The following from Hamish Birchall.

Last Saturday (20 September) London-based radio station Jazz FM gave former licensing minister Kim Howells a slot as a guest DJ.

There must be dozens of MPs who are jazz literate, equally competent as radio presenters, but who are not responsible for launching legislation that automatically allows bars to be packed with football supporters, big screens and powerful sound systems, but which criminalises the provision of even solo unamplified musicians unless licensed as 'regulated entertainment'.

For those within Jazz FM's range (or even outside it!) the person to write to is:

Mark Walker
Programme Director
Jazz FM
26-27 Castlereagh Street
London W1H 5DL

email: mark.walker@jazzfm.com

The following is a letter to the station and some futher comments /advice from David Meacock - who is now a Councillor.

Here is my letter to Mr Walker:

Dear Mr Walker,

As one of the key movers in defeating Mr Howells' attempts to wreck public entertainment - by licensing churches - I write to protest at you having him appear as a guest DJ on your radio station.

I find it highly ironic that you should offer Mr Howells a job when his actions will likely deprive many jazz and light music musicians of theirs. For, as one of the Councillors who is looking at the draft Licensing policy of my District Council I can tell you that the likely added administrative burden on those new Licensees who previously have been exempt from licenses will be such as to make them decide to dispense with entertainment altogether: I certainly would if I was in their position, unless the pain of the bureaucracy was outweighed by the enormity of the profit produced from the small scale entertainment - unlikely.

I hope you will therefore not invite Mr Howells to appear again on your programme in protest at his un-necessary anti-live music legislation.

Cllr David G. Meacock.

ENDS.

The reason for copying it to all of you is to suggest that you get in touch with whoever is looking at your local District Council's draft Licensing policy - they all have a pretty free hand - and lobby to make sure that your local Council's Licensing Policy is as brief, and easy for everyone to handle and comply with, as possible.

You could find that Licensees have to produce a thick document of their own containing all their licensing policies. I'm trying to push for a simpler regime so that the Council sets out a list of requirements which will be applicable to most applicants, and so for the most part, applicants simply tick the applicable boxes rather like a mechanic ticks certain boxes and not others on a car service/MOT sheet according to which apply to your make/model of car.

Only individual exceptions to the 'norm' would then require a unique explanation. Some Officers may see creating the most bureaucratic system possible - on the pretext of complying with statutory requirements - as a way of making their and their fellow Officers' Council jobs more secure. However, Councillors will want to keep administration costs of their new licensing responsibilities requirement down, and thus minimise the need for extra officers to deal with this nonsense - since it will otherwise feed through into a percent or two on Council Tax.

Thus, in my opinion, there is everything to gain from taking an interest in your local Council's approach and little to lose. I suggest that making an issue of it in the local press will also help avoid Councillors rubber stamping un-necessarily bureaucratic local regimes and thus maximise maintenance of the status quo.

To paraphrase Voltaire, as I'm a classical pianist and conductor, I may not always like what I hear, but as long as it does not cause a nuisance, I will defend the right of promoters and their musicians to continue playing if that's what they want to do for their customers and fans.

Good luck.

David G. Meacock.
www.davidmeacock.com