Letter to the Echo 10 May 2003.
Boycott will not stop legislation.

Does anyone seriously believe that boycotting the local folk festival will make any difference to the enforcing of music performance legislation? I don't think so.

I don't like the existing or the proposed new legislation but, to be fair to Weymouth and Portland Borough Council, it has a duty to enforce the existing legislation when informed of an infringement.

You might like to ask Roger Gall just who it was who brought the 'Star' folk session on Portland to the attention of the council, thus ensuring that enforcement had to be carried out.

I believe that you are also confusing singer Eliza Carthy's opposition to the new PELS legislation with Roger Gall's opposition to the existing 'Two in a bar' rule.

Your lead article was misleading and unhelpful to a local event.

Nigel Canter


Replies to letters@dorsetecho.co.uk

You could ask Roger Gall who brought the attention of the New Star session to the council. As it is he appears to wish to know, you could also ask Mr Canter why he does not ask Roger Gall himself or why this would aspect would appear to matter to him, far more than what the officers then do with this information.

If it really matters how or more importantly when this information came to the officer's attention, it is difficult to understand why Mr Canter, such a firm supporter of duty and of upholding legislation would expect me to do anything other than my duty. Surely he would not expect me to withhold this information, to break the law and make the public unsafe? *Smiles*

The above is a good example of how foolish enforcement of this foolish legislation and a desperation for a council festival gig, will makes fools of many.

For enforcement is only necessary when it has been established that a licensable activity is taking place. As the licensing officers did not visit the New Star session, this was never established, unlike the many visits to the Cove.

Whatever this council's duty may be, it surely should be a fair and consistent duty. So perhaps Mr Canter would like to ask the council to explain the contrast in their officer's efforts to try and avoid visiting or seeing the New Star session with the many visits and determination to prevent identical activities at the Cove.

The New Star session took place for over five years in total, and over two years since the Cove's enforcement, when its nature and location, as I was informed by the then councillor for this ward - was 'common knowledge'.

The question that needs to be asked is why would anyone wish to report this session, over two years later? It is a matter of clear record that I have spent the two years since the Cove action   (unsuccessfully but without revealing the name of the premises) in trying to change the council's policy to ensure that the New Star session could in fact continue without a PEL.

You could also ask what exactly Mr Canter or the other participants were doing to assist in this aim or in the aim of addressing the new legislation, both of which he claims to dislike?

I am not going to write to the Echo to correct Mr Canter as he will choose to believe and blame what is convenient, as i feel this action from me will continue to personalise an important issue. I would be grateful if others could write with their comments however.

But it has been explained how my new ward councillor took the common knowledge complete with the name of the continuing New Star session to the officers. He did not want to be compromised by holding this information about illegal activities, decided to do his duty and inform the Licensing Manager about the New Star session. They immediately issued the letter that sadly resulted in the end of the long-running event.

I continue in my attempt to change the policy that would allow the New Star session it to re-start, without a PEL. Perhaps Mr Canter would care to help?

I am first a musician who along with many others, has directly suffered from this policy, I have tried my best to ensure that no one else will. The idea that is conveniently whispered locally that I am a politically motivated zealot, who is prepared to sacrifice anything to achieve some selfish end, is just not borne out by the facts. But some folk are not interested in facts, they just interfere with a good, if improbable story.

As for the 'boycott' - people were informed the facts and urged to express their views to Weymouth and Portland Borough Council over their policy under current legislation. This policy is the root cause of these problems and divisions, it also is a solid fact to be faced, that it presents the risk to the success or otherwise of the council organised Weymouth Folk Festival. The point was to highlight the threat the policy presented, in order that this totally unnecessary threat could be removed. This would enable this festival to be supported by the whole folk community. Sadly the council decided just to keep on wading neck-deep into the Big Muddy.

As for The Echo being confused –

Daily Telegraph
Battle over 'last orders' for music
(Filed: 18/01/2003)
Musicians and publicans fear that the new Licensing Bill will impose a tax on music-making that many will be unable to pay. By Colin Randall
(snip)
"They were like part of the family," says Christine Radford, who says she has been driven by red tape and diminishing income to consider quitting the licensed trade. "I was in tears on their last night."
Tom Grainger, the council's chief executive, points out that 30 per cent of licensed premises in the area have PELs and would protest if a blind eye were turned to others. He denies that the council approach has changed and says it is "most unfortunate" that Eliza Carthy and other musicians are urging a boycott of the council-sponsored folk festival in May.

There is a difference between an individual choosing not to attend or support an event, being sympathetic to others taking this course, and organising and actively urging others to do the same. The media know this difference but a nice emotive word like 'boycott' is preferred.