Affected by The Licensing Act 2003

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Feb 06 - 05:11 AM

And as the council do now have to pay anyway to obtain Premise Licence enertainment permission on their land for the various parades, festivals etc that they organise - to expect other groups who may wish to organise their own events on this the only available land to pay the council for this - is perhaps not such a generous approach as it may appear.

To continue in my cynical mood about the general buck passing etc.

The triple 'whammy' is when both the ones responsible for making the legislation and the ones who enforce it - join together and totally wah their hands to inform you that the final decision of course will a matter for the courts to decide........

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Feb 06 - 04:26 AM

The only possible surprise is that as the need for such action was known long before the Act's final implementation in November that it has taken this long to even get this far especially as it was outlined even further back in the statement of local licensing policy.

And the impression is being given that this is some kind of local inititive for which the council's officers deserve credit rather than the Act giving them little or no choice.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Feb 06 - 04:15 AM

But the point about councils needing to apply for licences for maypole dances on teh local green or common (and concrete analogues) was known and debated in the run-up to the act. Where is the surprise?

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Feb 06 - 02:22 AM

Well there are many ways of looking at this issue.

I am simply pointing out that due to the Act and the LAs lack of influence in it - this is the only way that Weymouth is going to be able to have its Punch and Judy show or travelling circuses etc.

This seems to matter enough to some of the councillors for them to try to take steps to enable it and where there is a will there is usually a way. But this concil feels it has to continue to prevent and obstruct local sessions, even after the last 5 years have been spent pointing out that there is no legal reason that forces this council to hold this position.

I am just pointing out some of the implications of what is planned to get around the less positive aspects of this Act. I am sure that others can point out more. But perhaps rather than concentrate all their efforts on getting around just some of the Act's requirements and be happy to inflict others and try to blame the Government - it may be better for LAs through their association to lobby the Government to change the entertainment aspects of the Act that are causing problems?

I am sure that I may come over to you as being a little hard but perhaps if you had received just some of the treatment that this council has dished out - you may think that I am being remarkably generous?

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Nick
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 08:33 PM

Shambles -

Should we not applaud the council for trying to apply sense rather than chiding them for the lack of their endeavour in trying to effect wholescale reform?

Small stuff and big stuff etc

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 07:34 PM

Dorset Echo February 10 2006
By Peter Hawkins

Council aim to 'encourage activities'

SHOWS COULD GO ON IF BID IS SUCCESSFUL

Weymouth's Punch and Judy show and visiting circuses could benefit if councillors succeed in closing a licensing loophole.

Weymouth and Portland Borough Council is applying to itself to get entertainment licences for several areas to allow events to take place without groups having to pay the cost of their applications.

The licenses will initially cover the Weymouth seafront and town centre, Hope Square, Lodmoor Country Park, Southwell Village Green, the Princess Diana Memorial Gardens, Easton Gardens, West Weares and Chesil Promenade.

Borough licensing manager Sue Moore said: "We have done it to encourage activities in these areas. If we hold the licence then any individual performers will not need to obtain their own premises licence. "They will not need to go through all the rigmarole of applying".

Separate departments within the council are putting together applications for their own designated areas and Mrs Moore stressed that they would undergo the same procedures as all other applicants.

She said the move, which does not include permission to sell alcohol, 'sweeps up a lot of anomalies in the act'.

If the licences are passed. local groups wanting to hold events that would normally be subject to a licence can apply to the council for permission. Organisers of activities where alcohol would be on sale would still need to apply for a temporary events licence or their own premises licence.

Mrs Moore said that charges could apply to cover the cost the council had incurred in setting up the licenses.

She said: "It's going to be cheaper than people applying for their own licence and having to go through all the procedures such as advertising."

She added that the council would consider waiving or discounting the fees for charity events.

ENDS

As all the places mentioned are owned by the council - I am puzzled as to how anyone who did not own this land could apply for Premises Licence entertainment permission in the conventional way - in order to hold entertainment on it. The licensing manager's implication is that, say the Punch and Judy show somehow could apply for a Premises Licence on the Weymouth seafront - but that this way would be cheaper and less 'rigmarole'.

Funny how the procedure that was descibed for all other applicants as simple box-ticking - is now described by the licensing manager as 'rigmarole'.

As the council would be charging, have the final say and also have the monopoly on the land available - this proposal could be seen to be open to abuse. It will be interesting to see how the council deal with any objections to them issuing Premises Licenses to itself......

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 03:32 PM

Whoever you vote for, the government always gets in.

Sadly either at national level or local level - the same officials will always be in place whoever gets voted in. And will stay in place even when they fail to reply to an MP's letter for 6 months!

In the case of legislation that gets passed to local government to administer - like the Licensing Act 2003 - the public is in the worst of both worlds. When it does not work, neither will accept responsibility but the blame will just pass backwards and forwards for ever.

The classic is the one about ministers not being able to comment on the actions of individual local authorities. Where local authorities will state in return that they are only following central government's guidance - even when they are not.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 02:08 PM

A small number keep writing.

A large number have realised that nothing will make these people tell the truth or see the truth, and that our "saviours" from the oppression of the evil bitch Thatcher and her spawn have transpired to be just as bad.

Whoever you vote for, the government always gets in.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 01:23 PM

On the issue of darts in public houses, the advice to licensing authorities clearly states that unless a game of darts or similar indoor sport takes place in the presence of an audience with the intention of entertaining that audience, if only in part, it would not be a licensable activity. It is entirely right that the licensing authority should determine whether darts matches are taking place for the entertainment of others who are not involved in the activity as they must consider each application on its own merits.

Now it was not clear in the example I supplied (and which the minister could not comment on) if any entertainment permission for indoor sports were actually part of this Premises Licence application. However, his reply assumes that application was made and that on application for entertainment permission such an action by the LA would be 'entirely right'.

But there may have not have been any specific application for permission for indoor sport. And as the minister states - without it being for entertaining an audience there would be no need for such an application. Under these circumstances there can be no justification for any conditions on the time this activity should cease to be imposed, as these indoor sports could not be considered as Regulated Entertainment.

That seems to leave us with the situation where whether specific application was made or not and despite the words of the Act's Guidance - the LA must have decided at some point - in order to impose the conditions it did - that these indoor sports were for the purpose of entertaining an audience. An interesting concept in the small pub concerned. Or perhaps they just got it wrong?

But perhaps the specific explanation in the Act's Guidance of when indoor sports should or should not be considered as Regulated Entertainment was not really required and has actually made things worse for any particpatory live music making that would also not be for the purpose of entertaining an audience? As no similar explanation as to when this should not be considered as Regulated Entertainment is given for our LAs in the Act's Guidance and they seem unable to read the words of the Act itself?

That may explain why my LA's officers considers that a regular congregation of musicians at a pub COULD constitute Regulated Entertainment but do not consider that a regular congregation of darts or pool players would.................
Perhaps the minister (via our MP's) should be asked to provide such an addition to the Act's Guidance for live music - or remove the one for indoor sports?

However, this does not explain why LAs seem to think that the Act entitles them to impose conditions on activities that are not considered by them even be Regulated Entertainment or prevent these activities from even starting! But my LA has tended to make up its own licensing law and ignore everything else and there is no sign that anyone has the will or is in any position to stop their officers from continuing to do exactly as they wish.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 12:34 PM

If the licensee disagrees with the conditions which the licensing authority has attached to the licence he can, of course appeal against the decision.

If the above is supposed to be an answer to the following -   
In the light of this - can you establish from the Minister - what is now preventing conditions for new lavatory blocks, re-wiring, treble glazing, air conditioning, chillout rooms, crush rails, bouncers, etc and all the things that the Government have assured us there wouldn't be under this legislation? - The answer is clearly that nothing is preventing it.

The explanation that licensees can appeal when these conditions are insisted upon - is not preventing LAs from insisting on them or preventing them from using applications for entertainment permissions as an open house to interfere with matters that are none of their concern.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 12:00 PM

"Unlike the old regime, the fee for a premises licence will be no different whether an applicant simply applies for an authorisation to supply alcohol or also decides at the same time for an authorisation to provide regulated entertainment. Furthermore, fee levels have been set centrally to avoid inconsistencies and unfairness, and at a level that accurately reflects the cost of the regime. This is of immense value to premises such as pubs, bars, restaurants, clubs, and hotels which under the old regime would have required separate licenses and fees to allow any live music of more than two musicians."

The same tired, disingenuous, and factually inaccurate claptrap......What a surprise!

I see he is still talking about conferring with musicians, and then spoiling it by naming the "independent" Live Music Forum composed of Feargal Sharkey, and other pop wannabees, and "grass roots music organisations" few of whom have a clue about folk, or any other live music, as most of them mime live appearances. This, I assume, is the "independent" group who have been echoing the inane government line on radio and TV........I thought so. They'll be a big help..NOT!

He is also continuing with the downright unmitigated bloody LIE, that there is no cost involved in opting for live music. Tell that to those who had to pay for architects drawings, and advertising, and to any unfortunate enough to have to apply for a variation.

And when, not if, the adverse effects do become inescapably apparent, they will "consider" making changes.

Considering will do little to help, unless they act upon it. Does anybody still believe that will happen, and if it does, how do they propose to restore all the clubs whose organisers will have decided they've had enough of fighting stupid, ignorant jacks-in-office over petty imposed restrictions and conditions?

And to cap it all off, the dumb sod can't even spell licenCe.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 10:34 AM

Six months ago, I sent a letter to the DCMS (vis my MP) which asked the following questions about how local authorities were enforcing this legislation locally.

The fear is that it is not the provision of that entertainment that is being regulated in this example. What appears to be regulated here - is the sale of alcohol, and it is being made a condition of the sale of alcohol that darts and live music should stop at 11 and recorded music can continue until 12pm. If so – the danger becomes wholly clear that local authorities are now attaching conditions - even to things that are not in themselves regulated - when licensing things that are regulated.

In the light of this - can you establish from the Minister - what is now preventing conditions for new lavatory blocks, re-wiring, treble glazing, air conditioning, chillout rooms, crush rails, bouncers, etc and all the things that the Government have assured us there wouldn't be under this legislation?

And

If these licensing committees have no grounds to and cannot refuse or limit the extended opening hours and the official bodies accept the application as it stands – even when there are local objections – can you ask the Minister concerned to ensure that Government take action to prevent conditions like these being imposed? For these conditions are mere a 'token gesture' – risk damaging perfectly safe activities, are questionably legal and cannot be justified under the four main objectives of the Act.

This was the minister's reply.

Department for Culture, Media and Sport
James Purnell MP
Minister for Creative Industry and Tourism
2-4 Cockspur Street
London
SW1Y 5DH
www.culture.gov.uk
Tel [phone]
[e-mail]



5 February 2006

Dear Jim

Thank you for you letter of 12 September with one from Roger Gall [……] about the implementation of the Licensing Act 2003 by Weymouth and Portland Licensing Committee. I am sorry for the unacceptable delay in replying to your enquiry.

You will understand that I cannot comment on individual decisions taken by licensing authorities or on their implementation of the Act as they now have responsibility for the new licensing system. However, I can confirm that it is not the Government's intention to stifle the provision of entertainment in licensed premises – quite the opposite. Mr Gall has contacted my officials on a number of occasions regarding the Licensing Act 2003. Despite our reassurances, he remain unconvinced of the benefits it brings to musicians and other entertainers and we therefore must agree to differ on this matter.

There has been a great deal of debate about the 2003 t on a wide range of related issues, including live music. For example, in May and June 2004 Parliament debated the statutory guidance to licensing authorities on carrying out their functions. During these debates the question of the effect of the reforms on live music has been considered many times. Parliament has endorsed the Government's proposed reforms and has allowed the 2003 Act to be given effect. The challenge now is to ensure that the measures we have put in place meet our expressed objectives and this can only be tested with the fullness of time.

It is the Government's intention to see live music flourish and it strongly believes that measures contained within in the Act will provide increased opportunities for musicians and other entertainers. It has removed the need for a separate public entertainment licence so that only a single authorisation will be needed to supply alcohol, provide regulated entertainment such as the performance of live music, and provide late night refreshment. Six existing regimes have been integrated into a single licence, cutting at a stroke significant amounts of red tape.

Unlike the old regime, the fee for a premises licence will be no different whether an applicant simply applies for an authorisation to supply alcohol or also decides at the same time for an authorisation to provide regulated entertainment. Furthermore, fee levels have been set centrally to avoid inconsistencies and unfairness, and at a level that accurately reflects the cost of the regime. This is of immense value to premises such as pubs, bars, restaurants, clubs, and hotels which under the old regime would have required separate licenses and fees to allow any live music of more than two musicians.

To ensure that the Licensing Act will allow live music to flourish we will closely monitor and evaluate its effectiveness. We are committed to a follow up survey in 2006 on the extent to which small venues across England and Wales stage live music. This will be a key performance indicator for the success of the regime. The first survey, which interviewed 1600 small venues, remains of one the most comprehensive studies of live music in England and Wales and a recent inquiry by the Market Research Society unheld the integrity of the research.

We will continue to work with musicians and listen to their views. The independent Live Music Forum. which includes representatives of the music industry, the Arts Council, local authorities and grass roots music organisations is happy to listen and consider the views of all those with an interest in live music with a view to producing recommendation for further action. If in time there is evidence to suggest that the Act has had any unintended negative impacts on live music, the Government will consider making changes.

You may be aware that we began a two stage review of the statutory guidance to licensing authorities to licensing authorities and the police on 1 December. One of the aims of the review is to identify lessons from implementation and to share best practice between local authorities. An initial review, focusing on issues where there is a high degree of consensus among stakeholders, will be completed in the Spring. A comprehensive review of the Guidance, including a full public consultation, will be completed by Summer 2006 and a revised version will be laid before Parliament by the end of 2006.

On the issue of darts in public houses, the advice to licensing authorities clearly states that unless a game of darts or similar indoor sport takes place in the presence of an audience with the intention of entertaining that audience, if only in part, it would not be a licensable activity. It is entirely right that the licensing authority should determine whether darts matches are taking place for the entertainment of others who are not involved in the activity as they must consider each application on its own merits. If the licensee disagrees with the conditions which the licensing authority has attached to the licence he can, of course appeal against the decision.

It is fair to say that the Licensing Act 2003 has touched on a number of issues that are emotive and important to many people. I am aware that since the proposals for licensing reform were first published, a small number of musicians have written to this Department on a regular basis and taken part in a number of campaigns to ensure that our proud tradition of live music is not hurt in any way. The Government shares Mr Gall's passion for live music performance and other entertainment such as darts and we are confident that the Licensing Act is the best means of moving forward. In the meantime we will closely monitor the effectiveness of the reforms to ensure it aims are fulfilled.

James Purnell MP
Minister for Creative Industries and Tourism

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 10:24 AM

More information on the following BBC site.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4695224.stm

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 09:45 AM

I am advised by Hamish Birchall that on R4 PM yesterday, James Purnell accepted the Conservative criticism that these statistics cannot tell us anything reliable because there is no previous study against which to compare them (apart from the extra cash that was provided). He said much more time was needed.

A point that wasn't conceded by The DCMS with the earlier MORI live music data.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 03:25 AM

Good thread this Shambles. Thanks for keeping us updated.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 03:21 AM

http://www.thepublican.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=19758&d=32&h=24&f=23&dateformat=%25o%20%25B%20%25Y

Major drop in violent crime since Licensing Act
Published 8th February 2006

Serious violent crime has dropped by more than a fifth since the new Licensing Act was introduced, according to official figures.
The Home Office statistics, released today, fly in the face of concerns that the new laws would mean drink-fuelled Armageddon on Britain's streets.

They show that serious violent crime was 21 per cent lower in the last three months of 2005, while total violent crime was down 11 per cent. The number of woundings fell by 14 per cent.

This included a six-week period when the police were given £2.5m to target alcohol-related crime.

ENDS

I like the factual tone of The Publican's last paragraph.............

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 03:20 AM

a href=http://www.thepublican.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=19758&d=32&h=24&f=23&dateformat=%25o%20%25B%20%25Y> http://www.thepublican.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=19758&d=32&h=24&f=23&dateformat=%25o%20%25B%20%25Y

Major drop in violent crime since Licensing Act
Published 8th February 2006

Serious violent crime has dropped by more than a fifth since the new Licensing Act was introduced, according to official figures.
The Home Office statistics, released today, fly in the face of concerns that the new laws would mean drink-fuelled Armageddon on Britain's streets.

They show that serious violent crime was 21 per cent lower in the last three months of 2005, while total violent crime was down 11 per cent. The number of woundings fell by 14 per cent.

This included a six-week period when the police were given £2.5m to target alcohol-related crime.

ENDS

I like the factual tone of The Publican's last paragraph.............

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 12:39 PM

http://www.thepublican.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=19716&d=32&h=24&f=23&dateformat=%25o%20%25B%20%25Y

The Publican
Council says sorry for shutting pub
Published 2nd February 2006
A council has apologised for closing a West Yorkshire pub temporarily because the personal licence-holder was not present.

The Generous Pioneer, a Wacky Warehouse pub in Burley-in-Wharfedale, was shut down for 45 minutes by officials from Bradford Metropolitan District Council on January 22.

But under the Licensing Act pubs are not required to have a personal licence-holder on site at all times.

The pub was allowed to reopen after the council admitted its mistake.

Tracy McCluckie, Bradford Council's licensing manager, said: "It was a misunderstanding which has now been
cleared up.

"We have written to the licence holder and apologised for any inconvenience."

But a spokeswoman for Wacky Warehouse operator Spirit Group, now owned by Punch Taverns, said the company had yet to receive a letter of apology from the council.

She added the closure had caused "both an adverse effect on trade and the enjoyment of our customers".

Tony Payne, chief executive of the Federation of Licensed Victuallers' Associations, said: "We accept that there will be some misunderstandings involving council officials and pubs, but hopefully this has clarified what pubs are allowed to do under the new Act."

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 12:30 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

Two city-based council licensing managers I have spoken to this week (one in London) estimated that 50-60% of their pubs have no live music authorisation under the new Licensing Act. Both work for large authorities. It may be that 40-50% is the typical live music licence uptake for built-up areas.

The 'glass half empty' interpretation would be: 50-60% of bars have lost any automatic right to make a feature of live music. They are now restricted to a maximum 12 gigs a year under the temporary licence scheme, and 'incidental' music.

One lobbyist for the licensed trade said to me: 'They probably didn't want any live music anyway, so what's the problem?' His first claim may be true, but there is a big problem. As Jamie Cullum said in his BBC interview on 13 Jan, with jazz it is often a local musician that organises a new gig. Landlords may be reluctant at first. But even if one landlord didn't want live music, why should his view mean that a new landlord has to go through an expensive and time-consuming licence application just to put on a weekly gig by a solo pianist, for example? In pub chains, landlords often move on after a couple of years. Another part of the problem is that, during the licence conversion process, bars automatically kept their recorded sound systems, and big screens - no licence conditions could be applied, no one could object. The Act does not treat live and recorded music equally, as DCMS has claimed.

The 'glass half full' view would be: 40-50% of bars can have live music. Is this good? The Department for Culture might say so. But they would need to know more if they were to justify such a claim:

1. Of those with a live music permission, how many were conversions of an existing public entertainment licence?
2. How many got permission just to keep one or two musicians (like the Grove Park Hotel in Chiswick)?
3. How many live music permissions are subject to conditions that have yet to be implemented by the venue?
4. Where conditions apply, what are they exactly (they could include restrictions on the days/times of performance, and even the nature of the music provided)?

None of the local authorities I have spoken to have been able to provide this information. Indeed, even when their public licensing registers are fully up to speed they will probably not include this level of detail.

DCMS is currently working with 10 local authorities in an evaluation of the implementation of the Licensing Act, including Birmingham, Blackpool, Brighton, Bristol, Cardiff, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Taunton Deane (I don't yet have the 10th council's name). Feedback will inform the review of the licensing Guidance that has already been announced. Part of the evaluation will cover live music. Councils are also under pressure to provide information for the separate licence fee review currently underway.

One of the participating licensing managers told me that they still have a backlog of licences to issue, and they don't yet know exactly what information about live music DCMS is seeking. In any case his council would only be able to provide very limited data, i.e. the number of live music permissions they had granted, and what proportion this represented of all applications.

It would seem that DCMS is in a difficult position if it wants to claim that the Act has been good for live music on the basis of local authority licence data.

ENDS

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 05:19 AM

Apparently the pub's licence doesn't cover allowing a bunch of people to sit around in an upstairs room singing songs.

Is anyone in the local authority saying that a bunch of people playing social games of darts or pool requires this pub to have Premises License entertainment permission or that such a thing would be prevented without it?

Perhaps we need some more details? Who is saying that the pub's licence does not cover a bunch of people sitting and singing songs? Is the room used for other activities?

But if this LA is setting out on such a course - it should first be reasonably sure that it would be successful in obtaining a prosecution in court. The only way it can do this is to make a case that it is for the purpose of entertaining an audience and thus Regulated Entertainment.

If it truly is just a group of people meeting in the pub to provide their own entertainment and they would still do this in the complete absence of anyone who might be described by the LA as an audience - there is case law to suggest that such a prosecution would be unsuccessful.

There is none to suggest it would suceed.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Feb 06 - 07:44 PM

A previous thread about the Annual 'Day of Song', Hertfordshire, UK

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Feb 06 - 07:41 PM

Just heard today that the Song Day, which has been run by Barry Goodman every March for the last few years, in the Sunrunner pub in Hitchin, is going to have to happen somewhere else instead, if it happens at all. Apparently the pub's licence doesn't cover allowing a bunch of people to sit around in an upstairs room singing songs.

I hope someone is collating all these instances of things winding down because of the new law, because we were promised there would be a honest process to reviewing the results, with a view to modifying the law if it causes these kinds of things to happen.

Some MPs appear actually to believe that kind of government promise. Or at least they claim to do so. (Then they talk about "the luxury of hindsight" and how no one could have expected things to happen that were actually predicted by everyone who knew anything about it. Singing, drinking, wars...)

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Tootler
Date: 01 Feb 06 - 07:20 PM

I love this one.

"live music always acts as a magnet in whatever community it is being played. It brings people from outside that community who, having no connection locally behave in a way that is inappropriate, criminal and disorderly"

I go to a singaround in Thirsk on a Thursday night. Half a dozen folkies of a certain age singing an eclectic mix of songs and playing some tunes. There are often local youngsters about who sometimes come in to the bar we are in to listen and otherwise sit in the lobby outside our room having a quiet drink (literally). I was quite taken aback one night to hear my playing Da Slockit Light on tenor recorder as "Awesome"!

Is this what the Association of Chief Police Officers was worried about? It makes you wonder!

The undesirable one from Middlesbrough

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Feb 06 - 08:03 AM

Today's Guardian has a trio of licensing-related letters:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,1699093,00.html

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Feb 06 - 08:01 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

On Monday 30 January culture minister David Lammy, MP for Tottenham, made a sustained and impassioned speech about the value of music at the Association of British Orchestras annual conference: http://www.davidlammy.co.uk/da/29578

'... when I stand up in the House of Commons at the Despatch Box and find my voice on behalf of the Government, it is the power of music that has given me the confidence and strength to do so,' he said.

He also said: '... No one can legislate to produce a Mozart. But what we can do is try to create the conditions in which world class ensembles can thrive and make sure enough people have the means to access what they have to offer. '

In fairness, Lammy was talking about classical music in the context of the need for reform of the Arts Council. Nonetheless, there remains a profound contradiction between his undoubtedly genuine sentiment and the new Licensing Act.

If live music is as important as he believes, why does the new licensing law treat it as: 1) a threat to society that in most public places must be subject to criminal law sanctions unless licensed, and 2) a greater threat than rioting football supporters in bars?

Lammy's website includes a contact page with an email facility:
http://www.davidlammy.co.uk/contact

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 01:54 PM

Also see this from the Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1697703,00.html

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 01:52 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

The loss of a weekly 'two in a bar' gig in Cafe Rouge, Bath, is reported in today's Daily Telegraph ('Live music "hit by licensing changes"', Paul Stokes, Monday 30 January 2006, p20). Unfortunately the article is not available online.

The Telegraph piece includes perhaps the first encouraging comment on this issue from the Musicians' Union since the Licensing Act received royal assent in July 2003. MU spokesperson Keith Ames is quoted: 'This law only came in on Nov 24 and until it has been in operation for a while we cannot judge whether it is a success or not. If the feedback is that this Act has been poor for live music, then we will be the first people at the barricades demanding that something be done about it.'

It is worth remembering that the MU and DCMS have had a long time in which to sell the purported benefits of the Act for live music. In the two years and five months between the Act receiving royal assent and coming into force the Musicians' Union has seemed, publicly at least, happy to go along with DCMS spin. The MU sent out 'live music kits' to all members to pass on to bars, restaurants and any other potential venue. The text might have been written by the DCMS press office. The fact that the Act criminalised innocuous unlicensed gigs that had enjoyed exemptions for decades, or which had never required licensing before, seemed to have been forgotten.

Tomorrow, 31 Jan, is the closing date for MU members to return the union's questionnaire about the impact of the new Licensing Act.

However, because the questionnaire failed to ask members to establish the reason why venues started or stopped having live music, it will be of limited value. Even where 'two in a bar' gigs are found to have stopped, and this coincides with the Licensing Act coming into force, this does not establish a direct causal link. If many members report such gig losses it would look less like a coincidence, but it would have been so much better to have established the cause unambiguously.

This lost opportunity is all the more reason to lobby your MP, particularly if you know of gigs lost due to the new legislation. I usually recommend the www.writetothem.com website at this point - but for some reason it is not working at the moment.

ENDS

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Jan 06 - 06:41 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall
-----------
Feargal Sharkey, chair of the Live Music Forum, is calling on every local authority to donate rehearsal space for musicians. See DCMS press release yesterday (26 Jan 06):
http://www.culture.gov.uk/global/press_notices/archive_2006/dcms012_06.htm

In the press release, DCMS describes the LMF thus:
'As well as working with partners across the live music world to ensure they make the most of the opportunities offered by the Licensing Act 2003, the Forum is also looking at a range of ways to promote live music and foster grass roots talent.'

'Opportunities'?

Rehearsal spaces will be licensable if they are used for public performance, or for private performance if profit is the intention, or indeed for a private performance put on to raise money for charity. Most private gigs used to be exempt.

Some lawyers argue that the Act even catches private music-making for your own amusement, if the performers are charged with a view to profit.

The maximum penalty for providing an unlicensed performance, where a licence is required is a £20,000 fine and six months in jail.
ENDS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this really does result in more rehearsal spaces - that will be good thing. However I am still waiting for any sign of the 'explosion in live music' that was promised in Parliament by not replacing the 'two-in-a-bar' rule with a better exemption. Something that may provide all these acts that are now supposed to be able to find rehearsal space - with the places they need to learn to be able to perform.

It would be nice to see the Live Music Forum calling on every local authority to hold a sensible policy on all aspects of live music making.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Jan 06 - 06:11 AM

Remember this minister's quote: 'My view is that there will be an explosion in live music as a result of removing the discriminatory two-in-a-bar provision' (Lord McIntosh, House of Lords, 26 November 2002). This summer James Purnell repeatedly told us on the BBC how much better the new regime would be for live music.

Any sign or evidence of this explosion?

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Jan 06 - 09:19 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

Following their coverage of Jamie Cullum's take on the new licensing laws, The Times online is inviting contributions to the debate:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,564-1981930,00.html

All contributions so far are entirely in support of Jamie. Please add your views.

PS: The Clerkenwell venue that has cancelled its weekly 'two in a bar' gig because of licensing problems is the Old China Hand pub. The owner has now given permission for this to be publicised.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Jan 06 - 09:14 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Musicians have told me of further gig losses due to the new licensing laws (see below).

In two cases I have been asked not to publish the venue's name because the owners do not want to risk antagonising their local authority when or if they decide to apply for a live music authorisation. In one case enforcement against an unlicensed 'two in a bar' gig was aggressive (threats of a £20,000 fine and possible imprisonment).

I have tried to find examples of venues that have started live music as a result of the new legislation. Despite rumours of several such places in the south west, in the end I was only given one name: the Dove Inn, Micheldever Station, Hampshire. However, when I phoned the landlord it turned out he had obtained a public entertainment licence and started the live music well before the new law came into force. He had simply converted this existing PEL into a live music authorisation under the new regime.

~ ~ ~

Reported gig losses:

London and Oxfordshire: Jazz singer Alison Bentley reports that licensing problems caused the cancellation at short notice recently of a one-off function in Flemings Hotel in Mayfair. More seriously, however, she has also lost a regular Sunday gig in a hotel near Oxford. Alison has asked that this venue remains anonymous for the present because the local authority has taken a hard line with the venue, and publicity may jeopardise a future application for live music.

Clerkenwell, London: pianist and composer Duncan Miller reports the loss of a weekly 'two in a bar' gig at a Clerkenwell bar. Again, the venue does not want publicity because of fears this could jeopardise the 'variation' live music application they are currently considering. The gigs had to be cancelled because of a misunderstanding between the licensee and Islington council during the licence conversion last year. This led to the venue failing to apply for live music authorisation.

Willesden, London: a monthly amateur big band gig at Cafe Gigi in the Willesden Green Library Centre has been cancelled. Brent Council told me that the venue used to have a public entertainment licence but did not renew it. I have not so far been able to speak to the venue's owner. According to musicians involved, the owner has been put off by the hassle of applying under the new regime. It is not clear, however, why Temporary Event Notices (TENs) have not been used to keep the gig going for the time being. However, where profit margins are small or non-existent, even £21 may prove to be a disincentive. The maximum 12 TENs allowed per premises per year would total £252.

Bath: trombonist Mel Henry reports that a regular duo gig at the Cafe Rouge in Bath has been cancelled 'temporarily' while they apply for a new licence. He adds: 'Goodness knows how long that will take!'

ENDS

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Jan 06 - 06:40 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Following The Times' coverage, BBC R4's 'Front Row' interviewed Jamie Cullum yesterday about his protest against the new licensing laws, (see transcript below).

It seems The Times misquoted Jamie, and his 'protest gig' now looks unlikely. Nonetheless, he remains outspoken in his opposition. Note that both the BBC and The Times were inaccurate about the '£1000 licence fee'. For a typical bar or restaurant, it would be knock-on costs that push the total bill to over £1000. However, as earlier BBC reports showed, total costs including live music permission were often in excess of £2,000. This came about because of lawyers' fees and the cost of architects' plans, not to mention implementing local authority licence conditions which can add thousands more.

DCMS is up to its usual tricks, reportedly claiming that the new law is 'fairer'. Fairer to recorded and broadcast entertainment, yes. Jukeboxes and other sound systems already in situ were waved through on the nod, and big screen sport (or music) is exempt. But the unlicensed provision of one or two live musicians in a restaurant, even unamplified, is criminalised.

DCMS also claim in a statement that 'a significant number of pubs have applied for the new entertainment licences'. What they didn't tell the BBC is: 1) Live music applications are not granted licences; 2) many such applications will fail, and many will be granted subject to expensive conditions (installing CCTV for example); 3) even where they are granted, only when the licence conditions are implemented will it be legal to have live music; 4) a very significant number of pubs have lost the automatic right to solo or duo gigs and will not have any live music permission on their new premises licence.

Several musicians have contacted me in the last week with reports of more two-in-a-bar gigs lost as a direct result of the new licensing laws. I am preparing these for another circular shortly.

~ ~ ~

BBC Radio 4 Front Row - Friday 13 January 2006, 7.30pm approx - Jamie Cullum licensing protest

Presenter, Kirsty Lang: Hello. The top-selling singer and pianist Jamie Cullum tells us why he's planning to stage an illegal gig.

[Other programmed items are introduced before the pre-recorded interview with Jamie]

Kirsty Lang: [Richard Ashcroft music plays].... Richard Ashcroft, and 'Keys to the world' is out on January 23rd on the Parlophone label and you can find details of Ashcroft's current tour by going to our website. Now he has spoken about how he likes playing small, intimate venues. Something which fellow singer Jamie Cullum warned today is under threat. The best-selling jazz musician says he's planning to stage an illegal gig in protest at the government's new licensing laws which means that all venues are gonna to have to pay £1000 to put live music on, even if it's only one man on a keyboard in a pub. Up until November, no licence was required if there was only one or two musicians playing. Well I spoke to Jamie Cullum on his way to a gig in Cardiff earlier today, and I asked him why he was making this stand.

Jamie Cullum: I feel quite strongly about this, this whole thing because about 90% of my gigs over the last five years now don't exist. The ones where I played and learned and got experience, and earnt money. And I've so many friends now who aren't signed to labels, who aren't, you know, earning big money or anything who have lost a lot of their gigs.

Kirsty Lang: So what you're saying is that er none of the places you played, the landlords wouldn't be prepared to pay a £1000 licence fee

Jamie Cullum: Well the thing is...

Kirsty Lang: to put a gig on...

Jamie Cullum: ... a lot of people don't know how it works, because normally when you get something like jazz which is a kind of minority interest music, it's not normally the venues who decide to put music on. It's normally like a, a local enthusiast who goes along to a venue and says why don't you have a jazz night once a Thursday, I'll promote it, I'll put it on and, and all we'll need is this, and you know I'll get some more people down, I promise it'll work. And suddenly there's a thousand pounds to be paid, and you know the landlord certainly isn't going to do it and your average everyday promoter from Wiltshire or from wherever, or the outskirts of London, isn't gonna be able to afford that and, and therefore won't be doing it.

Kirsty Lang: Do you have a, a date and a venue yet for your illegal gig?

Jamie Lang: No, I mean the thing... I was slightly misquoted on that because of course it wouldn't be me who was arrested. You know it would be the venue who was in breach of that contract, but I was so annoyed when I realised that it was actually coming in that I, I just really think that er, you know I believe this law's been implemented because they were just trying to tie up all the loose ends with the licensing laws. These laws have always been a bit weird. Back in the day when I was doing duo gigs, you know if you had a third musician suddenly it was against the law. You could have the White Stripes in, you know because it was just two people. So it just hasn't been thought through, and it hasn't been thought through the impact it has on the everyday musician.

Kirsty Lang: Well I mean, as you, as you say the previous law was nonsensical, according to the Culture Department. Actually, the point now is that the law, they say, will be fairer.

Jamie Cullum: Well, it certainly kind of, put some kind of governmental kind of stamp on it... [phrase unclear] now there's kind of restrictions. But unfortunately now what it's just doing is driving live music out of your everyday average place.

Kirsty Lang: Jamie Cullum. And we did talk to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport who look after these matters and they told us that a significant number of pubs have applied for the new entertainment licences.

END of Jamie Cullum piece.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 10:28 AM

Jamie Cullum leads the way

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 07:56 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

The Musicians' Union 'is fairly confident the [new licensing] regulations have not had an adverse effect', reported last Wednesday's Guardian.
['Circus performers get caught in the act', Mark Honigsbaum, Guardian, p13, 28.12.05; http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,,1674333,00.html

The reason for the union's position was not clear. Their view was reported in the second of only two sentences refering to the union in a full-page, wide-ranging article examining the potential effect on circuses, street arts, music, and Punch and Judy.

In the preceding sentence, Honigsbaum reported that 'Last week the Musicians' Union sent questionnaires to all 30,000 members to gauge the effect of the law change [sic] on pubs and other venues that used to host live music.'

The deadline for MU members to complete and return these questionnaires is 31 January 2006. It is, I suppose, possible that sufficient numbers had been completed and returned to inform the union's position as published in the Guardian on 28 December. But although the questionnaire is designed in such a way that it could reveal a rise or fall in the number of live music venues locally and nationally, there are problems when it comes to establishing the reasons for any change.

Of the survey's 14 questions only 5 are licensing-related, and only one, it seems to me, could of itself establish a connection between the new licensing laws and a fall in gig numbers. This is Q12: 'Of the venues that have stopped staging live music, how many previously benefited from the old 'two in a bar' rule, i.e. they didn't hold a Public Entertainment Licence but regularly staged soloists/duos?'.

Two of the three other licensing-related questions ask whether members know of venues that have started or stopped promoting live music this year (Qs10 and 11). They do not ask whether this is as a result of the licensing changes - and there are many other reasons why venues might start or stop hosting live music. If the results when analysed suggest either an overall rise or fall in gig venues, it will be impossible to say with certainty whether this is due to the new licensing law. To do that would require additional information directly from the venues themselves. The questionnaire does ask for the venues' details, so in theory it should be possible to find out why they decided for or against live music - but only by further investigation.

When I worked for the union on this issue, it was on the assumption that the executive committee and the senior officers understood that over many years entertainment licensing had led to a significant decline in live gig venues, and that we all wanted licensing reform to result in a significant increase in potential opportunities for employment. If the new Act has simply preserved the status quo ante, that to my mind, justifies the revival of a proactive campaign for legislative reform.

MU members could reasonably ask what their union's policy on licensing will be if indeed it is true that the Licensing Act has had 'no adverse effect'. I would be interested to learn what replies they get.
ENDS

Is 'no adverse effect' the same as an 'explosion of live music'? As there appears to be no way of measuring either - perhaps it can be?

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Dec 05 - 05:08 AM

I know the application was so worded because I saw it. So something does not add-up...........It will be interesting to see what the final licence states. And if it is different from the application - as the council imply that it is - establishing the process by which it was changed will be just as interesting. I will keep you informed.

I did speak to the licensee and that mystery is solved. After I had spoken to him prior to the application - he contacted the pubco (Punch Taverns) and the application was changed. He did not volunteer what it was changed to and I still have not seen the final form of the licence - as it was not displayed.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 06:05 AM

If he didn't apply for entertainment to be included in his licence, I presume he doesn't class his pub as an entertainment venue? So a session at this venue would be incidental???

Perhaps he is fed up of badly-played bodhrans? I think we should be told.

Dave

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 12:52 PM

Shouldn't the title of this thread have (England) added to it??
G..

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: GUEST,Mike
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 12:01 PM

QUOTE:-
WHITE HORSE HERTFORD SESSION STOPPED

Last Sunday, quite a few people turned up at The White Horse, Castle Street, Hertford for the regular 3rd Sunday music session. They were told by Nigel, the landlord, that the session could not go ahead as his license didn't include entertainment.

The White Horse session has been going for over 20 years with hardly a break. It has now had to stop, due in large part to the Licensing Act 2003.

:-(
Ian


COMMENT:

If he didn't apply for entertainment to be included in his licence, I presume he doesn't class his pub as an entertainment venue? So a session at this venue would be incidental???

Mike

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: GUEST,Mike
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 11:52 AM

Having been involved in public events, collections an carolling for many years. I feel that the organisers of these events are more to blame than the local council; I have always had to apply for permission for a collection, or public performance if not on private property, and have always done so, well in advance of the event.

OK now I may have to pay for some of the licences, depending on what and where it is, that would previously have been "No charge Incurred" but that is the only real difference, and two events I previously would have had to pay for have been free this year as the location already had a licence.

So why didn't the organisers contact their local council for permission (10 days minimum for a TEN)and if told a TEN was required obtain it?

Mike

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:22 AM

Not always an expression of religious belief - the "Sheffield" traditional carols are an expression of singing and community. Indeed a number of the songs which are sung are not even carols. "Hail Smiling Morn", "Swaledale", "Misteltoe Bough" being prime examples.

And the places are full of non-believers!!

Hark Hark and Wassail,

Dave

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Ian
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 05:42 AM

I would have thought Carol singing was exempt, as it is not entertainment but an expression of religious belief. Any bans on carol services should be directed to the Queen who is the head of the reconised religion of the UK (defender of the faith). Any lower authority instigating a ban ie local goverment, should be charged with religious discrimination.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: GUEST,Dáithí Ó Geanainn
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 05:12 AM

Hi Shambles
Just picking up a point you made in an earler post:
Surely sessions should be exempt as they are not provided for the purpose of entertainment?
What do you think?

Dáithí

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:42 PM

So if your landlord chooses that limit, that's up to him/her. The problem is the landlord, not the Act. Or the local council if they're the ones imposing that limit. If they're the sticking point, ask them why they imposed that limit - under the new Act, you have the right to know why the council made a particular decision over licensing (which you never had before).

No the problem remains that even with the required permission - only a duo can legally play any live music and no session with more than two participants can take place. Who is to blame for this problem is less important that trying to sort it out.

The venue's legal team decided on these words in order to preserve the same rights to provide live music as they had before. And to ensure that no objections to any increase made to the live music provision slowed-up or prevented the claim for extended drinking hours. An understandable position under the circumstances - I think you would agree.

For had they not made this application - they would have lost these rights. Unlike the right to continue to provide recorded music.

The answer I received from my local council is the following:

I can confirm that neither our Statement of licensing Policy , nor any licenses that we have issued refer to 'performers'. And there are no conditions on any licenses restricting the number of musicians that can play.

I know the application was so worded because I saw it. So something does not add-up...........It will be interesting to see what the final licence states. And if it is different from the application - as the council imply that it is - establishing the process by which it was changed will be just as interesting. I will keep you informed.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Grab
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:14 AM

It has not 'freed' all sessions - only those sessions fortunate enough to be in premises where the licensee has applied and obtained entertainment permisson from a third party.

In other words, any pub in the country who intends to host live music...

It certainly does not appear to have freed them in my local where the application for entertainment permission was limited to two performers or less.

So if your landlord chooses that limit, that's up to him/her. The problem is the landlord, not the Act. Or the local council if they're the ones imposing that limit. If they're the sticking point, ask them why they imposed that limit - under the new Act, you have the right to know why the council made a particular decision over licensing (which you never had before).

Graham.

Subject: White Horse Hertford STOPPED
From: IanC
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 04:58 AM

WHITE HORSE HERTFORD SESSION STOPPED

Last Sunday, quite a few people turned up at The White Horse, Castle Street, Hertford for the regular 3rd Sunday music session. They were told by Nigel, the landlord, that the session could not go ahead as his license didn't include entertainment.

The White Horse session has been going for over 20 years with hardly a break. It has now had to stop, due in large part to the Licensing Act 2003.

:-(
Ian

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 02:37 PM

Punch Taverns in landmark licensing case
The Publican
Published 8th December 2005

Punch Taverns is taking Leeds City Council to a judicial review over its licensing policy.
On Wednesday, December 7, judicial proceedings were issued against the council.

The landmark move will see the council taken to the Royal Courts of Justice over its policy, which Punch claims has been placing onerous conditions on pub licences.

In September, Leeds Magistrates Court threw out an appeal by Punch against Leeds City Council. Punch claimed the conditions placed on four of its pubs, which included the fitting of a fire alarm in one premises and imposing a requirement to carry out safety checks at another, were unlawful under the principles of the Licensing Act and were a duplication of existing legislation.

It is thought the review could be held as early as next month.
ENDS

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: folktheatre
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:04 AM

(c) an indoor sporting event
(d) a boxing or wrestling entertainment

I thought boxing and wrestling were sports?

And also I suppose you could switch a telly on and that'd be ok but you'd have to turn it off when a film came on?

I liked the mention of a piano being an item of entertainment even when no one's playing it! "Let's all stand around the piano and admire it!"

Let's all fight the powers that be! These 'laws', bills whatever they are, are ridiculous. Build a shed and play in that inviting locals for your 'folk event'!

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 08:04 AM

Additionally, we (and all sessions in the country) can now have as many musicians playing as we like - we're no longer limited to individuals or pairs only. This has freed us to perform as groups.

It has not 'freed' all sessions - only those sessions fortunate enough to be in premises where the licensee has applied and obtained entertainment permisson from a third party.

It certainly does not appear to have freed them in my local where the application for entertainment permission was limited to two performers or less.

But the real question is - if the session could will and often does take place in the complete absence of any audience or spectators for the enjoyment of its participants - why should it be considered to be a licensable Regulated Entertainment in the first place?

Is your local licensing authority insisting on entertainment permission for social games of darts or pool? If not - why not? For these Indoor Sports are now equally considered as much Regulated Entertainment as live music is.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Grab
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 07:12 AM

The regular Friday session at the Bees in the Wall (Whittlesford, Cambridge) was closed, after the decision of the landlord that he no longer wished to host the club. In light of this, he decided not to get a license for live music. We'd seen this coming some way off, so it was no surprise to us.

The group has therefore moved to the Carlton Arms (Kings Hedges, Cambridge) which *has* ticked the relevant box. And we've now got more regular participants than we had before!

Additionally, we (and all sessions in the country) can now have as many musicians playing as we like - we're no longer limited to individuals or pairs only. This has freed us to perform as groups.

Graham.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 02:04 AM

I made an equiry yesterday and found that the licensing section could not tell me which of the the Premises Licensed venues had entertainment permission. And of course each licence will be different.

It may be possible for a licensee on the phone to tell you that their pub has obtained entertainment permission. But this may only enable them to provide a Regulated Entertainment like Indoor Sports - but not for live music.

Under the old legislation you could ask for and obtain from the local authority a list of the premises that had PELs.