Affected by The Licensing Act 2003

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 May 06 - 05:37 AM

It was illegal when old Feargal was a regular performer then?

The current chairman of the DCMS Live Music Forum was involved in unlicensed performances and there is TV evidence for this?

RESIGN!

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 12 May 06 - 05:27 AM

"The Licensing Act 2003 has not changed that. Whether or not a licence is required in any particular set of circumstances is rightly a matter for the local licensing authority."

So is she saying the council has been neglecting its responsibilities for the past fourty years?

Not at all. What she is saying is that they have made a total set of round spherical objects of all this and they are anxious to pass the blame onto the local authority as quickly as possible.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: DMcG
Date: 11 May 06 - 02:33 PM

... the situation was not down to new laws. Some types of entertainment in front of public audiences have needed to be licensed since at least 1963 in London

So is she saying the council has been neglecting its responsibilities for the past fourty years? What other things apart from the new laws have caused it to be reviwed now?

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 May 06 - 02:11 PM

A Department for Culture, Media and Sport spokesperson said the situation was not down to new laws.

She said: "Some types of entertainment in front of public audiences have needed to be licensed since at least 1963 in London and 1982 in the rest of the country.

"The Licensing Act 2003 has not changed that. Whether or not a licence is required in any particular set of circumstances is rightly a matter for the local licensing authority."

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 May 06 - 02:07 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4762783.stm

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 May 06 - 02:04 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Ticket-holders for tonight's recording of Top of the Pops are being turned away from the studio at Television Centre in London. BBC bosses today appealed to BBC staff, including Radio 5 presenters, to make up the live audience.

This follows legal advice provided last night to the BBC confirming that TOTP, and some other programmes using live audiences, will require licensing under the new Licensing Act. The BBC had been in discussions with the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham since an open-air concert on 15 April by the Red Hot Chili Peppers.

A BBC spokesperson confirmed that the Corporation will now submit a premises licence application to the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. This process is likely to take some weeks. Several TOTP recordings will be affected.

More coverage likely in tomorrow's Times and other national newspapers.

~ ~ ~

Last Sunday, 7th May, Roger Daltrey performed before and after Arsenal's last match at Highbury. This was widely advertised on the web.

A spokesperson for Islington council subsequently confirmed that Arsenal does not have a premises licence that allows entertainment in the stadium. They added:

'Under the terms of their Safety At Sports Grounds certification, we can allow them to have licensable entertainment on a match day that is incidental to the game. We worked with Arsenal and agreed a programme of entertainment that suited the theme the club wanted for the day whilst fitting the criteria set out for the SASG Act."

The Safety at Sports Ground Act 1975 does indeed require that all activities in designated sports grounds must be certified as safe, but according to licensing lawyers, this does not exempt regulated entertainment from licensing under the Licensing Act. It was unclear whether the council regarded Daltrey's performance as 'incidental music' under the Act, and therefore exempt. When pressed on this question they declined to provide further comment.

They did, however, confirm that the playing of recorded music at the stadium was allowed since this was carried forward automatically as a 'grandfather right' during last year's licence conversion. Interestingly, the club's licence for alcohol applies to the whole premises, even though it is illegal to sell alcohol within sight of the pitch.
-----

Rowena Smith, manager of The Old China Hand bar in Clerkenwell, said that Islington council advised her that the jazz duos she had been providing weekly until last November would not qualify for the incidental exemption. The gig was cancelled, and has still not been reinstated.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 10 May 06 - 05:58 PM

Anyone interested in this issue could take a look at:

thread.cfm?threadid=91359&messages=10

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 06 - 11:34 AM

I am sorry I cocked that up.

The following from Hamish Birchall.

Sheffield City Council has just issued a statement (below) about the unlicensed Chinese Lion Dance on the pitch at Sheffield United's match on 30 April 2006. The council is advising all their sports stadia to vary their premises licences to allow 'incidental' entertainment on the pitch. Licence fees are linked to rateable value of the premises.

The Bramall Road stadium is in the constituency of Richard Caborn MP, Minister for Sport.

Sheffield City Council statement issued 09 May 2006:

'PERFORMANCE OF LION DANCE AT BRAMALL LANE STADIUM, 30 APRIL 2006

'The terms of the new Licensing Act are less flexible than was the case previously. Under the new Act, regulated entertainment with certain exceptions requires a licence, but Morris dancing or dancing of a similar kind is exempt. Whether the Lion Dance could be viewed as falling under this exemption is a grey area that can ultimately only be tested in a court of law.

'So Sheffield City Council has taken the common sense approach of advising Sheffield United Football Club to apply to vary their licence to include all incidental entertainment on the pitch. This removes any question of doubt and we are recommending that all sports stadia do the same. The cost of the variation is dependent upon the rateable value of the premises.

'Steve Lonnia, Licensing General Section, Sheffield City Council'

Contrast that with statements made by Richard Caborn when he was licensing minister in a letter to the Joint Committee on Human Rights dated 30 June 2003:

'... In terms of its general impact, the [Licensing] Bill will therefore not present increased regulation but will instead involve a significant move towards greater simplicity, transparency and reduction in costs.'
'Scrutiny of Bills and Draft Bills: Further Progress Report', p25, 'Appendix 2: the Licensing Bill', JCHR 15th Report of 2002/3, 21 July 2003, HL 149, HC 1005, ISBN 0104002689.

PDF copy:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200203/jtselect/jtrights/149/149.pdf

ENDS

I really cannot see all the football grounds in the country applying and paying for a variation - so I think we can wave goodbye to the lion dance - thanks to the Licensing Act 2003. Unless all of the little celebratory jigs and sambas that players do after scoring a goal will also be judged as licensable?

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 06 - 11:29 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

Sheffield City Council has just issued a statement (below) about the unlicensed Chinese Lion Dance on the pitch at Sheffield United's match on 30 April 2006. The council is advising all their sports stadia to vary their premises licences to allow 'incidental' entertainment on the pitch. Licence fees are linked to rateable value of the premises.

The Bramall Road stadium is in the constituency of Richard Caborn MP, Minister for Sport.

Sheffield City Council statement issued 09 May 2006:

'PERFORMANCE OF LION DANCE AT BRAMALL LANE STADIUM, 30 APRIL 2006

ENDS

I really cannot see all the football grounds in the country applying and paying for a variation - so I think we can wave goodbye to the lion dance - thanks to the Licensing Act 2003. Unless all of the little celebratory jigs and sambas that players do after scoring a goal will also be judged as licensable?

'The terms of the new Licensing Act are less flexible than was the case previously. Under the new Act, regulated entertainment with certain exceptions requires a licence, but Morris dancing or dancing of a similar kind is exempt. Whether the Lion Dance could be viewed as falling under this exemption is a grey area that can ultimately only be tested in a court of law.

'So Sheffield City Council has taken the common sense approach of advising Sheffield United Football Club to apply to vary their licence to include all incidental entertainment on the pitch. This removes any question of doubt and we are recommending that all sports stadia do the same. The cost of the variation is dependent upon the rateable value of the premises.

'Steve Lonnia, Licensing General Section, Sheffield City Council'

Contrast that with statements made by Richard Caborn when he was licensing minister in a letter to the Joint Committee on Human Rights dated 30 June 2003:

'... In terms of its general impact, the [Licensing] Bill will therefore not present increased regulation but will instead involve a significant move towards greater simplicity, transparency and reduction in costs.'
'Scrutiny of Bills and Draft Bills: Further Progress Report', p25, 'Appendix 2: the Licensing Bill', JCHR 15th Report of 2002/3, 21 July 2003, HL 149, HC 1005, ISBN 0104002689.

PDF copy:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200203/jtselect/jtrights/149/149.pdf

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 06 - 05:24 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Belper's annual carnival has been cancelled due to confusion over the new licensing regime.
See: http://tinyurl.com/g2ww8

Thanks to Roger Gall for this lead.

~ ~ ~

Similar confusion has also led Sheffield licensing department to consider whether all sports grounds in their area must be licensed for entertainment. On Sunday 30 April 2006 a Chinese Lion Dance was performed at half-time during Sheffield United's match against Crystal Palace (attendance 27,120). No licence authorising the performance of dance was in force - and there is no exemption for 'incidental dancing'.

Picture of the Lion Dance here (all part of celebrations for Sheffield's promotion to the Premier League): http://www.sufc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/MatchAction/0,,10418~823895,00.html

It is possible that Chinese Lion dancing could be deemed sufficiently similar to Morris dancing to qualify for the Morris dancing exemption. It would seem at this stage, however, that Sheffield's licensing department do not favour this interpretation. More on this story later.

~ ~ ~

Jazz gigs cancelled at Ray's Jazz in Foyle's bookshop, London

This message today from Paul Pace, singer, successful jazz gig promoter, and manager of Ray's Jazz:

'Sincere apologies to those who came to hear Ian Shaw perform with guitarist David Preston on Saturday at Ray's Jazz at Foyles. This event and the other in-store musical events booked during May were required to be cancelled at short notice due to licensing issues with Westminster Council. It is hoped that 'Entertainment Licensing' requirements will be deemed satisfactory and a programme of events re-established as soon as possible.
Paul Pace, Manager, Ray's Jazz at Foyles, Foyles Bookshop, 113-119 Charing Cross Road, London WC2 0EB'

~ ~ ~

But... Jowell praises Purnell

In another DCMS press release issued yesterday (08 May 2006), Tessa Jowell said:
"I would like to thank James Purnell for all his work over the last year, particularly on successfully implementing the Licensing Act and playing a key role in shaping the White Paper on the future of the BBC. I wish him well in his new role."

See: http://www.culture.gov.uk/global/press_notices/archive_2006/dcms_064.htm

This despite the recent strong criticism of the Act's implementation by a cross-party committee of MPs and the Better Regulation Commission. Almost all local authority licensing officers I have spoken to in the past few weeks have offered unprintable and disparaging comments about the quality of the legislation itself.

ENDS

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 08 May 06 - 06:37 PM

Worth listening to the interview on this page
http://www.riversidefestival.charlbury.com/news.htm

Clearly the problems of the Festival were not limited to things affected by licensing - BUT equally the man from the Council seems to be wrong too.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 May 06 - 12:03 PM

The following was posted by Bill Long - on the Action for Music list

As a point of interest: Charlbury Riverside Festival (Oxfordshire), a free to come event which, I think, would be in its fourth year this year, has been cancelled because the police or local authority (sorry, I'm not sure whom), has insisted on professional security. Volunteer stewards would not be good enough.

This as the result of an apparently mad man last year claiming to be an undercover cop beating some heads with a baton. I'm not clear, although the story was in the local Witney Gazette how much, if any, influence the licensing laws had on the decision, but I seem to have the impression that there was some involvement from the West Oxfordshire District Council. If I'm wrong, they have my apologies.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 May 06 - 11:48 AM

Any carnival procession with floats and moving vehicles shouldn't need permission - should they?

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: GUEST,Paul Burke
Date: 08 May 06 - 10:52 AM

Belper Carnival has been cancelled, due to organisers' confusion and police arse protection.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 May 06 - 10:41 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

James Purnell, formerly licensing minister at DCMS, has been appointed Minister for Pension Reform at the Department for Work and Pensions: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/aboutus/news/index.asp

John Hutton, Secretary of State at the DWP, welcomed Purnell and cited his 'great track record in government'.

Purnell was licensing minister for just short of a year (appointed 11 May 2005; departed 06 May 2006). On 29 June 2005, he said on BBC Radio 4 Today:

' ... I am very happy to come back in a year and discuss whether live music has improved or not.'

He may now be very happy that this will not happen.
It is not yet clear who replaces Purnell at DCMS.
ENDS

And

DCMS has confirmed that Shaun Woodward is the new minister with responsibility for alcohol and entertainment licensing:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/about_dcms/ministers/shaunwoodward.htm

Interesting to note, Woodward was a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) when the Licensing Act was a Bill
.
The JCHR published five reports during 2002/3 criticising the live music reforms. Their reasons included risks to people's right to freedom of expression and discrimination against secular premises (because of the exemption for places of public religious worship).

In their fifth and final report, published on 21 July 2003, the JCHR wrongly concluded that the Act covers amplified and unamplified music in the same way (para 5.6). This basic mistake seems to have been the result of DCMS representations. The Act did not, and does not, treat live and recorded music equally.

During the licence conversion period in 2005, bars and restaurants were allowed to keep recorded sound systems automatically, but their automatic right to one or two live musicians was taken away. The exemption for broadcast entertainment (inevitably amplified), as against the potential requirement to licence even one unamplified musician, is another obvious example of unequal treatment.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 08 May 06 - 03:53 AM

You mean like this?


With respect I now feel that I have dealt with this matter. The queries you raise should be properly made to the Department of Culture Media and Sport, the sponsoring Government Department for the 2003 Act. I now have to turn my mind to the problems associated with the enforcement of the legislation and the various complaints of nuisance and disorder that have been raised during the transition period by members of the public.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 May 06 - 03:10 AM

I wish you better luck than I am having with mine.

Bridget Downton
Corporate Director
Weymouth and Portland Council Borough Council

19 April 2006

Dear Mr Gall

I write following your recent letter in response to the letter that I sent you after our recent meeting. I am also responding to you recent correspondence with Cllr Ames. I understand from colleagues in other councils that you have circulated the letter that I sent you nationally and I have seen correspondence where a part of that letter has been taken out of context. I am personally a big supporter of live music and do not wish to put unnecessary barriers in the way and I resent the implications that have been made to the contrary.

I consider that my licensing and legal teams took the opportunity of the new legislation to work hard with local licensees to ensure that they applied for appropriate licenses to cover all likely eventualities. Many local establishments took advantage of the new legislation to apply, at no extra charge, for a license that would cover them for live music and hence not have to worry about case law in the absence of clear guidance about incidental music.

I'm sorry to have to tell you that I have reached the same conclusion as my predecessor in that I feel it is not appropriate for me or my team to continue to converse with you on this subject. Both my team and I continue to be happy to provide advice, assistance and guidance to individual licensees on any matters but I am not prepared to continue this debate with you about the legislation.

Yours sincerely

Bridget Downton

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 07 May 06 - 06:17 PM

They are exempt for two reasons.

1. They are exempt on the grounds that they are incidental to the main (non-licensable)activity.

2. They are exempt because Westminster Council says so.

You know it is a load of round-spherical-objects and so do I and so do they. But let's keep plugging away at these councils - I have a couple of on-going queries at the moment with Sheffield.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: DMcG
Date: 07 May 06 - 05:14 PM

A post on that link said "it involves a fifty foot elephant, a giant girl and a cast of hundreds."

Granted the fifty foot elephant and giant girl are on moving floats. Are all the cast of hundreds? If not, on what grounds are they exempt?

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 May 06 - 01:42 PM

The Sultan's Elephant

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 May 06 - 01:39 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Another example of inconsistency in the regulation of entertainment under the new Licensing Act:

A giant wooden elephant, which at over 40 tons weighs more than Nelson's column, begins a four-day trip through the streets of Westminster this morning (Thursday 4th May, 2006). The 'Sultan's Elephant Theatre Show' promises 'an enchanting world of larger than life puppets and quirky theatre':

http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/the-sultans-elephant-london-theatre-show_index.html
http://www.artichokeproductions.co.uk/sultans.htm

'A performance of a play' is one of the descriptions of entertainment in the Act (Sch.1, para 2(1)(a)). On the face of it, the 'quirky theatre' of the Sultan's Elephant procession would appear to be licensable entertainment. After all, the Act further defines the performance of a play as 'a performance of any dramatic piece, whether involving improvisation or not, - (a) which is given wholly or in part by one or more persons actually present and performing, and (b) in which the whole or a major proportion of what is done by the person or persons performing, whether by way of speech, singing or action, involves the playing of a role.' (Sch.1, para 14(1)).

So, one actor standing in the street reciting Shakespeare (or indeed story-telling in a pub) is a potential criminal offence unless his or her pitch is licensed for 'the performance of a play'.

By contrast, the Sultan's Elephant procession - a somewhat greater risk on safety and nuisance grounds (some might argue) - has escaped licensing by Westminster City Council on the basis that the entertainment is on moving floats, which fall within the exemption for entertainment on 'vehicles in motion' (Licensing Act 2003, Schedule 1, para 12).

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 11:12 AM

What happened the nationwide decimation of live music you were
predicting?

I missed replying to this first time around.

I am not aware of anyone predicting the decimation of music. I am aware of the Minister predicting an "explosion" of music and people saying it would not happen. Now, as far as I am aware it has not happened in Sheffield.

But clearly some sort of explosion has happened where you are. If it is a tiny village, explosion might be a good description. If it is a biog town - well - whimper might be better.

Once again I ask, tell us all about it!!

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 06:26 PM

I am afraid it is not as simple as the landlord (and Feargal) make out.

If at the time of the renewal of the licence last November you applied for music and "ticked the box" then theoretically it cost "nothing". I put that in inverted commas because it could cost for alterations etc. qwhich may have been demanded or not by the council.

However if now you have your drinking licence you apply to vary it by having a music licence then the cost of this is variable but can be four figures depending upon your local council.

Perhaps you would be good enough to name the locations where live music has started up. They can be added to the list of those that have closed down.

Hope that helps.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: GUEST,Just curious.
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 01:42 PM

Interesting comments Hamish.

I've just listened to the whole thing and just after Feargal Sharkey
makes his comments about the cost of live music a pub landlord
speak and says that he was right. He applied for live music and it
cost him nothing extra at all!

Perhaps you've gotten this one wrong mate?

Oh, by the way I know of 3 venues in my local area that have now started
doing live music within the last couple of months, none of them have ever
done any live music at all in the past.

What happened the nationwide decimation of live music you were
predicting?

Look like you might have gotten that one wrong too.

Just curious .

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 05:27 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

The BBC Radio 1 public live music debate, held at the Glee Club in Birmingham in the evening of Monday 24 April, is now available online. Be warned, however, it is nearly an hour and a half long:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/onemusic/exposed/ and click on the 'Any questions' link.

The overall content reflected the concerns of the rock and pop constituency, as you would expect. On this planet, licensing does not register strongly, no doubt because the new regime presented few obstacles for existing specialist rock and pop venues. Converting their licences last year was, in the main, a tick box exercise. Many such venues will save money because they no longer pay high annual entertainment licence fees.

This fundamentally different perspective explains, in part, the gulf of understanding between DCMS and musicians who aren't focused exclusively on rock and pop.

During the debate, Feargal Sharkey emphatically and misleadingly repeated the DCMS myth that licensing live music cost nothing extra. He also said that the Live Music Forum would be presenting its final recommendations to the licensing minister James Purnell in September. However, the minister's reply suggests that the LMF report will be not be independent. Purnell 'will work quite closely on developing it'.

Radio 1 DJ Steve Lamacq seems to think live music has never had it so good, and said he'd like a law requiring everyone over 50 to re-sit their 'artistic licence' to carry on making music (this may have been purely in jest - it's hard to tell).

Purnell also suggested that a change to the new licensing laws had not been ruled out (which tends to contradict the DCMS letter of last week).

Lamacq compered the debate. Sharkey and BBC R1 controller Andy Parfitt were on the panel from the start. Purnell was 44 minutes late. DCMS civil servants were among the audience of 200-300 Birmingham rock and pop musicians and promoters.

Some questions about licensing were raised, but they were not well informed.

Here are a few transcribed extracts:

SHARKEY [responding to a punter who said that two pubs had 'gone down' due to licensing bureaucracy and having to pay £1000 for their music licence]:

'... just to pick up a point about this, coz it's something I've heard repeated quite a lot, er about it costing an extra thousand pounds to put on live music. If you know of one single premises that was charged a thousand pounds extra to put on live music, I would like to know about it because the law says it cost absolutely nothing extra whatsoever to put on live music. If you want to sell alcohol, that's the price of the licence. If you want to sell alcohol and provide live music, that's still the price of the licence, regardless of whether you're doing one or the other. And if anyone's been told anything else, or charged anything else, come and talk to me afterwards, coz I think we can probably fix that one fairly quickly.' [my emphasis]

This DCMS myth was debunked by two BBC R4 reports when Purnell made essentially the same claim on the Today programme, on 29 June last year.

For the typical pub, bar and restaurant converting its alcohol licence last year there were unavoidable knock-on costs if they 'ticked the box' for live music. These costs were not payable if they simply ticked the box for alcohol.

For example, public advertisement of the application often cost several hundred pounds. Such advertisement was a statutory requirement where live music permission was being sought for the first time by venues that only had an alcohol licence. Scale plans did not have to be professionally produced, but many venues paid for them nonetheless - it saved time, or the premises layout was complex, or they weren't confident that they could draw scale plans correctly. There were also legal fees - again, not absolutely required, but often unavoidable. Lastly, for a significant minority, there was the cost of implementing licence conditions.

Entirely new venues, applying now, will pay one fee whether they tick one box for live music, or multiple boxes to cover alcohol, playing of recorded music, showing of films, and so on. But they still face hidden extra costs if legal representation is needed to handle difficult public hearings, or if faced with local authority licence conditions such as installing noise limiters etc. If they don't tick the live music box, but want permission later on, they will face the full costs of a new application, including a licence fee.

~ ~ ~

(Following a discussion about the popularity of big pop festivals and problems with ticket touts)

LAMACQ: ... Aren't we now just victims of our own success? Live music has become so popular. It's become better organised in some cases. It's with, via our coverage on Radio 1, we've excited people, we've explained to them what it's like, we've brought the atmosphere into their homes, we've got a lot of bands, we've had a reasonably good British music scene, we've tried to help new music come through, we've now got all this going on, and now the problem is just too many people want to go. Because we've made it so good.

SHARKEY: Just to play devil's advocate Steve, are you genuinely saying then that we should try and stop musicians and performers who by default, good luck, or skill, talent and ability have managed to create a piece of music that the average human person in the audience gets excited, passionate and excited about and wants to go and see and experience and be a part of? I wouldn't want to prevent that for one second.

LAMACQ: Well, I'd like a law that said everyone over 50 has to re-sit their artistic licence to carry on making music, but that's another thing entirely. Do you see what I mean though? That it's now, we have a great product, so now we're dealing with, now we're now dealing with the fall out?

~ ~ ~

LAMACQ: James, before we wind up, when Feargal's paper gets to you, what happens next?

JAMES PURNELL: I'll be very frightened.

SHARKEY: You will be! [laughs]

JAMES PURNELL: We're looking forward to it. And er, you know, I think we're going to work quite closely on developing it. And, where we can take the ideas forward we will do so. There may be some things which are about banging heads together or encouraging people, or building on good practice. Stuff like that is relatively easy to do. Things which involve changing the law or finding money are harder to do, but aren't ruled out of the question. So, we're basically erm looking forward to the ideas and, you know, we'll take them forward as we can.

LAMACQ: And do you see this as a long term investment on behalf of the government?

PURNELL: Yes we do. I mean, as I said the British music industry is a really important part of the economy. It's 5 billion pounds a year, so purely in economic terms it's a really important thing and we want to build on it. It's also, I think live music is really crucial to the success of British music now, you know the fact that people want to break American bands like the Strokes erm or the White Stripes here because that gives them credibility elsewhere because we're seen as a kinda 'island of taste makers' and that makes people really focus on the UK music scene from all over the world, that's a really good thing er for British music and British culture. And also, just coz it's such an important of people's lives now, if there's anything that we can do to get rid of problems or to build on success then we shall be doing so. And it won't just be a short term thing, it will be er a prolonged engagement.

LAMACQ: Final thought Feargal?

SHARKEY: Er, I have told James this in the past, er it's purely a personal ambition of mine and I have explained it to the Forum members: if government accept all of our recommendations I will be slightly disappointed coz it might be an indication that we weren't thinking radically enough. And I'm pleased to say I think I've heard a couple of ideas that might help me achieve that objective by the end of the summer. Thank you all very much.

[LAMACQ thanks panellists. Debate ends

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 12:39 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Last Friday, 21 April 06, the Queen went on a walkabout in the streets of Windsor as part of her 80th birthday celebrations. The bands of the Welsh and Irish Guards performed live music by way of accompaniment.

A spokesperson for the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead, which covers the area including Windsor Castle, confirmed today that no premises licence was in force for the event. They also claimed that the bands' performances were covered by the 'incidental music' exemption: 'In this case, visitors were not there to hear the band play and if there had been no band at all, there would have been just as many visitors at the event.'

However, the statutory Guidance to the Licensing Act, issued by DCMS, suggests that 'volume' is the key factor for local authorities in deciding whether the incidental music exemption should apply. 'Common sense dictates that live or recorded music played at volumes which predominate over other activities at a venue could rarely be regarded as incidental to those activities.' ['Guidance issued under s.182 of the Licensing Act 2003', para 5.18. Note also that 'premises' in the Act is defined as 'any place' and this includes open spaces.]

The music was captured by the BBC. When the bands play, the volume does seem much louder than anything else going on. When pressed on what 'rare' circumstances led the council apparently to disregard the high volume of the marching bands, the council declined to comment further.

Link to BBC coverage:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_4930000/newsid_4932900/bb_rm_4932920.stm

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 05:42 AM

Link to an article in The Publican.

http://www.thepublican.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=20490&d=32&h=24&f=23&dateformat=%25o%20%25B%20%25Y

Not really related but it an interseting attempt by some pubs to avoid paying UK fees and conditions for the showing of TV sport. Which of course - be it from home or abroad - does not require entertainment permission.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the following from the guidance may be useful for those who have a session or similar event that is being deterred locally.

Cultural strategies

3.47
In connection with cultural strategies, licensing policy statements should include clearly worded statements indicating that they will monitor the impact of licensing on the provision of regulated entertainment, and particularly live music and dancing. Care will be needed to ensure that only necessary, proportionate and reasonable licensing conditions impose any restrictions on such events.

Where there is any indication that such events are being deterred by licensing requirements, statements of licensing policy should be re-visited with a view to investigating how the situation might be reversed. Broader cultural activities and entertainment may also be affected -.

And from
Live music, dancing and theatre
3.58
Statements of licensing policy should also recognise that as part of implementing local authority cultural strategies, proper account should be taken of the need to encourage and promote a broad range of entertainment, particularly live music, dancing and theatre, including the performance of a wide range of traditional and historic plays, for the wider cultural benefit of communities.

A natural concern to prevent disturbance in neighbourhoods should always be carefully balanced with these wider cultural benefits, particularly the cultural benefits for children. In determining what conditions should be attached to licences and certificates as a matter of necessity for the promotion of the licensing objectives, licensing authorities should be aware of the need to avoid measures which deter live music, dancing and theatre by imposing indirect costs of a disproportionate nature.

Performances of live music and dancing are central to the development of cultural diversity and vibrant and exciting communities where artistic freedom of expression is a fundamental right and greatly valued. Traditional music and dancing are parts of the cultural heritage of England and Wales. Music and dancing also help to unite communities and particularly in ethnically diverse communities, new and emerging musical and dance forms can assist the development of a fully integrated society.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 05:25 AM

The following link is for a thread for posts on the Live Music Forum's feedback to our views etc.

Your views wanted by UK Govenment

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 05:20 AM

The following from Hamish Birhall.

Last December I wrote to every member of the Cabinet suggesting that having had more than two years to sell the benefits of the new Licensing Act to venues, there should by then have been strong evidence of the promised 'explosion of live music'. I also suggested that the government apologise for publicly misinterpreting the MORI live music survey (the unjustified 'flourishing' claim), and consider changing the Act.

Yesterday I received this reply from DCMS, dated 19 April 06, on behalf of Tessa Jowell:

'We are sorry we cannot reassure you of the advantages of the Licensing Act 2003 and our determination to ensure its success. We therefore feel that we must agree to disagree about the concerns you raise and let the Act be judged in the fullness of time and experience.'

This seems to rule out any early change to the legislation. Moreover, if such changes are off limits, it must be clear that the Live Music Forum (LMF) is not independent - its remit is essentially dictated by DCMS. It is, and always was, a PR exercise by the government, and an effective way of coralling potential opposition.

In my view the LMF is a waste of time. If you are unhappy with the legislation write to your MP:
www.writetothem.com

Subject: affected by the Licencing Laws April 06
From: stallion
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 11:34 AM

apologies for a new thread but the old one was to full for me to wade through it.
I wrote to feargal and got a reply!

the bit you might be interested in, and I hope you will respond to feargal, is as follows, bearing in mind that I was bemoaning the demise of pub sessions, this was the reply.

Good to hear that you feel York has been supportive. I'm interested that you feel that this
kind of event has been "Trounced," by the new legislation. As you may know this is one of the particular
tasks the Forum has been given, to monitor the impact of the new regulations on live music, regardless
of where or when it might be taking place.

Are you aware of particular venues that have been effected in this way or indeed know the details of any Local Authorities
who have not been as supportive as York? If there was a Local Authority who was on a "Quest to stamp them out," I know for
certain that is something Forum members would want to take a very distinct interest in.
( i said "seem like they are on a quest to stamp them out")

send your info on local authoriies and pub sessions knocked on the head to following

---

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Barden of England
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 07:16 AM

If this was a small pub you can bet your boots that the Hammersmith and Fulham licencing officers would have come down like a ton of bricks with all sorts of threats - because it's the BBC the same people turn cowardly in the face of might. It proves that might is right when it comes to the law doesn't it. I would have loved to see this taken on as a legal battle, but no doubt the council will have decided it would be too costly. Not so against a small pub though is it. Same happened with Tessa Jowell - wouldn't have been so otherwise I'm absolutely sure. There is one law for us, and another for the establishment I'm afraid, and there's bugger all we can do about it.
John Barden

---

Duplicate threads combined.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 06:32 AM

I wonder if I park illegally in Hammersmith and Fulham I will be treated with the same respect and that it will just be seen as a technical breach of the law.

Somehow I doubt it.........

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 05:12 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

See below for a transcript of this morning's Top of the Pops licensing story covered by the BBC R4 Today programme (20 April 2006). A few points to consider before reading it:

On the Today programme of 29 June 2005, licensing minister James Purnell said the new Licensing Act would be 'much better' for live music, adding: 'Now as long as they tick the box which says we want to put on an entertainment they won't have to pay any more and it is a much much easier system.'

In fact, even if the BBC had 'ticked the box' last year they would have faced, as they probably face now, a hefty bill for a premises licence covering a very large and complex set of studio performance areas.

There are implications for every broadcaster using a studio audience, but not only for performances of music and dancing. The new legislation also applies to the 'performance of a play', a description which is likely to cover sitcoms and other dramatic works in this setting (see the Licensing Act 2003, Sch.1, para 2(1)(a) and 2(2), and para 14 'Plays').

Perhaps James Purnell, Feargal Sharkey and BBC Radio 1 controller Andy Parfitt will include all this in their BBC Radio 1 'Live Music Debate' agenda on Monday. See:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/onemusic/ask/

There's still plenty of time to answer Feargal's call: '...if you've got an idea, no matter how big, small or outrageous, but one that you think might make it easier for you to get a gig or go see a gig that's I want to hear about.'

The BBC R1 Live Music Debate message board is at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio1/F2675886?thread=2701326

~ ~ ~

Transcript of BBC R4 Today, Thursday 20 April 2006
Top of the Pops caught by new Licensing Act

JIM NAUGHTIE: It's 20 past 8. Now six months after the Licensing Act was introduced to regulate 24 hour drinking it's still causing quite a bit of confusion. According to Hammersmith & Fulham Council in London, a concert staged by Top of the Pops on Saturday fell foul of the new law because it was a public event. The council warns that the president, er the presence of a studio audience meant that the event had to be licensed, and this applies to the programme's normal weekly recordings as well, all of which could now be illegal. Nicola Stanbridge reports:

[TOTP theme fades in]
NICOLA STANBRIDGE: Top of the Pops has passed from generation to generation, even though the music has changed a little bit in 40 years. Hammersmith & Fulham Council started investigating the iconic programme when it staged a small open air concert at Television Centre by the Red Hot Chili Peppers on Saturday. The council says the BBC should have applied for a licence under the new Licensing Act, and delving further now feels the BBC needs a licence for all its studios. I asked Louise Neilan from Hammersmith and Fulham if this made Sunday's Top of the Pops illegal under the new Licensing Act while a licence is sought.

LOUISE NEILAN: Yes, that could be in breach. It's all around the interpretation of whether its a private or public event, and if it's been advertised on the website and the audience has come in and is considered public. If they didn't have an audience for Top of the Pops it's our understanding that they wouldn't be in breach of the er Licensing Act. It may well have implications for other forms of entertainment as well, anything with sort of music or dancing.

NICOLA STANBRIDGE: The BBC is in discussion with the council now. No-one was available for an interview, but in a statement it said:

ACTOR READING BBC STATEMENT: The recording of live performances before a limited invited studio audience has always been treated by the BBC and the council as constituting a private event, not requiring a live performance licence. In the event that a different approach is now required the BBC will apply for the appropriate licence.

[electric guitar fade in]
NICOLA STANBRIDGE: Past presenters have rallied around the longest-running British pop show, including the very first one, Sir Jimmy Saville.

SIR JIMMY SAVILE: Top of the Pops is a way of life for young people. If they say 'no Top of the Pops', young people will bounce up like corks. When I started Top of the Pops Wednesday January 1st, 1964, 6.30 in the evening, Rolling Stones first group, at Dickenson Road in Manchester in a converted church, a journalist said to me 'How long do you think this sort of thing will last?', and I said 'As long as people listen to records, because you listen to a record of course you want to see the artist, you want to see them move'. There'll always be a Top of the Pops, one way or another, dictators or no.

[TOTP theme fade in - crowd roar]

NICOLA STANBRIDGE: Every week there's a studio audience of teenagers screaming and dancing. Mike Reid who's also presented the show, says the notion that the studio audience is in jeopardy is worrying.

MIKE REID: The crowd have always been an essential part of it since 1964. If you're doing it in an empty studio it's a bit like playing a football match with no crowd there. And if were Top of the Pops I'd just carry on and say 'to hell with Hammersmith Council, let's just do it and enjoy ourselves, they, they try and stop us enjoying ourselves at every turn now the nanny state - just go ahead, I'd be right behind it'.

NICOLA STANBRIDGE: Breaking the Licensing Act can lead to a £20,000 fine and six months in prison, but Hammersmith and Fulham Council says Top of the Pops has been running for many years without causing harm and it won't be seeking to stop the programme going ahead this Sunday, even though it thinks technically the programme is breaking the new Licensing Act.

JOHN HUMPHRYS: And the time is now 24 minutes past 8...

ENDS

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 05:09 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

The next few weeks' Top of the Pops could be illegal, if the BBC admit a studio audience comprising members of the public in the way they have done for years.

This should be covered by tomorrow's BBC R4 Today programme - although I don't know the exact time.

The lack of an appropriate licence for the TOTP studios came to light as a consequence of a gig by the Red Hot Chili Peppers at BBC TV centre last Saturday (15 April 06). There appears also to have been confusion about what constitutes a private event under the new legislation.

The BBC have for years distributed free tickets to the public in advance of the show, making it in their view an 'invitation only event'. But after discussions today with the local authority, Hammersmith & Fulham, the BBC has accepted that under the new legislation a licence under the Licensing Act is now required.

Despite the possible illegality of the next few week's Top of the Pops it looks as though Hammersmith & Fulham will not be taking any legal action. A spokesperson for Hammersmith & Fulham issued a statement which explains the council's position:

"It does appear that the BBC should have applied for a licence for the Red Hot Chilli Peppers concert because it was apparently open to the public as advertised in the Evening Standard and elsewhere. We will be looking at whether any action should be taken with regards to this event, but it is important to point out that we received no complaints about the event. The safety of people attending an event and the wellbeing of the local community, particularly neighbouring residents,
are always our primary concerns and we have no evidence that this event threatened that safety or wellbeing.

"A more pressing issue seems to be the historical consideration of Top of the Pops as a private event, attended by an invited audience. Whilst there is no explicit definition of a "public event" in the new legislation, it does appear that the way tickets are distributed for TOTP makes it a public event.

"Ultimately the decision over whether or not to apply for a licence lies with the BBC's legal team. We understand from recent discussions that they agree a licence is required and that they will imminently be submitting an application to the council.

"The BBC has an excellent track record of running events effectively and sensitively at their Wood Lane studios, and TOTP has been filmed with a live audience there for many years with no negative impact on local residents or the local environment. Therefore we cannot see a problem with them continuing to do so until their licence is in place, and we will not be seeking to prevent them going ahead this weekend.

"We will, however, continue to monitor events at the BBC and work with them to ensure that they continue to be run in safe and responsible manner."

'Louise Neilan
Spokesperson for the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham'

ENDS

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 03:49 AM

... Or in this case, apparently NOT affected by the Act.

According the the 'Today' radio programme, Fulham council has found that 'Top of the Pops' needed a licence because there was definitely an audience. They have confirmed that all such programmes will need a licence ... but have decided not to stop Sunday's performance. Pity - it needs something high-profile like that to bring home to people just how problematical this Act is. Which is exactly why it is not being stopped, naturally.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 11:08 AM

Hello All,

Setbatjazzdev, I will post an answer to your question a little later today if that's OK.

For rogerthechorister, melhnery, Terpsichore, alimac-stalbans, smfolk, Tootler, almunecarblade or indeed anyone else that would like to raise ANY issue regarding the Licensing Act could you email me directly at,

[e-mail]

This is particularlly important if like melhenry you feel you have lost a gig as a result of the changes in the law.

I'll try to give you what answers I can to whatever questions you might have.

Hope this helps.


Kind regards,



Feargal.

I shall certainly be writing to Mr. Sharkey.

I shall let you know what answers I get.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 05:29 AM

The following from the message board.

My name is Feargal Sharkey and I am Chairman of the Live Music Forum.

The Live Music Forum was set-up by the Government back in 2004 to monitor the impact of the new Licensing laws on live music. We have also been asked to put together some ideas on what the Forum thinks everyone can be doing to help ensure that live music continues to grow, prosper and develop.

To do this we've been talking to all kinds of people throughout the music industry, venues owners, promoters, booking agents, record companies and music publishers for example. Now while all of this is incredibly important the most important part of all is missing, That's where you come in. The simple truth is none of this can happen if there are not people out there standing on stages, playing music, going to gigs, enjoying the whole experience that is live music.

What I would like to hear about is you. Do you play, are you in a band or group, do you have somewhere to rehearse, what's it like, where do you play (pubs, clubs, mate's dad's garage), do you get paid, have you ever tried putting on your own gigs, how do you advertise you gigs, do you get to play outside your local area, do you use the internet to try and promote yourself, does it work?

I also want to hear what you think if you are not a musician or performer but like going to gigs. How often would you go, what kind of acts do you go and see, where, what's the best gig you've ever been to, what's the local transport like, what about ticket prices, do you buy ticket from internet ticket shops or auction sites, what could be done to make the whole thing easier or better for you?

All in all I'm happy to talk about pretty much any aspect of live music. Unfortunately I can't tell you why your record wasn't Number 1 last-week (maybe it just wasn't good enough), or why your not already confirmed to headline Glastonbury next year (see first point), but if you've got an idea, no matter how big, small or outrageous, but one that you think might make it easier for you to get a gig or go see a gig that's I want to hear about.

Now it's your turn.

Feargal.

ENDS

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 04:34 AM

The following from Hamish Burchall

On 24 April Radio 1 is hosting a 'live music debate' at the Glee Club in Birmingham. Feargal Sharkey will be on the panel, and he wants your views on live music.
Licensing minister James Purnell will also attend, as will Andy Parfitt, controller of Radio 1:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/onemusic/ask/

In a message to potential contributors, Feargal writes:

'The Live Music Forum was set-up by the Government back in 2004 to monitor the impact of the new Licensing laws on live music. We have also been asked to put together some ideas on what the Forum thinks everyone can be doing to help ensure that live music continues to grow, prosper and develop.'

These carefully worded sentences imply a worrying separation of functions. Does he mean the LMF itself keeps the monitoring of the Licensing Act's impact as something entirely separate from putting ideas together to help ensure that live music prospers?

Well, whatever he means, in conclusion he throws out this challenge:

'...if you've got an idea, no matter how big, small or outrageous, but one that you think might make it easier for you to get a gig or go see a gig that's I want to hear about.'

The message board is at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio1/F2675886?thread=2701326

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 03:53 AM

Feargal Sharkey of the Live Music Forum has a message board prior to hosting a live broadcast on Radio One.

Well, whatever he means, in conclusion he throws out this challenge:

'...if you've got an idea, no matter how big, small or outrageous, but one that you think might make it easier for you to get a gig or go see a gig that's I want to hear about.'

The message board is at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio1/F2675886?thread=2701326

I note a number of correspondents from here seem to have written already and I intend to do so.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 07:46 AM

Sorry I messed up with the links.

On 17 March a cross-party committee of MPs strongly criticised DCMS for 'inconsistent and unclear advice' during their implementation of the new licensing regime (see BBC report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4815648.stm

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 03:42 AM

From the Minister's last letter (24/03/06) to me:

"It would be inappropriate for me to comment on a specific performance of music, as licensing authorities are now responsible for administering and enforcing the new licensing regime".

To me that is simply a cop out. It is starting to result in one local authority ignoring blatant breaches of the law, (Westminster with the BBC in Abbey Rd, Tessa Jowell in the Royal Park) whilst Roger's local authority seem to be adopting a "the law means what we say it means" sort of approach. Sheffield seems to take the same approach but from a more liberal standpoint.

There must be lawyers all over the land rubbing their hands with glee. I seem to remember Richard Bridge pointing out something to that effect much earlier on in this debate.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 11:50 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

On 17 March a cross-party committee of MPs strongly criticised DCMS for 'inconsistent and unclear advice' during their implementation of the new licensing regime (see BBC report:
Now the Better Regulation Commission has weighed in with another report on licensing reform, equally critical of both DCMS and the government. 'Implementation of the Licensing Act 2003' was published by the BRC earlier this month (PDF file): http://www.brc.gov.uk/publications/licensingact2003.asp

The new report explicitly highlights uncertainty over the 'incidental music' exemption, and puts the blame firmly on the government:
'We find it alarming that the government is unable to clarify its intentions and explain to those affected by its own legislation what they are required to do.' [para 31, p16, full text below]

They add, under 'Observations':
'The uncertainty over incidental music. Should changes need to be made to legislation to resolve this, then they should be initiated immediately.'

In paragraph 4 (and many others), highlights the hidden costs and bureaucracy:

'Although the 2003 Licensing Act is a significant deregulatory and simplification measure that originally enjoyed widespread support, the way it was implemented during 2004 and 2005 led to complaints about increased costs and unnecessary bureaucracy.

The actual experience of applicants and licensees going through the new process was often far from the streamlined, simplified, efficient and less costly process that the Act led them to expect and which we believe Parliament voted for. The Better Regulation Commission is concerned that the policy and administrative decisions taken during implementation were not subject to sufficient consultation and a rigorous analysis of options, costs and benefits.'

In para 74, the BRC adds: 'We are surprised that, after nearly ten years of better regulation under the current government, a major government department should still make the kinds of regulatory mistakes that we have outlined in this review.'

~ ~ ~

Full text of paragraph 31, BRC 'Implementation of the Licensing Act 2003':

'31. Two other things that caused major uncertainty were (a) whether a DPS [Designated Premises Superviser] always needs to be on the premises when alcohol is sold and (b) what constitutes incidental music. Neither is satisfactorily explained in the guidance and subsequent correspondence between licensees and the DCMS has not resolved these issues.

Most licensees respect and want to comply with the law and do not like operating under this kind of uncertainty. Departments should do everything possible to resolve issues of regulatory uncertainty or confusion as soon as they become apparent. We understand that the government has said that case law is needed to clarify the first issue. We find it alarming that the government is unable to clarify its intentions and explain to those affected by its own legislation what they are required to do.
ENDS

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: GUEST,Cookieless Folkiedave in Spain
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 07:45 AM

The situation is different when very little of the new legislation has been tested in the courts.

I agree entirely BUT how is the legislation going to get tested?   Wetherspoons clearly have enough financial muscle. And we can keep questioning local authorities - but they do succesfully ignore us when we ask the more awkward questions about their logic defying decisions.

As does the DCMS.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 01:57 PM

I am not sure how this is justified but I am determined to get past this excuse "We leave it to local authorities to judge what is best in their local area".

Well this is true with legislation delegated to them - but only to the extent that what any LA judges to be best MUST follow in the words of the legislation, follow the spirit of it and not be ignored and made-up locally by individual council employees to suit them.

The recourse is the courts - but before that can be an option - councils have to first provide the answers to the questions asked. We largely had those answers under the old legislation but as this was coming to an end - there was little point in going to the courts at that point.

The situation is different when very little of the new legislation has been tested in the courts. It does mean that liberal positions like The City of London's on the incidental exemption can stand until any ruling is made elsewhere and that councils who hold less liberal posisions will most likely find that they will be the ones defending their positions in court.

But all councils must be pushed out of their comfort zones and forced to answer the basic questions and if they then find the legislation a problem to enforce - they can join in the lobby to change it.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 01:37 PM

Where did James Purnell make this comment specifically on the Sheffield carols

It was the case that the event enabled without entertainment permission was because it was judged by Sheffield City Council that this participatory pub session (and the piano) was a religious service? ?

He made in a letter to David Blunkett. Hamish has certainly seen it or something similar. Currently I am in Spain so cannot post the exact words. I will do so when I am back in May. I wrote to the Minstry pointing out I thought it was unusual for a Minister to seek loopholes in an Act for which he was responsible. He ignored the comment in his last letter to me.

Sheffield City Council adjudged any carols taking place in their area - whether accompanied or not as part of a religious service. Wherever they took place. As posted earlier in this thread.

What we have now is a farce of the first order. It is a farce becasuse the law means different things in different parts of England and Wales. (It was always so as far as other parts of the UK are concerned). I am not sure how this is justified but I am determined to get past this excuse "We leave it to local authorities to judge what is best in their local area".

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 01:10 PM

Re all this about about the event's regularity -

I am coming to the conclusion that most of the problem is confusion among the elected members stemming from the change of the term Public Entertainment to Regulated Entertainment. The officers should know but I am not sure that they really try too hard to correct any wrong impressions that councillors may have.

The Vice Chair of the Licensing Commitee he is telling me that he is advised that the reason the New Star session would have to be considered as Regulated Entertainment because it is 'organised' to take place on a regular basis.

Now the term Regulated - simply refers to what is regulated or is licensable. And whether an activity qualifies - has little or nothing to do with an event's regularity. I have tried to explain this to him but says he is going to ask the officers to provide for him the exact words of the Act which support what they are advising him. This should be interesting..............

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 12:51 PM

I think that we can discount the legality of just about everything in the council's last letter. The comment I had when I asked for advice on this letter was that The council's advice is BULLS*$T.

Can the council officers explain that one?

Probably not - but they don't attempt to - they just ignore any mention of anything that does not fit...

Such as the following. This has been supplied to the officers but they have made no comment to date and appear to wish to simply ignore it and its specific relevance to the nature of these local sessions as considered by Parliament?

The following Commons quote from the then Minister concerned Dr Kim Howells made in the Bill's Standing Committee to Jim Knight MP on the 1st April 2003. This in direct response to a question about the local Cove session.
It seems that it is largely a spontaneous activity, to which people turn up occasionally and it seems also that the word has spread that people can hear some nice music. However, as the Hon Gentleman says, the licensee does not spend money on advertising. If it is clear that music is being played in the corner of the pub, that would be incidental in my book.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Snuffy
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 09:46 AM

Although "spontaneous" is not in the act, LGOs seem to interpret the Act as though "incidental" and "spontaneous" have the same meaning: viz. your message of 07 Apr 06 - 04:57 AM

'As you know, the Act contains no definition of "incidental" and my legal team advise me that in these cases it is normal to use dictionary definitions to aid interpretation. The dictionary definition of incidental includes the word "casual" which in our view, does impact on the regularity of incidental music. I can confirm that we would advise any licensees asking us that we would regard incidental music as that which:

Could take place without an audience;
Would not be advertised or held on a regular basis;

This would rule out anything that was in the slightest degree premeditated or prearranged, so it would have to be either spontaneous or regulated.

Darts matches are both advertised and held on a regular basis but this does not appear to make them "regulated entertainment". Can the council officers explain that one?

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 08:10 AM

As far as the words of the Act's Guidance is concerned - indoor sports are either licensable or they are not and it explains the reasoning for this.

The question of whether any of it is 'spontaneous' or not - is irrelevant as far as the words of the Act go - for the word does not appear in it.

Nor does an event's regularity affect whether it is licensable Regulated Entertainment or not - this factor does not appear in Schedule 1 of the Act.

Howver many types we may prefer to see - perhaps there is agreement that if all regular social music making is licensable - then so are all regular indoor games? And if all regular indoor sports are not licensable - then neither is regular social music making?

And that for local authorities to advise anything else - under the words of this legislation is unlawful and discriminatory?

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Snuffy
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 06:35 AM

Music and singing should be treated the same as darts, quizzes, etc, but to my mind there are three (not two) levels of activity to be addressed.

1. An exhibition darts match, designed to attract an audience, probably with paid performers, and probably advertised both in the pub and in local media.

2. A darts league match, which is planned in advance and "advertised"
by a fixture list on the pub notice board (i.e. not at all "spontaneous"). Spectators are not expected, but nor are they banned or even discouraged.

3. A few friends meeting in a pub and deciding on the spur of the moment to have a quick game of darts.

I think both we and the council officers would agree that type 1 is regulated and type 3 is not. However, the officers appear to claim that type 2 occurences are "regulated entertainment" for music but not for pub games.

A regular, planned session with low-key "in-house" advertising can be no more and no less "regulated entertainment" than a league match of darts, dominoes or quiz.