 sj |
||
|
||
'2 in a bar rule' UK
|
|
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: Richard Bridge Date: 13 Jul 05 - 02:09 PM Armageddon angrier and angrier.... |
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 13 Jul 05 - 10:05 AM No Kendall, as all of this is real, it's more like Armageddon. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: kendall Date: 13 Jul 05 - 08:38 AM Let's see now, loud mouth drunks and football on the TV are ok, but singing is strictly regulated? Is this Wonderland? |
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 13 Jul 05 - 03:08 AM From a letter from WPBC to my MP (the full letter is in the above thread). 18 December 2003 Dear Jim He also refers to the "two in the bar rule" introduced by Section 182 of the Licensing Act 1964, exempting music and singing in licensed premises either solely by reproduction of recorded sound or no more than two performers. The Courts have interpreted this exemption extremely narrowly and in a 2002 decision (case of Sean Toye v Southwark London Borough Council, (extract of which is enclosed) held that even karaoke entertainment necessitated the premises to be licensed. Again, the question of payment for performance was irrelevant to the outcome of this case. The "extract" - contained the judge's opinion that has been referred to in this thread and was what was being advised by the reference to "Courts have interpreted this exemption extremely narrowly". A narrow interpretaion that the council officers advise to MPs, councillors etc - but now choose to ignore in practice.... |
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 13 Jul 05 - 02:56 AM More details on the following thread. New Star session RIP |
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: The Shambles Date: 12 Jul 05 - 01:56 PM Yes my lot have bent over backwards to ensure that non-amplified sessions are prevented for the lack of a PEL and adamant that any interpretaion of the the two-in-a-bar exemption could not enable this form of music making for their own pleasure by pub customers. When there must be reasonable doubt that these events had any 'performers' or there was any performance and they certainly did not present any problem to the public's safety. This was considered as a performance of unlicesed public entertainment At the same time - amplified open mics - kareoke and performers with recorded backing tapes - are ignored or incredibly considered exempt under the two-in-a- bar rule! At the same time Weymouth and Portland Borough Council are claiming to be only following the law and any recent rulings.......... |
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: Richard Bridge Date: 11 Jul 05 - 07:05 PM No - backing tapes illegal. That's exactly the point of the Toye ruling - the karaoke recordings were illegal if there was ALSO a live singer. |
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: Hand-Pulled Boy Date: 11 Jul 05 - 06:24 PM Solo Clubland style talentless singer Plus mega loud backing tapes = lots of money. Unfortunately much louder than a bunch of acoustic musicians but leagal. So unfair. |
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: The Shambles Date: 11 Jul 05 - 03:32 PM That is the difficulty. There is no real will on my part to stop any form of live music (where there are no good reasons to do so). It is really still unclear if a succession of less than two different performers is in fact illegal and there is only a matter of months in which to try and establish something that will then be of academic interest only. I will probably carry on - if only to emmbarrass the council's officers and try and establish the position for open mics, sessions etc - in premises without entertainment permission - as from November. For it looks as if these will be in the majority. But it is maddening when these people have been responisible for preventing long-running acoustic sessions - for no good reason locally - but now seem to wish to place themselves at risk - in order to ensure that these non-licensed amplified events continue. The issue is not amplification or noise but simply that the officers are now prepared to take these licensee's word that no more than two 'performers' are involved - when they were not prepared to do this for sessions when no amplification was involved. I have asked if the sessions they prevented can now legally re-start - but this request was ignored. |
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: GUEST,Ghettoblaster Date: 11 Jul 05 - 01:37 PM If you want to stop the open Mic nights to create political pressure (and persuade pubs to consider folk rather than electric) then just keep sending in letters complaining about the unlicensed public electric performances. They can be anonymous letters if you like. |
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 11 Jul 05 - 01:24 PM That's it Shambles! What our local authorities wish it to be, as opposed to the new law which is...........roughly the same, but without the music. Why oh why didn't I emigrate when I was still young enough to start a new life? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: The Shambles Date: 11 Jul 05 - 10:03 AM If this (the same two performers) should ever be proved to be the case - I wonder just how many open mic nights (with a succession of different performers) are currently being permitted in premises without PELs - by our local authorities. If they are found to be knowingly allowing this form unlicensed public entertainment to take place - these local authorities are themselves in breach of the current law. If they believe that this is the legal position - why do they choose not to enforce it? But as they are unlikely to prosecute themselves and the police ( locally anyway) do not seem to see that upholding this law and bringing charges against a local authority is a matter for them - the licensing law is really what our local authorities wish it to be.......... |
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: GUEST,Richard Bridge with no cookie Date: 11 Jul 05 - 09:26 AM To deal with the question asked: - Until the new law is in force - two all evening. The same two. Toye -v- London Borough of Southwark. Sham is technically correct this is not part of the "ratio decidendi" of a case that creates binding precedent - but unless the landlord want to go to the Court of Appeal and possibly House of Lords, and has the funding to do it, he is in practice lumbered. The view (the same two all evening) is almost certainly wrong - first it is a noise/disturbance issue and the identity of performers is irrelevant to that, only the number affects it, and second, Human Rights Act (law must be interpreted in accordance with if possible) and the point is freedom of expression. But there is a risk that even if the landlord had the funds and will to fight, the UK courts would STILL get it wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: The Shambles Date: 11 Jul 05 - 05:36 AM I think that any legislation that is delegated to Local Government to enforce is problematic. For anyone who falls foul of its interpretation at local level is told that it IS the law and any approach to change it - must be made to Central Government. When anyone does this - the response from Central Government is that it is a matter for Local Government. It is a wonderful 'cop-out' for both sides but we all seem to end up the losers. The answer must be for us to ensure that the legislation IS tested and tested early - so that we all know where we stand and whether it is the interpretation by Local Government that is wrong and needs to change to comply with the legislation - or if the legislation itself needs to be changed. The following is an example of what we must try to avoid happening under the new Act. Despite being responsible for preventing sessions locally - for the lack of a PEL - my LA's officers have written to advise my MP that they consider that a series of two different performers would not be exempt (under the two-in-a-bar rule) but are still maintaining that (some) pubs holding advertised open mic nights do not currently require PELs. Because of the mess they have gotten themselves into - it now suits the officer's purpose to do this. But quite how they manage it - is a mystery that despite my best efforts to find out - looks as if it will remain one. |
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: treewind Date: 11 Jul 05 - 03:35 AM "When I use a word it means just what I want it to mean - Neither more nor less" That's right, and the new licensing system will be the same, but more so. Anahata |
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: The Shambles Date: 11 Jul 05 - 03:16 AM As from November 2005 - it will not really matter much and we will have many more such questions and definitions to concern us. Courts find Licensing Policy ILLEGAL As the new Act requires any live music played anywhere to have Premises Licence entertainment permission - we will not have to rely on licensees to test this legislation for us. |
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: The Shambles Date: 11 Jul 05 - 02:21 AM I thought it was tested in a case involving kareoke. This test was if a form of Kareoke was classed as 'recorded sound'. It was (eventually) found to be - on appeal. One of the judges expressed their opinion that they considered that Paliament intended it to be - the same two individual performers - but this case did not decide the issue at hand. It is difficult to see how it could be thought of decided - as the experts advise that there is no case-law that has determined what a 'performer' is. |
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: Bonecruncher Date: 10 Jul 05 - 10:17 PM Comment from The Shambles:- "Does this rule/law mean two people can perform in a bar/pub at any one time, they finish performing and another 2, or solo, can get up and perform, and then another two etc. The answer is that will we probably never know - as this question was never actually tested in the courts. When this situation occurs - the law becomes what those empowered to enforce it - say it is - and where they can change what they say it means - to suit themselves." I seem to hasve read this before - "When I use a word it means just what I want it to mean - Neither more nor less". Alice Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll. Colyn. |
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: PennyBlack Date: 10 Jul 05 - 06:34 PM "Two in a bar" - soon to be "None in a Bar" Karaoke - Mixing recorded and Live Music - always required a license This link may help - or ask a question PB |
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: GUEST Date: 10 Jul 05 - 05:51 PM I thought it was tested in a case involving kareoke. |
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: The Shambles Date: 10 Jul 05 - 09:29 AM Does this rule/law mean two people can perform in a bar/pub at any one time, they finish performing and another 2, or solo, can get up and perform, and then another two etc. The answer is that will we probably never know - as this question was never actually tested in the courts. When this situation occurs - the law becomes what those empowered to enforce it - say it is - and where they can change what they say it means - to suit themselves. As from November 2005 - it will not really matter much and we will have many more such questions and definitions to concern us. The answer is to ensure that these aspect are subject to early challenge in court - then we can quickly establish if the unclearly-worded legislation needs to be changed to make these things more clear to us all. |
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: Lizzie Cornish Date: 10 Jul 05 - 08:55 AM Sorry! Woops!....that last bit of the chorus should read like this: "Haul away boys, let them go Out in the wind and the rain and the snow, We've lost more than we'll ever know, On the rocky shores of England." Obviously pressed the wrong button in the wrong place! Lizzie :0) |
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: Lizzie Cornish Date: 10 Jul 05 - 08:52 AM Steve Knightley of Show of Hands has just written a song called 'Roots' which he started writing after hearing Kim Howells saying that his vision of hell was hearing three folks singers playing in a Somerset pub. He was so outraged that he decided to do something about it....he also spreads the word about this bill at Show of Hands gigs, trying to wake everyone up to what is happening, not just with this new law but also to how we have let go of our music and our traditions. Music it seems to me, is the only way left to deal with the apathy in this nation.....if that is now going to be taken away as well then we all need to hang our heads in shame at what we have let happen. 2005? Read 1984 and shudder! Here are some of the lyrics if anyone is interested. It's not available yet on CD but I'm sure it's only a matter of time before it is. Better still get to a Show of Hands gig and hear it for yourself! The chords and full translation are available on the Show of Hands fan site...LONGDOGS...you can get there via the Show of Hands messageboard: Just click on 'messageboard' and it will show either 'Show of Hands' or 'Longdogs'....obviously...click on Longdogs, sign in and you're there. This is the section of his song that deals with Kim Howells: 'ROOTS' by Steve Knightley ...... ..."And the Minister says his vision of hell Is three folk singers in a pub near Wells. I've got a vision of urban sprawl Pubs where no one ever sings at all. And everyone is staring at a TV screen Overpaid soccer stars, prancing teens Australian Soap, American Rap, Estury English, Baseball Cap, We learn to be ashamed before we walk Of the way we look and the way we talk Without our stories or our songs, How will we know where we came from Take St. George and The Union Jack It's my flag too, I want it back
Chorus: Seed, bud, flower, fruit, Never going to grow without their roots, Branch, stem, roots..they need roots...and.. Haul away boys let them go, Out in the wind and rain and snow, So guys....get out there and take this song to every corner of the nation. Give us back our pride, our singers, our stories, our heritage, our music and...our freedom to sing where we want, when we want! Lizzie :0) "We've lost more than we'll ever know, on the rocky shores of England." |
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: Hand-Pulled Boy Date: 10 Jul 05 - 08:08 AM How about two in the bar and one in the beergarden? |
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: Rasener Date: 10 Jul 05 - 07:55 AM So as long as the pub has a public entertainment licence, everything is OK |
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 10 Jul 05 - 06:53 AM Two to a bar 2/4 Three to a bar 3/4 Four to a bar 4/4 (common time) |
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: Dave Hanson Date: 10 Jul 05 - 06:32 AM Some of the colonials are still revolting. eric |
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 10 Jul 05 - 06:17 AM A much better choice would have been the old Boogie Woogie tune: BEAT ME DADDY - EIGHT TO A BAR/
Would William Pitt have permitted this?
Sincerely, |
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 10 Jul 05 - 06:04 AM Definitely two per event, and that interpretation was the spark that set the whole powder keg alight and resulted in the abortion we now have to find ways to live with. Give our authorities the discretion to interpret laws, and that is the kind of extreme decision you can expect. Doesn't bode well for the future, does it? They only had two choices on 2-in-a-bar, and they got it wrong. What are they likely to make of the new minefield? I suspect we may be on the brink of the biggest government clusterf**k of all time. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: DMcG Date: 10 Jul 05 - 06:04 AM Here's a cutting from one of Kim Howell's remarks on the subject. (Of, you may not feel anything KH said is inherently reliable!):
|
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: DMcG Date: 10 Jul 05 - 05:52 AM In the past it was more commonly treated as two at any time, but I am certain I have read elsewhere on this site that some magistrates have recently interpreted it as two performers for the entire event. If your own money is at risk, be aware the strict interpretation has been used. There are other people here who can be more specific about dates and circumstances. |
|
Subject: RE: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: Hand-Pulled Boy Date: 10 Jul 05 - 05:48 AM Good question Dave. |
|
Subject: '2 in a bar rule' UK From: GUEST Date: 10 Jul 05 - 05:24 AM Clarification needed please. Does this rule/law mean two people can perform in a bar/pub at any one time, they finish performing and another 2, or solo, can get up and perform, and then another two etc. Or is it two only can perform at a single event in a pub/bar. Thanks |
| Share Thread: |