PELs and circus folk [UK]

Subject: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 05:11 AM

I heard on the radio this morning that the stupid PEL bill introduced by this meddling government, will also affect the circus. Every time they move, and the figure of 47 times p.a. was quoted, they will have to apply for a licence at the new site. What a load of pants, this is social engineering not socialism, no government in this country has ever done more to restrict our civil liberties. For a party of the left this one is far to the right of Ghengis Khan, and David Blunkett is even more right wing than the rest of them.
John

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 05:16 AM

I heard it as well, its a big load of shit, if you ask me,
this goverment is rubbish.john

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 05:24 AM

Led by a B-Liar.

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: GUEST,Peter from Essex
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 10:30 AM

I have serious problems with some of the details of the act, like the idea that live music is inherently less safe than a disco. The basic idea that a place of public resort should be inspected to a certain standard of safetly - too bloody right, if my kids go to the circus I want them to come home in one piece.

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 10:56 AM

Another case of granny government.

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 11:54 AM

A circus needs to be bloody safe, because if it isn't it's bloody dangerous. Putting up a big circus tent is not an easy thing to do, and if it's not done right it could mean a horrible disaster. And then there's all the electrics...

Like any other building, but it has to go up dozens of times a year, in different places and different conditions, with different people doing the actual job. And a lot of them don't speak the same language.

I've always assumed that there is someone whose job it is to check that that kind of thing is done properly, and that this isn't just someone in the employment of the management.

The amazing thing is how rare circus disasters are. A very impressive record.

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 12:43 PM

Is making a circus apply for entertainment permission from say 47 different local authorities, really the best way to ensure that they put the tent up properly?

Punch and Judy shows also need the same permissions to put up their tents, but the safety concerns are hardly the same - as the audience stay outside.

But the reason both have to apply is NOT really a sensible public safety measure. It is because the drafters of this Act and the committee of MPs who were supposed to fine-tune it were incompetent. And the Liberal Democrat Peers, who could and should have joined with the Tories and voted to throw the whole thing out - bottled it at the last minute.

Most of the clowns were not in the circus.

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 12:45 PM

The reason there are so few circus disasters is easy, they are probably the most inspected entertainments in the UK. Almost every time they move pitch the H&S inspector turns up at the new venue, and puts them through the wringer. There is nothing wrong with this, and public safety is top priority. The PEL however is another, and separate burden, which is nothing to do with safety, public or otherwise. It is another New Labour infringement of public liberty.
John

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 12:47 PM

And a lot of those who had someone's hand up their arse - were not puppets in a Punch and Judy show.

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 01:09 PM

That's rather what I had assumed was happening with the inspections. Reassuring.

Circuses coming to Harlow always use the same patch of ground.
Surely it'd be quite open to a local authority to grant a single annual licence to a particular patch of land, to be used by all circuses coming to town? In the same way as it is suggested in tyenguidance that they should for Morris Dancer pitches.

(NB The term PEL ceases to be the right official term for anything under the new Act, so though it is indeed stupid in various ways, it's not accurate to refer to it as "the stupid PEL bill".)

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: Nemesis
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 01:56 PM

Synopisis of article by Chris Barltrop, Billy Smart's Circus, Littlehampton, Sussex in The Argus, Thursday, March 25, 2004:

"Stringent inspections are carried out by local councils at each new venue, checking the "temporary structures" of the big top and audience seating.
"Officials also approve site layouts and fire exits and require documentation of safe working practices, rick assessment and all the other certification and proof of maintenance demanded of any business dealing with the public and its own staff.
"They are proof equipment is set up and maintained to the highest standards and circuses have an excellent safety record, with accidents to audience members being few and far between.
"... [the Home Office] wrote to circus owners four years ago assuring them unequivocally there was no intention to impose a formal license "now or at any time in the future".

"Responsibility for the new law passed to the DCMS and the Govt forgot about circuses, Morris dancing, Punch and Judy, fun fairs and a whole lot of temporary but culturally important traditional events.

"Travelling circuses will have to take out a separate licence for every venue they play. For Billy Smart's that's a town a week for 36 weeks ... for some small circuses that's a new venue every three days.

" ... it's the same fee and same long-winded process as if the big top were a fixed theatre ... circuses will have to pay over and over again.

"New guidelines for local authorities have not been published - (they were due out months ago) How much will each extra licence cost? £500 a go? £18,000 extra a year for Smart's.

"Circuses are in the ridiculous even impossible position of having no means of knowing what their budget will be in the future. They will also have to apply weeks, months ahead. [They] depend on mobility, not just to move from site to site but to change sites if the weather dictates or local circumstances change.

The Arts Council's Circus Arts Forum: "The current legislation is unworkable ..." It talks about a "last chance" for the circus and of its threatened "destruction".

"Minister Richard Caborn: "We don't believe circuses won't manage, there's no special case."

The big top could be about to leave town for the last time....
CB

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 03:05 PM

Goodbye cruel world.
John

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: RichardP
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 03:36 PM

As usual McGrath has a grasp on reality in this thread, whereas the majority of posters (and the representative of Billy Smart's Circus) are airing prejudices based on little if any knowledge of the Act or the guidance.

1)    Circus is not mentioned in the Act and Circus as such is not subject to licencing.

2)    There are some mentions of circuses in the Guidance. There is recognition that most of the music would be incidental to traditional circus acts and hence would be exempt for licencing however it also notes that a circus might have an act which was music or dancing and that that act might necessitate a licence.

3)    McGrath is correct that the site could have a single licence that would cover all users including the circus. Furthermore, again as noted local authorities are urged to licence sites in their ownnership to encourage the performance of licenceable activities. Similarly, any other land owner could cover a site by a licence which would cover every user.

4)    That may leave some circuses occassionally performing licencable music or dancing on sites that are not already licenced. If the perfromances stretch over a short enough period - which often seems to be the case with circuses - a temporary event notice would suffice. If the site is used for longer a licence would have to be sought. This would cover the site indefinitely (subject to the lower annual renewal fee).

5)    The other reference to a circus is as an example of the reason for allowing more than one entertainment licence for the same premises. If an existing licence excludes a particular type of entertainment it is open to someone else to initiate a second licence in parallel (always subject to the site owner allowing the site to be used). Similarly if an existing licence held by a user rather than the owner covers the land, but that licence holder wishes to prevent someone else using the licence even although the site owner is prepared to let them, a second licence can be applied for. In reality this is a bigger incentive to allow the exisiting licence to be used (possibly for a contribution towards the licence cost) than it is likely to result in many parallel licences.

It is fine to criticise the government any time they do something stupid. But it pays to confirm that they are at fault before wasting energy on unfounded condemnations.

Richard

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: Folkiedave
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 03:54 PM

So let me get this right....

Currently circuses are stringently inspected and the laws that apply are those regarding Health and Safety (and probably Noise Abatement)and are eminently reasonable and succesful.

Similarly the laws in Scotland regarding entertainment in pubs, use Health and Safety and Noise Regulations to ensure the safety of the public.

But for some reason in England (alone in the world as far as I can gather) the presence of live music - lets say two guitars and a fiddle, requires a panoply of regulations and authorities, whilst Sky TV atracting large unruly crowds eg during the World Cup is unregulated except for the aforementioned H & S and Noise Regs.

And people who are not lobby fodder are happy to defend this? Now I am not anxious to rerun the debates but let us try and remember that which has gone before.

When you hug me mind the catheter.

Dave Eyre
www.collectorsfolk.co.uk

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 04:23 PM

Well RichardP it would seem based on both the piece on radio 4 this AM, and the quote from the Argus re Billy Smart's Circus, it appears that there is a lot of smoke, and I for one suspect fire.
If I were to start a thread condemning this government every time they did something stupid, I would wear my fingers out on my keyboard.
John

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: The Stage Manager
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 05:32 PM

There is a point I'd be interested to know if anyone can tell me is covered by this legislation. That of 'liability'.

Having done more shows of various kinds than I care to remember in Supertents, Marquees, Exhibition halls, and having built outdoor stages for innumerable festivals of various kinds, I read all this with some bemusement, and a growing sense of irritation.

About 10 years ago, I was involved in the building of quite a large structure for an outdoor festival. It soon became apparent that a number of us on the project knew a lot more about what we were doing than they guys from the local council who were meant to be inspecting the event. As the weekend of the festival grew near, so the public liability insurance increased. Largely I suspect because one of the bands appearing was having a rather long stay at No1 in the charts. The promter complained bitterly at this increase as this was a pass through cost to him. His argument was that the council have inspected everything, it had been passed, so why did he have to pay more insurance?

The answer was simple. The Council was not responsible. They may inspect the site any any structures on it built for the event. They grant you a Public Entertainment Licence, but if, God forbid ,anything goes wrong, they just turn round and say, 'Terribly sorry we didn't notice your mistake, it's your event / structure You are liable."

I am aware of nothing in this legislation that alters this. The promoter pays the cost of a licence, gets put through the wringer by the Local Authority, and still carries the can if anything goes wrong.

Frankly, when it comes to putting up or doing anything a large tent, I'd take the advice of the tent guys everytime. The council officials largely check if you've followed the published guidelines, and have got the right pieces of paper. They are not experts in the particular field, and when it comes to tents probably don't know the difference between a king pole and a queen pole.

There is another matter alluded to earlier which also concerns me. More years ago than I care to remember I did a dissertation on the relationship between alchoholic drink and the theatre. (I would include all forms of public entertainment here.) The main arguement being that the relationship between the performing arts and the pub is an important one.

Had the coming legislation been around at the time, it remains an open question as to whether Shakesperean theatre would have had the opportunity of growing from Elizabethan Inn Yards; Whether Music Hall and Variety could have happened at all, and we would have all those Victorian and Edwardian theatres everyone loves to preserve today. In the years since I undertook the study, I also wonder just how many West End successes would never have reached a stage had it not been for a first showing in a pub theatre.

I rather suspect that the folk revival of the sixties & seventies would have never got off the ground in the way that it did if this legislation had been around at the time.

I percieve three possible reasons for this current legislation:

1) It is an act of quite staggering stupidity perpetrated by a bunch of music hating phillistines.

2) It is administrative incompetence on a quite mind boggling scale.

3) It is a deliberate attempt to control popular culture and the dissemination of radical grass roots ideas which are currently out of the reach of media magnates and party spin doctors?


Public Safety? Only if public liability lies with the people making the inspections and granting the licences, otherwise what is the bloody point?


SM

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 06:07 PM

I suspect that if the insurance company were to sue the local authority and it was proved that it had failed to adequately carry out its inspection responsibilities, the local authority would be liable. Accidents can happen which could not have been foreseen, and for that reason alone insurance is, quite rightly, always required.

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: RichardP
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 08:02 PM

Back to basics.

The major impact of this Act is to repeal a whole bunch of legislation that is the cause of so much complaint. It abolishes the PEL which was instituted when the Lord Chamberlain had to approve every word and action in every play. It abolishes present legislation on liquor licencing and a whole batch of other laws.

In its place it introduces a presumption that liquor can be sold from any premises which applies for a licence, that food can be sold late at night under similar circumstances and that entertainment can take place anywhere provided a licence is sought.

The licencing authority can apply conditions to the licence provided they address one or more of four aspects of public concern:

Crime Prevention
Public Safety
Prevention of Public Nuisance
Protection of Children from Harm (principally under-age drinking)

Conditions can only be included if a one of a limited number of classes of objector request them within their area of expertise. The classes are primarily:

The applicant,
Public Health Inspectors
Police
Fire and Rescue Service
Immediate Neigbhours
Health and Safety at Work Inspectors
Child Protection Authorities

Conditions are not valid if they would properly be planning conditions.

Conditions the applicant is unhappy with can be challenged in the Magistrates Court, which has the decisive voice.

The fee is fixed nationally for any property probably based on its rateable value.

The licence cannot and definitely should not relieve anyone of their responsibilities for public safety when erecting and removing temporary structures. However licencing authorities cannot believe under the new Act that they have any role duplicating the real experts in those matters.

RichardP

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 02:12 AM

Despite Richard P's determined defence of the Act.

2) It is administrative incompetence on a quite mind boggling scale.

Are you are saying Richard that despite all the concern - that as the circus is not mentioned in the Act as a regulated entertainment - that they do not require the entertainment permissions of a Premises Licence? That the live or recorded muisic (and entertainment facilities) used in the circus are all exempt as incidental?

I suspect this is news to most of us and especially the Government and those who would expect the circus to be covered in this Act - in order to protect the public's safety.

If it is the case - then why do not the DCMS just come out and say that the circus is not covered by the new Act's licensing requirement?

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: RichardP
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 04:06 AM

Circuses are not mentioned at all in the Act.

There are only two mentions of circuses in the Guidance as follows:

5.44    There is nothing in the 2003 Act which prevents an application being made for a premises licence at premises for which a premises licence is already held. For example, a premises licence authorising the sale of alcohol may be held by one individual and another individual could apply for a premises licence in respect of the same premises or part of those premises which would authorise regulated entertainment. This also ensures that one business could not seek premises licences, for example, for all potential circus sites in England and Wales and thereby prevent other circuses from using those sites even though they had the permission of the landowner. Similarly, there is nothing to stop a temporary event notice being given for a premises in respect of which a premises licence is in force.

7.76    In the case of circuses and fairgrounds, much will depend on the content of any entertainment presented. For example, at fairgrounds, a good deal of the musical entertainment may be incidental to the main attractions and rides at the fair which are not themselves regulated entertainment. However, in the case of a circus, music and dancing are likely to be main attractions themselves (and would be regulated entertainment) amidst a range of other activities which are not all regulated entertainment.

From the above it is clear that circus as an art form does not require a licence. It would if it included a beer tent. It is the view of the DCMS that it might for one or more individual acts if the act itself was in the quite short list of entertainments that require a licence: Plays, indoor sports, boxing, wrestling, dance and music which is not incidental music.

Why don't DCMS tell us? I don't know. It appears that they would benefit from monitoring and participating in threads like these. But that would require a most remarkable change in mindset for Government.

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 04:20 AM

"Minister Richard Caborn: "We don't believe circuses won't manage, there's no special case."

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 04:22 AM

To be subject to the stringent attentions of H&S inspectors at every turn is a necessary burden that the travelling circus must bear. However to add yet another layer of bureaucracy to an already well policed activity is akin to adding insult to injury. This government would not benefit from monitoring or participating an threads like this because THEY DO NOT LISTEN TO ANYONE.
John

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 04:50 AM

This is a step towards domocracy and away from a socialist state.

Local control is better than national fiat.

Congratulations, your Mr. Blair appears to be a damn-fine-guy.

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 06:42 AM

Out came the wooden spoon.
John

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 09:10 AM

Any suggestions as to where this wooden spoon can be stuck - perhaps the same place where the Punch and Judy man places his hand?

The DCMS will not come out and tell us that the circus (or anything else) is not coverered by the Act - as they currently wish people to think that it is. Until it is expedient for them to get people to think that it is not - and then they will change and go with this.

I think the truth is that they do not actually know.

My father-in-law was an ex salesman and he opened a garden centre when he retired. He did not know too much detail about the vast amounts of plants he sold. When he was asked for example, if a particular plant would spread - he would ask them if they wanted it to. Whatever his customers said they wanted - he told them that this plant would fit the bill (whether it did or not).

The Licensing Act 2003 is a bit like this - it has certainly been sold to us in this fashion.

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 04:29 PM

7.76 In the case of circuses and fairgrounds, much will depend on the content of any entertainment presented. For example, at fairgrounds, a good deal of the musical entertainment may be incidental to the main attractions and rides at the fair which are not themselves regulated entertainment.
However, in the case of a circus, music and dancing are likely to be main attractions themselves (and would be regulated entertainment) amidst a range of other activities which are not all regulated entertainment.

From the above it is clear that circus as an art form does not require a licence.

No Richard - from my reading of the guidance (above) - it would seem to be very clear that the DCMS consider that the main attractions of a circus would be regulated entertainment and as a result, the circus does require a licence.

However, I am not sure if the words of the Act support this? Or their rather strange idea that the main attraction of a circus is ever 'likely to be' music and dancing?


As for the playing of recorded music in travelling fairs being 'incidental' and exempt. The DCMS have not heard the volume at which some of this so-called incidental music is now played. Locally we have a traditional fair which takes place once a year in the street, right next to the houses. Now this may have been OK when it was about the buying and selling of animals and the hiring of workers but not to have dodgems and other rides, a matter of feet from your front door. The poor residents feel that they have to just put up with this and in particular with the volume of the music - as it is part of the fair and charter.

Now under current legislation, if I were to set up a rock band to play live in the same street - the residents would complain and the LA would insist on a PEL (and conditions). I know this to be true as it has happened.

The same would no doubt happen under the Act but would be exempt if incidental to a fairground ride - no matter how loud (according to the words of the Act).

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: The Stage Manager
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 07:16 PM

Shambles

Do you live in Pinner by any chance?   I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw that particular fair in the High Street. Some of the rides seemed to be within a couple of feet of people's sitting rooms and bedroom windows.

If it wasn't for the existence of the 'tradition' and the charter you mention, I just can't imagine any LA agreeing to allow a fair to operate in such circumstances.

Surely though music is an absulutely integral part of Circus? Has anyone ever come accross a circus without music? Don't some clowns have their own signature tunes? I also rather fancy music is crucial to the timing and atmosphere of some acts. I'm sure it must be chosen with some care.

Also I can't believe that we can ever get into a situation where the level of H & S can become become a function of whether the music is "Incidental" or not. Licence or no licence. Structural Engineers, and Building Control Officers do not, thank goodness, see the world, or make decisions determined by these sort of criteria.

Given all that has been surmised, written and picked over, I have a gut reaction that each LA's officers will look at a venue, who is running it, what is seen to happen in it, and make a recommendation to the politicians as to whether they consider a license is required or indeed whether one should be issued if it were requested. I'm sure too that venue/pub managers, promoters and organisers will approach LAs to discuss possibilities and the requirements before running music events or pitching into a full licence application.

From the discussions on these threads, It seems to me the Act can be interpreted in a number of ways, it may take a few cases in the courts to create the precedents to determine what it actually does mean. However, by hook or by crook, I still expect to see Zippo's or Gerry Cottle's pitched down at my local park next summer.

I bet Pinner Fair comes back this year too, and someone will end up watching "The Octopus" cars rising and falling inches from their front room windows.

One other thing is for certain, Breezy will pop up on Mudcat to announce that Harvey Andrews will be appearing somewhere or other in St Albans, even if it is on Breezy's Council approved busking patch in French Row. (In the baker's if it's raining)

Where there's a will....

or to put it another way,

"Where there's a form there's a fiddle"

SM

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 02:56 PM

I don't know whether I read it correctly, but I suspect that if the LA inspectors say'No license required', all it will take is the objection of some local busybody to put the ball back at their feet again. The whole thing is a recipe for disaster, and a charter for busybodies.
John

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: RichardP
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 11:56 AM

Shambles,

The point that you overlook in your two responses to my last posting, is the fact that the Act explicitly lists all licencable entertainments. (i.e. Parliament has indeed told us what is covered by the act.) Nothing that is excluded from that list is licencable unless the act is amended at a later date to change that list. Circus is not in that list - so is not as such licencable. However, if the circus can be classed as a different licencable activity such as a play. I agree with you that the idea that the main aspect of any act in a circus muight be music or dancing is very hard to credit. If it is impossible to credit then it is impossible to credit that circus will need licenced premises under this Act.

RichardP

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 11:59 AM

Surely though music is an absulutely integral part of Circus?

This Act has us all strggling to define many words (which helpfully the Act itself does not define). However, I think that we could at least agree that whatever its use of music, (and dance) the circus IS distinct from a gig, dance or other performance of music.

I would suggest that is why we call this form of entertainment a circus and not a gig or any of other words. As Richard points out the word circus does not appear in the Act as a regulated entertainment. It is for those reasons, I would take issue with the following concept, from the latest draft guidance, which appears to be trying to get it in as a regulated entertainment, via the backdoor.

However, in the case of a circus, music and dancing are likely to be main attractions themselves (and would be regulated entertainment) amidst a range of other activities which are not all regulated entertainment.

If you wished to see music and dancing as the main attraction - there would be far better places so I would maintain that the circus is never a place where music and dancing are the main attractions. If they did decide to stage Robbie Williams and the Royal Ballet in their tents, this may indeed become regulated entertainment - but then they could hardly still be described as a circus. You could introduce a tiger into an opera - but this would hardly turn opera into a circus. Unless it escaped and ate Pavarotti......


No the fair I refer to is not in Pinner but these two examples do suggest that fairs like this may not be an uncommon situtation. I never really like to see music just as background but it is even worse, (and counter-productive) when it is used against the public, as it is here, like an offensive weapon. This is one of the reasons for the popularity of pub chains like Witherspoons - where there is no music being inflicted upon you.

It seems even more ironic then, that the Act is seen to encourge incidental (background) music.

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: The Stage Manager
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 05:26 PM

"If you wished to see music and dancing as the main attraction - there would be far better places so I would maintain that the circus is never a place where music and dancing are the main attractions. If they did decide to stage Robbie Williams and the Royal Ballet in their tents, this may indeed become regulated entertainment - but then they could hardly still be described as a circus. You could introduce a tiger into an opera - but this would hardly turn opera into a circus. Unless it escaped and ate Pavarotti......"


Also depends on who was reviewing....


Back in the 80s the companies I worked for used to do shows in the "Royal Ballet" big top in Battersea, and laterly in consecutive years presented the Bolshoi Ballet and Moscow state Circus in a huge supertent. Same tent for Circus and Ballet. Are you really telling me that under the current legislation it would be necessary to get a licence for the tent on one occasion but not the other? Even though for both shows the audience capacity was 50% larger than that of the Royal Opera House? If so then someone, somewhere really has lost touch with reality.

I could also argue that music is reduced to the point of being incidental to some modern dance pieces. But really....don't go there.   Cage's three and a half minutes is the tip of very unpleasant iceberg!

Bill

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 03:52 AM

Are you really telling me that under the current legislation it would be necessary to get a licence for the tent on one occasion but not the other?

Over to you Richard P......Are YOU saying that a travelling circus would not need LA Premises License Entertainment permission but that a travelling ballet (in the very same tent) would?

Perhaps this question should be put to our MPs to ask DCMS - who are clearly saying in their latest draft guidance, that the circus is NOT exempt from the licensing requirement?

Perhaps the circus and ballet could leave the tent but travel around the country and set up in any of the country's churches, where no such permission for any kind of entertainment is to be required under the Act?

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: RichardP
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 05:55 AM

I have just come back to this thread.

Shambles, essentially I am saying just that because music and dancing are both licencable and are the very essence of a ballet. However, it is quite possible (indeed quite likely) that the music in a circus is incidental to the entertainment.

Note that is not saying that the tent itself is not subject to a whole host of legislation about public safety and other matters that are not concenred with entertainment taking place inside the tent.

NOTE: that there is to be a half hour debate in parliament on Tuesday next, 27th April in which Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) is raising the impact of the Licencing Act on Touring Circuses.

RichardP

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: RichardP
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 03:56 AM

The debate took place yesterday. Interestingly, although the Secretary of State mentioned music, the major entertainment by which circuses are caught is sport in so far as acrobatics and trapeze are within the definition of sport since they are gymnastics disciplines.

Peter Luff is now due to lead a (previously arranged) delegation from circuses to meet the minister.

Ricahrd

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 06:02 AM

The original Bill was designed to catch-all. The fact that most has managed to escape makes it all the worse for those who remain caught.

But these (sporting events) are caught - not because they are unsafe and really needed any additional controls to make then safe, which would be understandable - but just because they are cought by the defining words of the Act.

It would be so nice if we could just go back and start again from the premises of what is safe or not. Are we now saying that circus cannot in fact take place in any church without entertainment permission because it is now considered as sporting event? What a circus!

Subject: RE: PELs and circus folk [UK]
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 06:10 AM

Interesting that there is no reference to the cirus being caught as a sport, in the latest draft guidance? Interesting, if not surprising.

Peter Luff is now due to lead a (previously arranged) delegation from circuses to meet the minister.

What can the minister say to this delgation, that he has not already said?

"Minister Richard Caborn: "We don't believe circuses won't manage, there's no special case."