Licensing Bill - How will it work ?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 06:14 AM

Richard Bridge,

The answers to your questions are Retired, None and None furthermore since that tells you nothing useful, the longer term answers to the last two are never and never.

Richard

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 06:26 AM

"Defending" or "attacking" the Act and the Guidance at this stage is quite beside the point. Exploring what can be done to minimise its bad effects and take advantage of any opportunities provided - that is what is important.

Pretty clearly this is a badly drafted piece of legislation, but then that is hardly unusual, and in any case, it's past history. The Act itself is not going to be changed now, and it'll probably be a couple of generatins before there is another one. The Guidance is woolly and ambiguous, but has some good aspects, and the question is how far it will be possible to use these to allow the development of a more music friendly environment.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 12:13 PM

McGrath, you have summarised the way ahead in one. It really is time to discuss where do we go from here instead of reliving old battles.

Richard Bridge, it is easy to quote a couple of individuals and an unnamed police source and purport to represent the views of the whole brewing industry and the whole police service. Someone could even quote you and indicate that the whole legal profession had the same opinion. However, my recollection is that there was one member of the House of Commons Committee who was representing the Brewing Industry views. In that context Stewart Neame was clearly indicated as speaking for Shepherd Neame but not the general industry. Similarly the results of consultations with the police service were frequently also refered to and were more supportive than in opposition to the Bill.

However that is water long iunder the bridge. As McGrath says the only things worth discussing are how to maximise the opportunities under the Act and how to avoid the potential disadvantages.

RichardP

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 05:14 PM

'Always look on the bright side of life'.

If someone knocks you down, rapes you, breaks your leg and steals your money, you may have little real choice but to try to get up and make the most of it. It is not too likely that you will be expected to show much gratitude.

However, it is not too easy to forget the experience or the individul involved. Especially when you expected that this individual was coming to help you and make things better.

It must be remembered that we were looking forward to this 'reform' as we were expecting the crazy situation that we had lived with for so long, was actually going to be addressed. It took us a long time to realise that what was initially being offered by the drafters was far worse.

The end result may not be quite as bad as it looked like it was going to be - but little credit for this is due to those behind this digraceful legislation. What we have managed to salvage so far, from this Government - has been hard won and what we must try and win now from our local authorities - will also be down to us. It could and should have been so much better.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 04:29 PM

"and an unnamed police source....."

In defence of Richard on this one and at no extra charge,,,,,this was widely quoted on news broadcasts a week or two ago when flavour of the day in the press was "binge drinking"! by young people. In fact I believe that Tessa Jowells the minister of state responsible for this was on Question Time and when the subject came up had to be reminded that far from reforming the law on this issue in the future - she had just done it. And made a complete shambles of it. (sic!)

When you hug me, mind my catheter.

Dave
www.collectorsfolk.co.uk

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 04:36 PM

'Always look on the bright side of life'.

Or perhaps, Keep on the Sunny Side:

There's a dark and a troubled side of life
There's a bright and a sunnyside, too
'though we meet with the darkness and strife
The sunnyside we also may view.
Keep on the sunnyside
Always on the sunnyside
Keep on the sunnyside of life
It will help us everyday
It will brighten all our way
If we keep on the sunnyside of life...

That's pretty good advice too. (Seriously!)

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 06:52 PM

There was something Shambles said back there I wanted to comment on: "That should mean that as long as no one dances and (if we accept the guidance) the volume is low, that any live (or indeed recorded) music can be considered as incidental and as a result - exempt from the additional entertainment licensing permission............."

And the pount was "as long as no one dances" - it seems to me that if 20 people are standing around drinking beer or coffee, with the music as background, that's incidental music. Just because a couple of people over in the corner start stepping it out, that needn't alter that, unless everyone joins in, which isn't too likely. In any case, this is likely to be "spontanous" in every sense. (But best sit hard on anyone who has aspirations to be a caller for the pub - or wherever this is taking place.)

Then there's always the question of when the exemption for Morris dancers and other analogous forms of traditional dancing kicks in, and what they cover. A great deal, I would hope, definitely dancing from other traditions.

I don't know if is anything in the Guidance which tries to put specific limits on the relevant characteristics for saying that something is covered by that exemption as "similar". I can't see why, for example Bengali Dancers shouldn't qualify just as well, or Samba Bands. Or Irish set dances.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 08 Apr 04 - 07:35 AM

Reading McGrath's last contribution lead me to look back at the Act to see how incidental music is defined. I had previously assumed that it was, for example, music incidental to a play, and therefore implicitly covered by the licence for the play and mentioned explicitly in the Act to avoid uncertainty.

I find that I was totally wrong - although music that is an integral part of a licenced play is presumably licenced by the play's licence.

No. Incidental music is defined as "The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of live music or the playing of recorded music is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act to the extent that it is incidental to some other activity which is not itself

(a) a description of entertainment falling within paragraph 2, or

(b) the provision of entertainment facilities."

In other words any music that is not explicitly listed as requiring a licence is automatically permitted.

Paragraph 2 is the old familiar list including the important condition: "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."

In simple terms it excludes from licencing any background music, such as muzak in shops, which is not intended to be listened to by an audience in preference to other individual activities by that audience.

Although it might be rash to rely on such an assumption; my experience is that most sessions are essentially mutual navel-gazing without a fundamental intention to entertain anyone but the participating group, so it could be argued that a session is incidental even if it is obtrusive.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Apr 04 - 07:53 AM

"a session is incidental even if it is obtrusive. " I like that way of putting it. Very neat.

I can envisage a court case hinging in producing evidence thta a regular had told the barman how he rather wished those diddley buggers in the corner would shut up. This would serve to prove that the music was not entertainment but was incidental and obtrusive.

Basically, we'd better not start playing too well, or the publican will get in trouble. Nothing much to worry about then...

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Apr 04 - 09:30 AM

In simple terms it excludes from licencing any background music, such as muzak in shops, which is not intended to be listened to by an audience in preference to other individual activities by that audience.

I see that you got there in the end Richard (P).

It is fair to say that your simple term explanation WAS the situtaion envisaged by the original drafters - who were very keen for some reason to ensure that such recorded background music should remain exempt. However, they were rather ignorant of any live music that could probably claim to be rather more worth protecting and exempt - by being considered incidental.

So rather late in the day - the exemption was logically extended to cover incidental live music and this was passed. However the drafter's ignorance of live music continues and it is not surprising that they could not really bring themselves to come up with some more practical application and example for what would be considered as incidental live music. The volume at which it played is a start but I can see little justification for this being a factor in the Act, for being considered as incidental.

And can you really see these officers rushing in to any 'place', like an office building and insisting that the MUZAK in a lift is covered by a Premises Licence, because it is too loud to be considered as incidental?

Rather than being rash in making assumptions or waiting for licensing officers to decide otherwise - it is rather up to us to now ensure that our local licensing committees consider sessions etc to be incidental. The guide for the exemption is in the words of the act. So from now on - where recorded music is exempt as incidental - so automatically is live music. All background music is now exempt - period.

Let these officers (who will accept that juke box music is incidental) make and prove the argument - if they want to make it - that non amplified sessions or a piano player etc, not designed for or needing an audience are not background and incidental live music under the words of the Act.

There is no need to introduce yet another word like 'obtrusive' for us to argue the definition of. Following the guidance and in a practical sense (if not a legal one) it is rather simple - if incidental (background) music, recorded or live, is considered too loud - it cannot then be incidental (background) music.

As to who decides the volume level? The licensing authority may wish to decide this but I would suggest they only have just cause to investigate, if genuine noise complaints are received, from the public outside the premises. If any customers inside complains - they can be asked to go elsewhere, as the volume you are prepared to talk over is largly a matter of personal taste.

I would not consider live session music on non amplified ever to be too loud to be considered as incidental. I may consider recorded music to be too loud for this, and if I did, I would go elswhere. If the Act has the (unintended) effect of lowering the general level background music, this will not be a bad thing.

That brings us to the Dave Bryant factor.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 06:04 AM

Shambles,

We are getting closer to a common view. However, I suggest taht you are paying too much attention to the word "volume" which is not used in the Act and is only quoted as an example in the Guidance. All the essential information about what requires entertainment licencing is in Schedule 1 of the Act, but it is so heavily cross referenced that it is not easy to unentangle. I have spent some time trying and the following is my attempt to produce a somewhat more straightforward of condensing the means of determining whether music at a venue that is not licenced for musical entertainment is permissible or not. Try the following:

Is the activity under consideration subject to entertainment licencing?
        If not it is permitted. (Note that music is only permitted in this simple way as a result of acompanying
                Morris Dancing or similar dancing. NOTE that we need to establish that Longsword, Rapper and
                traditional clog dancing are similar to Morris. NOTE also that the arguments used to justify the
                Morris exception apply equally strongly to mumming and wassailing, but unfortunatley no-one argued
                this in Parliament.)

Otherwise
Is the activity in a place where the public is not present and which is not in a room in a licenced (drinking) club
        with club members present?
        If so and no charge is made for the room and the event organiser does not make a personal profit, then it does
        not need licencing and so is automatically permitted. Note that if the organiser is one of the musicians,
        he/she is entitled to his/her normal fee for performing without being classified as organising for profit.

In all other cases (i.e. either it is in a licenced club or is in the presence of the public or is in private but with
        the organiser or the premises provider making a profit):
Is there another concurrent activity which is the principle reason that those not participating in the entertainment
activity itself are present in the room?
        If so is that principal activity subject to entertainment licencing?
                If the principal activity (such as drinkingn at a bar) is not subject to entertainment licencing and
                the entertainment under consideration is the provision of incidental (supporting) music then the
                music is exempted from licencing requirements unless it overpowers the principal activity to the
                extent that it becomes the principal activity itself.

        Otherwise Since the principal activity is subject to entertainment licencing, is it licenced?
                If so the entertainment under consideration is the provision of incidental (supporting) music then the
                music is exempted from licencing requirements unless it overpowers the principal activity to the
                extent that it becomes the principal activity itself.

If none of the above cases is applicable
        A licence covering the particular type of entertainment needs to be in operation for the premises.

In all cases where a licence is required the only organisations/individuals who could be committing an offence are the
premises owners, the premises supervisor and the organiser of the activity. Participation alone is not an offence!!

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 06:06 AM

Sorry about the layout in the last posting. I hit the Submit button by accident while tidying up the layout. Here is a better laid out copy.

Is the activity under consideration subject to entertainment licencing?
        If not it is permitted. (Note that music is only permitted in this simple way as a result of acompanying
                Morris Dancing or similar dancing. NOTE that we need to establish that Longsword, Rapper and
                traditional clog dancing are similar to Morris. NOTE also that the arguments used to justify the
                Morris exception apply equally strongly to mumming and wassailing, but unfortunatley no-one argued
                this in Parliament.)

Otherwise
Is the activity in a place where the public is not present and which is not in a room in a licenced (drinking) club
        with club members present?
        If so and no charge is made for the room and the event organiser does not make a personal profit, then it does
        not need licencing and so is automatically permitted. Note that if the organiser is one of the musicians,
        he/she is entitled to his/her normal fee for performing without being classified as organising for profit.

In all other cases (i.e. either it is in a licenced club or is in the presence of the public or is in private but with
        the organiser or the premises provider making a profit):
Is there another concurrent activity which is the principle reason that those not participating in the entertainment
activity itself are present in the room?
        If so is that principal activity subject to entertainment licencing?
                If the principal activity (such as drinkingn at a bar) is not subject to entertainment licencing and
                the entertainment under consideration is the provision of incidental (supporting) music then the
                music is exempted from licencing requirements unless it overpowers the principal activity to the
                extent that it becomes the principal activity itself.

        Otherwise Since the principal activity is subject to entertainment licencing, is it licenced?
                If so the entertainment under consideration is the provision of incidental (supporting) music then the
                music is exempted from licencing requirements unless it overpowers the principal activity to the
                extent that it becomes the principal activity itself.

If none of the above cases is applicable
        A licence covering the particular type of entertainment needs to be in operation for the premises.

In all cases where a licence is required the only organisations/individuals who could be committing an offence are the
premises owners, the premises supervisor and the organiser of the activity. Participation alone is not an offence!!

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 12:57 PM

It may have been noticed that my previous posting made no mention of Spontaneous Entertainment.

The main reason was that Spontaneous Entertainment is not mentioned in the Act, only in the Guidance. Consideration of the Guidance will show that Spontaneous Entertainment is a subset of incidental entertainment since it always occurs on premises which are accessible for some other purpose than the Spontaneous Entertainment but there are many circumstances that satisfy the criteria for music being played incidental but where spontaneous music would be quite unacceptable (for instance in the middle of the performance of a play). Planned music during a play can enhance the experience but unplanned music is at the very best extremely bad manners.

Consequently, it is helpful to have the guidance mention spontaneous music explicitly, because it essentially prevents some jobsworth trying to interfere with music that is self-evidently spontaneous but the previous posting covered it whenever it is appropriate.

Richard

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 02:09 PM

Basically, pubs are primarily for drinking and eating and meeting friends. Anything else happening in the pub is incidental. Even iof some olf teh people in tey room have come along mainly because of the icidental stuff, such as darts or telly or the live music, that doens't change things. Maybe a tone-deaf regular propped in the corner might be a useful accessory in any pub, as a reminder of the primary purpose of the place. There normally are a coupel of those anyway.

And the same kind of thing applies in all the other places we hope music might be accepted - people drinking coffee in a coffee bar, people browsing through books in a library or bookshop and so forth, people waiting for trains in a waiting room in a station...

But what is needed to have to have the licencing people confirm that this is how they see it, in a way which wil reassure the publicans etc that the law is on their side in allowing music.

It occurs to me - couldn't we try and sell the idea that making London a more music friendly place would not only appeal to tourists, but might even help get the Olympic games scheduled here? The authorities really care about that...

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 06:24 PM

We are getting closer to a common view. However, I suggest taht you are paying too much attention to the word "volume" which is not used in the Act and is only quoted as an example in the Guidance.

I did mention that there was no mention in the Act about volume being a factor when determining what was incidental live or recorded music.

However, I addressed it in some detail as it does appear in the latest draft guidance and it will be this guidance - rather than the words of the Act, or different lawyer's interpretations of these words, that will be have to be understood by those who have to try to make it work in the first instance. Whilst all the time trying not to allow the new Act to affect recorded music any more than before.

An important example I would suggest is that huge concert held on Brighton beach. Because it was recorded music, Fat Boy Slim did not need a PEL. Under the Act of course, it would require entertainment permission.

Despite the guidance, and as far as I can see, from the words of the Act, a juke box (whatever the volume it is played at) will already be a licensable entertainment facility. How can it not be, if as the DCMS state, a playable piano is? Dance floors and stages will also be licensable entertainment facilities. So even if the dance floor is only for exempt Morris and the stage is only for exempt stand-up comedy - the premises will first need entertainment permission for these?

Perhaps Richard (P) - you could let us have your thoughts on entertainment facilities.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 08:22 PM

What makes a floor not a dance floor?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 05:16 PM

Shambles,

Addrssing your question I think McGrath has pointed to the answer even if in this case unintentionally.

Let me pose McGraths question the other way round.

What makes a floor a dance floor. Answer - someone dances on it.

Going back to Shambles question. I do not see that a player piano needs an entertainment facilities entry on a licence unless and until someone uses it to perform licencable music (e.g. it is not needed if it only used for incidental music).

There may be a second consideration which is hinted at several times and is explicit in one very special case. When does a publican make an entertainment facility available. You would naturally assume that he does so every time he allows someone to use it to provide entertainment. However, there is one specific case where he only provides as far as the Act is concerned if he charges for it with a view to making himself (or his employer/landlord) a profit. If this consideration applied to facilities other than a room for a private event, then it is very likely that some facilities provided would not be mentioned explicitly on any existing licence.

Let us remind oursleves that this Act is only concerned with the licencing of premises for the sale of alcohol and late night refreshments and/or for the performance of that entertainment which is required to be performed on premises with a premises licence. The Act also requires the provision of an operating schedule stating times of day that activities will take place and any restrictions that will be applied to the operations. It is not concerned with the details of the entertainment provided they are in accordance with the operations schedule and any constraints that are included in the licence. These constraints are either agreed between the local authority and the licencee (maybe after pressure) or are determined by a magistrates court on appeal if agreement is impossible.

Richard

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 04:32 AM

Going back to Shambles question. I do not see that a player piano needs an entertainment facilities entry on a licence unless and until someone uses it to perform licencable music (e.g. it is not needed if it only used for incidental music).

If you were correct, the same would then be true of juke box or any other means of playing recorded music.

But the DCMS have long maintained that a piano (if it is not disabled to ensure that it cannot be played) will be an entertainment facility under the Act............Unless they are not now saying this?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: GUEST,ET
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 06:17 AM

This debate on the legal niceties is interesting. Unfortunate that all this has to come from a "de-regulatory" bill.

But in practice most of the enforcement will be by the licensee, will it not? If he/she thinks there may be a licence problem caused by the incidental rendition of "Flowers of Edinburgh" by the bloke in the corner with a fiddle, he is more likely to turf him out than listen to legal arguement as to "incidental" or not. This I think is the real problem. I know of a pub which had "sessions" under old legislation without PEL. There was an aurgument with local authority enforcers, who were probably technically correct. The following week the BBC came and filmed the session, ridiculing the enforcement. But soon after that the pub was inspected for electrical safety, food hygiene and just about everything else. It closed down, re-opened on session night as a private "club" but then closed for good to musicians under a new licensee.

As I say this was under PEL legislation.   If only the new Act exempted acoustic music from requiring a licence all would have been well. But the so called Jazz loving Kim Howells spoke in the debate that some Jazz needing amplification and because of this the baby was flung out with the bath water.

Maybe a change of Government will correct this. I have lobied by local MP long and hard on this.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 09:47 AM

This from the DCMS.

Entertainment facilities are defined by the Bill as facilities for enabling persons to take part in music making, dancing or similar entertainment, for the purpose of being entertained.

An antique piano in a pub that was only provided for decorative effect would not give rise to the need for a licence.

And a licence would not be required if the pub operator did not allow the public to play it.

A licence would only be required if it was used to entertain people at the premises or by people on the premises to entertain themselves.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: ET
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 10:58 AM

Pianos

Not sure if this takes us further on. If a piano is provided for its usual purpose, music, and there happended to be someone there who could play, coupled with a bunch wanting to sing "Down at the Old Bull and Bush" or whatever, they could sing this spontaneously without attracting the attention of the Licensing Authority, however loudly or out of tune they sang it.

But open up the piano, bring order to it, provide the tune in key, and - serious stuff - providing entertainment facilities.

Isn't it reassuring how the government legislates to save us all from such horrors. Perhaps Howells should have been more involved in the Iraq decision making? Did Blair have the necessary licence in place?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 12:54 PM

But in practice most of the enforcement will be by the licensee, will it not? If he/she thinks there may be a licence problem caused by the incidental rendition of "Flowers of Edinburgh" by the bloke in the corner with a fiddle, he is more likely to turf him out than listen to legal arguement as to "incidental" or not. This I think is the real problem.

Yes I think that it is the practical problem of first being able to convince a licensee that the activity you wish them to hold is possible.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 03:13 AM

I agree with ET that there would be a great deal of benefit in getting back to broad matters instead of details. However, that will not be helped if people go back to details - especially if they get the details wrong.

So what are the broad principles.

Currently premises licencing is conntrolled by 50+ laws.

Alcohol Licencing is very inflexible.

PEL is controlled by local authorities and there is no consistency about its impact or its cost. At least in the most expensive and the most restictive authorities, there is a significant amount of avoidance (i.e. landlords do not buy a PEL but allow things to happen with a nod and a wink).

I have not researched all the old Acts. However, I looked at the "Standard Licencing Conditions" for a PEL for one authority. They run for several pages and duplicate almost everything that might apply to a workplace despite the fact that other legislation already covers them. To be blunt, they may be consistent with the 50 Acts, but they are frightening, amke it clear why there is so much resistance to PEL and so much bypassing it. Most importantly hardly any of the content would be legal under the new Act.

In the new system there is only one Act covering all premises licencing, all the old licencing law is repealed. Alcohol licencing is much more flexible in terms of opening hours. Entertainment licencing is harder to avoid, but is amalgamated with alcohol licencing. licencing of plays and films and of late night food outlets.

The Guidance confirms that common fees will be fixed nationally and that there can be no eextra cost to include entertainment licencing on a premises licence when first issued (there is a fee for introducing changes one occasion of which would be the subsequent addition of entertainment licencing to an issued licence).

All licencing is contained by restricting licencing conditions to those needed to achieve the licencing objectives of:

Prevention of Crime and Disorder - mainly drug and violence
Public Safety
Prevention of Public Nuisance
Protection of Children from Harm - mainly from under-age drinking

Of these four it is hard to see the first and last affecting music or dance entertainments. Public Safety for performance is related primarily to safe egress in the event of an emergency - since physical provisions for safety are controlled by other legislation(e.g. planning). Public Nuisance relates to rowdy behaviour after leaving the premises and the "export" of noise from the premises at levels which are a nuisance for neighbours relative to the time of day that they occur.

My conclusions are that recognition of the problems of the existing system indicate that the new Act is indeed a liberalisation. It certainly has some aspects that could be more entertainer friendly, but they are significantly more friendly than the PEL ever was with the sole exception of two (but no more) in a bar without a licence.

Richard

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 03:37 AM

Two old sayings come to mind. They both involve our friend from below.

In respect of where we stand at the moment and the old laws -v- the new Act. - 'Between the Devil and the deep blue sea'.

And more as a genral reply to Richard P: - 'The Devil is in the detail'.

Despite the fact that my local council Licensing Committee is waiting for a reply from the DCMS on the very subject of if unpaid pub customers making music MUST be considered as performers in a public entertainment - I have just heard that their officers have contacted a licensee and as a result - the weekly session held there (but never advertised) is to be prevented for lack of a PEL.

Having agreed to write and ask the question at a meeting set up only to discuss this issue and locally enable sessions, on the 9 February, the letter was sent a full month later and the DCMS have yet to reply.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 04:00 AM

"All licencing is contained by restricting licencing conditions to those needed to achieve the licencing objectives of:

Prevention of Crime and Disorder - mainly drug and violence
Public Safety
Prevention of Public Nuisance
Protection of Children from Harm - mainly from under-age drinking"

Is this a sound stance to take against an Acoustic session, when Big Screen Television is exempt? I suppose that there are no grounds for thinking that there may be no Crime & Disorder, no Public Safety concerns, and no Public Nuisance stemming from a live football match?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 07:42 PM

Guest,

The Acoustic argument, however strong was lost last year. In any case acoustic music ranges from solo comb and paper to large symphony orchestras and massed military bands. That covers a much larger variety than folk music whether acoustic or amplified.

You are correct that musical entertainment has nothing to do with the first or the last objectives, and hence a premises stated in its operation plan to be used exclusively for folk music should never have conditions related to them attached to its licence. However, even Cecil Sharp House is not restricted to folk music but also sells liquor. However, it is reasonable to expect that its likely clientele could still justify no conditions for those categories.

Some limited conditions for audience safety such as working emergency lighting and accessible emergency exits cannot face reasonable objections. Similarly, where they are meaningful, restrictions to the hours that music can be played in the garden or requirements that windows are closed late in the evening are surely reasonable in some cases.

The important point for the next six months is to ensure that Local Authorities are made aware of the need to promote live music in their licencing policies, and to make it clear that thy will minimise licence conditions placed on live musical entertainment. It is also important that people and organisations that understand folk music are amongst those consulted by Local Authorities about their draft licencing policies.

Richard

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 08:18 PM

"...with the sole exception of two (but no more) in a bar without a licence.

That is quite an important exception. Sweeping away an exemption like that, rather than extending it, was a pretty massive de-liberalising element in the Act.

Still, that's all water under the bridge. The important thing is to find ways of using the new legislative framework to our advantage.

I am hoping that there will be some local authorities that decide to give the kind of music we are talking about as free a hand as possible, and not just in pubs. Some of the stuff in those guidelines could be used to back them up in doing this.

I think that local authorities which do that could find a significant increase in musical activity locally, and this could mean increased numbers of visitors and so forth. That would provide a motive for other places to copy their example.

And I can envisage this being welcomed up in Whitehall, as good news that might get a few good headlines and photo-ops, perhaps at a time when there aren't too many of them about, and an election is pending. "See, we were right all along" they'd say, which is the kind of thing they like to be able to say. The fact that the good results were achieved in spite of them, rather than because of them, would be a secondary matter. Fair enough, that's how the game works.

So is there anyone out there working on winning round the relevant people in their local authority to see it that way and to recognise an opportunity?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 05:02 AM

McGrath brought us back to the real current issue. How do we move forward to maximise the opportunities for folk nusic (and as a consequence for other entertainments).

Within the next few months, every local authority in England and Wales has to produce its licencing policy. This has to take into account the Government Guidance document, but this is not designed to promote the particular interests of folk musicians (or anyone else). Furthermore, they will be undertaking this exercise just when festivals and holidays are diverting folkies minds away from home.

Most of the council's energies are likely to be concentrated on how they generate a policy for extremely flexible pub licencing hours.

One way that we can seek to promote our interests is to generate a suggested for of words about entertainment licencing to be included in their policy statement.   By doing so we can indicate key issues that are relevant to us.

The following is a strawman that I have thrown together to open up the discussion. If we can hone this, or have an alternative starting point to hone, then we can seek means of promoting it through folk clubs and individuals in each local authority area.

DRAFT TEXT FOR A PROPOSED SECTION IN LOCAL AUTHORITY LICENCING POLICY DOCUMENTS

It is Council policy is to encourage opportunities for citizens to enjoy entertainments both as participants and as
audiences. In furtherance of this objective, the Council strongly urges those seeking premises licences for the
provision of alcohol in public houses and member clubs to include licencing of the premises for entertainment within
their application. The licence fee is unaltered provided the requests are made together. The Council affirms that
it will seek the minimum licence conditions consistent with the licencing objectives.

The Council accepts that most acoustic music is consistent with the licencing objectives. Consequently, any
applications exclusively for music will normally be approved with very few conditions, which will normally be
restricted to those listed by the guidance as examples which apply to the premises and are appropriate to the
premises location:

        No entertainment in gardens after 10:00pm
        Windows to be closed after 11:00pm
        Freedom of passage to exits
        Proper maintenance and operation of the emergency lighting system if one is installed.

The Council recognises that a minority of acoustic music can be very loud to the point of causing nuisance in some
circumstances. As a general guide, it is considered that an acoustic performance comprising up to five professional
entertainers joined by a singing audience of up to 100 would be consistent with this minimal level of licencing
conditions in most premises.

Premises operators should assess whether the entertainment within their premises will comply with the above guidance
or whether they wish to make provision for entertainment that might be louder. In the latter case they should include
a description of the intended entertainment that will cause the most disturbance so that neighbours can make
and pertinent comments.

In the case of premises which are equipped with a system which enables the power to amplifiers to be cut off if a
particular noise level is reached, the premises operator should include a draft condition within the application
which requires the equipment to be used for all amplified music and should state the noise level at which it is
intended that power to the amplifier will be cut off.

Similarly event organisers must assess whether their event will be within the permitted premises noise level and
hence will be covered by the exisiting premises licence or whether a separate event licence is required.

Who will take up the challenge of honing that, taking note of the need to produce a statement that is likely to be acceptable to local authorities.

Richard

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 06:26 AM

I think these are on the right lines, Richard.

A couple of points where I'd like to see a change.

1) I can think of many places where music in gardens after 10 pm, or leaving windows open would not cause any problems for neighbours, notably in some country pubs. I think it would be better to leave out "No entertainment in gardens after 10:00pm
       Windows to be closed after 11:00pm
       Freedom of passage to exits
       Proper maintenance and operation of the emergency lighting system if one is installed."

The section already refers to the guidance on these points, and I'd think that might be sufficient.

2) I think "The Council recognises that a minority of acoustic music can be very loud to the point of causing nuisance in some circumstances. As a general guide, it is considered that an acoustic performance comprising up to five professional entertainers joined by a singing audience of up to 100 would be consistent with this minimal level of licencing conditions in most premises" is too specific - for example it opens up arguments about what "professional" means here, a question which doesn't seem relevant to the issue. Whether a performer is professional or not doesn't directly determine whether they are making too much noise.

I'd suggest something of the form: "The Council recognises that a minority of acoustic music can be very loud to the point of causing nuisance in some circumstances. Where this was the case, it would not be consistent with this minimal level of of licensing conditions."

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 08:57 AM

So is there anyone out there working on winning round the relevant people in their local authority to see it that way and to recognise an opportunity?

Working but not winning, mainly because your average councillor does not understand the Act and need their legal officers to tell them. These are the same officers who have misled them as to what the current legislation means - so it is unlikely that very much will change. Both of these pieces of legislation (and guidance) are sadly designed to mean what those enforcing it - want it to mean.

Richard (P). Your idea is basically to maximise those premises that apply for the optional entertainment permission but even the councillors should be able to grasp this. It is not a bad idea but as it remains an option only open for the licensee or owner, it should not be the only strategy. It must be recognised that even increasing the take-up from the current 5% will still leave many places where even one performer will not be legal and where permission will be required to have a piano.

So it is VITAL for US to ensure NOW, that the exemption for incidental recorded and now for incidental LIVE music is defined locally to enable incidental live music (like sessions) to take place without entertainment permission. Background recorded music (like juke boxes) will be accepted by our licensing officers as exempt - it is up to us to ensure that our local licensing committees ensure that these officers also consider any incidental live music also to be exempt.

We the public, do have the right of freedom of expression, it is up to us to make sure that it is not taken away.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 09:21 AM

It is Council policy is to encourage opportunities for citizens to enjoy entertainments both as participants and as audiences. In furtherance of this objective, the Council strongly urges those seeking premises licences for the provision of alcohol in public houses and member clubs to include licencing of the premises for entertainment within their application. The licence fee is unaltered provided the requests are made together.

This will not do. For example, what about a coffee bar or cafe not wishing to serve alcohol, who will only have to apply and pay for a Premises Licence if they wish to provide regulated entertainment?

The Council affirms that it will seek the minimum licence conditions [for regulated entertainment] consistent with the licencing objectives .

Add the following - but scrap all the rest of the detail.

The Council also affirms that it will recognise that, as worded in the Act, where the playing of recorded music is exempt from the licensing requirement as incidental, that the performance of live music will also be exempt as incidental.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 04:47 AM

My time being at a premium at the moment, I shall respond to the principles behind the above responses to my initial draft, but postpone a replacement draft to a later time.

1) I completely agree with McGraths first contention. I had tried to address it explicitly slightly later in the draft, but will look at the whole subject again.

2) I agree with McGraths argument that the use of the word "professional" opens up a number of problems and that a better approach is required. I would like to think about an alternative means of including the idea that enthusiatic chorus singing is within what is acceptable without constraints.

3) Shambles statement that I ant to maximise the premises that hold a licence which covers entertaiment - we must as a minimum do that. However there is another (possibly inevitably more subtle) objective - to influence the licencing policy document to recognise that a very large amount of folk music (and other like entertainment) that is automatically legal within the terms of the Act and hence which does not come within the control of the entertainment provisions of any premises licence. In practice the bigger problem is likely to be convincing landlords that the incidental music is outside the proper concern of a licencing officer. Unless they are satisfied the officer will not have an opportunity to be corrected by his employing committee.

4) Shambles point about coffee bars in his second posting is absolutely correct. It is a completely separate point from pubs etc. but needs to be covered. Again I will give it some further thought before posting a revised suggestion.

5) Shambles final point about the equivalence of reorded and live music also needs to be covered, although probably not by a simple affirmation of a small (but important) part of the act.

RichardP

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: GUEST,AJ
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 06:07 AM

Some of you may have heard that there is to be Live Music Forum which will look at the impact of the Act on live music and will carry out an audit on the state of live music now in order to make a benchmark for future measurement. The forum was created by the DCMS and is headed by Feargal Sharkey. The message above from Richard P would be really hepful to the work of this group as they are looking already at advocacy for live performance within LA policies. The DCMS web-site should provide a link or contact for feedback and I'm sure that your input to their project woould be very welcome.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 05:39 PM

Following my posting of yesterday, I worked the comments into the draft with other consequential changes. By the end the content was improved, b ut it read dreadfully. So I then undertook a fairly major edit to make it more reader friendly. The following is the result:

REVISED DRAFT TEXT FOR A PROPOSED SECTION IN LOCAL AUTHORITY LICENCING POLICY DOCUMENTS

COUNCIL COMMITTMENT TO FOSTERING PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT

It is Council policy to encourage opportunities for citizens to enjoy entertainments both as participants and as
audiences.

The Council affirms its commitment to facilitate the provision of entertainment in as many premises as possible.
In furtherance of this objective, it will issue licences with the minimum conditions consistent with supporting the
licensing objectives.

In addition the Council will licence all appropriate premises in its control for public entertainment and strongly
urges other organisations and individuals controlling any premises suitable for public entertainment to licence them.

Specifically, it draws the attention of those seeking premises licences for the provision of alcohol in public houses,
member clubs and, where appropriate, in off-sales and other premises to the fact that that the licence fee for
premises selling alcohol is not increased by the inclusion of entertainment licensing provided the requests are made
concurrently.

The Council draws attention to the fact that there are many circumstances in which entertainment is permitted without
the need for a premises licence covering entertainment. It is the essential characteristic of all licensable
entertainment that there must be:

        Explicit provision of the entertainment either by one or more individuals or by the replay of recorded
        entertainment

        There must be an audience in which the main reason for the presence of the majority of the audience members is
        their desire to be entertained (as opposed to any other reason, such as their being present in a pub primarily
        to have a drink).

If either of these conditions is not satisfied then the entertainment does not require a licence, consequently most
entertainment in a pub bar does not need an entertainments licence.

COUNCIL COMMITTMENT TO MINIMAL LICENCING CONDITIONS

The Council accepts that most acoustic music is consistent with the licensing objectives. Consequently, any
applications exclusively for acoustic music will normally be approved with very few conditions. These will normally
be restricted to such of those conditions listed as examples by the DCMS guidance which are applicable to the
particular premises taking its location into consideration. The relevant conditions within the guidance are:

       No entertainment in gardens after 10:00pm
       Windows to be closed after 11:00pm
       Freedom of passage to exits
       Proper maintenance and operation of any emergency lighting system that is already installed.

It should be noted in particular that the first two would not apply at all in the case of very isolated premises and
the times themselves are flexible depending on the location. It is stressed that it is not appropriate for a
licensing condition to require any alteration to the premises.

As stressed above, Where the entertainment requires a licence, the Council is committed to the application of the
minimum possible conditions consistent with supporting the licensing objectives. However, there will be cases where
the nature of the entertainment makes additional licence conditions necessary. To assist premises and event
organisers to assess whether it is necessary to consider additional licence conditions and to minimise the number of
unnecessary applications for more restricted licences, the Council asserts that an acoustic performance comprising a
few performers with an audience of up to 100 joining in choruses would be consistent with the minimal level of
licensing conditions in most premises.

Premises operators should assess whether the entertainment within their premises will be consistent with the volumes
typified by the above indication. If they consider that this may not be so, they should indicate whether they wish to
make provision for louder entertainment. In the latter case they should include a description of the intended
entertainment that is to be covered so that neighbours can make any pertinent comments.

In the case of premises which are equipped with a system which enables the power to amplifiers to be cut off if a
particular noise level is reached; the premises operator should include a draft condition within the application
which requires the equipment to be used for all amplified music and should state the noise level at which it is
intended that power to the amplifier will be cut off.

Just as premises operators have to decide whether they will require entertainment to be contained within the
guidelines so that it will be covered by the existing premises licence an event organiser will have to decide whether
to contain the entertainment or to apply for a separate licence with extended guidelines.

END OF DRAFT.

Further comments are requested.

The immediately preceding posting is very welcome and could be very significant. I was aware of the Feargay Sharkey committee, but it had not occurred to me that they might be producing something informal for local autorities along lines similar to those above. I would prefer to give people at least one more chance to comment defore considering whether it is ready and suitable to send to the committee.

Richard

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 06:56 PM

"These are the same officers who have misled them as to what the current legislation means - so it is unlikely that very much will change.

In some places that is going to be so, and I can see how the Shanbles experience locally must have given him a pretty jaundiced view of these people. However I suspect that there are other places where the question hasn't really come up, or where local practice has been to be pretty accepting of a considerable degree of flexibility. And I am sure that there are councillors and officers who are potentially on our side.

If there is a prospect of a model policy statement being produced by this review committee, obviously the important thing is to do whatever can be done to edge it towards being a model we would wish to see copied. The likelihood is that any centrally produced model policy will in fact be adopted in most places.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 08:25 PM

I think that Richard's draft is better but it is a broard policy statement and does not need to go into the kind of detail about the time that music can take place in pub gardenss etc.

It could also stress that the Council can only legally prevent the public's freedom of expression, on certain specified grounds (re Article 10 of the European Commission on Human Rights). That the Council will have to demonstrate these grounds if they ever wish to prevent the public from making live music.

The draft does clearly show the problems presented now to the legislation. It started out as a catch-all to cover any possible live entertainment anywhere, (but not effect recorded music) but now has so many exemptions (and holes) - it is clear that the reasoning for licensing what little remains - is very suspect and difficult to justify. Or indeed to construct the required local policy toward live music around it.

All I expect is that all local authorities uphold and follow the law of the land. The current licensing legislation does not mean or support the view that any LAs should see their role as preventing live music like sessions. It is up to us to ensure that the new legislation is not corrupted and used in the same way.

We must ensure that for the first time live and recorded incidental music will be treated the same by our officers. And that any place where recorded music is exempt as being incidental - that incidental live music (like sessions) is also never bothered by our officers.

It is important to stress to our councillors that the only way that recorded music can now be exempt from the licensing requirement, is by by being considered (locally) as incidental.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 09:05 PM

I think Richard P is quite right in pointing out that "In practice the bigger problem is likely to be convincing landlords that the incidental music is outside the proper concern of a licensing officer."   And that applies maybe even more in the case of companies owning chains of pubs, and laying down a policy for what their managers are authorised to do."

Always remembering that in principle we should never just think in terms of pubs. Pubs only took on their central role because, almost by accident, in 1964 legislation effectively made live music in other places it had happened before, such as coffee bars, effectively illegal. The combination of the two in-a-bar exemption and the existence in those days of far more function rooms, made all the difference.

Legislation always seems to have these unexpected results, and it'll be interesting to see how it works out now.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 02:50 AM

I think Richard P is quite right in pointing out that "In practice the bigger problem is likely to be convincing landlords that the incidental music is outside the proper concern of a licensing officer."   And that applies maybe even more in the case of companies owning chains of pubs, and laying down a policy for what their managers are authorised to do."

It is up to us to first convince our Councils of this and then get them to convince licensees, owners and coffee bars. It should not be difficult to convince them that incidental recorded music is outside the proper concerns of a licensing officer, as all parties already accept this. The trick is to get them to accept from the very start, that any incidental live MUST now be treated the same and that it will now be illegal for them to make a distinction and insist on licensing for one and not the other.

It will be more difficult to do this if the main focus is placed on getting venues to apply for entertainment permissions, but that is the mess that we have been given to try and make work.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 05:35 AM

We seem to be coming together quite nicely. However, I can see no possible circumstance where anyone will bring the European Courts into play in support of a live session, so I am sure that any reference to European Law would be a red rag to certain councillors and offiserd rather than a strengthening of our case.

Furthermore I have seen nothing to justify the suggestion that the original intent of the Bill was to strengthen recorded music and undermine live music. This was certainly a view that was circulated from the start, but has all of the signs of a negociating position rather than fact.

There may be a lot of the Act that could have been more favourable to us, but we gain nothing by casting a lack of unquestioning support for us as positive purposeful opposition, particularly without positive proof of such a malign intent.

Richard

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 05:55 AM

Getting away from the detail itself. It appears that this thread is not getting a lot of attention from most UK mudcatters. Once we have finalised a form of words, it would be desirable to get their attention back, so I suggest a new thread with a catchy title to try to widenexposure. Any comments?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 04:10 PM

We seem to be coming together quite nicely. However, I can see no possible circumstance where anyone will bring the European Courts into play in support of a live session, so I am sure that any reference to European Law would be a red rag to certain councillors and offiserd rather than a strengthening of our case.

The right of freedom of expression (including the performance of live music) is now enshrined (by this Government) in our legislation, so the European Courts do not come into play. Our Councils (and councillors) should be well aware of this but find it easy to ignore when they currently prevent the public's right to express themselves musically in a pub, with the licensee's permission. All that is required is for a member of the public so affected, to make the case against their council (and to have the money to pay for it in our courts).

In order for this current prevention by Councils, of the public's freedom of expression to be legal, when they prevent sessions for the lack of a PEL, the law requires that they should be first able to demonstrate the speciific risk presented by this activity, that cannot be dealt with by the justice's licence or other legislation. The same will also be true if they wish to prevent the public's freedom of expression under the new Act.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 04:40 PM

Furthermore I have seen nothing to justify the suggestion that the original intent of the Bill was to strengthen recorded music and undermine live music. This was certainly a view that was circulated from the start, but has all of the signs of a negociating position rather than fact.

If the original Bill had been in any way what the Govenment claimed for it - there would have been no need for any negociating postion.

The fact that there was always to be an exemption for 'incidental' recorded music but not one for 'incidental' live music, clearly demonstrates that the effect of the original worded Bill would have enabled (most) recorded music without the rigmarole of obtaining advanced licensing permission. This permission was required for any live music. Whether this was an evil and intended design or just due to stupidity is hardly the point, to further damage all live music would have been the effect of it.

I would suggest that for no real reason, other than perhaps the powerful recorded music indusry lobby, the Bill was just carrying on the historical and reckless 'recorded music good' - 'live music bad' view, that has cause so much damage to all forms of live music. Due to the efforts of many of us (including the 110,000 who signed the online petition) - the Act that was passed is not the original Bill and there is now an exemption for incidental live music.

Rather than arguing now - we must ensure that we make to very most of this exemption and all of the other measures that cam be used to lessen the effects of the Act on all live music.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 06:42 PM

I think that we can find a mutually agreed position in a few simple statements:

The Act is better than the original Bill.
The only thing lost compared with the position before the Bill is "two in a bar", which was always an ambiguous exemption and at its strictest interpretation a pretty small sop.
Subject to any cases of two in a bar that are made worse, the Act is significantly better than the previous situation.
The Act could have given even more to music, but any legislation has to achieve a balance between different interests. In this instance because neighbours of pubs etc. have aspirations as well as musicians.
The Act is the best we have and the best we have ever had even if in the longer term we aspire to even better.
Even with the Act there are opportunities for some local authorities to be musch more supportive of music than others.
We need to use influence to ensure that Local Authorities employ the most music friendly interpretation within the flexibilites in the Act.

Richard

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 02:13 AM

We can all agree that the Act is now what it is, (even though the draft guidance changes to try and make a sow's ear into a silk purse).

I agree that there is little point in seeing the worst intentions in it but equally there is no reason to see it through 'rose-coloured glasses' or to persuade others to see it this way, as you appear to be set on doing.

The only thing lost compared with the position before the Bill is "two in a bar", which was always an ambiguous exemption and at its strictest interpretation a pretty small sop.

That may be your and the Government's simplistic view - it is not mine. The S 182 exemption did enable a lot of music making in perfectly safe and already licensed pubs to take place without silly and pointless claims about its safety. Sadly it was not used by LAs as intended, to enable small-scale live music in pubs. Rather it was wrongly used to insist that any music made by more than two people made pubs automatically unsafe without paying them for an additional licence.

Subject to any cases of two in a bar that are made worse, the Act is significantly better than the previous situation.

Again, that may be your view but it is not mine. As has been pointed out to you Richard, the Bill/Act was sold to us as making things better for live music. As far as the musical aspects, is more of an unreasoned mess than the old laws were.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 05:16 AM

Shambles,

It is clear that our disagreements are all about how good or poor the legal position was before the Bill. On that we can agree to differ.

Richard

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: RichardP
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 05:25 AM

There is a most important omission from both my previous drafts. The Act exempts Morris Dancing and similar entertainments from Licencing, but there is no guidance on which entertainments are similar. The draft circulated above should include a paragraph to cover this. I suggest the following:

"Morris Dancing and similar entertainments are exempted from the need for licencing by the Act. The Council considers the following to be similar entertainments for this purpose:

      Long Sword Dancing
      Rapper Sword Dancing
      Traditional Clog Dancing
      Mummers Plays
      Medieaval Mystery Plays
      Wasssailing
      (Here list any local similar traditions specific to the Local
       Authority Area)

Anyone promoting an entertainment which they consider comparable to those in the list should consult the Council before applying for a licence."

Richard

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 09:04 AM

Under the Act the two examples of plays may well be safe from our officers in practice, (as they largely were before) until some future legal brain looks only at the words of the Act.

Where it is pretty clear that these are regulated entertainments and licensable........Unless you can claim them both to be exempt as Morris and the (non amplified) music to be integral, and also exempt at the same time as performance of incidental live music?

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 09:15 AM

Schedule 1.

2. (1)The descriptions of entertainment are-

(a)a performance of a play,

(b)an exhibition of a film,

(c)an indoor sporting event,

(d)a boxing or wrestling entertainment,

(e)a performance of live music,

(f)any playing of recorded music,

(g)a peformance of dance,

(h)entertainment of a similar description to that falling within paragraph (e)(f) or (g),

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.

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 09:25 AM

If persuading licensees in the first place, that a session is exempt as incidental live music and not a matter for our licensing officers, is seen to be a problem - how on earth are you supposed to convince them that a mumming play staged on their premises, is not a matter for our licensing officers?

Especially when the words of Schedule 1 of the Act, (above) clearly state that the performance of a play is a regulated entertainment.........

Mummers play stopped at Cerne Abbas

Subject: RE: Licensing Bill - How will it work ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 09:34 AM

If the same legal brain even wished at any time to prevent any form of incidental recorded music without entertainment permission, let alone a mumming play or session - they will claim that these words from Schedule 1 of the Act will enable them to do so.

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.

How could you argue that the incidental recorded juke box music that you provided, did not include the purpose of entertaining that audience?