A session protest outside Parliament? Great idea... but think carefully about the timing. Bear in mind that if the Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Bill is announced in the Queen's Speech on 13 November, it is likely to be a few weeks before it is actually published. Until it is published, along with the accompanying 'guidance' promised by the DCMS, we cannot be absolutely certain of its contents.

It should be remembered that there are two related but different concerns here. The problems presented by the current legislation and those presented by the proposed Bill.

In the unlikely event that the published Bill contains all of the common sense measures, that presently it does not contain, we still have the problem of the current legislation. This will still be with us for some time, possibly years? If the published Bill turns out to be the expected rubbish, although it may be wise to wait for the maximum coverage and effect, we should be preparing now for a long haul to ensure that we do not lose any more events.

Whilst we may have to accept that no matter how senseless we may feel it is, more than two 'performers' in conventional public entertainment, is illegal without a PEL and the only arrival of new legislation can change this.

However, the interpretation of the word 'performer' as a customer making unpaid music for their own pleasure in a pub, is even stated by one local authority, who used it to prevent unpaid folk sessions, 'as never been tested in Court'.

It has been established (by Hamish's hard work), that the matter of who exactly is considered to be a performer, is one for each individual Licensing Authority (usually the borough council). Until the new legislation comes in and possibly makes the word irrelevant, this definition is a matter for our locally elected representatives i.e. our local councillors.

I have not yet come across any elected representative, at national or local level that thinks it is right for this interoperation to be used to prevent ordinary people making music in a pub......Or that two customers making music, automatically make the premises unsafe, when joined by a third customer. Employees of the council wrongly tell them, that the law gives them no choice.

So it should be easy, in theory, for the remaining term of this current legislation, to get our local authorities to use a more sensible definition of the word 'performer', one that did not risk preventing folk song and dancing activities in particular. Regular Morris on private (pub) land is prevented by this interpretation. In practice it has, to date been impossible.

The steamroller effect, that this local authority enforcement is based on anything more than just a myth of some sound case law precedent, has caused and is still causing many session to close, in many case just in fear that a local authority may take action.

But there is case that has established that customers making their own unpaid music, on a regular basis, is not Licensable Public Entertainment, Brearly -v- Moreley 1899. There must be a good chance that if a licensee was prepared to go to Court to enable a threatened session, that they would win. The sad thing about this legislation is that this is most unlikely to happen, so the bullying just continues.

This is NOT by any means a complete list but only a list where first hand detailed accounts are available. All of the sessions listed here have been affected (terminally in many cases), by local authority enforcement or the fear of it. All of this enforcement of unpaid sessions is broadly based on the interpretation of the 'two in a bar rule' that members of the public, making unpaid music for their own pleasure, are counted as performers in a public entertainment.

An interpretation that Greenwich Council (who appear in the list twice) accept and freely state that this interpretation has never been tested in Court.

And the Government Minister responsible, Dr Howells states in a letter to Michael Portillo 14/03/02.

"However, under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 1964 a public entertainment licence is not required if music or dancing is performed by less than three performers on licensed premises i.e. the 'two in a bar rule'. The rule is intended to apply to public performances put on by a public house to entertain the public and should not prevent ordinary people singing together or dancing in public houses".

Sessions/singarounds

The Old Ale House, Oxford April 2000
The Cove House Inn, Portland December 2000
The Welsh Harp, Waltham Abbey ….2001
The Cock, Stansted Mountfitchett, May 2002
The Guildford Arms, Greenwich, May 2002
The Cricketers, Greenwich, May 2002
The Cannon, Newport Pagnall, May 2002
The Bull, Stony Stratford, June 2002
The Blue Bell, Helpston, September 2002
The Lands End, Twyford, October 2002
The Ruiston Inn, Taunton, Oct 2002

Menbers only clubs

The Old King's Head, The Belper Folk Club, May 2002
Broadacres, The Bridlington Folk Club, July 2002
The Henry VIII Hotel, Bayswater, Tall Poppy Presents, July 2002

Miscellaneous

Waterstones Book Shop, London, 2001
Broadstairs Folk Festival, One-Man-Show, August 2002.

Please help to ensure that we do not lose even one more event to this stupidity.

http://www.faxyourmp.com/>http://www.faxyourmp.com/