A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)

Subject: A CRIMINAL CONVICTION FOR CHRISTMAS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Dec 02 - 01:59 PM

Have I really misunderstood the contributors to this forum?

A pub licensee has had a criminal prosecution hanging over her head for over a month. With the Christmas period coming up she still does know if she is going to have a criminal conviction as an unwelcome present.

And her crime?

To allow her customers to make unpaid traditional music, for their own pleasure.

THIS IS A FUCKING CRIME??????????

Will YOU please do what you can do to prevent this totally disgraceful travesty from taking place. Even if you only write an email of support to the following site. It may just make the difference...............Please

http://www.users.waitrose.com/~pfd/

Subject: RE: A CRIMINAL CONVICTION FOR CHRISTMAS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Dec 02 - 02:02 PM

Can YOU help the Blue Bell session?

Subject: RE: A CRIMINAL CONVICTION FOR CHRISTMAS?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 12 Dec 02 - 02:14 PM

Shambles: I have, contributed to some of the PEL threads, and e-mailed my MP, but the first posting of this thread is possibly not in the best of taste. I dislike being shouted at, particularly in the form of language being used.
Doubtless you feel very strongly about this matter, and we should all be aware of the impact it is having, and the impact it is likely to continue to have. However the proliferation of these threads serves merely to 'water down' their impact.
A single, coherent, thread dealing with PELs would now be appreciated, as it can be 'paged' after every 50 messages. The "commons Early motion" thread, and the "PELs links" thread both had identical long messages posted today. If a thread is refreshed to include the message, is there a point to also including it in a new thread ?

Nigel

Subject: RE: A CRIMINAL CONVICTION FOR CHRISTMAS?
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Dec 02 - 02:18 PM

Shambles, would it do any good for those of us across the pond to write? Just wondering if they will pay attention to anyone who is not local? I do think it is outrageous and, were I to visit, the PEL certainly would cause some disappointment, I am sure. Even though the myth of England banning bagpipes in Scotland has been debunked, this still smacks of a similar action!

Thanks,

kat

Subject: RE: A CRIMINAL CONVICTION FOR CHRISTMAS?
From: John Routledge
Date: 12 Dec 02 - 02:18 PM

Hear Hear Nigel

Subject: RE: A CRIMINAL CONVICTION FOR CHRISTMAS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Dec 02 - 02:39 PM

JUST FUCKING DO IT!

Subject: RE: A CRIMINAL CONVICTION FOR CHRISTMAS?
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Dec 02 - 02:52 PM

No need to shout at us, Roger. I just did.

Subject: RE: A CRIMINAL CONVICTION FOR CHRISTMAS?
From: Morticia
Date: 12 Dec 02 - 02:57 PM

You know I've always supported what you are trying to achieve and agree wholeheartedly with the absurdity and unfairness of this law but this attitude you're displaying is awful.Do you really think you can get people to care by bullying and shouting? Take me off your mailing list please.

Subject: RE: A CRIMINAL CONVICTION FOR CHRISTMAS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Dec 02 - 03:03 PM

I am very sorry.

Whether you do anything or not is of course a matter for your conscience.

Me shouting or not, really make no difference as you will not be doing it for me, but because you care enough for other's misfortune and can imagine yourself in their position.

Subject: DON'T LET THE MUSIC POLICE GET YOU -READ
From: ET
Date: 12 Dec 02 - 05:43 PM

For circulation

A new Early Day Motion (No: 331) condemning the 'none in a bar' Licensing Bill has been put down by Shadow Culture Minister John Whittingdale (see below and URL link).

Please write to your MP and ask them to support it. If you want to save time, use the online fax service: www.faxyourmp.com

It is probably worth emphasising that live music should not be a Party political issue - MPs of all Parties supported David Heath's Early Day Motion which called on the government to reform 'archaic and just plain daft' legislation. We did not expect updated and just plain daft legislation, but that would be the effect of the 'none in a bar' Licensing Bill if it was enacted without amendment.


http://edm.ais.co.uk/weblink/html/motion.html/ref=331


LICENSING OF LIVE MUSIC 10.12.02
Whittingdale/John

That this House expresses concern that the Licensing Bill proposals to make the performance of live music licensable in pubs and clubs, in places where alcohol is served, in churches, synagogues, mosques and other places of worship, in schools and colleges, in community centres and village and parish halls, and in private homes and gardens where private parties and weddings may be held will have an enormously detrimental effect on musicians and live music performances; fears that the raising of money for charities by musicians will be seriously compromised; considers it will seriously impinge on the folk community including folk music and traditional folk activities such as morris dancing, wassailing, &c; believes that the penalties for breaking the law of a six month jail sentence of a £20,000 fine are far too draconian; considers it grossly unfair and inconsistent that live music will not be licensable in Scotland but will be in England and Wales; regrets that the Government has decided to replace the anomalous two in a bar rule with a none in a bar rule which will catch all live music performances; believes that the requirement for the provision of entertainment facilities to become licensable which will ensnare music shops, music and dance studios and teachers, represents a totally unacceptable regulatory intrusion into mainstream activities; and calls on the Government to amend the relevant parts of bill in order to remove the iniquities faced by musicians and the music industry as a whole.


if you have read this fax your mp - if we can get enough to understand the day may be saved.I HAVE WRITTEN TO EVERY CABINET MEMBER AND ALL OPPOSITION SHADDOWS. DO YOUR BIT - JUST CLICK ON www.faxyourmp.com . SHOUT AT THEM. MAKE SURE THEY HEAR!!!!!

Subject: RE: DON'T LET THE MUSIC POLICE GET YOU -READ
From: ET
Date: 12 Dec 02 - 05:45 PM

This is from Hamish Birchell of the Musicians Union. He is their part time advisor and has worked very hard for all. Please support his efforts.

Subject: RE: DON'T LET THE MUSIC POLICE GET YOU -READ
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Dec 02 - 06:24 PM

please...although this issue is quite important to those in the UK, it needs something to identify it as such. We have no 'music police' in the USA that I know of, therefore the thread is only of passing interest.

there are enough threads to open already

Subject: RE: DON'T LET THE MUSIC POLICE GET YOU -READ
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Dec 02 - 06:37 PM

Well, I dunno, Bill. Even though we're across the puddle, I'm interested in what's going on music-wise in the UK. And even though we might not be able to do anything, it's a quick way for our brethren on the Sceptered Isle to get the word around. Carry on!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Don't Let the Music Police Get You (PEL)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Dec 02 - 06:54 PM

Well, yes, the music situation in the UK IS very interesting, and the PEL crisis is certainly distressing to all of us, wherever we are. Still, there were three threads started on the PEL situation today, and I count 59 threads total.

I don't think we have to tolerate misleading thread titles, even if they are in the name of a worthy cause. I have renamed this thread so people can tell at a glance that it's about the PEL's. I have also renamed a number of other PEL threads so the titles indicate what's inside.

I will also combine two of the three threads started today. We'd all like to be informed about the PEL situation, but very few of us appreciate being inundated by it. In the future, please control the number of PEL threads to something reasonable - maybe one a week might be a good limit. In addition, please do not use ALL CAPS in your thread title. Also, include PEL in all caps in the title of your thread, so people can tell at a glance what the thread is about.

Thanks.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Dec 02 - 07:16 PM

The following from Alan Wood (the organiser of the Blue Bell session).

The situation may change, but I can't tolerate the prospect of Sue Furness climbing the steps of the Magistrates Court totally deserted by the local folk community. Emotive stuff, this music.

Subject: RE: A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Dec 02 - 07:39 PM

Shambles, would it do any good for those of us across the pond to write? Just wondering if they will pay attention to anyone who is not local?

I can tell you from personal experience how good it feels to have messages (especially from overseas) just expressing support. the locals fighting this would be encouraged, as they should be.

It will certainly help for the local council involved to know that their actions are causing concern and being watched from abroad as well as home.

On the Peterborough Folk site there is one email which has the email addresses of the local (elected) councillors, some of these may be more motivated to help if they receive messages of concern from exotic places. All this will serve to raise the profile.

Subject: RE: A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 12:47 AM

Shambles...like all too many of your appeals...this is based on emotion.

Give it a break lad. There are 365.25 days in a year. Any holiday is just another day in the year.

Does it REALLY matter if she is convicted on January 03, or Christmas Eve? She has been charged...leave it to the courts to determine if she has violated the laws of your land.

She should have known better.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Subject: RE: A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 04:14 AM

Rum, very rum. The German Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, whether spoken or sung. Musicians, vocal or instrumental, are also protected by the Article about freedom of art and science. In contrast UK seems to me more than medieval.
I think it crazy that people are forbidden to sing and play their own traditional heritage when gathering wherever it might be.
By the way, what about the funeral of a band or choir member? Will they be forbidden the good bye piece at the grave, too?

Wilfried

Subject: RE: A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)
From: daithi
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 06:53 AM

Not that IU know much about the law ta all, but doesn't the Human Rights act have anything to say about this? Surely there is freedom of expression in there somewhere?
Dáithí

Subject: RE: A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)
From: Grab
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 09:05 AM

Shambles, if you're going to post new threads about this, please can you provide information? Your thread-starter is completely devoid of anything other than you shouting and swearing.

The information on the linked site took some finding too. After some digging, the appropriate information is:-

Apparently Sue, licencee of the Blue Bell, was visited by the Local Authority at the end of last year and told of works that had to be carried out to allow the acoustic sessions to continue - there being more than two people "performing" in the course of one evening. I understand that she agreed to carry out works and was given a provisional PEL to June. The folks in the session raised £200 odd to help her a little towards the works. Due to illness or whatever, the works were not completed nor a renewed PEL applied for.

When the session restarted in September after the summer break, it was visited and closed down.

The situation now is that Sue has to be interviewed by the local authority and has been warned that she may be prosecuted.

So in full knowledge, this landlady allowed the session to carry on, didn't do the work she'd said she was going to, didn't attempt to get another PEL, and didn't even inform the session musicians of what they'd have to do to ensure they kept legal in the absence of these things being done? Does that not sound just a little bit stupid? I certainly have sympathy for her as someone being unfairly "got at" by petty local government officials, but she really hasn't helped herself (as a similar example, someone done for speeding on a road where the speed limit is way below the safe speed is still guilty, even though the speed limit is obviously incorrect). There's no sign that she's doing this as a stand against PELs as a matter of conscience - to be honest, it comes across that she's got herself in this fix through her own carelessness. If this isn't the case, please let us know. Again, this is where you should be providing us with information instead of just lots of all-caps swearing.

I certainly don't believe the *current* PEL system is a good thing - this case demonstrates clearly that "two-in-a-bar" doesn't work. The new PEL system is in progress and it's clearly not yet right, but given the reaction from the House of Lords, it should be getting there. I'm not going to go into the EDM now, but parts of that are misleading, and other parts are utterly incorrect. It would be wrong of me to call the person who raised the EDM a liar, but they have certainly phrased it with the deliberate intention to mislead.

Graham.

Subject: RE: A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)
From: InOBU
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 09:11 AM

We have no 'music police' in the USA ... no, in fact we do! In New York, Folk Music is the primary victem of the caberet laws, the New York equivelant, it is why there are a lot of sessions, but few paying gigs. As to shouting, give a guy a break, I know how the shambles feels, for those of us trying to make a way on the traditions to which this board is dedicated, well, sometimes we seem to have a huge numbers of experts on everything except the fustrations of singing to an uncaring world. Uncaring? Well, yes, the applause is great, but try clapping to pay your taxes or for your food. Shambles is FUSTRATED because WE who play and support folk music should be the first line of support, emotional and otherwize for the heroes like the Shambles who are out their fighting to keep YOUR interests alive. Folk music will not out live its culturual importance, and folks like the Shambles are trying to do that, so dear friends, cut him some slack and more, give him cudos for his efforts on YOUR behalf, and help along the road...
Now in the words of my Rom (Gypsy) pal, Mihi, who cursed out the warden and his wife in a French prison, "you may beat ME up now..."
Cheers all,
happy christmas
and a musical new year...
Larry

Subject: RE: A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 10:08 AM

I sent an email of support concerning the draconian measures of the PEL and received a very kind reply from Colin T. of the Peterborough Folk Diary. Here's the important bits of what he had to say:

Unfortunately the Blue Bell was the victim of a ruling which was introduced
in 1961 to make it *easier* for pubs to put on live entertainment as the
existing law was too stringent. An anonymous complaint was made...so the local Environmental Health authority had no choice but to take action.

Fortunately the situation seems to have been resolved as, I understand, the
Blue Bell now has a PEL.

The ridiculous part is that the government is bringing in a *reform*
intended to reduce the bureaucracy and inequality of charging associated
with the granting of PELs. In some ways this is a sensible move but the
proposed law is badly framed and has the result of catching almost everybody
who plays music to an audience, whether in a public place or even in a
private residence. This consequence was probably not intended by the
legislators and I think that when the law is finally passed (as it will be)
there will have been some amendments to remove the sillier effects.

Thanks, Shambles, for keeping at this and bringing it to our attention.

kat

Subject: RE: A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 01:52 PM

Fortunately the situation seems to have been resolved as, I understand, the Blue Bell now has a PEL.

Not too sure if that is correct. It is a little early for detail to filter through yet, but if the pub now has a PEL, does that really mean a satifactory resolution for all involved. Has anyone proved the activity required it?

Trying to ensure the licensee was not prosecuted was the first aim, it remains to be seen just how this little matter has been gotten around.

Thanks for all the nice things but the issue is not about me and although reading those nice things make a pleasant change, it does tend to wave a 'red rag' to the 'bulls' who can only seem to see it as a personal issue.

Merry Christmas to those of us who can make mistakes and misjudgments. The perfect ones among us, those who are without sin, can carry on throwing the stones.

Subject: RE: A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)
From: Kim C
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 02:13 PM

As I understand it, in the US, every establishment that plays a radio, a jukebox, or has live music, is supposed to buy a license from BMI & ASCAP. The theory is that the license fees protect the untraceable royalties that come from such public performance. How much the artists actually get from these fees is anyone's guess. There have been instances of things like, Pop's Barber Shop getting sued by the performing rights organizations because he was playing a transistor radio on the counter and didn't have a license.

Although, I worked at an ice cream store just 4 blocks from Music Row for years - we had a stereo in there, no license, and no one ever said boo.

The PEL issue sounds to me like it's someone just wanting to get their hands into your pockets.

Subject: RE: A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)
From: InOBU
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 02:13 PM

Hey Our Shambles has come up with a great idea for keeping folk funded and alive! Sham, ol skin! Lets sell sinless thowing stones! If you are without sin buy our well rounded thowing stones, and toss em at folks you are better than! These days we'd make a mint! SH*t Sherlock! We could make enough to fund all our music and other manias!
Cheers
Larry

Subject: RE: A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Dec 02 - 11:19 AM

Details of the enclosed quote, and the entire Lords debate, can be found on the Paliament website.

http://www.publi">a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds02/text/21212-01.htm#21212-01_head2">http://www.publi

I think we really must try, both nationally and locally to use the current season to highlight the situation. The following sent to my local paper.

A Christmas present from Tony?

'In Brief', in Saturday's Echo, contained news of three events. Wessex Morris Men's mummer's play to be held in pub, a carol concert in one church and Christmas readings and music to be held in another church.

Can I suggest that we enjoy these activities while we can?

For our Government's new Licensing Bill, plans to make all these and the following seasonal activities illegal.

"People singing carols in a supermarket or a railway station and so on would need to be covered by a premises licence or a temporary event notice." [Lord McIntosh, Government whip, 1st Committee stage debate of the Licensing Bill, House of Lords, 12 December 2002].

All church concerts will soon be required to apply for advanced local authority permission and to pay for a the 'entertainment' element of the proposed Premises Licence.

Merry Christmas?

Subject: RE: A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)
From: GUEST,Richard Bridge (cookie and format C)
Date: 15 Dec 02 - 03:39 PM

Joe, Graham

Shame on you.

Gargoyle - shame on you too, but I guess you do it for fun, so I can take you with a pinch of salt.

InOBU - right on!

The current law relating to entertainment licensing is universally acknowledged to be a mess.

The Licensing Bill is far worse.

Subject: RE: A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)
From: GUEST,Richard Bridge with no cookie
Date: 15 Dec 02 - 03:54 PM

Oh, and Sham, good for you.

But I would like to know accurately the present situation and if a deal involving a PEL application has been done and if the landlady has legal representation (and if so who).

Subject: RE: A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Dec 02 - 04:56 PM

No detials yet.

Subject: RE: A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)
From: Red and White Rabbit
Date: 16 Dec 02 - 04:50 PM

I just got e-mailed this so I'm circulating it!!


Please circulate

The creators of the none in a bar Licensing Bill are stuck in the 18th-century. The Bill is constructed as if 21st century safety, noise and crime and disorder legislation had never happened. The maximum penalty of a £20,000 fine and six months in prison for an unlicensed performance of live music is greater than for a serious breach of health and safety, or noise, legislation (which does not carry a potential custodial sentence). This was one reason why existing PEL legislation was rubbished in Parliament earlier this year as 'archaic and just plain daft.' But, unbelievably, the government has just confirmed that the penalty would continue to apply to carol singers:

"People singing carols in a supermarket or a railway station and so on would need to be covered by a premises licence or a temporary event notice." [Lord McIntosh, government whip, 1st Committee stage debate of the Licensing Bill, House of Lords, 12 December 2002]

Criminalising live music without a licence was an 18th century innovation. It was a crime and disorder measure, applying only to pubs in Westminster, at a time when there was no unified police force for London. Public safety and noise legislation was rudimentary or non-existent.

The Bill is a gift to jobsworths. Rest assured local authorities will enforce 'none in a bar' if this Bill is passed without amendment. Licensees, and musicians, will be treated as criminals where there is no safety risk and no noise complaint.

EDM 331 has been adapted as an 'E-Petition'.

You can add your signature on the following site:http://www.musiclovers.ukart.com/

The UK government do recognise E Petitions. Read their policy. http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/page598.asp It explains why you need to enter a valid postal address. Please add your name to this and take the opportunity to possibly make a difference.

Subject: RE: A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 01:48 AM

Our noble Lords may claim to understand the subtle differences in the way the Bill proposes to treat Christmas carols and why, but do you?

The situation in the following is simply defended by the Government on the grounds that it is really just the same under current legislation. Is this rather badly missing the point they are proudly proposing a deregulatory 'reform' of current legislation, in this Bill?

"People singing carols in a supermarket or a railway station and so on would need to be covered by a premises licence or a temporary event notice." [Lord McIntosh, government whip, 1st Committee stage debate of the Licensing Bill, House of Lords, 12 December 2002. So..........

Carol singers in a shop or station require a licence.

Carol singers in church service do not require a licence.

Carol singers in a church concert do require a licence.

I find that it is rather difficult to square the above and the heavy penalties, with the stated objectives of this 'reform' Bill, or is it just me?

Perhaps we can all ask our MPs to explain and also write to our local papers and ask others to ask their MPs?

http://www.faxyourmp.com/

Subject: RE: A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 07:21 AM

I agree with Nigel about the need to consolidate rather than just proliferating data. I realise that everyone would like to have their say on the issue and show their support, but this morning my mail included messages from Hamish Birchall, Roger Gall (The Shambles), Richard Bridge, and Tom Brown - most of it containing identical information. I even find that one party will e-mail me with quotes from an e-mail which I've already received from someone else. The amount of e-mail that I receive on the PEL subject (both at work and at home) is now far outnumbering any spam that I get.

Over-saturation with any information tends to lead to lead to apathy about it or sometimes even a counter-reaction. Would it be possible for Richard, Roger, Hamish et al to form a little group and only release consolidated information. I feel that this would have much more impact and would be more effective in the long run.

Subject: RE: A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)
From: pavane
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 07:28 AM

From what I have read above, EVERY carol singer in a school or church concert will have to ask to see a copy of the licence, or risk imprisonment or a £20,000 fine!

Subject: RE: A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 07:48 AM

Would it be possible for Richard, Roger, Hamish et al to form a little group and only release consolidated information. I feel that this would have much more impact and would be more effective in the long run.

These points have been well made and addressed, but no one is pretending to be perfect. If one still has to use the delete button, it is a nuisence and too much info can lead to a little apathy it is true.............But

This is not an ideal situation, the ship is about to hit the iceberg, the band have not got a licence to play and although it would be nice to have all the deckchairs in place, are there possibly more pressing needs?

This is rather like to BBC and bias debate. Both sides think the BBC is baised to the other.

We get two main complaints.
1 We don't know and can't find it.
2 We know all we need and don't need any more.

If anyone knows the answer to these problems, please don't write about it, can they please just do it?

Dave as I can't speak for anyone else, I will not send you anymore info. All you had to do is ask me quietly to stop, for it is only you that knows (or needs to know) that you have a problem. If you wish me to resume, please let me know.

Subject: RE: A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)
From: GUEST,Rag
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 08:06 AM

I think the Shambles spamming has reduced the impact of the PEL information because most of it seems to be repeat information from Hamish elaborated with some rather unfocussed rantings.

It's useful to have the info but it would help everyone if it was separated from the usual invective and rhetoric.

Everything from Hamish has been useful and to the point - can't say the same for Shambles though.

Subject: RE: A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 08:10 AM

Dear Dave

http://www.geocities.com/actionformusic/

Most of the the answer is simple. On the above site you can join a Yahoo email list. Many are already on this, one message goes to all on it.

When you and others having similar problems get on the list, you can tell all the folk sending you stuff to join and send it here instead.

Perhaps you could spread the word? I have tried to do this but there is rather a lot else to do.

And can we all really try to encourage the nit-pickers to nit-pick the other side, rather than them to encouraging to nit-pick our side?

Roger

Subject: RE: A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)
From: Grab
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 08:36 AM

Regarding some issues raised in the EDM (see column 345 in this link):-

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: ...A wedding party, for example, does not constitute an event conducted in the presence of members of the public. It involves invited guests. A music shop does involve members of the public but the main purpose of the music shop is to sell music, not to invite people in to listen to music. Those people are not charged for coming into the shop to listen to music. There is no question of music shops, wedding parties or anything else of that sort being covered by the Bill. That is simply not provided for.

That blows out a large portion of the EDM.

Regarding the "carol singers" issue (link here):-

Carol singers going door-to-door, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, or taking part in a religious service are not licensable.

So Shambles, your third concern is not a problem. However (the quote used):-

People singing carols in a supermarket or a railway station and so on would need to be covered by a premises licence or a temporary event notice. That is hardly different from the present situation.

Sounds serious. But see this link for the current situation. Two useful paragraphs:-

You will have to wear any ID provided by the manager. In the UK, you do not need to inform your local authority if you are collecting on supermarket premises as these are classed as private property.

If you wish to collect in a public place, you must apply to your local authority (or in London, the Metropolitan Police if the collection will be in the Metropolitan Police area; or the Common Council of the City of London if you are in the City) at least one month in advance for permission and comply with any regulations that they specify.

So it seems that under the new rules, if you're singing in a shop then the shop will have to have a (temporary) license - that's their problem, in the same way as licensing a pub is the landlord's problem. This may seem overkill for carol singing, but consider if instead of the carol singers performing for a few hours on Saturday morning, they had a rock band playing outside the supermarket at 10pm on Monday night, with all the knobs cranked up to 11? That would be *very* popular with local residents with kids, right? ;-) The quest for this new system is to get one set of rules that covers everything without adding a bunch of special cases, because special cases never work and just provide lawyers with a way of spending people's money.

For public carol singing and collecting money, it seems the situation is unchanged - you just need to comply with local authority requirements.

Graham.

Subject: RE: A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)
From: pavane
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 08:55 AM

Neither were people singing Happy Birthday in a pub thought to be liable until a council prosecuted. And once they do, it is academic, because no-one will risk the cost fighting it. If the council say you need a licence for your wedding party, because the band are paid performers, and MAYBE you will get gatecrashers (or undercover council officers), can YOU afford to fight it?

Better to have such circumstances CLEARLY EXCLUDED

Subject: RE: A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)
From: IanC
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 09:07 AM

Graham (Grab)

It's important to understand that it's what the bill itself says, not what the government says about it, which will be on the statute books.

You should therefore lean to disregard completely and of the associated statements from government spokespersons ... THESE WILL NOT BE IN THE ACT unless it is re-worded. As it is worded at present, the bill DOES catch Weddings, Carol Singers, and for that matter Bell-Ringers.

That's why we're currently asking for changes to the WORDING OF THE BILL.

:-)

Subject: RE: A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 09:08 AM

You would be right, Graham, if the rest of the House of Lords simply said, "Oh, yes, we see that now" to Lord Macintosh's responses. In fact, they are generally unsatisfied with the responses, regard them as inconsistant and say so, but do so using various conventions of politeness. There is still great confusion over what constititutes "the public" for wedding parties for example. An example is given where the death of a well-known local figure is announced in the local paper and people invited to come and pay their respects. Is that open to the public or not?

As far as your other examples are, I would not want a rock band outside my local supermarket at 10pm either. But there are existing noise regulations that can deal with it without the need for anything in this legislation.

My starting point, along with that of many other people, is that noise and health-and-safety issues are a matter for noise and heath-and-safety regulations and there are whole government departments with that as their responsibility: these issues are nothing to do legislation regulating entertainment as such and should not appear to be the prime concern of a department supposedly promoting culture.

Subject: RE: A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 09:18 AM

Killed by the PEL system 2

See the above for the latest silliness under our 'unchanged' current system.

For public carol singing and collecting money, it seems the situation is unchanged - you just need to comply with local authority requirements.

Subject: RE: A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)
From: cyder_drinker
Date: 18 Dec 02 - 08:54 PM

Shambles-
Thanks to your use of profanity earlier in this thread,
my IT department have now blocked access to mudcat.org
from my place of work.

Cheers, pal.

Subject: RE: A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)
From: GUEST,pavane
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 07:18 AM

So that's why I can't get in either?
Maybe a Joeclone could edit the thread - would that help?
I can only get in on ragtime, not www, and cannot get to the membership page to log in!

Subject: RE: A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)
From: GUEST,Richard Bridge (cookie and format C)
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 06:32 PM

Three issues here.

Neither Hamish, nor Sham, nor I have time to act as the one point of contact for the outflow of all information. Nor are we such retentive news managers as Blair and cronies. But there are many people who need to know, and we all want to make sure they all do know.

If people do not know what is going on they cannot organise to fight it.

Second, much of what Lord McIntosh has said is not correct. Please read the schedule to the bill if not the whole bill. This government is systematically lying about what the bill will mean, to the public, to the houses of parliament, and in briefings to all MPs. Not all of what opponents of the bill have said is true, but their exaggerations are rarer and lesser.

Third, I do get rather tired of the holier-than-thou brigade who object to seeing here in circumstances of extreme provocation, lesser profanities that they will hear 13 year old girls use on the streetcorners of our towns and villages every minute of every day.

Sham I may not always see eye to eye with you, but keep it up!

Subject: RE: A Criminal Conviction for Christmas? (PEL)
From: Nemesis
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 07:37 PM

PLEASE put the details of this protest event in your calendar and pass it on to as many people as possible, and please attend if you can.   Just in case .. the House of Lords has confirmed that carol singing will be a licensable event (same license that a Landlord has to apply for!

                        Monday 27 January 2003, 1:00 PM
                           Parliament Square, London
                               Mozart's Birthday
                                  Silent Protest

To illustrate the apalling impact that the Government's Licensing Bill will have on live and community music-making.
Bring your instrument (AND A GAG -medical-type mouth-coverings work well),
but don't play it.