The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #56178   Message #876703
Posted By: JudeL
28-Jan-03 - 12:49 PM
Thread Name: PELs: Are we over-reacting?
Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting?
If the intention of the bill was genuinely a matter of promoting public order it would not excempt large screen tv's etc. nor would it be focussing on regulating live performances rather than measuring, regulating and restricting decibel levels. ( Certain premises in areas of Bournemouth have to have a device fitted which cuts the power to the amp if a certain noise level is reached. )

There is already large amounts of legislation covering noise polution , breach of the peace, and the framework for councils to enact other local byelaws (such as one in Watford that all pubs & bars on the high street must keep their doors and windows closed after 9pm) to reduce the impact and disturbance caused.

A bill that extends the need for a public entertainments licence to all public places instead of just those premises currently licenced to serve alcohol cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called deregulatory, (even if it also includes letting pubs stay open longer).

There are a number of possibilities to explain Kim Howells statements,amongst them are:
1) He has read the bill , understands it and is lying (possibly cos he doesn't think anyone will find out or care)
2) He has read the bill, understands it but believes that local authorities won't use it as a cash cow, and will lay themselves open to charges of prejudice by not bothering to apply the law except in extreem cases
3)He has read the bill, understood it but is effectively telling everyone to break the law cos although he knows it would technically be against the law to play unlicenced music he realises how unfair it would be and so is telling people to act as if the law doesn't apply to them, (possibly cos he doesn't expect it to be enforced)
4) He has read the bill, doesn't understand it and saying what he hopes it means rather than what the regulations actually state
5) He hasn't read the bill and is just guessing who and what it covers
6) He hasn't read the bill and has listened to someone else's "there there, nothing to worry about" advice on it.

So to sum up, either he's lying, cynical, stupid or naive.