PELs (sorry)

Subject: PELs (sorry)
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 31 Dec 04 - 11:18 AM

I guess this is no way to start the New Year but I am a bit daunted by the archive of threads on this subject.

What is the current position?

How many in a bar, so to speak.

Subject: RE: PELs (sorry)
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 31 Dec 04 - 11:40 AM

fair request..

a simple concise objective briefing on this subject
and its possible negative consequences...

would be a very useful new years gift that i could forward
to a mate who's a very busy provincial town politician
involved in promoting local live music events..

i recently discovered he's as badly informed and confused
as a lot of us musicians about this issue..

happy new year

Subject: RE: PELs (sorry)
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 31 Dec 04 - 07:15 PM

"How many musicians to a bar"

"Are they Dead Beats?"

Subject: RE: PELs (sorry)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Dec 04 - 07:45 PM

2. until later this year. If anyone enforces the current law.

Subject: RE: PELs (sorry)
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 31 Dec 04 - 08:06 PM

people of the peolples party, what needs to be done?

Subject: RE: PELs (sorry)
From: GUEST,Penny Black - recovering in back of the bar!
Date: 31 Dec 04 - 10:30 PM

You may find this site of use

PB

PS - Happy New Year

Subject: RE: PELs (sorry)
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 01 Jan 05 - 11:26 AM

Thanks PB

Does this, taken from the Dept site, suggest that informal singarounds and sessions

"Are there any exemptions from the requirement of a premises licence when providing entertainment?

Yes. But note that if alcohol is to be supplied, or late night refreshment provided, a licence will be required for those activities. The main exemptions for the provision of entertainment and entertainment facilities from the requirement for a licence under the Licensing Act are as follows:

morris dancing or any dancing of a similar nature, or a performance of unamplified live music as an integral part of such dancing;

incidental music – the performance of live music or the playing of recorded music if it is incidental to some other activity which is not itself regulated entertainment;

Happy New Year to you too

Subject: RE: PELs (sorry)
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Jan 05 - 01:05 PM

A little more news on licensing

Subject: RE: PELs (sorry)
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Jan 05 - 01:09 PM

The very simple answer is that if licensees do not choose to apply for the option of entertainment permission along with their Premises Licence - from February 2005, there will not be anybody allowed to make any music (bar the exemptions).

Subject: RE: PELs (sorry)
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 01 Jan 05 - 01:31 PM

I did go to the archive before I posted the first message, if anything it caused me to ask for the current position.

I still can't tell what the position of sing arounds and sessions is likely to be.

Am I as confused as evrybody else?

Subject: RE: PELs (sorry)
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Jan 05 - 06:19 AM

This subject is pretty much the same as many others - the more answers you have - the more questions there are to ask.

As to the position of sessions etc - (if all premises do not apply for entertainment permission) it is down to your Council - as the local Licensing Authority - as before.....

Perhaps you can establish and tell us what their position is to be, in their (and your) local Licensing Policy?

Subject: RE: PELs (sorry)
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Jan 05 - 06:22 AM

The position looks to be further complicated by other issues.

Have Sam Smiths banned music in all their pubs?

Subject: RE: PELs (sorry)
From: GUEST,Penny Black - crawling out of the Bar
Date: 02 Jan 05 - 07:37 AM

"As to the position of sessions etc - (if all premises do not apply for entertainment permission) it is down to your Council - as the local Licensing Authority - as before"

As Shambles says above: Prosecution is down to local council (or Police Authority if noise complaint is involved)

Incidental music - No (from the horses/asses mouth)

Spontaneous - possibly - if it really is! - this was to "poo poo" the "Happy Birthday" prosecution reference (and DID happen). Remember you can't claim it was spontaneous if it in anyway was organised or advertised (verbal, posters et al)

Morris dancing (and similar) not sessions (though you might get away if the musicians end up, after a Morris team display, having a music session (see above)

but basically: No Licence - No Music

Even if the Pub etc has a license watch out for further problems if anyone uses amplified instruments/vocal amps etc. as these will have to be plugged in at special points (for cut out in emergency), may need to be in Stage area, and will require Pat certificates.

PB

(there's a lot more, as Shambles says, so look through all the threads and maybe have a chat with your local council enforcement officer for local "guide Lines")

Subject: RE: PELs (sorry)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Jan 05 - 09:37 AM

For heaven's sake, how many times do I have to tell the DCMS to read their own Act. There is no exemption for spontaneous anything. It may very well be that spontaneous things are unlikely to be prosecuted, but if something would have been illegal if it was not spontaneous, it is still illegal if it is spontaneous (once the new law is fully in effect).

The overall position will be that singarounds and sessions will be illegal unless either: -

a) There has been an application for a relevant permission, and the conditions of that permission have been complied with and, save to the extent that they are disapplied by the partial exemption for unampified music, continue to be complied with; or

b) When the issue has been litigated the courts find that the word "incidental" is wider in its meaning than the DCMS think - and I for one think that the Human Rights Act is likely to mandate a considerably broader meaning to that word than the arrogant and mendacious Howells indicated.

Subject: RE: PELs (sorry)
From: RichardP
Date: 02 Jan 05 - 01:01 PM

Although, the practical impact may be the same; surely Richard is incorrect in everything that hs ways in item b above.

a) Actions under the Human Rights Act cannot change the meaning of "incidental", they can only establish that the legal meaning of the word results in an unlawful contraint on Human Rights.

b) Whilst litigation may establish that "incidental" has a wider meaning than the DCMS think, but that would not alter what is legal, it will just establish that people who assumed that it was illegal because of a ministerial statement were wrong and that it was legal all along.

Essentially the courts do not change the law, they eradicate incorrect assumptions about its meaning.

That brings us to the crunch question. Does Richard think that the Act makes singarounds illegal or does he think that they are actually legal but that people will be too lacking in confidence to take advantage of the legality?

Richard

Subject: RE: PELs (sorry)
From: PennyBlack
Date: 02 Jan 05 - 01:10 PM

Richard.. by the word of the "law" yes but prosecution of the owner, if a group of people start singing in a pub or any other relevant non-licensed locations is not going to happen under normal circumstances.

the Human Rights Act - already "Played" had very little (if any) effect.

Most people will agree that the act is neither fair or well thought out (along with several others recently implemented) - but if sessions are to keep going the best way is to get Landlord to apply for the "Full" license.

We along with many other bands suffered under the "Two in a Bar" rule, which was abused by Landlords to keep from buying a license, although they were happy to have the increase in sales when they had music supplied by duos and solo artists some with backing tapes (even though that was illegal), bad "stage" areas with ropey power supplies etc. So some of the demands for the new license are welcomed, but still badly applied - our poor comic friends, magicians etc. still can work under dangerous conditions. All entertainment should fall within the licence.

I know from talks with our license enforcement officers that premises suspected of ignoring the new licensing have already been targeted for prosecution once it has been implemented.

PB

Subject: RE: PELs (sorry)
From: PennyBlack
Date: 02 Jan 05 - 01:24 PM

last entry was in reply to RichardB not RichardP.


PB

Subject: RE: PELs (sorry)
From: RichardP
Date: 02 Jan 05 - 03:18 PM

A further point for Richard B.

He is correct in indicating that, when the relevant minister, gave confused and inhelpful answers to many questions. You don't need to read much parliamentary debate to realise that misunderstanding of the subject or document under discussion is the norm. However, it is not what is said that matters, but what is printed in the law. The total law about incidental music is:

The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of live music or the playing of recorded music is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act to the extent that it is incidental to some other activity which is not itself-

(a) a description of entertainment falling within paragraph 2, or
(b) the provision of entertainment facilities.

That seems to be pretty wide. Let's start to list some activities that are not covered by a or b above: Selling underwear in a shop, going up in a lift, Performing a Morris Dance (actually mentioned in debate), Selling bottles in a supermarket, selling coffee in coffee bar, selling beer in a pub, performing a play (also mentioned in debate). Can Richard indicate anything in any law that divides items in that list into different categories or explicitly states that any of them fall into category a or b?

Richard

Subject: RE: PELs (sorry)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Jan 05 - 09:26 PM

As far as I have been able to find out, the majority of landlords in my area (Maidstone, Kent) are going to a meeting, presumably of LVA and Brewery Personnel, at which the applications are to be dealt with en masse, which should mean that most will opt for all the available options. It is thought, however, that it may take up to eight months to get the licences sorted, and any pub which has not had a PEL, will have no grandfather rights to live music. So we can expect some folk club venues to be closed, as the landlords will have to keep their noses clean or risk refusal. So even two-in-a-bar may not happen. Pubs which previously had PELs will carry on as normal until the new licences appear.

Silent pubs may well be the norm for several months after the deadline for business plan applications, which, I am told, is about two weeks from now. We told Tony and his minions they could not trust local government to handle this! THEY NEVER BLOODY LISTEN, and it's ironic that you probably need a PEL to run a piss-up in a brewery, so that won't happen for a while either.

Don T.

Subject: RE: PELs (sorry)
From: RichardP
Date: 03 Jan 05 - 03:34 AM

Don,

First applications to be submitted in February. New licences replace old licences in September. There are six months from March to August. That makes eight months in all (albeit counting inclusively, which is good enough maths for PR people.) Consequently the 8 months may just be the planned period from first to second appointed day. On the other hand if Maidstone think that it may take them until May 2006 to complete the initial issue there wil indeed be utter chaos.

I hope that you have overheard some unclear woolly briefing.

Richard.

Subject: RE: PELs (sorry)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Jan 05 - 11:47 AM

Richard,

I hope so too, because if not, my club will be one of those going out of existence, however temporarily. No grandfather rights there.

Don T.

Subject: RE: PELs (sorry)
From: pavane
Date: 03 Jan 05 - 02:19 PM

Just noticed PAT certificate - can someone clarify?

PS it looks like American usage is creeping in.
In the UK, LICENCE is a noun, to LICENSE is a verb.

PPS In the U.S.A., the illogical term Drivers License is used - OK it belongs to a driver, but it could be his licence for something completely different, such as flying!

I have managed to ensure that the correct term DRIVING licence is used on the National Lottery web site, at least.

Subject: RE: PELs (sorry)
From: PennyBlack
Date: 03 Jan 05 - 04:41 PM

PAT Certificate (Sticker)

More and More Venues, Festivals etc. are insisting on seeing Portable Appliance Testing (PAT) labels on gear (quite rightly), we've had our gear regularly tested for more years than I can remember for our safety as well as that of our audiences, likewise we carry public liability in excess of 20 million UKP.

Health and Safety regulations, (and common sense) require that all portable electrical equipment used in public places must be checked and tested at regular intervals.

A schedule of the equipment should be maintained, with labels stuck to the equipment giving details of the testing and confirming that it is safe to use once it is over a certain age (usually a year).

Many artists/bands are either unaware of this, or worse still, cannot be bothered to comply with the legislation.

How many bands store gear in a damp garage, throw it into the transit once a week and play 'gigs' in damp fields and/or dusty barns? Unless they comply with the law and get their gear checked there will always be an element of risk to the band and audience, with even a possible legal liability against whoever is organising the event.

PB

Subject: RE: PELs (sorry)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Jan 05 - 01:20 PM

I have re-read what I said. It is exactly correct.

Re: RP's first post.

I at no time said that litigation under the HRA could "change" the meaning of the word "incidental". It can however determine it.

RP's (b) is correct, and repeats what I said, up to the hyphen in that paragraph of mine, but in more words and with less precision.

I think that the word "incidental" in this context is likely to be found somewhat wider than Howells said.   I shall be surprised if it is found wide enough to cover PA rigs.

Re: PB First para. Yes. That's what I said. HRA has been argued about in this context but there has been no litigation on the issues in point.

Re: RP second post. Your point exactly?

Subject: RE: PELs (sorry)
From: RichardP
Date: 04 Jan 05 - 06:45 PM

Richard

My last point is:

The act defines incidental music.

It defines it quite widely.

It does not define it in a way which automatically precludes PA.

In the end the whole issue comes down to whether your profession and its clients stand up to Local Authority officers who try to push the restrictive boundaries or opt for an ewasy life buckling under to officers who try to maximise restrictions.

Lawyers who want to support music making should be talking up the musical opportunities under the Act rather than over-stating the difficulties. The time for that attitude was very well exercised at the right time during the passage of the act.

Richard

Subject: RE: PELs (sorry)
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 04 Jan 05 - 06:49 PM

See the other thread:

Can singing be incidental to drinking with no audience intended.

Is the nautire of audience crucial.

I have have often sang in pubs when most people present would deny that they were in any sense an audiene!

Subject: RE: PELs (sorry)
From: PennyBlack
Date: 04 Jan 05 - 10:58 PM

Les

I think it could be argued that most publicans allow the sessions to take place to bring more people into the pub (either to play/sing or listen)so they can sell more beer - this wouldn't be incidental to the purpose of the pub.

just an early morning thought ;-)

PB

Subject: RE: PELs (sorry)
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Jan 05 - 01:50 AM

Lawyers who want to support music making should be talking up the musical opportunities under the Act rather than over-stating the difficulties. The time for that attitude was very well exercised at the right time during the passage of the act.

ANYONE who supports music making should NOT be UNDER-STATING the difficuties presented by the Act. There would appear to be no time limit for this 'spin'. For Richard P - that is all you have ever done in your posts on this subject.

As pointed out, these so-called opportunities for music making, will not be presented in any of Sam Smith's pubs - I wonder how many others will also think like this and follow suit. I wonder also what excuses you will provide for all this?

I would like to see where the (continued) licensing of any activity (and the increasing of overall costs) has ever increased its opportunities. The absence of licensing on music making - may have had this effect, but sadly this oppotunity was missed and that is not what this Act does.