The Licensing Manager's reply.

WPBC replied as follows via Sue Moore: [was Sue Allen]
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).

Perhaps an example of the 'misinformation' referred to, can be supplied, as most of this so – called misinformation, is in the form of the officer's own words. Also who this 'propaganda machine might be and why this was mentioned, as no reference to any individual was made in the original communication to the Licensing Manager?

The [then] Director of Tourism and Corporate Services, in a letter to Ian Bruce [then] MP, 19/03/01. "Where the provisions apply it is a requirement to have a licence and not something on which we have any discretion. And: "In terms of the reasoning behind the original legislation I am not sure I can see any difference between say two performers paid for or organised by the public house licensee and say three of four people playing and singing at the invitation or with the consent of the public house licensee."   

And again to Mr Bruce, 17/04/01. "Mr Gall simply does not accept the position that legally if there are more than two people taking part that a folk session at a pub does require an entertainment licence."

One of the Council's Solicitors, in a letter to Councillor Moss 21/01/02. "I had not read the case of Brearley –v- Moreley at the time of writing my letters to Councillor Booth (8th February 2001) or to Mr Birchall (22nd February 2201)."

It would be nice if the Council's officers be asked to now stop their continuing and increasingly ridiculous attempts to personalise this issue and respond correctly to outside suggestions? I feel this current tactic is largely made in order to ignore the important concerns at stake here, the weakness of the officer's position and their advice to members. For it has sadly been evidenced many times over the part two years, where the misinformation and propaganda, are in fact coming from, as sadly can again be seen from this reply.

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.

Sadly there are none (without PELs) left to seek out.

The Licensing Manager, in a letter to Roger Gall 02/03/01. "No complaint was received regarding your session [at the Cove House Inn]." The Public Enforcement Officer visited the premises as a result of the advertisement you placed in the Dorset Evening Echo."

And again 22/03/01. "It is our practice to regularly check publications such as the Dorset Evening Echo for any advertisement pertaining to licensing issues."

It would be more useful if a reply could be made to the concerns or to what actions the council officers may be responsible for, rather than an attempted defence of what they are not. However, a flower accidentally trampled, remains just as dead as one that is deliberately cut. The intentions of the officers are less important than the actions they are responsible for.

Despite the excuses given, these two staff, in only a two-month period, still managed four visits [only three as far as the members are aware], to the Cove House Inn. One of these was an under-cover visit by the writer of this reply, the Licensing Manager, who later wrote [above] to confirm that no complaint was received about the folk gathering there.

This did not prevent this staff of two from threatening the licensee with a £20,000 fine or a six month prison sentence, if this folk gathering continued without the licensee obtaining a Public Entertainment Licence.

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.

Why address an irregular event when the issue is one of regular activities? The truth is that if a regular informal gathering of musicians (advertised or not), came to the officer's attention, a letter would be issued, and this action alone is enough to risk the event.
Perhaps the licensing manager could be asked to confirm the following?

1. Is it true for example, that in the case of the New Star Inn, that no advert was ever placed?
2. That no complaint was ever received?
3. And that no visit was ever made to establish if the activity was licensable or indeed if it was specifically exempt, in the whole five years of its duration?

However, if complaints are received then we are duty bound to investigate and, if necessary, encourage the licensee to apply for a PEL.

Perhaps the Council could be asked to confirm and inform the public that neither of the two Portland sessions, placed at risk by their actions did in fact, receive any complaints?

And that one was only enabled after the licensee, 'encouraged' by the above threats, was prepared to obtain a PEL, and the other, on receipt of the Council's letter, was prevented because the licensee was not? The Chief Executive in a note to my MP, not even being prepared to take any responsibility for the loss of the New Star session by claiming the officers actions to be a 'minimal light touch'.

It would be a pleasant and welcome surprise indeed, if the officers were ever to admit that they could have made more effort to care, and to better understand the nature of these sessions, and the risks presented to them.