Council Bans Morris Part 2

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Aug 01 - 08:01 AM

Yes Trevor Gilson's site HERE will be the best bet. There is an Email for him on the site. I'm sure he will be agreeable. Not too sure if he is back from his 'Hols' yet though.

Thank you.

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Aug 01 - 07:56 AM

Something went wrong with that. I was suggesting that this site, on Session Harrassment, might be a good place for it, or definitely for a link to Suzanne's article. (And the link to that Session Harrassment site came from Shambles in this thread, IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS )

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Aug 01 - 07:50 AM

Brilliant.

I'd suspect that it might be better having it elsewhere with a link to it from the Mudcat - aside from anything else, that way it could be in a more readable format, which, with 87 pages is significant. This site, (which Shamnbles gave a link to on

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Aug 01 - 06:30 AM

Sham, McGra, others (if listening)

I have now got permission from Susanna FitzGerald QC electronically to reproduce her two articles (about PELs)on the strict condition that I do not alter them in any way or fail correctly to attribute them.)

I also have electronic copies of them for the purpose.)

I just wanted to check with Max that it was OK simply to copy two lawyer-length articles about the proposed standard Public Entertainment licences into these threads. The proposed standard terms are 87 pages long and although they are not copied, the articles are one short (by legal standards, several pages of A4) and one long.)

Is it OK just to pop them in here or should I forward them somewhere else (that is to say an elf or something) so you can put a link to them?

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Aug 01 - 09:04 AM

Ever feel you're talking to yourself on this Shambles?

I'm a bit puzzled - this is an issue that should matter to us a lot, the right to sing and play music socially.

Maybe it's that the Americans and others feel it's nothing really to do with them, and nothing they can do, and the English feel that it's maybe best not to disturb sleeping dogs, and most councils don't seem in practice as pigheaded and obdurate as Weymouth, and turn a blind eye.

Which is wrong both times. I draw peoples attention to the other current thread about this Will you write an Email for Shambles?, and I urge you to do just that.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT MATTERS

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Aug 01 - 06:43 AM

Just because you are paranoid, it does not mean that they are not out to get you...........

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Aug 01 - 06:39 AM

I know of one other letter sent to the letters page on the subject, that was not one of mine and that was not published either?

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Aug 01 - 06:35 AM

My local paper ([e-mail]), having published two of my letters, does not appear to wish to publish any more? I keep making them shorter but they still do not appear? The last one that appeared was 11th August (above).

They could just think that no one else cares about the subject or do you think there could be more sinister reasons? I have assumed that there has been no reaction from the public because there have not been any other letters published?

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Aug 01 - 07:01 AM

Exemptions like those for two performers and music for church services establish the precedent that it is the nature of the music that is being considered. These are not exempt because they are considered safe.

Surely it is just as easy for a local authority to stretch the religous exemption to cover customers making their own traditional music as it is for them to stretch the wording of the law to consider members of the public as performers?

For the former will enable traditional activities and the latter will prevent them.

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Aug 01 - 04:06 AM

For it is (council) policy and not law.

The Lord Bishop of Oxford asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether, under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 1964, members of the public count as "performers" if they sing on licensed premises; and, if so, how local authorities can enforce public entertainment licensing legislation in a proportionate manner that is compatible with performers' rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, Section 182 of the Licensing Act 1964 exempts licensed premises from the need to obtain a public entertainment licence where the entertainment provided consists of music and singing by not more than two performers. Whether members of the public who sing on licensed premises count as performers is a matter for the licensing authority to decide, depending on the circumstances. Ultimately, the compatibility of this provision with the European Convention on Human Rights would be a matter for the courts to determine. As part of our proposed general reform of the licensing and public entertainment laws in England and Wales, we propose to do away with the Section 182 provisions.

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Aug 01 - 04:00 AM

The sad thing is that events way back in January presented our council with the opportunity to lead the way with a policy that would be popular as well as in keeping with the general way things were moving anyway. I suggested the good PR that would come from this.

They did not to do this and now find themselves leading the way and 'sticking their necks out', in this hard-line approach and trying to get others to follow this example, despite the mess this policy has got them into.

It would be useful indeed to hear from anyone who lives where their council does not have this stance?

The 'blind eye' can only work up to the point where an event is pointed out to an authority. You cannot advertise the event, so as not to risk this. Why should these important cutural events skulk around in the dark, in fear of council officers anyway? It is the elected council members that make policy. Why not get them to do this and 'call off the dogs'?

If you live in such a place, ask them what they will do at this point? For it only takes another envious licensee or a chance remark to bring it to their officer's attention, what will they do do then?

The idea that our council is rare, does not agree with the case book from all around the country, of silly actions taken against licensees that Hamish Birchall is compiling........

I relied on the common sense and integrity of my council, I suggest that you do not rely on yours for too long.

The test is what happens when an authority finds itself in this position? Why not ask your councillor now, before this happens and prevent the machine from just rolling over us all.

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 01 - 04:36 PM

Well, carol singing in the pubs may not be the tradition down in Dorset, but the authorities up in the Sheffield and Derbyshire where it is are operating under the same law as the ones in Dorset. And they don't seem to see any problem.

I know that in practice the authorities which have stuck their necks out like the Weymouth lot are fairly few. But it seems that there are even fewer who have gone the other way and actually formally stated that their interpretation of the law is that these kind of activities do not count as entertainments subject to the PEL rules.

If anyone has come across any that have done that, it would be useful to know. Don't we have any councillors among Mudcatters? Or people working in the relevant parts of councils?

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Aug 01 - 03:51 PM

Seriously though, how many of our older churches have toilets, emergency exits, maximum number of customers etc? Pubs are much safer places.....

Probably be more at risk holding the session in a church but I don't suppose you would receive many visits from Licensing Managers if you did?

Might get complaints from the Great Licensing Manager in the sky?

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Aug 01 - 06:49 AM

Music is the nearest to me having a religion, so that is not too far from the truth anyway. The problem is convincing our authorities that a pub was a suitable place to hold such a service.

On a safety aspect, which is the one this is supposed to be about, a congregation would be far safer in a pub than a church.

Well they may run a greater risk from the great creator?

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: IanC
Date: 17 Aug 01 - 04:09 AM

If music as part of a religious service is exempt, there's your solution for sessions. Just make them a religious service (call your denomination what you like). Doesn't need much organisation.

Cheers!
Ian

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: MMario
Date: 16 Aug 01 - 02:18 PM

perhaps the policy to follow here would be a campaign to inundate the appropriate authorities with "violations" - the more obscure and irratating the better.

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Aug 01 - 02:15 PM

"Entertainment" is defined in the Act as "public dancing or music or any other entertainment of a like kind".

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Aug 01 - 02:06 PM

But you can't call bellringing a religious service can you? Do Sally Army services in the street come under the same exemption? Or carol singing in pubs for example...

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Aug 01 - 01:32 PM

Music as part of a religous service in church is exempt..

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: IanC
Date: 16 Aug 01 - 12:01 PM

Folks

As a bell ringer, it occurred to me that Bell ringing should also come under the same Draconian legislation. Anyone got together with the local ringers?

Cheers!
Ian

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Aug 01 - 11:47 AM

"Otherwise all new "zero tolerance" policies would be unlawful" - surely it's the other way round?

If there is an absolute requirement to enforce the law anything other than a zero tolerance policy would in fact be illegal, and every council and police authority in the wounctry would be in serious trouble, because nobody could possibly enforce all the laws completely.

I seem to remember people speculating whether various bizarre laws (against mince pies and so forth) could in principal still be used, if they had never been repealed. The official line seemed to be that, by being allowed to fall into disuse for so long, they had in fact become uninforceable.

"A case of estopel" - isn't that one of those East European wines?

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Aug 01 - 11:38 AM

Tonight's Cove session is being advertised in the Dorset Evening Echo as it has been for some time.

The premises have not held a valid PEL since the one issued on 16th May, expired on June 30th and will not have a valid one for at least another three weeks......

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Aug 01 - 11:32 AM

Borough council licensing manager Sue Allen, said "It is not for me to put individual interpretations on the law—I have to treat everybody equally. If Mr Flynn or Mr Gall want a change in the law, they must lobby for it nationally". From the Dorset Evening Echo 04/08/01

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Aug 01 - 11:12 AM

Mr Gall refers to other premises that have not had a licence. We do not have the resources to inspect every possible premises to see whether an entertainment licence might be required especially as such licences would normally require them to be inspected in the evening. However, if we do hear of a premises that might apparently need a licence and does not have one then we will follow it up. It is our usual practice do check local newspapers to see if premises are being advertised. From a letter to me from the Director of Tourism 17/04/01.

You can do it, as long as you don't advertise it, seems to be the message?

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Aug 01 - 10:20 AM

Is it lawful to operate both the 'blind eye' and strict enforcement?

I will post their exact words on this........

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Aug 01 - 09:51 AM

If it could be shown that the council knew of a session, took no action to enforce, and stood by and permitted the organiser (A loose word, for brevity) to alter his position in reliance on continued inactivity, a case of estopel might be made out, but the contrary argument that the council has s duty to enforce, not merely a right to enforce is to my mind more likely to win the day.

Otherwise all new "zero tolerance" policies would be unlawful

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Aug 01 - 09:41 AM

There remains here a nearby weekly session, running for a number of years, that has not been subject to this enforcement, and still has not?

So there seems to be such a thing here.........As well as strict enforcement?

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Aug 01 - 05:48 AM

Is there any equivalent of the Right of Way concept in relation to this sort of thing? I mean, if it were possible to prove that something had been going on and allowed to go on for a number of years that gave it some right to continue?

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Aug 01 - 02:56 AM

4.6Although these decisions date back to the 18th and 19th centuries they can be relied upon in interpreting current legislation since these points do not appear to have been tested by the Courts in recent times.

I hope that you are right but I do not think that there is much chance of our legal dept changing their mind, no matter what they are presented with.

For they have compromised the whole council, by getting them to endorse there actions and policy and the machine will now just roll on...........

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Aug 01 - 02:22 AM

The Licensing Officer asks The legal Derpartment to write the letter, saying that the Licensee will face a possible six month prison term or a £20,000 fine for allowing the session to continue.

They do this, then they are faced with a 'stroppy' member of the public who disagrees with this.

It may have been possible at this point to re examine the session but this was not done. So the machine just rolls on.

It is just legal opinion after all until tested in court......

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 01 - 07:01 PM

"Entertainment" is defined in the Act as "public dancing or music or any other entertainment of a like kind".

That's a brilliant circular definition. cf "A cow" is defined as "an animal with horns, or any other cow of the same kind." And these guys who draw up definitions like that get paid for it? By us?

I wasn't clear, Shambles, whether you were saying that the reason that Melanie Earnshaw is coming up only with legal arguments supporting the legal opinion she has already given is that she doesn't want to undermine what she has said; or that, now that she has given that opinion, and this has been adopted as council policy, it is only expected of her that she should look for legal arguments supportingt that policy.

Basically, if compelling legal arguments are drawn to her attention which undermine the opinion she has given, and that put in doubt the council policy based on it, is it reasonable to assume that she will tell the council she thinks she may have got it wrong, and advised them in error?

I hope so. After all, any honest person would do that. An doin that basis clearly it is urgent that such arguments are presented to her rapidly.

I haven't got round to drafting my letter to Weymouth Council, but I will soon.

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Aug 01 - 06:01 PM

Oops, I replied to your PM before reading this. Leave it to me to see if I can get closer to the old precedents.

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Aug 01 - 04:33 PM

The full report, from which that extract was taken, can be found on Trevor Gilson's Site HERE.

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Aug 01 - 04:24 PM

This is our council's view.

4. Public Entertainment Licensing
4.1 This Council is the Authority responsible for licensing public entertainment within the district of Weymouth and Portland. Members will be aware that the Government published a white paper last year proposing major review of licensing legislation. The current law however as regards the licensing of public entertainment is contained in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 Section 1 and Schedule 1.

4.2 It is it a requirements of the Act that public entertainment shall not be provided in any place except in accordance with a PEL issued by the Local Authority. The Act allows Authorities to grant Licenses subject to conditions and restrictions relating to the premises. In this Authority standard conditions are attached to PELs to promote public safety, public health and public order.

4.3 "Entertainment" is defined in the Act as "public dancing or music or any other entertainment of a like kind".

4.4 Exemptions from the need to obtain a Licence are contained in Section 182 of the Licensing Act 1964 including an exemption where the public entertainment is provided by not more than two performers.

4.5 Historically the Courts have determined that a licence is required not just where music is provided by paid performers to entertain the public but where members of the public themselves participate in music making. It has also been established that whether or not a fee is charged for admission to the performance is immaterial to the requirement for a Licence.

4.6Although these decisions date back to the 18th and 19th centuries they can be relied upon in interpreting current legislation since these points do not appear to have been tested by the Courts in recent times.

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Aug 01 - 01:54 PM

No need to PM as all the addresses and emails of the council can be found on their website HERE WPBC

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Aug 01 - 01:51 PM

Thank you Richard.

The lady that you need to contact is Melanie Earnshaw

Weymouth and Portland Borough Council

Council Offices

North Quay

Weymouth

Dorset DT4 8TA

I'm sure that they will support her position.

The crux of the promblem is this lady. She has had to provide case law that only supported the position because she had already advised the council to take this position, by writing the letter threatning legal action against the Licensee, should the session continue.

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Aug 01 - 12:54 PM

I've spoken to the chambers of Susanna Fitzgerald, and I also have (from contacts) a hard copy of the article cited above. She is on hols now but I have asked for electronic copies of the article and indeed of a longer article that is referred to in her said article. I have also asked for permission to post the articles here.

The articles are not on the chambers website www.oeclaw.co.uk, nor on Susanna Fitzgerald's pages there, but you may want to have a look.

Once the long vacation is over, Magrath and Sham, you may wish to get in touch with her and ask if she would do some pro bono work on your campaign. I do not suggest suing anyone, but if she were preapred to produce an opinion addressing the Human Rights angle of restrictions in PEL licensing as affecting traditional song, music, and dance, you might have something to take up with the Home Office.

If you can PM me the address of Weymouth and Portland I am prepared to write to them on my solicitor's notepaper to ask for copies of the case law referred to in the report you object to. You may of course find that the cases do establish what they say...

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Aug 01 - 06:56 PM

Hmm, paste must have gone wrong. Sorry.

A rummage on the site revealed nothing to be had for nothing

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 01 - 06:51 PM

That soiunds positively Nelsonian. But nor do I. I suspect it means Richard put a bracket round te wonrg way or something. Anyway here it is, courtesy Google the Great and Glorious: http://www.smlawpub.co.uk/

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Aug 01 - 06:35 PM

I see no URL?

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Aug 01 - 01:27 PM

Here is the url for the relevant page onteh Sweet and Maxwell site. The journal is not available free.

Thoretically it would be an infringment of copyright in the article (definitely) and the journal (probably) to OCR the article and post it.

Sweet and Maxwell may not have got (apologies for my grammar) all the rights from the author and it may be possible in theory to get the necessary permission from the author direct.

Public library probably easier. The copy from them should not be a copyright problem - private research, see!

Good luck.

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 01 - 12:54 PM

I suppose if someone were to go to the library and photcopy it and then post it here that would be illegal. Even a GUEST without a name.

They sell the Guardian and the Times and the Daily Telegraph and New Scientist and...still put the content online. (And the Mudcat is more interesting than any of those, a lot of the time.)

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Aug 01 - 11:24 AM

Respectfully suggest go to public library or Law Society Library and read copy article (from "Solicitors' Journal")referred to in Lawtel summary I posted.

It's not available on line as far as I know because they sell subscriptions to the SOlicotor's journal so why would they give the content away free?

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Aug 01 - 10:43 AM

I am due to meet with the Chief Executive on the 23 August, so a few letters of concern may 'oil the wheels' a little?

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Aug 01 - 10:39 AM

If you were to write and I hope that as many as possible do, it will be a good idea to copy the letter to our Local Paper (details above). This will keep the issue in the public eye and make it difficult for the council to ignore.

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Aug 01 - 10:35 AM

I think that is all I was suggesting. This issue is too complicated for the general public locally and we do not have too many tradititional music enthusiasts ready to fight, so the public pressure is going to have to come from ALL those everywhere, who see the real threat presented to the activities they hold dear.

If Weymouth and Portland were to receive an official legal challemge to their policy and they may well do so, their officers have made it quite clear that the council would be seeking support from all the other athorities. See Hamish's report for details of this.

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 01 - 08:49 AM

Please bear in mind that this is a tourist resort, so it matters little where in the world you live. If you care about freedom of expression and traditional music, please write and express your view of our Local Authority's policy

That set me thinking. What's needed isn't so much people writing to slagging them off, but politely checking with the authority that their policy is such that anyone who might want to take part in or attend an informal singsong or music session should go somewhere else for their holidays, or to set up that business they are thinking of setting up somewhere in Europe.

And when they've got that confirmation, write to the paper explaining why they won't be coming, and why they will be telling all their friends around the world that Weymouth and Portland are not the place to go. Preferably postmarked Texas and places like that, because they probably think all Texans are oil millionaires.

Not a question of complaining about the injustice of it, because they are hardly concerned about that. "Not my problem if you people like it that way - but I just don't want to waste my holiday going somewhere where I can't sing a sing or play a tune with my friends, when the landlord and regulars don't object."

I think I might write to them myself, and explain that I am planning to drawing up a list on my website of authorities which have adopted a hardline approach on this, and authorities that are more easy going about it, and asking them to confirm which category I should put them in. I wouldn't want to give inn accurate information to friends in various part of the world.

And I think it might indeed be useful to have such a list. Well, more especially a list of [aces which, like Weymouth have a consistent and determined anti-policy. There could be a danger with identifying currently easy going authorities - it can be best to let sleeping dogs lie.

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Aug 01 - 06:29 AM

How spooky? You got there two seconds before me....

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Aug 01 - 06:26 AM

"fail to achieve some of the main purposes of licensing.

I would like to know what these are considered to be and if the present PEL system is thought to do this?

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 01 - 06:24 AM

That looks as if it might be an article by Susanna Fitgerald worth reading. Is there a possibility of an online link to it, or a more extended summary?

The central question is, is the current restrictive law in Britain actually worth the paper it is written on, given binding Human Rights legislation?