Licensing consultation announced!

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

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'

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!!

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

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.............

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.]

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....

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.........

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.

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

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.

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

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%.

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

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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: [e-mail]

ENDS

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.!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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."

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

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.

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).

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.

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'.