearly looked at the exemption re the Blue Bell action, they now wish to forget it and won't like to be reminded of it.

However, the fact remains that they MUST have counted the participants and be including you as 'performers' to establish that the exemption (for two or less 'performers') to the LG (Misc) Act licensing requirement, did not apply and that a PEL was required.

If you can get the elected members of the COUNCIL to not consider you as 'performers' - (and that a performance of public entertainment requires 'performers') - the licensee did NOT put on a performance of licensable public entertainment, with more than two 'performers'.

As there were NO 'performers'. My math is not good but I think zero is less than two?

Remember there is no case law that determines the definition of 'performer'. Who counts as this, is a matter, not for the law, but for your Local Licensing Authority to decide. NOT MRS BOSWORTH.

If the elected members are forced by you to fight off the officers and decide a 'performer' is one who is paid to perform, they can prevent prosecution and enable this and other sessions, perfectly legally without a PEL.

In fact they can only legally prosecute the licensee and prevent the session, by describing you AS 'performers'. Were you all 'performers'?

Will you agree to being so described?

Do you become one just because it suits a council officer to so describe you, and for the sole reason of preventing your activity and prosecuting the licensee?

From the letter, it looks as if you will have a fight to the death, but do it through your elected representatives and there is a good chance that you can win it......having taken it this far, you really must win.
Good luck and keep us informed.

Roger