Government Licensing reply

Subject: Government Licensing reply
From: Nick
Date: 02 Jul 07 - 12:26 PM

I'm sure everyone will have got a copy of this but if not - reply to epetition

Subject: RE: Government Licensing reply
From: John J
Date: 02 Jul 07 - 01:08 PM

Surely this can't be a case of the government completely ignoring the opinions of the electorate? Again?

John

Subject: RE: Government Licensing reply
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 02 Jul 07 - 03:02 PM

Yes, my e-mail from No 10 arrived today...

Kitty

Subject: RE: Government Licensing reply
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Jul 07 - 03:07 PM

Mine too......

Dave

Subject: RE: Government Licensing reply
From: vectis
Date: 02 Jul 07 - 03:54 PM

I got the same one as the other 80,00 who are being ignored, as usual..

Here it is for those who find links difficult:-

Thank you for signing the epetition expressing concerns that the new licensing act is restricting music and dance.

The Government recognises the vital role that live music and dance play in our national life and wants to see it expanded not reduced. So there is absolutely no intention of restricting performances through unnecessary licensing regulations. But it is also the case, of course, that some live performances can impact on the wider community, not least through noise, public safety or nuisance to local residents.

So the aim of the Licensing Act was to streamline the system which had grown up over many years, reducing unnecessary burdens but giving local communities a greater say in the licensing decisions that affect them. The Act, for example, has removed the need to apply for several different permits to put on events and enabled more venues to put on performances.

Overall the evidence so far does not suggest that the Licensing Act has had a negative impact on the amount of live music. Research for the Department for Culture, Music and Sport (new window) into the impact of the new rules on smaller venues found that twice as many found the licensing process easy as difficult. It also highlighted the fact that bureaucracy and expense were only rarely mentioned as reasons for not applying licences.

But the Government does accept that some venues feel unnecessarily constrained by restrictive conditions. While those that have stopped hosting live music have generally been balanced by the emergence of new venues, we do recognise that the loss of an established venue can have an impact on individual musicians and music fans.

It is in response to these concerns that DCMS has already set out areas where it thinks changes might be made to reduce further administrative burdens. The Government also set up the Live Music Forum in 2004 to monitor the impact of the Licensing Act and to recommend how government might better promote live performances. We expect to receive the Forum's findings and recommendations in the Summer and will look closely to see if action is needed.

Further Information

Subject: RE: Government Licensing reply
From: nickp
Date: 03 Jul 07 - 11:33 AM

If this is how they treat 80,000 people why give us the option even to express our opinions.

The revised guidelines for local authorities on how to interpret the legislation (see another thread) are also completely useless.

Nick

Subject: RE: Government Licensing reply
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 02:27 AM

Steve Knightley amd Fergal Sharkey have just been talking about the Licensing Act on Radio 4 Today programm.... (about 7.26am English time).

Kitty

Subject: RE: Government Licensing reply
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 02:53 AM

Would have been more use to have heard Feargal Sharkey doing Teenage Kicks and Mr Knightley not at all.

Subject: RE: Government Licensing reply
From: Darowyn
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 02:55 AM

Is that because their contributions were unhelpful, or do you just not like them?
Cheers
Dave

Subject: RE: Government Licensing reply
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 03:01 AM

My cat Feargal does Teenage Kicks very well but, fortunately, does not bother with Country Life.

Subject: RE: Government Licensing reply
From: KeithofChester
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 03:59 AM

My cat Feargal does Teenage Kicks very well but, fortunately, does not bother with Country Life.

Diane, You mean you haven't taught Feargal that finetraditional song Country Life? My friend Graham "medleyfied" the old one he learned off the Watersons and the more recent one he learned off of Show of Hands and put them on his last CD. Mighty fine they sounded like that too.

Subject: RE: Government Licensing reply
From: Folkiedave
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 04:19 AM

Here's a report from the "Publican".

http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?storycode=56043

Subject: RE: Government Licensing reply
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 04:26 AM

Good grief, I thought I saw the Shambles strolling through . . .

Feargal the Cat and his mate Moggly take short cuts through the pub on the corner in order to pursue Important Business.
Sometimes they stop and harangue the landlord about his screens showing silly games and ask about having some live music in the bar instead.
It is assumed they had something to do with all the windows being smashed last weekend . . . but they ain't sayin' nothin' . . .

Subject: RE: Government Licensing reply
From: nickp
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 05:58 AM

BBC news article

Subject: RE: Government Licensing reply
From: KeithofChester
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 06:50 AM

The Times carries a similar article, but with a slant on a specific problem with Student Union facilities

Times Article

Over the last 25 years I've had the experience of several folk clubs I've attended having to move venues. Most of the moves occured when a landlord decided he didn't want to cater for live music any more. There were a variety of reasons advanced, running from "I've got a more profitable use for the room" through to "I really can't be bothered". I get the impression that the lastest change in the regulations is sometimes being used as a catch-all excuse to cover up that could old "trad" favourite, "I just don't want you here anymore". That the measured impact overall on facilities seems to be broadly neutral (from what Feargal Sharkey said) would appaear to reflect that. The student union specific problem reported certainly looks more economics driven than a regulation effect.

Subject: RE: Government Licensing reply
From: synbyn
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 12:05 PM

Broadly neutral! Not round here! I guess it all depends who you ask, and what their motives are for answering- what preferment they require. Am I being cynical in seeing a revival led by PR firms and their clients? Of course they want to see the little guys shut down! But it's like banning park football- in the end no-one will have the commitment to anything but brand-name or product, and the real value of music-making will be lost- the pleasure, the company, the buzz... And in the end there will be no audience, only buyers.

Subject: RE: Government Licensing reply
From: KeithofChester
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 12:23 PM

Here is what it actually says about sorting out those licencing authorities that seem to have taken upon themselves the role of preventing live music

ix) Ministers should robustly censure the small minority of those licensing authorities which, knowingly or otherwise, have developed repeated patterns of heavy handed, negative decision-making which are contrary to both the letter of the law and the spirit of the Section 182 Guidance.
(x) The House of Commons Select Committee for Culture, Media and Sport should consider whether they wish to look at those licensing authorities which, knowingly or otherwise, have developed repeated patterns of heavy handed, negative decision-making and those local authorities which appear to be operating under Licensing Act Policy Statements which contradict both the letter of law and the subsequent 2005 High Court ruling (see paragraph 3.98).
(xi) Ministers should put in place a system, in conjunction with the industries and local government, which allows for the periodical review of decision-making patterns within a sample of licensing authorities, to ensure that there can be no repeat of this form of unnecessary and unreasonable cumulative impact.

Subject: RE: Government Licensing reply
From: Tootler
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 01:33 PM

The report also makes the following specific recommendation:

(vi) Section 177, where it relates to the provision of live music, should be deleted from the Act and Schedule 1 Part 2 – Exemptions, should have a new Paragraph 7(a) inserted which should read:

"The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of unamplified live music is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act."

I am not prepared to take bets on the likelihood of that being implemented. After all musicians involved in such activities attract undesirable elements to the area.

Subject: RE: Government Licensing reply
From: synbyn
Date: 05 Jul 07 - 10:42 AM

yup,with our £££ instruments and our burgeoning music-bags, we often trash the place... and whip crazed nicotine addicts into a frenzy... It's all as daft as the idea that we were a fire hazard- after all we strap ourselves into a silver projectile full of inflammable liquid and whizz past others coming in the opposite direction at closing speeds of 140mph just toget to the club- and they're worried about the friction from melodians?