The above has not (yet) appeared in the paper, nor has the following.

From Jane Allison & Trevor Gilson
Organisers, Fo'c'sle Folk Club, Southampton

Dear Editor
The following letter was sent to you previously on 13 Feb, but, so far as we are aware, not printed (obviously we cannot see every edition over here, nor do we have time to scrutinise the web every day, and have to rely on friends to tell us). It occurs that you may have rejected it for lack of a proper postal address (now rectified). In any event, we can now comment on a reply we have received from WPBC (both the reply and the comment follow the original letter below in that order).

Dear Mr Grainger
(an open letter to the Chief Executive of WPBC)

How it is reasonably done elsewhere

It happened that a pub with a recently-acquired PEL but long-established live music presence (not in our Local Authority area) found that a second pub nearby, without PEL, had started hosting similar weekly 'open stage' musical events on the same evening (not the fault of the second pub's landlord).

The licensees knew each other, so they had a friendly chat and decided that they could live with it, if the Licensing Office did not object (the premises with PEL now has more than two paid performers on other evenings, making their licence obligatory). An Environmental Health Officer visited the unlicensed landlord and had a chat with him, so they could work out a way to allow the music to continue. It was agreed there would be no external publicity and the landlord was required to inform the music organiser of this decision in writing. Locally, this was regarded as a fairly harsh, but acceptable, measure tailored to the particular circumstances.

We are not defending the current silly, out-of-date legislation behind this decision, but we hardly need to point up the difference in attitude between this Local Authority, which genuinely supports independent music organisers and fosters a spirit of friendly co-operation between small venues and the Environmental Health Department (in accordance with the Government's avowed hopes), and the stance of your Council Officials which has resulted in the destruction of some long-established live music meetings within your remit.

Our Folk Club (together with many other Members of the Southern Counties Folk Federation) know there is a second Weymouth Folk Festival in May (partly funded by the Weymouth Borough Council) and will support the local (unpaid) Folk Organisers in any way possible.

People in the folk music world try very hard to support each other and we would suggest that some Council Officials actually physically go to a Concert, dance at a Ceilidh, watch the display Dance Teams, or sit in on a Singaround or Instrument Session and gain some idea of what folk music is all about. You might even enjoy yourselves and maybe your interpretation of the "letter of the law" (rather than the spirit of the law) might be a little less destructive to local music-making.

WPBC replied as follows via ..[The Licensing Manager]

Many thanks for your views on PELs which have been passed to me for comment. You appear, sadly like many others over the last year or so, to have been misinformed by the propaganda machine here (which it would seem is largely fuelled by one individual).

This Council and its Officers do not spend their time actively seeking out folk gatherings in order to 'punish' them in some way. In fact, we only have 2 staff dealing with the issue and enforcement of 15 types of licence so we have to prioritise enforcement accordingly.

The truth of the matter is that if an informal gathering of musicians happened as an irregular event without advertisement (and no complaints were received about it) then this Council would not pro-actively enforce. However, if complaints are received then we are duty bound to investigate and, if necessary, encourage the licensee to apply for a PEL.

Here is our response:

Dear …{Licensing Manager]
Although your response does not address any of the points we made (did you actually read our letter, or was your reply a stock response to complaints?) there are several things in it which cannot be allowed to pass without comment.

1) As Club and Festival Organisers ourselves, we are in touch with the local, national and international folk world in a way which you (not being part of it) probably find hard to appreciate.

We are also one of the unpaid twin hubs of the communications/information network the Southern Counties Folk Federation (we run the Website and E-mail News Service which will be advertising the Weymouth Festival - free - and our colleague runs the Federation Magazine, Folk On Tap, which will take an advert).

As such, we are hardly likely to have had our views 'fuelled by one individual' as you say, and our real knowledge of events is probably greater than your own on several fronts. We acknowledge that you are not the only Council to have taken this stand, but the point our letter made was that not all Councils adopt your extreme stance, which is also at variance with the Government's stated hopes.

We refer to your statement " ...if complaints are received then we are duty bound to investigate and, if necessary, encourage the licensee to apply for a PEL..."

1) Whilst it is true that you acquired information, to say that 'complaints' were received stretches the meaning of the word. Whilst you presumably have privileged access to Council records which
cannot be made public due to confidentiality, we choose to accept the words of the several affected parties and we don't believe you could substantiate your claim in law.

2) " ...we are duty bound to investigate and, if necessary, encourage the licensee to apply for a PEL." The reason you are so bound ('duty' stretches it a bit) is that sometime ago someone in the Council's employment decided that he/she was going to classify recreational musicians as performers. You cannot change your collective mind on this, because you might be subject to claims for compensation dating way back (to say nothing of loss of face).

There is no legal requirement for this interpretation; the law is thoroughly ambiguous and you do have leeway to interpret it less severely than you have done. Had the new Bill not been in the Queens Speech, the Musicians Union was ready to fight a test case somewhere suitable and its eye had fallen on Weymouth's destructive practices.