Kim Howells (PEL)

Subject: RE: Kim Howells (PEL)
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 11:03 AM

So the pubs where the cops hang out get a free ride? 'Two officers expected to be on premises...police representation requirement satisfied'? Typical. Small world after all. Same here.

---

This thread has been hit by spammers. If you wish to post, please ask a moderator to reopen it. ---mudelf

Subject: RE: Kim Howells (PEL)
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 01:53 AM

Governments views
19.1 Broadcast entertainment on satellite or terrestrial T.V will be exempt from the licensing regime. This is for a number of reasons, including that the Bill is deregulatory and does not require the licensing of any forms of entertainment that are not currently licensable. It is also the case that no professional bodies responsible for public safety have approached the Government arguing that it is necessary to licence such activities under the Bill.

Hamish Birchall's (advisor to the MU) views
But the Association of Chief Police Officers objected to the exemption on crime and disorder grounds, and tackling anti-social behaviour was the government's main selling point of the Bill.

19.2 In the Bill we have identified entertainments that need to be licensed in their own right. For example, music and dancing because of, among other things, noise and drugs culture and late night refreshment because of disturbance. Watching television – which almost every citizen does every day of their lives – does not in itself give rise to the need for licensing.

The Association of Chief Police Officers comment to the DCMS was:

"Televised Sporting Events: The televising of live sporting events, generally upon large screen televisions, within licensed premises is a further matter of concern. Very often such events, usually football matches, are accompanied by drinks promotions, they attract large crowds and are quite frequently the source of disorder.

We note that the televising of such events does not fall within the definition of entertainment. Because of these issues we are of the opinion that the applicant for a premises licence should be required to specify the intention to host such events within the operating plan. This would allow the licensing authority, taking into account police representation, the opportunity to impose conditions on the premises licence pursuant to the licensing objectives.

We are cognisant of the fact that appropriate definition of the terms 'sporting event' and 'large screen television' may pose a challenge for those drafting the legislation, but do not believe the problem to be insurmountable."

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 10:02 PM

I couldn't help but notice this thread. I'm American and know next to nothing about this...strike that...less than nothing...but I do know a suspect statement when I see one. And the statement in bold above...about there being no problems with television viewing in bars...pardon me, 'pubs'...don't you folks riot over soccer and rugby and cricket and such? Surely there's some record of a bar brawl because of a sticky wicket or something. There...I've exhausted my knowledge of your culture. But that statement just seems...off.

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: bigdarve
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 09:53 PM

said howells is an apparatchik pure and simple.he will swear black is white etc if he thinks it will carry him up the greasy pole.
if it's possible to hit this careerist mp where it hurts,like votes,then something might change but i would doubt it...just look at how this prick shafted the miners...

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 03:11 PM

Hello,
It is looking likely that we are going to have Culture Minister Kim Howell on Monday nights Lamacq Live on Radio 1 (8-12pm).
We are currently accepting your questions via email which we will put to the minister about the bill and how you may feel it will affect live music. Please email your questions for Mr Howell to [e-mail]

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 04:39 PM

The site now appears to be up.

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 04:21 PM

The site still appears to be down.

Portsmouth Evening News 30 January 2003-
On the day England sent Denmark packing in their second-round World Cup tie police were called to 24 football related incidents. Within hours of the June 15 win a brawl spilled out of the White Hart pub and a series of disturbances broke out across Havant and Waterlooville - despite a voluntary two hour pub closure.
The violence came eight days after 50 fans fought in North Street outside the Five Bells following England's win over Argentina.

Perhaps the above could be passed on to our MPs, in the light of the extract from the following Common's exchange?

1. Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden): If she will make a statement on her policy towards the licensing of televising of sport in public houses under the terms of the proposed Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Bill. [68956]

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): As is the case with existing legislation, the proposed Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Bill will not include the licensing of the televising of sport in public houses in its definition of public entertainment. A publican, of course, already requires and will continue to require a normal domestic television licence.

Siobhain McDonagh: thank my hon. Friend for his answer. However, given the licensing disparity between televised football and live music in pubs—the former is subject to no regulation but the latter is subject to a complicated regulation mechanism—will he encourage members of the Cabinet to look at introducing legislation in the Queen's Speech that will reform the public entertainment licence system and encourage live music and particularly young musicians in small venues?

Dr. Howells: We will certainly look at getting rid of the absurd two in a bar rule. I have looked long and hard at the evidence, but we have never received any to suggest that watching television in a pub causes the kinds of scenes that have sometimes occurred in pubs with live music. Nor, indeed, have we had any reports of disturbances caused by watching television in a pub—we have certainly received some reports of incidents following the playing of live music in pubs. Generally speaking, however, pubs are excellent venues for live music. We want to make sure that that continues to be the case and that there are more venues for live music, not fewer.

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 08:17 PM

Slipped back to 10pm Eastern Time - that'd be 4am here I think.

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: Mr Happy
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 06:26 PM

just checked 'kill the bill' website again-got this message:

'Forums are currently down due to server maintenance. We hope to have them back online by 6:00 PM Eastern time.'

oh no- now i'm getting paranoid!

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: Mr Happy
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 05:21 PM

McGrath of Harlow,

i just emailed graham dixon to find what happened to the Bravenet PEL forum [Kill the Bill]

will post his answer soon as i receive it

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 04:53 PM

This link to the Kill the Bill Forum doesn't work any more. Any one know what's going on? It's been a useful place to post information and opinions and to find stuff about the fight to change the Bill, without cluttering up this place. Has someone yanked the plug on it?

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 10:09 AM

I think it may be a good idea to specifically ask the question of Dr Howells, via our MPs. This to my MP 30/01/03.

Dear Mr Knight

Dr Howells has stated on the Mike Harding Show on BBC Radio 2, that unpaid sessions in pubs would not need a licence. In the recent Daily Telegraph article he admits that sessions like the New Star would need an additional licence, for entertainment.

As you may expect, I am a little confused by these statements, could you please establish the true position now?

If these sessions will be licensable, would you ask Dr Howells to please write and explain exactly which part of the Bill includes this activity as licensable.

If these sessions will not be licensable, can you please ask Dr Howells to please write and explain which part of the Bill exempts this activity.

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 08:36 AM

I forgot to put a link in for that - but when I went to find it to post it, it appears to have been taken down. It's from a speech made by Kim Howells to "Modal 2002", but it doesn't seem on the net that I could find, since yesterday.

Another bit of classic Kim Howells I found while looking for it was -his letter to uk.music.folk in October 06, 2002

This contains a passage where he tries to wriggle out of his promise made on the Mike Harding show with one of the most remarkable examples of political legerdemain I have ever seen.

Remember his promise made in July in respect of sessions and singarounds was that "There shouldn't be a problem. A long as money isn't changing hands then there's no reason why they should have to have a licence."

So in October he wrote: "...it can be argued that any performance
by unpaid performers, which was publicised with the expectation of
bringing in extra customers and consequently extra revenue to the
licensee would meet the definition of public performance. Spontaneous
entertainment not undertaken for profit or gain would not be affected."

That "it can be argued" is incredible. Anything can be argued. Kim Howells using the term as a way of avoiding actually saying something he knows is very shaky indeed and thoroughly dishonest in the ,light if his previous promise - but in doing so he manages to present it as valid. Avoids even saying whether the publicising has to be done by the licensee, or even whether any extra customers do actually turn up.

There's a lovely Catch 22 here. If the musicians are given drinks by the landlord, they are playing for reward, and the sessions is caught that way. If they buy their own drinks, the landlord is profiting by their presence and the session gets caught that way.

Of course if Howells actual words were in the Act, a very good case indeed could be made that "spontaneous" should cover events where the initiative came from the musicians rather than from the landlord. A lot of people seem to assume that "spontaneous" has to mean the same as "impromptu", "done on the spur of the moment", and it doesn't. It means happening without external prompting - like spontaneous combustion. However since the word spontaneous does not appear anywhere in the Bill it is I imagine irrelevant.

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 09:53 AM

I just came across this speech by Kim Howells from a year ago, before the bill was introduced. It's worth reading, because of the quotes it gives to cut the legs from under him. For example:

Music does so much to add to the quality of life for so many people. Britain in particular enjoys an excellent international reputation for the diversity, vitality and quality of its music...

...Music is an important part of British culture ...

...We are here today to talk about and celebrate music and music makers who work 'outside of the mainstream' and I am delighted that ACE have increased their support for organisations like the African and Caribbean Music circuit, the Asian Music circuit and the Folk Arts Network....

Actually does anyone feel like writing to those bodies and asking them to raise their voices over the issue of the licensing restrictions?

Particularly maybe the Folk Arts Network. Of course they all get grants from the British Council, and hence from the government, but that doesn't mean they don't have a duty to speak up for the people out in the community.

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 09:27 AM

Full transcript of Howells on Radio 3 can be found on PEL Exemptions

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: Mr Happy
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 08:09 AM

more 'Howellers!'

have a look at the 'Kill the Bill' page on Bravenet
Kim Howells Statements (1) & (2)


http://pub22.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=1824620545&cpv=1

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: Mr Happy
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 09:24 AM

Someone at folkinfo thinks Howells is telling the truth!

See this thread, 'PELS, Are we overreacting?'


http://www.folkinfo.org/topic.asp?topic_id=321&pagenum=1&reverse=False&X=11

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 01:58 AM

This in the Guardian 27 Janauary 2003

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,883633,00.html

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: Pied Piper
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 12:02 PM

What is the general consensus on the bills motivation/
I've asked a few people and there seem to be a few possibilities.
1 Council Revenue raising.
2 Kim Howells ascending the greasy pole.
3 attempt control black economy aspect of music making.
4 Making the bill look draconian against the negative side of longer licensing hours to facilitate its passage through the Lords.
5 Similar to 1 but for the hole Government make the act unworkable and come out smelling of roses having amended it to the way they wanted it in the first place(this is a standard Council trick).
PP

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 06:18 AM

According to Howells on radio 3. The licence money is not burden for licensees but he is (now) determined that churches will not have to face this burden. - Not of course that it is a burden.

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 05:25 AM

I had a mistake in my last post, where I was arguing that this bill isn't about raising money, but about raising Kim Howells' public profile. It distorted the sense rather drastically.

This is how it should have read:

"As for the idea that this is a way of getting significant cash for local authorities, the figures he quoted in today's broadcast certainly don't add up to that. In my town if every pub were to have to pay the maximum £500 for a lifetime licence, and the maximum £100 each year to get it renewed, that would amount to around £15,000 once and for all, and an annual £3,000 per year. Not worth rolling over in bed for, for a council with a budget of millions of pounds."

(I had : "In my pub if every pub were...")

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 04:17 AM

But we all know this bill isn't about money. It's about noise and health-and-safety .... :-)

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 05:32 PM

I think the TV issue is a simple one. Pubs will claim, with some justification, that they are being asked to pay for two licenses to have their TV.

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 01:30 PM

Here is the relevant passage from that Mike Harding interview once more, for convenience:

Mike Harding: Roger Gall has emailed us to say, and I quote, "When you introduce this new licensing system, if pubs don't have an entertainment licence, will sessions and singarounds be banned?"

Kim Howells: Yes, I suppose they would be. The landlord would need to get an entertainments licence to cover himself or herself …

Mike Harding: But this is not for gain, is it, you were talking about

Kim Howells: Oh, I see, I am sorry, I'm sorry, I thought that you meant it would be professional musicians being paid …

Mike Harding: No, just sessions and singarounds, people just playing for their own fun.

Kim Howells: No, they certainly wouldn't and I'm very keen that we should make sure that that facility is there. There shouldn't be a problem. As long as money isn't changing hands, then there's no reason why they should have to have a licence.

Mike Harding: Right. Well, Keith Acheson writes in from Hertford to say how much he enjoys his singaround, singing songs of soldiering and seafaring, parting and ploughing, love and drink - he writes here - "No money changes hands, we enjoy some wonderful evenings. Why does English law criminalise this very English and harmless pastime?" I think you've already answered that - it does at the moment but you hopefully will make sure that it doesn't in future, is that right, the way I read it?

Kim Howells: Yes, absolutely.

"Yes, absolutely" - a clear and totally unambiguous promise, when you read the passage. No room whatsoever for him to suggest that he misunderstood the question, or that his answer was open to several interpretations.

And that promise can be met by his introducing a very simple additional exemption in the relevant section of the Act, and getting some favourable publicity in the process which will do him no harm as he slithers up the greasy pole of political preferment. I'd be willing to have a flutter on the possibility that this is precisely what he has in mind.

As for the idea that this is a way of getting significant cash for local authorities, the figures he quoted in today's broadcast certainly don't add up to that. In my pub if every pub were to have to pay the maximum £500 for a lifetime licence, and the maximum £100 each year to get it renewed, that would amount to around £15,000 once and for all, and an annual £3,000 per year. Not worth rolling over in bed for, for a council with a budget of millions of pounds.

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: treewind
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 12:50 PM

Somebody recently described the live TV exemption as implying undeclared interests - I think there are hidden agendas here. Howells is being leant on do do things this way by someone. That's the only plausibe reason why he acts as if he's never read the bill and deflects or ignores questions on certain issues.

Local authorities, who are always desperate for new revenue streams, are a likely suspect.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 12:30 PM

And of course noone asked him about the situation of any place which wanted to allow people to play music, but which doesn't have a licence to sell alcohol and doesn't want one. The bill specifically defines "premises" where licences are required as "any place".

In America "coffee houses" are, I understand, where a lot of the folk music happens. Back in the 50s and 60s, that was true in England - but it became illegal with the same law that brought in the two-in-a-bar extension for pubs. There wasn't any such extension for other places, and that kind of music scene faded away.

And he wasn't challenged about the promise about not interfering with people playing for their own enjoyment with no money changing hands, which he made on that Mike Harding show,

Kim Howells is a puzzle - he appears to be intelligent enough; but at the same time he seems quite unable to grasp obvious points.

Here's a theory I came up with in the pub at an (illegal) session today.

Howells is ambitious, he wants to be known and he knows that it is important to get in the papers and become identifiable to the public.

He has succeeded in doing this remarkably effectively by well placed and well timed sound-bites which stirred up a bit of controversy and a dis-proportionate amount of press attention. I suspect that he is now significantly better known to the public than most other ministers at a similar level in politics.

The logical thing for him would be to throw in an amendment in line with what he said in the Mike Harding show, at a stage when he has milked this whole thing for maximum effect. This would immediately ensure him further, and probably on the whole favourable, press coverage.

I will not be the least surprised if this in fact happens. If it does it would be best done at a time when the papers are not too taken up with other matters, which could be a bit of a problem, what with the war on the slipway for launching.

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 08:23 AM

Yes, sad isn't it. But he is a professional waffler, and knoes that as long as he keeps talking, no one can challenge him. the fault is with the interviwers. Howells waffled on with a question about why a licensee would not apply and no one, especially a licensee, was given the chance to answer.

Why was he not asked what a licensee currently pays for their liquor licence? Foe there is a world of differnce between the current £30 and the £15O / £500 for the life of the business, not the life of the premises, and an annual 'inspection' charge. All of which can and I suspect will be increased at any time additional revenue is required.

It will be required for how are the current licensing staff going to deal with a 95% increase in entertainment licence apllications, in addition to taking on the court's current job and the additional personal licences?

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 08:11 AM

Actually, I thought Kim Howells did quite well on R3. If I hadn't known anything about the bill, I reckon I would have thought sounded very reasonable.

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: nutty
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 07:47 AM

listening now

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 07:39 AM

You can hear Robb Johnson, The Bishop of London and Howells on Radio 3's Music Matters, live at 12.15 on 26 Jan or later on the following link.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/classical/musmatt.shtml

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jan 03 - 08:39 PM

"The fee for a premises licence will be the same whether the applicant seeks permission to sell alcohol only or to have regulated entertainment as well."

The idea that it is possible to do all the things he is defining as "regulated entertainment" in places where alcohol isn't on sale clearly has not got through his skull yet.

It will be interesting to see how Robb Johnson and the Bishop of London deal with him on Radio 3 at 12.15 on Sunday 26th January.

Here is the website of The Stage with Dr Howells piece.

And here is the email address for letters: "Please send any correspondence to the editor (including letters intended for publication) to [e-mail]"

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Jan 03 - 08:20 PM

I can't credit this joke to anyone as it appeared on the petition site as anon.

Q What's the difference between Dr Howells and organic yogurt?

A One supports a live culture............

Or one comes in a little pot, and the other is a little potty?

This from Dr Howells, in The Stage
23 January 2003

I am grateful to The Stage for giving me the opportunity to
explode some of the urban myths that are circulating about how
the government's reforms of the licensing system will affect live
performances. We have consulted artists and performers in
drawing up the licensing bill and we are listening to people's
concerns.

The last thing that any of us would want to do is threaten the
traditions of performance that have been at the very heart of our
nation's cultural life for hundreds of years. There is concern that
the new legislation will make staging performances prohibitively
expensive. In fact, the opposite is the case. The current licensing
system discourages premises from staging performances, the cost
of entertainment licences in many areas is ridiculously high and
many local authorities attach unnecessary conditions to the
licences.

Under the new system, the cost of a premises licence authorising
three licensable activities will be the same as that of one. For
example, any pub that applies for permission to sell alcohol can
apply to stage entertainment at the same time at no extra charge.
We currently expect premises licence applications to cost between
£100 and £500 (a one-off fee) with an annual charge of £50 to
£150. The fee for a premises licence will be the same whether the
applicant seeks permission to sell alcohol only or to have
regulated entertainment as well. Under the existing system,
premises licence applications can cost up to £20,000 per annum,
depending on location. So the bill can represent an enormous
reduction in the cost of obtaining a public entertainment licence
for live performances.

We will also be issuing guidance alongside the bill that will make
it clear that any conditions attached to licences must be tailored to
the needs of the particular premises. The issuing of swathes of
unnecessary and irrelevant conditions will become a thing of the
past. Some artists are concerned that the bill makes it an offence
to carry out a performance without a licence and that the potential
punishments are a prison sentence of up to six months or a fine of
up to £20,000.

It is understandable that some people find these penalties
intimidating but I must stress that these are maximum penalties
and, as with all offences, the courts would, on any conviction,
decide the appropriate punishments depending on the facts of the
case. Where, for example, the public have been put in danger,
such maximum punishment may be appropriate. What is more, the
bill includes a specific defence of due diligence because this bill
is about deregulation, not incarceration.

I realise that some people believe a licence should not be required
for unamplified music as existing legislation provides sufficient
safeguards. However, I do not accept that certain types of music,
such as acoustic folk music, are never noisy and should therefore
be excluded from the new regime.

It is the government's responsibility to balance the needs of
performers, organisers, businesses, residents and customers. Our
reform proposals are designed to be proactive, not reactive.

The bill will bring a less formal system for temporary activities.
Under the new regime, anyone aged 18 or over can hold up to five
of these per year, or 50 if they are a personal licence holder, under
the authority of a temporary event notice. Each event can last up
to 72 hours and up to five events can be held at one premises in
any year, although no more than 499 people can be on the
premises at the same time. To carry on a permitted temporary
activity only a simple notification to the licensing authority and
the police and a small fee of around £20 is required.

Some of the more unhelpful rumours that have been circulating
(and which I see everyday in correspondence from members of
parliament writing on behalf of concerned constituents) relate to
live music performances that might be licensable under the new
regime. I therefore categorically state that the following will not
be licensable:

1) church bell ringers practising n the testing of equipment in a
music shop

2) studio recording sessions n rehearsals at a practice studio or in
a private house (to which the general public are not admitted)

3) school concerts where the general public are not admitted n
music lessons

4) singing 'happy birthday' in a restaurant

5) musicians paid to perform at a private party - including a
wedding - for which those attending are not charged and to which
the general public are not admitted.

I have sought here to address the most ridiculous claims made by
those who purport to be campaigning on behalf of musicians but
who are in fact diverting them from the more realistic and positive
aspects of the bill.

I am also aware that there is a strong feeling that our plans to
remove the exemptions for performances held in churches outside
Greater London but not connected with a religious service or
event will have a negative impact on the national music scene.
Again, I would like to reassure you that we have made a
commitment to reconsider our position on the licensing of
churches and that we will announce our conclusions as soon as
possible.

I believe that the reforms of the licensing bill will give the arts in
England a new lease of life rather than be its death knell, as some
are suggesting. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is of
course responsible for the arts as well as alcohol licensing
legislation and we are not in the business of sacrificing one to
achieve the aims of another.

I can assure you that we continue to have both performers and
their audiences at the forefront of our minds as we take the bill
through the Houses of Parliament.

Dr Kim Howells is parliamentary under-secretary at the
Department for Culture, Media and Sport

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: GUEST,richard cox
Date: 21 Jan 03 - 03:21 PM

Its all about violence, guys.
Someone has obviously pointed out to this simple-minded bufoon that there is more blood on the floor in the average folk ballad than in the average rap number and he's taken it to heart.

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jan 03 - 06:59 PM

Robb Johnson - we've got him coming to Harlow for a "Folk off, Howells!" concert in May. (See this thread - Poet against PEL - welcome Simon

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 03 - 06:42 PM

If you are gluttons for punishment, Dr Howells can be heard again on BBC Radio 3 Music Matters, this was recorded today and goes out 12.15 on Sunday 26th January.

Robb Johnson and the Bishop of London are unfortunate enough to have to share the programme and try and talk some sense into Dr Gookley-Gook.........

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: vectis
Date: 20 Jan 03 - 06:10 PM

It seems to me that the result was

Music 1       Howells Nil

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jan 03 - 11:07 AM

From today's two-minute Guardian:

"Live online...Culture minister Kim Howells answers your questions at 2pm."

No he wasn't. It was from 1pm until (as it turned out) 1.53pm that Kim Howells was on the Guardian website. Talk about "misinformation"...

Not that he did much in the way of answering questions, but that's another matter.

Was that a cock-up, or was it the Guardian being over protective of its guest?

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: nickp
Date: 20 Jan 03 - 09:42 AM

So Hamish is being accused in print of lying... something in the back of my mind mutters 'libel' ... or perhaps I'm not that well versed in legalese.

I know who I believe and it's MU not MP

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jan 03 - 09:41 AM

Chipping away. At least we made our presence felt in the questions, and prompted Kim Howells into another publoc bit of misinformation, when in one of the few posts he responded to he asserted that the maximum penalty was "reserved" for managers who block fire exits and so forth. And of course the Bill says nothing of the sort.

Do you think he has actually got round to reading the Bill? He shows no sign of having done so. I did so last night - it's a really soggy bit of drafting.

One thing I hadn't realised - ot says you can't be a club under this Bill if you have fewer than 25 members. There are a few folk clubs around who'd have difficulty meeting that requirement.

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: clansfolk
Date: 20 Jan 03 - 09:19 AM

Great now I can post as well might let them know what I got for Christmas!!!!!!!!!


Doh!

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 03 - 09:15 AM

and clocks off early - must be off to a quiet pub?

One man and that amp, get to that pub quick!

Was it no good at all then?

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 03 - 09:12 AM

Sod's Law indeed I finally got my validation through, rushed to log on, wrote my question, only to see Kim Howells sign off!!!

The question must have been far too good.

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: clansfolk
Date: 20 Jan 03 - 09:08 AM

hear hear - a total waste of space......   had trouble logging on then unable to post - not that it would have made a difference as most of the questions were not replied to - he must type v    e    r   y       s    l o    w   l   y !!!!!!!!1

and clocks off early - must be off to a quiet pub?

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jan 03 - 09:05 AM

"That's me, over and out" - Kim Howells signing off just now, at 1.53, seven minutes early. Couldn't even last out his hour.

I do think even his dearest freindand sycophant would have difficulty in saying he did well...

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Jan 03 - 09:02 AM

And what an informative debate that was. KH must have attempted to answer less than 10% of the questions and he picked the really hard ones, like "what do you think of Robbie Williams comments?"

I don't suppose anyone knows if Guardian Online tries to get answers to the rest of the questions, do they? (I assume they don't.)

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jan 03 - 08:58 AM

I'm trying to follow the "debate" on the Guardian website.

It's a total shambles (sorry about that Shambles) - it really makes you appreciate how well organised the Mudcat is.

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: vectis
Date: 19 Jan 03 - 06:53 PM

Don't underestimate the power of the Mudcat to raise awareness of this, and other, issues. Most people I work with had no idea that any change in the licencing legislation was proposed much less the implications of it.
Once explained they ALL signed the petition.
They could not understand why there had been no media coverage of the issue. What little coverage there has been has obviously gone straight over the head of Joe Average Public.

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jan 03 - 05:12 PM

And now your message is up there, Shambles.   

All the way from the West Country to New England, back to Esses, and on to The Guardian in London. Ain't the net amazing?

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Jan 03 - 01:15 PM

Many thanks, McGrath.

Subject: RE: Kim Howells
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jan 03 - 11:51 AM

And if you check on the Guardian site you should see it now.