Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafemuddy

Post to this Thread - Sort Descending - Printer Friendly - Home


Licensing consultation announced!

GUEST,The Shambles 31 Dec 09 - 08:19 AM
GUEST 31 Dec 09 - 08:25 AM
The Villan 31 Dec 09 - 08:37 AM
GUEST 31 Dec 09 - 08:51 AM
Carol 31 Dec 09 - 09:05 AM
GUEST 31 Dec 09 - 09:13 AM
Dave the Gnome 31 Dec 09 - 10:17 AM
GUEST 31 Dec 09 - 01:04 PM
GUEST, Poxicat 31 Dec 09 - 01:41 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Jan 10 - 06:57 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Jan 10 - 08:39 AM
Darowyn 02 Jan 10 - 09:16 AM
stallion 02 Jan 10 - 02:27 PM
Howard Jones 02 Jan 10 - 06:19 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Jan 10 - 06:39 PM
GUEST, Poxicat 02 Jan 10 - 07:38 PM
Howard Jones 03 Jan 10 - 10:14 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 03 Jan 10 - 06:46 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Jan 10 - 11:44 AM
Folkiedave 04 Jan 10 - 01:03 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Jan 10 - 02:21 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 05 Jan 10 - 08:09 AM
IanC 05 Jan 10 - 09:06 AM
GUEST 06 Jan 10 - 05:20 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Jan 10 - 05:31 AM
GUEST, Poxicat 06 Jan 10 - 05:39 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Jan 10 - 10:14 AM
GUEST, Poxicat 06 Jan 10 - 11:21 AM
Howard Jones 06 Jan 10 - 11:41 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Jan 10 - 12:35 PM
GUEST,Mikey 06 Jan 10 - 01:40 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Jan 10 - 02:41 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Jan 10 - 03:39 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Jan 10 - 12:49 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Jan 10 - 02:22 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 12 Jan 10 - 05:18 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 13 Jan 10 - 05:50 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 13 Jan 10 - 05:52 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 15 Jan 10 - 01:15 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 15 Jan 10 - 01:19 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 15 Jan 10 - 01:21 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 15 Jan 10 - 02:09 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Jan 10 - 10:53 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Jan 10 - 01:25 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Jan 10 - 01:50 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Jan 10 - 11:15 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Jan 10 - 07:39 PM
GUEST 20 Jan 10 - 05:17 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Jan 10 - 10:06 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Jan 10 - 10:10 AM
Howard Jones 20 Jan 10 - 12:23 PM
Stephen L. Rich 20 Jan 10 - 12:59 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Jan 10 - 01:40 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Jan 10 - 02:21 PM
Richard Bridge 20 Jan 10 - 06:32 PM
Richard Bridge 20 Jan 10 - 06:35 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Jan 10 - 08:05 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Jan 10 - 12:29 PM
Howard Jones 21 Jan 10 - 01:11 PM
Richard Bridge 21 Jan 10 - 02:42 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 22 Jan 10 - 07:52 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Jan 10 - 10:11 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Jan 10 - 10:37 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 25 Jan 10 - 01:06 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 25 Jan 10 - 01:09 PM
Howard Jones 25 Jan 10 - 02:00 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 25 Jan 10 - 02:41 PM
Howard Jones 25 Jan 10 - 07:21 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Jan 10 - 09:36 AM
Richard Bridge 26 Jan 10 - 10:02 AM
Howard Jones 26 Jan 10 - 12:35 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Jan 10 - 02:10 PM
GUEST 27 Jan 10 - 04:15 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Jan 10 - 04:19 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Jan 10 - 04:44 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Jan 10 - 01:41 PM
Howard Jones 27 Jan 10 - 01:59 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Jan 10 - 04:57 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Jan 10 - 03:01 AM
GUEST 29 Jan 10 - 04:31 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Jan 10 - 04:09 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 31 Jan 10 - 03:00 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Feb 10 - 03:17 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Feb 10 - 08:43 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 03 Feb 10 - 12:42 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 03 Feb 10 - 01:00 PM
GUEST 04 Feb 10 - 06:44 AM
GUEST 05 Feb 10 - 01:13 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Feb 10 - 12:07 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Feb 10 - 12:13 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Feb 10 - 01:08 PM
GUEST 11 Feb 10 - 05:25 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Feb 10 - 06:18 AM
Dennis the Elder 16 Feb 10 - 03:34 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Feb 10 - 03:47 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Feb 10 - 05:02 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Feb 10 - 05:37 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Feb 10 - 01:13 PM
SunrayFC 18 Feb 10 - 01:26 PM
The Barden of England 18 Feb 10 - 04:41 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Feb 10 - 03:33 AM
GUEST 19 Feb 10 - 11:54 AM
SunrayFC 19 Feb 10 - 11:59 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Feb 10 - 04:37 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 22 Feb 10 - 04:31 AM
GUEST 22 Feb 10 - 10:01 AM
Howard Jones 23 Feb 10 - 05:25 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Feb 10 - 06:10 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Feb 10 - 10:15 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Feb 10 - 10:18 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Feb 10 - 09:41 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Feb 10 - 08:09 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 25 Feb 10 - 02:00 AM
GUEST 25 Feb 10 - 05:58 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 25 Feb 10 - 06:21 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 25 Feb 10 - 06:51 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Feb 10 - 04:22 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Feb 10 - 02:22 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Feb 10 - 07:28 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Mar 10 - 06:25 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Mar 10 - 07:49 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Mar 10 - 12:09 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Mar 10 - 04:06 AM
Howard Jones 05 Mar 10 - 12:39 PM
GUEST 05 Mar 10 - 01:01 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 05 Mar 10 - 01:57 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 05 Mar 10 - 02:26 PM
Howard Jones 06 Mar 10 - 01:45 PM
Dennis the Elder 06 Mar 10 - 03:34 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Mar 10 - 04:04 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Mar 10 - 05:06 PM
Howard Jones 06 Mar 10 - 05:36 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Mar 10 - 06:11 PM
Howard Jones 06 Mar 10 - 07:25 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Mar 10 - 07:09 AM
Howard Jones 07 Mar 10 - 07:38 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Mar 10 - 08:05 AM
Howard Jones 07 Mar 10 - 09:18 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Mar 10 - 10:31 AM
Howard Jones 07 Mar 10 - 12:51 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Mar 10 - 02:29 PM
Howard Jones 07 Mar 10 - 03:23 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Mar 10 - 09:14 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Mar 10 - 09:22 AM
Mr Happy 09 Mar 10 - 09:30 AM
Dennis the Elder 09 Mar 10 - 09:50 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Mar 10 - 11:09 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Mar 10 - 11:17 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Mar 10 - 12:06 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Mar 10 - 12:13 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Mar 10 - 02:17 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Mar 10 - 06:35 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Mar 10 - 05:30 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Mar 10 - 02:12 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Mar 10 - 02:30 PM
Howard Jones 10 Mar 10 - 07:27 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Mar 10 - 07:57 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Mar 10 - 08:06 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Mar 10 - 08:21 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 Mar 10 - 02:48 AM
Howard Jones 11 Mar 10 - 04:25 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 Mar 10 - 05:13 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 Mar 10 - 10:09 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 Mar 10 - 01:52 PM
GUEST 12 Mar 10 - 07:40 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 12 Mar 10 - 11:46 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 12 Mar 10 - 02:33 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 13 Mar 10 - 03:16 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 13 Mar 10 - 05:47 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Mar 10 - 09:30 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Mar 10 - 09:37 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Mar 10 - 10:34 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Mar 10 - 06:20 AM
Howard Jones 17 Mar 10 - 06:58 AM
GUEST 17 Mar 10 - 12:06 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Mar 10 - 12:27 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Mar 10 - 12:45 PM
Howard Jones 17 Mar 10 - 12:49 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Mar 10 - 03:33 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Mar 10 - 04:22 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Mar 10 - 04:37 PM
Howard Jones 17 Mar 10 - 04:41 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Mar 10 - 05:20 PM
Howard Jones 17 Mar 10 - 07:07 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Mar 10 - 04:04 AM
Howard Jones 18 Mar 10 - 06:55 AM
GUEST 18 Mar 10 - 07:45 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Mar 10 - 07:51 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Mar 10 - 09:04 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Mar 10 - 03:23 PM
Howard Jones 19 Mar 10 - 04:33 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Mar 10 - 07:57 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Mar 10 - 08:15 AM
Howard Jones 19 Mar 10 - 01:55 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Mar 10 - 02:08 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Mar 10 - 02:22 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Mar 10 - 02:39 PM
Howard Jones 19 Mar 10 - 03:16 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Mar 10 - 08:10 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Mar 10 - 08:37 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Mar 10 - 09:13 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Mar 10 - 06:14 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Mar 10 - 10:30 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Mar 10 - 02:16 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Mar 10 - 06:11 PM
Howard Jones 20 Mar 10 - 07:15 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Mar 10 - 08:54 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Mar 10 - 09:59 PM
Howard Jones 21 Mar 10 - 06:00 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Mar 10 - 06:38 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Mar 10 - 07:17 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Mar 10 - 07:28 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Mar 10 - 01:24 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 22 Mar 10 - 05:18 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 22 Mar 10 - 08:02 AM
GUEST,The Shamble 22 Mar 10 - 08:15 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 22 Mar 10 - 05:41 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Mar 10 - 12:52 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Mar 10 - 12:59 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Mar 10 - 01:16 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 25 Mar 10 - 06:55 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Mar 10 - 08:48 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Mar 10 - 09:21 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Mar 10 - 09:48 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Mar 10 - 09:53 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Mar 10 - 07:21 AM
Howard Jones 27 Mar 10 - 08:43 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Mar 10 - 02:38 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Mar 10 - 02:47 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Mar 10 - 04:18 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Mar 10 - 06:47 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Mar 10 - 06:54 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Mar 10 - 04:45 AM
Dennis the Elder 30 Mar 10 - 05:21 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Mar 10 - 12:18 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Mar 10 - 12:28 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Mar 10 - 12:49 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Mar 10 - 06:33 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Mar 10 - 06:36 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Mar 10 - 07:04 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 31 Mar 10 - 04:42 AM
GUEST 31 Mar 10 - 09:39 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 31 Mar 10 - 10:00 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 31 Mar 10 - 10:24 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 31 Mar 10 - 10:41 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 31 Mar 10 - 12:14 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 31 Mar 10 - 06:26 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Apr 10 - 03:03 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Apr 10 - 01:52 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Apr 10 - 06:42 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Apr 10 - 06:51 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Apr 10 - 06:56 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Apr 10 - 07:02 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Apr 10 - 07:08 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Apr 10 - 04:56 AM
GUEST 02 Apr 10 - 07:29 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 03 Apr 10 - 06:40 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Apr 10 - 02:06 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Apr 10 - 02:31 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Apr 10 - 03:44 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 05 Apr 10 - 05:11 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Apr 10 - 05:51 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Apr 10 - 06:12 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Apr 10 - 06:47 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Apr 10 - 09:37 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 06 Apr 10 - 09:51 AM
Green Man 06 Apr 10 - 10:44 AM
GUEST 06 Apr 10 - 12:30 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Apr 10 - 05:49 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Apr 10 - 06:14 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Apr 10 - 06:42 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Apr 10 - 07:04 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Apr 10 - 10:47 AM
GUEST 07 Apr 10 - 01:11 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Apr 10 - 06:25 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Apr 10 - 09:43 AM
GUEST 08 Apr 10 - 01:30 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Apr 10 - 09:28 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Apr 10 - 06:49 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Apr 10 - 09:10 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 12 Apr 10 - 07:00 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 12 Apr 10 - 10:58 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 13 Apr 10 - 05:14 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 13 Apr 10 - 03:24 PM
GUEST 15 Apr 10 - 05:38 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Apr 10 - 02:14 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Apr 10 - 02:06 AM
GUEST 19 Apr 10 - 08:33 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Apr 10 - 01:59 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Apr 10 - 03:11 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Apr 10 - 04:04 AM
GUEST 20 Apr 10 - 06:38 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Apr 10 - 07:01 AM
GUEST 20 Apr 10 - 08:26 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Apr 10 - 04:53 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Apr 10 - 06:51 AM
GUEST 23 Apr 10 - 06:29 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Apr 10 - 12:37 PM
GUEST 27 Apr 10 - 01:57 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Apr 10 - 02:12 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Apr 10 - 06:33 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Apr 10 - 06:35 AM
GUEST 28 Apr 10 - 08:45 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Apr 10 - 09:43 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Apr 10 - 05:13 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Apr 10 - 12:58 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Apr 10 - 02:17 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 May 10 - 06:38 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 May 10 - 01:51 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 May 10 - 03:09 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 May 10 - 10:35 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 May 10 - 10:45 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 May 10 - 10:53 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 May 10 - 11:05 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 May 10 - 05:26 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 03 May 10 - 02:57 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 05 May 10 - 05:39 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 05 May 10 - 10:19 AM
GUEST 05 May 10 - 10:31 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 May 10 - 06:23 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 May 10 - 06:32 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 May 10 - 05:17 AM
GUEST 11 May 10 - 08:28 AM
GUEST 12 May 10 - 01:03 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 12 May 10 - 06:37 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 12 May 10 - 07:04 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 13 May 10 - 05:59 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 May 10 - 04:49 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 May 10 - 05:36 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 May 10 - 05:40 AM
GUEST 14 May 10 - 11:04 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 May 10 - 11:14 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 May 10 - 11:28 AM
GUEST 14 May 10 - 01:02 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 May 10 - 08:04 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 May 10 - 05:28 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 May 10 - 02:27 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 May 10 - 03:08 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 May 10 - 06:09 PM
GUEST 18 May 10 - 12:59 PM
GUEST,The Sahmbles 18 May 10 - 01:46 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 May 10 - 06:26 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 May 10 - 07:01 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 May 10 - 10:59 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 May 10 - 11:19 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 May 10 - 02:14 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 May 10 - 08:36 AM
nickp 20 May 10 - 11:04 AM
GUEST 20 May 10 - 02:02 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 May 10 - 02:19 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 May 10 - 05:22 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 May 10 - 11:05 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 May 10 - 07:56 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 May 10 - 08:50 AM
Dennis the Elder 27 May 10 - 12:56 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 May 10 - 02:43 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 May 10 - 03:21 PM
Dennis the Elder 29 May 10 - 05:01 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 May 10 - 12:14 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Jun 10 - 07:47 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 03 Jun 10 - 05:59 PM
Dennis the Elder 03 Jun 10 - 07:25 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Jun 10 - 06:01 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Jun 10 - 06:07 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Jun 10 - 12:22 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Jun 10 - 01:31 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Jun 10 - 01:57 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Jun 10 - 03:59 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Jun 10 - 04:06 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Jun 10 - 11:23 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Jun 10 - 01:18 PM
nickp 09 Jun 10 - 04:22 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Jun 10 - 01:06 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Jun 10 - 01:12 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Jun 10 - 02:12 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Jun 10 - 08:37 AM
Old Vermin 10 Jun 10 - 03:23 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 Jun 10 - 06:27 AM
Old Vermin 11 Jun 10 - 10:06 AM
Howard Jones 11 Jun 10 - 10:18 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 Jun 10 - 05:10 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 Jun 10 - 04:21 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 Jun 10 - 02:12 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 Jun 10 - 02:18 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 15 Jun 10 - 01:48 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Jun 10 - 04:04 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Jun 10 - 01:57 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Jun 10 - 02:11 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Jun 10 - 05:31 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Jun 10 - 05:35 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Jun 10 - 05:38 AM
SPB-Cooperator 19 Jun 10 - 03:12 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Jun 10 - 09:47 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Jun 10 - 09:48 AM
GUEST 19 Jun 10 - 10:00 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Jun 10 - 10:02 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Jun 10 - 10:08 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Jun 10 - 06:51 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Jun 10 - 06:54 PM
Leadfingers 23 Jun 10 - 07:07 PM
Leadfingers 23 Jun 10 - 07:17 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Jun 10 - 03:19 AM
IanC 24 Jun 10 - 03:55 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Jun 10 - 04:43 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Jun 10 - 05:34 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Jun 10 - 05:27 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Jun 10 - 05:30 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Jun 10 - 05:34 PM
GUEST 01 Jul 10 - 04:18 AM
IanC 01 Jul 10 - 04:59 AM
GUEST,polly lloyd 01 Jul 10 - 04:54 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Jul 10 - 06:22 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Jul 10 - 08:06 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Jul 10 - 01:40 PM
Leadfingers 02 Jul 10 - 02:24 PM
Tootler 02 Jul 10 - 07:32 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 05 Jul 10 - 11:50 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Jul 10 - 12:23 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Jul 10 - 01:34 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Jul 10 - 01:59 AM
GUEST 07 Jul 10 - 11:06 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Jul 10 - 11:16 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Jul 10 - 11:23 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Jul 10 - 12:14 PM
Richard Bridge 07 Jul 10 - 01:15 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Jul 10 - 07:03 PM
Richard Bridge 07 Jul 10 - 08:59 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Jul 10 - 03:05 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Jul 10 - 12:39 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Jul 10 - 12:48 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Jul 10 - 09:17 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Jul 10 - 09:25 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Jul 10 - 09:30 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Jul 10 - 11:30 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Jul 10 - 01:00 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Jul 10 - 01:54 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 Jul 10 - 02:00 AM
Tootler 11 Jul 10 - 10:56 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 Jul 10 - 02:29 PM
GUEST 15 Jul 10 - 04:41 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Jul 10 - 02:32 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Jul 10 - 12:33 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Jul 10 - 12:36 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Jul 10 - 12:47 PM
Howard Jones 20 Jul 10 - 02:36 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Jul 10 - 03:58 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Jul 10 - 12:49 PM
GUEST 20 Jul 10 - 12:57 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Jul 10 - 01:03 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Jul 10 - 03:29 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Jul 10 - 04:05 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Jul 10 - 04:25 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Jul 10 - 04:35 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Jul 10 - 09:07 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Jul 10 - 02:25 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 22 Jul 10 - 05:50 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 22 Jul 10 - 06:15 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 22 Jul 10 - 07:02 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 22 Jul 10 - 01:03 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Jul 10 - 06:15 AM
pavane 23 Jul 10 - 06:24 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Jul 10 - 06:43 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Jul 10 - 03:03 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Jul 10 - 06:08 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 25 Jul 10 - 03:14 AM
GUEST 25 Jul 10 - 06:46 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Jul 10 - 02:58 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Jul 10 - 05:03 AM
IanC 26 Jul 10 - 05:16 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Jul 10 - 12:01 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Jul 10 - 12:16 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Jul 10 - 02:36 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Jul 10 - 04:45 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Jul 10 - 06:26 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Jul 10 - 02:16 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Jul 10 - 03:33 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Jul 10 - 05:23 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Jul 10 - 07:14 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Jul 10 - 02:08 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Jul 10 - 04:03 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Jul 10 - 04:29 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Jul 10 - 04:38 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Jul 10 - 05:27 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Jul 10 - 05:47 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Jul 10 - 07:37 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Jul 10 - 07:47 AM
GUEST 28 Jul 10 - 11:08 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Jul 10 - 11:19 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Jul 10 - 11:27 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Jul 10 - 01:50 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Jul 10 - 03:03 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Jul 10 - 03:45 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Jul 10 - 05:47 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Jul 10 - 05:55 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Jul 10 - 07:22 AM
GUEST 29 Jul 10 - 12:43 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Jul 10 - 12:49 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Jul 10 - 02:19 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Jul 10 - 05:58 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Jul 10 - 06:30 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Jul 10 - 06:44 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Jul 10 - 03:19 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Jul 10 - 03:32 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 31 Jul 10 - 09:37 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Aug 10 - 04:33 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Aug 10 - 05:46 AM
nickp 02 Aug 10 - 06:57 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Aug 10 - 02:35 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Aug 10 - 02:37 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Aug 10 - 02:43 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 03 Aug 10 - 06:47 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 03 Aug 10 - 03:39 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Aug 10 - 09:19 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Aug 10 - 09:24 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Aug 10 - 01:39 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Aug 10 - 02:17 PM
Green Man 05 Aug 10 - 10:28 AM
IanC 05 Aug 10 - 10:49 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 05 Aug 10 - 11:38 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 05 Aug 10 - 11:48 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 05 Aug 10 - 01:13 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 05 Aug 10 - 02:29 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 05 Aug 10 - 08:20 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 05 Aug 10 - 08:38 PM
Howard Jones 06 Aug 10 - 05:52 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Aug 10 - 06:33 AM
GUEST,Free 06 Aug 10 - 07:27 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Aug 10 - 07:51 AM
GUEST,Nims 06 Aug 10 - 10:36 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Aug 10 - 12:40 PM
Howard Jones 06 Aug 10 - 12:55 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Aug 10 - 02:09 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Aug 10 - 02:30 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Aug 10 - 05:04 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Aug 10 - 10:59 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Aug 10 - 05:20 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Aug 10 - 05:40 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Aug 10 - 05:47 AM
Howard Jones 09 Aug 10 - 07:11 AM
Tootler 09 Aug 10 - 07:22 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Aug 10 - 02:38 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Aug 10 - 03:05 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Aug 10 - 03:12 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Aug 10 - 06:03 AM
Tootler 10 Aug 10 - 07:33 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 Aug 10 - 06:36 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 Aug 10 - 06:53 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 Aug 10 - 06:58 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 Aug 10 - 11:03 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 Aug 10 - 11:14 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 12 Aug 10 - 05:17 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 12 Aug 10 - 06:02 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 12 Aug 10 - 11:25 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 12 Aug 10 - 08:30 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 13 Aug 10 - 01:41 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 Aug 10 - 12:40 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Aug 10 - 11:56 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Aug 10 - 12:05 PM
Howard Jones 16 Aug 10 - 02:50 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Aug 10 - 08:36 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Aug 10 - 04:47 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Aug 10 - 05:52 AM
nickp 17 Aug 10 - 05:56 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Aug 10 - 10:25 AM
IanC 17 Aug 10 - 11:21 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Aug 10 - 02:33 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Aug 10 - 06:54 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Aug 10 - 07:21 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Aug 10 - 08:44 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Aug 10 - 08:56 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Aug 10 - 04:01 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Aug 10 - 01:56 PM
GUEST 26 Aug 10 - 11:13 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Aug 10 - 05:28 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Aug 10 - 05:42 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Aug 10 - 05:48 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Aug 10 - 06:43 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Aug 10 - 09:44 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Aug 10 - 01:25 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Aug 10 - 02:15 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Aug 10 - 07:24 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Aug 10 - 01:11 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 31 Aug 10 - 04:41 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 31 Aug 10 - 05:47 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 31 Aug 10 - 11:08 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 31 Aug 10 - 11:11 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Sep 10 - 04:51 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Sep 10 - 10:41 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Sep 10 - 10:48 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Sep 10 - 12:28 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Sep 10 - 01:58 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Sep 10 - 02:10 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Sep 10 - 01:46 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 03 Sep 10 - 04:58 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 03 Sep 10 - 03:05 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Sep 10 - 04:43 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Sep 10 - 04:52 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Sep 10 - 07:02 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Sep 10 - 12:41 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Sep 10 - 12:45 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 05 Sep 10 - 02:54 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Sep 10 - 10:37 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Sep 10 - 03:46 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Sep 10 - 04:51 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Sep 10 - 08:55 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Sep 10 - 09:05 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Sep 10 - 09:54 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Sep 10 - 10:01 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Sep 10 - 01:52 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Sep 10 - 02:44 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Sep 10 - 04:58 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Sep 10 - 05:50 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Sep 10 - 05:53 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Sep 10 - 05:57 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Sep 10 - 06:07 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Sep 10 - 06:35 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Sep 10 - 07:25 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Sep 10 - 07:41 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Sep 10 - 04:33 PM
GUEST 09 Sep 10 - 02:18 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Sep 10 - 12:37 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Sep 10 - 12:42 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Sep 10 - 01:17 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Sep 10 - 01:47 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Sep 10 - 05:57 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Sep 10 - 06:00 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Sep 10 - 10:10 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Sep 10 - 02:39 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Sep 10 - 02:48 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 Sep 10 - 05:21 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 13 Sep 10 - 04:11 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 Sep 10 - 06:33 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 Sep 10 - 02:45 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 Sep 10 - 02:49 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 Sep 10 - 02:51 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 Sep 10 - 02:52 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 Sep 10 - 04:49 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Sep 10 - 01:08 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Sep 10 - 01:17 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Sep 10 - 01:28 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Sep 10 - 01:47 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Sep 10 - 01:56 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Sep 10 - 02:05 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Sep 10 - 10:24 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Sep 10 - 08:03 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Sep 10 - 08:04 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Sep 10 - 08:05 AM
Howard Jones 19 Sep 10 - 12:44 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Sep 10 - 02:11 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Sep 10 - 06:29 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Sep 10 - 06:36 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Sep 10 - 06:58 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Sep 10 - 10:26 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Sep 10 - 10:35 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Sep 10 - 11:57 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Sep 10 - 12:14 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 22 Sep 10 - 04:24 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 22 Sep 10 - 02:01 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Sep 10 - 02:56 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Sep 10 - 06:13 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Sep 10 - 06:18 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Sep 10 - 06:32 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Sep 10 - 01:35 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Sep 10 - 01:38 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Sep 10 - 01:52 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Sep 10 - 02:31 PM
Richard Bridge 26 Sep 10 - 02:50 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Sep 10 - 03:03 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Sep 10 - 04:20 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Sep 10 - 04:59 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Sep 10 - 06:30 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Sep 10 - 01:35 PM
stallion 27 Sep 10 - 01:43 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Sep 10 - 03:48 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Sep 10 - 03:58 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Sep 10 - 04:07 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Sep 10 - 04:13 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Sep 10 - 09:52 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Sep 10 - 04:43 AM
GUEST 29 Sep 10 - 11:17 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Sep 10 - 11:24 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Sep 10 - 11:31 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Sep 10 - 11:48 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Sep 10 - 11:56 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Sep 10 - 02:10 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Sep 10 - 01:40 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Sep 10 - 02:11 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Oct 10 - 02:37 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Oct 10 - 02:22 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Oct 10 - 02:52 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Oct 10 - 02:56 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Oct 10 - 03:19 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Oct 10 - 06:15 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 03 Oct 10 - 06:07 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 05 Oct 10 - 04:03 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 05 Oct 10 - 05:56 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 05 Oct 10 - 12:57 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Oct 10 - 04:34 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Oct 10 - 06:05 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Oct 10 - 06:09 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Oct 10 - 07:48 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Oct 10 - 11:47 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Oct 10 - 09:50 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Oct 10 - 09:53 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Oct 10 - 01:23 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Oct 10 - 01:36 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Oct 10 - 01:50 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Oct 10 - 06:21 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Oct 10 - 11:56 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Oct 10 - 08:40 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 Oct 10 - 05:28 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 Oct 10 - 12:29 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 Oct 10 - 01:13 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 Oct 10 - 01:26 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 12 Oct 10 - 04:32 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 12 Oct 10 - 10:43 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 12 Oct 10 - 02:34 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 13 Oct 10 - 04:26 PM
GUEST 13 Oct 10 - 08:29 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 Oct 10 - 02:57 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 Oct 10 - 06:22 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 15 Oct 10 - 06:29 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 15 Oct 10 - 01:30 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Oct 10 - 02:17 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Oct 10 - 02:13 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Oct 10 - 05:58 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Oct 10 - 06:18 AM
Dennis the Elder 17 Oct 10 - 07:32 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Oct 10 - 01:33 PM
Richard Bridge 17 Oct 10 - 03:15 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Oct 10 - 03:53 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Oct 10 - 04:21 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Oct 10 - 03:45 AM
GUEST 19 Oct 10 - 03:48 AM
GUEST 19 Oct 10 - 03:53 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Oct 10 - 12:27 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Oct 10 - 12:16 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Oct 10 - 12:19 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Oct 10 - 12:27 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 25 Oct 10 - 11:14 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 25 Oct 10 - 01:36 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Oct 10 - 04:05 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Oct 10 - 08:55 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Oct 10 - 09:06 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Oct 10 - 05:10 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Oct 10 - 05:17 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Oct 10 - 05:33 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Oct 10 - 04:06 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Oct 10 - 04:26 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Oct 10 - 04:37 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Oct 10 - 04:44 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Oct 10 - 04:49 AM
GUEST 29 Oct 10 - 05:01 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Oct 10 - 05:06 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Oct 10 - 05:13 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Oct 10 - 05:59 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Nov 10 - 01:23 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Nov 10 - 01:30 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 03 Nov 10 - 05:15 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 03 Nov 10 - 05:27 AM
GUEST 03 Nov 10 - 05:47 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 03 Nov 10 - 06:03 AM
Old Vermin 03 Nov 10 - 07:56 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Nov 10 - 03:51 AM
GUEST 04 Nov 10 - 04:31 AM
Old Vermin 04 Nov 10 - 08:28 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Nov 10 - 02:48 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Nov 10 - 03:01 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Nov 10 - 04:06 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Nov 10 - 03:10 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Nov 10 - 03:22 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Nov 10 - 04:07 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Nov 10 - 09:41 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Nov 10 - 05:14 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 Nov 10 - 02:47 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 Nov 10 - 03:49 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 Nov 10 - 03:52 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Nov 10 - 04:03 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Nov 10 - 04:42 AM
GUEST 18 Nov 10 - 12:35 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Nov 10 - 12:50 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Nov 10 - 05:23 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Nov 10 - 06:28 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Nov 10 - 06:34 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Nov 10 - 02:39 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Nov 10 - 08:18 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Nov 10 - 08:46 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Nov 10 - 09:01 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 25 Nov 10 - 12:48 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Nov 10 - 10:28 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Nov 10 - 10:40 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Dec 10 - 02:42 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Dec 10 - 02:48 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Dec 10 - 02:57 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Dec 10 - 08:21 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Dec 10 - 08:29 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Dec 10 - 05:30 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Dec 10 - 06:00 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Dec 10 - 06:09 PM
Leadfingers 01 Dec 10 - 08:13 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Dec 10 - 05:21 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Dec 10 - 05:37 AM
GUEST 04 Dec 10 - 07:12 AM
GUEST 05 Dec 10 - 07:55 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 05 Dec 10 - 08:42 AM
GUEST 06 Dec 10 - 09:57 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Dec 10 - 03:35 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Dec 10 - 04:46 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Dec 10 - 05:18 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Dec 10 - 05:28 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Dec 10 - 11:55 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Dec 10 - 07:25 AM
GUEST 08 Dec 10 - 01:03 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Dec 10 - 05:51 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Dec 10 - 06:07 AM
GUEST 09 Dec 10 - 12:35 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Dec 10 - 11:15 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Dec 10 - 11:53 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Dec 10 - 12:32 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Dec 10 - 01:37 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Dec 10 - 02:41 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 13 Dec 10 - 11:57 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 13 Dec 10 - 12:11 PM
GUEST 13 Dec 10 - 12:43 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 13 Dec 10 - 08:53 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 13 Dec 10 - 09:22 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 15 Dec 10 - 03:49 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 15 Dec 10 - 03:55 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Dec 10 - 10:04 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Dec 10 - 10:39 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Dec 10 - 02:51 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Dec 10 - 03:01 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 22 Dec 10 - 04:00 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 22 Dec 10 - 04:17 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 22 Dec 10 - 09:38 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Dec 10 - 02:38 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Dec 10 - 06:50 PM
GUEST,Guest - THEETHA 23 Dec 10 - 09:31 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Dec 10 - 06:25 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Dec 10 - 06:39 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Dec 10 - 07:32 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Jan 11 - 05:38 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Jan 11 - 05:42 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Jan 11 - 05:48 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Jan 11 - 05:54 AM
Richard Bridge 02 Jan 11 - 06:00 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Jan 11 - 06:14 AM
Richard Bridge 02 Jan 11 - 07:10 AM
Richard Bridge 02 Jan 11 - 07:14 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Jan 11 - 08:12 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Jan 11 - 04:12 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Jan 11 - 04:28 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Jan 11 - 10:34 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Jan 11 - 11:52 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Jan 11 - 09:04 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 05 Jan 11 - 05:05 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Jan 11 - 03:24 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Jan 11 - 07:59 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Jan 11 - 07:33 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Jan 11 - 09:17 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Jan 11 - 09:23 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 Jan 11 - 03:30 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 Jan 11 - 03:36 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 12 Jan 11 - 10:07 PM
GUEST 12 Jan 11 - 10:10 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 Jan 11 - 06:52 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 Jan 11 - 06:58 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 Jan 11 - 07:05 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 Jan 11 - 07:13 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 Jan 11 - 07:22 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 Jan 11 - 07:31 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 15 Jan 11 - 10:20 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Jan 11 - 03:38 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Jan 11 - 03:48 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Jan 11 - 04:31 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Jan 11 - 02:27 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Jan 11 - 06:23 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Jan 11 - 02:12 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Jan 11 - 12:46 PM
GUEST 27 Jan 11 - 06:16 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Jan 11 - 01:41 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Jan 11 - 01:44 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Jan 11 - 01:50 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Feb 11 - 02:57 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 03 Feb 11 - 03:00 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 03 Feb 11 - 01:01 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Feb 11 - 10:02 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Feb 11 - 09:40 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Feb 11 - 06:45 AM
GUEST 10 Feb 11 - 11:39 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Feb 11 - 11:44 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Feb 11 - 11:51 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 Feb 11 - 06:49 AM
Tootler 11 Feb 11 - 05:05 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 12 Feb 11 - 05:47 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 Feb 11 - 02:06 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 15 Feb 11 - 02:57 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 15 Feb 11 - 03:02 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Feb 11 - 04:39 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Feb 11 - 01:24 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Feb 11 - 08:38 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Feb 11 - 08:49 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Feb 11 - 06:24 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Feb 11 - 06:44 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Feb 11 - 06:45 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Feb 11 - 10:16 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Feb 11 - 10:18 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Feb 11 - 07:01 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Feb 11 - 04:32 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Feb 11 - 04:38 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Feb 11 - 04:43 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Feb 11 - 04:47 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Feb 11 - 04:52 AM
sian, west wales 23 Feb 11 - 05:28 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Feb 11 - 09:28 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Feb 11 - 09:41 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Feb 11 - 09:46 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 25 Feb 11 - 05:56 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 25 Feb 11 - 06:00 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Mar 11 - 04:14 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Mar 11 - 04:20 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Mar 11 - 01:41 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Mar 11 - 04:20 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Mar 11 - 09:58 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Mar 11 - 10:05 AM
GUEST 03 Mar 11 - 07:52 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 03 Mar 11 - 08:43 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 03 Mar 11 - 09:19 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Mar 11 - 03:10 AM
GUEST 06 Mar 11 - 12:42 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Mar 11 - 12:51 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Mar 11 - 12:55 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Mar 11 - 02:46 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Mar 11 - 02:52 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Mar 11 - 02:08 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Mar 11 - 03:24 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Mar 11 - 07:11 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Mar 11 - 08:29 PM
GUEST 08 Mar 11 - 03:13 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Mar 11 - 02:40 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Mar 11 - 02:44 AM
GUEST 10 Mar 11 - 02:54 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 13 Mar 11 - 07:44 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 15 Mar 11 - 12:05 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Mar 11 - 01:35 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Mar 11 - 01:39 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Mar 11 - 06:19 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Mar 11 - 09:34 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Mar 11 - 09:37 AM
GUEST 18 Mar 11 - 06:55 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Mar 11 - 07:31 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Mar 11 - 04:06 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Mar 11 - 04:25 AM
GUEST 24 Mar 11 - 07:04 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 05 Apr 11 - 08:16 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 13 Apr 11 - 05:26 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 13 Apr 11 - 05:33 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 Apr 11 - 10:53 AM
BanjoRay 14 Apr 11 - 12:45 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 15 Apr 11 - 06:39 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 15 Apr 11 - 08:32 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Apr 11 - 02:54 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Apr 11 - 06:48 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Apr 11 - 08:35 PM
GUEST 29 Apr 11 - 05:37 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Apr 11 - 05:53 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Apr 11 - 06:17 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Apr 11 - 09:50 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 03 May 11 - 06:59 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 03 May 11 - 07:05 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 May 11 - 08:13 AM
GUEST 13 May 11 - 11:02 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 13 May 11 - 11:28 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 13 May 11 - 11:58 AM
Tootler 13 May 11 - 07:32 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 May 11 - 07:51 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 May 11 - 08:02 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 May 11 - 08:08 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 May 11 - 08:12 AM
nickp 18 May 11 - 09:20 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 May 11 - 05:35 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 May 11 - 08:11 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 May 11 - 11:30 AM
GUEST 23 May 11 - 04:19 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 May 11 - 06:24 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 May 11 - 06:52 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 31 May 11 - 04:35 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 31 May 11 - 04:39 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 31 May 11 - 04:44 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 31 May 11 - 01:55 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Jun 11 - 07:29 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Jun 11 - 08:55 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Jun 11 - 10:49 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Jun 11 - 01:26 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Jun 11 - 07:00 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Jun 11 - 08:35 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Jun 11 - 08:38 PM
GUEST 21 Jun 11 - 10:40 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Jun 11 - 10:43 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Jun 11 - 10:45 AM
nickp 21 Jun 11 - 11:05 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Jun 11 - 04:44 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Jun 11 - 05:24 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Jun 11 - 05:29 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Jun 11 - 05:33 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Jun 11 - 05:38 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Jun 11 - 05:41 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Jun 11 - 09:27 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Jun 11 - 04:47 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Jun 11 - 04:53 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Jun 11 - 04:56 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Jun 11 - 04:40 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Jul 11 - 04:08 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Jul 11 - 04:14 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 05 Jul 11 - 05:15 AM
GUEST 05 Jul 11 - 05:26 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 05 Jul 11 - 06:39 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 05 Jul 11 - 07:01 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Jul 11 - 03:41 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Jul 11 - 03:35 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Jul 11 - 03:38 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 12 Jul 11 - 03:46 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 12 Jul 11 - 03:49 AM
GUEST 13 Jul 11 - 11:44 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 13 Jul 11 - 12:26 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 13 Jul 11 - 12:50 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 15 Jul 11 - 07:23 AM
GUEST 15 Jul 11 - 10:13 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 15 Jul 11 - 08:56 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 15 Jul 11 - 09:56 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Jul 11 - 03:51 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Jul 11 - 11:28 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Jul 11 - 11:36 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Jul 11 - 07:36 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Jul 11 - 07:41 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Jul 11 - 06:37 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Jul 11 - 06:42 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Jul 11 - 06:51 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Jul 11 - 05:16 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Jul 11 - 04:37 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Jul 11 - 05:52 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Jul 11 - 06:12 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Jul 11 - 06:17 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Jul 11 - 06:25 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Jul 11 - 06:31 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Jul 11 - 06:40 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Jul 11 - 09:36 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Jul 11 - 09:43 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Jul 11 - 09:50 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Jul 11 - 09:53 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Jul 11 - 09:55 AM
nickp 26 Jul 11 - 01:37 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Jul 11 - 09:49 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Jul 11 - 09:53 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Jul 11 - 09:17 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Jul 11 - 09:22 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Jul 11 - 09:27 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Jul 11 - 09:33 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 03 Aug 11 - 06:51 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Aug 11 - 06:38 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Aug 11 - 06:48 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Aug 11 - 06:52 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Aug 11 - 03:54 AM
DMcG 06 Aug 11 - 04:58 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Aug 11 - 06:53 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Aug 11 - 07:47 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Aug 11 - 06:02 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Aug 11 - 06:04 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Aug 11 - 08:52 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Aug 11 - 08:54 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Aug 11 - 08:56 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Aug 11 - 08:58 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Aug 11 - 09:00 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Aug 11 - 09:08 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Aug 11 - 09:12 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Aug 11 - 10:01 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Aug 11 - 10:10 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 22 Aug 11 - 01:21 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 25 Aug 11 - 06:41 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 25 Aug 11 - 06:44 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Sep 11 - 06:01 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Sep 11 - 06:06 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Sep 11 - 06:11 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 03 Sep 11 - 09:25 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 03 Sep 11 - 09:52 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 05 Sep 11 - 04:03 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Sep 11 - 10:55 AM
GUEST 10 Sep 11 - 01:04 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Sep 11 - 01:08 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 Sep 11 - 12:26 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 12 Sep 11 - 03:58 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 12 Sep 11 - 04:20 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 13 Sep 11 - 05:24 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 Sep 11 - 06:35 AM
Richard Bridge 14 Sep 11 - 07:43 AM
Richard Bridge 14 Sep 11 - 10:20 AM
GUEST 15 Sep 11 - 08:21 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Sep 11 - 04:39 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Sep 11 - 05:34 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Sep 11 - 06:04 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Sep 11 - 02:22 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Sep 11 - 02:40 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Sep 11 - 02:48 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Sep 11 - 03:15 PM
Richard Bridge 19 Sep 11 - 04:56 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 22 Sep 11 - 03:05 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 22 Sep 11 - 02:05 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 22 Sep 11 - 02:15 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Sep 11 - 12:30 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Sep 11 - 12:35 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Sep 11 - 12:41 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Sep 11 - 12:46 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Sep 11 - 12:51 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Sep 11 - 12:54 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Sep 11 - 12:59 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Sep 11 - 05:35 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Sep 11 - 05:44 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Sep 11 - 01:55 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Sep 11 - 03:17 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Sep 11 - 06:16 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Sep 11 - 06:38 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Sep 11 - 03:19 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Sep 11 - 03:33 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Sep 11 - 08:26 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Sep 11 - 11:09 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 03 Oct 11 - 12:12 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Oct 11 - 03:01 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Oct 11 - 09:27 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Oct 11 - 09:33 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Oct 11 - 09:38 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Oct 11 - 09:25 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 Oct 11 - 06:05 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 Oct 11 - 06:09 AM
nickp 14 Oct 11 - 06:25 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Oct 11 - 05:20 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Oct 11 - 07:48 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Oct 11 - 07:25 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Oct 11 - 07:32 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Oct 11 - 08:20 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Oct 11 - 08:24 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Oct 11 - 08:31 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Oct 11 - 08:36 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Oct 11 - 09:18 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Oct 11 - 11:40 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Oct 11 - 07:14 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Oct 11 - 07:28 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Oct 11 - 07:35 PM
GUEST 25 Oct 11 - 01:27 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 31 Oct 11 - 09:24 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Nov 11 - 01:35 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Nov 11 - 02:02 PM
Folkiedave 01 Nov 11 - 02:06 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Nov 11 - 02:01 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Nov 11 - 02:22 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Nov 11 - 02:37 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 Nov 11 - 09:06 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Nov 11 - 03:42 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Nov 11 - 06:55 AM
GUEST 18 Nov 11 - 05:36 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Nov 11 - 06:20 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Nov 11 - 04:40 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 22 Nov 11 - 03:02 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Nov 11 - 04:01 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Nov 11 - 08:18 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Nov 11 - 08:24 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Nov 11 - 08:38 AM
GUEST 23 Nov 11 - 11:56 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Nov 11 - 07:11 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Nov 11 - 07:41 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Nov 11 - 09:54 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Nov 11 - 10:01 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Nov 11 - 10:32 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Nov 11 - 12:26 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 25 Nov 11 - 06:34 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 25 Nov 11 - 10:56 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 25 Nov 11 - 02:06 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 25 Nov 11 - 09:09 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Nov 11 - 03:40 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Nov 11 - 06:38 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Nov 11 - 07:06 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Nov 11 - 07:47 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Nov 11 - 10:08 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Nov 11 - 10:12 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Nov 11 - 10:17 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Nov 11 - 10:21 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Nov 11 - 10:26 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Nov 11 - 10:30 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Nov 11 - 08:16 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Dec 11 - 07:41 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Dec 11 - 07:45 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Dec 11 - 11:52 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Dec 11 - 11:57 AM
GUEST 01 Dec 11 - 12:03 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 03 Dec 11 - 05:10 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 03 Dec 11 - 05:15 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 03 Dec 11 - 05:28 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Dec 11 - 03:38 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 05 Dec 11 - 08:35 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 05 Dec 11 - 08:38 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Dec 11 - 06:00 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Dec 11 - 06:46 AM
Richard Bridge 06 Dec 11 - 06:59 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Dec 11 - 09:16 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Dec 11 - 09:32 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Dec 11 - 09:45 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Dec 11 - 12:59 PM
Richard Bridge 06 Dec 11 - 06:32 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Dec 11 - 03:46 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Dec 11 - 07:55 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Dec 11 - 12:23 PM
Richard Bridge 07 Dec 11 - 12:53 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Dec 11 - 01:42 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Dec 11 - 09:50 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Dec 11 - 09:56 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Dec 11 - 02:34 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Dec 11 - 05:07 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Dec 11 - 05:10 AM
GUEST 09 Dec 11 - 05:16 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Dec 11 - 05:17 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Dec 11 - 07:21 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Dec 11 - 12:00 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 12 Dec 11 - 05:44 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 Dec 11 - 09:08 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 Dec 11 - 09:25 AM
GUEST 14 Dec 11 - 07:31 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 15 Dec 11 - 05:44 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 15 Dec 11 - 06:40 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 15 Dec 11 - 10:29 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 15 Dec 11 - 05:20 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Dec 11 - 05:24 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Dec 11 - 05:33 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Dec 11 - 05:49 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Dec 11 - 09:17 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Dec 11 - 10:36 AM
GUEST 17 Dec 11 - 10:46 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Dec 11 - 11:09 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Dec 11 - 11:15 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Dec 11 - 06:56 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 17 Dec 11 - 07:30 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Dec 11 - 03:33 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Dec 11 - 05:05 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Dec 11 - 08:41 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Dec 11 - 03:43 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Dec 11 - 12:48 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Dec 11 - 12:53 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 22 Dec 11 - 01:54 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Dec 11 - 10:31 AM
GUEST 23 Dec 11 - 10:35 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Dec 11 - 09:58 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Dec 11 - 04:58 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Dec 11 - 10:29 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Dec 11 - 10:55 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Dec 11 - 11:37 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Dec 11 - 11:55 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Dec 11 - 09:37 AM
Tootler 29 Dec 11 - 09:56 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Dec 11 - 07:19 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Dec 11 - 11:49 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Dec 11 - 01:11 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 31 Dec 11 - 09:38 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 31 Dec 11 - 09:42 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 31 Dec 11 - 09:48 AM
GUEST 01 Jan 12 - 06:47 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Jan 12 - 06:48 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 03 Jan 12 - 09:36 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 05 Jan 12 - 08:16 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Jan 12 - 05:09 AM
GUEST 06 Jan 12 - 10:47 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Jan 12 - 11:06 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Jan 12 - 11:08 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Jan 12 - 03:39 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Jan 12 - 07:22 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Jan 12 - 07:33 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Jan 12 - 06:03 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 10 Jan 12 - 12:23 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 Jan 12 - 12:56 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 Jan 12 - 01:34 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 Jan 12 - 01:41 PM
GUEST 11 Jan 12 - 01:53 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 Jan 12 - 01:58 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 Jan 12 - 08:59 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 12 Jan 12 - 07:21 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 13 Jan 12 - 02:49 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 13 Jan 12 - 03:15 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 Jan 12 - 06:32 AM
GUEST 14 Jan 12 - 06:41 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 Jan 12 - 06:45 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Jan 12 - 06:44 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Jan 12 - 07:02 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Jan 12 - 07:06 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Jan 12 - 07:56 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Jan 12 - 08:07 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Jan 12 - 10:08 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 19 Jan 12 - 10:19 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Jan 12 - 05:55 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Jan 12 - 11:09 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Jan 12 - 11:13 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Jan 12 - 11:15 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Jan 12 - 11:28 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Jan 12 - 12:17 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Jan 12 - 12:24 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Jan 12 - 12:57 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Jan 12 - 01:46 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Jan 12 - 04:21 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Jan 12 - 06:22 AM
GUEST 22 Jan 12 - 06:55 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 22 Jan 12 - 07:03 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 22 Jan 12 - 02:19 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Jan 12 - 08:06 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Jan 12 - 08:21 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Jan 12 - 09:06 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Jan 12 - 10:09 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Jan 12 - 03:41 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Jan 12 - 07:50 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Jan 12 - 07:57 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Jan 12 - 08:09 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Jan 12 - 08:28 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Jan 12 - 09:10 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 25 Jan 12 - 08:27 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 25 Jan 12 - 08:36 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Jan 12 - 01:34 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Jan 12 - 01:45 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 27 Jan 12 - 01:56 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Jan 12 - 07:24 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Jan 12 - 12:19 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Jan 12 - 08:28 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Jan 12 - 09:02 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Jan 12 - 09:09 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Jan 12 - 09:50 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Jan 12 - 12:29 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Jan 12 - 12:40 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Jan 12 - 12:52 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Jan 12 - 01:07 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 31 Jan 12 - 04:53 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 31 Jan 12 - 08:37 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 31 Jan 12 - 08:49 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 31 Jan 12 - 08:50 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 31 Jan 12 - 08:56 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 31 Jan 12 - 08:27 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Feb 12 - 03:52 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Feb 12 - 08:19 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Feb 12 - 07:21 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 03 Feb 12 - 04:04 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 03 Feb 12 - 04:12 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 03 Feb 12 - 04:16 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Feb 12 - 08:32 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Feb 12 - 06:57 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Feb 12 - 07:46 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Feb 12 - 07:53 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Feb 12 - 07:58 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 11 Feb 12 - 12:18 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 14 Feb 12 - 09:52 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Feb 12 - 08:09 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Mar 12 - 02:17 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Mar 12 - 11:45 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Mar 12 - 05:05 AM
Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:









Subject: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 08:19 AM

The Department of Culture Media and Sport have just announced a proposal to exempt small live music events from the Licensing Act 2003. Your input to this consultation is vital, if it is to succeed in finally freeing grass roots live music in England and Wales from the red tape which continues to strangle it.   

http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/consultations/6499.aspx

The Government have ignored previous reccomendations for the exemption to apply in premises with a safe capaicity of less than 200
and are proposing only a figure of 100. They have indicated that should the consultation show support for the higher figure, this may be considered.

There will be considerable opposition to even this modest proposal.

Please contribute to this process and inform others? Many Thanks


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 08:25 AM

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1039509&c=1


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: The Villan
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 08:37 AM

100 fine by me, as thats what our safe figure is


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 08:51 AM

The reason why there is so much opposition to even this modest proposal and why it is only announced on the last day of 2009, is that in order for even one person to be exempted, this means that the Government accepts that other existing legislation is adequate to ensure the public's safety etc. without the need for any expensive and cumbersome additional entertainment permission.

The local government lobby still try to maintain (as their jobs rely on it) that this additional entertainment permission is the only way the public can be protected. This, even when so much live music took place perfectly safely under the old 'two-in-a-bar' rule, which this lobby advised the Government to scrap, on introduction of the Licensing Act 2003.

Remember also that all that is being proposed, is only yet further consultation.

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1039509&c=1

Live music performances for 100 people or less will no longer need to be licensed, under proposals announced today by licensing Minister Gerry Sutcliffe.

An exemption from the Licensing Act for small live music events would make it easier for a wide range of venues to put on live music, and help musicians who want to play to a live audience.

Sutcliffe says, "Going to see a band, musician or singer is a very important part of many people's lives and we're keen to do what we can to support audiences and musicians."

He believes and exemption for venues with 100 people or less would benefit many small venues, particularly unlicensed premises such as village halls and cafes, which may currently be put off by licensing requirements."

However, he is also proposing that the exemption can be revoked at individual premises if there have been problems with noise, nuisance or disorder and to ensure concerns of people living close to venues are taken into account, the exemption would only apply to performances that take place between 8am and 11pm.

British Beer and Pub Association director of pub and leisure Martin Rawlings says, "The BBPA welcomes any measures that can help pubs overcome existing barriers to putting on live music, helping aspiring and established musicians to reach audiences while at the same time boosting business, particularly during these difficult economic times."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Carol
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 09:05 AM

Great news


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 09:13 AM

http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/consultations/condoc_exemptsmall_livemusicevents.pdf

The following questions are from the above PDF. Can a potential bias be detected in a document where only those in disagreement have to provide their reasons?

Question 1: Do you agree that the exemption should be limited to performances held wholly inside a permanent building? Yes/No. If No, please explain why.

Question 2: Do you agree that the exemption should be limited to performances of live music for not more than 100 people? Yes/No. If No, please explain why.

Question 3: Do you agree that audiences for exempt performances should be accommodated entirely within the building where the performance is taking place? Yes/No. If No, please explain why.

Question 4: Do you agree that exempt performances should not take place between 11pm and 8am? Yes/No. If No, please explain why.

Question 5: Do you agree that there should be an exclusion process as set out above? Yes/No. If No, please explain why.

Question 6: Do you agree that the exclusion process should be similar to the current review process, with the modifications proposed? Yes/No. If No, please explain why.

Question 7: Do you agree that licensed premises that qualify for the proposed exemption should have to apply through the Minor Variations process to remove licence conditions that apply to the exempt live music performance? Yes/No. If No, please explain why.

Question 8: Do you agree that this proposal cannot be achieved by non-legislative means? Yes/No. If No, please explain why

Question 9: Do you agree that the effect of the proposal is proportionate to the policy objective? Yes/No? If No, please explain why.

Question 10: Do you agree that the proposal, taken as a whole, strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by it? Yes/No. If No, please explain why.

Question 11: Do you agree that the proposal does not remove any necessary protection? Yes/No. If No, please explain why.

Question 12: Do you agree that the proposal does not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise? Yes/No. If No, please explain why.

Question 13: Do you agree that the proposal has no constitutional significance? Yes/No. If No, please explain why.

Question 14: Do you broadly agree with the estimates, assumptions and conclusions of the Impact Assessment (published as a separate document, and available alongside this consultation on the DCMS website at http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/consultations/6499.aspx.)? Yes/ No. If not, please say which estimate you disagree with, and provide any evidence that supports an alternate estimate.

Question 15: Do you think that this draft Order accurately reflects the proposed change?
    Please remember that we no longer allow anonymous posting at Mudcat. Please use the same name every time you post here. Thanks.
    -Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 10:17 AM

Hey, Roger! Good to see you back and in fine campaigning form.

Keep up the good work.

Cheers

Dave


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 01:04 PM

http://londonjazz.blogspot.com/2009/12/government-announces-small-venue.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST, Poxicat
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 01:41 PM

Well there is a government trying to hide behind manipulated and one-sided "consultation" to get its own way – again.

But the two elephants in the room are ignored.

Noise. In truly urban areas noise pollution hides it. In suburban and rural areas, you can go from pub to pub. The jukeboxes and TVs will be loud enough to identify the songs 400 yards away. Karaoke and live music will be loud enough to identify the songs half a mile away and more. It is no use pretending that noise complaints about amplified music achieve anything. At first the LA's "licensing officer" ignores you. If you are persistent, then a visit to the pub may ensue. Somehow everyone gets to know who complained, and then those who like the noise (and live over a mile away) will "visit" the complainer. All amplification in pubs should be regulated. The exemptions that there are should be removed.

Culture. Oh, yes, the department of culture media and sport. The culture that is in danger and should be the subject of support is not opera, nor ballet, nor proms for snobs, but English (or, in Wales, Welsh, or in Scotland, Scottish) folk music and song. It is so unsupported that its only supporter (so long as they can sing "Little Sir Hugh") is the BNP.

What is needed is that music that is not electrically amplified should be free from music licensing. That can be done by expanding the "morris dancing" exemption. Which can be done by statutory instrument.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Jan 10 - 06:57 AM

Question 4: Do you agree that exempt performances should not take place between 11pm and 8am? Yes/No. If No, please explain why.

Not too sure why the concept of a 11pm curfew is introduced here?

There is no such curfew on other exemptions. For example, whether it takes place inside premises or outside, Morris dancing after 11pm or before 8am (or indeed at dawn) is not considered to need additional entertainment permission.

The recently issued LACORS guidance on the incidental exemption does not require this. Would the unlicensed live music performance safely taking place and benefitting from this exemption in larger premises become licensable at 11pm in premises qualifying for the proposed small premises exemption?

I can't really see much on how exactly it is peoposed that the size of a premises is to be determined. If it is to be as convoluted as the existing S177, then this exemption will be as useless as S177.

Perhaps that is the intention of these proposals?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 02 Jan 10 - 08:39 AM

>All amplification in pubs should be regulated. The exemptions that there are should be removed.<

Of course, all excessive noise is already regulated. Any live or recorded music that may be exempt from additional entertainment licensing is still subject to regulation under envirionmental legislation.

Whether we have had additional entertainment licensing or not, has and can have no effect on noise concerns. As this can only be brought into effect for noise coming from entertainment (and not loud music blasting from the house next door) it can be at best, only a partial solution to noise concerns.

The problems described above have not been created or made any worse by any measures introduced by the Licensing Act 2003. Promoting this legislation by continuing the myth, that additional entertainment licensing can have some effect, may have covered-up any short-comings in the envirionmental legislation that is supposed to protect the public from all noise concerns. The answer to this is to address these short-comings and not to perpetuate the myth that expensive additional entertainment licensing benefits anyone but those who are employed to enforce it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Darowyn
Date: 02 Jan 10 - 09:16 AM

I have downloaded the PDFs and will be composing a full response- including comments on the seriously biased form of the consultation.
I shall then be returning it through the more direct access to politicians that my family connections allow me- hopefully adding a few influential signatures on the way.
To sum up my views in one simple paragraph, I shall be arguing that noise and anti-social behaviour issues are fully covered by existing legislation, and that the whole licensing regime under the 2003 Act is a waste of public money and should be scrapped completely in an era of budgetary constraint.
I am entirely in agreement with Guest The Shambles in this.
Cheers
Dave


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: stallion
Date: 02 Jan 10 - 02:27 PM

There was one good result from the licencing changes.......it was to do with safety........... will not bore you with it now ...... but it was a huge improvement, otherwise I agree the live music thing, oh and lets include PRS in this while we are at it, is this a conspiracy to drive out people gathering and enjoying themselves making music?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 02 Jan 10 - 06:19 PM

It is "biased", but only in the sense that having already considered evidence and representations the government is now putting forward a proposal. If you agree with it, you don't need to give your reasons, but why should they need them? They will presumably be similar to the government's reasons for putting forward the proposals in the first place. It is only if you disagree that you are asked to put forward reasons.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 02 Jan 10 - 06:39 PM

Point taken but.....

If this Government have already considered any evidence and representations on which the proposals are based, these are very selective. They are not mine and they are not any that I have contributed to. They don't even seem to be based on the evidence and representations from the bodies that they themselves have set up to advise them and which I am aware of, like those made by the Live Music Forum.

The call for the level to be set at 100 is directly at odds with the figure of 200, which Parliament's select Committee has called for.

Where for example, is there any mention of the following which Mr Suttcliffe mentioned in Parliament on 22 Oct 2009?

"As part of the clarification, the consultation will propose a change to the definition of "entertainment facilities" so that the mere provision of musical instruments, such as a pub piano, is not licensable."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST, Poxicat
Date: 02 Jan 10 - 07:38 PM

Roger, the existing noise controls do not work to control noise nuisance from amplified music. The Licensing Act could (but also often does not, because of the incompetence of local council officers). Unless any new exemption is framed so that it does not apply to music in licensed premises (or their curtilage) is inaudible from other nearby premises you are simply proposing that your preferred entertainment should be permitted to be a nuisance to others.

Incidentally, I believe that "inaudibility" ( after 10 pm) inside other dwellings may be the standard applied by Glasgow council.

A 100 limit exemption for unamplified music could work.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 03 Jan 10 - 10:14 AM

If you agree with the questions but for reasons which are additional to those given, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping you from giving your reasons for answering "yes". If you agree with the government's reasons, there's no need to repeat them. What they are asking is that if you disagree, you explain why. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Whilst the general thrust of the proposal is to be welcomed, I disagree with several of the detailed proposals. For example, they propose to exclude only music performed indoors, yet a few musicians playing unamplified in a rural pub garden will probably cause less disturbance than an amplified rock band playing indoors in an urban environment.

I also don't understand why they have not accepted the 200 cut-off recommended by the select committee.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 03 Jan 10 - 06:46 PM

>Roger, the existing noise controls do not work to control noise nuisance from amplified music. The Licensing Act could (but also often does not, because of the incompetence of local council officers).<

I am confused. If the problem is with the incompetence of those who are employed to enforce the Licensing Act (which I tend to agree), then surely it matters little what is written in the legislation?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 04 Jan 10 - 11:44 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/jan/04/small-venues-live-music-licence

The following, from the above Guardian article, ends on rather a cynical note......

Furthermore, while the new proposal may sound generous, a parliamentary select committee recommended in May 2009 that an exemption be created for any venue with 200 people or less. They also called for a resurrection of the older "two-in-a-bar" law, which allowed any size of venue to host unamplified music by one or two people. Perhaps these ideas will be included in the inevitable tenth, eleventh or thirteenth consultations.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Folkiedave
Date: 04 Jan 10 - 01:03 PM

Nice of the Guardian to show the session in Sandy Bell's, where the law doesn't apply!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 04 Jan 10 - 02:21 PM

Not this law perhaps but the one that does now apply in Scotland has also had its casualties. See the following thread.

thread.cfm?threadid=125939&messages=23

We assume that Sandy Bell's has done what is now required to make it legal?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 05 Jan 10 - 08:09 AM

See also:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=141223114767&ref=mf


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: IanC
Date: 05 Jan 10 - 09:06 AM

I'd hope we might be able to use this consultation to widen the discussion beyond music.

For example Folk Drama is getting an even worse deal at the moment. Because mummers plays don't have a regular venue the pubs aren't licensed for them (except when they were specifically informed as in Ashwell). Mummers are, like morris, "drop-in" entertainment but they're not covered by the "morris exemption" (despite the claims originally made by the morris organisations). That means that mummers plays are almost always illegal, though we still seem to be doing them.

Can we raise this while we're talking about the rest? At least pubs that have regular sessions, folk clubs etc. usually have a license for it.

Thanks
Ian


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jan 10 - 05:20 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/

On 31st December 2009, the public consultation on an entertainment licensing exemption for small gigs was announced by DCMS - more than two years since it was first promised by ministers: http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/media_releases/6553.aspx

The key proposal is to exempt gigs with an audience of up to 100, provided performances are within buildings and do not take place between 11pm and 8am. The exemption may be revoked, however, if there are complaints.
But the DCMS amendment intended to implement this proposal is flawed. The draft reform order, set out on p26 of the 33-page DCMS consultation document (see link below) could not work because it fails to address the licensing of 'entertainment facilities'.

Under the Licensing Act 2003 the provision of entertainment facilities is separately licensable irrespective of any actual performance of live music. This covers, for example, the provision of musical instruments, amplification, or even a stage. Any new exemption has to ensure that such provision is also exempt.
The failure to deal with this will be particularly embarrassing to licensing minister Gerry Sutcliffe. On 22nd October 2009, during Parliamentary licensing debate, he said:

'For facilities to be separately licensable in such situations would be absurd and was not intended under the 2003 Act. As part of the clarification, the consultation will propose a change to the definition of "entertainment facilities" so that the mere provision of musical instruments, such as a pub piano, is not licensable.'
See: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm091022/halltext/91022h0005.htm

It seems hardly credible that the omission of this vital clarification within the published consultation was merely an oversight by DCMS lawyers and the licensing team, particularly given the long time they have had to come up with a solution.
This is of course not the only problem with the consultation. Its timing is almost guaranteed to ensure that reform cannot happen before the general election which must take place by May.
While press coverage of the consultation missed the entertainment facilities problem, scepticism about the government's handling of this issue was unusually pronounced in Guardian coverage on 4th January:
'... while the new proposal may sound generous, a parliamentary select committee recommended in May 2009 that an exemption be created for any venue with 200 people or less. They also called for a resurrection of the older "two-in-a-bar" law, which allowed any size of venue to host unamplified music by one or two people. Perhaps these ideas will be included in the inevitable tenth, eleventh or thirteenth consultations.'
['Government proposes exemption of small venues from live music licence', Sean Michaels]
See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/jan/04/small-venues-live-music-licence


Equity, the Musicians Union, and UK Music support an exemption for audiences or venues up to 200 capacity, but have yet to make any public comment about this DCMS consultation. Sutcliffe has suggested that the government would consider expanding the exemption if this was the response of an 'overwhelming majority'.

Links to other press reports:
The Publican http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66055&c=1

NME: http://www.nme.com/news/various-artists/49044

Music Week http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1039509&c=1

Link to the DCMS consultation webpage and consultation document downloads:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/consultations/6499.aspx


The closing date for responses is 26 March 2010.
ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Jan 10 - 05:31 AM

[The last post was from me. When I put my name in the box - it did not work. It only seemed to work with the box empty.]

Ian - I take your point about the non musical folk arts. It is totally wrong that these should be threatened by licensing legislation. However, no matter how little affected they may currently be in practice, the fact remains that they are licensable and illegal without additional licensing permission.

Equity may be the best body for you to approach, for although few participants may be members, they are performances of plays.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST, Poxicat
Date: 06 Jan 10 - 05:39 AM

1. Even if the Licensing Act is not effectively used to control noise nuisance, that is not a reason to remove its ability to do so. I know a pub that has just blown up a pair of Peavey Black Widows on its jukebox! All amplified music in pubs should be subject to noise limitation.

2. The reform of the "two-in-a-bar" rule (if ever) will also need to make it clear that it permits

(a) - two at a time, not merely the same two all night; and
(b) - the assembled audience to join in on chorusses etc


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Jan 10 - 10:14 AM

All amplified music in pubs should be subject to noise limitation.

Nothing is being proposed to change this. But your chosen method also adversly affects non amplified music.

Even where additional entertainment is in place, any resulting noise is still subject to the envirionmental legislation. So what use does this expensive red tape serve, except to provide employment to those who enforce it?

The problem with dealing with any noise concern with additional licensing permission is that it attempts to deal with it in advance. That is before there is any determination of whether there is a real noise concern being presented or not.

And in cases where it is determined in advance that amplified music should be prevented or limited, this also applies to non amplified music.

Surely it is better to apply measures to reduce noise concerns when and where they are being presented than to risk losing any music which is not causing a noise concern, which is the case with additional licensing permission?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST, Poxicat
Date: 06 Jan 10 - 11:21 AM

No, that is not correct.

If all performances are under 100 capacity are exempt from regulation under the Licensing Act then the Licensing Act cannot be used to control noise, and its power pre-emptively to prevent noise is precisely what is needed.

The only relaxation needed (and it is needed) is for all unamplified performances to be exempt from the Licensing Act. They and they alone are sufficiently dealt with by other applicable laws. Exempting unamplified 2-in-a-bar does not really go far enough.

It would also be sensible to exempt the provision of entertainment facilities that do not include amplification.

There could be a de minimis derogation to permit electric instruments to be used only if they are no louder than acoustic instruments.

There urgently needs to be a tightening of the Licensing Act to de-exempt jukeboxes and big screen TVs.



You obviously have no idea what sort of SPL you can create before melting a pair of Peavey Black Widows. They are used by many metal bass guitarists, and are the woofer in the big HiSys Peavey tops and the big Peavey subs. The Walls of Jericho would not have stood a chance.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 06 Jan 10 - 11:41 AM

The current legislation is based on the belief that live music WILL cause disturbance, WILL lead to crime and disorder and WILL give rise to particular safety issues. The proposed amendment will reverse these presumptions for small events by removing them from the licensing provisions.

If in individual cases any of these issues do arise, they can be dealt with using a raft of legislation, including the option to revoke the exemption. So in that sense the Licensing Act can still be used to control noise, by revoking the exemption and bringing the venue back into the Act. There are also other statutory and common law remedies to control excessive noise levels.

I think on the whole the proposal is to be welcomed, although it does have its shortcomings. The provision about "entertainment facilities" is particularly ridiculous - but then this Act has been a textbook example of cocked-up legislation from the outset.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Jan 10 - 12:35 PM

>If all performances are under 100 capacity are exempt from regulation under the Licensing Act then the Licensing Act cannot be used to control noise, and its power pre-emptively to prevent noise is precisely what is needed.<

But you are also maintaining that this and the other current noise legislation does not work. So why are you concerned of the effect of the addition of yet one more exemption to add to the many existing ones?

Noise from stand-up comedy using PA and live music is not controlled by the Licensing Act.

All of the amplified music that is exempt as being incidental cannot be controlled by the Licensing Act.

Amplified music from the back of a moving vehicle is not controlled by the Licensing Act and so on. It has more exemptions than I have holes in my socks.

Rather than objecting to this particular and perfectly sensible exemption being introduced as damage limitation, would it not be better to simply accept that the Licensing Act 2003 and the whole concept of additional entertainment permission (taking place in permanent venues) is a mess which needs a total reform?

If the additional entertainment permission measures contained in Licensing Act 2003 (and the previous legislation it replaced) were in any way able to deal with noise concerns, why are licensing authorities when issuing this permission, currently obliged to advise operators that the activities for which they have obtained permission are still subject to the noise controls contained in the environmental legislation?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,Mikey
Date: 06 Jan 10 - 01:40 PM

This is all very well, at least it appears to have been recognised that the law needs reforming.

The question we should be asking now is 'what should we be doing now?'

Mikey


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Jan 10 - 02:41 PM

This is all very well, at least it appears to have been recognised that the law needs reforming.

I can't really see that there has been any recognition that the law needs reforming nor see any firm proposals to do this. All the political parties (and with them the media) have their eyes on things that matter far more to them - the coming election.

All that has been forced out of this Government, and its national and local civil servants, is yet another consultation......

The only thing we can do is to keep up the pressure and ensure that as many peoples as possible contribute to this consultation, as that is all that is on offer.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Jan 10 - 03:39 PM

The only thing we can do is to keep up the pressure and ensure that as many peoples as possible contribute to this consultation, as that is all that is on offer.

Peoples? I have been watching too many of those meercat adverts....

Showing the views of the 'overwhelming majority' is what we should be doing. 200 was after all the figure requested by the Commons Select Committee.

Equity, the Musicians Union, and UK Music support an exemption for audiences or venues up to 200 capacity, but have yet to make any public comment about this DCMS consultation. Sutcliffe has suggested that the government would consider expanding the exemption if this was the response of an 'overwhelming majority'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 07 Jan 10 - 12:49 PM

A legal view of the proposed consultation.

http://www.popall.co.uk/LicensingApplications/governmentsproposedexemptionforlivemusicinsmallvenues.asp


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 Jan 10 - 02:22 PM

The Stage.

http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/26853/government-opens-consultation-on-licence


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 12 Jan 10 - 05:18 AM

Campaigners, MPs and Lords will focus on the issue at Westminster meeting.

The future of live music in pubs is to be discussed by politicians and campaigners at parliament tomorrow.

The meeting has been arranged by the All Party Save the Pub Group and will include talks by campaigner Hamish Birchall and Lord Clement-Jones.

http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66130&c=1


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 05:50 PM

The hidden cost of the Licensing Act 2003 in schools.

http://www.musictank.co.uk/newsletters/jan-10#viewpoint-the-hidden-cost-of-licensing-music-in-schools


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 05:52 PM

The following from the link in the previous post.

On 31st December 2009, the DCMS finally published details of the consultation to amend the Licensing Act 2003 and exempt some small-scale live music events from licensing. Strangely, the government's proposals make no mention of exempting music performances in schools, and missing from the DCMS's list of consultees are the NUT, the NAHT, the Independent Schools Association and the National Confederation of PTA's.

Under the Licensing Act, schools staging musical events in front of an audience are exempt from paying the premises licence fee, but they are not exempt from paying for Temporary Event Notices (and this will cost £252 p.a. if the school takes up its annual entitlement of 12), nor are schools exempt from the requirement and cost of advertising the licence application in the press for a period of 28 days.

But that is only the beginning of what the CEO of the Independent Schools Association described as 'a burdensome bureaucratic nightmare'. When attending licensing hearings, schools expecting that educational needs will allow an application to proceed unopposed might be in for a nasty surprise. LACORS guidelines for Licensing Committee Hearings advise that cultural considerations 'will always be subservient to the Licensing Objectives'. Accordingly some Licensing Authorities have implemented wholly unnecessary and prohibitive restrictions. Conditions placed on the premises licence of Verulum School in St Albans run to over 1,400 words – and include conditions such as 'neighbours are made aware by letters of the type of event and the time the music will stop' 'There are to be no more than thirty events per year at the school. There are to be no more than five events in any one month'.

Even a conservative estimate of the amount schools have spent on music licensing is likely to be embarrassing for the government, and all of the live music statistical reports issued by the DCMS have carefully avoided any reference to how the Act has affected schools and colleges.

Since Nov 2005, if the 24,000+ schools in England and Wales have each spent £1,000 on music licensing and advertising this would have amounted to over £24m. According to the DCMS, the National Confederation of PTA's could account for up to half of the 360,000+ Temporary Event Notices issued in the three years to March 2009. DCMS statisticians have not asked Licensing Authorities how many of these TENs included permission for live music, but the total cost of these licences is over £7.5m.

The DCMS recently attempted a rather feeble justification for this fiasco: 'If there was no restriction on entertainment events at schools, independent schools could simply operate as venues.' Ronnie Bridgett DCMS Spokesman, 8 Sep 2009.

This begs the question: should the Licensing Act be amended to cover pet animals just in case schools simply operate as zoos?

Lord Clement-Jones's Live Music bill, which contains a proposal to exempt school music from licensing is due to receive it's 2nd reading in the House of Lords on 15th January 2010.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 15 Jan 10 - 01:15 PM

The Publican - Peer praises Listen Up! campaign

http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66176&c=1


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 15 Jan 10 - 01:19 PM

Lib Dems press release.

http://www.libdems.org.uk/press_releases_detail.aspx?title=Small_venues_should_not_pay_for_live_music_licences_says_Lord_Clement


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 15 Jan 10 - 01:21 PM

2nd Reading of the Live Music bill. Scroll to 3hrs, 33 minutes.

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=5501


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 15 Jan 10 - 02:09 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/

The Local Government Association has been handing out a misleading and
offensive briefing against Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill.

Entitled 'Live Music Bill - LGA Group Second Reading Briefing' and dated
15th January 2010, the A4 page has been distributed to Peers over the past
two days in advance of the bill's 2nd reading today in the House of Lords.

The introduction makes these key claims: 'The Live Music Bill proposes
exempting performances of live music that attract an audience of fewer than
200 people from the need for a premises licence. It also proposes
reintroducing the "two in a bar" rule which would allow up to two performers
to play live music anywhere without the need for a licence.'

On the basis of those claims, it then states in bold type:

'LGA View - The LGA does not support this Bill. If introduced it would
restrict the rights of local people and their directly-elected councils, and
deny them a voice in the licensing process for live music. Licensing
authorities are trusted to ensure that their residents' wishes are heard and
that the licences of local premises take into account the wellbeing of the
neighbourhood as a whole. We believe that families should be able to put
their children to bed in peace and be able to relax in their homes without
being disturbed by noise from local premises.'

But this is misleading claptrap. Under the bill, the exemption for live
music that might apply in pubs and bars could be revoked if residents'
complaints were upheld following a licence review. Councils' and local
people's rights of redress under the Licensing Act remain at such venues, if
there are problems. The exemption proposed for hospitals, schools and
colleges is conditional upon no alcohol being sold during its provision. If
alcohol were to be sold, the event would be licensable.

In any event, local people, their councils and the police, already have
statutory redress against noise nuisance under various Acts, irrespective of
licensing, including noise abatement notices issued under the Environmental
Protection Act 1990 (which can be pre-emptive or reactive), on-the-spot
fines for licensees under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005
(for noisy premises between 11pm and 7am), and fines under the Anti-Social
Behaviour Act 2003 (noise nuisance coming from a dwelling or garden between
11pm and 7am).

The LGA briefing is offensive where it insinuates that live music generally
must be regarded a threat to families and 'the wellbeing of the
neighbourhood', and that this threat is such that it must be pre-emptively
regulated by licensing. There is absolutely no evidence of any significant
nuisance or public order problem caused by live music, certainly nothing
that justifies making it a potential criminal offence merely to host a
performance by one musician.

The briefing goes on to quote recent licensing statistics in support of the
LGA view. But these statistics have already been exposed as meaningless,
specifically the claimed rise in live music permissions of about 11% since
2007. Since this data was published last year by DCMS, the government has
had to concede that they don't know what proportion of the apparent increase
is accounted for by venues that would not have needed a licence under the
old regime, including two-in-a-bar venues, and schools and hospitals hosting
public events. Nor do they know what live music licence conditions apply,
and whether these have been implemented by the venue - as they must be if
gigs are to be legal.

The LGA's concluding arguments suggest that in their view the new 'minor
variation' process and new guidance on the 'incidental music' exemption
obviate the need for any new exemption. But clearly even the government
accepts that neither is likely to be of significant benefit because they
would not have proposed their own 100-capacity exemption otherwise.

A call to the LGA established that this rather dodgy briefing originated
with their Culture, Media and Sport Committee, chaired by St Albans
councillor Chris White.

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Jan 10 - 10:53 AM

Comments in support of the Lib Dems Live Music Bill:

"The Musicians' Union is very pleased with this bill, as it supports the recommendations that were made by the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee last year which were in support of live music".

John Smith, Musicians' Union


"There is no doubt that the Licensing Act 2003 continues to stifle small-scale live music throughout the UK. This leaves our society and culture significantly poorer – not to mention our economy – and is potentially disastrous for the UK's next generation of musical talent, most of whom will hone their craft in pubs, clubs and bars, and is denying jobbing musicians the opportunity to earn a living. The common sense proposals of Lord Clement-Jones' Live Music Bill would address these issues in one stroke and have the full support of UK Music."

Feargal Sharkey, UK Music


"The Government's Licensing Act has really been seen as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It has had a detrimental effect on musicians performing in small venues and the National Campaign for the Arts is pleased to support Lord Clement-Jones' Live Music Bill, which we believe will go a long way towards addressing the issue."

Louise de Winter, National Campaign for the Arts


"Equity supports the Live Music Bill and calls on all members of all parties to do the same."

Stephen Spence, Equity


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 17 Jan 10 - 01:25 PM

This is a rather important part of the consultation. Entertainment Facilities were introduced for the first time in the Licensing Act 2003.

As it is only facilities for music and dancing that are made licensable, this introduction is clearly descriminatory. Why should the provision of a piano, PA or a stage be a licensable entertainment facility, when the provision of a pool table or a boxing ring is not?

On a practical level, how can any performance of music or dancing be exempt as incidental or under any of the other exemptions, where the facilities required for them require the premises to be licensed?


http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/consultations/091020PN_FACILITIES_clarification_condoc.pdf


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 17 Jan 10 - 01:50 PM

The following is the current position - from the consultation document linked to above. It appears that the intention was to make the public singing and dancing for their own enjoyment, into a licensable activity by making licensable any premises in which they were singing and dancing.

Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Proposal to clarify the definition of "entertainment facilities"

1.5 The definition of regulated entertainment contains two elements: the provision of 'entertainment' and the provision of 'entertainment facilities'.

The separate 'entertainment facilities' element is intended to address situations where people take part in entertainment that may not be provided solely for the purpose of entertaining an audience, but which may nevertheless present risks to the promotion of the licensing objectives.

Examples may include the use of a dance floor, or some karaoke performances. As part of this, the provision of musical instruments (such as 'pub pianos') can be licensable (separate from a performance of live music) if they are to be used by customers to entertain themselves.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Jan 10 - 11:15 AM

The true horror of the introduction of Entertainment Facilities does not generally seem to have been recognised.

Entertainment Licensing legislation has concentrated on the performance of entertainment. It concerned itself with that which is provided for an audience and that which was not provided for an audience was thought to be safe - up until this reform.

Almost unoticed, the act of entertaining yourself in music or dancing has become a licensable activity. This by virtue of anything provided to enable music or dancing being classed as a licensable entertainment facility. So much for the public's right of freedom of expression.

So any building used or made available for the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing, like a rehearsal room or a dance studio is a licensable Entertainment Facility. This is the case whether other members of the public are present or not.

A case that does not apply to any facilities which may be required for other activities, like a pool table or a boxing ring. This is strange, as these activities are also Regulated Entertainment.

Not only is a provided pool table not licensable as an Entertainment Facility, there is no question that customers entertaining themselves in participatory games of pool will be judged to be licensable Regulated Entertainment, when customers entertaining themselves by making non-amplified music will be.

This consultaion does give us a voive on this. Please use it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Jan 10 - 07:39 PM

Hansard - the Live Music Bill debate. 15 January 2010

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100115-0006.htm#10011519000411


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 05:17 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/

On Friday 15th January DCMS published a new public consultation, this time on proposals to 'clarify' the definition of entertainment facilities within the Licensing Act 2003:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/consultations/6574.aspx


Unsurprisingly, there was no press announcement. This would have drawn unwanted media attention to one of the Act's more absurd effects: the separate requirement to licence the provision of pub pianos, and other instruments or facilities enabling people to make music, if the facilities are for public use, or indeed for private use if such provision is for a charge with a view to profit. Unlicensed provision, where a licence is required, is a criminal offence punishable by fines up to £20,000 and six months in prison.

Even the Act's exemption for 'incidental music' is disapplied if entertainment facilities are provided.
The DCMS consultation explicitly acknowledges this problem: 'The Government considers that this was not the intention of Parliament when it introduced the exemption for incidental performances of live music.' [p5, para 1.6]

But once again, the proposed remedy is flawed and could not work.
The draft DCMS amendment, set out on page 9 of the 19 page document, would exempt unamplified musical instruments, but not amplification, or indeed any facility enabling amplified performances (which could be a stage, or even the performance space itself).

And while it also proposes to exempt facilities provided solely for incidental music, it fails to strike out the source of the problem: the vexed entertainment facilities sub-paragraph within the incidental music exemption itself (Schedule 1, para 7(b)). The amendment and the incidental music exemption would contradict one another.

Friday 15th January was also the date of the 2nd reading of Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill in the House of Lords. If enacted, this would exempt performances of live music and the provision of entertainment facilities in a range of venues up to 200 capacity. It would effectively implement most of the Culture Committee recommendations following their inquiry into the Licensing Act last year.

The debate saw strong speeches in support, not only from Lord Clement-Jones, but Lords Colwyn and Redesdale. Government spokesperson Lord Faulkner said that the government had reservations about the bill, but these were dismissed by Lord Clement-Jones. The bill now goes to the Committee stage on Monday 1st February.

Much of the debate covered old ground, but significantly the Conservatives announced their backing for the Bbll. Lord Howard of Rising said:
'This is a Bill which we on these Benches support. We give that support in the hope that this Bill may go some way towards achieving the original objective of the 2003 Act, which was, broadly speaking, to promote the development of live music, dancing, and theatre. That never happened-rather the reverse; there has been a decline. Her Majesty's Government recognised this and introduced the minor variations procedure in June 2009; but I am afraid that that has had no discernable beneficial effect.'

Significantly, Lord Howard is also a borough councillor. The support of the Conservatives tends to undermine the objections of the Local Government Association.

Read the full debate: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100115-0006.htm#10011519000411

Read the live music bill: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/007/10007.1-i.html

Yahoo news coverage: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/11/20100118/tpl-live-music-faces-bureaucratic-minefi-0a1c1a1.html

Lord Clement-Jones in Music Week, 19 Jan: http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=2&storycode=1039688&c=2


Numbers are rising again on the Number 10 petition calling on the government to stop criminalising live music and to implement the Culture Committee's recommendations. It now has over 14,000 signatures: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/livemusicevents/

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 10:06 AM

http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66211&c=1

Government U-turn over licensing of pub pianos

20 January, 2010

By James Wilmore

DCMS to "clarify" rules meaning licensees can let customers play instruments to "entertain themselves"

Licensees will be allowed to let customers play a musical instrument to "entertain themselves" without the risk of prosecution, after a government U-turn on the issue.

The Licensing Act currently states it is illegal to let a customer play an instrument, such as a piano, if the pub does not have an entertainment licence.

The issue has previously drawn criticism from live music campaigners who branded the situation "absurd".

But the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) launched a consultation last week, without alerting the press, to alter the Licensing Act and "clarify" what is regarded as licensable.

The move will be seen as a U-turn by the goverment after licensing minister Gerry Sutcliffe previously said having a pub in a piano was only "theoretically innocuous" as "even such supposedly harmless activities can cause noise nuisance".

The DCMS hopes the plans will also encourage pubs to take advantage of the "incidental" music exemption in the Act. This exemption means pubs do not need a licence where the music is not the main reason for people attending the venue.

Under the new plans, the Act will be changed to say that offering musical instruments, to be used for "incidental" music will not need a licence.

Helpfully, the DCMS consultation document says that "items provided to enable a musical instrument to be played without amplification" such as a "music stand" will also be exempt.

The DCMS document says: "There will be a small economic benefit in terms of reduced burdens, but we have not attempted to quantify this".

To respond to the consultation, which closes on February 26, write to Shelley Mickleburgh, Licensing Team, Sport and Leisure Directorate. 2-4, Cockspur Street. London SW1Y 5DH or email: licensingconsultation@culture.gov.uk


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

If only......

Perhaps the Publican could be asked to explain how this works with the Cove/New Star situation? These customers playing instruments to 'entertain themselves' are not currently prevented because of Entertainment Facilities but because they are judged to be performances (to an audience) of Regulated Entertainment.

This is ironic as when it is participatory sport which the public are entertaining themselves with, this is not judged to be Regulated Entertainment. But the very activity that Entertainment Facilities was introduced to catch (because the act of the public entertaining themselves in music and dance is NOT Regulated Entertainment) is being caught here as Regulated Entertainment. [ I hope that makes sense]

The proposed changes still mean that any facility (except instruments but including the premises themselves) which are provided for the public to entertain themselves in music or dance is a licensable entertainment facility.

So even if I could persuade my council that the sessions were not Regulated Entertainment, as the premises have been provided for the public to entertain themselves in music (or dance), the premises would still be licensable as an entertainment facility. Even if we entertained ourselves around a provided non-amplified piano.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 12:23 PM

You have to look at it in the context of the other proposed amendment which would exclude smaller live music events. If this goes through, a session of less than 100 people won't be Regulated Entertainment and won't require a licence. However if the venue had a piano, under current legislation it would still need a licence (even if it wasn't going to be played). This amendment will remove this anomaly.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Stephen L. Rich
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 12:59 PM

Now if we could only get something like that going in the United States. ASCAP and BMI are killing all of the small venues.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 01:40 PM

>You have to look at it in the context of the other proposed amendment which would exclude smaller live music events. If this goes through, a session of less than 100 people won't be Regulated Entertainment and won't require a licence. However if the venue had a piano, under current legislation it would still need a licence (even if it wasn't going to be played). This amendment will remove this anomaly.<

I take your point but the piano issue was a way of demonstrating the wider problem problem presented by Entertainment Facilities, in a way that the media could understand. It is nice that the old singalong around the pub piano will be safe but what is proposed in not enough. It is a vital right that the public should be free to entertain themselves in music and dance.

It is nice to know that that a music stand is no longer to be a licensable Entertainment Facility. Not so sure about plectrums though.......

A session is a number of customers entertaining themselves in music. It is because this type of thing was not caught as Regulated Entertainment that Entertainment Facilities were introduced. The following from the consultation document:

1.5 The definition of regulated entertainment contains two elements: the provision of 'entertainment' and the provision of 'entertainment facilities'.

The separate 'entertainment facilities' element is intended to address situations where people take part in entertainment that may not be provided solely for the purpose of entertaining an audience, but which may nevertheless present risks to the promotion of the licensing objectives.

Examples may include the use of a dance floor, or some karaoke performances. As part of this, the provision of musical instruments (such as 'pub pianos') can be licensable (separate from a performance of live music) if they are to be used by customers to entertain themselves.


It is clear from this that sessions like the Cove and New Star are plainly not licensable Regulated Entertainment so they do not need the small premises exemption or any other exemption to free them from being Regulated Entertainment.

However, they do need to be protected from the day when a licensing officer decides that the mere provision of premises (or any place) on which the public entertain themselves in any form of music and dance is a licensable Entertainment Facility.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 02:21 PM

>It is nice to know that that a music stand is no longer to be a licensable Entertainment Facility.<

Well it will still be one, it is proposed that such things will only be exempt from being an Entertainment Facility, when used for incidental live music.......


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 06:32 PM

"solely for the purpose of entertaining an audience"


Oh no no no. Go and look it up. "For purposes which include". Big difference.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 06:35 PM

And ASCAP and BMI are wholly different. They deal with rights (in the USA) in the music: parts of copyright, which are owned by private owners who authorise the copyright owners to collect the royalties due for the public performance of the music.

The Licensing Act (UK) makes licensable all provision of regulated entertainment or entertainment facilities, whether or not copyright is involved. It is a governmental control, not the collective administration of a private right.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 08:05 PM

Lord Faulkner of Worcester:
The Bill seeks to reintroduce a variant of the old exemption for one or two musicians performing in a premises licensed for alcohol-the "two in a bar" exemption. The old exemption was not universally popular with musicians and was not widely used. A limit on the number of performers discriminates against musicians who perform in larger bands.

The fact that the two-in-a-bar rule was not popular may be true, that it was not widlely used is not in any way true.

The use of this partial exemption may be difficult for the DCMS to quantify and measure but perhaps it is in the nature of the best exemptions, that they work with the mininium of fuss and red tape.

It seems strange for a Government about to introduce an exemption which will discriminate against larger venues to critise one which they claim dicriminated against larger bands.

It may be a good idea to point out that the 200 limit proposed by the Lib Dems Bill is limited to premises already licensed for alcohol (as was the case also with the two-in-a-bar rule) but the proposed consultation on the 100 limit, is not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 12:29 PM

Is it not a little strange when the Government side claim that some forms of live music are gaining benefit, being favoured or being discriminated against in a process of additional entertainment permission that they have claimed is not complicated or expensive and does not deter any live music?

See Lord Faulkner's claim that it is fair to use audience size, rather that a venue's capacity, as lager venues can put on gigs with limited audience size, in order to benefit from the exemption.

I have yet to see how the Government propose that an events audience size limit of 100 is to be determined in advance, to estabish if they qualify. If it is anything like the crazy way it was established for S177, this new proposal will be as much use as S177.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 01:11 PM

I'm not sure what you mean by the "Cove and New Star" sessions, or why you think they don't need the small events exemption.

My understanding is that all live music is Regulated Entertainment, however spontaneous performances by the customers themselves are exempted. Since most folk sessions either take place on a regular basis, or require a degree of organisation, they are not "spontaneous". Or am I missing something?

The small events exemption will remove most sessions from being Regulated Entertainment. However, unless the "entertainment facility" rule is changed, the venue would still need a licence for a piano (even if it isn't played) but not for the music, which even the Government seems to recognise is nonsense.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 02:42 PM

The government denies the need for a related facilities exemption but I have looked careful at the reasoning and it is wrong.   

THe house piano, guitar, music stand, or stage are all caught still


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 07:52 AM

>My understanding is that all live music is Regulated Entertainment, however spontaneous performances by the customers themselves are exempted. Since most folk sessions either take place on a regular basis, or require a degree of organisation, they are not "spontaneous". Or am I missing something?<

With the inclusion of Entertainment Facilities, it could well be that in practice and effect, that all live music (certainly all that is open to the public) is licensable. The reason for this is a bit complicated but is not the case that the activity itself would qualify as licensable Regulated Entertainment.

You are probably missing the difference between a licensable performance and live music which is not performance (as defined in the Act) and exactly why activities become licensable. Just because some live music may not be spontaneous does not mean that it automatically becomes licensable Regulated Entertainment.

Whether live music by customers a thing would qualify as the spontaneous 'performance' you refer to or if there could be such a thing is questionable but there is no such exemption for this in the Act. There is an explanation of what is considered to be spontaneous in the S 182 Guidance which could lead people to think that the Act did contain an exemption for this.

Any live music that was a spontaneous 'one-off' would be not be licensable in practice, as it would be over before the authorities became aware of it. And if it was in the nature of a performance, it would be licensable if or when it was repeated. However, the word 'spontaneous' is really a red herring here.

There is no specific exemption for live music that is spontaneous, whether this is claimed to be a performance or not. If there were such a thing, how would that work when the provision of anything to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing (And NOT a performance) are licensable Entertainment Facilities.

The key here is that Entertainment Facilities mean that even where the activity itself may not be licensable as Regulated Entertainment, anything that is provided ( including the premises themselves) that enables the pubic to entertain themselves in music and dance is a licensable Entertainment Facility.

What is proposed is only to exempt the provision of musical instruments (and music stands) from being licensable Entertainment Facilities.   

A regular night provided in pub for the public to entertain themselves in indoors sports (which the performance of, is now a licensable Regulated Entertainment) is not at risk and anything provided for the public to entertain themselves in indoor sports is not a licensable Entertainment Facility.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 10:11 AM

http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/text/sirhughordeletter.htm

The following from the above.

I am happy to provide you with the reassurance that you seek. The vast majority of live music events serve to provide considerable pleasure and social benefit without implication for policing or public safety. In a very small number of cases there is clear evidence of association of criminality with events or acts and that obviously needs to be dealt with as the intelligence and circumstances indicate, however, this is clearly the exception and not the norm.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Minton
Commander
Chief of Staff
Association of Chief Police Officers


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 10:37 AM

>I'm not sure what you mean by the "Cove and New Star" sessions, or why you think they don't need the small events exemption.<

These are folk sessions where the customers entertain themselves by making non-amplified music.

The officers of my licensing authority deem these sessions to be perfomances of licensable Regulated Entertainment.

These same officers have made it clear that a performance of indoor sport like pool, i.e. provided for spectators, would be deemed to be performances of licensable Regulated Entertainment. So far so good you may think?

However, the same officers have made it clear that customers entertaining themselves in games of indoor sport on a regular basis, would not be deemed by them, to be licensable Regulated Entertainment.

All I expect is that all the activities listed as potential Regulated Entertainment in Schedule 1 of the Act, are treated equally. Thus, if participatory games of indoor sport are not licensable Regulated Entertainment and other pub customers present are not judged to be an audience or spectators, then nor are participatory pub sessions and vice-versa.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 01:06 PM

There is a new Early Day Motion(EDM)
for you to ask your MP to sign.

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=40255


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 01:09 PM

And this new one,

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=40277


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 02:00 PM

Shambles, live music is specifically mentioned in the Schedule 1, which lists what is meant by Regulated Entertainment. Dancing is also specifically mentioned. So far as sport is concerned, the Schedule refers only to "an indoor sporting event" (boxing and wrestling are also specifically mentioned).

It is not a question of treating different forms of regulated entertainment differently. Customers playing pub games among themselves is not an "event" and so is not regulated entertainment. Live music of any description is. So the licensing officers appear to be correct in their interpretation.

In any event, the Act does treat different forms of regulated entertainment differently. The provision of "entertainment facilities" only applies to facilities for music and dancing, or similar activities.

I suspect this came about because the government recognised that pub games are a normal part of pub life, but refused to accept that the same applied to pub customers entertaining themselves with music. As I recall, one of the many Ministers involved in seeing the Bill through Parliament said as much. We all know that's nonsense.

Hopefully the proposed amendments will remove at least some of this nonsense.

It's interesting to see the quote from the police accepting that the vast majority of live music events have no crime or public order implications. This is contrary to the impression often given by the authorities to justify the Act.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 02:41 PM

Shambles, live music is specifically mentioned in the Schedule 1, which lists what is meant by Regulated Entertainment. Dancing is also specifically mentioned. So far as sport is concerned, the Schedule refers only to "an indoor sporting event" (boxing and wrestling are also specifically mentioned).

All those activities you list are subject to the next requirement, that that they be for or include the purposes of entertaining an audience or spectators. If any form of live music, dancing, indoor sport and the rest in the list are for that purpose, it is a performance of Regulated Entertainment.

It is not a question of treating different forms of regulated entertainment differently. Customers playing pub games among themselves is not an "event" and so is not regulated entertainment. Live music of any description is. So the licensing officers appear to be correct in their interpretation.

Customers playing music for their own entertainment among themselves would also not be the 'event' you refer to would it? The legislation simply cannot support the different treatment that these officers advise for determining what is or is not a performance of Regulated Entertainment.

The legislation can support different treatment for determining what is and is not licensable as Emtertainment Facilities. As these are only to enable music and dancing and not applicable to indoor sports or any of the other activities listed in Schedule 1.

>Hopefully the proposed amendments will remove at least some of this nonsense.<

I'm not so sure, as all the incidental exemption and proposals are exemptions for (performances of) Regulated Entertainment. Sessions are not this but are caught as the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing, so that wherever they take place can be said to be provided for that purpose and be a licensable Entertainment Facility


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 07:21 PM

No, the term "event" applies only to indoor sports. Pub customers playing a casual game of darts isn't an "event", even if it's taking place in public and there are spectators. An organised darts match or demonstration might be an "event".

Like you, I can't see much distinction between customers playing darts or pool for their own amusement, and customers playing music for their own amusement. However the Act does make a distinction. Live music is on the list of regulated entertainment. So far as I can see, the Act makes no distinction between music made by customers or organised music. There's no requirement that anyone is actually entertained by it, simply that it takes place in public (which might include the musicians at a session) and is one of the activities listed in Schedule 3 Part 1 Para 2(1).

I imagine that most sessions will fall within the 100 people maximum for the proposed small events exemption, should it be implemented.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 09:36 AM

No, the term "event" applies only to indoor sports. Pub customers playing a casual game of darts isn't an "event", even if it's taking place in public and there are spectators. An organised darts match or demonstration might be an "event".

I think you are reading far too much into the Act's use of the word 'event' and providing a definition which the Act does not supply.

Like you, I can't see much distinction between customers playing darts or pool for their own amusement, and customers playing music for their own amusement. However the Act does make a distinction. Live music is on the list of regulated entertainment.

You and my local officers may choose to make a distinction between the two activities (or events) but for purposes of determining what is or is not Regulated Entertainment, the Act does not. All the activities listed (including indoor sport) must be treated equally for determining whether they are Regulated Entertainment or not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 10:02 AM

I see that amongst all this barrack room lawyering Hamish Birchall's latest letter to the DCMS has become ignored.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 12:35 PM

"SCHEDULE 1 Provision of regulated entertainment
Part 1 General definitions

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 performance 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."

No doubt a lawyer could make a great deal of the meaning of "provision", "event", "performance", "audience" and "entertaining", and probably quite a lot more, but the reality is that in the case of a session the costs of a legal challenge would far outweigh the costs of getting the appropriate licence, so it's unlikely to be tested.

I don't think Hamish Birchall's statement has been ignored, exactly, rather it says pretty much all there is to say. There are hints that the Government is beginning to admit that the Act is not achieving the intended results, at least so far as encouraging live music is concerned, but it seems reluctant to undertake a full-scale revision and instead is trying to get away with the bare minimum changes which don't fully address the issues.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 02:10 PM

No doubt a lawyer could make a great deal of the meaning of "provision", "event", "performance", "audience" and "entertaining", and probably quite a lot more, but the reality is that in the case of a session the costs of a legal challenge would far outweigh the costs of getting the appropriate licence, so it's unlikely to be tested.

Yes, would that the law only affected lawyers..........

I tend to agree with you. I am of the mind that when it comes to legislation like this, which is devolved to individual local authorities, that the wording of the legislation only really matters if or when it is tested in court. Those who are paid to enforce it know that it is unlikely to be tested so this leaves them free to advise and do pretty much as they wish. The law then becomes what those who enforce it, wish it to be.

The Act did one good thing in taking away the power of local authorities to set their own fees. The next step is to take all additional entertainment licensing away from them and preferably to scrap it altogether.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 04:15 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/

The government has confirmed that they know of only three new live music permissions resulting from the 'minor variation' licensing process, introduced on 29 July 2009.

'Minor variations', which requires an £89 application for an uncertain outcome, was touted by the government as a cheaper and simpler means to add live music permission to an existing premises licence. About 40% of smaller venues have no live music permission.

Only two weeks ago, the Local Government Association suggested that the minor variations process, and confusing guidance on the 'incidental music' exemption, were reasons no new exemption for small gigs was needed - this despite the fact that they already knew some councils had a policy of refusing all such applications ['info @ lacors' in-house magazine, p5, Issue 18, November 2009].

The government's admission came on 25 January in response to a written question by Lord Clement-Jones:

'To ask Her Majesty's Government how many applications there have been for live music under the Legislative Reform (Minor Variations to Premises Licences and Club Premises Certificates) Order 2009; and how many of these applications have been granted.' [HL1360]
Lord Davies of Oldham replied:

'The minor variations process came into force on 29 July 2009. Official statistics on its use are not yet available. We hope to be able to include data about minor variations in the next Statistical Bulletin on Alcohol, Entertainment and Late Night Refreshment Licensing, which we expect to be published in autumn 2010.

'The Government have asked the Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS) to request information from licensing authorities about minor variations applications that relate to live music.

'LACORS has informed the department that, although it has not conducted an exhaustive survey, it is aware of six examples of applications being made that include requests to add or extend authorisation for live music. There were three requests for the easing of conditions relating to an existing authorisation for live music, and three for new authorisations for live music. All these applications were granted. LACORS is not aware of any minor variation application relating to live music that has been refused.'

See:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100125w0003.htm#10012523000275

Three new related Early Day Motions have been published.

EDM 666 by Lib Dem MP Greg Mulholland calling on the government to support Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill:

'That this House supports the Second Reading of the Live Music Bill; commends the proposal contained in the Bill to revive live music by the creation of an exemption from licences for small venues such as pubs; regrets that there has not been an expansion of live music since the introduction of the Licensing Act in 2003; recognises that bureaucratic procedures and red tape have stunted the growth of live music; further regrets that this has had a detrimental effect on both musicians and on the pub industry; believes that pubs and small venues play a vital role in nurturing new and unsigned music talent; and calls on the Government to support the Live Music Bill to encourage the return of live music to pubs and similar venues around the country.'

EDM 689 by Labour MP Janet Anderson welcoming the government's small gigs exemption consultation, but claiming that a 200 capacity exemption would be more effective:

'That this House celebrates the cultural value of live performances in enriching and entertaining communities; welcomes the Government's consultation regarding an exemption to the Licensing Act 2003 for venues with audiences of 100; but believes that an exemption for audiences of 200 would be more effective in tackling the negative impact of the Act in reducing the number of small venues hosting live performances.'

And EDM 689A1 by Independent MP Bob Spink calling for the 200 capacity exemption to apply up 500 capacity.

See EDM database: http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/Default.aspx

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 04:19 AM

EDM 689A1 by Independent MP Bob Spink calling for the 200 capacity exemption to apply up 500 capacity.

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=40297&SESSION=903


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 04:44 AM

Don't ever ask a civil servant to arrange a piece of music! Chances are that you won't be able to play it.

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/85723?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 01:41 PM

A music festival in mid Wales has lost its licence amid concerns over safety, crime and disorder.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/8482972.stm


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 01:59 PM

From the brief information contained in the report, it appears that there were problems with traffic management and security. These are the sorts of issues that licensing is supposed to address. Of course, without more information its difficult to know whether refusing the licence was an over-reaction or whether the problems could have been resolved. However since they appear to have been due to problems with the management of the event it seems possible that imposing conditions might not have been sufficient.

On the face of it, this seems to be licensing doing what it's intended to do.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 04:57 PM

They would say that wouldn't they?

But to be fair, I don't really know enough of the facts to judge in this case but I think that events on temporary sites probably are one area where additional entertainment licensing may still have a role.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 03:01 AM

The Committee stage of the Libs Dems Live Music Bill is on 1st February 2010.

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/livemusic.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 04:31 AM

http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/publications/6603.aspx

The following from John King on http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=141223114767&ref=mf

"No evidence of negative impact of live music licensing" according to the DCMS 'statisticians'.

So, according to the DCMS; the House of Commons Select Committee, The Live Music Forum, the MU, Equity, UK Music etc are all wrong. According to the DCMS's... own statistical bulletins 114,261 premises have lost the entitlement to stage any form of live music since Nov 2005.
More rubbish from the DCMS 'statisticians' who have discreetly added Scotland and Northern Ireland to the live music employment 'statistics'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 04:09 PM

My poor brain is hurting from trying to work out what to submit to the consultation on what is proposed for Entertainment Facilities.

It is obvious that in order to benefit from any exemptions, the activity first needs to be licensable Regulated Entertainment.

So if an activity qualifies as Regulated Entertainment and also qualifies as being a provided Entertainment Facility (like a performance of live music) then they are both exempted. So far so good.

And of course the proposal will exempt any provided instrument from being a licensable Entertainment Facility.

But for example, the proposed small events exemption is of no use to activities that are in effect licensable (by virtue of what is provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing) but are not also performances of Regulated Entertainment.

So it is difficult to see how the proposal can specifically exempt the public entertaining themselves with a provided piano unless it is first claimed that the activity itself is a licensable Regulated Entertainment.

Which it plainly isn't - as the Act has specifically introduced Entertainment Facilities to catch this. Unless Entertainment Facilities are scrapped completly, what is proposed will just make matters worse and even more confusing than it is now.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 03:00 PM

(3) The second condition is that the premises on which the entertainment is, or entertainment facilities are, provided are made available for the purpose, or for purposes which include the purpose, of enabling the entertainment concerned (whether of a description falling within paragraph 2(1) or paragraph 3(2)) to take place.

To the extent that the provision of entertainment facilities consists of making premises available, the premises are to be regarded for the purposes of this sub-paragraph as premises "on which" entertainment facilities are provided.


There semms little doubt from the above that any premises provided for the public to entertain themselves in music or dancing is a licensable Entertainment Facility. So exempting provided instruments like pianos, in order for the public to entertain themselves, as proposed, will still result in this being licensable.

And the Government can still claim that such musical activities as rehearsal, when the public are not admitted, are not licensable.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 03:17 PM

A few informed comments on the latest DCMS Live Music statistics.

http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/text/dcmsreport.pdf


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 08:43 PM

DCMS denies tough licensing regime is to blame for fall in people seeing live music in pubs.

http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66307&c=1

The scrapping of the exemption for live music by two or less performers and the introduction of legislation that requires payment for any live music anywhere is not going to have any adverse results - is it?

No of course not - who suggested such a thing? Such measures can only encourage live music.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 12:42 PM

Consultation re simplifing procedures for Licensing Statements; Interim Authority Notices; & TENS ends 9 Feb 2010:

http://www.culture.gov.uk


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 01:00 PM

A peer's bid to force the government to make it easier for pubs to host live music has survived for a third reading in the House of Lords next week.

http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66320&c=1


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 06:44 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/

Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill will have its 3rd Reading in the House of Lords next Tuesday, 9th February:
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/livemusic.html

If enacted the bill would exempt a range of venues up to 200 capacity from entertainment licensing for live music between 8am and midnight, and allow up to two musicians to perform anywhere unamplified or minimally amplified. The bill is supported by UK Music, the original Live Music Forum, the National Campaign for the Arts, Equity and the Musicians Union.

The Bill passed the Lords Committee stage on Monday 1st February without amendment or opposition:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100201-0002.htm#1002012000310

If progress continues unobstructed, it will go to the Commons. Its success there is dependent on the government. In reality, it is unlikely that the Bill will receive Commons debate as the Government will be unwilling to find time before the general election for a Bill they do not support.

But as The Publican reported yesterday: 'Although the bill is a private members' bill and is unlikely to become law, it could help to effect the government's final plans over live music licensing':
http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66320&c=1

Meanwhile the police have been making friendlier noises about live music. The original Live Music Forum, founded by campaigner Phil Little in the 1990s, has published a correspondence with the police in which they state:

'The vast majority of live music events serve to provide considerable pleasure and social benefit without implication for policing or public safety. In a very small number of cases there is clear evidence of association of criminality with events or acts and that obviously needs to be dealt with as the intelligence and circumstances indicate, however, this is clearly the exception and not the norm.'
[Letter to Phil Little from Commander Paul Minton, Chief of Staff, Association of Chief Police Officers, received 13/01/2010
See: http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/ and follow the link]

On 21 January Phil Little wrote back asking whether or not the police will support the exemptions in the live music bill and the government's own consultation. A reply is expected soon.

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 01:13 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

46 Minor Variations. It could be the name of a monumental keyboard work by Beethoven or Bach.

But no. It is rather the best estimate to date of applications by venues to add or amend authorisations for live music using the supposedly cheap, simple, fast-track Minor Variations process introduced by the government on 29 July 2009.

Just to put this into some sort of context, the British Beer and Pub Association claimed last summer that 52 pubs were closing a week: http://www.beerandpub.com/newsList_detail.aspx?newsId=289   Even if the average were 30 closures per week, that would mean for every Minor Variation application for live music, about 17 potential pub venues are closing. And that assumes all 46 applications were for pubs - but they weren't.

The identities of more than half of the 46 applications are unknown, apparently. But the rest included 11 pubs, 3 restaurants, 2 hotels, one civic building, one 'club', one 'cafe', one public area and one skittle alley.

The latest Minor Variations lament was delivered today by Lord Davies of Oldham in a Written Answer to a question by Lord Clement-Jones (the Q&A has yet to be published on the Parliament website):

Lord Clement-Jones asked: Further to the Written Answer by Lord Davies of Oldham on 25 January (WA299), what are the types of venue of the six examples identified by the Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services that have had applications for live music under the Legislative Reform (Minor Variations to Premises Licences and Club Premises Certificates) Order 2009 granted; and which local authorities granted those applications. [HL1600]

Lord Davies replied:

We do not hold the information requested about the six examples referred to in my previous answer.

Since that answer was given on 25 January, however, more local authorities have responded to the request for information made by Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS). LACORS is now aware of approximately forty-six applications to add or amend authorisations for live music, of which three were refused. The figure is approximate because one local authority said it had granted 'a few' relevant applications.

We understand that the survey conducted by LACORS did not request the names of the authorities providing the information, and descriptions of premises type were not given in every case. The descriptions that were given were eleven pubs, three restaurants, two hotels, one civic building, one 'club', one cafe, one public area and one skittle alley.

LACORS' request for information was not intended to discover the details of each minor variations application, but to establish whether or not the new process is being used successfully to vary premises licences and club premises certificates (including the addition or amendment of authorisation for live music).

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 12:07 PM

http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/

This is our own Live Music Forum submission to the consultation sent on 5th February 2010:-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 12:13 PM

Councils should be given "total control" over setting licensing hours in their area, says a group representing local authorities in London.

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/85873?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 01:08 PM

http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66368&c=1


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 05:25 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill has reached the House of Commons where it has been picked up by Don Foster, Lib Dem spokesperson for Culture, Media and Sport.

Significantly, the bill also has Conservative front bench support from Ed Vaizey, Shadow minister for Culture and the Creative Industries.

Commons debate in the form of a 2nd reading is scheduled for 12 March, although there is competition for time with several other private members bills.

If enacted the bill would create exemptions from entertainment licensing for live music, but not dancing or recorded music, from a range of venues up to 200 capacity, including hospitals and schools. It would also partially reinstate the old 'two in a bar' exemption, permitting one or two musicians to perform anywhere unamplified or with minimal amplification. These measures would implement most of the all-party Culture Committee recommendations.

The bill is already supported by Equity, the Musicians Union, the National Campaign for the Arts, the original Live Music Forum (www.livemusicforum.co.uk), UK Music and The Publican (see their Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=141223114767&ref=mf ).

For the first time, however, the Incorporated Society of Musicians has added its weight to the campaign.

ISM Chief Executive Deborah Annetts said:

'With just weeks to go before the general election, MPs have the chance to free musicians from mountains of paperwork and allow live music to flourish. Performing in small venues is the first step in a musician's professional career but the current licensing regime is causing opportunities to dry up. This Bill has the support of politicians from all parties and musicians from all genres. We now call on the government to make time for this important piece of legislation and enable it to make a difference to music and musicians."
['Live music strangled by red tape', Lib Dem press release 09/02/10:
http://www.libdems.org.uk/press_releases_detail.aspx?title=Live_music_scene_strangled_by_red_tape_says_Lord_Clement-Jones&pPK=3e109ef6-86d5-436c-91df-bc71326d7cc1 ]

Whether the bill succeeds or fails is now down to the government. Lord Clement-Jones explains:

"My Bill is the only chance to change the law before the general election and breathe new life in to the live music scene. I challenge the Government to explain why they will not support it."

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 06:18 AM

The closing date for making responses to the consultation on Entertainment Facilities is 26 February 2009.

If you would like to respond to this consultation, please email your response to licensingconsultation@culture.gov.uk

If you prefer, you may submit a hard copy by post to:
Shelley Mickleburgh
Licensing Team
Sport and Leisure Directorate
2-4, Cockspur Street
London SW1Y 5DH


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Dennis the Elder
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 03:34 PM

Am I right in presuming the last post should read 26th February 2010


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 03:47 PM

Well perhaps you can ask the DCMS? As you will see from the following link - their document states 26 February 2009!!!!!

http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/consultations/091020PN_FACILITIES_clarification_condoc.pdf

In fact I dicn't notice. I just copy and pasted from their document.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 05:02 AM

The following from the consultation document:

The licensing objectives
1.4 The burdens imposed by the Act are justified by the need to prevent potential adverse impacts on the promotion of the four licensing objectives: the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm. The Government believes that the requirements of the Act in relation to entertainment facilities can be clarified and amended, as described below, without any adverse impact on the licensing objectives.

The current situation
1.5 The definition of regulated entertainment contains two elements: the provision of 'entertainment' and the provision of 'entertainment facilities'. The separate 'entertainment facilities' element is intended to address situations where people take part in entertainment that may not be provided solely for the purpose of entertaining an audience, but which may nevertheless present risks to the promotion of the licensing objectives. Examples may include the use of a dance floor, or some karaoke performances. As part of this, the provision of musical instruments (such as 'pub pianos') can be licensable (separate from a performance of live music) if they are to be used by customers to entertain themselves.

Proposal to clarify the exemption for incidental music
1.6 The Act provides for an exemption for performances of live music to the extent that they are incidental to some other activity which is not itself "entertainment" or "the provision of entertainment facilities". However, a broad interpretation of "entertainment facilities" can capture the provision of facilities even if they are intended to be, and are used solely for the provision of exempt incidental music. Such an interpretation limits the usefulness of that exemption, especially for venues that do not have a premises licence, or do not have authorisation for regulated entertainment on their licence, if they are providing the facilities necessary for the performance (such as the provision of a piano in an unlicensed cafe). In such a case, it would mean that they have to make an application to vary the terms of their licence (to add authorisation for entertainment facilities) or make a new application for a premises licence in order to provide exempt incidental music. The Government considers that this was not the intention of Parliament when it introduced the exemption for incidental performances of live music.

1.7 Discussions with musicians' representatives, the licensed trade, and local authority officers have revealed that the broad interpretation described above is not uncommon. We therefore feels that the issue requires clarification and propose to amend the Licensing Act 2003 by statutory instrument made under paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to state that entertainment facilities are not licensable if they are to be used solely for the provision of exempt incidental music.

Question 1: Do you agree that the Licensing Act 2003 should be amended to state that entertainment facilities are not licensable if they are to be used solely for the provision of exempt incidental music? Yes/ No
Please provide reasons for your answer, giving as much detail as possible.

Proposal to exclude the provision of musical instruments from the definition of entertainment facilities

1.8 To further clarify the law with regard to the provision of pianos and other instruments, the Government proposes to change the 'descriptions of entertainment' (at Schedule 1, paragraph 3(2)) by statutory instrument to exclude the provision of musical instruments. Performances of live music and the provision of facilities other than musical instruments will remain licensable. This will remove any doubt about whether a licence is required when musical instruments are made available by themselves. For clarity, this exemption will extend to items provided to enable a musical instrument to be played without amplification. This is intended to clarify that ancillary items such as music stands are also excluded from the definition of music facilities. The provision of other facilities, such as amplification, will remain licensable, as their provision may present risks to the licensing objectives. (For example, of public nuisance due to noise, or public safety in the case of a stage).

Question 2: Do you agree that the Licensing Act 2003 should be amended so that the provision of musical instruments and ancillary items is excluded from the definition of entertainment facilities? Yes/ No
Please provide reasons for your answer, giving as much detail as possible.

The benefits of the proposal
1.9 The proposed clarification will benefit, in particular premises such as pubs, cafes, restaurants and community venues that do not have authorisation for regulated entertainment, but who wish to provide incidental live music to their customers. It will, therefore, also benefit musicians who wish to perform and members of the public who wish to hear them. The exclusion of musical instruments from the definition of entertainment facilities may also benefit members of the public who wish to entertain themselves (for example, using a piano in a pub). There will be a small economic benefit in terms of reduced burdens, but we have not attempted to quantify this.

Implementation of the proposals
1.10 Subject to the outcome of this consultation, we propose to introduce the clarification by means of an affirmative statutory instrument as noted above. The draft instrument will be laid in Parliament and debated in both Houses. If Parliament approves the measure, the Minister can then bring the instrument into force.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 05:37 AM

A chance to ask Licensing Minister Gerry Sutcliffe some questions.

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/86007?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 01:13 PM

Lord Clement-Jones has tabled several Parliamentary Questions on the latest DCMS statistics http://tinyurl.com/yeq89bx


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: SunrayFC
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 01:26 PM

what a shambles!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: The Barden of England
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 04:41 PM

And - - - - -100


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 03:33 AM

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/86007?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n

I have sent the following question to the above:

Comment Date: 19/02/2010 08:29:03

Dear Mr Sutcliffe I take this opportunity to thank you for the 1st January 2010 letter to my MP, in which you state that: "The Government wants to encourage the growth of live music."

(a) Can you confirm that since your Government's introduction of the concept of Entertainment Facilities in the Licensing Act 2003, that currently any premises (or land) provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dance and on which this entertainment takes place, is a licensable Entertainment Facility and that nothing the Government has proposed can alter this?

(b) As Entertainment Facilities do not apply to anything provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in indoor pub sport but only to music and dancing - perhaps Mr Suttcliffe can explain why his Government have now chosen to discriminate against the public entertaining themselves in music and dance, especially in pubs and on what statistical basis the concept that this presents more concern to the Act's objectives than participatory pub games? Thank you


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 11:54 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Questions have been raised in Parliament about the latest DCMS live music statistics:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/minutes/100222/ldordpap.htm#qwa [search on page for 'Clement-Jones']

The questions came in response to a new DCMS report 'Changes in live music between 2005 and 2009' published on 28 January (link to PDF file 254kb):
http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/research/Increases_in_live_music_between_2005_and_2009.pdf

The report's headline claim is that 'Overall live music is thriving'. Although it acknowledges a fall in attendance at smaller venues, entertainment licensing is ruled out as a contributory factor.

There are apparently three reasons for DCMS optimism: the number of live music licences has increased; more adults are going to gigs; and a large increase in the number of professional musicians.

But doubts are growing about these claims.

Live music licences:
The Licensing Act 2003, not to be confused with copyright licensing, came into force on 24 November 2005. It extended the scope of entertainment licensing, capturing large categories of event and venue that did not previously require authorisation for live music. This included performances by one or two musicians in bars, private concerts raising money for good causes, and performances on public land. It is therefore not surprising that the new regime generated more licence applications. The government has already conceded that it does not know what proportion of the claimed 10% rise in live music licences between 2007 and 2009 is accounted for by premises or events that would not have needed a licence under the old regime.

Increase in adults attending live gigs:
The report suggests that over the period in question, based on the DCMS 'Taking Part' survey, there has been an increase of about 3% of those attending at least one live music event a year (excluding classical performances). But their analysis does not seem to take into account the appearance in 2007 of the O2 and Wembley Stadium venues. The series of 21 concerts given by Prince in 2007, for example, was attended by over 400,000 people. In the same year, nearly 500,000 attended concerts at Wembley Stadium. The combined attendance at these two venues in one year alone account for more than half the DCMS estimate of 1.64 million more adults going to gigs between 2005 and 2009.

Number of professional musicians:
The report claims that: 'In professional live music, the Creative and Cultural Skills Council counted 42,800 employed in live music performance in 2006, and 50,780 in 2008, a near 20% increase in employment over 2 years.'

But this is simply wrong. John King, co-founder of the Welwyn and Hatfield Live Music Forum, explained why in a comment posted yesterday beneath Music Week coverage about Lord Clement-Jones' questions:

'... DCMS 'statisticians' cherry-picked their live music sector employment statistics from a statistically unreliable survey - 'Music Impact and Footprint' published by the Creative Skills Council. The 50,780 'professional live music musicians' are nothing of the sort, and include 41% part-time musicians and a further 30% employed in ancillary activities (e.g. sound engineers, roadies). But – fatally for the DCMS's argument that this is evidence of a 'thriving' live music sector - this 20% increase in professional employment (even if true) actually relates to the period 2004 to 2006. It appears that DCMS civil servants have misled their own ministers. '

See: http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040108&c=1

Link to Creative & Cultural Skills Council research page (Links to their two reports under 'Sector', 'Music' 06-07 and 08-09):
http://www.ccskills.org.uk/Industrystrategies/Industryresearch/tabid/600/Default.aspx



The CCSC has confirmed that about 30% of the 'live performance' category within these reports represent people who are not musicians, but are in occupations associated with putting on live performance.

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: SunrayFC
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 11:59 AM

does anyone read this tosh?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 04:37 PM

St Albans is not known as a hotspot for crime, or weekend debauchery, or indeed of unlicensed cabbies. But there is no council in Britain which either pursues its responsibilities as seriously or is prepared to rack up expenses as boldly as St Albans City and District.

Read more about St Albans' new "Licensing Compliance Officers here:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/sebastianscotney/100006759/st-albans-creates-licensing-compliance-officers-just-what-we-nee


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 04:31 AM

The disturbing report into licensing in St Albans can be downloaded from;

http://www.musictank.co.uk/reports/licensing-act-2003-case-study-st-albans-district-council


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 10:01 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

St Albans made national headlines last week for insisting, on health and safety grounds, that runners should only be allowed to walk during the annual pancake race on Tuesday 16th February:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7250644/Health-and-safety-officers-ban-running-in-pancake-race.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251508/Health-safety-ruins-Shrove-Tuesday-pancake-race-contestants-disqualified-running.html

By an ironic coincidence, on that very day St Albans councillor Chris White was making a presentation to DCMS on behalf of the Local Government Association. An LGA spokesperson confirmed the presentation theme: 'the value of Culture, Tourism and Sport services in promoting and improving peoples health'.

Councillor White, who represents the LGA on licensing and is chair of the LGA Culture, Tourism and Sport Board, publicised this 'DCMS gig' on Twitter:

'Haircut and then off to DCMS for a joint presentation with the Permanent Secretary. Hence the haircut.' [12.43am Feb 16]
'Early for DCMS gig so a little jaunt to the National Gallery. :-)' [4.23am Feb 16]
See: http://twitter.com/chriswhite17 [scroll down]

The LGA is opposing entertainment licence exemptions for live music, even for hospitals and schools, on the grounds that these pose a threat to the wellbeing of local residents.   It is lobbying against the exemptions for live music proposed in Lord Clement-Jones live music bill, due for debate in the Commons on 12 March, and indeed the exemption in government's current consultation which would apply to gigs with an audience of up to 100 people.

St Albans came to public notice last year for the extraordinary range of restrictive licence conditions on live music in local bars:
http://www.musictank.co.uk/reports/licensing-act-2003-case-study-st-albans-district-council

On 2nd February this year councillor White announced the creation of two new licensing officer posts in St Albans:
http://chriswhite.mycouncillor.org.uk/2010/02/02/licensing-compliance-officers-to-help-reduce-crime-and-disorder/

Presumably their remit will include checking that St Albans bars comply with council licence restrictions on the number of musicians and indeed genres of music. Breach of such conditions, where they apply, is a potential criminal offence punishable by a fine up to £20,000 and six months in prison.

What is behind Councillor White's apparent passion for licensing? Daily Telegraph jazz writer Sebastian Scotney has a theory:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/sebastianscotney/100006759/st-albans-creates-licensing-compliance-officers-just-what-we-need/

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 05:25 AM

'Live music is, like anything else which is an attraction in licensed premises, potentially a public order problem,' he began. 'If you start from that point of view, then it becomes clear what you must do...'
(Chris White, Lib Dem councillor for St Albans, member of the Local Government Association Executive, and chair of the LGA Culture, Tourism and Sport Board)

That assumption, which is implicit in the Act itself, is at the root of the problem. Anyone who attends live music events knows that this is the exception rather than the rule - even the police have changed their tune. A better approach would have been to treat live music the same as recorded music or TV, and to deal with problems if they arise. Unfortunately we are stuck with what we've got. Guilty until proved innocent.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 06:10 AM

But even this statement of Mr White is inconsistent and prejudiced against live music.

For if every attraction in (already) licensed premises is a potential public order problem - why is it that only facilities provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing is a Licensable Entertainment facility which requies additional permission?

Where anything a pub may provide to enable the public to entertain themselves in indoor sports (like a pool table)is NOT a licensable Entertainment Facilty, even if when the activity itself, when provided to entertain an audience, is a performance of licensable Regulated Entertainment.

And where anything a pub may provide for the public to entertain themselves in quiz nights is not a licensable Entertainment Facility and the activity itself is not a performance of licensable Regulated Entertainment.

The last two examples present as much or as little public order concerns as live music in pubs but are viewed and treated quite differently.

Prior to the Licensing Act 2003, all of the problems presented to a thriving live music scene at root level were those presented by the local enforcement of additional Entertainment Licensing. An opportunity was missed to correct this and the current legislation just allows the same situation to continue.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 10:15 AM

Further progress for Lib Dem peer's Live Music Bill

http://prosoundnewseurope.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1546&Itemid=26


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 10:18 AM

Tories ramp up pressure on Government over live claims

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040139


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 09:41 AM

Live Music Lord gets answers

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040176&c=1


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 08:09 PM

Just a reminder that a submission to the consultation on Entertainment Facilities needs to be in by 26 February.

This is from my submission.

The introduction of Entertainment Facilities in this Act is like maintaining that the public still have a right of freedom of expression when restricting the means by which it is expressed.

The public are free to speak but denied the means to make themselves heard to a crowd by preventing them from having a platform or a PA system or permission to use the land they stand on.

In this case in order to express myself in music or dancing (but nothing else listed in Schedule 1) in a pub I not only need a third party's permission (which is perfectly sensible) but I need them to pay and apply for permission from the local Licensing Authority. If I play a part in organising this without this permission, along with the third party or licensee, I risk prosecution and face a maximum of £20,000 or six months in prison if found guilty.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 02:00 AM

Live Music Bill will create new opportunities says Live Music Forum founder Phil Little11:58 | Wednesday February 24, 2010

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=2&storycode=1040177&c=1


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 05:58 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

As a result of questions by Lord Clement-Jones (see full Q&A below), DCMS has made a small change to the wording of its latest report on live music 'Changes in live music 2005-2009'.

In the report DCMS suggested that 'overall live music is thriving', partly on the basis of their claim that there had been a large rise in the number of professional musicians:

'In professional live music, the Creative and Cultural Skills Council counted 42,800 live music musicians in 2006, and 50,780 in 2008, a near 20% increase in employment over 2 years.'

This has now been changed to:

'In professional live music, the Creative and Cultural Skills Council counted 42,800 employed in live music performance in 2006, and 50,780 in 2008, a near 20% increase in employment over 2 years.'
http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/research/Increases_in_live_music_between_2005_and_2009.pdf (see Appendix D then p6)

Notice the difference? 'live music musicians' has been changed to 'employed in live music performance'. The statement remains as misleading as ever.

Since DCMS first published the report on 28 January, it has emerged that the Creative & Cultural Skills Council figures were: a) from 2004 and 2006, not 2006 and 2008; b) 30% were not musicians; and c) about 40% were part-time, not professional.   The CCSC music research included no definition of 'professional musician':
http://www.ccskills.org.uk/Industrystrategies/Industryresearch/tabid/600/Default.aspx [Scroll down to Music, 06-07 and 08-09]

DCMS has also now conceded that they did not verify these figures with either the Musicians Union or the Incorporated Society of Musicians. They merely trawled the MU and ISM websites for publicly available data - and didn't find any.

This is what DCMS is pleased to call 'high quality' and 'robust' research.

Something very odd is going on here. DCMS is currently running a public consultation on a new entertainment licensing exemption for small gigs. But at the same time it publishes a report which, on the basis of misrepresented statistics, asserts that live music is thriving, and suggests that if there are some problems for small venues this is nothing to do with entertainment licensing. It is effectively arguing against its any new exemption. And their dodgy claims are being used by the Local Government Association to lobby against this exemption.

Madness.

List of Parliamentary Q&A on the DCMS report 'Changes in live music 2005-2009' (questions put by Lord Clement-Jones and answered on 23 February 2010 by Lord Davies of Oldham):

Q:... how the terms "professional musician" and "professional live music" were defined by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for its report Changes in live music 2005-2009, published on 28 January.[HL2061]

A: The terms "professional musician" and "professional live music" were intended to be synonymous with the definition of "employment in live music performance" used by the Creative and Cultural Skills Council. A minor clarification has been made to the article to reflect this.

Q: ... whether the Department for Culture, Media and Sport consulted the Musicians' Union and the Incorporated Society of Musicians on the numbers of professional musicians between 2005 and 2009 for its report Changes in live music 2005-2009, published on 28 January.[HL2062]

A: The department did not consult the Musicians' Union and the Incorporated Society of Musicians on the numbers of professional musicians between 2005 and 2009 for this report. However, the Musicians' Union website was searched for robust, publicly available employment statistics but none were found. The only data found meeting these criteria were hosted at the Creative and Cultural Skills website.

Q:... whether the Department for Culture, Media and Sport estimated the proportion of the total annual adult attendance at ticketed live music events accounted for by the O2 Arena and Wembley Stadium between 2007 and 2009 for its report Changes in live music 2005-2009.[HL2063]

A: The Changes in live music 2005-2009 report neither estimated nor reported published data on total adult attendance at ticketed live music events. The attendance data published in the report were taken from the Department for Culture, Media and Sports' Taking Part survey. This showed a significant increase between 2005-06 (when the survey started) and 2008-09 in both the proportion and number of adults in England who attended at least one live music event in the previous year. This included both ticketed and non-ticketed events.

Q:... what proportion of interviewees in the 2007 British Market Research Board survey of live music were responsible for their venue's licence conversion in 2005 and had a good knowledge of the Licensing Act 2003.[HL2064]

A: The 2007 Survey of Live Music did not ask whether respondents were directly responsible for licence conversion as the survey was about staging live music and not the process of converting the licence. Regarding knowledge of the Licensing Act, 43 per cent of respondents said that they knew a lot; 31 per cent said that they knew a little.

[HB comment: DCMS does not mention that 12% said that they did not know very much, and 13% said they knew hardly anything. Moreover, the BMRB authors themselves included several caveats (see para 1.4) including this one:

'The third caveat relates to the fact that a significant proportion of respondents had been in post for a short period of time and in some cases had limited knowledge of the policy and practice of the venue in relation to live music prior to them taking up their position. The lack of knowledge among some respondents about their venue history was evidenced in a relatively high proportion of 'Don't know' responses to certain questions, for example in relation to when venues had started or stopped putting on live music. While this means that the survey cannot always provide a robust and complete picture of live music provision in venues, it should be noted that the 2004 survey was subject to the same limitations and so this particular shortcoming should not impact on comparisons between the two surveys.' ]


Q:... what is the source of the Creative and Cultural Skills Council research that specifies the number of "live music musicians" in "professional live music" as reported on page 6 of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport report Changes in live music 2005-2009.[HL2065]

A: The source of the information on page 6 of the original Department for Culture, Media and Sport reportChanges in live music 2005-2009is taken from the Creative and Cultural Skills (CCS) studies of the industry carried out in 2006 and 2008. The research is available on the CCS website: http://ccskills.org.uk/Industrystrategies/Industryresearch/tabid/600/Default.aspx. A new version of the report has now been released that includes the source of the data.

Link to Q&A on Parliament website: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100223w0004.htm#10022368000777

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 06:21 PM

http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?storycode=66481

The following from the above.

Is the consultation for exemptions for small gigs an acknowledgement that the original legislation has hampered live music in pubs?

No. If you look at the facts we've actually increased the amount of live music that's taking place.


But not in pubs
...

Well in venues. Applications for live music has gone up.


So why are you having this consultation?

Because we have been asked to do that. We have said we are not complacent about things.

We had the Live Music Forum and the recommendations that came from that. We decided to have a look at what could be done. On the counter side to that you have LACORS and the local authorities who have got a view on effects on residents. And I really wanted to bring it to a head to make sure we get the right results.

The good news for me is these bodies are talking to each other so I hope we can move as quickly as we can to a licensing reform order, which will give us what people want which is an increased number.


How likely is it that you will extend the exemption to 200?

Well I stated in the debate that was the figure that was put to me. But one of the thing that has concerned me in this whole debate is there are declared views from all sides and then the finger pointed at government.I think what I need to do, but haven't done is brokered discussion between the chair of LACORS and the Musicians Union. The live music guys have come to me and said 200, everybody wants it, it's not an issue. But Lacors say it is an issue. They both agree they want to promote live music.

To me I want to get to the end of the consultation process and try to get the decision as soon as we can after that. The route we've taken with the licensing reform order means we don't get caught up with the general election.

So it will come in before the election?

No, I don't think it will necessarily come in before the election. If we have got the timescale right then it could do. But this process gives us the opportunity for it not to be lost. That's why I've called for all party agreement on this, if we can maintain that momentum then we can get it through.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 06:51 PM

On what evidence does Mr Sutcliffe base his belief that LACORS want to promote live music?

It has taken them 5 years to issue guidance on the incidental exemption and in which time the employees of local authorities have done a pretty good job of pretending that this exemption didn't exist.

We have a Minister for licensing, one for sport and now one for the few pubs that remain - perhaps one is needed for music?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 04:22 AM

Well in venues. Applications for live music has gone up.

Wonderful. It is a shame that no supplimentary questions were asked and as a result, Mr Sutcliffe has been given a chance to indulge in a blatant piece of election spin.

If the number of applications have increased, this would not be too surprising given that Mr Sutcliffe's Government have made it neccessary for practically all live music everywhere to make applications, have introduced a whole new temporary licence.

They have also introduced the concept of Entertainment Facilities which means that application needs to be made for anything (including the premises themselves) to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing.

But the number of applications is not an indication of any increase or decline in live music for many reasons but one is that the claim may or may not refer to all applications, and may include unsuccessful applications.

In pubs specifically, as small scale live music was exempt in many pubs, these would have needed to make applications (for the first time) just to keep the existing level of live music. A situation made worse as Mr Sutcliffe and Co would have us acept that their Licensing Act has increased the number of pubs with live music - when the pubs themselves are still closing at an alarming rate.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 02:22 PM

And of course even successful applications do not mean that the live music in question is free from illegal conditions being placed on it. As the following report will demonstrate.

http://www.musictank.co.uk/reports/licensing-act-2003-case-study-st-albans-district-council


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 07:28 AM

(3) The second condition is that the premises on which the entertainment is, or entertainment facilities are, provided are made available for the purpose, or for purposes which include the purpose, of enabling the entertainment concerned (whether of a description falling within paragraph 2(1) or paragraph 3(2)) to take place.

To the extent that the provision of entertainment facilities consists of making premises available, the premises are to be regarded for the purposes of this sub-paragraph as premises "on which" entertainment facilities are provided.


There semms little doubt from the above that any premises provided for the public to entertain themselves in music or dancing is a licensable Entertainment Facility and requires Entertainment Permission, in its own right.

So in all the pubs and other premisise with Entertainment Permisssion granted to enable them to stage performances of live music - this Regulated Entertainment and any associated Entertainment Facilities provided to enable this, are enabled by the conditions of the Premises Licence.

But anything provided in these premises to enable the pubilc to entertain themselves in music and dancing is now separately licensable as Entertainment Facilities and needs specific Entertainment Permission for this. Until this is applied for and does appear in the conditions of the Premise Licence - the public entertaining themselves with music and dancing in premises provided to enable it, is illegal.

The licensee and any one else who plays a part in 'organising' this are liable for prosecution.

The assumption has been that obtainng Entertaining Permission for conventional performances of live music would also cover the public entertaining themselves. I can't see that such an assumption is safe.

Council employees obscure this in practice as they make no distinction but include sessions where the public entertain themselves in music for their own enjoyment, as performances of licensable Regulated Entertainment.

The only upside to this approach, is that sessions (incorrectly) viewed to be performances of Regulated Entertainment and their associated Entertainment Facilities can then benefit from any exemptions.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 06:25 AM

100 not enough say Musicians Union.

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040220&c=1


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 07:49 PM

Don't Criminalise Live Music – Interview with Lord Tim Clement-Jones:

http://www.blueprint-blues.co.uk/dont-criminalise-live-music-interview-with-lord-tim-clement-jones


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 12:09 PM

Meanwhile the horror that is Form 696 continues.

London police have ordered DJs including Danny Rampling, John Kelly and Rocky from X Press 2 to hand over their personal details in order to play at a cancer charity fund-raising event taking place at Ministry Of Sound on January 31st.

http://www.trackitdown.net/news/show/103220.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 04:06 AM

http://ow.ly/16Io34

Licensing lawyer claims residents have too much power
4 March, 2010

By Matt Eley

Camden Council cited as example of making it too easy to complain about pubs.
The following from Hamish Birchall

The UK Statistics authority confirmed yesterday that they have asked DCMS for statistical evidence relating to claims made about live music by licensing minister Gerry Sutcliffe in The Publican magazine.

In a wide-ranging interview about the Licensing Act, published on 25 February, the minister was asked:

'Is the [DCMS] consultation for exemptions for small gigs an acknowledgement that the original legislation has hampered live music in pubs?'
The minister replied: 'No. If you look at the facts we've actually increased the amount of live music that's taking place.'


The Publican: 'But not in pubs.'

Minister: 'Well in venues. Applications for live music has gone up.'


http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66481

But DCMS has not measured actual gigs in pubs or anywhere else since the BMRB survey of 2007. Even the otherwise misleading DCMS report of 28 January 2010, 'Changes in live music 2005-2009' has no direct evidence and concedes:

'It is hard to say conclusively that the number of premises with a live music licence indicates more live music venues or more live music gigs...'

http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/research/Increases_in_live_music_between_2005_and_2009.pdf (see p2)

The minister's misleading claims were echoed in Parliament last Monday, 2nd March, by Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw, in an exchange with Conservative shadow licensing minister Ed Vaizey:

Mr. Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con): The Government are fond of saying that there has been an increase in live music since the Licensing Act came in. One reason for that is that the number of events that need to be licensed has increased, and another is the coming on stream of the O2 arena and Wembley stadium. Is the Minister aware that the UK Statistics Authority has said:

"The DCMS...and Press Office will be alerted to the possibility of misinterpretation and the need to exercise caution when quoting the figures"?

Can he confirm that the UK Statistics Authority has written to him in those terms and that he will exercise caution in using those figures in future?

Mr. Bradshaw: Unlike the Conservative party, we always take very seriously what the UK Statistics Authority says, and I shall do so. Certainly on the information we have, I do not think anyone challenges the fact that there has been significant growth in the amount of live music, but the hon. Gentleman is right to identify the fact that it has been concentrated in medium and larger-sized venues. Similar growth has not been seen in smaller venues, which is exactly why we are proposing to extend the exemption to them. Again, however, I am afraid I am still completely confused about the hon. Gentleman's policy. On the one hand, he told the Performers Alliance, at a reception at Parliament recently, that he supported Lord Clement-Jones's Bill; but on the other, the Conservative Local Government Association is vehemently opposed to any exemption for licensed premises.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100301/debtext/100301-0002.htm

In fact attendance at the O2 and Wembley Stadium account for most of the 'growth in live music' claimed by the Culture Secretary.

The Statistics Authority wrote to DCMS in December 2009 including this request specifically in relation to DCMS Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing statistics: 'The DCMS Minister and Press Office will be alerted to the possibility of misinterpretation and the need to exercise caution when quoting the figures.'

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 12:39 PM

Shambles, I agree that both the Act and the guidance notes are so unclear that they could mean virtually anything. However I do question your interpretation of some points.

So far as "entertainment facilities" include the premises, do you have any evidence that this means the whole premises? The Guidance Notes suggest that it is intended to mean things like the provision of a dance floor. It would be contrary to common sense (which the Guidance Notes say should be applied) for the premises to be licensable solely as an entertainment facility when they would otherwise not need to be licensed.

This is reinforced, to my mind, by the statement in the latest consultation:

1.9 The proposed clarification [exclusion of musical instruments from the definition of entertainment facilities] will benefit, in particular premises such as pubs, cafes, restaurants and community venues that do not have authorisation for regulated entertainment, but who wish to provide incidental live music to their customers. It will, therefore, also benefit musicians who wish to perform and members of the public who wish to hear them. The exclusion of musical instruments from the definition of entertainment facilities may also benefit members of the public who wish to entertain themselves (for example, using a piano in a pub).

Again, it would be contrary to common sense, and contrary to the intention of the proposed amendment, to exclude musical instruments from the defintion if the premises themselves still needed to be licensed as an entertainment facility.

It must also be read in conjunction with the guidance on incidental music, although again this is far from clear. However this suggests that in most cases a session should meet the criteria to be considered incidental music and therefore not licensable.

The whole thing is fogged with lack of clarity, and unfortunately individual authorities have too much power to interpret the law for themselves. However it seems to me that the clear intention of the latest proposed amendments is to allow members of the public to entertain themselves, and that this should not be obstructed by the need to licence, say, a pub piano. This suggests that the public entertaining themselves does not in itself require a license.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 01:01 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Concerns about recent DCMS live music statistics continue to be raised in Parliament.

Two new Written Questions have been tabled, this time by Lord Colwyn:

... to ask Her Majesty's Government, with regard to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport report Live Music: An Analysis of the Sector, of 28 January, (a) what is the definition of the term "professional musician", and (b) how many professional musicians are included in the total of "those employed in live music performance" in 2006 and 2008. [DCMS] HL2477

... to ask Her Majesty's Government what are the dates of the research sources for the numbers of professional musicians in 2006 and 2008 cited in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's report Live Music: An Analysis of the Sector under the heading "increases in those performing music—are there more musicians?". [DCMS] HL2478

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldcumlst.htm [search on page for 'Colwyn']

The questions, which should be answered within two weeks, follow yesterday's revelation that the UK Statistics Authority is now investigating DCMS live music statistics.

In the report cited by Lord Colwyn, DCMS claim that the number of professional musicians rose by 20% between 2006 and 2008:

http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/research/Increases_in_live_music_between_2005_and_2009.pdf [see p4]

However, it emerged last month that these figures, lifted by DCMS without verification from research published online by the Creative and Cultural Skills Council, included a large number of non-musicians and was sourced from 2004 and 2006. Link to CCSC music research:

http://www.ccskills.org.uk/Industrystrategies/Industryresearch/tabid/600/Default.aspx [see Music 06-07 and 08-09]

Phil Little's original Live Music Forum has published a comprehensive dissection of the DCMS live music claims by the Welwyn Hatfield Live Music Forum: http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/ [middle of home page]

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 01:57 PM

Howard, I agree with your first statement and that is really all that needs to be said. The fact that you and I may interpret these things differently is really inevitable for as you say, the Act and the S 182 Guidance could mean virtually anything. A point that the more legally trained among us have been saying since the first appearance of the Bill.

However it is important to remember that if there is a nitpicking something that can be used to obstruct the sensible treatment of all aspect of live music, my experience tells me that there will be some licensing employee who will advise that their failure to enforce it could result in the Licensing Authority facing a legal challenge. I think that you are possibly seeing these things in a more hopeful fashion than I can manage. But there is nothing stopping us from discussing our differences here and hopefully others will also chip in.

>So far as "entertainment facilities" include the premises, do you have any evidence that this means the whole premises?<

With so many words emanating from the DCMS, in the form of S 182 'statutory Guidance, Guidance on the incidental exemption and recently in all these consultation documents - the words that matter are those which still appear in the Licensing Act 2003.

(3) The second condition is that the premises on which the entertainment is, or entertainment facilities are, provided are made available for the purpose, or for purposes which include the purpose, of enabling the entertainment concerned (whether of a description falling within paragraph 2(1) or paragraph 3(2)) to take place.

To the extent that the provision of entertainment facilities consists of making premises available, the premises are to be regarded for the purposes of this sub-paragraph as premises "on which" entertainment facilities are provided.


Would you accept that the above words make it quite clear that Entertainment Facilities [as defined in the words of the Act below], consist of making premises available?

Entertainment facilities
3 (1) In this Schedule, "entertainment facilities" means facilities for enabling persons to take part in entertainment of a description falling within sub-paragraph (2) for the purpose, or for purposes which include the purpose, of being entertained.
(2) The descriptions of entertainment are—
(a) making music,
(b) dancing,
(c) entertainment of a similar description to that falling within paragraph (a) or (b).
(3) This paragraph is subject to Part 3 of this Schedule (interpretation).


Could you really argue, that a session is not a case of premises being made available to enable persons to entertain themselves in making music and dancing?

However this suggests that in most cases a session should meet the criteria to be considered incidental music and therefore not licensable.

Sessions, [as defined above] do not qualify for the incidental exemption as currently worded in the words of the Act [or as proposed], as they are not performances of live music or the playing of recorded music.

Music incidental to certain other activities
7 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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 02:26 PM

What you can do.

http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/lmfwhatyoucando.htm


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 01:45 PM

I've read Schedule 1 Part 1 Para 3 of the Act numerous times and I'm still baffled as to what is actually meant by "entertainment facilities". Indeed, I don't really understand the need for them to be licensed - if an entertainment facility such as a piano (for example) is used for performing music, then a licence is required because music is a regulated entertainment; if it is not used, or the music it is used for is not regulated (eg is incidental music) then why should it matter?

It would appear to be unnecessary for premises in general to be considered as an "entertainment facility", since any regulated entertainment must take place on premises of some kind. As the Act is so unclear I have turned to the Guidance Notes, which suggest (but again are not explicit) that "premises" means elements such as a dance floor. However the whole thing is so vague that nothing is clear, and it is impossible to tell what this clearly bonkers government had in mind when it passed the Act.

I think this is what the latest amendment is intended to correct. The consultation document clearly states that one of the reasons for removing musical instruments from the definition of "entertainment facilities" is to allow customers to entertain themselves using for example a pub piano - this can only mean that the act of entertaining themselves is not itself regulated entertainment, otherwise removing instruments from the definition would not achieve this aim. Likewise, if instruments are to be excluded but the premises themselves are considered to be "entertainment facilities" and thus licensable, this too would defeat the intention of the amendment.

The logical conclusion to be drawn from this is that customers can entertain themselves with music without needing a licence, and that if the amendment is passed they will be able to use musical instruments and similar items provided by the venue.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Dennis the Elder
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 03:34 PM

I hope your interpretation of the latest information is correct, Howard.
Being involved in Local Government, I know that the enforcers of the legislation would also like to know what the law means. Their life at the moment is very confusing, with many Local Authorities interpreting the Legislation differently.
Let's hope we all get clarification in the very near future.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 04:04 PM

Howard you have not answered the points I made with reference to the words of the Act.

I have come to the conclusion that the S 182 Guidance and the consultation document must be intentionally misleading in the examples being provided, this is not helping you trying to find logic where there simply is none.

There can be no doubt that Entertainment Facilties have some intent, otherwise the Act would not have been drafted the way it is.

The view that it is just a plan B to be used to catch again activities that are already licensable Regulated Entertainment is a possible explanation but not a likely one. So it must be to catch activities which are not licensable Regulated Entertainment. The DCMS explain the intention here.   

Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Proposal to clarify the definition of "entertainment facilities"

1.5 The definition of regulated entertainment contains two elements: the provision of 'entertainment' and the provision of 'entertainment facilities'.

The separate 'entertainment facilities' element is intended to address situations where people take part in entertainment that may not be provided solely for the purpose of entertaining an audience, but which may nevertheless present risks to the promotion of the licensing objectives.

Examples may include the use of a dance floor, or some karaoke performances. As part of this, the provision of musical instruments (such as 'pub pianos') can be licensable (separate from a performance of live music) if they are to be used by customers to entertain themselves.


The DCMS do not specify what performances of karaoke would require it to be caught as the provision of Entertainment Facilities. This is already licensable Regulated Entertainment as 'any playing of recorded music'. Despite what is implied in the consultation document, there is no further requirement in the words of the Act for Entertainment Facilities to be seen to present risks to the licensing objectives - they are automaticaly licensable if they are provided for the public to entertain themselves.

However, the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing is not a activity which is licensable Regulated Entertainment. So the only way our legislators could catch this is by making anything provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in (music and) dancing a licensable Entertainment Facility.

I think that the DMCS are being a little sly here. It seems pretty obvious that all the other things that are tangled-up and caught as Entertainment Facilities are simply a result of a clumsy attempt to ensure that the public could no longer be provided with premises or land on which they could quite legally entertain themselves in non amplified music made by themselves to enable themselves to dance.

Which most of would think that the public had every right right to do. There is nothing proposed in the consultation that will change this effect of the Act.

Entertainment Facilities discriminates against music and dancing. This is step too far and should be removed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 05:06 PM

http://www.licentiouslaw.co.uk/live-and-let-live-%E2%80%93-live-music-to-get-a-reprieve


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 05:36 PM

Shambles, you quote the DCMS on the wording as it stands. The latest consultation shows that there are at least two situations where they want to relax the existing rules - these are expressly referred to in S1.9 of the consultation which I quoted in my post of 05 Mar 10 - 12:39 PM .

The first situation is where a restaurant wants to provide incidental music (not itself regulated entertainment) but requires a licence because musical instruments, such as a piano, are provided. The second is where customers want to entertain themselves, for example using a pub piano. I think these are both examples, rather than being the only cases for exemption, but these are the ones actually mentioned.

The objectives referred to in S1.9 cannot be achieved if these activities remain licensable because the premises themselves are "entertainment facilities". The DCMS could have taken this opportunity to also remove "premises" from the definition. They have not done so. The only conclusion to be drawn from this is that the premises do not need to be licensed.

You may think that the DCMS is being sly, by offering an apparent concession which they don't really mean. However I think they would find themselves in a very difficult position if this came to court - having clearly stated what their objectives are they could not then try to undermine them.

The other, perhaps more likely, answer is that it is yet another cock-up by the DMCS, who don't seem to understand their own legislation. However I think the result is the same - a court would look at the intention, which is to free both incidental music and customers entertaining themselves from regulation.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 06:11 PM

The objectives referred to in S1.9 cannot be achieved if these activities remain licensable because the premises themselves are "entertainment facilities".

That is exactly my point. No matter how-well intentioned you may think the DCMS are the words of the Act remain what they are. What is proposed cannot happen unless the words of the Act regarding the provision of the premises are changed and this is not proposed. So the the whole thing is a nonsense.

The DCMS could have taken this opportunity to also remove "premises" from the definition. They have not done so. The only conclusion to be drawn from this is that the premises do not need to be licensed.

I am not sure that I agree that this is the only conclusion to be drawn.

The other, perhaps more likely, answer is that it is yet another cock-up by the DMCS

Not even the DCMS can simply wish the words of the Act to say something they would prefer it to say.

Would you accept that the above words (in the Act) make it quite clear that Entertainment Facilities [as defined in the words of the Act below], consist of making premises available?

Could you really argue, that a session is not a case of premises being made available to enable persons to entertain themselves in making music and dancing?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 07:25 PM

I'm b******d if I know. The more I read this the less I understand it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

The problem all along with this legislation are the claims that were made for it - in order to get it through. All sorts of assurances were given and still are, (especially for the music aspects) which the words of the Act could not support. The Lords did make an effort to address these aspect but our MPs in the Commons did a very poor job. I suspect that they understood it even less than you and I do any many of them were reassured by the claims rather than really examining if the claims could be supported in the words of the Act.

Things that are lauded as being all things to all people often turn out in practice to be of no real use to anyone.

The sh** has now hit the fan. The DCMS now have to explain to ministers and MPs what the real situation is but are not really prepare to admit the true scale of the situation. It was always going to be the case that the activities exempt under incidental exemption would have problems with the facilities provided to enable any entertainment consisting of music and dancing. Thus the playing of the piano is said to be exempt from being licensable Regulated Entertainment, as a performance of incidental live music but the provision of the piano is caught as an Entertainment Facility

The proposal to address this and change the words of the Act in this consultation cannot achieve the stated aim, unless the words of the Act which state that licensable Entertainment Facilities consist of the provision of premises to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing.

The DCMS rubbished claims that the Act would require Entertainment Permission to enable a postman whistling on their rounds to entertain themselves, however I'm not sure who was making such claims. But that would currently be the case - if they were provided with a whistle or if they were provided with a van or bike to enable them to do this......these are Entertainment Facilities?

The Act has introduced (under cover) in legislation that was thought to be about ensuring the public's concerns for conventional performances of paid entertainment, a means to prevent the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing. Which many of us would consider to be an essential human right of free expression, which other legislation should have ensured for us.

It was bad enough when the requirement for additional Entertainment Permission applied only to conventional performances of paid entertainment. Its extension to catch anything provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing, as Entertainment Facilities introduced for the first time in the Licensing Act 2003 is a step too far.

You could perhaps argue that the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing does present the same type of risks to the licensing objectives but the main problem with additional Entertainment Licensing is that those who enforce it tend only to concentrate on this side of things and not on the effect of this approach.

It has the effect of a aquarist who provided the same water conditions to all the fish in their collection - and who did this regardless of the consequences on the health of the fish. They may be able to present statistics to show a few very healthy fish - but this would not reflect the true situation.

In the past, Licensing Athorities could probably place pressure to pay and obtain the required licence, on a licensee who intended to profit from providing conventional paid entertainment, safe in the knowledge that they would comply.

The same approach taken where the premises were provided to enable customers to entertain themselves in music and dancing - would probably result in the licensee calling a halt to an activity, which has been part of our pubs for at least as long as the public entertaining themselves in darts and skittles.

But the provision of pool tables and (the few remaining) skittle alleys are not caught as Entertainment Facilities and are are not thought to be presenting any risk to the licensing objectives.

How many sessions and singarounds have been needlessly lost as result of this approach to additional Entertainment Licensing?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 07:38 AM

I think on reflection you're probably right. There's undoubtedly a problem in that the Act does not mean what the DCMS would like it to mean, and possibly not what Parliament intended it to mean.

To answer your final question, I get the impression that the impact on existing sessions and singarounds has been less than was originally feared, although there have undoubtedly been some casualties. Most venues which were already hosting these simply included them in their licence application, which they were obliged to make anyway. However it's undoubtedly an obstacle to setting up new ones - if the licensee has to go to a lot of time, trouble and expense to alter his licence to allow something which probably won't bring him significant financial benefit, he probably won't bother.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 08:05 AM

My point was less the effect on sessions by the Licensing Act only but the effect on sessions over many years by the requirement for additional Entertainment Licensing. Many had already been lost prior to the introduction of this Act. But should any be lost or placed at risk? We don't see licensing presenting any threat to indoor pub sports.......Are these thought to be of more value?

But we have established that anything provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing is now licensable and that this introduction of the Act is something quite new.

In the light of the fact that premises have to specify the exact nature of entertainment being provided to enable it to be covered - what is the situation in the premises which have permission for conventional paid performances of live music but which do not have permission for facilities provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing?

The assumption has been that sessions would be coverered in premises which already had permission for conventional paid performances of live music - but is this a safe assumption?

Would it work in reverse for example? Would permission obtained for the provision of facilities for the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing also cover the provision of conventional paid performances of live music? I suspect not.

The Act has in effect introduced a quite distinct new area, presenting risks to th licensing objectives This needs specific Entertainment Permission and which I suspect that few if any premises currently hold.

Where permission for Entertainment Facilities does exist, it would only be to cover the provision of facilities associated with the specific conventional paid performance of live music.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 09:18 AM

I find the whole concept of "providing entertainment facilities" very odd. The intention seems to be to bring participatory singing and dancing within the Act, which would otherwise not be regulated entertainment as it is not for the entertainment of an audience. So why not simply include these in the definition of regulated entertainment?

I'm also confused what is meant by "making premises available". The Guidance Notes explain that spontaneous music or dancing are not licensable because "the place where the entertainment takes place will not have been made available to those taking part for that purpose." However, unless the licensee immediately steps in to stop the singing or dancing, surely the premises have then been made available, if only by default? But since we are told spontaneous music and dancing are not licensable, why should the licensee step in to prevent it?

I'm coming to the conclusion that the parliamentary draughtsman must have been channelling Lewis Carroll when he drew up the legislation.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 10:31 AM

I'm coming to the conclusion that the parliamentary draughtsman must have been channelling Lewis Carroll when he drew up the legislation.

Curiouser and curioser indeed -

I find the whole concept of "providing entertainment facilities" very odd. The intention seems to be to bring participatory singing and dancing within the Act, which would otherwise not be regulated entertainment as it is not for the entertainment of an audience. So why not simply include these in the definition of regulated entertainment?

If it was done that way, the admission would have to be made that the Act introduced for the first time the concept of the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing as licensable. Which was possibly thought a bit too controvesial to openly admit.

Ministers were briefed to say that the Act did not make licensable any activity that was not already licensable under previous legislation. This was probably true, as far as it went but it quite intentionally disguised the fact that the Act introduced the concept of making licensable any facility provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing.

I'm also confused what is meant by "making premises available". The Guidance Notes explain that spontaneous music or dancing are not licensable because "the place where the entertainment takes place will not have been made available to those taking part for that purpose." However, unless the licensee immediately steps in to stop the singing or dancing, surely the premises have then been made available, if only by default? But since we are told spontaneous music and dancing are not licensable, why should the licensee step in to prevent it?

Again - it is probably not wise to place too much on what DCMS have placed in the S 182 Guidance. There is no specific exemption in the words of the Act for a performance of spontaneous live music so quite why this has a definition in the S 182 Guidance (when so much is left undefined) is not clear. They just keep on digging a hole of their own making, in the hope that no one will notice.

Of course it follows that the premises would have been made as much available for a peformance of spontaneous live music as they would be to enable the public to entertain themselves in any other form of music and dancing.

Spontaneous performances of live music are only not licensable on purely practical grounds, because the licensing process cannot deal with it until it occurs and it is too late when it is over. If the activity is repeated - exactly the same activity or anything provided to enable an entertainment consisting of music and dancing -becomes licensable whether paid conventional entertainment or not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 12:51 PM

Just for the fun of stirring the pot ... despite the government's protestations, I believe singing "Happy Birthday" may be illegal without a licence. My reasoning is that if people go out to celebrate someone's birthday, they probably intend to sing "Happy Birthday" at some point, so it cannot be spontaneous (even assuming, as Shambles points out, that spontaneous singing is really exempt).

It's not just music this government is out to get, they're planning to outlaw photography in public places and effectively take away your rights over your own photographs:

UK Government nationalises orphan photos and bans non-consensual photography in public


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 02:29 PM

It is not me but DCMS who maintain that performances of spontaneous live music are not licensable in the first place (as opposed to being licensable but exempt).

The activity itself may not be technically licensable but as any facilty provided for the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing is licensable as a Entertainment Facility - the effect is the same.

If you - (and 100,000 others) turned-up in field (with permission of the owner) and claimed that this was a performance of spontaneous live music - would the DCMS advise and more importantly, would the local Licensing Authority accept, "the place where the entertainment takes place will not have been made available to those taking part for that purpose?"

Anyone wish to try it this summer?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 03:23 PM

Sorry, I was trying to say that you were casting doubt on the DCMS's claim that spontaneous music is exempt. Re-reading what I wrote, that doesn't come across very well.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 09:14 AM

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=997%3Adcms-to-tackle-confusion-over-entertainmen

Launching a consultation last week, the DCMS proposes:

Excluding the provision of musical instruments from the definition of entertainment facilities in the 2003 Act, and
Clarifying that entertainment facilities are not separately licensable if they are used solely for the provision of incidental music.
There is a caveat to the exemption, however – anything that amplifies the music will still be licensed as an entertainment facility.


Grimsey said: "The reality is that even with the existing flaws in the legislation, most licensing authority enforcement officers have taken a common sense and practical view. This new consultation is an attempt by DMCS to restrict the few officials who do not take such a sensible approach, and in that respect it is partly successful."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Strange as it may seem, I am beginning to have some sympathy with all of those who are employed to enforce this legislation.

It simply is not possible for them to take a sensible approach - the words of the Act make this impossible.

But perhaps if they are placed in this position - they (through their associations and professional bodies) they should be the ones leading the calls for more sensible legislation?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 09:30 AM

.........so I need to get a licence to entertain myself?

If I don't enjoy my efforts, can I get my money back? 8-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Dennis the Elder
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 09:50 AM

Thank you for your sympathy, this is a pleasant change as normally we get all the blame and none of the credit.

As someone who has been involved, if somewhat obliquely, with enforcing this legislation, Enforcing Noise Legislation in Public Houses etc being one of my duties, I am learning much from this thread, I compliment all involved in this thread in particular "The Shambles" and Howard Jones on their vigulent contributions.


Some nuisance cases have recently been lost due to misinterpretations, this is expensive and obviously a cost to tax payers. In each case the enforcement officer felt they were acting correctly. We all need to know what we should be doing!!

The majority of enforcement officers do not instruct that legal proceedings should be taken without a great deal of deliberation and "consideration" for all parties involved.

I continually look for leadership from our associations and professional bodies, but at this moment in time they are lagging behind this thread.

If I am successful and obtain advice I will certainly post what I can within this thread.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 11:09 AM

Thank you Dennis. You probably do have to know quite how badly I have been treated by the employees of my local Licensing Authority to appreciate the fact that I can still accept that even they do honestly feel they are doing the best they can, in difficult circumstances. But that is another long and even more tedious story.

However, it is sad and not very helpful that we seem to be so firmly on opposite sides.

However, the report linked to here is, I suspect not an isolated situation.

http://www.musictank.co.uk/reports/licensing-act-2003-case-study-st-albans-district-council

What disturbs me about this report is that although most if not all of the questionable licensing conditions detailed, are probably not directly imposed by the Licensing Authority, no one seems to be prepared to take responsibilty for these conditions appearing as legally binding in Premises Licenses.

The fact that a licensee or pubco may self limit their applications does not mean that the Licensing Authority should not accept full resonsibility for imposing conditions they know to be both damaging to live music and possibly illegal.

The argument used that the Licensing Authority may not have technically imposed these conditions in the licenses, is not really one which refelts much credit on this authority's employees or on their professional body.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 11:17 AM

This survey identified 85 pubs in the St Albans District with live music authorisation, and of those:

• 30 have restrictions on the number of musicians who can perform
(35% of pubs)

• 45 pubs have restriction on the regularity or frequency of musical performances (53% of pubs)

• 4 have a restriction on the genres of music which can be performed

• 1 pub has to display a suitable and conspicuous notice advising the residents of forthcoming live music events.

• 1 pub has a restriction on indoors Morris Dancing


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 12:06 PM

http://www.popall.co.uk/LicensingApplications/itisimpossibletopleaseeveryoneallthetime.asp

The application to vary the premises licence of the Albert Hall to add boxing, wrestling, late night refreshment and an extension of hours at the beginning of the day should have been reasonably straightforward. The Albert Hall has been a significant venue for boxing and the staging of premier events in the past.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 12:13 PM

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/5048346.St_Albans_District_Council___We_are_not_killjoys_/

THE district council has responded to a barrage of criticism of its two new "licensing compliance officers" by denying they are killjoys cracking down on live music.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 02:17 PM

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040220&c=1

10:13 | Monday March 1, 2010

The Musicians' Union has become the latest organisation to reply to the Government's consultation on live music venues by slating the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's proposals to limit exemption to events with attendance of just 100 people.


The MU has urged the DCMS to clarify a perceived ambiguity in the draft order about the performance of live music and making available "entertainment facilities" such as a piano.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 06:35 PM

Small Gigs Exemption Consultation

The implementation of the small gigs exemption may depend, to an extent, on the Public Consultation and we all have a right to respond to it.

The closing date for submissions is 26th March 2010 and it is important that as many live music fans let their opinion be known.

It is also vital that professional organisations such as Schools, Music Teachers, Choirs, Charities, Shops, Entertainment Agents, Pubs and Brewers submit their own responses to the Consultation. You may be able to think of more, in any case, please urge all your contacts to respond and pass on the word.

The Consultation document can be found at,

http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/consultations/6499.aspx

The email address given for submissions is,licensingconsultation@culture.gsi.gov.uk


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 05:30 AM

http://www.southsomerset.gov.uk/media/pdf/2/l/GN4._Club_Premises_.pdf

The above is an example of how many different interpretations of the words of the same legislation are being advised and more importantly, enforced.

The examples provided here for what is called 'Incidental Entertainment' are really interesting.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 02:12 PM

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040357&c=1

12:04 | Wednesday March 10, 2010
By Robert Ashton
The Second Reading of Lord Clement-Jones Live Music Bill is due to take place in the House of Commons this Friday.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 02:30 PM

I have finally had a reply from DCMS - It is all now made perfectly clear.............Except what is the current position or what would the position be, should the proposal be accepted for where the premises are provided for the public to entertain themselves in music - when no instruments are provided. Would this be a licensable Entertainment Facility?

You asked for confirmation that the Licensing Act 2003 (the Act) says that "any premises (or land) provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dance and on which this entertainment takes place, is a licensable Entertainment Facility."

It is not the case that the Act says that any premises or land provided in this way qualifies as an entertainment facility. In fact, the Act is clear that this is not always or necessarily the case. However, as you correctly observe, the Act does allow for the possibility that premises or land may be an entertainment facility.

Legislation often demands the use of common sense in its interpretation. In the kind of case with which the consultation is concerned, the provision of facilities for performances of exempt incidental music and the provision of instruments (such as a pub piano), it would be artificial to say that the pub (or the bar area where the piano is situated) is a separate facility (in addition to the piano itself) "for enabling persons to take part" in making music on the piano.

The customers' ability to use the piano would be exactly the same if it were placed anywhere else, so the room or bar area does not contribute anything. Nothing would be achieved in terms of the policy aims of the Act (the promotion of the licensing objectives) by counting the room or bar area as a distinct facility in a case such as this.

On the other hand, a room which has a dance floor as its main or sole feature could quite easily be seen as a separate facility in this sense. In that case, to distinguish the dance floor from the room might be artificial.

It should be noted that the draft clarification proposed in the consultation would prevent any suggestion that the premises or land might be separately licensable as an entertainment facility in relation to facilities for incidental music and the provision of instruments.

In the case of incidental music, the draft clarification applies to any "facilities". In the case of musical instruments, the clarification applies to "anything to be used to enable a musical instrument to be played". This would therefore apply to, for example, a bar area, if it were suggested that this enabled the playing of the musical instrument.

Thank you again for your helpful contribution to the consultation, which has now closed. All responses will be considered, and we expect that Ministers will be in a position to announce their response in the near future.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 07:27 PM

Amendment of Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003
2. After paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003, add—
"Entertainment facilities
19 The following are not be regarded as the provision of entertainment facilities within the meaning of this Schedule—
(a) the provision of a musical instrument, or anything to be used to enable a musical instrument to be played without amplification;
(b) the provision of facilities solely for the purpose of a performance of live music of the kind described in paragraph 7 of this Schedule.".


This shows that the provision of entertainment facilities is not linked to the provision of musical instruments. Part (b) would permit the provision of a room for incidental music whether or not an instrument were provided.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 07:57 PM

Where exactly is this propsed amendment from Howard?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 08:06 PM

The following is the proposal from the DCMS consultation document.

Chapter 1: Proposal to clarify the definition of 'entertainment facilities'

Summary of proposals
1.1 The consultation document seeks your views on a proposal to:
• exclude the provision of musical instruments from the definition of entertainment facilities in the Licensing Act 2003 (the Act) schedule 1, section 3 (see extracts from the Act at Annex B); and
• clarify that entertainment facilities are not separately licensable if they are used solely for the provision of incidental music (as described by schedule 1 section 7).

1.2 The proposal would encourage the use of the existing exemption for incidental music. Performances of live music which meet the conditions in paragraph 1(2) and (3) of Schedule 1 to the 2003 Act would remain licensable if they:
• are for purposes that include the purpose of entertaining an audience and take place in the presence of an audience;
• do not benefit from the exemption for music that is incidental to other activities; and
• do not fall within any other exemption in Schedule 1.

1.3 The proposal would also ensure that the provision of musical instruments (such as a piano made available to members of the public to entertain themselves) is excluded from the definition of regulated entertainment. For clarity, this exemption will extend to items provided to enable a musical instrument to be played without amplification. This is intended to clarify that ancillary items such as music stands are also excluded from the definition of entertainment facilities.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 08:21 PM

This shows that the provision of entertainment facilities is not linked to the provision of musical instruments. Part (b) would permit the provision of a room for incidental music whether or not an instrument were provided.

But only for a performance of incidental live music or the playing of recorded music. The following is the existing Para 7.

Music incidental to certain other activities
7 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.

Anything (including the premise or land) provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing - an activity which is not licensable itself as Regulated Entertainment, as a PERFORMANCE of live music or the playing of recorded music, cannot qualify for this exemption and as a result, is still caught as Entertainment Facilities.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 02:48 AM

http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66575

Have your say on government's live music plans
10 March, 2010
By James Wilmore
Licensees have until March 26 to respond to DCMS consultation


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 04:25 AM

Shambles, I not sure I follow the final paragraph of your post of 10 Mar 10 - 08:21 PM.

Where the public are entertaining themselves then this could be considered "incidental music", since it is not for the purpose of entertaining an audience or attracting customers, and for many customers would be something going on in the background. Unfortunately the definition of "incidental music" in the Act and Guidance Notes is typically woolly, and we are left to rely on "common sense", which experience shows is in short supply.

Where it is a "performance" then it should be exempted under the proposed small gigs amendment.

All this assumes both amendments actually go through.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 05:13 AM

Where the public are entertaining themselves then this could be considered "incidental music", since it is not for the purpose of entertaining an audience or attracting customers, and for many customers would be something going on in the background.

It cannot be considered to be a 'performance of live music', which is what the exemption is worded for.

The only things re live music, that qualify for current exemptions and the changes proposed to make the incidental exemption work - must first be licensable as the provision of a activity which is a performance of live music and thus licensenable as Regulated Entertainment, this does (or will then) include any associated facilties provided for this.

Anything provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music which is not the provision of an activity which is a performance of live music - will remain licensable as a Entertainment Facilty.

The proposed small gigs exemption will not be of any use unless it is worded to include the public entertaining themselves live music which is not performance.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 10:09 AM

Ooops!

The exemption for a performance of live music that is incidental etc. is in no a way limited to non-amplified performances (according to the latest LACORS guidance on this.

However any associated Entertainment Facilities that are provided to enable it - cannot be amplified. The provision of a PA for example or an amplified instrument is not being exempted is it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 01:52 PM

The other side of the same exemption permits the playing of recorded music - all of which of course must be amplified.

If this were not so serious - it would be funny.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 07:40 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill, which if enacted would exempt most small gigs from entertainment licensing red tape, is listed for 2nd reading debate today in the House of Commons.

The bill is backed by UK Music, Equity, the Incorporated Society of Musicians, the original Live Music Forum (www.livemusicforum.co.uk), the Musicians Union, and the National Campaign for the Arts.

However, at 14th in the list of private members bills it is unlikely to get any Parliamentary time and will almost certainly fail.

Lib Dem shadow culture secretary Don Foster said:


'The bill represents a great opportunity to repair the damage done to live music by Labour's licensing rules. I am disappointed the government have refused to support it, despite their slowly coming to accept that they have got it wrong. The minor change suggested in their consultation [an exemption for gigs with an audience up to 100] does not go anywhere near far enough, and bureaucracy will continue to strangle live music provision unless our ideas are put into action. When the government consultation reports and the election is complete, we will assess how best to take the contents of the Bill forward.'

Needless to say a lot depends on the outcome of the general election, which must be held by the end of May. The Conservatives have already backed the 200-capacity venue exemption recommended by the All Party Culture, Media and Sport Committee last year.

Labour has promised to consider a 200-capacity exemption, but only if 'an overwhelming majority' backs this in the current DCMS consultation: http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/consultations/6499.aspx

The deadline for responses is 26th March.

On 1st March, Music Week reported that DCMS had already received over 100 responses and that those by the Musicians Union and the Live Music Forum had slated the government's 100-capacity proposal as too small:
http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040220&c=1

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 11:46 AM

It was like pulling teeth but the DCMS have finally replied as follows. However, as you correctly observe, the Act does allow for the possibility that premises or land may be an entertainment facility.

Leaving aside the fact that no one really knows when the premises or land may or may be claimed to be provide as a licensable Entertainment facility - I wonder why this rather important fact receives little attention in the S 182 Guidance and does not appear with the other examples provided?

This is the worst example of bad legislation as it provides no protection at all for the public, like so much else in this legislation. If those who are paid to enforce it - wish to claim that the premises are a provided Entertainment Facility, they can. And if they don't (or don't need to as there are already so many other ways of making an activity licensable) they can ignore the legislation's requirement.   

In answer to the following question (which I thought was fairly easy one) I received a (short) answer that I still do not understand.

However, I would be very grateful if you could answer for me, what is the obvious question after reading your comments: The following situation is one that is far more common than one where any instruments were provided. What is the situation currently and what would be the case should the proposal be accepted - where no instruments were being provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music but there is no question that the premises are being provided, on a regular basis for this purpose - would the premises be Entertainment Facilities, require specific Entertainment Permission and be illegal without this?

The short answer to your last question is, as we have previously said, that it depends on the nature of the premises and whether it is meaningful to regard them as "facilities" that are being provided for making music or dancing. Whether the premises themselves have anything to do with enabling the music or dancing to occur in any distinctive way is obviously relevant to this.
We covered the point with the example of the piano in the bar versus the specially-designed dance floor that occupies most or all of a room.

In the first case the thing claimed to be a
separate "facility" adds nothing to the making of the music, apart from the mere presence of the piano and the participants.

In the second, the room is specifically set up to enable dancing to take place and so does add something to enabling the activity itself to take place. Whether the alleged facility is provided on a regular basis or not does not seem to us to be relevant. It is the nature of the thing itself, not how often it is provided, that determines whether it is an "entertainment facility" or not. Schedule 1 does not contain anything that allows one to characterise (or decline to characterise) something as an entertainment facility on the basis of how frequently it is used. The Guidance does not contradict this.


The last point seems to bring us back to the S 182 Guidance, where it is claimed that the premises are not being provided for 'spontaneous' music. But as the S 182 Guidance iteslf states - Licensing Authorities can ignore it................


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 02:33 PM

I think the provision of premises to enable the public to dance on the walls or the ceiling or the provision of a building with no floor at all, is safe - well safe from being a provided licensable Entertainment Facility.

Or is it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 03:16 AM

In the second, the room is specifically set up to enable dancing to take place and so does add something to enabling the activity itself to take place. Whether the alleged facility is provided on a regular basis or not does not seem to us to be relevant. It is the nature of the thing itself, not how often it is provided, that determines whether it is an "entertainment facility" or not. Schedule 1 does not contain anything that allows one to characterise (or decline to characterise) something as an entertainment facility on the basis of how frequently it is used. The Guidance does not contradict this.

As it is exempt when taking place inside or out, any performance of Morris dancing taking place on the floor of a premises is an activity that is exempt, along with any associated Entertainment facilities that are provided to enable it. But any other dancing taking place on the same floor would need licensing as this would be then be considered to be provided for the purposes of the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing.

It is unclear when a provided floor become a dance floor? The pretty obvious answer is when the public are dancing on it. Although spontaneous music and dancing is said, in the S 182 Guidance, not to be licensable.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 05:47 AM

A performance of stand-up comedy is not a licensable activity. Rightly or wrongly, The incidental exemption is supposed to make exempt any facilities provided to enable it even when live nusic is used as part of this performance. Although I am not sure I follow the logic being used here.

However even if the proposed changes to the incidental exemption are accepted, the provision of an amplified instrument or PA to such an activity - would still need licensing as the provision of an Entertainment Facilty.

Not too sure about the provision of floor though?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 09:30 AM

However even if the proposed changes to the incidental exemption are accepted, the provision of an amplified instrument or PA to such an activity - would still need licensing as the provision of an Entertainment Facilty.

Not according to the DCMS (see the last para of the following).

I am able to reassure you that it is not currently the case that "any facility provided (including the floor but with the possible exemption of the premises themselves) to enable the 'playing of recorded music' constitutes the provision of entertainiment facilities".

Nor will the proposed Statutory Instrument make such 'facilities' licensable. In most circumstances, the mechanisms for the transmission of recorded music are and would remain entirely outside the definition of entertainment facilities. The definition refers to facilities for enabling persons to take part in 'making music' and 'dancing'. It does not otherwise include the playing of recorded music.

There may nevertheless be circumstances when the making of music involves recorded music. Karaoke might be an example. It is the intention of the Act that the provision of facilties to enable people to take part in (electronically amplified) karaoke is licensable, and it will remain licensable under the current proposals.

However, the current proposal would clarify that anything (including amplification and amplified instruments) provided to enable incidental music is not licensable.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 09:37 AM

The following from the DCMS own consultation document would seem to make it clear that only a musical instrument provided without any means of amplification is excluded by the proposals.

1.3 The proposal would also ensure that the provision of musical instruments (such as a piano made available to members of the public to entertain themselves) is excluded from the definition of regulated entertainment. For clarity, this exemption will extend to items provided to enable a musical instrument to be played without amplification. This is intended to clarify that ancillary items such as music stands are also excluded from the definition of entertainment facilities.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 10:34 AM

Amendment of Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003
2. After paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003, add—
"Entertainment facilities
19 The following are not be regarded as the provision of entertainment facilities within the meaning of this Schedule—
(a) the provision of a musical instrument, or anything to be used to enable a musical instrument to be played without amplification;
(b) the provision of facilities solely for the purpose of a performance of live music of the kind described in paragraph 7 of this Schedule.".


The above is what is proposed. It would seem clear to me that the provision of any amplified instrument or any amplification would still be regarded as Entertainment Facilities. If the intention is really to exempt the provision of all instruments and amplification from being Entertainment Facilities - there is a clearer way of expressing this - possibly without any mention of the the words 'without amplification'.

It would be easier if Entertainment Facilties were simply removed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 06:20 AM

I am concerned that what is proposed in the draft does not appear to exempt any associated Entertainment Facilities and will only apply to the provison of performances of live music and not to the provision of facilties to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing.

"Live music in certain small venues

7A (1) The provision of entertainment consisting of a performance of live music is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act if the conditions in sub-paragraph (2) are satisfied in respect of the performance.

(2) The conditions are that-

(a) the performance takes place wholly inside a building;

(b) the performance takes place in the presence of an audience of not more than 100 persons, all of whom are accommodated wholly inside the building where the performance takes place;

(c) no part of the performance takes place between 11pm and 8am;

(d) the performance does not take place on premises in respect of which an exclusion decision under Part 2A of this Schedule has effect."

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 06:58 AM

The provision of facilities for incidental music will be excluded by the proposed Schedule 1 (19)(b). However this depends on the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing being seen as "incidental music". From various comments, that seems to be the DCMS's intention, but it's not explicit in the Act and is not very clear from the guidance notes. We're left to rely on "common sense".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 12:06 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

Rumours of the death of Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill were, it seems, exaggerated.

Although not debated in the House of Commons last Friday, a new date has been set for 2nd reading: Friday 26th March.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100312/debtext/100312-0011.htm

Lib Dem MP Normal Lamb announced the new date, although for some reason Hansard does not record his name. For even stranger reasons, Hansard does not record who shouted 'Object' to this and five other private members bills. One of quirks of the mother of democracies is that while individual Parliamentarians may originate bills, other individuals may scupper them with one word. No wonder why, for many, Parliament has become something of a farce.

The House of Commons is not sitting on 26th March, but Mr Lamb's announcement means that the bill remains live until the general election is called. Put another way, the ball is in the government's court. They could make time for the bill before the election. That is, they could make time if they were sincere about wanting to act 'very quickly' to introduce an entertainment licensing exemption for small gigs, as licensing minister Gerry Sutcliffe told BBC You & Yours almost five months ago:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/items/06/2009_42_thu.shtml

Friday 26th March happens also to be the closing date for the DCMS public consultation on a new small gigs exemption:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/consultations/6499.aspx

Ministers will know by then whether or not the majority of responses back a 200-capacity exemption, like the one in Lord Clement-Jones' bill and recommended by the All Party Culture, Media and Sport Committee last year. Both the Musicians Union and the Live Music Forum have already criticised the consultation's proposed 100-capacity exemption as too small to be of much use.

By 26th March the government runs out of excuses for any further delay.

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 12:27 PM

The provision of facilities for incidental music will be excluded by the proposed Schedule 1 (19)(b).

Yes and in the other proposal the public will be able to be provided with non-amplified instruments to enable them to entertain themselves in music and dancing, which is not performance to an audience.

However this depends on the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing being seen as "incidental music". From various comments, that seems to be the DCMS's intention, but it's not explicit in the Act and is not very clear from the guidance notes. We're left to rely on "common sense".

Common sense would tell us that only performances to an audience can qualify for any exemptions which are specifically worded as being for performances to an audience.

The only proposal which applies to the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing is to allow them to be provided with non amplified instruments, without these being licensable as Entertainment Facilities.

The tweak to the incidental exemption will make little difference as this exemption has been part of the original Act. It has proved in practice to be of little use and many Licensing Authorities, including mine, whilst insisting that participatory sessions are licensable as performances to an audience, currently do not accept that the incidental exemption can be used.

So what hope is there for sessions affected by licensing, in any of what is proposed, without some way of ensuring that Licensing Authorities comply with what has always been available to them?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 12:45 PM

The tweak to also exempt facilites provided for exempt performances of live music is needed as the current words only exempt the activity itself. However, even in its new form, it is too little and too late and unlikely to make any difference now. Had our licensing enforcers a different culture to the one that had already caused most of the problems - this exemption could, without costs and red tape, have encouraged all sorts of live music in all sorts of premises.

Music incidental to certain other activities
7 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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 12:49 PM

I'm sure that somewhere in all the recent stuff that's been quoted the DCMS has specifically said that the public entertaining themselves should be considered incidental music.

Sessions are usually not provided, even partly, for entertaining an audience, which is one of the requirements for "regulated entertainment". On the contrary, an audience is usually unwelcome since they take up space which would otherwise be occupied by musicians - that's the situation at my regular local session, anyway, although we're not rude enough to tell them that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 03:33 PM

Sessions are usually not provided, even partly, for entertaining an audience, which is one of the requirements for "regulated entertainment". On the contrary, an audience is usually unwelcome since they take up space which would otherwise be occupied by musicians - that's the situation at my regular local session, anyway, although we're not rude enough to tell them that.

I couldn't agree more but I have been trying to explain this to my local Licensing Authority for the last ten years - perhaps you could persuade them?

The Licensing Manager
Weymouth and Portland Borough Council
North Quay
Weymouth
Dorset
DT4 8TA
www.weymouth.gov.uk


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

I'm sure that somewhere in all the recent stuff that's been quoted the DCMS has specifically said that the public entertaining themselves should be considered incidental music

This is the latest Guidance on what performances are exempt under this. Not sure that it helps much.......

http://www.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk/downloads/Item6_App2_3_.pdf

It contains the following gem:
The music is likely to be licensable if those present at the premises are arranged as an audience, compared to customers seated as diners, for example.

And the following is an example of an activity which is licencable: Pub promotes sing-along event with pianist
(or other single instrument)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 04:37 PM

I think we have to accept that part of our problem is that DCMS do not have the slightest idea of what sessions, open mics and singarounds are but they have a real obsession with ensuring that karaoke is caught.

The provision of performance of the activity itself is already licensable Regulated Entertainment but they appear to want to prevent unlicensed karaoke at any cost. So to make doubly sure, any facility provided to enable karaoke is also licensable as Entertainment Facilities.

I am quite sure that the legislation could be drafted in such a way as to ensure that the specific activities DCMS are concerned about can be licensable, without making licensable, as Entertainment Facilities, the provision of any faciltiy to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 04:41 PM

On the contrary, I think the new guidance seems very helpful, and certainly a lot better than the previous guidance. From our point of view, it's a pity that folk sessions aren't explicitly mentioned, but on the other hand they vary so much that they could fall into either category depending on how they're run and whether or not they're advertised.

You picked out "Pub promotes sing-along event with pianist". However that is clearly being promoted as an event which will attract customers specifically for the purpose of attending the sing-along, and so is not incidental music. Where a pianist is simply playing background music, without it being promoted and with the audience free to listen or ignore him as they choose, that is incidental music.

What the difference is in practical terms, or in terms of achieving the licensing objectives, is unclear to me. It appears that two very similar events could fall into one category or the other due to quite small differences, but at least these differences are now a little bit clearer.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 05:20 PM

You picked out "Pub promotes sing-along event with pianist". However that is clearly being promoted as an event which will attract customers specifically for the purpose of attending the sing-along, and so is not incidental music. Where a pianist is simply playing background music, without it being promoted and with the audience free to listen or ignore him as they choose, that is incidental music.

I picked this out as it was the nearest to what my Licensing Authority would claim that a session was. They do actually still advise that any form of advertising would make a session licensable and not eligible for the incidental exemption.

However, the point you make about the licensing objectives is a good one. Should an event be licensable, by an advert stating the performer's name - when an advert which does not is exempt? The event could be pretty much the same event and be presenting the same risks to the licensing objectives. But being involved in organising one of them could get you a £20,000 fine or 6 months in prison!!!

The Guidance is full of such subjective judgements which place our licensing officers in really difficult positions and which give very little protection to the public.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 07:07 PM

Most sessions in my experience are not "promoted" by the landlord. "Promoted" usually means someone has arranged the event, booked the performers, etc. In most cases sessions are merely permitted by the landlord and advertised by word of mouth, and more between musicians than potential audience.

If the landlord simply advertises "folk music here tonight" then under the new guidance that should be OK. However if he advertises a named performer then it's regulated entertainment.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 04:04 AM

If the landlord simply advertises "folk music here tonight" then under the new guidance that should be OK. However if he advertises a named performer then it's regulated entertainment.

But what sense is there in this? How can the words of a advert change the risks presented to the licensing objectives?

The so-called 'new' Guidance was issued in November 2009 - My lot still will not accept that their advice needs to change at all and see no hurry to even discuss it. They will be looking at it in May 2010 - as part of the three-yearly general review of the Statement of Licensing Policy but this is a requirement of the Act and has nothing to do with the Guidance. As there is currently nothing in the SOLP which supports the officer's advice - such a review is unlikely to change the situation anyway.

But the Guidance does not make it clear that the exemption only applies to the performance of live music and to the playing of recorded music. The situation where the public are provided with licensable Entertainment facilities, in the form of premises, to enable them to entertain themselves in music and dancing is unchanged.

I can see nothing in the Guidance that would make my lot change their advice and it is only Guidance remember.

But if you think you could change their advice - I would be most greateful if you could please contact them and try.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 06:55 AM

"If the landlord simply advertises "folk music here tonight" then under the new guidance that should be OK. However if he advertises a named performer then it's regulated entertainment.

But what sense is there in this? How can the words of a advert change the risks presented to the licensing objectives?"

I agree it's nonsense, but at least under the new guidance the distinction is a bit clearer. If the landlord is in a position to advertise a named performer then it suggests he is promoting an event, rather than merely permitting incidental music - a crucial distinction for the purposes of the Act. It also suggests a different sort of event from what the more informal incidental music might provide, although this isn't necessarily the case in practice.

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that while the DCMS's guidance may have no statutory force, an authority which ignores it (especially if their policy actually contradicts it) could be on shaky ground. A court would look at the official guidance to help it decide how the Act should be interpreted (although it would also look at other legal precedents). The problem is that these issues are unlikely to be tested in court, it's easier for the licensee to just agree to the authority's demands even if they're wrong, easier still simply to stop the music.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 07:45 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

The government has avoided answering the latest questions raised by Lord Colwyn about DCMS live music stats.

This purely fictional conversation between a junior and senior civil servant is inspired by the Q&A (full text below):

Junior: The Lords want to know how many professional musicians are actually accounted for in our live music report.
Senior: We can't tell them.
Junior: Why not?
Senior: Because we don't know.
Junior: But we published figures and claimed there had been a 20% rise, 2006 to 2008.
Senior: I know, but some fool plucked numbers from a website without checking. If we admit the mistake we might have to withdraw the report.
Junior: So what shall I say?
Senior: Refer them to the previous answer.
Junior: But we seem to have avoided an answer the first time.
Senior: I know.
Junior: What about the second question, the one asking for the actual dates of the research?
Senior: Tell them... I mean, imply the fault lies with the source material, and that those responsible are now making revisions which we may incorporate later.

[Junior retreats with a conspiratorial wink]


In real life, the civil servants who prepare ministers' answers are, of course, bound by a Code of Conduct which requires honesty, impartiality, objectivity and integrity: http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/about/values/cscode/index.aspx

Actual Q&A:

Lord Colwyn: To ask Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport report Live Music: An Analysis of the Sector, of 28 January, (a) what is the definition of the term professional musician, and (b) how many professional musicians are included in the total of "those employed in live music performance" in 2006 and 2008. [HL2477]

Lord Davies of Oldham: I refer the noble Lord to the Answer that I gave to Lord Clement-Jones on 23 February 2010 (Official Report, col. WA 285).

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100315w0004.htm#10031553000799

Lord Colwyn: To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the dates of the research sources for the numbers of professional musicians in 2006 and 2008 cited in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's report Live Music: An Analysis of the Sector under the heading "increases in those performing music-are there more musicians?". [HL2478]

Lord Davies of Oldham: The Live Music: An Analysis of the Sector report used source material taken from the Creative and Cultural Skills Council (CCSC) studies of the industry. We understand that CCSC are making some revision to their material. DCMS will incorporate any changes affecting our analysis in the report in due course.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100316w0004.htm

Link to DCMS live music report webpage, published 28 January 2010, revised 16 February:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/publications/6603.aspx

Link to previous DCMS answers to questions by Lord Clement-Jones:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100223w0004.htm#10022368000777

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 07:51 AM

The following is from the S182 Guidance.

Legal status
Section 4 of the 2003 Act provides that in carrying out its functions a licensing authority must 'have regard to' guidance issued by the Secretary of State under section 182. The requirement is therefore binding on all licensing authorities to that extent.
However, the guidance cannot anticipate every possible scenario or set of circumstances that may arise and as long as licensing authorities have properly understood the Guidance they may depart from it if they have reason to do so as long as they are able to provide full reasons.

Departure from the Guidance could give rise to an appeal or judicial review, and the reasons given will then be a key consideration for the courts when considering the lawfulness and merits of any decision taken.

1.8 Nothing in this Guidance should be taken as indicating that any requirement of licensing law or any other law may be overridden (including the obligations placed on the authorities under human rights legislation). The Guidance does not in any way replace the statutory provisions of the 2003 Act or add to its scope and licensing authorities should note that interpretation of the Act is a matter for the courts. Licensing authorities and others using the Guidance must take their own professional and legal advice about its implementation.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 09:04 AM

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/86358?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n

Tories stoke rumours of licensing shake-up
By John Harrington
18/03/2010 10:42

The Conservatives want to "rationalise" the number of Government departments dealing with pubs — adding weight to rumours they'd put the Home Office back in charge of alcohol licensing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 03:23 PM

http://www.thesession.org/sessions/display/361


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 04:33 AM

Whilst Kim Howell's words have no statutory weight, it seems to me that they should be taken into account when interpreting the Act, because they shed light on what was intended by the wording used when the Act was being drafted.

Ultimately it is up to a Court to interpret the Act, and they will look firstly at the language used and what it could be expected to mean in terms of usual everyday language, but having regard to definitions of particular terms in the Act and legal precedent from other cases. Nevertheless, Dr Howell's words do shed light on how the words were intended to be interpreted, and what the Act was intended to include and exclude, and should carry some weight insofar as they don't contradict the other meanings of the words used.

One question to ask the Licensing Authority is what Licensing Objectives they believe are being promoted by demanding the sessions are licensed. I suspect that any issues of noise or disturbance, for example, could either be dealt with by other legal measures, or shown from previous experience not to be a problem.

The Licensing Authority seems to be taking the view that everything should be licensed, which flies in the face of all the guidance and clarifications from the DCMS. By disregarding the guidance they put themselves on dangerous ground from a legal point of view, in my (unqualified) opinion. The problem is that no one is likely to risk the costs of testing this in a court.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 07:57 AM

One question to ask the Licensing Authority is what Licensing Objectives they believe are being promoted by demanding the sessions are licensed.

That is a good question but there is no point in me asking them, as they will not respond to me on any licensing matters. I would be grateful if someone else would ask.   

Extract from Mike Harding's BBC Radio 2 show 17 July 2002. Published in The Rose Of The Ribble Valley by Graham Dixon ISBN 1-84294-100-3.
Dr Kim Howells was then Minister in the DCMS responsible for introducing what later became The Licensing Act 2003.

Mike Harding Kim, if I can just go on to some questions we've had sent in from listeners, very quickly, because I do realise you've got to get off to the house and various other things...Roger Gall has emailed to say, and I quote, "When you introduce this new licensing system, if pubs don't have an entertainment licence, will sessions and singarounds be banned?"
Dr Kim Howells MP Yes, i suppose they would be. The landlord would need to get an entertainment licence to cover himself or herself....
Mike Harding But this is not for gain, is it, you were talking about...
Dr Kim Howells MP Oh, I see, I am sorry, I thought that you meant it would be professional musicians being paid ....
Mike Harding No, just sessions and singarounds, people just playing for their own fun.
Dr Kim Howells MP No, they certainly wouldn't and I'm very keen that we should make sure that that facility is there. There shouldn't be a problem. As long as money is not changing hands, then there's no reason why they should have to have a licence.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 08:15 AM

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmstand/d/st030401/pm/30401s08.htm#end
Column No: 070
Jim Knight: I would not have become interested in the subject if it were not for Roger Gall, a constituent of mine, who lives on Portland, where there is a folk jamming session on a Friday night in a pub called the Cone House Inn. It became known that the landlord was comfortable with people coming along on a Friday night and playing their music. These sessions were not advertised. Such an event, which is not advertised or actively encouraged, may be a passive part of the atmosphere of the pub, and it may begin to build up business and become a substantial attraction and profit maker for the publican. Would the Minister regard such an activity as one that should be regulated under the Bill?

Dr. Howells: It seems that that is largely a spontaneous activity, to which people turn up occasionally, and it seems also that the word has spread that people can hear some nice music. However, as the hon. Gentleman says, the licensee does not spend money on advertising. If it is clear that music is being played in the corner of the pub, that would be incidental in my book. I do not know whether that gives him any comfort.

Often, if it is intended that the everyday meaning of a term be used in legislation, it must be judged commensurate to the circumstances of each case. I know that that has drawn some guffaws from Opposition Members, but I hope that the combination of the term ''incidental'' and the explanation that I have tried to give, taken together with the guidance that the Department will issue, will be sufficient to ensure that licensing authorities give due consideration to whatever music is being performed.


As you can see, there is a difficulty in getting my Licensing Authority to accept that sessions are exempt as performances of live music that is incidental etc. Is there anything in the proposals that will change this?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 01:55 PM

If you have not already done so, I would suggest sending copies of your local authority's responses to the DCMS. OK, interpretation is the responsibility of the authority, but it might demonstrate to the DCMS that their guidance is not getting through and authorities are not enforcing the Act in the way which the government intended.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 02:08 PM

The following quote from the Local Government Ombudsman 03 April 2008 Ref 07/B/13783/BM. It refers to advise contained in a letter to me and a local Councillor dated 5 May 2006.

She [Bridget Downton then Corporate Diector of Weymouth and Portland Borough Council] enclosed information available and commented on the Council's view of what constituted incidental music. This was considered to be; music that could take place without an audience, music that would not be advertised or held on a regular basis: and music that would not be amplified. She added that the Council's preference was not to apply 'a one size fits all' approach and to consider each case on its merits and to advise licensees accordingly.

The LGO also states 03 April 2008 Ref 07/B/13783/BM: I have not found evidence that the Council's officers have given misleading advice and information to Members or that the authority has acted in disregard of government guidance in its interpretation of the new statutory provisions for premises licensing.

That the LGO finds in favour of the Council's employees here, is not surprising as they do this in a about 95% of all complaints and that is not to say that the remaining 5% are happy with the outcome.

So as there is no effective watchdog, it should come little surprise when council employees feel that they are safe to advise what they choose to and feel that their advice has more authority than that which is offered by Government Ministers.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 02:22 PM

This is what the Statement of Licensing Policy (which was endorsed by the Council's Management Committee) has to say on the exemption.

5.6.2. The incidental performance of live music and the incidental playing of recorded music may not be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment activities for the purposes of the Act. This is where they are incidental to another activity which is not itself entertainment or the provision of entertainment facilities falling within paragraph 5.6.2. Whether or not music of this kind is 'incidental' to other activities will be judged on a case by case basis

[For information, the previous SOLP, which presumably formed the policy on this exemption at the time the advice was presented on 5 May 2006, reads as follows.]

5.6.2 Music incidental to certain other activities
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 in itself-
• A description of entertainment falling within paragraph 2, or
• The provision of entertainment facilities.


As you can see from the above - the details of what the LGO refers to as being the Council's view on the incidental exemption - is not what appears in the SOLP and has never been endorsed by any Committee or even presented to one. It is not clear if any of the elected members of the Council are aware of how this differs from the Government Minister's advice - or if they are aware - if they care.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 02:39 PM

The local policy on enforcement for this exemption, was sought by me and a local Councillor and the following was carefully advised, in the letter to us, dated 5 May 2006.

As you know, the Act contains no definition of 'incidental' and my legal team advise me that in these case it is normal to use dictionary definitions to aid interpretation. The dictionary definition of incidental includes the word 'casual' which, in our view, does impact on the regularity of incidental music. I can confirm that we would advise licensees asking us that we would regard incidental music as that which:
could take place without an audience;
would not be advertised or held on a regular basis;
and would not be amplified."


As I have said before here, the 'new' LACORS Guidance on the incidental exemption was issued in November 2009. This makes it clear that the 5 May 2006 advice still being maintained by the employees of my local Licensing Authority is totally wrong [but this was always clear].

Should anyone wish to contact them to try and help bring some common sense to bear - I would be most grateful.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 03:16 PM

I doubt the authority will listen to anyone else from outside their area.

I don't know how your particular session operates, but the ones I go to would satisfy all those criteria, with the exception of "not being held on a regular basis". However this particular criteria flies in the face of the guidance, which says nothing about this, indeed implies the opposite. Under the guidance a restaurant should be able to provide live background music 24/7, provided it is ancillary to the main purpose of eating.

"Could take place without an audience" is also a nonsense, although a session is probably one of the few types of music which could meet this particular requirement. Restaurant example again - the music is played specifically to entertain an audience, what makes it incidental is the fact that the audience's main reason for being there is to eat, not to listen to music.

The LGA's main concern would be to ensure that the authority acted within its powers. As long as it did so, and exercised them reasonably, the LGA will be satisfied. That doesn't mean the authority's actions are correct, merely within their powers.

You need to hammer this home to the DCMS, since it is clear that local authorities are still either misunderstanding or deliberately ignoring the guidance.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 08:10 PM

The LGA's main concern would be to ensure that the authority acted within its powers. As long as it did so, and exercised them reasonably, the LGA will be satisfied. That doesn't mean the authority's actions are correct, merely within their powers.

The reference is not to the LGA (Local Government Association) but the LGO (Local Government Ombudsman.

Maladmisitration is all that the LGO can decide - this was defined as a Council not following their own rules or the law.

It cannot be within any of the Licensing Authority's powers to state one thing as correctly endorsed policy in the SOLP, as required by the Licensing Act 2003 - but for their employees to offer advice to licensee which ignores and takes precedent over the correctly endorsed policy contained in the SOLP.

My MP has recently received a letter from them which makes reference only to the policy in the SOLP and no reference to the 5 May 2006 advice and the fact that the LGO still considers this to be the Council's view on the incidental exemption. As follows:

Kate Hindson
General manager
Communities & People
Tel 01305 838037
Fax 01305 838438
Katehindson@weymouth.gov.uk
Our ref KH/HH
18 January 2010

Dear Jim

Revised Guidance To Licensing Authorities On The Provision Of incidental Music Licensing

Many thanks for your letter of 4 January 2010 the contents of which my licensing Manager and her team were already aware of.

I am happy that Paragraph 5.6.2 of this Council's current Policy already explains the principles of incidental music albeit in slightly less detail than the revised guidance. The Policy (at paragraph 2.4) also takes note of the provisions of the 2003 Act and the Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Act so my view is that there is not a need for immediate revision of the Policy.

However, we will be starting consultation on the statutory review of the statement of licensing policy in May this year so this will present us with an ideal opportunity to make amendments/improvements to the policy to reflect the revised guidance.

In the meantime I will ensure that all Councillors who sit on Licensing Committee are provided with a copy of it (in addition to the Licensing Services team members who have already been given copies).

Yours sincerely

Kate Hindson
General manager - Communities & People


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 08:37 PM

"Could take place without an audience" is also a nonsense, although a session is probably one of the few types of music which could meet this particular requirement.

The employees of my Licensing Authority do not agree and advise that sessions are the provision of a performance of live music to audience and licensable as Regulated Entertainment. Mainly as they argue that a regular session is not 'spontaneous', so it must be a licensable performance....

As the exemption still only applies to 'performance of live music and the playing of recorded music' this advice/view/position (- but not policy -) means that 5.6.2 of the SOLP, cannot benefit anything that does take place for an audience.

And anything that didn't take place for an audience, wouldn't be licensable in the first place, as a performance of live music to andience and would have no need of the exemption.

They may need some protection from employees of the Licensing Authority claiming that the premises are being provided for the purpose of the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing and licesable as Entertainment Facilities.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 09:13 PM

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040455&c=1

Live Bill loses out
16:53 | Thursday March 18, 2010
By Robert Ashton

Lord Clement-Jones' Live Music Bill could be crippled by the Easter recess and impending General Election.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 06:14 AM

http://www.artscampaign.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=169:190310item3&catid=92:newsitemsnew&Itemid=97

The NCA is seeking members' comments on its draft response to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's (DCMS) latest consultation on the Licensing Act, which proposes to exempt live music events for audiences of not more than 100 people from the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 10:30 AM

I doubt the authority will listen to anyone else from outside their area.

Well, if everyone outside of their area shares your doubt - my Licensing Authority won't have anything to listen to, will they?

Whether they actually listen or just go through the motions - the Licensing Act 2003 (currently) requires every Licensing Authority to review their SOLP every three years. Part of this process is a formal public consultation which every member of the public and all national organisations are invited to contribute to.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 02:16 PM

The following what was the Licensing Manager represented to the Management Committee as being their response to my submission to the last public consultation.

Reference Number: 002 and 005 Respondent: Roger Gall, Comment: See attached letters (ref: 002 & ref: 005) Appraisal: Ref: 002:

The Government, largely as a result of work undertaken by the Live Music Forum, have recently identified the need for clarification with regard to the definition of regulated entertainment. On 28th June 2007 the guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 was revised and pages 27 to 31 of the guidance are reproduced here for Member's consideration (ref: 002B). Members may wish to make specific reference to the Licensing Authority's desire /obligation to adhere to this guidance when considering whether or not a licence is required.

In order to properly address the points raised by Mr Gall it is necessary to re-visit the situation which led to Mr Gall's campaign and to examine the facts. Mr Gall has claimed throughout his campaign that he and a group of fellow musicians were discriminated against. His assertion is that their gathering at the Cove House Inn (a venue which was not at that time licensed for public entertainment) was spontaneous/incidental music making and did not require a licence.

[It was not thought necessary to speculate on the reasons why any other submission to this consultation was made and what are referred to as facts are not. There was no claim made that the two sessions involved were spontaneous.]

This Council's view is that the gatherings went beyond spontaneous and required licensing for the following reasons:
a) They were held on a regular weekly basis
b) They were advertised on a notice board outside the premises c) They were publicised in the Dorset Echo
d) At the time the "two in a bar rule" was in existence but there were 5 musicians playing.

[There is no mention that there were in fact two sessions affected and that the minimal advertising referred to - only applied to the Cove House Inn and that the one that was lost - at New Star Inn was not advertised in any form.
The two-in-a-bar reference should of course be to the number of 'peformers' present. There were in fact customers partipating but no 'performers' involved in either session.]


Mr Gall consistently failed to mention these mitigating factors when
canvassing support for his cause. Mr Gall felt aggrieved by this ruling, even though the then Landlord of the premises willingly obtained an entertainment licence in order that the sessions could continue legally, and reported this Council's actions to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman found in this Council's favour.

[Mr Gall in fact mentioned all these factors as there would have been no point in not doing so.
The Landlord of the Cove House Inn did not in fact willing obtain an entertainment licence. He did so only when faced with what these employees referred to as encouragement. That 'encouragement' consisted of a letter threatening them with prosecution and a possible £20,000 fine and six months in prison if they did not comply or end the session.
The Ombudsman did not in fact find in the Council's favour. The finding was that the LGO could find no evidence of maladministration which would have required them to actually investigate.]


A recent report on the impact of the Licensing Act 2003 by the Live Music Forum contains a number of case studies and the one on page 50 reads as follows:
"A small restaurant in South London which seats around 40 people. In the past, and on a very occasional basis, live music was provided under the "two-in-a-bar rule" as an accompaniment to dinner. The music was advertised by means of a chalk board on the pavement and a small notice in the window. GENERAL CONSENSUS would seem to suggest that in this case the advertising of the music would preclude it from qualifying as "incidental".

Mr Gall and his fellow contributor (Mr Diaper and Mr Hopkins) have some very valid points to make with regard to small gatherings of acoustic music makers having little or no adverse impact on the licensing objectives and this is presumably why the Government devised Section 177 of the Licensing Act which was intended to provide, under certain circumstances, flexibility for unamplified live music.

Unfortunately, as stated in the report of the Live Music Forum, the current wording of Section 177 is convoluted. Their understanding, and this Council's, is that for this concession to be used the following circumstances would have to apply:
a) the venue would need to have a capacity of not more than 200 people.
b) The applicant would need to have appeared before a Licensing Committee,
at a Licensing hearing, and had conditions relating to live music attached to
the premises licence at that hearing by that Licensing Committee.
c) If the premises were then to operate between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and
midnight, and were it to be providing unamplified live music;
d) Then any conditions, relating to live music, attached to the premises licence,
except those relating to public safety or the prevention of crime and disorder,
by the Licensing Committee, at that Licensing Hearing, would have no effect
and could simply be ignored by the venue operator.

Within Weymouth and Portland Borough there are 358 licensed premises in total. Only 24 of those licences have had conditions attached to the premises licence as a result of a Licensing Hearing and out of those 24 only 7 have a capacity of less than 200. It is therefore not surprising that the Live Music Forum could not find a single example countrywide where this concession had been used either by Licensing Officers or venue owners.

The recommendation made by the Live Music Forum is that Section 177, where it relates to the provision of live music, should be deleted from the Act and Schedule 1 Part 2 – Exemptions, should have a new paragraph 7(a) inserted which should read:
"The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of unamplified live music is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act."
Members may wish to give consideration to lobbying Government in support of this recommendation.

Whilst Mr. Gall's claims that this Council, its Officers and Members have acted inconsistently and unfairly in interpreting the Licensing Act 2003 are unsubstantiated, Members may also wish to give consideration to the adoption of a Code of Practice on licence conditions in order to allay his fears. The attached draft code of practice has been drawn up by the Institute of Licensing and all its Members (of which I am one) are being encouraged to adopt it. Relevant policy paragraph(s): 4.3.2, 5.6.2
and 5.6.3

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 06:11 PM

Anyone who has read the Live Music Forum's report would know that the piece presented to the Committee was very carefully selected by the Licensing Manager, as supporting their position (that any form of advertising meant that an event was a licensable peformance of live music that could not benefit from the incidental exemption) as there were very few other findings in this report which they could claim to be favourable.

And of course such an interpretation is not supported by the 'new' Guidance. Both the advertising in the example provided in the Live Music Forum report and in the case of the single local paper advert for the Cove House Inn session (as they did not contain a named performer) would not prevent these events from qualifying under the exemption.

But getting my Licensing Authority to sensibly enforce this legislation seems beyond the power of Government Ministers, who don't appear to really care very much anyway. I suggest that ensuring that mine and other Licensing Authorities do sensibly enforce this legislation is up to those of us who do care.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 07:15 PM

Unfortunately the interpretation of the Act is ultimately a matter for the courts, not the minister. If a local authority is applying the Act incorrectly then the correct course of action is for the person who is being asked to obtain a licence to challenge it in the courts. Of course, this is unlikely to happen. In the meantime, the wording of the Act is so vague that an authority can make its own interpretation - indeed, it has no other option.

The only other course of action is to draw these situations to the attention of the DCMS in the hope that they will clarify their guidance to cover them. Some hope.

In practice, I note that the licensee of at least one of the pubs you were concerned with did in fact obtain a licence. Is there evidence that the policies of this or other authorities are preventing licences being granted for this type of music and preventing sessions from taking place? I know this was a huge concern while the bill was going through Parliament, but the actual effects since it was past don't appear to have been as bad as originally feared.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 08:54 PM

In practice, I note that the licensee of at least one of the pubs you were concerned with did in fact obtain a licence. Is there evidence that the policies of this or other authorities are preventing licences being granted for this type of music and preventing sessions from taking place? I know this was a huge concern while the bill was going through Parliament, but the actual effects since it was past don't appear to have been as bad as originally feared.

After much argument, The Cove House Inn eventually did pay to obtain the entertainment licence. This partly to enable the session but mainly to enable the conventional performances of exempt live music, with less than two peformers, which were held every Friday, to encompass larger groups.

The New Star session in fact preceeded the Cove session. It had been running unlicensed for at least two years before the enforcement action at the Cove and the New Star session continued unlicensed for two years after the Cove enforcement had established that the New Star session also required the same licence.

As this session was the only live music held there, the licensee of the New Star was not prepared to pay for an activity that had taken place without incident or complaint for over 5 years. So this session was prevented when the Council wrote a letter containing the same 'encouragement' as was earlier sent to the Cove.

There is certainly evidence that the New Star session was deterred by the so-called licensing requirements and that the Council's employees were also prepared to see the Cove session end, had the licensee not taken action to save it.

There is also evidence that the 5 May 2006 advice prevented the New Star session from re-starting under the benefit of the incidental exemption after the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003. Had the advice been different, I would have led it myself, as the licensee was very keen to re-start the session.

The general effect on sessions of the Licensing Act 2003 has not been measured. There is no way of telling if the effect was as bad as feared and that of course depends on how bad you feared it might be. However, if sessions survive at all - we could probably agree that this is despite the clumsy legislation and its patchy enforcement, rather than from any resulting benefit?

After all this time - there is still no satisfactory answer for anyone who may ask you the simple question of whether sessions are licensable or not. I would suggest that most current sessions take place only in premises that already do have Premises Licence Entertainment Permission for the provision of performances of live music and that this simply confuses the issue.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 09:59 PM

Non amplified music in the form of participatory folk music sessions, have always struggled to survive in our few remaining small pubs, because they are not recognised for what they are but are treated by this type of legislation and its enforcers, as if they were conventional performances of live music and presenting the same impact as if they were amplified.

They also seem to overlook the fact that this approach then places session in a direct competition which they cannot win, with conventional performances of live music for available nights. A licensee who has paid to enable sessions may consider that they need to provide conventional performances on all available nights and although sessions could be legally enabled to take place - other more profitable activities would take preference.

If S177 was intended to be a measure to address this, it clearly does not. This measure is impossibly convoluted and still first requires permission to be obtained, as if the activity were conventional performances of amplified live music. There are still a few smaller pubs that are unlikely to ever be thought suitable for conventional performances of live music and where permission is unlikly to ever be applied for but which would be perfect for sessions.

Where permission is sought by a licensee to enable a session, there is little question that it would be granted. But the point that our enforcers miss, is that in our pubs, those who make the music (the particpating customers) cannot obtain the entertainment permission and those who can obtain the entertainment permission cannot make the music.

I think this is my main objection. It should not be the case when particpating customers require licensing permission for a musical activity but are unable to obtain it and they have to depend on a third party to pay and go through the red tape for them.

In the rare cases where licensees do share the customer's passion for making the music and where entertainment permission for conventionable performances of live music is not already in place, there should not be a problem in enabling a session by obtaining permission. However, as licensees do not really benefit - when push comes to shove and to paying out good money and filling in forms - often it is easier for a licensee to just end the session.

Our pubs are already made safe enough so that all that should be required to enable the public to entertain themselves in live music is the licensee's agreement. It is the case with pool, darts and quiz nights - so why not with live music?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 06:00 AM

Thanks for producing evidence of a session which has been stopped by the legislation. This was of course a great concern while the bill was going through, but in practice it appears that most pubs which held sessions simply included music in their new licence application which they had to make anyway, when there would have been no additional cost. The difficulty arises with new venues which don't already have a licence for music, or with venues like the New Star which, for whatever reason, did not seek a music licence at the time.

The simplest solution is of course to make all small performances of unamplified music unregulated, and I this is of course what the latest proposals are intended to achieve. However as usual they appear so convoluted that one wonders whether they will in fact achieve this aim.

It occurs to me that a useful addition to the DCMS's guidance would be to consider whether licensing is necessary to achieve the licensing objectives set out in the Act. If a session is not causing nuisance, disturbance or a threat to public order, what is achieved by licensing it? There should be a presumption against requiring a licence, at least for small unamplified events.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 06:38 AM

The simplest solution is of course to make all small performances of unamplified music unregulated, and I this is of course what the latest proposals are intended to achieve.

It may be that effect of what is proposed may have the practical result that the performance of non-amplified music in some premises will be free from any the requirement of any additional entertainment licensing - but there is no proposal to exempt all non-amplified live music.

One does exist for non amplified music as part of a performance of Morris dancing and this could easily be extended to cover all non-amplified live music. However such an extension is not proposed.

It is unlikely that there will be one as we are still stuck with S177 - even though it has proved to be of no use to anyone. The DCMS have yet to admit this and probably never will.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 07:17 AM

Thanks for producing evidence of a session which has been stopped by the legislation. This was of course a great concern while the bill was going through, but in practice it appears that most pubs which held sessions simply included music in their new licence application which they had to make anyway, when there would have been no additional cost.

Technically the New Star session was stopped under the old legislation - but it was prevented from re-starting under the licensing Act 2003.

It remains to be seen if pubs that have permission for performances of live music can also cover the provision of facilties to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing. In the specific case of dancing I really doubt that any Licensing Authority would accept that permission for performances of live music would cover the provision of anything provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in dancing.

And I am not sure if any distinction can be made that would permit a Licensing Autority to exempt the provision of facilities for the public to entertain themselves in music, whilst still having to make licensable the provision of facilities for the public to entertain themselves in dancing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 07:28 AM

Entertainment facilities
3 (1) In this Schedule, "entertainment facilities" means facilities for enabling persons to take part in entertainment of a description falling within sub-paragraph (2) for the purpose, or for purposes which include the purpose, of being entertained.
(2) The descriptions of entertainment are—
(a) making music,
(b) dancing,
(c) entertainment of a similar description to that falling within paragraph (a) or (b).
(3) This paragraph is subject to Part 3 of this Schedule (interpretation).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 01:24 PM

The difficulty arises with new venues which don't already have a licence for music, or with venues like the New Star which, for whatever reason, did not seek a music licence at the time.

I think we have fallen into the way that our Government wants us to think. Even if in practice, the Licensing Act 2003 and the previous legislation requiring additional entertainment licensing, had not adversly affected sessions or any other form of live music in any recordable way - the whole out-dated concept still places a risk of losing valuable music and for no real purpose.

Sessions are really valuable in many ways but their success is already subject to enough problems without the additional burden presented by licensing legislation and those who are employed to enforce it in order to deal with activities involving complex social interactions that they don't really understand.

Those of us who do understand have a responsiblity to ensure that those who need to be informed are never able to rest until sessions and all forms of live music are safe from the needless red-tape that will strangle it - if we just sit back and let it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 05:18 AM

We have tended to concentrate on sessions but what is the effect on other activities of Entertainment Facilities?

Open mics, for example?

Even where the fact that open mics are licensable as a performance of live music to an audience may be overlooked, the provision of the mic and PA are certainly to enable the public to entertain themelves in music. So all open mic nights are licensable.

House concerts?

Even where the fact that house concerts are licensable as a performance of live music may be overlooked and where no PA is provided, the provision of the house to enable the public to entertain themselves in music is licensable as an Entertainment Facility - or it certainly would be, should the Licensing Authority want to prevent or licence the House Concert.

Although as our friends at the DCMS point out, something meets the criteia and is licensable, or it does not meet the criteia and it is not licensable and there is no discretion. Except when out friends at the DCMS also tell us that premises provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing may or may not be licensable as Entertainment Facilities but are none too clear on the details.

It is little wonder then that those who are paid to locally enforce this legislation just do as they think best.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 08:02 AM

The following is from my submission to the consultation. The numbers refer to the questions asked, which you can see linked to earler in this thread. It is important that your thoughts are made known and your submission would need to be in by 26 March 2010.

1. I am concerned that what is proposed in the draft, does not appear to exempt any Entertainment Facilities and will only apply to the provision of performances of live music and not to the provision of any facilities to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing which is not to any size of audience, and will not apply to associated facilities provided to enable the exempted performance.

The proposed exemption should not be limited to 'performances' but should also apply to anything provided, (including the premises or the land on which it takes place) to enable the public entertain themselves in music and dancing.

Other exemptions are not limited to inside a permanent building and there should be some consistency shown the Act's exemptions. For example, the exemption for Morris dancing applies whether the activity takes place inside or outside. If the reason for this proposed limitation is that amplified music in temporary buildings or gardens etc. is thought to offer more risk of excessive noise, this proposed limitation would also apply and would prevent non-amplified music in temporary buildings or gardens when this is unlikely to present any form of noise concern. Noise from all sources, is already addressed by the Environmental Protection Act and would apply whether Entertainment Permission were in place or not, in temporary buildings or gardens etc. There is no need to present a risk to non-amplified music by duplication in this licensing legislation, as this cannot ever give licensing permission for excessive noise.

The situation is further complicated by this proposal, for the provision of anything to enable the public to enter themselves in music and dancing which are licensable as Entertainment Facilities, because the activity is not one which is provided for any number of people or audience. Any exemption based on the size of an audience will not be able to benefit facilities provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing, which is not a performance to any size of audience. As this includes making the premises available for the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing, this proposal will still mean that the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing, will still be licensable, when paid performance and Entertainment Facilities associated with this performance, to a specified audience size, will be exempt.

2. Perhaps LACORS and the LGA could demonstrate at exactly what figure audience size in fixed premises, reaches the point where other existing legislation is not sufficient to ensure the licensing objectives? Then - rather than a minimum figure being set for an exemption, a maximum figure can be set at which additional Entertainment Licensing would then be necessary to be introduced in order to ensure the licensing objectives? This would leave fixed premises alone - with their existing safe capacity limits and risk assessments but would apply to temporary field/festival sites for large gatherings - where there may still be an argument for there to be a need for some form of additional entertainment licensing.

4. Other exemptions are not subject to curfews and there should be some consistency shown in the Act's exemptions. If the reason for this condition is in part that amplified live music between 11pm and 8am is thought to offer more risk of excessive noise, this proposed limitation would also apply and would prevent non-amplified music when this is unlikely to present any form of noise concern. Noise from all sources, is already addressed by the Environmental Protection Act and would apply whether Entertainment Permission were in place or not, for outside live music . There is no need to present a risk to non-amplified music by duplication in this licensing legislation, as this cannot ever give licensing permission for excessive noise

The danger of this type of curfew is that live music is used by Licensing Authorities as a bargaining position. In practice, a curfew on live music is offered to residents by a licensee and the Licensing Authority as a sacrifice to enable alcohol to be served for a longer period. In places where alcohol is served, live music should not be subject to special licensing conditions and should continue until closing time or unless the licensee decides to end it sooner.

There is no reason why all live music should be singled-out for imposed curfews of this type and all live music should be able to continue until all fixed premises close. It is bad enough that the provision of unlicensed live music is now subject to the same penalties as the provision of unlicensed alcohol. It is not acceptable that the provision of live music, with all of its benefits should be sacrificed to enable the provision of alcohol, with all of its problems. It would make far more sense if the provision of live music was encouraged for longer and for any curfews to be placed on the provision of alcohol.

5. Nothing is proposed here to enable a formal process by which the public can challenge interpretations advised by those employed to enforce this legislation and to include yet another process to enable objectors, is demonstrating a clear bias and overkill.

7. There is no need for any formal process here. Any redundant conditions can simply be suspended, like the S177 measures, until an opportunity is presented where the redundant conditions can be removed at no cost to the licensee. This should be the case where any other illegal conditions have been agreed and applied by a Licensing Authority.

10. No one can be adversely affected by this proposal as other existing legislation is still protecting the public whether Entertainment Permission is in place, whether an exemption applies or whether an activity is not in fact licensable. If other legislation was not considered not to be sufficient - then this proposal would not have been made and the fact that the proposal exists, demonstrates that other legislation is considered to be sufficient.

A formal process is required by which the public adversely affected by these, can challenge interpretations advised by those employed to enforce this legislation .

11. The proposal includes an exclusion process which itself implies that some form of protection is being removed and can be replaced by this process. No protection is in fact being removed as other existing legislation is still in place whether Entertainment Permission is in place, whether an exemption is in place or whether an activity is not in fact licensable.

12. In addition to performance, the public have the right to freely express or entertain themselves in music and dancing. What is proposed, as it applies only to performances of live music, will not prevent the Licensing Act 2003 from preventing this right by making anything provided to enable this, including the premises or land on which it takes place, to be a licensable Entertainment Facility.

13. The proposal ignores and is not extended to cover the unconstitutional and discriminatory nature of legislation which only requires facilities provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing to be licensable Entertainment Facilities, when this does not apply to the public entertaining themselves in any of the other activities listed in Schedule 1 of the Act or in activities which do not.

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shamble
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 08:15 AM

Full details in this PDF.

http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/consultations/condoc_exemptsmall_livemusicevents.pdf


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 05:41 PM

This consultation document refers to : "It was proposed that any problems arising from the exempt live music could be dealt with through penalties available under other legislation, such as on the spot fines for noise under environmental health legislation."

The obvious question then is - as this other legislation can deal with problems arising from the exempt live music - why are LACORS and the LGA insisting that the red tape, uncertainty and expense of additional entertainment licensing is still necessary and why is the Government accepting what is so obviously nonsense?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 12:52 PM

I asked an received the following today.

EFDSS is responding to this consultation and has already responded to the earlier one (26 February).

Both will be posted on the Society's web site in due course.

Mike Wilson-Jones

EFDSS Trustee/Director

ENDS

http://www.efdss.org/


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 12:59 PM

My MP wrote to the current Minister on my behalf and received the following.

January 2010 [received 1 January 2010]

Dear Jim

Thank you for your letter of 8 December, on behalf of your constituent, Mr Roger Gall, of …. Portland Dorset …., about the Licensing Act 2003 and impromptu gatherings of musicians in public places such a public houses.

In our amended Guidance to licensing authorities (section 3.24), we have advised that the spontaneous performance of music, singing or dancing does not amount to the provision of regulated entertainment and is not a licensable activity.

As the 2003 Act has devolved responsibility for the administration and enforcement of the licensing regime to individual licensing authorities, based at city, district or borough councils, it would be for them to interpret the Act in the first instance and determine in each case whether an entertainment was genuinely spontaneous.

The Government wants to encourage the growth of live music. You may be aware that we have recently launched a consultation on an exemption for small live music events. Mr Gall can find details of this on our website http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/consultations/6499.aspx


This consultation seeks views on a proposal to exempt live music events for audiences of not more than 100 people from the requirements of the 2003 Act. It also seeks views on the draft Legislative Reform Order and impact Assessment. The closing date for responses is 26 March.

I would encourage Mr Gall to write in connection with this consultation.

Gerry Sutciffe
Minister for Sport


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 01:16 PM

As the 2003 Act has devolved responsibility for the administration and enforcement of the licensing regime to individual licensing authorities, based at city, district or borough councils, it would be for them to interpret the Act in the first instance and determine in each case whether an entertainment was genuinely spontaneous.

This Council's view is that the gatherings went beyond spontaneous and required licensing for the following reasons:
a) They were held on a regular weekly basis
b) They were advertised on a notice board outside the premises c) They were publicised in the Dorset Echo
d) At the time the "two in a bar rule" was in existence but there were 5 musicians playing.


This is one of the best examples of the buck-passing encouraged by locally devolved legislation like the Licensing Act 2003. No takes responsibility when presented with a problem as long as the issue blame can be passed on.

From the above the only thing that is clear is that no one is any the wiser but the problem which has been presented to sessions by the local interpretation of licensing legislation - still remains.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 06:55 AM

See also the thread on House Concerts in the UK.

thread.cfm?threadid=100866&messages=53


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 08:48 AM

Those who have made a submission to this consultation, whether they fully understand what is proposed or not, can at least be satisfied that they have made their views known and have done their bit.......................My thanks to them.

We now just have to wait and see.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 09:21 AM

Submission from the Welwyn Hatfield Live Music Forum

http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/text/welwynhatfieldsubmisson.pdf


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 09:48 AM

The Welwyn Hatfield Live Music Forum's answer to Question 14 - is informative and shows exactly what we are up against.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 09:53 AM

This is part of that answer.

A press release dated 11 Dec 2009 http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=6467844
claimed that: 'Proposals to allow pubs and bars to put on live music without the need for a licence could lead to a massive increase in noise problems, council leaders warned today, as a survey was published into the possible impacts of planned changes to the 2003 Licensing Act.'

This claim was reported in the Daily Mail and posted by the LGA on various Local Government websites such as The Local Government Executive, Information Portal for the Public Sector, and
also the Neighbourhood Watch. It has since become clear that the LGA survey was not properly conducted, and the results subjected to further 'interpretation' when issued to the press.

In fact, the survey was not of 'council leaders' but of random replies to emails sent to licensing officers. Replies were in fact
anonymous, so LACORS cannot tell if there were multiple replies on behalf of one council, or in fact whether the respondents were council employees at all. Bona fide research does not use self-selecting samples.

The word 'massive' was not used in the survey – this was an invention of the LGA press release. Unfortunately this 'information' has been distributed to Licensing Authorities who in turn have
advised Licensing Officers of these 'facts'. See East Devon council for an example
http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/google/knowledge_181209_issue_31.pdf

We support calls by Conservative shadow culture team for DCMS to abandon this consultation on the grounds that consultees may have been misled.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 07:21 AM

Given the advice offered by its employees, there is some irony in the following from my Licenisng Authority's SOLP.

4.3.2 In its role of implementing local authority cultural strategies, the Council recognises the need to encourage and promote live music, dance and theatre for the wider cultural benefit of the community, particularly for children.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 08:43 AM

My own authority's licensing policy (East Cheshire) includes this:

"The Licensing Authority recognises that as part of implementing local authority cultural strategies, proper account should be taken of the need to encourage and promote a broad range of entertainment, particularly live music, dancing and theatre, including the performance of a wide range of traditional and historic plays for the wider cultural benefit of communities. The Licensing Authority recognises the need for a balance the cultural needs with the necessity of promoting the licensing objectives."

Interesting to see the reference to traditional plays. There is a strong tradition around here of mummers' plays, pace egging, souling, etc.

However it is perhaps significant that despite the Government's insistence that the Act was intended to encourage live music and other cultural activities, this is not one of the the Licensing Objectives set out in the Act, which are:

· The prevention of crime and disorder;
· Public safety;
· The prevention of public nuisance; and
· The protection of children from harm

All very laudable in their way, but all very negative rather than positive in their approach.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 02:38 PM

The following is from the S 182 Guidance.

CULTURAL STRATEGIES
13.57 In connection with cultural strategies, licensing policy statements should include clearly worded statements indicating that they will monitor the impact of licensing on the provision of regulated entertainment, and particularly live music and dancing, for example, by considering whether premises that provide live music or culture are represented on licensing stakeholder forums, and ensuring that local cultural officers are regularly consulted about the impact on local culture. Where appropriate, town centre managers have an important role in coordinating live music events in town centres and can be an important source of information.

13.58 Care will be needed to ensure that only necessary, proportionate and reasonable licensing conditions impose any restrictions on these events. Where there is any indication that events are being deterred by licensing requirements, statements of licensing policy should be re-visited with a view to investigating how the situation might be reversed. Broader cultural activities and entertainment may also be affected. In developing their statements of licensing policy, licensing authorities should also consider any views of the local authority's arts committee, where one exists.


Given the above, it really should be the case that there is little point in licensing employees risking deterring them by insisting that cultural activities like sessions etc. need a third party to license them. For if there is any indication of this - the S182 Guidance requires the local licensing requirement to be re-visited with a view to investigating how the situation might be reversed.

It seem pretty clear that Licensing Authorities are not being correctly advised by their employees. My last enquiry about the local cultural strategy was met with - 'we don't do them any more'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 02:47 PM

"The Licensing Authority recognises the need for a balance the cultural needs with the necessity of promoting the licensing objectives."

In practice, There pretty obviously is no such balance at the local enforcement level.

These statements are simply paying lip-sevice only..........


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 04:18 AM

A good example of this lip-service is this answer from the http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/text/welwynhatfieldsubmisson.pdf

Question 10: Do you agree that the proposal, taken as a whole, strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by it?
Yes/No. If No, please explain why.


No. Musicians who are employed at licensed premises are generally prohibited from making representations at licensing hearings. In failing to address this unfairness, this consultation is in potential conflict with the Human Rights Act 1998:

1. Local authorities are 'public authorities' for the purpose of the Human Rights Act 1998.
2. Under s3 of the HRA public authorities are obliged to interpret ALL legislation so far as possible compatibly with the European Convention rights now incorporated into UK law including
Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly).
3. Under s6 of the HRA public authorities must not act in breach of human rights unless primary or secondary legislation obliges them to do so.
4. The performance of live music falls within Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).
5. The rights of residents to object to live music fall within Article 8 - respect for private and family life.
6. Rights under Articles 10 and 8 are qualified rights: both are subject to restrictions, subject to a range of conditions, including protecting the freedoms of others. In other words, where these
rights are in competition, a fair balance must be struck. But any control on the exercise of Article 10 must be 'necessary to meet a pressing social need' and must be proportionate to the need.

Furthermore, it is highly relevant that LACORS guidelines for Licensing Committee Hearings advise that cultural considerations 'will always be subservient to the Licensing Objectives'. This is in clear conflict with the Human Rights Act.

Evidence given by DCMS to the DCMS Select Committee in 2008 claimed that the Licensing Act carefully balanced the needs of residents with cultural requirements. This evidence was not completely accurate as it failed to take account of LACORS guidelines.

The proposal contains no reference at all to the cultural benefits of live music. Music is only mentioned in connection with noise and crime.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 06:47 AM

http://cmis.milton-keynes.gov.uk/CmisWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=14268

I didn't seem to be able to link to the recently updated LACORS document itself - the above link refers to a local Milton Keynes version but the words are the same.

8. Decision making
Reasons for decisions made must be clearly documented so that any subsequent accusations of bias etc. can be defended. It is critical that it is clear that decisions are made according to the Licensing Objectives of the Licensing Act 2003 as well as the Licensing Authority's Licensing Policy Statement. Whilst the Government's Guidance accompanying the Licensing Act 2003 indicates some other factors which may influence decisions (e.g. live music / cultural considerations) these will always be subservient to the Licensing Objectives and the Licensing Policy Statement. LACORS "Committee Guidance" will be available shortly.


It is deeply disturbing that those employed to local enforce this type of legislation seem to follow and incorporate into their documents - such advice as this from LACORS - rather than follow the law.......

No wonder then that any input on cultural concerns, even from those employed in the same local authority to enforce this, will be ignored and considered subservient to the Licensing Objectives. This would also seem to apply to Human Rights factors, even when their own policy statement makes specific reference to these. This from my SOLP.

4.1.4 The Council acknowledges the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

As LACORS advise that any decision must be based on both the Licensing Objectives and the Licensing Authority's Licensing Policy Statement - we have a problem.................


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 06:54 AM

I had forgotten that the reason that 4 1.4 appears in our SOLP - is that I made the suggestion for it to be added there, this in my first submission to the public consultation.

Rather surprisingly my suggestion was accepted - but no one seems to have noticed that it does appear or pay any attention to it..............


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 04:45 AM

From the S182 Guidance Where there is any indication that events are being deterred by licensing requirements, statements of licensing policy should be re-visited with a view to investigating how the situation might be reversed.

From the LACORS guidance Whilst the Government's Guidance accompanying the Licensing Act 2003 indicates some other factors which may influence decisions (e.g. live music / cultural considerations) these will always be subservient to the Licensing Objectives and the Licensing Policy Statement.

How can these two pieces of guidance/advice be reconciled?

What authority has LACORS to advise local authority employees and councillors, that LACORS advice will take priority over what appears in the Statutory S 182 Guidance?

Why will local authority employees willingly follow LACORS advice when they do not follow the will of Parliament and the words of Government Ministers and what does this situation say about our so called-democratic processes?

Is this a mess or is this a mess?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Dennis the Elder
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 05:21 AM

You can say that again!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 12:18 PM

OK - is this a mess or is this a mess?

Or a Shambles.

The following is a tweet today, from the LGA.

LGACulture

LGA Conference hears that Local Govt provides both "routes to culture" but also the "roots of culture"


I suggest that the LGA would not recognise culture if it were to rear up and bite them on the bum. They could well be described as the 'roadblock to culture'.

It is a bit like the line about life being what happens to you, while you are making plans. Culture is what about what still manages to happen, despite the plans that oganisations like the LGA are making for it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 12:28 PM

Clear evidence that DCMS 'statistics' have unduly influenced Licensing Authority responses to the licensing consultation. Again this is in open defiance of UK Statistics Authority's recommendations. Waveney Council claim that 'there is no statistical... evidence that live music is being deterred'.See Morehttp://www.waveney.gov.uk/agendas/2010/march/licensing/item4appc.doc

„h We are very strongly of the view, from our experience in this district that live music is NOT being deterred by the provisions of the Act, our local policy or decisions made by members or delegated officers. The majority of licensed premises in our area had a live music permission of some description, and the Temporary Event Notice (TEN) system is well used for authorising live music activities (many TENS are also seeking alcohol and other regulated entertainment permissions). A significant number of pubs and other venues in our area have successfully varied their licences, to diversify, since the Act came in and it seems that live music activities are actually thriving. We are also seeing a noticeable increase in large outdoor live music events, taking advantage of more flexible licensing arrangements, for example the latitude festival. The feedback we get is that it is now generally much easier to apply for and gain music permissions than it was under the previous Public Entertainment Licence (PEL) system.

The exemption proposal seems to be a further unnecessary amendment to the Act, and surprising in view of:

(a) the widely expressed Police, Local Authority (LA), Environmental Health and Licensing Practitioner concerns submitted in respect of the similar exemption proposals in 2008;
and
(b) there is no statistical evidence that live music is being deterred. The unspecified ¡¥anecdotal¡¦ instances of deterrence referred to in the consultation paper are in our view likely to be exceptional and unusual occurrences rather than normal practice.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 12:49 PM

I wonder who the anonymous 'key members' of Waveney Council are and what members of the public they consulted before speaking on behalf of all of them in this submission?

The '100 max audience limit' raises several key issues including (a) how is the 'individual on merit' and 'in the vicinity' emphasis of the Act being supported by an exclusion of this nature which gives no assessment of the premises build, locality, complaint history or control measures?; (b) setting a 100 capacity is arbitrary as it is often the location of the venue that is the critical factor and there is no consideration for the nature/style of the live music - clearly in a residential or noise sensitive area unamplified folk music by two performers until 11pm is going to be very low risk when compared to a drum 'n' bass or rock band activity in the same venue and with a same sized audience.

The above sounds reasonable until you realise that whoever wrote it, offers no solution and is still quite happy for the unamplified folk music, which they accept to be low risk, to continue to be subject to exactly the same licensing requirement as if it were drum 'n' bass or rock band activity in the same venue and with a same sized audience.

They also ignore completly the fact that existing Environmental legislation will still deal with any actual noise, from any source and that this would be their own advice to the premises should they manage to licence any of these activities.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 06:33 PM

Ipswich Council's submission is identical to Waveney Council's effort!!!

http://www.ipswich.gov.uk/downloads/LR-09-23_Proposal_to_Exempt_Small_Live_Music_Events_from_L….pdf


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 06:36 PM

I think that somewhere there must be a LACORS guide for licensing officers - on the party-line way to make a submission to this consultation.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 07:04 PM

http://www.instituteoflicensing.org/

Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 –March 2010

Published Date: 30/Mar/2010

The s.182 Guidance has been revised to take account of the new mandatory conditions commencing on 6 April, which impose a duty on those who manage licensed premises and clubs to prohibit irresponsible promotions and prohibit one person from dispensing alcohol directly into the mouth of another; they also require those who manage licensed premises and clubs to provide free tap water to customers on request.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 04:42 AM

I think that somewhere there must be a LACORS guide for licensing officers - on the party-line way to make a submission to this consultation.

I was joking but - I found this.

http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/static.aspx?N=0&Ne=0+2000+3000+4000+5000+6000+7000+8000+9000+10000+11000&groupid=6


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 09:39 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

The Local Government Association and its partner LACORS ('promoting quality regulation') have published their joint response to the DCMS consultation on an entertainment licensing exemption for small gigs:
http://www.lacors.gov.uk/LACORS/upload/24168.pdf

The consultation closed last Friday, 26 March. Predictably, the proposed exemption is rejected by LGA/Lacors as 'unworkable' and 'disproportionate'. But the document includes one notable concession: 'The LGA Group does support exemptions for schools and hospitals...'. It then wrongly claims that these venues 'were not previously required to hold a live music licence.'

Under the previous entertainment licensing regime, public performances of live music were licensable in such places, and indeed almost anywhere else - as they are today. Private charity fund-raising gigs were exempt, however - unlike today.

But even this LGA concession is qualified: 'We will work with government and partners to develop balanced exemption criteria.' How gracious. The response continues in paranoid mode:

'A poll of council licensing officers carried out by the LGA Group found that 9 out of 10 think the exemption would lead to an increase in complaints about noise and nuisance. More than half said they expected the increase to be considerable.' [Key Messages]

No mention, of course, that noise nuisance is already regulated by separate legislation.

'Councils' role is to balance the needs of the whole community, including local businesses and local residents. Opposing this exemption is not about saying "no" to live music. Councils want to be able to say "yes", confident that local people have been considered as part of the process.' [Key Messages]

'... the right of councillors to make decisions relating to local licensed premises is an important feature of local democracy and therefore the proposal may have constitutional significance in that it undermines local decision making.' [Response point 17]

It is true then: councils want to micro-manage virtually all local live music, and they see this as their right.

One particularly batty LGA proposal is that premises already licensed for live music should be excluded from any exemption (response point 9). Many already licensed venues are subject to unjustifiably restrictive conditions, including 2- and 3-performer limits. If implemented, this LGA idea would create two classes of venue based on an arbitrary distinction: one subject to many unnecessary restrictions; the other free of those restrictions and with a potentially commercial advantage. This would inevitably lead to conflict and legal challenges.

The abiding impression created by the LGA is that relaxing licensing control for small gigs would unleash the four horsemen of the Apocalypse. But no evidence of the imminent stampede is produced.

Surprisingly, other evidence often cited by the LGA is also conspicuous by its absence. This is the DCMS 'evidence' that live music is 'thriving'. Until now, citing dodgy DCMS live music statistics has been a favourite LGA lobbying tactic. Could it be that the LGA knows something we don't about the UK Statistics Authority investigation into recent DCMS live music claims?

The LGA response is .... more research! Yes, they call on the government to 'commission further detailed research' which would establish, among other things:

'How much unmet latent demand for live music in small venues there is (amongst the public, performers and venue owners)' (response point 14).

It is not clear what contribution this knowledge would make to the debate. Is the LGA is suggesting that if such demand is low, it would reinforce their case against a small gigs exemption, and justify a regulatory regime that criminalises the unlicensed provision of one musician in a bar or restaurant, even if there are no complaints?

Of course this LGA submission does not speak for all, or indeed any, individual local authority. It is based on the view of a relatively small number of licensing officers and a few officials within the LGA and Lacors.

In fact, there is support within some local authorities for a small gigs exemption, as this City of York council response demonstrates (see point 7):
http://democracy.york.gov.uk/Published/C00000606/M00004948/AI00018745/$ExemptSmallLiveMusicEventsreport.docA.ps.pdf

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 10:00 AM

The City of York's Point 7.

Licensing / Education, Art and Culture
The Head's of City of York Council's Licensing Department and The Department of Education, Art and Culture fully support the Government's proposal to exempt small live music events from audiences of not more than 100 people.

The Without Walls vision statement for York states "York wants to be seen as an inclusive, lively and active city, with a strong international profile. To do this we will be supporting the creative industries, such as music, craft, and film as well as the provision of festival in the city and sports opportunity". Whilst there is the potential for an increase in noise nuisance, it is believed the power to revoke an exemption at a specific premise if there are problems arising from the live music event will protect residents but more importantly, will send a strong message of support to local business and tourism.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 10:24 AM

The following is York city's officers answer to Question 9

No, the proposals are most definitely in favour of the licensees and against the interests of local residents. The proposals would allow an effective free for all up until 11pm. Most licensed premises were not designed for live music and have insufficient sound attenuation. Exemptions could be made for those premises that are well insulated and managed.

Not sure if these officers have actually asked any local residents.

The so-called free for all referred to and feared - is the way things were for many years, when the two-in-a-bar-rule exempted the majority of live music peformance taking place in pubs. I have not seen any evidence or indeed any comment from the local government lobby that any local residents have suffered from that free for all, before or after its abolition.   

LACORS claims to be 'promoting quality regulation' but what is clearly shown by these submissions is that what is feared the most by this lobby - is for council employees to be seen to lose any form of regulatory control - even when it is costly, inconsistent, damaging and largely a duplication of other existing legislation.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 10:41 AM

The following from the local govenment lobby submission.

LACORS wishes to make explicit its offer to liaise with individual licensing authorities to overcome any issues that have been identified by performers or venue owners as representing an unreasonable barrier to live music.

I am surprised that they consider that there would be any issues to overcome as everthing, according to them, is going so swimmingly.

I will let you know what they say when I write and ask them to liaise with my licensing authority............


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 12:14 PM

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040631&c=1

13:15 | Wednesday March 31, 2010
By Robert Ashton
UK Music has asked Licensing Minister Gerry Sutcliffe to get behind Lord Clement-Jones' Live Music Bill now that the Government's own small venues consultation has closed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:26 PM

Key Messages
· The LGA Group, and councils, have worked closely with government, the live music industry and the licensed trade to make it easier for both performers and premises to put on live music within the current licensing regime.


Many of the objections to the proposed exemption contained in this LGA Group submission apply equally to the incidental exemption, which has been part of the Act since its introduction.

There is no evidence that the LGA Group has worked closely with anyone since this introduction, to ensure that live music was made easier by the use of this exemption. Even when many Licensing Authorities were experiencing difficulty in understanding how to make any practical use of this exemption, it was only in November 2009 that the LGA group (along with others) made any serious attempt at this.

It is partly because of the failure of the LGA Group to recognise the existence of the incidental exemption, before it was too late, that the current proposal is now thought to be necessary.

Perhaps the LGA group may have considered the incidental exemption to be as "unworkable in practice and a disproportionate" as they now consider the proposed exemption to be in this submission?

Perhaps this was the reason why they waited some four years before making any serious attempt to issue guidance to Licensing Authorities to ensure that live music was made easier by the use of this exemption?

This was less a case of bolting the door after the horse has bolted - more a case of the horse starving to death waiting for the door to be unlocked. Many of the premise which could have benefited from this exemption, were either forced to obtain Entertainment Permission or have long ago given up on the idea of providing any form of live music.

There is also no evidence that the LGA Group has worked closely with anyone since this introduction, to ensure that the provision of small scale non-amplified live music was made easier by the use of S 177. In fact, the LGA Group insist on continuing with regulation which makes no distinction between non-amplified and amplified live music and which places non-amplified live music at risk when it presents no risk to the licensing objectives.

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

· The LGA Group is opposed to the introduction of de minimis exemptions for live music, however. Audience size alone is not a viable means of determining whether or not a particular performance of live music will contravene one of the licensing act objectives1.

Size would appear to matter when the LGA Group wish it to matter but would not appear to matter when they do not wish it to matter.

This objection would equally apply to the incidental exemption or indeed most if not all of the Act's many other exemptions, which may also not be a viable means of determining whether or not a articular performance of live music will contravene one of the licensing act objectives.

However laudable the LGA Group's intention may be, to ensure that the licensing objectives are not contravened in advance, common sense should tell us that this is not always possible and that the attempt to address every potential problem comes at a cost that not everyone is prepared to pay. To treat every activity in advance as if it is presenting a potential risk to the licensing objectives is to place at equal risk many activities that do not.

Planning legislation deals with averting potential problems and there is no need for expensive duplication of this for the provision of live music.

It is not as if the concept of a de minimis exemption is new and the world did not end for all the years that the two-in-a-bar rule was in place in our pubs. This suggest that the LGA Group's opposition here is not based on any real concern for the public's well-being. Perhaps the LGA Group should consult those they represent before announcing any opposition to a re-introduction of a de minimis exemption. This stance alone is enough to alarm the public and as it is not a stance based on evidence, it is not one the LGA Group as responsible body should be expressing


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 01:52 PM

· A poll of council licensing officers carried out by the LGA Group found that 9 out of 10 think the exemption would lead to an increase in complaints about noise and nuisance. More than half said they expected the increase to be considerable. As such, we believe the proposed exemption is contentious.

If the proposed exemption is at all contentious, it is important to note the direction of that contention and establish if it is at all valid. What is reported is here is what some licensing officers may think. And even if there were to be an actual increase in complaints about noise and nuisance - so what? Again what some people who complain may think, is just that and beyond any control.

The only complaints that should be concerning the LGA Group, are those that are proved to be valid on investigation. The licensing objectives do not currently include reducing the number of complaints. There is no onus on the LGA Group to reduce the number of complaints. The quantity of complaints being made may not reflect any corresponding increase in noise or nuisance but could be reflecting many other factors, such as the attitudes of Licensing Authorities actually encouraging complaints to be made by scare-mongering tactics, such as the type of objections being made in this submission.

Again it is not as if the concept of a de minimis exemption is new and the world did not end for all the years that the two-in-a-bar rule was in place. No corresponding reduction in the quantity of complaints seems to have been reported since the abolition of the two-in-a-bar rule, so there would seem to be little real concern for a resulting increase caused by this proposal. This suggest that the LGA Group's opposition here is not based on any real concern for the public's well-being. This stance alone is enough to alarm the public and as it is not a stance based on evidence, it is not one the LGA Group, as a responsible body should be expressing?

The same concern about anticipating the level of and urgently addressing potential and actual complaints, is not one shown when the complaint or concern is from members of the public and is about the local interpretations and resulting enforcement actions taken by licensing officers and the adverse effect of these on live music. Obtaining any satisfaction in these circumstances is unlikely and considered to be outside of the process described by the LGA Group as the democratically accountable licensing regime.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 06:42 PM

· Councils' role is to balance the needs of the whole local community, including local businesses and local residents. Opposing this exemption is not about saying "no" to live music. Councils want to be able to say "yes", confident that local people have been considered as part of the process.

The LGA Group's opposition to this proposal is certainly not the only area where musicians feel implacably opposed by this lobby. The many people who appreciate live music are also part of the whole local community and musicians are also local businesses but it would be fair to say that they do not feel that the LGA Group include them in any balanced process and do not detect much indication of the LGA Group wanting to say yes to live music. The LGA Group may say yes to being able to regulate live music.

The report of the Welwyn Hatfield Live Music Forum, July 2009 shows that even where this Council would be seen to have said yes to live music, this is not the whole story and covers up a whole list of questionable licensing conditions. It could well prove to be that as much damage and limitation is being done to the live music that is licensed, as it is to the live music being prevented, damaged and limited for lack of a licence. The LGA Group proudly refers to being subject to the 'democratically accountable licensing regime' - perhaps it can establish in Welwyn Hatfield, exactly how democratic and accountable this regime really is in practice.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 06:51 PM

· The LGA Group does support exemptions for schools and hospitals, which were not previously required to hold a live music licence. We will work with government and partners to develop balanced exemption criteria.

Over half of the pubs did not previously hold a live music licence when the two-in-the-bar rule was in place. This rule only applied in in premises already licensed to sell alcohol and recognised that pubs were already made safe for small scale live music. By what logic and on what evidence do the LGA Group claim these pubs should be excluded from this proposed exemption when they say they support exemptions for schools and hospitals?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 06:56 PM

· Without a rigorous evidence base that shows the extent of the unmet latent demand for live music licenses, no assessment of the balance of costs and benefits from the proposed exemption can be made. It is naïve to ask councillors voluntarily to surrender local peoples' right to a democratically accountable licensing regime in these circumstances.

The two-in-a-bar rule permitted small scale live music but was abolished without a rigorous evidence base. There is no demand for live music licenses, unmet, latent or otherwise, except from the LGA Group.

It is irresponsible for the LGA Group to continue the pretence that additional entertainment licensing for fixed premises is the only or the most effective way the public's interests can be protected from the risks they claim to be associated with live music.

As reported in the consultation document, in 2008, the Government proposed that any problems arising from the exempt live music could be dealt with through penalties available under other legislation, such as on the spot fines for noise under environmental health legislation. No evidence is presented by the LGA Group to show an opposite position.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 07:02 PM

· The LGA Group suggests that government should commission further detailed research to establish:
o how much unmet latent demand for live music in small venues there is (amongst the public, performers and venue owners);
o the extent to which the licensing regime is a factor in this demand remaining unmet;
o the extent to which other factors prevent demand from being met;
o the extent to which the minor variations LRO, introduced in July 2009, is being used to license premises for live music, and;
o whether the number of gigs in small venues has increased or decreased in recent years in relation to the number of potential venues.


I suggest that when regulation for the sake of regulation, sounds as sweet to the ears of the LGA Group as music does to ours - we may as well be on different planets.

I also suggest to the government that they work out how much money will be saved by abolishing the whole outdated concept of additional entertainment licensing.

I further suggest that the government should suggest that the LGA Group supply some detailed research of their own to support their entrenched opposition to the implementation of recommendations based on the findings, in respect of live music, that the government have already either commissioned themselves or been presented with and on which this proposed exemption is based.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 07:08 PM

· Should this exemption be pursued, premises that are already licensed for live music under the Licensing Act 2003, and premises that have had a permission to provide live music revoked following a review of a premises licence or club premises certificate – that is, premises that have previously been specifically considered as part of the democratic licensing process locally – should be excluded from the proposed exemption.

For example, what the LGA Group suggest would include all the pubs reported in Welwyn Hatfield still being limited by being subject to questionably legal licensing conditions resulting from what the LGA Group refer to as the democratic licensing process, competing with those small pubs that would now be exempt from any questionably legal licensing conditions resulting from what the LGA Group refer to as the democratic licensing process.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 04:56 AM

http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=22985

There seems to be a problem with the link provided to the LGA Group submission in full - the PDF can be obtained via this link.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 07:29 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Thursday 1st April 2010 - Sharkey calls on minister to back live music bill

Feargal Sharkey, boss of UK Music, has written to licensing minister Gerry Sutcliffe asking the government to back Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill now that the DCMS small gigs exemption consultation has closed, writes Robert Ashton in Music Week 31 March:
http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040631&c=1

The bill proposes an entertainment licensing exemption for live music in bars and other alcohol-licensed premises up to 200 capacity, an exemption for schools and hospitals, and the reintroduction of the 'two in a bar rule' for unamplified or minimally amplified live music:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldbills/066/2009066.pdf

Theoretically there is time for the government to negotiate a deal with the Lib Dems. Parliament returns from the Easter recess on 6th April. But that is the date everyone expects Gordon Brown to call the general election. Realistically, the bill's chances are slim.

Reliable sources suggest that DCMS received more than 800 responses to their consultation, which closed on Friday 26 March. 800 is more than double the number of local authorities in England and Wales. Although a majority will have opposed the exemption, it is very unlikely that all, or even the majority responded. This leaves most responses divided between residents groups and individuals opposed to the exemption, and musicians, performers' unions, and live music organisations in favour. By now DCMS will know the breakdown of those in favour and those against, and whether an 'overwhelming majority' support a figure larger than the 100-audience exemption proposed by DCMS.

Sharkey's letter to the minister follows publication on 29 March of the UK Music vision for the music industry. Entitled 'Liberating Music' it includes among its recommendations an exemption for 200-capacity venues from entertainment licensing, and the reintroduction of the 'two in a bar rule' (see p30): http://www.ukmusic.org/files/LC_BrochureDigital4.pdf

Discussing 'Liberating Music' in The Guardian on 29 March, Sharkey said:

"I think people still look at music and think it is not a proper grown-up profession and that has got to change because ironically what some people in the world of finance might dismiss as nothing more than a couple of kids making noise in the back of a pub on a Friday night, when they grow up to be big boys and girls, the contribution and the impact that they will have on the rest of society is just - if not more - significant as some bloke with a double first from Cambridge working for a merchant bank in the City of London."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/29/uk-music-industry-government-support

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 06:40 AM

7 Exercise and delegation of functions
(1) All matters relating to the discharge by a licensing authority of its licensing functions are, by virtue of this subsection, referred to its licensing committee and, accordingly, that committee must discharge those functions on behalf of the authority.


I suggest that any individual submission to this or other consultations, which have not been produced by a Licensing Authority's Licensing Committee, should not be considered as representing the view of that Council.

Where anyone employed to enforce legislation is asked whether they consider giving up any of their powers - it is naïve (to use a word from the LGA Group's submission) for the government to expect them or their associations to be willing to do this.

As it was this lobby's opposition in 2008 that scuppered this government's earler attempts to provide an exemption, based on recommendations of the findings in respect of live music, that the government have already either commissioned themselves (the Live Music Forum) or been presented with the all-party Parliament Commons Select Committee) and on which recomendation this proposed exemption is based - the government can hardly pretend to be surprised by the same opposition from the same lobby, for this proposal.

I suggest that this is a case of the law becoming what those employed to enforce it, wish it to be. This based mainly for their own convenience rather than what is best for the public. That to me would be a good definition of a 'police state'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 02:06 AM

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040646&c=1

13:00 | Thursday April 1, 2010
By Robert Ashton

The Government has been swamped with more than 800 submissions to its consultation on proposals to exempt small music venues from the Licensing Act.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 02:31 AM

I note the combative words - like clash & battle being used in this article. And the quote in reference to heavy drinking.

http://ow.ly/16YlkT
Fans enjoy 3D football clash in Harpenden
5:18pm Saturday 3rd April 2010

DOZENS of football fans squeezed into a Harpenden pub this afternoon to watch their heroes do battle in 3D.
An errant linesman may have helped Chelsea to a controversial victory at Manchester United, but it was the many fans squeezed into The George who definitely did require glasses.

Supporters young and old at the High Street venue donned specially tinted eyewear to enjoy the action.

Manager Dionne Clark explained: "It's been absolutely packed in here. The 3D screen has been really popular and the feedback has been great.

"We're one of only 1,000 pubs in the country to have a Sky 3D screen so we're really lucky to have it. In future we'll be showing boxing and rugby on it as well."

After the match, which Chelsea won by two goals to one, fans gave their reactions to the technology.

Phil Cowley, of Redbourn, said: "I really liked it. I wouldn't normally have come here but I wanted to see what football looked like in 3D. I think they still have to do some work on the technology but the idea is excellent and I'd definitely come again."

Eight-year-old son Aaron, however, could not see past the crushing defeat inflicted upon his beloved Manchester United. "I really liked the 3D but didn't like to see Manchester United get beaten," he grumbled.

Matt Swan, meanwhile, who watched the game with a group of friends, had other concerns. He told the Review: "Two of us have got headaches. But we can't work out if they've come from the TV or the amount of lager we've had to drink."


All the objections from the local government lobby to the proposesd exemption apply to the showing of live TV sporting events - which of course are already specifically exempt from licensing.

Use of television or radio receivers
8 The provision of any entertainment or entertainment facilities is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act to the extent that it consists of the simultaneous reception and playing of a programme included in a programme service within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 03:44 AM

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80603w0003.htm#column_WA41

June 2008
Lord Colwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether, in view of the serious violence and disorder that broke out in Manchester when a big screen showing the ITV broadcast of the UEFA cup failed on 14 May, it will review the exemption for broadcast entertainment in the Licensing Act 2003. [HL3715]


Lord Davies of Oldham:

The screening in Manchester of the broadcast of the UEFA cup final in a public place on 14 May only took place with the consent of the local authority and under restrictions agreed with the police. It is therefore difficult to see what added control would have been available had the event been subject to the licensing controls under the Licensing Act 2003, or that such controls would have prevented the disorder that arose.

It remains the Government's position that big-screen television broadcasts in themselves do not cause disorder, but that it is the consumption of alcohol at such events that can lead to problems. Decisions on whether big-screen events should go ahead are the responsibility of the local authority in consultation with the local police, who are involved at an early stage, and event organisers. It is already possible under existing legislation to control consumption and drunkenness in public places. Under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, it is possible for a local authority to designate any area to which the public have access a place where alcohol may not be consumed. It is also an offence under the Licensing Act 1872 to be drunk in a public place. The Government are confident that the police and local authority in Manchester will ensure that safety and security arrangements provide a controlled environment at any future big-screen events.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 05:11 AM

An example of how the surviving live music that is not actually prevented by it is treated under what the LGA Group refer to as a "democratically accountable licensing regime."

http://www.musictank.co.uk/reports/licensing-act-2003-case-study-st-albans-district-council

This survey identified 85 pubs in the St Albans District with live music authorisation, and of those:

• 30 have restrictions on the number of musicians who can perform
(35% of pubs)

• 45 pubs have restriction on the regularity or frequency of musical performances (53% of pubs)

• 4 have a restriction on the genres of music which can be performed

• 1 pub has to display a suitable and conspicuous notice advising the residents of forthcoming live music events.

• 1 pub has a restriction on indoors Morris Dancing


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 05:51 AM

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/5048346.St_Albans_District_Council___We_are_not_killjoys_/

St Albans District Council: "We are not killjoys"

The relevant cabinet member, Councillor Anthony Rowlands, said: "It is a nonsense to suggest they are killjoys. To the contrary, their work, along with the council's effective partnerships with the police, pubs, restaurants and taxi trade, ensure that this is a good place for an enjoyable night out."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 06:12 AM

On the subject of sessions (with their multiple instruments) being able to benefit from the incidental exemption..................

The following is the official LACORS response to the consultation on Entertainment facilities. It includes the following: The issue of numbers of instruments should also be covered by the revised Guidance, in order to make it clear that music involving multiple instruments is very unlikely to fall within the incidental music exemption.

http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=23111

Question 4:         Does this draft Guidance provide sufficient advice to assist licensing authorities in their administration of the Licensing Act? Yes/ No

Answer: No; further clarification and examples are required in order to provide licensing authorities, operators and performers with clear guidance about the proposed changes and the meaning of incidental music.

LACORS is concerned that the definition of entertainment facilities is very broad, and that in order to avoid confusion (especially about the definition of incidental music), the revised Guidance should be particularly detailed in its explanation of the points below.

It should be made clear to operators that unamplified instruments capable of producing loud music are very unlikely to be capable of making music that falls within the definition of incidental music.
Guidance to operators and musicians should make it very clear that, for example, if musical instruments are used in a way that goes beyond incidental music and into a form of music that would in fact require a permission for regulated entertainment, those instruments will not fall within the entertainment facilities exemption.

We also note that the draft statutory instrument refers to "…anything to be used to enable a musical instrument to be played without amplification" and again, the Guidance should explicitly refer to unamplified musical instruments, in order to provide clarity for licensing authorities, operators and performers.
The issue of numbers of instruments should also be covered by the revised Guidance, in order to make it clear that music involving multiple instruments is very unlikely to fall within the incidental music exemption.

The revised Guidance should continue to refer to existing DCMS Guidance on incidental music, but it is also very important that the revised Guidance reproduces the broader advice and positive examples of incidental music issued by the live music working party formed by the Musicians' Union, the British Beer & Pub Association, DCMS, LACORS and the LGA.

Finally, the Guidance should set out "negative" examples of instruments that are unlikely to be capable of producing incidental music, e.g. bagpipes, drums, brass instruments and so on that would then not be exempt, in order to provide clarity for operators and performers as well as local authority officers (and others with an enforcement role under the Licensing Act 2003)


It would seem that at any point where there is some hope of common semse being applied - the local government lobby will find some way of advising some form of unhelpful regulation that would be impossible in practice. This is not the 'promotion of quality regulation' that is supposed to be purpose of LACORS - it is regulation for its own sake.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 06:47 AM

The LACORS position - should it be accepted and it most probably will be - means that although any provided instrument for a performance of incidental live music will not be a licensable Entertainment Facility - those provided for live music that a licensing officer does not accept as qualifying as a performance of incidental live music - will still be a licensable Entertainment Facility and of course the performance of live music will be atill be licensable as performance of Regulated Entertainment.

A session with multiple non-amplified instruments will not be considered to be exempt as a performance of incidental live music and any instrument provided (or premises) to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing will be licensable as the provision of Entertainment Facilities.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 09:37 AM

http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/upload/23037.pdf

The above link is to where LACORS, along with what it refers to as its partners, have produced joint guidance on the incidental exemption which LACORS refer to as the DCMS Guidance.

As this joint document gives examples of bands qualifying for the incidental exemption this 'DCMS guidance' seems to differ to LACORS own submission to DCMS where LACORS want to make "make it clear that music involving multiple instruments is very unlikely to fall within the incidental music exemption."

I wonder if their so-called partners have been consulted before LACORS submitted this further requirement of their own or indeed if they are aware of it now?

What a mess?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 09:51 AM

If you want any sensible entertainment, VOTE TORY.

After all, New Labour is the party of the Football Hooligan, as may readily be inferred from the exemption of the incredibly noisy wide screen broadcast from any control whatever.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Green Man
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 10:44 AM

OK well!, 'They' spent ALL that money (our money) creating the P.E.L legislation and trying to enforce it over the vociferous objections of many organisations and individuals as well as ignoring our petion(s).

NoW guess what? they're going to spend even more of our money changing what should never have been done in the first place.

We have a saying in I.T. and I guess a few other professions, If it ain't broke don't fix it. Well they broke what wasn't and now we're paying twice for them to fix it.

What a bunch of horses arses. As far as culture ministers go they are pants indeed. In fact they de-culture things quite effectively.

Oooh I do love a good rant. :)

Back to the trees.!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 12:30 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Brass instruments, drums and bagpipes should be illegal unless licensed, according to council enforcement officers.

This is the implication of the response to a DCMS consultation by the Local Authority Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services - LACORS - motto: 'promoting quality regulation':
http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/upload/24025.doc [see p2]

Under the Licensing Act's 'entertainment facilities' provisions, even providing a piano in a bar, or an instrument for a school concert, is a potential criminal offence unless licensed explicitly as an 'entertainment facility'. No-one need actually perform - provision of the unlicensed facility is of itself the potential criminal offence. Max penalty: £20,000 fine and six months inside. Last summer, pianos set up for the public to play in London streets had to be licensed in this way.

Robert Hardman reported in the Daily Mail of 23 June 2009: 'Every piano has required both planning permission and a temporary events licence, not to mention meetings with the police and a constellation of local government functionaries. There would actually be more pianos scattered across London were it not for the red tape and local jobsworths':
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1194875/Strolling-Beethoven-Playing-PIANO-street--start-new-craze.html

Last October, licensing minister Gerry Sutcliffe said that this had not been the government's intention and promised to clarify the law.

To that end, on 15 January 2010 DCMS published a consultation (which closed on 26 February). This proposed that unamplified musical instruments should be exempt from the 'entertainment facilities' provisions. It also proposed a clarification of the existing exemption for performances that qualify as 'incidental music', making clear that both amplified and unamplified instruments could be provided:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/consultations/091020PN_FACILITIES_clarification_condoc.pdf

But LACORS seems to want only solo unamplified performance to qualify for the 'incidental music' exemption. This is contrary to current DCMS guidance, which suggests that an orchestra might qualify: '... an orchestra may provide incidental music at a large exhibition':
http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/DCMS_LicensingGuidanceb.pdf [p29, para 3.22]

LACORS wants this Guidance to be changed:

'... The issue of numbers of instruments should also be covered by the revised Guidance, in order to make it clear that music involving multiple instruments is very unlikely to fall within the incidental music exemption.'

And: '... the Guidance should set out "negative" examples of instruments that are unlikely to be capable of producing incidental music, e.g. bagpipes, drums, brass instruments and so on that would then not be exempt, in order to provide clarity for operators and performers as well as local authority officers (and others with an enforcement role under the Licensing Act 2003).'

What do you think of this LACORS proposal? The author of their DCMS response is Charlotte Meller: charlotte.meller@lacors.gov.uk

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 05:49 PM

How can Licensing Authorities be expected to reconcile the S 182 Guidance with the guidance from LACORS?

From the S182 Guidance
CULTURAL STRATEGIES
13.57 In connection with cultural strategies, licensing policy statements should include clearly worded statements indicating that they will monitor the impact of licensing on the provision of regulated entertainment, and particularly live music and dancing, for example, by considering whether premises that provide live music or culture are represented on licensing stakeholder forums, and ensuring that local cultural officers are regularly consulted about the impact on local culture. Where appropriate, town centre managers have an important role in coordinating live music events in town centres and can be an important source of information.

13.58 Care will be needed to ensure that only necessary, proportionate and reasonable licensing conditions impose any restrictions on these events. Where there is any indication that events are being deterred by licensing requirements, statements of licensing policy should be re-visited with a view to investigating how the situation might be reversed. Broader cultural activities and entertainment may also be affected. In developing their statements of licensing policy, licensing authorities should also consider any views of the local authority's arts committee, where one exists.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

From the LACORS'GUIDANCE:
THE ROLE OF ELECTED MEMBERS IN RELATION TO LICENSING COMMITTEE HEARINGS UNDER THE LICENSING ACT 2003 FOR LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN ENGLAND Updated January 2010
http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=23187

8. Decision making
Whilst the Government's Guidance accompanying the Licensing Act 2003 indicates some other factors which may influence decisions (e.g. live music / cultural considerations) these will always be subservient to the Licensing Objectives and the Licensing Policy Statement.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 06:14 AM

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/86579?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n

DCMS stalls on TENs reform

    * By Peter Coulson
    * 07/04/2010 08:31

Back in January I wrote about the Department for Culture Media & Sport (DCMS) proposal to free up the temporary event notice (TEN) regime slightly, in order to deal with postponed events and unexpected changes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 06:42 AM

http://www.lastminutemusicians.com/how_to_get_gigs/?p=220

The PDF containing the MU's submission to the small events consultation can be obtained from the above link.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

http://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/site/cms/v4_newsArticleView.asp?article=904

The above contains a link to a PDF leaflet guide where the MU refer to an examples of a band & orchestra being exempt under the incidental exemption!!!!

LACORS submission would seem to have sabotaged that? I wonder if the MU (and what LOCORS refer to as their partners) are aware of this?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 10:47 AM

http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/static.aspx?N=0&Ne=0+2000+3000+4000+5000+6000+7000+8000+9000+10000+11000&groupid=1

As LACORS motto is 'promoting quality regulation' this body can hardly object to being seen to be effectively regulated itself. the question is, is LACORS currently effectively regulated at all or is it the 'loose cannon' acting in its own interests, that it would appear to be to many of us?

The position currently is that: LACORS is accountable to its Board of Directors which is made up of senior elected members nominated by the four UK local authority Associations.

Is being accountable to this board, as currently comprised, able to ensure that the regulation that is being promoted by LACORS is this 'quality' regulation rather than simply being the promotion of regulation for its own sake?

How is 'quality' in this case to be determined?

How effective is the current regulatory process that LACORS is subjected to?

How democratic is the current regulatory process that LACORS is subjected to?

There is currently a Scottish vacancy on the Board. Is it the bagpipe thing?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 01:11 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Licensing minister Gerry Sutcliffe is resisting calls for the small gigs exemption to be increased from 100- to 200-capacity events, writes John Harrington in the Morning Advertiser of 6th April:
http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/86573

The report quotes 'a Labour party spokesman at the DCMS' - probably Lenny Shallcross, special adviser to Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw (Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/lenny.shallcross ):

"There's nothing so far in the responses to the consultation [which closed on 26 March] that have changed Gerry's mind. If Labour is re-elected they will attempt to make the exemptions. Gerry's position remains unchanged on this."

However, Gerry's position is premature. DCMS has not published the 800-plus consultation responses. Only a few civil servants know the breakdown of those for and against the proposed exemption, and the proportion supporting a larger figure. Sutcliffe and the special adviser are unlikely to have read more than a few of the responses.

On 22 October 2009, Sutcliffe promised to consider a larger exemption during the Westminster Hall licensing debate, when he announced the small gigs exemption consultation. Lib Dem Richard Younger-Ross said: '...If the consultation on a capacity of 100 shows a desire for it to be increased to 200, I hope that the Government will support it.'

Sutcliffe replied: 'I am grateful for the opportunity to do that now - I was asked to do it by the Chairman of the Select Committee. Clearly, if the consultation overwhelmingly shows that everybody is happier with the figure of 200, and that will get us through the legislative reform order, we will consider it. We are suggesting the figure of 100, but that is one of the reasons for the consultation.'
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm091022/halltext/91022h0004.htm

According to a report in Music Week last week, Musicians Union general secretary John Smith believes that almost everyone who responded to the consultation asked for a 200-capacity exemption:
http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040631&c=1

The exemption is opposed by the Local Government Association, however, and an as yet unknown number of individual local authorities.

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 Apr 10 - 06:25 AM

http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66789

Tories back 200 exemption for live music
8 April, 2010
By James Wilmore
Shadow Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt claims licensing regime has been a 'disaster' for live music


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 Apr 10 - 09:43 AM

The following from the MU submission is of interest.

Question 10: Do you agree that the proposal, taken as a whole, strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by it?

22. Yes, we believe that the proposal strikes a fair balance. There is no evidence to suggest that the public is adversely affected by live music in small venues. In fact, there is no evidence to suggest that the public is adversely affected by live music at all.

23. We recently made our own investigations into whether live music specifically has an effect on public nuisance. These investigations took place as a result of comments made by Chris Fox, the President of the Association of Chief February 2010 Police Officers, in July 2003 in which he claimed that live music performance has a negative impact on crime and disorder: „live music always acts as a magnet in whatever community it is being played. It brings people from outside that community and others who come and having no connection locally behave in a way that is inappropriate, criminal and disorderly.‟

24. The MU was concerned about the comments made by Chris Fox, and as a result we wrote to chiefs of police across the country to ask whether they considered live music to be linked to an increase in crime and disorder. The vast majority of the responses that we received supported our view - that the performance of live music itself has no effect on crime and disorder, and that any problems experienced are usually due to the size of the crowd (at festivals, for example) and the dispersal of people at the end of an event.

25. These letters support the MU‟s argument that smaller live music performances have no adverse effect on the promotion of any of the licensing objectives. We would be happy to provide copies of the letters that we received from chiefs of police if required.

26. The second commonly held perception about live music performance is that it impacts on public nuisance by way of noise. The research that DCMS commissioned through the Live Music Forum, carried out by Mori, reported that 77% of all objections to applications for live music came from local residents or their representatives, with 68% of those objections specifically relating to concerns about the noise level of music; or noise levels from customers.

27. However, the Live Music Forum‟s investigations into actual noise complaints made showed that an estimated 90% of complaints relate to music from a domestic premise. The MU is therefore concerned that the commonly held perception that a live music performance may impact on the public nuisance objective is not actually borne out in reality.

28. We certainly do not wish to pursue any policy that has an adverse effect on the community, however, we do not believe that this proposal could cause any problems in this area.

29. There is evidence, on the other hand, to suggest that the music and pub sectors have both been adversely affected by the current restrictions imposed by the Licensing Act 2003, as we explain in our answer to question two.

30. In the current difficult economic climate, many pubs and venues are struggling to survive and many local communities are losing important community hubs. Evidence recently collated by PRS for Music1 strongly demonstrates that live music can help pubs and venues survive the recession.

31. The research found that pubs that provide music take on average 44% more money than pubs without music. This rises to 60% more at the weekend. The findings also show that live music is much more profitable than recorded music, with one in four publicans reporting increases in takings of between 25%-50% on nights when they have live music compared to other nights and seven out of ten reporting an increase of typically between 10-25%.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Apr 10 - 01:30 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

Entertainment licensing for small gigs has become an election issue.

On Tuesday, a Labour party spokesperson suggested that licensing minister Gerry Sutcliffe had already made up his mind to proceed with an entertainment licensing exemption for 100-capacity gigs - even before DCMS had evaluated the 800 exemption consultation responses. Last October Sutcliffe suggested that the figure would be open to negotiation when the DCMS exemption consultation was over (it closed on 26 March).
http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/86573

Today, both trade papers report renewed Conservative backing for a 200-capacity exemption:
http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66789

Shadow Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt told The Publican:

"We support the campaign to extend the exemption from requiring a licence for live music performances to 200 people. The Licensing Act was meant to support the live music industry, but has turned out to be a disaster. Extending the exemption to 200 people will reduce the burden of bureaucracy on pubs, and provide a much needed boost to the live music industry."

The Publican itself is among those campaigning for a 200-capacity exemption: http://www.thepublican.com/section.asp?navcode=399

Today's Morning Advertiser coverage:
http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/86594

Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill, which made it to the Commons, has now fallen. It was not included in the secretive and undemocratic Parliamentary 'wash up' that finishes today. This is where last minute deals are done to get some bills through before an election. An excellent article today by Alex Stevenson of politics.co.uk sheds more light on the wash-up:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/elections/talking-elections-post/post/talking_election/11/lost-in-the-wash-up-behind-closed-doors/

Lib Dem shadow culture secretary Don Foster has suggested that they would consider bringing back a bill after the election.

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 09 Apr 10 - 09:28 AM

http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?storycode=65237

In Sep, the MU staged a gig to promote the inciental music exemption. This gig would be a criminal offence under LACORS proposed changes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 06:49 AM

http://www.ukmusic.org/comment/185-an-open-letter-to-licensing-minister-gerry-sutcliffe

An open letter to Licensing Minister Gerry Sutcliffe      
Wednesday, 31 March 2010 11:50
An Open Letter to Gerry Sutcliffe: will you support Lord Clement-Jones' Live Music Bill and Liberate Creativity?
March 31st 2010

- That the current Licensing Act is hurting grassroots live music is beyond doubt.

Over the past 6 years, Government have conducted eight consultations, two Government research projects and two national review processes, all of which reached this conclusion.

The Culture Media & Sport Select Committee did likewise last May, stating that "to encourage the performance of live music we recommend that the Government should exempt venues with a capacity of 200 persons or fewer from the need to obtain a licence for the performance of live music."

UK Music entered into this latest consultation with good faith, and in full agreement with the Select Committee that any exemption threshold should be raised from 100 to 200.
-

Yours Sincerely,
Feargal Sharkey
Chief Executive
UK Music


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

From an open letter from Feargal Sharkey, Chief Executive, UK Music, to Licensing Minister, Gerry Sutcliffe, March 31st 2010.

"That the current Licensing Act is hurting grassroots live music is beyond doubt.

Over the past 6 years, Government have conducted eight consultations, two Government research projects and two national review processes, all of which reached this conclusion."


Why is it that employees of Licensing Authorities are being allowed to advise their elected members and the public they represent, a position so different to this and why is it that a view based on advice this then is submitted to the DCMS consultation process as being the views of individual councils?

Clear evidence that DCMS 'statistics' have unduly influenced Licensing Authority responses to the licensing consultation. Again this is in open defiance of UK Statistics Authority's recommendations. Waveney Council claim that 'there is no statistical... evidence that live music is being deterred'. See Morehttp://www.waveney.gov.uk/agendas/2010/march/licensing/item4appc.doc

We are very strongly of the view, from our experience in this district that live music is NOT being deterred by the provisions of the Act, our local policy or decisions made by members or delegated officers. The majority of licensed premises in our area had a live music permission of some description, and the Temporary Event Notice (TEN) system is well used for authorising live music activities (many TENS are also seeking alcohol and other regulated entertainment permissions). A significant number of pubs and other venues in our area have successfully varied their licences, to diversify, since the Act came in and it seems that live music activities are actually thriving. We are also seeing a noticeable increase in large outdoor live music events, taking advantage of more flexible licensing arrangements, for example the latitude festival. The feedback we get is that it is now generally much easier to apply for and gain music permissions than it was under the previous Public Entertainment Licence (PEL) system

The Local Government lobby grouping have a agenda of their own, which is based on what they think is good for them and not what is best for the public (who are paying for it) and is certainly not based on what is good for live music. Am I the only one that detects more than a hint of incest in the relationship between DCMS and the local government lobby?

The saving that could be obtained by finally ending the whole concept of locally enforced additional entertainment licensing should be an attractive one at this Election, when each of the main political parties are talking public sector pay cuts. Not sure if we would miss bodies like LACORS and the LGA either should their abolition be suggested in order to save us all money.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 07:00 AM

http://www.efdss.org/latestnews.html

The English Folk Dance & Song Society website (above) now contains their formal response to the DCMS consultations.........


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 10:58 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/tomserviceblog/2010/apr/12/music-funding-in-harmony

Ben Bradshaw admitted the Licensing Act of 2003 needed urgent reform, with its ludicrous restrictions on musical performance in public places, and all three parties agreed they would tackle these issues in a new parliament – another commitment to which we should hold them accountable.

This is the man who is supposed to be in charge of the DCMS....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 05:14 AM

Mr Bradshaw and the DCMS seem to have a different definition to the word 'urgent' and probably a different one again, to the word 'reform'.

As Feargal Sharkey's open letter to Mr Sutcliffe states:
Over the past 6 years, Government have conducted eight consultations, two Government research projects and two national review processes, all of which reached this conclusion [That the current Licensing Act is hurting grassroots live music is beyond doubt.]


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 03:24 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/musicmat

Ben Bradshaw's reported comments can be heard here, in answer to a good question from a listener [listen from 39 Mins]. He may not have said what he was reported to have said or used those words but he does repeat that live music is flourishing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 05:38 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Liberal Democrats are the only party making an explicit manifesto commitment to an entertainment licensing exemption for small-scale performances of live music:

'Cut red tape for putting on live music. We will reintroduce the rule allowing two performers of unamplified music in any licensed premises without the need for an entertainment licence, allow licensed venues for up to 200 people to host live music without the need for an entertainment licence, and remove the requirement for schools and hospitals to apply for a licence.'
http://network.libdems.org.uk/manifesto2010/libdem_manifesto_2010.pdf (p46)

In fact, if Lord Clement-Jones' live music is revived in the new Parliament, the two performer exemption would apply anywhere, not just licensed premises.

The Conservative manifesto doesn't mention music at all:
http://media.conservatives.s3.amazonaws.com/manifesto/cpmanifesto2010_lowres.pdf

A party press officer said: 'The manifesto isn't meant to be an exhaustive list of all our policy commitments. But rest assured we plan to do what we previously announced.'

Last week, Conservative shadow culture secretary Jeremy Hunt told The Publican that the Licensing Act had been 'a disaster' for live music and that his party backed the campaign for a 200-capacity exemption:
http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66789

After the high-profile u-turn announced by licensing minister Gerry Sutcliffe last October, and the DCMS consultation on an exemption for gigs with an audience of up to 100, Labour's manifesto is a disappointment. It coyly alludes to the issue, but only for pubs, and avoids any mention of an exemption:

'Restrictive covenants applied by pub companies to property sales will be curbed and flexibility for pubs to provide related services
promoted, making it easier to have live entertainment without a licence.'
http://www2.labour.org.uk/uploads/TheLabourPartyManifesto-2010.pdf (Communities and Creative Britain, 7:4, p52 in PDF file)

Since at least 2008, Green Party cultural policy has included a commitment to make it easier for pubs and other places to host live music:

'To modify the licensing regulations to ensure that small scale live performance in pubs, clubs and similar venues is not stifled.'
http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/downloads/mfsscms.pdf (CMS433)

I understand this will be included in the party's manifesto, due to be launched in Brighton at 10.30am today.

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 02:14 AM

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040789&c=1

Thursday April 15, 2010
By Charlotte Otter
Two Manchester venues, famous for hosting gigs by Joy Division and Depeche Mode, have shut down.

Jilly's Rockworld and the Music Box both cite financial reasons for their closure.


News that these two venues are closing their doors do not support the Government's claim that live music is either 'thriving' or 'flourishing'. But these claims, based as they are on no reliable statistics - is still their claim.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 02:06 AM

My MP sent my questions re the incidental exemption to the Chair of the local Licensing committee. The following is from the reply which I think shows that whichever Party wins the election - our problems in obtaining sensible licensing will continue unless action is taken at the local enforcement level.

As Chairman of Licensing my committee adjudicates on applications which have objections to them. We do not set the policies which are set by Government statute with slight variations which can be set by the Policy and Management Committees.

On the substance of your letter to Mr Knight I would simply comment that the purpose of having a licensing procedure is to give any objectors an opportunity to make those objections. If you think there should be less opportunity for such objections to be heard I suggest you write to all the candidates standing at this election and ask them to change the law.


There was no mention of passing my still unsanswered questions to whichever Committee may have some interest in local licensing policy. The intent is to simply ignore them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 08:33 AM

http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/

Local government licensing officers are prejudiced against live music.

How else to explain the ludicrous suggestion last month from LACORS (Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services) that using drums, brass instruments or bagpipes should be a potential criminal offence unless licensed? http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=23111

Or, Local Government Association opposition to almost any entertainment licensing exemption for small-scale performances of live music?

These ideas were set out in responses from the LGA and LACORS, to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) consultation on an entertainment licence exemption within the Licensing Act 2003 for live performance to audiences of up to 100 (closed on 26th March 2010) and a separate consultation on Entertainment Facilities (closed on 26th February 2010).

Local government opposition is based on their view that local residents and licensing officers should be able to block live gigs merely on the grounds of the potential for noise. But no evidence is produced that noise from live music is a significant problem, or that existing noise nuisance legislation is inadequate.

Unfortunately, many local authorities encourage residents to complain about music merely because they can hear it, not because it is causing a 'public nuisance'. This was not an objective of the Licensing Act.

Local authorities in Scotland use the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to deal with noise. Why do English and Welsh authorities use the Licensing Act to regulate the extremely small number of live music
noise complaints, when those in Scotland do not?

We believe that pre-emptive regulation through licensing, without discriminating between high or low-risk events, can be neither necessary nor proportionate. Moreover, the lack of necessity or
proportionality is reinforced by an exemption already within the Act for big screen broadcast entertainment, and the light touch for recorded music in bars and pubs during the changeover to the new
regime in 2005. These venues can have DJs and Sky TV - but they have no automatic entitlement to live music.

Following the violence in Manchester during the 2008 UEFA Cup final screening, Lord Davies, on behalf of the Government, concluded that there would have been no measures available in the Licensing Act 2003 which would have prevented this.

In their DCMS consultation response, the LGA cite an 11% increase in the number of premises licensed for live music since 2007. They conclude, fallaciously, that demand for live music is therefore
decreasing. The insinuation is that no further reform is necessary. They call for further research and surveys to establish "unmet latent demand for live music in small venues" as if this were relevant to the
debate about whether or not the legislation is necessary or proportionate.

Under the Licensing Act 2003, the scope of entertainment licensing increased dramatically. The old regime had exemptions for one or two musicians in bars. Private charity fund-raising performances were
exempt. Both exemptions were abolished by the new regime. Now even private concerts in schools, colleges, hospitals, retirement homes, public places, museums, art galleries, warehouses, supermarkets and stores all fall within the Act's purview, if gigs count as 'public' or are raising money for good causes. This hugely inflates the licensing requirement, and inevitably, licence applications.

The fact remains that in tens of thousands of premises it would be illegal to host live music today. Prior to the Licensing Act 2003, many if not most would have been able to have some live music any day
of the week without entertainment licensing.

The urgent need for a small gigs exemption is backed by the whole music industry, including the Live Music Forum, performers unions, the Incorporated Society of Musicians, and UK Music - the lobbying agency for the music business, who's Chief Executive, Feargal Sharkey, said in his recent letter to licensing minister, Gerry Sutcliffe, "Over the past 6 years, Government have conducted eight consultations, two Government research projects and two national review processes, all of which reached this conclusion".

It appears to us that entertainment licensing is promoted by local authorities for their administrative convenience without any serious regard for the cultural implications.

There is no grave threat to public amenity from a licensing exemption for small live music events. However, there are the issues of the employment of scores of thousands and the perpetuation of a popular
music culture of which successive Governments boast and rely upon to support a huge market.

There is no decrease in the demand for live music. Live Music is the new 'Gospel' following the shrinking of the recording industry.

Phil Little
Live Music Forum


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 01:59 PM

http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=11216202

I had not heard of IDeA but the small print shows that they are part of the LGA group. That this group is lobbying for more locally devolved powers under the Licensing Act and a return to locally set licensing fees is clear from the following.....

Lobbying and campaigns
As the voice of local government, the Local Government Association (LGA) is lobbying and campaigning for:

local government to be recognised as the principal deliverer of culture, tourism and sport services
the regulatory and cost burdens on councils to be minimised
an emphasis on the local democratic accountability of the library service
and encouraging service transformation and modernisation the benefits of the 2012 Games to spread throughout the UK through the involvement of local government
further devolution of powers to councils within the Licensing Act 2003
sustainable funding for free swimming, ensuring future funding is directed locally
licensing fees to be set locally.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 03:11 PM

The local government lobby's implacable opposition to any sensible moves that would free live music may be difficult to understand but the key is that this is a lobby group.

The removal of locally set entertainment licensing fees was about the only sensible result of the Licensing Act 2003, it was a shame that it did not go further but given the strength of the lobby - it is surprising that this aspect was included and passed.

But there is no such thing as free lunch. The lobby continues for a return of locally set licensing fees and for some further but unspecified powers to be devolved to them.

I think it is clear that if the current or any other Party forming central government should really want to free live music from the stranglehold that the local government lobby currently have over it -they will have to give the local government lobby something it wants in return.   

Or that is how this lobby see it and as they will still be there - whichever political Party holds temporary sway and think they are in charge. It seems very clear to me who exactly is in control and who has no intention of handing over this control.

The real irony it that we pay for this lobby and it must cost us a considerable sum.............


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 04:04 AM

The LGA group.

http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=4983464


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 06:38 AM

http://new.lga.gov.uk/lga/aio/10168309
Information about the LGA group

The LGA is the single voice for local government. As a voluntary membership body, funded almost entirely by the subscriptions of our 424 member authorities in England and Wales, we lobby and campaign for changes in policy and legislation on behalf of our member councils and the people and communities they serve. We work with and on behalf of our membership to deliver our shared vision of an independent and confident local government sector, where local priorities drive public service improvement in every city, town and village and every councillor acts as a champion for their ward and for the people they represent.

www.lga.gov.uk

The IDeA supports improvement and innovation in local government, focusing on the issues that are important to councils and using tried and tested ways of working. We work with councils in developing good practice, supporting them in their partnerships. We do this through networks, online communities of practice and web resources, and through the support and challenge provided by councillor and officer peers. We also help develop councillors in key positions through our leadership programmes. Regional Associates work closely with councils in their areas and support the Regional Improvement and Efficiency Partnerships (RIEPs).

www.idea.gov.uk

LGE works in partnership with local authorities, regional employers and other bodies to lead on and create solutions for pay, pensions and the employment contract. LGE offers advice on all employment issues, and represents local government employer interests to central government, government agencies, trades unions and European institutions.

www.lge.gov.uk

LACORS promotes quality regulation to councils in the areas of trading standards, environmental protection, licensing and gambling, food safety, hygiene and standards, animal health and welfare and private sector housing.LACORS offer comprehensive advice and guidance to councils and their partners, disseminating good practice and providing up-to-date information on policies and initiatives that affect local people and local services. We lobby on behalf of councils and ensure that legislation and government policy can be practically implemented, and with our colleagues in the LGA group, ensure we contribute to sector-led improvement.

www.lacors.gov.uk

--------------------------------------------------
http://www.independent.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=833147
Central Bodies

Improvement and Development Agency (I&DeA)
Formed in 1998, the I&DeA is funded by a mix of 'top sliced' Revenue Support Grant from the LGA, grant funding from government deparments and fee income from chargeable services. The I&DeA works in partnership with all councils in England & Wales to enhance the performance of the best and accelerate the speed of improvement in other authorities. In this way it helps to develop the sector as a whole.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

See the following site also for informantion on how LACORS itself is regulated and the composition of the board.

http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/static.aspx?N=0&Ne=0+2000+3000+4000+5000+6000+7000+8000+9000+10000+11000&groupid=1

How is LACORS funded?
LACORS is a local government central body created by the UK local authority associations which comprise of the Local Government Association (LGA), Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA), Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) and Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA). LACORS is mainly funded from local government monies. In England and Wales money is 'top sliced' from the Revenue Support Grant.

--------

I don't know what being 'top sliced' means - but it sounds painful to me!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 07:01 AM

http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=2

From April 2010, the majority of content on this website will be reserved for LGA member councils only. This content will be indicated with a red 'm' symbol.

-----------------------------------------------------

Q: Why are you restricting some content on this website for LGA member councils only?

A: The Local Government Association is a voluntary membership body that acts as the national voice for local government, supporting and advising its member councils. Some of our website content is of relevance specifically to our member councils and/or is a value added service that they have paid for through their membership subscription.

We pay for them (and no doubt their subscription too) and we elect them but.......................

They are 'aving' a 'larf'


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 08:26 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

The often perverse and contradictory attitude to live music within local authorities is beautifully illustrated - literally - by the Local Government Association 2008 accounts: http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/aio/751363

Entitled 'In Tune - In Touch', the document features handsome photographs of musical instruments, particularly drums and brass - a design concept clearly intended to convey a message of harmony and co-ordination.

But only last week we learned that LACORS, the regulatory arm of the Local Government Association, wants to criminalise the provision of brass instruments, drums and bagpipes unless licensed:
http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=23111 [click on response link]

And the LGA Group, which includes LACORS, publicly opposes the government's suggested entertainment licensing exemption for small gigs:
http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=22985 [click on response link]

Meanwhile the LGA has drastically restricted public access to its website:
http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=2

The organisation, almost entirely funded by public money, lobbies central government on behalf of local authorities. It is apparently exempt from Freedom of Information legislation.

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 Apr 10 - 04:53 AM

The Information Commissioner has confirmed that the LGA is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Can anyone suggest any good reason for an exemption which prevents the public from receiving information from a body which they pay for and which is supposed to be working for the public's interest?

Is this what is referred to a open government?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 Apr 10 - 06:51 AM

http://chelt.maitlandwalker.com/licensing/index.php/news/the-end-of-24-hour-licensing

The end of 24 hour licensing?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Apr 10 - 06:29 PM

http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/text/hbbulletin302.htm

Evidence has emerged that DCMS use of Alcohol and Entertainment licence statistics has misled respondents to the public consultation on an exemption from entertainment licensing for small gigs.

Environmental Protection UK (EPUK), formerly the National Society for Clean Air, has submitted a strongly negative response to the consultation:
http://www.environmental-protection.org.uk/assets/library/documents/DCMS_-_Licensing_Act_Reform_(2).pdf

It is based in part on a misinterpretation of DCMS Alcohol and Entertainment licence statistics - an almost inevitable result of the way the statistics were presented by DCMS within the consultation.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 10 - 12:37 PM

Music and the election.
Guitarist asks the three main political parties: How would you make life better for musicians?

http://www.musicradar.com/guitarist/music-and-the-election-249022/3

The following is the Labour view: Again note that Mr Bradshaw uses the word "thriving".

Guitarist: Why would life be better under a Labour government?

"The music sector in Britain is thriving. We're providing over £100 million of funding this year to support music organisations and we will maintain that funding.

"We want to do more to encourage live music performances. The Licensing Act gets a bad press, but there are more premises licensed to put on live music and more live music is being performed. But there is a case to make it easier for small establishments to put on live music acts, which is why we propose excluding small venues with a capacity of up to 100 from the Act.

"In schools we're investing over £300 million to improve music education. We will continue our drive to ensure all children experience good quality music and have the opportunity to develop their talents."


Ben Bradshaw, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Apr 10 - 01:57 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Alastair Campbell prosecuted for organising an unlicensed gig?

The prospect is no doubt enticing to many, but it has receded now that Corby Borough Council (CBC) has bent licensing rules for Labour's Elvis stunt last Saturday, 24 April.

The lunchtime performance by Brighton-based Elvis impersonator Mark Wright took place at Lodge Park Technology College, Corby. It came as a show-biz style finale to Gordon Brown's big NHS speech and was widely reported in the national media. See BBC tv news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8641849.stm

But according to the council, the venue's premises licence only allowed entertainment between 6pm and midnight. It seems no-one had checked with the council beforehand about the intended lunch-time gig.

Campbell trailed Mr Wright's appearance on Twitter. At the event, former culture secretary Andy Burnham told the assembled Labour faithful that a tweet by Campbell was broadcast on Radio 5 live saying that 'somebody bigger than Gary Barlow would be here today.'

TV coverage shows 'Elvis' taking centre stage, singing initially to a seated audience. He is well amplified.

Campbell wrote on his blog the following day: "... many thanks to Mark Wright AKA Elvis for putting a bit of life into the campaign coverage yesterday. 'Best pictures of the campaign so far,' said ITV's reporter, so we'll live with that especially as they got GB [Gordon Brown] to the top of the news talking about the future of the NHS."
http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog.php?id=405 [use the search facility on the page for 'elvis']

Questioned yesterday about licensing arrangements, CBC officers asked local Labour MP Phil Hope for more information. The initial defence was that this was a private, not-for-profit event, and therefore exempt. However, that was quickly dropped - possibly because of Campbell's Tweets, and because the event was open to the press. Under the Act, entertainment may be licensable if it is 'to any extent for members of the public or for a section of the public' (LA2003, Sch. 1 para 1(2)(a)).

Today CBC decided that Elvis was not licensable because he was exempt as 'incidental music'.

This may be a common sense position, but in adopting it CBC has bent, if not broken the law. Under the Act, the exemption is disapplied if facilities are provided to enable people to be entertained by music-making, including amplification and a stage (see Licensing Act 2003, Sch. 1 para 3, and para 7(b)).

The government is aware of this problem. Only a couple of months ago DCMS ran a public consultation conceding this was an 'unintended' effect of the Act, and proposing to amend the Act accordingly:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/consultations/091020PN_FACILITIES_clarification_condoc.pdf [see para 1.6]

It was this consultation which prompted LACORS to call for instruments to be illegal unless licensed, including brass, drums and bagpipes.

More links:

Lodge Park principal's blog:
http://www.lodgepark.org.uk/news/default.asp?storyID=144

Elvis was the finale of the event - Northampton Chronicle
http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/EXCLUSIVE-Gordon-Brown-tells-the.6252807.jp

"Mr Brown told the rally in Corby, Northamptonshire: 'I am just the warm-up speaker, I am going to be introducing Britain's Elvis Presley.'"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1268503/All-shook-Labour-tears-flagging-election-strategy-Gordon-Brown-vows-tempo.html

The space in which event was held was on open view to the public - see the opening seconds of this video footage:
http://www.3news.co.nz/Set-for-Heartbreak-Hotel-Brown-enlists-Elvis/tabid/313/articleID/152771/Default.aspx

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 10 - 02:12 PM

If we could all simply ignore the legislation and not be accused by licensing empoyees of presenting a risk to the licensing objectives -we could also claim that live music is 'thriving'.

But it is clearly a case of one rule for those with the 'clout' and another for the rest of us and a 'post code lottery'. As the following will show, the amplified Elvis performance would not be able to benefit from the incidental exemption under my licensing authority.

She [Bridget Downton then Corporate Diector of Weymouth and Portland Borough Council] enclosed information available and commented on the Council's view of what constituted incidental music. This was considered to be; music that could take place without an audience, music that would not be advertised or held on a regular basis: and music that would not be amplified. She added that the Council's preference was not to apply 'a one size fits all' approach and to consider each case on its merits and to advise licensees accordingly.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 10 - 06:33 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7639880/Elvis-appearance-opposite-Gordon-Brown-sparks-investigation.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 10 - 06:35 AM

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040959&c=1


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Apr 10 - 08:45 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

BBC 6 Music News is to host a live debate on the future of the music industry at 3pm this Friday, 30 April:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/news/20100428_debate.shtml

Presenter Richard Bacon will be joined by John Whittingdale, chair of the all party Culture Media and Sport Committee and former Conservative shadow culture secretary, Labour's culture minister Margaret Hodge, Lib Dem shadow culture secretary Don Foster, and Feargal Sharkey, head of UK Music.

Questions for the politicians can be put via the 'Have your say' comment section on the website.

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 10 - 09:43 AM

The Elvis & Gordon Brown duo story is 'thriving'.

http://newsblog.thecmuwebsite.com/?tag=/labour%20party

But Corby Council tried to justify turning a blind eye to the mini gig by declaring the musical turn as "incidental music" which, they say, doesn't required a licence. We asked Brown for a comment, but he just said "fuck off, you bigot". Which is fair enough, I suppose.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 05:13 AM

thread.cfm?threadid=129165&messages=2

The above Mudcat thread is of interest.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 12:58 PM

Not had time to listen to all of the Radio 6 show yet but what I heard was not too hopeful.

Labour's culture minister Margaret Hodge, was on good form and showing just how out-of-touch she was. They had all obviously been asked in advance to choose a piece of music. Mr Whittingdale chose a track which his advisors had obviously and carefully considered to be in line with the ethos of the show.

Margaret Hodge had not been so advised. She referred to going back in time a little in her choice which she claimed, 'brought back memories'. Not sure what these menories were, as when she was asked to introduce her choice, there was an embarrassing moment as she could not remember what she had chosen.

After some prompted discussion, her choice turned out to be Don Maclean singing Vincent..Which it was pointed out was the first time this had been played on BBC Radio 6. As it is due to be closed - it may also be the last time.

They did not listen, their not listening still - perhaps they
never will


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 02:17 PM

You can now listen to the whole thing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/6musicnews


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 May 10 - 06:38 AM

http://www.thestage.co.uk/features/feature.php/28030/cultivating-culture

The following from the above.

We'll also end the bureaucratic nightmares that hold performers back, like Labour's live music licensing system, for example. It has become a complicated, time-consuming regime which has even caught schools, hospitals and colleges in its tentacles, and is stifling the kind of small-scale live music that is so important for the future.

So we'll exempt small venues with capacities of less than 200 and go back to the rule where any venue can put on a performance of un-amplified music by one or two people without a licence. That is how we can foster new talent and new community venues. And Liberal Democrats recognise how extraordinarily competitive careers in performance and the arts can be, and how many of the people working in them are struggling.

Nick Clegg


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 May 10 - 01:51 PM

This all sounds very encouraging from the leader of the Lib Dems but it should be remembered that it was the decision made by the Lib Dems, in the Lords, to vote with the Government which inflicted this legislation upon us. Had they voted against - the Bill would have fallen...........


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 May 10 - 03:09 PM

The Lib Dem leader already seems to have changed the proposal to - and go back to the rule where any venue can put on a performance of un-amplified music by one or two people without a licence.

The following was what was proposed in the Lib Dem supported Private Members Bill.

Live unamplified or minimally amplified music by no more than two performers

12B (1) The provision of a performance of live music within the meaning of paragraph 2(1)(e) of this Schedule, or entertainment of a similar description, or facilities enabling persons to take part in such entertainment, is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act provided that the music or entertainment is —
(a) performed by no more than two performers; and
(b) either unamplified or minimally amplified.


Neither the proposal contained in the Private Members Bill nor the Lib Dem leader's new one can be described as any sort of a return to the two-in-a-bar rule. This exemption, removed by the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003, applied to amplified music and only applied in premises already licensed to serve alcohol.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 02 May 10 - 10:35 AM

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Outside-events-ban-pub-unbelievable/article-2095960-detail/article.html

Pub with permission for outside drinking and music banned from holding events.

But after just two complaints were made about noise during the pub's Easter Sunday event, a council investigation was started.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 02 May 10 - 10:45 AM

http://www.theadvertiserseries.co.uk/consettandstanley/8128433.Noise_ban_could_force_pub_to_close/?ref=rss

MANAGERS of a pub that hosts live music fear it may be forced to close because of a ban on noise.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 02 May 10 - 10:53 AM

http://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/Popular-venue-appealing-after-planning.6264885.jp

Popular venue appealing after planning officers say its shows must stop.

Michael Houlihan, one of the four owners, said several council officers they dealt with prior to opening in 2008 were happy to grant them an alcohol and entertainments licence to cover the whole of the premises.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 02 May 10 - 11:05 AM

http://www.durhamtimes.co.uk/news/8131335.Legion_given_extra_conditions_on_music/

NEIGHBOURS who complained music from a Royal British Legion Club was keeping them awake at night have won a reprieve.

Brandon and Meadowfield RBL Club has been ordered to fit noise monitoring equipment and had its music licence hours reduced.

He said club members could often be seen leaving the club after hours smoking and with carry-outs. Some, he said, could be seen urinating in the street. However, Dr Millard told the committee at the council's Spennymoor office on Tuesday, he did not wish to see the club closed down.

He said: "We ask the (committee) to add conditions to the licence to remove the noise nuisance. Given that it takes an hour after the music stops for people to leave, we suggest that the music stops an hour before closing time."


Some examples of how regulation is certainly 'thriving'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 02 May 10 - 05:26 PM

It is bad enough that serving alcohol and providing live music are treated in this Act and its local enforcement, as if they are presenting the same risks to the licensing objectives but to impose a curfew on live music (with all of its benefits) in order to allow the serving of alcohol (with all of its problems) to continue - is surreal scapegoating of live music as an easy target.

Licensing officers are using this tactic, where live music becomes a sacrifice, in order placate objectors. With Councils now responsible for all licensing - this is sadly quite a common practice.

If the homeward bound and alcohol-fuelled patrons create the problem outside - why not place the curfew on both licensable activities equally? There is nothing preventing a licensee from finishing any live music, food or any other activity when they think best but there is no need to make such curfews a licensing condition.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 03 May 10 - 02:57 AM

For a good start - how about pressing the election hopefuls to replace the proposal from the Lib Dem supported but fallen Private Members Bill) with the following clearly worded exemption?

Live unamplified music.

12B (1) The provision of a performance of live music within the meaning of paragraph 2(1)(e) of this Schedule, or entertainment of a similar description, or facilities enabling persons to take part in such entertainment, is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act provided that the music or entertainment is —

(a) unamplified.

This would at least finally free all live music that was not presenting a noise concern from conditions and restrictions applied to address this.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 05 May 10 - 05:39 AM

http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/folkestone/Protest-art-cafe-s-late-night-hours-ban/article-2045779-detail/article.html

CUSTOMERS of Googies Art Café have vowed to "kick up the biggest stink possible" against a council decision to refuse it a late licence.

Owner Keith Holland says the Rendezvous Street café is not financially viable with its current 10pm closing time, and that he will have to "close the doors and walk away" unless the decision is reversed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 05 May 10 - 10:19 AM

http://fromunderthestone.blogspot.com/2010/04/all-go-for-googies-cafe-campaign-knives.html

Not sure who I am quoting here [from the above] but the following warning sounds more than a little sinister. However, anyone who had dealings over similar issues with local athorities will not be surprised.

-"Cautioning that alterations would have to be made to the premises, including soundproofing, the source warned that generating lots of negative publicity for the council may backfire."

The only way that councils should try to ensure that they obtain good publicity is to act positivly in the first place. Can this council really expect good publicity?

Is it acceptable when the protection the public are provided with by Parliament in The Licensing Act 2003, is subject to a post code lottery and your treatment under this legislation is subject to saying only nice things about your council?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 05 May 10 - 10:31 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Margaret Hodge became the latest minister to peddle DCMS myths about live music, suggesting that licence statistics were somehow good news during the BBC6 live music debate last Friday, 30 April:

'... I've just been looking at the figures before I came on today and actually the number of [live music] licences has gone up by 11% between 07 and 09, so that's... [Feargal Sharkey tries to intervene]... the number of licences, hang on Feargal - I was very careful with the words I used - the number of licences, so there's an increase in the number of pubs that have got licences but whether they're using them is another issue. The only other evidence we've got, is we have a... we do an annual survey of what people take part in and how they spend their time, and under that survey we see that again there's an increase in the number of people, adults, who go to live rock, pop, country, folk, soul, r'n'b, and world music... so it's a pretty difficult...'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sbgh0 [about 41m 30s into the programme - NB only 2 days left to listen]

But Ms Hodge was not careful enough with her words.

Firstly, she didn't mention licence conditions. These are routinely imposed by local authorities and include requirements to fit noise limiters, provide door supervisers, even - as in St Albans - to restrict performer numbers and genres of music. Live music can only be staged if such conditions are implemented by the licensee. Without knowing if conditions have been imposed, and whether or not they have been put into effect, it is impossible to know if the venue can lawfully host live music. DCMS has not surveyed licence conditions.

Secondly, she didn't mention the dramatically increased scope of entertainment licensing under the 2003 Licensing Act, making it inevitable that there would be thousands more applications. This point was subsequently made by Conservative John Whittingdale, chair of the all party Culture, Media and Sport Committee that last year recommended entertainment licensing exemptions for venues up to 200 capacity.

Thirdly, the modest attendance increase Ms Hodge cites from the Taking Part surveys (about 3% 2005-2009) is largely accounted for by mega-venues O2 and Wembley Stadium opening in 2007. In that year alone, over 400,000 attended concerts at those two venues.

Lastly, as Feargal Sharkey pointed out, Ms Hodge for some reason did not mention DCMS research of 2007 which found a 5% fall in gigs since the Licensing Act came into force (BRMB live music survey, the follow-up to the benchmark 2004 MORI/DCMS survey):

'Listen it's very simple, and it's kind of disappointing I'm still hearing this, the government's own figures show that there was in fact a 5% reduction in those small-scale venues and everybody does not want to talk about it.'

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 May 10 - 06:23 AM

http://www.kingston.gov.uk/browse/business/licensing/licensing_guidance/licensing_guidance_noise_pollution.htm

Not too sure on what statistical evidence this is based but this is question that Kingston Council have now been asked to provide.

Control of Noise from Pubs and Clubs

The main source of noise associated with pubs and clubs is musical entertainment, although noise can also originate from patrons using beer gardens, children's play areas, patrons leaving premises, storage areas and plant. This guidance suggests way to avoid noise nuisance and so maintain good public relations with your neighbours. It will also enable you to formulate a noise management plan and operating schedule to prevent public nuisance and meet the Council's licensing objectives under the Licensing Act 2003.


There are of course great distinctions between the playing of recorded music, performance of amplified music and the playing of non-amplfied music. The licensing measures here are taken in advance and assumes that all 'musical entertainment' will be presenting the same concerns.   

It continues the LGA group position which can only see live music, (with all of its benefits) firstly as a public order concern and places most of its efforts on presenting noise complaints.

The examples provided earlier in this thread will show the effects on all live music, of an approach where it follows that any form of noise complaint, whether valid or not, will trigger all sorts of Council Depts into action and even where advance enertainment permission is in place, this will be overriden.

So what possible use, are all of the Licensing Act's additional and expensive advance licensing permissions that are currently said to be so vital to protect the public from live music?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 May 10 - 06:32 AM

thread.cfm?threadid=125302&messages=29

The above thread shows that live music venues have enough problems already.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 11 May 10 - 05:17 AM

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/86983?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n

Officials err on side of caution

    * By Peter Coulson
    * 11/05/2010 08:43

One of the main uses of the new minor variations procedure was alleged to be the removal of "unwanted or unnecessary" conditions on licences. However, experience has shown that this is not as simple or straightforward as the Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) would have you believe.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 11 May 10 - 08:28 AM

http://www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk/news/Project-s-close-earlier-raises-concerns/article-2099401-detail/article.html

A COMMUNITY music youth project, licensed to play music until 3am and sell alcohol, wants to reduce its opening hours and become teetotal.
But some residents are still up in arms.

http://www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk/news/Joy-young-musicians-gain-licence/article-2135018-detail/article.html

If even such applications as this are to be subject to objections of this kind - there does not seem to be much hope. Permission has been granted but one wonders how long it will be before it is challenged?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 12 May 10 - 01:03 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Conservative Jeremy Hunt is the new Secretary of State at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, according to reliable sources.

Junior DCMS ministers will be confirmed tomorrow or Friday.

At the beginning of April Mr Hunt told The Publican magazine that the Licensing Act had been 'a disaster' for live music and that his party backed the campaign for an entertainment licensing exemption for venues up to 200 capacity:
http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66789

The exemption is also a Lib Dem manifesto commitment:

'Cut red tape for putting on live music. We will reintroduce the rule allowing two performers of unamplified music in any licensed premises without the need for an entertainment licence, allow licensed venues for up to 200 people to host live music without the need for an entertainment licence, and remove the requirement for schools and hospitals to apply for a licence.'
http://network.libdems.org.uk/manifesto2010/libdem_manifesto_2010.pdf (p46)

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 12 May 10 - 06:37 PM

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/livemusicevents/

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to stop criminalising live music with the Licensing Act, and to support amendments backed by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and the music industry, which would exempt most small-scale performances in schools, hospitals, restaurants and licensed premises. More details

Submitted by Phil Little of Live Music Forum – Deadline to sign up by: 27 July 2010 – Signatures: 16,948


The above has been closed during the election. The following information is now appearing.

The new administration is currently assessing how best to proceed with the e-petitions service. We will update users as soon as practicable.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 12 May 10 - 07:04 PM

It looks like the new Secretary of State at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, is going to be in for a bit of a scrap.

The following from the LGA Group submission.

The LGA Group is opposed to the introduction of de minimis exemptions for live music, however. Audience size alone is not a viable means of determining whether or not a particular performance of live music will contravene one of the licensing act objectives1.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 13 May 10 - 05:59 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8678797.stm

By Torin Douglas
Media correspondent, BBC News

Media, arts and sports policy is not a key priority for the new coalition government - any more than it was in the parties' election manifestos.

Culture is on the back-burner, hardly mentioned in the first agreement between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 14 May 10 - 04:49 AM

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/87024?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n

A spokesman for Nottinghamshire police said: "Nottinghamshire Police, in common with other forces, has been urged by the Home Office and senior officers within the force to use powers granted under section 19 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.

"Under section 19, a closure notice can be served within 24 hours of finding a breach of a premises licence, with the effect that between seven days and six months of service of the notice, police can apply to local magistrates to close the premises if the breaches have not been rectified.

"If premises stay open whilst breaching their licence conditions they are advised that they are acting otherwise than in accordance with their licence and are committing a criminal offence under section 136 of the Licencing Act 2003 unless they cease licenceable activities immediately. In practice, the premises may shut to avoid criminal prosecution. It was on advice from the police that the two premises named chose voluntarily to close and address their licensing issues."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 14 May 10 - 05:36 AM

http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/28187/jeremy-hunt-asks-dcoms-to-plan-for-66m

Published Thursday 13 May 2010 at 10:56 by Alistair Smith

Newly appointed culture secretary Jeremy Hunt has asked civil servants at the Department for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport to investigate how the department can make savings to cover £66 million of cuts.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 14 May 10 - 05:40 AM

http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/28198/vaizey-joins-hunt-in-dcoms?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign

Vaizey joins Hunt in DCOMS
Published Friday 14 May 2010 at 09:48 by Alistair Smith

Ed Vaizey will today be confirmed as the new culture minister, The Stage understands.

Vaizey has been given the arts brief within the newly-renamed Department for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. Portfolios are currently being confirmed, with further announcements of departmental appointments are expected today.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 14 May 10 - 11:04 AM

The new DCMS website is now live at www.culture.gov.uk

Much of the content of this site has been temporarily removed for review. That which remains has been amended to reflect the change of government. To see a pre-election version of the site please visit The UK government web archive.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100407120701/http://www.culture.gov.uk/index.aspx


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 14 May 10 - 11:14 AM

I wonder how ex DCMS Ministers like Bradshaw, Hodge, Sutciffe will feel should the current fortunes of their Labour Party be described now as 'thriving'?

In truth it is difficult to have much sympathy for such a bunch and we can only hope the end result of a Government which thinks it can so easily ignore and blatently lie to the public is something they and the current bunch will learn from.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 14 May 10 - 11:28 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8682124.stm

Paul Heaton gets on his bike to save the 'beautiful' pubs

For his bike, he is not required by law to wear a crash helmet, have insurance and have (a third party pay to obtain) road tax, as if the activity presented all the dangers of a powerful motor bike.

For his gigs, unless a third party has paid in advance to obtain additional entertainment permission as if it was an arena gig to an audience of thousands - he will be told to get-on-his-bike.

Perhaps if Feargal Sharkey can be persuaded to join him on this tour - we could obtain some timely publicity and some proportionate legislation? I'll even supply him with a bike.......


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 14 May 10 - 01:02 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

A widely criticised DCMS live music report has been removed from the new DCMS website: http://www.culture.gov.uk/

'Changes in Live Music between 2005-2009' was published by DCMS on 28 January 2010 and is one of many documents 'temporarily removed for review', although it is still available online via the National Archive:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/publications/6603.aspx

The report claimed that 'overall live music is thriving', but did acknowledge this was not the case for smaller venues.

However, the 'thriving' conclusion was not based on any direct measure of performances. It relied instead on indirect evidence: an 11% increase in live music licence applications 2007-9; an apparent 20% increase in the number of professional musicians; a modest increase in self-reported gig attendance (about 3% from the 'Taking Part' surveys); and Arts Council participation data (TGI).

DCMS itself conceded that it was unsafe to draw conclusions from licence application data. But it subsequently emerged that the 'professional' musician figures were nothing of the sort (30% were not musicians, 41% were part-time), and increased gig attendance data was probably due to the opening in 2007 of the mega-venues O2 and Wembley Stadium.

Concerns were raised in a series of Parliamentary Questions by Lords Clement-Jones and Colwyn (documented in earlier circulars, starting with 'More dodgy DCMS music stats' 19 Feb - see Hamish Birchall Bulletins: www.livemusicforum.co.uk). Answers were evasive or entirely avoided.

On 23 March, MP Ed Vaizey cited Music Week on DCMS 'cooking the books' in the Conservative blog 'Culture Politick':
http://www.culturepolitick.com/cms/2010/03/23/weekly-email-25022010/ [search on page for 'cooking']

The Stage reports today that Mr Vaizey is expected to be confirmed as the new culture minister:
http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/28198/vaizey-joins-hunt-in-dcoms?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:%20TheStageNews%20(News%20Headlines

The last time DCMS surveyed actual performances in venues like bars and restaurants was in 2007 with the BMRB study. This found a 5% fall in performances after the Licensing Act came into effect in 2005, measured against benchmark the 2004 pre-Act MORI survey which found that the majority of premises had no live music at all in the previous 12 months. Most of those that did host live music did so relatively rarely. This did not stop DCMS calling this a 'flourishing' live music scene.

Archive link to 2007 DCMS/BMRB live music survey:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/research_and_statistics/4854.aspx

Archive link to 2004 DCMS/MORI live music survey:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/publications/4558.aspx

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 14 May 10 - 08:04 PM

New DCMS cost cutting?

http://www.culture.gov.uk/about_us/our_ministers/default.aspx/

Only one Minister now, where there were recently so many.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 May 10 - 05:28 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/andrew-gilligan/7728278/Leaked-memo-reveals-what-Whitehall-really-thinks-of-its-new-masters.html

Leaked memo reveals what Whitehall really thinks of its new masters Whitehall insecurities about its new Conservative masters are laid bare in eye-opening secret papers leaked to The Sunday Telegraph.
--------------
The paper bluntly admits that the "Minister's agenda" is different from "our own agenda" – but says that the department is "willing to flex our own agenda" to the minister's, in perhaps the clearest admission yet seen that Whitehall regards itself as the real government and ministers as mere birds of passage.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 17 May 10 - 02:27 PM

http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=67050&c=1

Licensing powers could move to the Home Office

17 May, 2010
By James Wilmore

New ministers at DCMS not given licensing brief, fuelling speculation responsibility could shift

The coalition government has unveiled new ministers for tourism and sport at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), but it remains unclear which one will be in charge of licensing, if any.


I do wish they would get on with it................


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 17 May 10 - 03:08 PM

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=2&storycode=1041182&c=2

Significantly, with the Lib Dems wielding quite considerable power in the new cabinet (there are five from the party), Clement-Jones would like to see the DCMS beefed up. ³We would like to see the DCMS have more clout; the DCMS is quite a weak department at the moment,² says the peer. ³You also need to have the Business Innovation and Skills department involved and Home Office so the departments are all pulling together.² Clement-Jones¹ own Live Music Bill fell at the final hurdle during the last Government and some suggest the new Con-Lib coalition might want to revisit its recommendations to provide a Licensing Act exemption for music venues with 200 people or fewer. ³They might need a popular piece of legislation after all the economic reforms,² adds McGonigal.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 17 May 10 - 06:09 PM

1. The parts of the Lib Dems manifesto which supported the 200 exemption and two-in-a- bar for non-amplified music only do not appear in the Con/Lib coalition agreement/manifesto. So nothing is now being proposed by this Party and anyone who voted for them because of the Lib Dem manifesto can rightly feel betrayed.

2. Apart from his stated pre-election public support for the 200 exemption - there is no solid proposal from the Tories, now Mr Hunt is now (supposed to be) in charge at the DCMS.

3. But as no Minister there has (yet) been given this brief, there would seem to be some doubt if DCMS will keep licensing or if this will go to the Home Office.

4. The only remaining crumb of comfort is if Don Foster re-introduces the Live Music Bill - as a Private Menbers Bill, which he said he would do. So far there is deafing silence from that quarter   

5. And the fate of the DCMS consultations is still to be announced.

Reasons to be cheerful? Apart from getting shot of the last bunch - I think not.

Now, all three parties have assured us that the problems presented to live music by additional entertainment licensing will be addressed. None of them have actually delivered when they were in power to do so. The Lib Dems in particular have twice had this opportunity but have chosen make deals which scuppered the chance.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 18 May 10 - 12:59 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Licensing remains in limbo almost two weeks since the general election.

A licensing minister has yet to be confirmed, and press reports yesterday suggested that the portfolio might be moved back from DCMS to the Home Office:

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/87043?PagingData=Po_0~Ps_10~Psd_Asc

http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=67050&c=1

'Alcohol and entertainment' has today been reinstated on the DCMS website under the heading 'What we do' - which makes it sound like some funky new venue - but the link just takes you to archived content: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/alcohol_and_entertainment/default.aspx

Meanwhile, The Stage today reports that Feargal Sharkey is hopeful that Lord Clement-Jones' Live Music Bill, which would create entertainment licensing exemptions for small venues, will be revived in the autumn:
http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/28250/sharkey-optimistic-about-parliamentary

And Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt is praised in the Daily Telegraph for reportedly promising, pre-election, that 'every child will have the opportunity to learn an instrument...' ['Music unlocks the key to childrens souls', Stephen Hough, 18 May 2010]:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/7735302/Music-unlocks-the-key-to-childrens-souls.html

Of course, under the Licensing Act 2003, most school concerts remain illegal unless the school is explicitly licensed for live performance. Private school concerts are caught if there is a charge with a view to profit, or just to raise money for good causes. Concerts open to friends are likely to count as 'public', and therefore licensable irrespective of any charge. Even the provision of musical instruments is potentially a criminal offence unless licensed as the provision of 'entertainment facilities'.

There has been no comment to date from the new coalition government on whether or not they will take forward the small gigs exemption consultation initiated by Labour.

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Sahmbles
Date: 18 May 10 - 01:46 PM

http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/28250/sharkey-optimistic-about-parliamentary

Sharkey 'optimistic' about parliamentary support for small gig exemption
Published Tuesday 18 May 2010 at 14:43 by Natalie Woolman

Chief executive of UK Music Feargal Sharkey has said he aims to get the Live Music Bill, which would give a licensing exemption to gigs for less than 200 people, re-introduced to parliament before the end of the year.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 May 10 - 06:26 PM

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/87043?PagingData=Po_0~Ps_10~Psd_Asc

Home Office 'will control licensing'
By John Harrington
17/05/2010 11:36
Control of licensing is to return to the Home Office under the new coalition Government, a senior Tory source has told the Morning Advertiser.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 May 10 - 07:01 PM

http://www.culture.gov.uk/about_us/default.aspx

From the DCMS site above......

We are responsible for Government policy on:

licensing and gambling


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 May 10 - 10:59 AM

http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/ministers_speeches/7069.aspx

Mr Hunt's speech in full.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 May 10 - 11:19 AM

The Lib Dem leader also called on the public to nominate laws to be repealed, as part of a "power revolution".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8690882.stm

He does not specify the process by which the public can make these nominations.

And there does not appear to be a Minister with a brief for licensing to whom we could write and nominate the Licensing Act 2003.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 May 10 - 02:14 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/7482778/Bad-Laws-Labour-has-clowned-around-with-our-freedom.html

Bad Laws: Labour has clowned around with our freedom
This nanny-state government's legislative tinkering leaves no one better off, says Philip Johnston in an extract from his new book


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 May 10 - 08:36 AM

http://londonjazz.blogspot.com/2010/05/parliamentary-jazz-awards-resultsreview.html

The only overtly political speech of the night was from Lord (Tony) Colwyn. And it contained a couple of sentences which counted: "Jeremy Hunt will remove the restrictions on small gigs." Colwyn expressed the intention to re-instate the Liberal Democrat's Live Music Bill, and to make it into law. This commitment received the loudest applause of the night. And- maybe more significntly - it also got both a grin and a thumbs-up from Arts Minister Ed Vaizey.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: nickp
Date: 20 May 10 - 11:04 AM

"We will cut red tape to encourage the performance of more live music."

coalition statement pdf page 14


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 20 May 10 - 02:02 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Conservative peer and jazz trumpeter Anthony Colwyn suggested yesterday that licensing reform is imminent for small gigs, reports Jazzwise magazine from the 6th annual Parliamentary Jazz Awards:
http://tinyurl.com/26qrzcd

Colwyn's speech had ministerial support, according to jazz journalist Sebastian Scotney:

'The only overtly political speech of the night was from Lord (Tony) Colwyn. And it contained a couple of sentences which counted: "[Culture Secretary] Jeremy Hunt will remove the restrictions on small gigs." Colwyn expressed the intention to re-instate the Liberal Democrat's Live Music Bill, and to make it into law. This commitment received the loudest applause of the night. And - maybe more significantly - it also got both a grin and a thumbs-up from Arts Minister Ed Vaizey.'
http://londonjazz.blogspot.com/2010/05/parliamentary-jazz-awards-resultsreview.html

As it turns out, Vaizey does not have the licensing brief. It was announced today that this has gone to DCMS Tourism minister John Penrose. For the moment, it seems, licensing remains a DCMS function: http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/news_stories/7071.aspx

However, well-informed sources within the licensing industry believe that licensing will be transfered back to the Home Office, and that this will be announced in the Queen's Speech next Tuesday, 25th May, although DCMS may retain control of entertainment licensing.

Significantly, it was Home Secretary Theresa May and not Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt who yesterday announced a 'complete review' of the Licensing Act:
http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/87075

As a shadow licensing minister, Mrs May severely criticised the legislation during Parliamentary debate, including this comment about the changeover to the new regime in 2005:

'The Minister [then James Purnell] should now face the truth and accept the reality of what is happening. He need not accept my word, but he should accept the word of village halls, community centres, clubs and sports clubs throughout the country. He must face the truth, accept the chaos that the Act is causing and do something about it now.' [House of Commons, 12 July 2005]
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo050712/debtext/50712-25.htm

But a note of caution: many licensing ministers and several DCMS Secretaries of State have come and gone since the Licensing Bill was first published in November 2002. Some senior civil servants with licensing responsibility, however, have been in post for all that time.

It will take a wily and determined minister indeed to wrest control of licensing from the Sir Humphreys within DCMS and the Home Office.

ENDS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 May 10 - 02:19 PM

http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=67073&c=1

Licensing stays with the DCMS

20 May, 2010
By James Wilmore
Tory John Penrose will have licensing brief

Tory MP John Penrose has been confirmed as the new minster responsible for licensing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 May 10 - 05:22 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDdV_gAhbik&feature=youtube_gdata

The new lot at DCMS - on You Tube.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 May 10 - 11:05 AM

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1041224&c=1
11:05 | Thursday May 20, 2010
By Robert Ashton

Live music won't be sidelined by the new Government, which in its first detailed programme has promised to "cut red tape" to encourage more performances.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 May 10 - 07:56 AM

The following from Phil Little.

DCMS told me Small Gigs Consultation will be published after website has been overhauled.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 27 May 10 - 08:50 AM

http://www.hastingsobserver.co.uk/newshastings/Pubs-hit-out-over-councils.6311371.jp

A furious landlady has hit out at the council after she was told her pub was too noisy.
Stephanie Beale of The Marina Fountain, Caves Road, St Leonards, was stunned to be served with a noise abatement order by Hastings Borough Council and publicans across the town agree the authority's approach has become too harsh.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Dennis the Elder
Date: 27 May 10 - 12:56 PM

The report states "She said: "There was no discussion, no shot across the boughs, nothing." If this is true then she should complain to the Chief Environmental Officer or equivalent or to her Local Authority Councillor or preferably the leader of her council.
I am very surprised to hear that there was no discussion.
Having been involved in the service of a few of these notices my self, I would not consider service of notice unless all other avenues, to solve the problem, had been exhausted.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 27 May 10 - 02:43 PM

http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/8184671.Venue_wants_council_to_call_time_on_flats_plan/

THE owner of one of Worcester's most popular live music venues has opposed plans to built flats directly opposite – unless soundproofing and ventilation work is included in the scheme.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 27 May 10 - 03:21 PM

If this is true then she should complain to the Chief Environmental Officer or equivalent or to her Local Authority Councillor or preferably the leader of her council.

Having taken all those steps myself to no effect (other than to unite all these parties even more firmly against the complainant) and with the complaint then going to the Local Government Ombudsman, I consider this suggested course of action to be a complete waste of time and effort.

Sensible local officers may exist but in areas where they do not - it is difficult to see any way that a sensible course can be obtained.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Dennis the Elder
Date: 29 May 10 - 05:01 AM

Did the Local government Ombudsman help in your situation?
Obviously, if so this could be the landlady's next step.
With reference to your previous post regarding objecting to planning, this too can be problematic.
I remember once objecting as an officer to the building Houses around the site of a large dog kennels. This objection was successful and plans were refused. Unfortunately on appeal planning permission was subsequently granted with central government intervention. Subsequently due to the numerous dog barking complaints from the occupiers of the new dwellings the council had to pay to relocate the dog kennels. Just illustrating that even when there is a sensible approach by officers and by council members common sense is still overturned.
Life is not quite as simple with regards to officers alleged noise nuisance as it first appears. You are obviously aware of this.
In some instances it appears to be a loose loose situation, when none of the parties involved is satisfied with the officer's action.
I must, however state that at present in the authority where I am working we have over a 90% rate for amicable solutions, but is this even good enough?.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 29 May 10 - 12:14 PM

Did the Local government Ombudsman help in your situation?

No it did not help and made a sensible solution even more unlikely. But is there really any choice for the public when the advice presented and decisions made by local authority employees are not sensible?

Without being too judgemental here about local authority employees (for I am one also) - we do have to be realistic. In any internal complaint process, it is probably not very realistic to expect those complained about to find themselves to be wrong. This process must have first taken place before a complaint to the LGO is possible.

You have to look at the nature of complaints and the quite different responses dependent on this and which raise many further questions.

For example, (a) one to the local authority from the public about noise and (b) one about the local authority from the public.

In (a) the whole system could certainly be seen as not only built to satisfy complainants but possibly as bound to encourage such complaints and to involve much available pieces of legislation in the process.

In (b) the whole system could certainly be seen as not only built to support the original decision but possibly as bound to discourage such complaints and to involve much available pieces of legislation in the process.

In (a) the complaint is most likely to be thought valid but in (b) the complaint is thought more likely not to be valid.

The statistic were that in 95% of the complaints, the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) found the complainants to be wrong. And in the remaining 5%, the complainants were not happy with the results of a supposed successful result in their favour.

The LGO is not an effective watchdog and without one - how can there be any expectation of help from this quarter or of there being any sensible actions resulting from local authority employees? For they know that any member of the public who is forced to complain about their actions, will only find the LGO too willing to findings against the complainant.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 07:47 PM

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/87230?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n

Licensing Act: is it a review or a revamp?

    * By Peter Coulson
    * 01/06/2010 11:19

Last week, the new Government announced that it was embarking on a review of the Licensing Act, but not a change of department, as had been predicted.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 05:59 PM

http://rhyljournal.co.uk/news/89108/pubgoers-protest-over-noise-notice.aspx

A spokesperson from Denbighshire County Council confirmed that a complaint had been received and a noise abatement notice issued while investigations go on.

Just one complaint..................


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Dennis the Elder
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 07:25 PM

I am beginning to believe that local authorities have becomea little gung ho!
It is important to investigate the complaint, prior to the service of notice, not after.
The action of Denbighshire County Council sounds a litle pathetic, as if the officers do not know what they are doing, very sad!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 06:01 AM

It would seem that any old complaint from anybody about noise is assumed in the first instance to be a valid one. The validity of the complaint must be investigated first.

My experience of making a formal representation to support a licensing application for my local pub was that it was ruled not to be valid.

The danger seems to be that once any form of noise complaint is made, all council departments seem to become involved in insuring that some form of resulting sanction is applied and such sanctions will affect non-amplified music, which is not presenting any noise concern, as no distinction is made.

http://www.muswellhilljournal24.co.uk/content/haringey/muswellhilljournal/news/story.aspx?brand=MHJOnline&category=news&tBrand=n

Muswell Hill ward councillor Jonathan Bloch also called for a "no discos or DJs" rule, no amplified live music and for the licence to end with the building lease.

In an open letter to objectors, Mr Shelmerdine agreed to many curbs and said "no-one has ever complained to the police or the council about any of our parties" held when the café was last licensed, between 1999 and 2005.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 06:07 AM

There seemed to be a problem with that link.

Battle over 'boozing in the wood' plan by late-night cafe
nlnews@archant.co.uk

02 June 2010

A BID to sell booze to partygoers until 1am in a tranquil wood has been met with outrage by residents and conservation groups.

The owner of Queens Wood Café in Queen's Wood, Muswell Hill, which backs on to dozens of homes in six roads, wants to increase takings by opening up the tiny former wood-keeper's cottage for hire.

But residents have bombarded the council with 200 PAGES of objections - some calling for the application to be thrown out altogether amid fears of an increase in crime and disorder.

One neighbour called the bid "frankly tantamount to an application to become a public nuisance", while others suggested banning "private parties" altogether at the venue, which sits in a nature reserve.

Café owner Harry Shelmerdine has already scaled back the hours for selling alcohol to midnight on Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights and 11pm on other nights, after police objected.

But he has not gone far enough for some. In a letter to the council's licensing team, The Highgate Society said "private parties, where a primary object is the consumption of alcohol and loud music, should be specifically excluded" from the licence.

A Muswell Hill Road resident echoed many others' fears of "potentially large numbers of people congregating late at night with alcohol (and inevitably drugs) in close proximity to our homes".

An objector whose Connaught Gardens home backs on to the woods blasted the "ridiculous" bid, adding: "This is completely at odds with everything the lodge has stood for and everything that is the very nature of the woods."

Another neighbour said: "If we had wished to live where 'the action' is we would have chosen to live among the shops and restaurants".

Others claim the entire application is void - even illegal - as notices at the café were not prominent enough.

Concerns were also raised about a threat to wildlife, the health and safety of revellers stumbling around the unlit woods, and parking pressures.

The small cafe is currently only used after 6pm for "art exhibition openings, book launches and meetings of local associations", said Mr Shelmerdine in his application.

It has a capacity of 56 altogether, but only 30 inside.

The council's noise team has asked the licensing panel, which meets on Monday evening, to impose a raft of restrictions to clamp down on disturbance, including sound limiters and keeping all doors and windows closed.

Its report added the noise from partygoers leaving at the end