Licensing consultation announced!

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 05:21 AM

The more we write and pester our MPs, the less likely it will be that this Govt will continue to be able just waffle.....

When they are actually making things worse, they should certainly not be able to continue with waffle like this, from the Pubs minister - until they actually make a firm proposal as to what they intend to do, to make it easier to enable live music in our pubs (and elsewhere).

Licensing rules will be reformed to make it easier to play live music in local pubs, and the Government have already scrapped the planned 10% rise in cider duties (the so-called cider tax).

As there remains only one licence - what has actually been proposed by the Home Office is to increase the red tape involved in making live music in pubs and elswhere. For until the provision live music is removed from the requirement for a Premises Licence - any measure to deal with alcohol concerns - can currently only also apply to all live music (whether alcohol is being served or not).

We have the previous Govt to thank for linking together in a Premises Licence, the known benefits of live music forever with the known problems of alcohol. We have our local authorities to thank for seeing their role to prevent or limit one form of licensing activity (live music) to enable another (alcohol).

But we have the present Govt to thank for saying all the right things but not actually doing anything but to continue to watch as council employed vandals are allowed to strangle live music - often for no other reason than they have been given the power to do this and do not seem to be accountable to anyone for the resulting mess.

In practice, this is a seemingly unaccountable power that urgently needs to be taken away from those who have demonstrated time and again that this in an area that they do not understand, are not equipped to deal with and which they can only be trusted to treat as if live music had no benefits to society.

Any problems associated with live music are already dealt with by other existing legislation. When there was not other legislation - there may have be a case for additional entertainment licensing. Like the stabilising wheels on a child's bicycle, there comes a time when such measures have outlived their useful function and can only hamper forward progress.

The LGA Group lobby have discredited themselves in maintaining that this expensive duplication of existing legislation is the only way the public can be protected. The current Govt are further discredited if they continue to treat the claims of LGA Group lobby as if these were really based on a concern for the public and were something more than a powerful lobby just trying to look after their own vested interests.   

Make all premises safe for the public by all means - but please do not continue the pretence that the mere provision of any form of live music requires any more to protect the public's interests, than what has already been provided in Planning, Health and Safety, Environmental and other existing legislation.

This other legislation must be thought able to deal with any problems which may arise from the live music that is already exempted so it is not credible to claim (as the LGA Group lobby do) that any future exemption cannot also be dealt with in the same way.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 05:37 AM

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/facebook_page_calls_for_return_of_live_music_at_norwich_club_1_742054

John King coments:
It doesn't matter how many people support live music at a venue. One complaint is still enough to get it stopped.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Dec 10 - 07:12 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

A Coalition bill published on 30 November would make it a potential criminal offence to play a musical instrument, listen to a radio or even use a mobile phone in Parliament Square Garden, without a special permit. The maximum penalty would be a £5000 fine.

The measures, which include a ban on tents, are intended to tighten control over public demonstrations in the Square. See Part 3 of the wide-ranging Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill (starting from page 103 of the PDF file):
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmbills/116/11116.pdf

See also the Home Office summary:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/legislation/police-reform-bill/

Parliament Square Garden is situated within Parliament Square, on the west side of the Houses of Parliament. Peace campaigner Brian Haw has been camped there since 2001. Ministers suggested last month that they wanted to clear the area in time for the royal wedding in Westminster Abbey, which is on the south side of the Square.

The bill defines 'amplified noise equipment' in paragraph 141(4): '... any device that is designed or adapted for amplifying sound, including (but not limited to) - (a) loudspeakers, and (b) loudhailers.'

This covers many musical instruments, iPods, radios, mobile phones and even hearing aids. Their unlicensed use would be a 'prohibited activity' if a police constable or other 'authorised officer' believes that people in the vicinity 'can hear or are likely to be able to hear' them (see paras 141(2)(a) and 142(5)). iPods or hearing aids may be unlikely candidates, but instruments and mobile phone ring tones would certainly be audible.

The bill makes many significant changes to the Licensing Act, most of which are intended to tackle alcohol-related antisocial behaviour, including measures to allow local authorities to attach conditions to Temporary Events Notices.

But inevitably this would lead to an increase in the daft conditions for live music so beloved of local authorities, like St Albans whose licence conditions include restrictions on the number of performers and musical genres:
http://www.musictank.co.uk/reports/licensing-act-2003-case-study-st-albans-district-council

ENDS

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 10 - 07:55 AM

This from The Shambles

http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=22768

Not sure how this can be reported as this resaurant winnging anything but the following demonstrates clearly why all live music must be taken out of the hands of council employed vandals. They are not only ignoring (because it suits them) the Act's exemption for incidental live music but also their own body's latest Guidance issued in 22 November 2009. (See above link).

http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2010/dec/restaurant-wins-music-battle

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 05 Dec 10 - 08:42 AM

http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=22768

The following from the above:

Some examples to illustrate the difference between
"incidental music" and music that generally would require a licence
(NB this is NOT an exhaustive list)

Pub with pianist (or other single instrument
playing background music

Restaurant/bistro with duo/trio providing
background music for dining

Pub/restaurant/bistro/café has band playing
quiet music – main activity is
drinking/eating/talking

What can be done when councils like this one not only ignore the legislation (because it suits them) but also ignore their own body's (LACORS) guidance on interpretaion.

And what of the other parties (like the MU) who have agreed with LACORS to produce this Guidance? Are they happy just to do nothing and watch whilst councils ignore their jointly agreed interpretations and coninue to trample over live music - for no other reason than they can and are seemingly being allowed to......?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 10 - 09:57 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

A small restaurant has just won permission from Camden council to provide an unamplified live guitarist or harpist until 10pm:
http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2010/dec/restaurant-wins-music-battle

But wait a moment. Why should provision of such innocuous live music be made a criminal offence unless licensed? Isn't it just the sort of music that qualifies for the Licensing Act's 'incidental music' exemption?

Indeed it is, according to both local and central government guidance:

'The music is incidental if it is NOT the primary purpose for attending the premises i.e. the performer is there whilst the public are engaged in another (non-regulated entertainment) activity and that other activity would still take place even if there was no music playing. The public must be allowed to talk during the performance of incidental music i.e. there should be no expectation to listen or to watch (even if the public spontaneously sing along with the music).'
'Advice for licensing authorities about incidental music', LACORS, September 2009: http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=22768
(click on the 'incidental music' link in the third paragraph)

The government's own statutory licensing guidance is broadly the same. The exemption should apply if the music is not the main attraction and the volume 'does not predominate over other activities':
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/alcohol/guidance-section-182-licensing?view=Binary
('Licensing Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003', p31, para 3.22)

So why is Camden apparently ignoring official guidance? Did they explain the incidental music exemption to the licence applicants? There is no mention of the exemption in the press reports.

Perhaps the council is encouraged to over-regulate by Coalition havering over the small gigs exemption. And recent Ministers' replies to Parliamentary Questions on the subject have been somewhat ambiguous.

On 29th November, the evocatively named Baroness Garden of Frognal answered Tim Clement-Jones' question about the rationale for entertainment licensing:

'... what risks to public safety or public amenity arise from the performance of live music in workplaces that are not adequately covered by existing public safety and nuisance legislation, irrespective of licensing.' [HL4100]
The Baroness replied: 'The Government believe that, in the light of specific health and safety and fire and noise legislation to address public safety and public nuisance, it is not always necessary or proportionate to require the additional layer of regulation through the licensing regime. This is part of our current thinking about how best to deliver the coalition commitment to remove red tape from live music and other entertainment. However, before finalising any proposals, it is important to test these assumptions with relevant stakeholders, and that is what we are doing ahead of announcing our preferred solution.' See:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/101129w0001.htm#column_WA410

Congratulations to the wiley civil servant who penned that reply. It gives something to both sides. Those against new exemptions can use it to justify their position (e.g. the Act's existing exemptions are adequate); those for reform can take it as a hint that more exemptions are being seriously considered.   

But on 30th November, an answer from licensing minister John Penrose suggested that the government is sliding back into jobsworth jargon:

Mike Weatherley (Hove, Conservative): 'To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what plans he has to reduce the (a) regulatory and (b) administrative burden on organisers of live music performances.

Penrose: 'We are currently considering how to deliver the coalition commitment to cut red tape and encourage the performance of more live music, while ensuring that there is appropriate protection for local communities. We will continue to have discussions with representatives from the music industry, the Local Government Association and others so that we can find the best possible solution.'

http://services.parliament.uk/hansard/Commons/bydate/20101130/writtenanswers/part021.html [search on page for 'Weatherley']

That there is adequate public protection from small gigs, irrespective of entertainment licensing, should be obvious. How else could big screen sport be exempt in bars or indeed anywhere else. Consider the riot in Manchester city centre on 14 May 2008 during a big screen broadcast of the UEFA Cup final:

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1049714_battle_of_piccadilly

When asked whether they would review the broadcast entertainment exemption in light of the Manchester riot, the government said 'no'. See:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80603w0003.htm#080603100000499

ENDS

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 07 Dec 10 - 03:35 AM

http://www.philmellows.com/

The Politics of Drinking......and more:

Interesting reading but which can only highlight the folly of the last Govt in linking permission for live music and alcohol in one licence.

A situation the current Govt only make worse..............

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 07 Dec 10 - 04:46 AM

A solution to the problems for live music in pubs and other places where either a Premises Licence is in place or where the public interests are already taken care of (like schools and hospitals)- would be for a simple definition of what is incidental live music, to be inserted into the Act. Something like................

Where live music is not the Primary activity - the live music is incidental and therefore exempt:

Then all the embarrassing and unworkable rubbish in the LACORS Guidance about how the chairs are arranged and how adverts are worded - can be stuffed back where the sun don't shine.

...Or is this too simple?

How can any exemption be expected to work when the Act does not contain a definition of what is to be exempted?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 07 Dec 10 - 05:18 AM

The LGA Group lobby can hardly oppose this definition as they have already agreed and produced the following - The music is incidental if it is NOT the primary purpose for attending the premises i.e. the performer is there whilst the public are engaged in another (non-regulated entertainment) activity and that other activity would still take place even if there was no music playing.

http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=22768

Their wording means that they are agreeing that it can only be incidental live music when this is part of a non-licensable activity. This is a rather strange position, which would mean of course that there would be no protection provided to the public in the form of additional entertainment licnesing. Quite where this would be taking place is not clear and nor is the reason why they would be in agreement with a position so alien to their concerns for the public.

Can they really be seen to argue that in venues where a premises licence was already in place and ensured the public's interests for the serving of alcohol, that the introduction of live music to these premises could not also be defined and exempt as incidental?

Or that in places where the public's interests were already taken care of by other exsisting legislation (like cafes, schools, shops, hospitals etc)- that the introduction of live music to these premises could not also be defined and exempt as incidental?

The LGA Group lobby are also supporting a position where a Glastonbury-size festival for a "non-regulated entertainment" like stand-up comedy (even when live music formed a part of this) could be staged without any of the measures in the Licensing Act 2003, which they claim to be nessessary - on the same site for a similar but exclusivly live music festival.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 07 Dec 10 - 05:28 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/12/the_myths_of_24-hour_drinking.html

Tony Blair's text pledge to students at the 2001 election - "cdnt give a xxxx 4 lst ordrs? vote labour on thrsdy 4 xtra time" - translated into one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented pieces of legislation ever passed. To many people, the Licensing Act 2003 was either about the madness of introducing 24-hour drinking or the futility of trying to create a continental cafe culture in England and Wales.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 07 Dec 10 - 11:55 AM

http://www.havant.gov.uk/havant-4236

John King comments:
Havant Council like to go several nanny-state steps beyond their powers under the Licensing Act. Even if a premises does have authorisation for live music, their website warns: 'It is advisable that no regulated entertainment is carried out in outside areas in the evenings without prior consultation with the licensing authority.'

It is OK to consume alcohol in outside areas without consultation with the licensing authority but not antyhing already licensed as regulated entertainment.

If the concern here is a potential noise concern - there is only one way to estabilish this and if the already regulated entertainment should subsequently prove to be a noise concern - it is then a matter to be dealt with under the Environmental Protection Act.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 Dec 10 - 07:25 AM

http://www.medianation.co.uk.preview.exa.net.uk/content/newsdetail/135///

Live Music - Boom or gloom?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 10 - 01:03 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

In moving from visual to sound art, lawyers agree that this year's Turner Prize winning entry has unwittingly become a licensable entertainment - but Tate Britain's galleries are not licensed under the Licensing Act 2003 for the playing of recorded music.

This plan of Tate Britain shows the areas outside the gallery space where Westminster City Council allows 'licensable activities' (within the red lines):
http://tinyurl.com/2cu739c

'All art constantly aspires to the condition of music', wrote Walter Pater, the distinguished 19th century essayist and critic, in his 1877 essay 'The School of Giorgione'. No doubt he would be surprised just how literally his observation has been realised by this year's Turner Prize winner, Susan Philipsz.

Her installation consists of a recording of her singing a traditional folk song, 'Lowlands Away', played through two loudspeakers in the Tate Britain Turner Prize exhibition gallery. See Daily Telegraph news video:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/turner-prize/8185380/Susan-Philipsz-wins-Turner-Prize-for-folk-song.html

'Lowlands' can still be heard in folk clubs across the country. The artist explains in her interview: '... the song is about a sailor who appears in a dream to their loved one... to say a final farewell' [there are different sets of lyrics - see this folk discussion group: http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=123027 ]

The problem is that the recording falls within the description of entertainment in the Licensing Act 2003, Sch.1 para 2(1)(f): '... any playing of recorded music... where the entertainment takes place in the presence of an audience and is provided for the purpose, or for purposes which include the purpose, of entertaining that audience.'

Within the Act '"Music" includes vocal or instrumental music or any combination of the two.' (LA2003, Sch.1 para 18).

It might be argued that this playing of recorded music is not entertainment. But that is problematic, and would have wide implications. If adopted it would mean that many very similar examples of the otherwise licensable playing of recorded music, in cafes and bars for example, could with equal justification be described as art installations, and thereby exempt. Many musicians (working in jazz and classical music particularly) could reasonably argue that the purpose of their performances is entirely artistic expression, not entertainment, and therefore not licensable as regulated entertainment under the Act.

It is in any case difficult to argue with conviction that such art installations have no intention whatever to entertain (an Oxford English Dictionary definition is 'to occupy agreeably'). The Act is worded so that however subordinate entertainment may be to the main purpose, it is nonetheless caught.

It might be argued that there is no audience as such. People wander through; some may sit and listen. But spectators are of course explicitly included within the meaning of the word 'audience' (Sch.1 para 2(2)).

The installation is not a film, so cannot benefit from the Act's exemption for films shown in museums or galleries by way of an exhibit (LA2003, Sch.1, para 6).

It cannot qualify for the 'incidental music' exemption (LA2003, Sch.1, para 7) because the recorded singing is the focus of the installation and as the winner of the Turner Prize it is now a featured exhibition:
http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/turnerprize/turnerprize2010/prize/announce.shtm

As it has now been very widely publicised thousands of people will come specifically to hear and view it. Being the main reason for people attending is one of the key reasons that incidental music exemption would not apply. See the government's statutory Licensing Guidance ('Guidance issued under s182 of the Licensing Act 2003', p31, paras 3.20-3.22):
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/alcohol/guidance-section-182-licensing?view=Binary

Lastly, the installation recording meets the necessary licensing conditions: a) it is public for the purposes of the Act (Sch.1, para 1(2)(a)); and b) the gallery has been made available to enable the entertainment to take place (Sch.1, para 1(3)).

Does this mean that Tate Britain is breaking the law? Only the courts can put that beyond doubt, and whether the courts will have an opportunity to rule on the matter depends on whether or not Westminster City Council issues proceedings.

But independent lawyers Simon Mehigan, a leading licensing QC, Robin Bynoe (solicitor, senior counsel at Charles Russell) and Richard Bridge (solicitor, partner at King Prior MacDonald Bridge) have considered the entertainment licensing implications of the Susan Philipsz installation, and all agree that it is regulated entertainment for the purposes of the Licensing Act 2003.

ENDS

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 09 Dec 10 - 05:51 AM

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldordpap.htm

Question in the House of Lords re 'Lowlands Away' from Lord Colwyn:

'to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their assessment of the entertainment licensing implications of the Susan Phillips Turner Prize winning installation, Lowlands Away", at Tate Britain where the galleries are not licensed under the Licensing Act 2003 to play recorded music.' HL5087

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 09 Dec 10 - 06:07 AM

http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=6&storycode=68603&c=1

As Parliament debates the governments plans to shake up the licensing system, we look at what could be in store for the industry.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 10 - 12:35 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

For some reason two key links in my Turner Prize licensing piece yesterday are not working today.

Here are updated versions as Tiny URLs:

Daily Telegraph coverage, including video of the Turner Prize winner's sound installation:
http://tinyurl.com/39dph26

Tate Britain Turner Prize exhibition info page:
http://tinyurl.com/2whxezo

Note that entry to the Turner Prize exhibition is ticket only (£8, or £6 concessions).

ENDS

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 10 Dec 10 - 11:15 AM

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/89222?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n

A local authority has been ordered to pay record costs of almost £25,000 after wrongly revoking the licence of a Welsh nightclub.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 10 Dec 10 - 11:53 AM

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2010-12-09a.143.0

The following from John King:
Transcript of yesterday's Westminster Hall debate on the future of pubs. Contributions from Coalition MPs Therese Coffey, Mike Weatherley, Greg Knight, Jane Ellison, Dan Rogerson on live music licensing.

From Mike Weatherley's speech:
'The Government have an important role to play in removing unnecessary regulation. The previous Government brought in the Licensing Act 2003, along with a big promise that live music would flourish as a result of the change in the law. In truth, the Act has made it difficult, costly and administratively time-consuming to make live music a part of the licence for premises whose main business is not to provide music.

The 2003 Act had four fundamental objectives: the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the protection of children from harm; and the prevention of public nuisance. None of the primary objectives, and in particular the objective on crime and disorder, has ever been substantiated as a concern with regard to live music. Furthermore, there is no evidence that high levels of background music-live or otherwise-in pubs and bars can lead to customers drinking faster or being disorderly.'

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 10 Dec 10 - 12:32 PM

The Cove House Inn's trad tunes session is now 10ys old!

Any celebrations are on hold until Council no longer insist that it is a performance of licensable Regulated Entertainment which cannot benefit from any of the Act's exemptions and recognise it as the valuable cultural activity that is undoubtably is.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 10 Dec 10 - 01:37 PM

http://www.mpa.gov.uk/committees/sop/2010/101209/09/#fn003-back

John King comments:
The Form 696 team [of the Metropolitan Police] has a vehicle called Scarlet 100, 'crewed by experts in licensing legislation who are able to provide immediate support to borough Duty Officers'.

The Proactive Licensing Team supports boroughs in tackling violence in problematic and high risk licensed premises, working with partners such as the Security Industry Authority (SIA), London Ambulance Service (LAS), and borough licensing teams. The unit offers a range of tactical solutions including carrying out covert and overt licensing visits, implementing action plans and assisting with applications for closure orders. The unit also offers a fast time solution to critical incidents occurring in licensed premises in the form of 'Scarlet 100', a vehicle crewed by experts in licensing legislation who are able to provide immediate support to borough Duty Officers. This particular tactic has been a key contributor in tackling gun crime in the nighttime economy.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 10 Dec 10 - 02:41 PM

http://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/local/frustrated_after_appeal_dismissed_1_1810290

John King Comments:
South Kesteven Council ban live music at Mama Liz's from 3 Jan. The venue was previously fined £2000 following a noise complaint from ONE neighbour.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 11:57 AM

http://www.licensingadvice.org/

John King comments:
Westminster Council actively seek to encourage complaints about licenced premises. At tax-payers' expense, the Licensing Advice Project offers free advice to residents who are 'concerned' about, among other things, 24 hour drinking and loud music.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 12:11 PM

http://www.instituteoflicensing.org/article_id/1000552/2010/12/09/£24,600+Costs+Against+Council+in+Licensing+Appeal.html

Some more disturbing (if not surprising) details from this case.

The District Judge found that the new management was responsible, and making appropriate changes, but that the Police and Council had given conflicting messages, indicating that they were happy with the new management, but then making review applications without warning. The District Judge found that the Company was rightly confused and concerned by the Police and Council Officers' behaviour.

DISCLOSURE OF POLICE EVIDENCE.
The District Judge was deeply critical of the presentation of police evidence of incidents implicating the premises. In a style commonly used by licensing officers around the country, the police presented to three separate Committees a "Summary" of incidents, in the form of a document prepared for the hearing by police officers, and including a 'Summary Log', and 'Analysis', and a "Hot Spot" Map. The police sought revocation three times upon this evidence, and the Committees' decisions were squarely based upon it.

No 5 Chambers and Hillier McKeown made repeated requests for disclosure of the original incident records upon which these police summaries were based, but those records were not forthcoming, between July and November, despite two clear Court directions requiring their disclosure. Some original records were served three working days before the Appeal hearing, and others were served on the first morning of the Appeal.

That disclosure clearly revealed that the police presentation of evidence had been selective. Numerous residents' complaints about the premises had been reported to the police, but original incident logs showed that the police at the time had rejected a number of them as being clearly mistaken or exaggerated. Nevertheless, those same complaints were included in the police "Summaries" and "Hot Spot" maps, presented to the Committees. Further proper analysis of the original incident reports showed that certain allegations could not have been the responsibility of the licensed premises, and still more were ambiguous in nature.

In his critical judgment, District Judge Shaw found not only that the police had misled the Committees in their presentation of this evidence, but that the Council also had to bear responsibility for not scrutinising what they were being shown with more care. He made it plain that he regarded it as the responsibility of the Council to call for original and reliable evidence – certainly pending an appeal, and to assure themselves, based on that evidence, that resisting the appeal was the appropriate course. In this case, the Council had made no attempt to secure the records that the Appellant was struggling to obtain, and the Council resisted the appeal until the eleventh hour, when it was finally accepted that the evidence was deeply flawed. The appeal was resolved by way of the imposition of conditions that could have been agreed many months before.

The outcome was that the District Judge awarded the Appellants their costs against the Council. Having considered the key costs authorities, and notably Bradford v Booth, the District Judge gave a fully reasoned decision as to why an award of costs against the Council was appropriate.

The full judgement may provide valuable guidance to police and Councils as to how to approach "Summaries" of evidence in the future, and the dangers of presenting, or relying upon, information which transpires to be inaccurate or unfair.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 12:43 PM

From The Shambles

http://www.harrowobserver.co.uk/west-london-news/local-harrow-news/2010/12/13/police-object-to-licence-change-at-pinner-pub-1164

He told the Observer: "The existing condition is to clear the area at 11pm, which stops punters disturbing local residents.

"I know some areas where the local residents are not that fussed but I believe the residents will be objecting to this.

"As police, we don't want to be called up there to deal with disorder because patrons are congregating outside."

No comment............

http://www.harrow.gov.uk/www2/Published/C00000271/M000...04514/AI00046439/$PoliceObjectionnoticeHarrowontheChill28Aug08.docA.ps.

John King comments:
The 2nd link above is Sgt Davis rejecting a TEN on the grounds that a Form 696 had not been submitted. This was an alcohol free charity event organised by a councillor.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 08:53 PM

With some justification, it would seem that it is the police (in the form of Sgt Davis) who could be accused of anti-social activity.

"As police, we don't want to be called up there to deal with disorder because patrons are congregating outside."

I suggest that Sgt Davis needs reminding that it is the job of the police to deal with any crime and disorder which may occur and that if this is not what he wants to do - he is in the wrong job. His job is certainly not to stir-up residents who have yet to complain and abuse the law to prevent any form of social gathering in order to suit his wants with the idea of giving his police force an easier time.

What next for this approach? Preventing us from leaving our homes to prevent the police from having the bother of addressing burgulary?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 09:22 PM

In these days where the wish would appear to be prevention of what is often admitted to be, alcohol induced, crime and disorder - there does not seem to be any loud call for the prevention of alcohol.

It could well be that the lessons of previous attempts at prohibition have been taken on board. I suggest that it is not this but a very powerful industry and Govt's which gain much revenue from taxing this industry.

Perhaps the lessons of prohibition can be taken on board by those who would see the prevention of social gatherings in general and those with live music in particular as any sensible way of dealing with crime and disorder? For which there remains no evidence or statistical link to support what is simply a historical prejudice against live music.

If this live music = crime and disorder 'herring' is a red one - it is because it has now been allowed to be almost totally covered in all forms of 'red tape'.

The Metropolitan police claim Form 696 to have been effective in dealing with gun crime and in Harrow, Sgnt Davis demands that Form 696 be completed to enable a small-scale alcohol-free charity event, which already requires licensing permission...........

How have WE allowed it to get this late - and now WE have - how can we reverse this and remove live music from local council employed vandals and the likes of Sgnt Davis?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 03:49 AM

John King comments:
Willowman Music Festival 2011 faces opposition from 'locals'. A taste of things to come?

http://mobile.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8735558.Neighbours_oppose_new_festival_licence/

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 03:55 AM

http://www.eastwoodadvertiser.co.uk/news/eastwood-kimberley-news/noise_at_mfn_charity_day_sparks_complaints_1_2792336

THE OWNER of a former nightclub has told the Advertiser that he is 'at a loss as to what to do' over complaints about noise from his pub during outdoor charity events.

Malcolm Allured says MFN at Shipley Gate has helped to raise tens of thousands of pounds for charity through hosting the fun days.

But now he has received a notice from Amber Valley Borough council outlining noise levels recorded and complaints made during events in April, May, July and August.

The document warns Mr Allured that if the situation fails to improve the matter will 'be passed to our (Amber Valley Borough Council's) legal section to commence prosecution proceedings.'

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 10:04 AM

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cardiff.gov.uk%2Fobjview.asp%3Fobject_id%3D18275&h=ae37b

John King Comments:
An Indian Restaurant in Cardiff applies for (and gets) a licence for a sitar player. But,
a) isn't this supposed to be incidental music and therefore outside the scope of licensing?

& b) the prospect of live music attracted several pages of hysterical objections from residents.

This is a premises being forced to ask permission for a form of live music which if left alone, would take place without any concern to anyone.

It currently is and should remain out of the hands of our locally council employed vandals. These vandals may choose and be allowed to ignore bits of legislation they do not like but if they were to actually follow the latest guidance issued by their own body LACORS - they would know this. Perhaps they do but just choose to ignore this fact?

As exempt incidental live music, this should escape, firstly the council employees and secondly any council committee members from feeling they needed impose any conditions, before granting permission (or from refusing permission altogether). However, by insisting that it can only take place as a performance of Regulated Entertainment - this opens up a totally needless can of worms.

For as the process then invites representations (in practice this means complaints) - these will no doubt follow, as those complaining will assume that as the live music in question is being subject to the whole expensive and long-winded process - there must be something for them to worry about.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 10:39 AM

If the local council employed vandals were ever to accept that the law exempts live music like this - they would not be able to place any conditions on it in order to 'protect the public'. Thus here, food continues until 00.30, drink until 00.00 but this subversive live music must end at 23.00........

In their defence, the vandals will often claim that they did not actually impose conditions like these but only granted what was requested. In practice of course - the applicants are instructed that any application made beyond what the vandals advise - will be unlikely to be accepted. A predition that they are in position to deliver.

There is no need for a time for live music to end to appear as a licensing condition. All that is required under a Premises Licence is for the opening hours to be agreed - the times the various activities begin or end should be an operational decision for the licensee only.

Where such a curfew is imposed, any over-running will be a breach of the licensing conditions and grounds for a future review in which the permission granted for live music could be further limited or even reversed.

All for something which the Licensing Act 2003 has taken out
of their hands......................

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Dec 10 - 02:51 AM

http://www.getwokingham.co.uk/news/s/2084264_council_to_decide_on_pub_noise_level

John King comments:
Reading Borough Council seek to ban live music at the Clifton Arms.

Landlady Miss MacKenzie told getreading: "All this has cost me a fortune in trade and stopped me raising money for charity."

Yet again, this looks suspiciously like ONE person complaining.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 03:01 AM

http://www.ilkestonadvertiser.co.uk/news/licence_refused_for_long_eaton_night_spot_1_2871898

Let's see - A site for such a club in a (residential area) would be a problem and a site (in a non-residentail area) where there are other such clubs, is also a problem................

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 22 Dec 10 - 04:00 AM

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-12-20a.257.0&s=%22licensing+act%22#g257.1

John King comments:
The Govt's feeble reply to Lord Colwyn's question.

Lord Colwyn (Conservative)

To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their assessment of the entertainment licensing implications of the Susan Philipsz Turner Prize-winning installation, Lowlands Away, at Tate Britain, where the galleries are not licensed under the Licensing Act 2003 to play recorded music.

Baroness Rawlings (Whip, House of Lords; Conservative)

It would be inappropriate for Ministers to comment on any individual case regarding the enforcement of the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003. The 2003 Act devolved the administration and enforcement of the licensing regime to licensing authorities. It is for the premises operator in the first instance to determine whether or not activities at their premises require licensing, and in the light of that decision, for the local licensing authority to decide if any action should be taken by them.

The Government are currently considering possible changes to the licensing law relating to regulated entertainment.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 22 Dec 10 - 04:17 AM

The weakness of locally delegated enforcement is shown in this answer. The whole point of all of it is that when poorly drafted legislation causes the predictible problems in practice - Central Govt can blame Local Govt - and we all continue to suffer whilst no one takes any responsibilty.

It is the Local Govt lobby (LGA Group)that is presenting the problems to live music and it is the power of this lobby (for their own self-interest) that is preventing any change.

The irony is that this body is invited to all consultations and seems to be viewed as impartial when it is in fact presenting all the obstacles to any sensible reform.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 22 Dec 10 - 09:38 AM

It is for the premises operator in the first instance to determine whether or not activities at their premises require licensing, and in the light of that decision, for the local licensing authority to decide if any action should be taken by them.

Should the local licensing authority decide that in this case the Tate Gallery did and does require that these premises need to obtain additional entertainment licensing and that the Turner Prize-winning exhibit was a performance of Regulated Entertainment - perhaps someone, either in Central or Local Govt, will take responsibilty and address a situation which has placed the public at risk?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 Dec 10 - 02:38 AM

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/a_hogmnay_hitch_for_hall_1_692014

John King comments:~
Merry Christmas to DCMS 'statisticians' still claiming there is 'no evidence of negative effect of live music licensing'. Here a charity Hogmanay gig in Norwich cancelled after 70 years because nearby residents objected.
(from 2006)

And a Happy New Year............

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 Dec 10 - 06:50 PM

http://www.nsbaker.co.uk/2010/12/whitstable-wetherspoons-looking-likely/

John King coments:
Live music banned in Wetherspoons, Whitstable. Councils don't need the Licensing Act to ban live music for no apparent reason. They can use planning regs in any way they like. Recorded music is
allowed of course....

I am not sure that the situation for recorded music (or non-amplified live music) is really made very clear from the following wording -

2. Subject to conditions relating to opening hours, restricting the hours of use of the beer garden, restricting the playing of amplified music/live music, requiring details to be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority relating to the enclosure of the beer garden, details of all new kitchen extract equipment/air conditioning units and other vents and flues.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,Guest - THEETHA
Date: 23 Dec 10 - 09:31 PM

Dear Shambles

DUST THA NOT GET FED UP WI TARKIN TO THESSEN?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 24 Dec 10 - 06:25 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Westminster City Council has told Tate Britain to get an entertainment licence for Susan Philipsz' Turner Prize winning sound installation.

The objectives of the licensing regime (Licensing Act 2003) are public safety, the prevention of crime, disorder and public nuisance, and the protection of children from harm. The maximum penalty for providing a licensable entertainment without a licence is a £20,000 fine and six months in prison. Some parts of Tate Britain are licensed under the Act for regulated entertainment, but not the main galleries.

Ms Philipsz's prize winning exhibit features a recording of her singing 'Lowlands Away', a traditional folk song, played through two loudspeakers. See Daily Telegraph report of 6th December: http://tinyurl.com/39dph26

Westminster's head of licensing, Andrew Ralph, initially rejected the idea that the exhibition was licensable. On 9th December he told the Live Music Forum: 'The Tate Britain does not need a licence for the exhibition as the primary reason people visit the gallery is to view art and the music is ancillary to that.'

But, following discussions with the LMF, Westminster's legal department overturned that position and advised that the exhibition did need a licence. It would seem they agreed that the Act's 'incidental music' exemption could not apply in this case.

On 20th December, a council spokesperson said: 'The legal situation surrounding licensing can be very complex, and whilst initially a decision was taken that no separate licence was needed, subsequent legal advice has suggested otherwise. We do our utmost to keep any paperwork for these types of events to an absolute minimum, but we do have to abide by national legislation.'

The spokesperson added: 'The Tate will not have to stop the exhibition in the meantime as such sort of enforcement is not deemed proportionate.'

This light touch contrasts markedly with enforcement action Westminster has taken in the past. In November 2002 Westminster successfully prosecuted Wolverhampton and Dudley Breweries (W&DB), owner of the high street chain Pitcher & Piano, after licensing officers reported customers 'swaying rhythmically' to music in two of its sites, Trafalgar Square and Soho. W&DB was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay £1,600 costs in addition to its own legal fees. Public dancing remains illegal under the Licensing Act 2003, unless the venue is appropriately licensed, or the dancing is morris dancing or dancing of a similar nature.

Indeed, the morris dancing exemption offers Tate Britain an intriguing way around Westminster's licensing requirement. It allows unamplified live music if it is an 'integral part' of a performance of morris dancing or dancing of a 'similar nature'. If Susan Philipsz herself, or another vocalist, were to sing 'Lowlands Away' unamplified in the gallery, to some morris dancing, or dancing of a similar nature, this should be exempt (LA2003, Sch. 1, Part 2, para 11).

But if that would compromise the integrity of Ms Philipsz' artwork, then a licence seems unavoidable. The cost of Tate Britain's licence application could be as low as £89 for a 'minor variation' (see DCMS guidance: http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/Application_for_a_Minor_Variation.pdf )

If a full variation application is required, however, the cost would be the same as a full licence. For a property like Tate Britain this would be in the region of £635 plus the cost of 28 days advertisement in the local press. Annual charges of about £350 would also apply. The public advertisement might provoke local objections, as it often does, and this may in turn lead to a public hearing.

Lawyers Robin Bynoe (solicitor, senior counsel at Charles Russell) and Richard Bridge (solicitor, partner at King Prior MacDonald Bridge) commented:

'The main point here is that legislation ostensibly designed to prevent antisocial levels of noise in pubs was so clumsily and illiberally worded that it has the effect of criminalising the showing of a prize-winning piece of art by one of the world's leading art institutions. The calculation of the fee that has to be paid to redeem the criminality, which should never have arisen in the first place, is rather beside the point.
'The embarrassment at the Tate underlines that this legislation criminalised a range of musical and other performances, and the provision of "facilities" for them, that could not conceivably produce antisocial levels of noise - in pubs or elsewhere – and did so despite the presence of existing and perfectly adequate noise controls.

'Previous experience of the way that councils have dealt with these anomalies suggests a tendency to nod through the pastimes of the rich at the expense of the pastimes of the poor. It's an unfortunate consequence of this kind of lazy legislation, which is worded very generally in the hope that the authorities can be relied on to enforce it without making waves. Undoubtedly, however, Westminster Council will act in an even-handed manner.'

ENDS

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 24 Dec 10 - 06:39 AM

http://www.hornseyjournal.co.uk/news/wood_green_restaurant_owner_prosecuted_1_745095

Different treatment to the Tate Gallery....... The spokesperson added: 'The Tate will not have to stop the exhibition in the meantime as such sort of enforcement is not deemed proportionate.'

Prosecution was judged by this Council to be proportionate.

Diep visited council offices last week, accepted a caution under civil legislation, and was asked to pay costs.

Councillor Nilgun Canver, cabinet member for neighbourhoods, said: "It's important that anyone seeking to lease rooms like this is aware of the law and complies with the regulations, otherwise they can be prosecuted."

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 24 Dec 10 - 07:32 AM

The only time you see mention of whether enforcement action is 'propotionate' is in high profile case like the Tate/Turner Prize-winner. Cases which may be likely to cause embarrassment or onw which may be challenged.

In most cases, like this restaurant, it is enough for prosecution that the letter of the law is broken. In those case, the council officers claim to have no choice....Clearly the Tate/Turner Prize-winner demonstrates that Councils do have a choice - or that when it suits them - they assume they do....

Does the law give those who are paid to enforce it - such a choice? If so it would appear in practice to be choice given to a bully.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 05:38 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/dec/31/live-venues-licensing-laws-luminaire

John King comments:
Interesting article with a pathetic contribution from the MU

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 05:42 AM

http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=68696&c=1

Campaigners step up pressure over live music in pubs

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 05:48 AM

http://www.ukmusic.org/policy/198-uk-music-reveals-huge-support-to-exempt-small-music-venues-from-licensing-act-red-tape

UK Music reveals huge support to exempt small music venues from Licensing Act red tape.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 05:54 AM

http://www.getbracknell.co.uk/news/s/2084717_live_music_ban_for_the_clifton_arms

The committee demanded:

- No live or recorded music, except on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve
- Any jukebox to be fitted with a noise limiter, to be inspected by a council environmental protection officer

How can you prevent live or recorded music but still have a jukebox?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 06:00 AM

There is a point being overlooked here.

The majority of pubs seeking exemption want to put on electric music. That is precisely the sort of music most likely to create disturbance and the need to invoke non-Licensing Act measures regarding noise and nuisance.

What could and should be done immediately without any need for contention would be to exempt any music not using electrical or electronic amplification - leaving the existing law to deal with opera singers who can bring down the walls of Jericho, massed great pipes, steam organs, and itinerant troupes of Japanese drummers - all of which are -er- rare, unlike the 10,000 watt PA rig or 2,000 watt bass guitar amps that are all but ubiquitous.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 06:14 AM

There is a point being overlooked here.

The majority of pubs seeking exemption want to put on electric music. That is precisely the sort of music most likely to create disturbance and the need to invoke non-Licensing Act measures regarding noise and nuisance

The only point being confused is that the Licensing Act 2003 is not the correct legislation to deal with any form noise nuisance. The pretence that the requiement for additional entertainment licensing in advance can do anything but only further confuse an already confused situation for noise issues, is now a very smelly red-herring which could and should have been buried some time ago.

Any premises which obtained exemptions under either the proposed exemption or the Act's many existing exemptions - are still subject to the Envirionmental Protection Act. If this was not thought adequate to deal with noise - there would be a call from the LGA Group lobby to remove the Act's existing exemptions. There is no such call.   

http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/pub-to-become-flat-after-noise-dispute-1.794382?referrerPath=news

Pub to become flat after noise dispute

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 07:10 AM

No. In the first place you focus on noise only, and not other matters.

Second, even if one looks at noise alone it is precisely because noise control is a messy issue under the laws of private or public nuisance or under the law relating to environmental health that it can only be left to those laws where enforcement is unlikely to be necessary. Where, as with electric music, noise abatement is routine and a constant concern, and indeed conduct is a frequent concomitant issue as with recorded music (have you EVER stood outside a nightclub like Aaron Stone's Casino in Rochester and watched the blood run in the drains?) a sensibly drawn Licensing Act should apply.

The drafting of this act is appalling. It applies to many things to which it should not apply - but control of electric music is necessary.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 07:14 AM

PS - as the facts of the Middle Tap in Maryport seem to bear out - increased complaints from neighbours. Now they can get a night's sleep.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 08:12 AM

but control of electric music is necessary.

As no one is taking an opposite view, this is not an argument that should be repeatedly wheeled-out when talking of proposed or current exemptions to the additional entertainment licensing measures contained in the Licensing Act 2003. Lack of additional entertainment licensing measures does not mean a lack of control.

Legislation that deals with all forms of noise pollution is of course neccessary. This legislation already includes noise pollution emanating from electric music and from all other sources.

If this legislation is not effective in enabling neighbours to get a good night's sleep, then it is this legislation that should be changed in order to make it effective in this regard.

It is the wide misuse of the Licensing Act's measures in order to address noise emantaing from entertainment, which is currently presenting problems to all non-amplified live music. This is why Richard, you need to call for this to be exempted.

There should of course be no requirement for additional entertainment licensing for non-amplified live music but just proposing an exemption for this - is to help prolong the myth that additional entertainment licensing is an effective way of preventing noise pollution emanating from live music.

Most if not all of the premises which have action taken against them on the grounds of noise pollution emanating from live music - already have additional entertainment licensing permission granted and in place.

So it is self-evident that this requirement is having no effect on noise pollution emanating from live music except to further confuse an already confused situation and that its removal in current or proposed exemptions will have little effect but to possibly reduce this confusion.