Licensing consultation announced!

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 06:55 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

The Live Music Bill, co-sponsored by Lord Clement-Jones and Don Foster MP, cleared its last Commons hurdle on Friday (20th Jan).

It is now on the home straight to becoming law. Two minor amendments agreed in Commons Committee must be ratified in the Lords, probably within a fortnight, and dates set for Royal Assent. Implementation will require secondary legislation. A lead-in period of several months is likely to allow time for the live music sections within statutory Licensing Guidance to be rewritten.

The Bill represents a historic shift in the treatment of live music
under the law. The Licensing Act 2003, and many preceding Acts,
embodied a presumption against most performances unless first licensed, on pain of criminal law sanctions. This harsh treatment, dating back more than 250 years, will end for performances within certain hours and to a relatively small audience. The potential risks are already regulated by separate legislation.

While there were and are rational grounds for licensing large events, there is also a puritanical streak in English culture that was amplified by licensing legislation. The enduring puritanism was expressed in often unreasonable objections to even the mildest live music licence applications, with absurd over-regulation and enforcement by many local authorities.

The Bill could easily have been sunk by a combination of tedious
filibustering on Daylight Saving Bill amendments and arcane
Parliamentary procedure. Indeed, it came very close to failing, not
because of insufficient numbers in the House to carry a vote (over 130 MPs), but lack of time.

Debate yesterday started at 9.30am and had to finish by 2.30pm. The end time arrived and MPs were still on the Daylight Saving Bill. Many observers present thought the Live Music Bill had been lost.

Lord Clement-Jones said: 'I was sitting there and I was absolutely,
completely confounded. I had no idea what was happening when the
Daylight Saving Bill was up.'

Then, as one observer in the public gallery put it, 'something weird
happened'.   MP Philip Davies, the last in a succession of honourable members grinding through DSB amendments, suddenly sat down as the Speaker, Nigel Evans, stood up and shouted 'Order, order'. The remaining private members bills titles were read out. Next up was the Live Music Bill.

There followed a short exchange between the Speaker and Don Foster, and the Bill was passed to a loud chorus of 'Ayes', with no objections.
(View on Parliament tv, scroll to 4hrs 55mins:
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=9853 )

The good news flashed quickly around arts and music media:

Jo Dipple, acting chief executive of UK Music, the UK commercial music industry's umbrella body, said: "This is a great day for music. The Live Music Bill will make a real and positive difference to lives of musicians. There is no doubt that the current Licensing Act has created needless layers of bureaucracy - making it complicated and expensive for pubs and other small venues to
host live gigs. The entire industry would like to thank Lord
Clement-Jones and Don Foster MP who have made this change possible."

John Smith, Musicians Union General Secretary, added: "We are delighted that the Live Music Bill has finally made it through
Parliament. It is a real achievement for a Private Member's Bill to get through and the MU would like to thank Lord Clement-Jones, Don Foster and all of the other MPs who helped to pass this Bill."
http://www.basca.org.uk/news/live-music-bill-passes-third-reading-and-report-stage/

Links to other press coverage:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16657152
http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/34983/live-music-bill-close-to-becoming-law

Heartfelt thanks is certainly due to Lord Clement-Jones, Don Foster, the licensing minister John Penrose, many other MPs and Peers who have tenaciously campaigned within Parliament, especially John Whittingdale, Chair of the Culture Select Committee, also to the civil servants and lawyers who have worked hard behind the scenes on the bill, and indeed to the Coalition government.

But the time is not yet ripe to celebrate. That should be saved for the day the new law comes into effect. And it will take many months, perhaps years, for the full benefit to be realised by musicians, venues and the music loving public.

The sharp decline of small gigs in pubs coincided with reform of
entertainment licensing in 1982, when local authorities were given
powers to set their own fees. These quickly rose by several hundred
percent, and by 2000 the Home Office estimated fewer than 10% of pubs had entertainment licences, although all of them could still have one or two live performers (the 'two in a bar rule').

But even that modest musical provision was abolished by the 2003 Licensing Act, legislation that marks the highwater point of regulation of live music through licensing. It was under this Act that even providing musical instruments became a potential criminal offence unless licensed. This ranges from pub pianos to instruments provided by schools for concerts.

The Live Music Bill does away with that requirement.

One long-time campaigner asked me yesterday what I would do next. I am not against licensing regimes per se. Where there are serious risks to the public, inadequately regulated by separate legislation, prior public consultation may be necessary and proportionate.

To that end, perhaps MPs should be licensed.

ENDS

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 Jan 12 - 06:22 AM

http://www.basca.org.uk/news/live-music-bill-passes-third-reading-and-report-stage/

Jo Dipple, acting chief executive of UK Music, the UK commercial music industry's umbrella body, said:

"This is a great day for music. The Live Music Bill will make a real and positive difference to lives of musicians. There is no doubt that the current Licensing Act has created needless layers of bureaucracy - making it complicated and expensive for pubs and other small venues to host live gigs. The entire industry would like to thank Lord Clement-Jones and Don Foster MP who have made this change possible."

John Smith, Musicians Union General Secretary, added:

"We are delighted that the Live Music Bill has finally made it through Parliament. It is a real achievement for a Private Member's Bill to get through and the MU would like to thank Lord Clement-Jones, Don Foster and all of the other MPs who helped to pass this Bill.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 12 - 04:21 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16657152

Separate to the private member's bill, the government is conducting its own review of the Licensing Act.

A consultation paper launched by Tourism Minister John Penrose in September proposed scrapping much of the act.

Mr Penrose called current regulations "a mess" and said licences were being issued "for many events where there is little or no risk of trouble".

Potentially more far-reaching than the private member's bill, his paper looked at relaxing the rules on everything from plays and live music to indoor sports.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 12 - 01:46 PM

http://networkedblogs.com/sYfor

AT LAST (1). After years of fighting the disproportionate and unnecesary powers given to Local Authorities by the 2003 Licensing Act, Don Foster's Live Music Bill which removes the need for small venues to have licenses for events ending before 11pm has been passed. The devil will be inthe detail, and never underestimate the complexities and "transition provisions" yet to be dreamed up to complicate the system and make it more costly...but this is a victory, most notably for that completely indefatigable campaigner on the issue, jazz drummer Hamish Birchall.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 12 - 12:57 PM

http://www.libdems.org.uk/news_detail.aspx?title=Don_Foster%3A_Live_music_licensing_regulation_will_strengthen_the_British_music

"The support received this afternoon from all MPs from all political parties just goes to show how important live music is in our country and the overwhelming support for changing our obstructive licensing laws.

"We're now only one step away from the Bill becoming law and creating an even more vibrant and successful live music culture. This will benefit hundreds of small pubs, restaurants, schools, churches and community halls, and strengthen the British music scene immensely."

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 12 - 12:24 PM

This thread was started in December 2009.

Some 1300 posts (and it seems like there have been the same number of consultations) later and it looks as if we may finally have some action, in the form of modest but real changes to the legislation.

Thanks for everyone's efforts.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 12 - 12:17 PM

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/General-News/MPs-vote-in-favour-of-live-music

British Beer & Pub Association chief executive Brigid Simmonds said: "This really is music to our ears. Pubs are where live music begins – and for years, we've been saying that many of the regulations surrounding it are unnecessary – they have prevented publicans from making the most of Britain's pubs as the place where live music acts first get a foothold.

"Well done to MPs for voting this through – let's make it the first of many measures to cut the red tape surrounding pubs."

John King comments:
Royal assent is a formality and is expected when the Bill returns to the Lords next week.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 12 - 11:28 AM

http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/text/plbulletin19.html

The following from Phil Little.

Friday 20th January 2012 - Live Music Bill passes Report stage

Today Lord Clement Jones' Live Music Bill passed the Report stage in the House of Commons.

Although the live music lobby's target of 100 plus MPs were present, things looked decidedly risky when the debate on the Daylight Saving Bill, the first Bill on the list, occupied the entire session and at 1-30 pm the Live Music Bill looked doomed, with not enough time to be debated.

However, at the end of the session the names of the Bills that have not been dealt with are read out, and, if nobody shouts "Objection !", then the Bill can proceed.

It is unusual for a Bill to proceed without objection at this stage, but, this was the case with the Live Music Bill which was passed in about two seconds. "Even Chope said Aye!" tweeted Kerry McCarthy (Labour MP for Bristol East) who has been quite vocal in supporting the Live Musc Bill.

This is perhaps the most difficult obstacle the Live Music Bill has had to overcome and it is difficult to see how the Bill can fail to becomem law now.

More celebrations ! I hear UK Music are already throwing a party in the Parliament buildings.

Keep Live Music

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 12 - 11:15 AM

Try this link.

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Opinion/Peter-Coulson/Bang-the-drum-for-live-music

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 12 - 11:13 AM

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.morningadvertiser.co.uk%2FOpinion%2FPeter-Coulson%2FBang-the-drum-for-live-musi

Today sees the Commons Report Stage of Lord Clement-Jones' Live Music Bill, which has progressed more smoothly recently and had a very amiable time of it during the MPs' committee in December, with much inter-party back-slapping and a general view that it was a good thing.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 12 - 11:09 AM

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1048175

In today's Music Week, on the front page the abolition of Form 696 is once again called for and senior industry executives chat about their UK artists 'on the cusp of achieving the American dream'

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 12 - 05:55 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16628724

And I gather most SNP MPs will be around tomorrow to put their concerns about the implications for Scotland. The bill's best prospect of getting through the Commons and being sent on to the Lords would be if the chair allowed a closure motion - which is unlikely to happen much before 1pm.

That in turn threatens the widely-supported Live Music Bill - although it is possible to rush a bill through its remaining stages in remarkably little time, if no-one objects.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Jan 12 - 10:19 AM

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1048174&c=1

UK Music is calling on the industry to urge local MPs to support the Live Music Bill in the House of Commons tomorrow, making sure it is kept on the agenda, giving it a chance of final approval.

With a total of 64 bills up for debate tomorrow, most of them will be delayed simply due to lack of time.

The Live Music Bill, which aims to stop bureaucracy from smothering small scale live music, stands a good chance by occupying the second spot on the schedule but follows a contentious Daylight Saving Bill, which could take up the House's time if opposition MPs are determined enough to drag out discussion and avoid a vote.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Jan 12 - 10:08 AM

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2010-2012/0260/amend/pbc2601801a.4011-4017.html

Amendments to the Daylight Saving Bill mount up threatening to talk the Live Music & the Local Government Ombudsman Bills out of time.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Jan 12 - 08:07 AM

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/around-yorkshire/local-stories/residents_hit_out_at_events_plan_for_park_1_4148353

John King comments:
More NIMBY moaning about a live music licence application.

Perhaps if it is sensible to expect NIMBY based objections from vocal locals - it is NOT sensible to have a system which seems to be designed to encourage only - the few to be able to deny the undoubted benefits of live music to the many?

Would be too difficult to have legislation where live music was first encouraged and which only dealt with any issues which may prove to be associated with it as a second matter?

Additional entertainment licensing starts from the 'loony' idea that places which have already be made safe for the public will automatically become unsafe should any form of live music take place.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Jan 12 - 07:56 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16600243

John King comments:
Preview of Friday's proceedings in the House of Commons. Looks like it will be a photo finish for the Live Music Bill...

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Jan 12 - 07:06 AM

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/General-News/ALMR-urges-MPs-to-back-last-stage-of-Live-Music-Bill

ALMR strategic affairs director Kate Nicholls said: "We are strongly urging MPs to support this Bill in Parliament, as it reaches its final hurdle.

"The potential benefits from the Bill becoming law are vast – both culturally and economically. It will free venues from burdensome red tape and create diversity of service and offer, helping to boost trade and sustain viability.

"More pubs could play a vital part in their community by being able to host young up-and-coming bands and artists, encouraging others to take up a musical instrument."

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 07:02 PM

More Local Council stupidity. Here is the Elderfield in Hackney applying for a minor variation to raise the limit on the number

John King comments:
More Local Council stupidity. Here is the Elderfield in Hackney applying for a minor variation to raise the limit on the number of performers from 2 to 5. Live music is limited to 2 occasions a week. DJs however can play every day of the week, but according to the licence register recorded music is "limited to two entertainers". http://apps.hackney.gov.uk/servapps/lpr/?tab=2&ps=48264&pn=1&pi=1

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 06:44 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

By this Friday afternoon, 20th January, the Live Music Bill could be a historic success - or a historic failure.

It all turns on the number of supportive MPs that attend the debate. A minimum of 100 must be there to ensure that, if necessary, there is a successful 'vote of closure' on debate on the Daylight Saving Bill, which precedes the Live Music Bill.   The Daylight Saving Bill is controversial and there may be MPs intending to 'talk it out'. If that happened the Live Music Bill may not have enough time to be debated and would fail. It might be revived in the next Parliamentary session, but reform could be delayed for months or even years.

Labour MP Kerry McCarthy, who sat on the Live Music Bill during its Committee stage, has already warned of this possibility in her blog:
http://kerrymccarthy.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/live-music-bill-this-friday/

So if you have not already written to your MP, please do so now:

Ask them to attend the debate and if necessary vote in favour of a closure motion on the preceding business (to allow time for debate on the Live Music Bill) and, of course, to vote for the Live Music Bill itself.

It is important to write a personal letter, but general points to make include:

The entertainment licence exemptions for live music proposed by the Bill are essential if live music in grassroots venues is to flourish.
The exemptions apply only to performances between 8am and 11pm, and, for amplified live music, to audiences of no more than 200.
The Bill preserves licence review safeguards for residents near pubs and bars.
The Bill is supported not only by the Government and the Opposition, but also by the music industry, performers' unions, arts organisations, and now by the Local Government Association.

If you don't know who your MP is this website enables to identify them using your postcode and email them:
www.theyworkforyou.com

Once again, many thanks.
Hamish Birchall

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 14 Jan 12 - 06:45 AM

The last post was from me.

It shows that those employed in the police and those employed to enforce licensing legislation would appear to think that that they can do exactly as they wish and that there does not seem to be anything to prevent them from carrying on doing this, whatever damage this may cause.....

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jan 12 - 06:41 AM

http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=1806

John King comments:

More Form 696 racism. Police withdraw their objection to a Temporary Event Notice (?!) following the applicant's submission of a Form 696. The Met have been ADAMANT that Form 696 is voluntary except where it is a licence condition. BTW the applicant's name is Mrs Patel - not a name that crops up regularly in "black on black" gang shootings one would have thought...

http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=1720&T=2 Several TEN's were refused by Brent Council because the applicant had failed to provide a Form 696.

http://www.brent.gov.uk/hsl.nsf/Files/LBBA-35/$FILE/Statement%20of%20Licensing%20Policy%202011%20Final.pdf Brent Council's statement of licensing policy clearly states the a Form 696 requirement will only apply if it is a licence condition.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 14 Jan 12 - 06:32 AM

http://www.noda.org.uk/news/National_News/NODA-response-to-Licensing-Act-consultation

We suggest that there may well be a benefit in treating all types of live performance equally under the regulations.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 13 Jan 12 - 03:15 PM

http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/downloads/page3971/Milnthorpe_Primary_School.pdf

John King comments:

An example of school licensing by South Lakeland Council (from last year). Here is Milnthorpe Primary School applying for a premises licence to cover (among other things) "recorded music played daily in assembly", "Christmas productions", "indoor ball games (with NO music)".

The Live Music Bill will rid schools of this nonsense IF it passes 3rd reading on 20th January.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 13 Jan 12 - 02:49 PM

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/wfnews/9471276.LEYTON__College_allays_fears_over_opening_hours_bid/

Patrick Sedgwick, 59, of Peterborough Road, Leyton, signed the petition against the application.

He said: "The concern that does arise is about the effect on the neighbourhood if people are leaving late at night. There's the potential for disturbances even if it's just noisy people leaving."

Neighbour Helga Haack added: "There could be anti-social behaviour. A crowd of young people could attract people who want to cause trouble that late, while people nearby will be kept up at night after long performances."

John King comments:
No matter what a premises applies for, someone will always complain. Local authorities LOVE this because they have nothing better to do. Leyton Sixth Form College faces a 248-strong petition objecting to a licence extension to "cover longer plays such as Hamlet being performed very occasionally while the college runs only about eight activities per term".

And - of course - the last Government claimed that there was NO evidence that schools had been adversely affected by the Licensing Act.

I wonder how many activities have been prevented or limited - noy because they present problems but simply because they are exposed to the licensing process?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 07:21 AM

http://kerrymccarthy.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/live-music-bill-this-friday/

Kerry McCarthy writes on Live Music Bill report stage and explains some of the pitfalls.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 11 Jan 12 - 08:59 PM

http://www.buckinghamtoday.co.uk/community/objections_flood_in_over_licensing_application_1_3404058

AN application for a premises licence at a former shop in a residential street in the centre of Buckingham has attracted fierce opposition from neighbours.

The application, by Louis Myhill of Louis Kitchen Ltd, would enable the former the Holland Electrical store to operate as a restaurant.

It would have seating for about 50 people, with a licence to serve alcohol with food and play recorded music between 8am and 11pm seven days a week.

Mr Myhill has told the licensing services department at Aylesbury Vale District Council (AVDC) there will be no live music and no music will be audible from outside the premises.

About 20 letters of objection have been submitted to AVDC from local people. Objections include hazards due to the limited space for parking on Nelson Street, noise and public disorder.

One objector said: "Do we want even more inebriated youths lurching down Nelson Street? I have already had my door kicked in and people are always banging on th door as they walk past."

The application is due to be heard next Tuesday.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 11 Jan 12 - 01:58 PM

Last post was from me - the following link should work.

http://www.kensingtonandchelseatoday.co.uk/news/local-news/padq8h82bk.html

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jan 12 - 01:53 PM

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kensingtonandchelseatoday.co.uk%2Fnews%2Flocal-news%2Fpadq8h82bk.html&h=GAQFvyt

John King comments: There is a legal definition of "live music" in the Licensing Act: live music performed by instrument or voice or any combination of both. Sounds simple? When the details of this case become clear, it will be interesting to see whether the magistrates court has mixed up live and recorded music. This does look like a DJ venue, with no history of using live musicians. http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/pressrelease/pressreleasepage.aspx?id=3967

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 11 Jan 12 - 01:41 PM

http://vocalzone.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/the-urban-music-scene-my-kind-of-place/

John King comments:
More Form 696 coverage. The Met do NOT have reliable statistics justifying their claim that Form 696 has reduced shootings. In fact, they do not have any evidence at all. The only stats they have produced (which they did to the London Mayor) were derived from some highly dubious DCMS licensing statistics regarding LIVE and not RECORDED music. Pretty inept stuff...

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 11 Jan 12 - 01:34 PM

John King Comments:
Actually, performers being searched before going on stage has nothing to do with Form 696. This is sometimes a condition of the premises licence. Here's Lambeth Council approving the searching of musicians at a resaurant: http://tradescant.blogspot.com/2011/01/wheatsheaf-tia-maria-licence.html

In 2010 the MU announced their support for the revised Form 696.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 11 Jan 12 - 12:56 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/10/police-stigmatising-hip-hop-696-form?fb=optOut

"Our recommended guidance to music event organisers, management of licensed premises or event promoter on when to complete Form 696 is where you hold an event that is – promoted/advertised to the public at any time before the event, and predominantly features DJs or MCs performing to a recorded backing track, and runs anytime between the hours of 10pm and 4am, and is in a nightclub or a large public house."

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 10 Jan 12 - 12:23 PM

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/news/a359111/police-accused-of-racism-over-risk-assessment-at-urban-gigs.html

An anonymous booking agent told The Guardian that police insisted on searching 18 performers for weapons with an airport-style scanner at a recent live show before they were permitted to go on stage.

Perhaps where police have seen to be involved in criminal activities, the introduction of such screening and being subject to the need to fill out forms for all members of the police, may not be thought by them to be a necessary measure or attempted to be justified by them on such flimsy claims for the measure's success?

The only success such measures have is in making things worse. It is quite wrong to introduce and to defend such requirements to any section of society.

The Commons Select Committee has recognised this, in the case of this form - but it would appear that it is the police who are in charge, and not our elected MPS.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 06:03 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/jan/08/police-accused-discriminating-urban-music?CMP=twt_gu

Police say that following "concerns" the form had been modified to remove "any reference to music genre".

But the current form, which asks for details about events "that predominantly feature DJs or MCs performing to a recorded backing track", clearly targeted urban artists, said Dipple.

"This is unacceptable. Performers being searched goes way beyond the stated guidance of this supposedly voluntary process," she said, arguing that police were hampering one of the UK's successful music exports, which has seen artists like Dizzee Rascal and Ms Dynamite achieve international success.

In a statement the Met said the form was a "voluntary risk assessment form", but the current form recognised that it may be "a licence condition on some premises licence", in which case it would be "mandatory".

A spokeswoman said that form 696 was "intended to identify where an event might be at risk from crime and take steps to prevent it.

"To date shootings linked to licensed premises have been significantly reduced and we believe the risk assessment process has contributed to this.

It is an inconvenient fact that musicians refuse to be criminals.

Especially for those employed in the police and local authorities, who really seem to think that increasing the red tape involved in live music and activly preventing and limiting live music, is some form of short-cut answer for them to address crime.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 07:33 AM

All live music, in all venues and at all times is not an automatic source of noise pollution.

The bottom line is that all though the above is true - (most of) those employed to locally enforce licensing legislation will consider that where live music is prevented or limited, in advance of a note being sounded, by the requirement for additional entertainment licensing - that this is will be a perfectly acceptable way of avoiding noise pollution and that they will have done their job...........

Meanwhile those of us who still manage to find venues to play non-amplified traditional folk tunes - will only be allowed when subject to binding condition which impose noise limiters and require the music to end before the venues finishes serving alcohol.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 07:22 AM

Some questions here that you may suggest that your MP asks the Govt?

As it is not possible under the Licensing Act 2003 to apply for permission to provide a public nuisance and it is not possible for a local Licensing Authority to grant such permission, why is this Govt supporting [in the Private Members Live Music Bill] a requirement to kick-in at 11.00pm, for additional licensing permission for all live music and especially for that live music which this Govt itself propose to be exempt from this requirement and when such a measure does not appear in these proposals and is one which the Govt's own proposals argue against?

What role can this additional entertainment licensing permission actually play in dealing with noise pollution which the existing anti-noise pollution cannot ?

Any actual noise pollution subsequently arising from any entertainment venue - whether additional entertainment licensing permission under the Licensing Act 2003 is in place or not - will have to be dealt with by exactly the same anti-noise measures as will noise pollution emanating from the playing of any form of music in private homes and any form of noise pollution which emanates from any other source. If this legislation is thought to be inadequate to deal with noise pollution, then it is this legislation which needs to be improved.

If the Govt accept that there is already existing special anti-noise legislation that kicks-in at 11.00pm and which is thought adequate to deal with public nuisance in the form of noise pollution - do the Govt accept that for them to propose that even further controls, in the form of additional entertainment licensing permission to also kick-in at 11.00pm, is costly red tape and is not a proportionate approach to live music which may only have the potential to cause a problem that already has legislation in place to address and which recognises the problems associated with this time of night?

All live music, in all venues and at all times is not an automatic source of noise pollution.

However, currently all live music is treated, by those employed locally to enforce licensing legislation, as if this were the case. As a result, much live music, when it is not totally prevented, it is needlessly limited under this process by licensing conditions which make no distinction between live music which may have some potential to cause noise pollution and live music which will never have this potential.

This thinking in effect, equates all live music in advance of a note being sounded, as firstly being an automatic source of noise pollution, in all venues and which only the requirement for additional entertainment permission under the Licensing Act 2003 can address.

How can such an approach - ever be expected to enable live music to flourish and bring the added value to our lives that only this music can provide?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 03:39 PM

http://testing.selcamra.org.uk/hoopers-bar-se5-under-threat/

John King comments:
If this person had moved to a property near a railway line or a bus garage, it would be unheard of for them to be able to stop train services or curtail use of buses. You would ask why that person choose to live near something, such as a pub,that could cause a little bit of noise occasionally. After all, there are numerous streets or estates that ONLY consist of homes. However current legislation allows Licensed Premises to have their Conditions to be reviewed (and possible restrictions imposed) if a person living nearby can persuade the Licensing Panel of their complaint.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 11:08 AM

This link should work....
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mps/

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 11:06 AM

www.theyworkforyou.com

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 10:47 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Please circulate

Despite its progress so far, the success of the Live Music Bill is not guaranteed:
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/livemusichl.html

On 20th January it must be debated again in the House of Commons, a stage known as Report and 3rd Reading. This is in effect the last hurdle. The more MPs that attend and support the Bill, the greater its chances of becoming law.

PLEASE WRITE TO YOUR MP:

Ask them to attend the debate and if necessary vote in favour of a closure motion on the preceding business (to allow time for debate on the Live Music Bill) and, of course, to vote for the Live Music Bill itself.

It is important to write a personal letter, but general points to make include:

The entertainment licence exemptions for live music proposed by the Bill are essential if live music in grassroots venues is to flourish.
The exemptions apply only to performances between 8am and 11pm, and, for amplified live music, to audiences of no more than 200.
The Bill preserves licence review safeguards for residents near pubs and bars.
The Bill is supported not only by the Government and the Opposition, but also by the music industry, performers' unions, arts organisations, and now by the Local Government Association.

If you don't know who your MP is this website enables to identify them using your postcode and email them:www.theyworkforyou.com

Many thanks
Hamish Birchall

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 05:09 AM

http://louderthanwar.com/featured/support-the-live-music-bill

How to the support the Live Music Bill.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 08:16 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8986957/Bill-to-aid-live-music-set-to-become-law.html

"The old Licensing Act just did not do the job it was supposed to. We were promised an explosion of live music, but in fact we have had even less."

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 09:36 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAASPZke_a4

Heart and Soul Sung by Helena Bonham Carter (Heart of Me Soundtrack)

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Jan 12 - 06:48 AM

The last posting was from me.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Jan 12 - 06:47 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16366194

John King comments:Helena Bonham Carter gets a CBE for services to the arts saying "not sure that I deserve it". She may be right. In 2006, Helena Bonham-Carter showed her support for the arts by moving next door to the Sir Richard Steele Pub and objecting to the live music licence.

Live performances of "rock and pop" music at The Sir Richard Steele are now a criminal offence. DJs can play any genre they like.
http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/text/hbbulletin225.htm

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 31 Dec 11 - 09:48 AM

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/express-and-chronicle/2011/12/31/villagers-oppose-plan-to-extend-opening-hours-of-the-golden-cock

John King comments:The Golden Cock wants an extension and permission for live music. DJs are already allowed, but the suggestion of live music sends neighbours into a spin.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 31 Dec 11 - 09:42 AM

http://www.manchesterit.com/blog/?p=5136

John King comments:One person moves next door and complains. "All we want is this nightmare to end so we can start to live the life that we hoped we would have." Well don't move next door to a club and expect everyone else to lose their jobs to keep you happy.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 31 Dec 11 - 09:38 AM

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Batty-ideas-targeted-drive-tele-1887437580.html

John King comments:'The Business Department said there would be "wholesale deregulation of entertainment licensing to make it easier and cheaper for community groups to put on fundraising events and amateur productions."'
Perhaps the Government could remove the "batty" red tape generated by it's very own Police Reform & Social Responsibility Act.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Dec 11 - 01:11 PM

Perhaps we should stop referring to applications for live music and replace this instead with applications to cause live public nuisance?

The application was properly advertised as required by the 2003 Act and, as a result, 8 representations were received from Interested Parties, i.e. persons living in the vicinity of the premises in respect of the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance.

Where we may accept that live music (and many other things) may have the potential to cause public nuisance - it should not be acceptable that all the unquestionable benefits of live music are considered to be one and the same thing or are first viewed as being a public nuisance. Is preventing live music to be thought successful in preventing public nuisance? It would seem so.

Where, like in this case, the baby is thrown out along with the bathwater and simply as a result of the live music having to be exposed to the licensing process - we will never know if the once proposed live music had anything other than simply the potential to cause a public nuisance.

Not that that those who are employed to enforce the legislation would see that the total loss of live music in this case as being a problem - for they can congratulate themselves on having prevented a public nuisance.

Perhaps, (partly as it obviously did not work), applicants should not have been able to self-limit and exclude live music from their own original application and the hearing be left to decide if the proposed live music did constitute a public nuisance?

However, from my experience this does not really happen. The assumption has already been made by the officers and Cllrs that any form of live music, in any venue and at any time is a public nuisance, to be prevented or limited in advance with binding licensing conditions and that this is the whole purpose of the hearing.

That is why it is so vital that live music be finally taken out of the hands of those who simply do not understand the true value of what they have been entrusted with.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Dec 11 - 11:49 AM

http://www.darlington.gov.uk/PublicMinutes/Licensing%20Sub-Committee/January%204%202012/Item%204.pdf

John King comments:The Old Vic Darlington applies for live msuic permission, but is met with page after page of hysterical drivel from the Elf and Safety Dept.

On 30 March 2011 an application was properly made for a Premises Licence in respect of 95-97 Victoria Road, Darlington DL1 5JQ in accordance with Section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003.
The application was properly advertised as required by the 2003 Act and, as a result, 8representations were received from Interested Parties, i.e. persons living in the vicinity of the premises in respect of the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance and an indication was given that there would be a further representation from a Responsible Authority, namely the Environmental Health Manager on the same basis. The Applicant was advised of the concerns expressed in the representations and as a result she amended her closing hour from 01.00 am to 23.30 pm and also removed everything from the regulated entertainment part of her application except indoor sporting events.

Letters were sent to all objectors indicating the change in the application and as a result 3 Interested Parties withdrew their representations and the Environmental Health Manager indicated that in light of the amended hours and activities he would no longer be making a representation. On 27 May 2011 the revised application was considered by the Council's Licensing Sub Committee, along with the representations made by the Interested Parties. After careful
consideration Members granted the Premises Licence subject to the following conditions, which were in addition to the mandatory conditions for the sale or supply of alcohol:

This is another example of where, because some form of application was eventually granted - it will show up in statistics as a licensing success. It will be ignored that the licensee had already been forced to withdraw the application for any live music.

This before a note had been sounded but in the face of a few objections which were based only on the assumption that any form of live music at any time in this venue would result in measurable noise pollition.

So the live music has been prevented, simply as a result of the need to obtain additional entertainment licensing permission.........

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Dec 11 - 07:19 AM

There is not really enough information provided in this article.

However, as a noise abatement notice has been served (at some point)- it does at least show that it is perfectly possible for councils to use the correct anti-noise legislation to takle noise complaints.

This rather destroys the argument provided by The Local Government Association (LGA) who warned that "deregulating music events would leave councils powerless to respond to noisy events."

Any council's response to an actual occurance of measurable noise pollution, emanating from any source, would be made under this legislation and the proposed removal of additional entertainment licensing permission would do nothing to change this.

CIEH principal policy officer Howard Price said: 'The clear consequence of enacting the paper's proposals will, in our view, be an increase in complaints which, as local authority resources continue to diminish, will go increasingly unanswered.'

Mr Price said music at licensed premises was the third most common source of noise complaints received by environmental health departments and denied the government's assertion that obtaining a Temporary Event Notice was a bureaucratic burden.

I am not sure if this statement can be supported by Mr Price but whatever the first two most common source of noise complaints may be - all of these would have to be tackled by the exsisting anti-noise pollution legislation.

If the statement had any truth, it would show that all the current anti-noise legislation is in need of reform and that the Council's preferred use of the additional entertainment licensing in the Licensing Act 2003, which is effective in limiting and deterring all live music - is pretty ineffective in preventing what is referred to as noise complaints.

What he and the LGA Group lobby refer to as noise complaints are in fact objections made to potential noise pollution at planning and licensing applications, often in advance of a note of music being sounded.

What council employees may lose, if the proposals are accepted, is to their current ability to deter and limit all live music in advance of a note being sounded, based only on the incorrect assumption that all live music, in all venues and on all occasions WILL always present a measurable source of noise pollution, which needs actual binding licensing conditions to address what, in advance, can only be a potential for noise pollution.   

The bottom line here is that if the LGA Group lobby consider the existing anti-noise legislation to be inadequate, in any form, then it is this legislation which they should be activly seen to be lobbying to improve.

For the only time they refer to any problems is in response to any attempt to address the damage this lobby has and is determined to continue to inflict upon live music.