Council Bans Morris Part 2

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Aug 01 - 11:32 AM

Borough council licensing manager Sue Allen, said "It is not for me to put individual interpretations on the law—I have to treat everybody equally. If Mr Flynn or Mr Gall want a change in the law, they must lobby for it nationally". From the Dorset Evening Echo 04/08/01

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Aug 01 - 11:38 AM

Tonight's Cove session is being advertised in the Dorset Evening Echo as it has been for some time.

The premises have not held a valid PEL since the one issued on 16th May, expired on June 30th and will not have a valid one for at least another three weeks......

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Aug 01 - 11:47 AM

"Otherwise all new "zero tolerance" policies would be unlawful" - surely it's the other way round?

If there is an absolute requirement to enforce the law anything other than a zero tolerance policy would in fact be illegal, and every council and police authority in the wounctry would be in serious trouble, because nobody could possibly enforce all the laws completely.

I seem to remember people speculating whether various bizarre laws (against mince pies and so forth) could in principal still be used, if they had never been repealed. The official line seemed to be that, by being allowed to fall into disuse for so long, they had in fact become uninforceable.

"A case of estopel" - isn't that one of those East European wines?

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: IanC
Date: 16 Aug 01 - 12:01 PM

Folks

As a bell ringer, it occurred to me that Bell ringing should also come under the same Draconian legislation. Anyone got together with the local ringers?

Cheers!
Ian

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Aug 01 - 01:32 PM

Music as part of a religous service in church is exempt..

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Aug 01 - 02:06 PM

But you can't call bellringing a religious service can you? Do Sally Army services in the street come under the same exemption? Or carol singing in pubs for example...

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Aug 01 - 02:15 PM

"Entertainment" is defined in the Act as "public dancing or music or any other entertainment of a like kind".

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: MMario
Date: 16 Aug 01 - 02:18 PM

perhaps the policy to follow here would be a campaign to inundate the appropriate authorities with "violations" - the more obscure and irratating the better.

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: IanC
Date: 17 Aug 01 - 04:09 AM

If music as part of a religious service is exempt, there's your solution for sessions. Just make them a religious service (call your denomination what you like). Doesn't need much organisation.

Cheers!
Ian

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Aug 01 - 06:49 AM

Music is the nearest to me having a religion, so that is not too far from the truth anyway. The problem is convincing our authorities that a pub was a suitable place to hold such a service.

On a safety aspect, which is the one this is supposed to be about, a congregation would be far safer in a pub than a church.

Well they may run a greater risk from the great creator?

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Aug 01 - 03:51 PM

Seriously though, how many of our older churches have toilets, emergency exits, maximum number of customers etc? Pubs are much safer places.....

Probably be more at risk holding the session in a church but I don't suppose you would receive many visits from Licensing Managers if you did?

Might get complaints from the Great Licensing Manager in the sky?

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 01 - 04:36 PM

Well, carol singing in the pubs may not be the tradition down in Dorset, but the authorities up in the Sheffield and Derbyshire where it is are operating under the same law as the ones in Dorset. And they don't seem to see any problem.

I know that in practice the authorities which have stuck their necks out like the Weymouth lot are fairly few. But it seems that there are even fewer who have gone the other way and actually formally stated that their interpretation of the law is that these kind of activities do not count as entertainments subject to the PEL rules.

If anyone has come across any that have done that, it would be useful to know. Don't we have any councillors among Mudcatters? Or people working in the relevant parts of councils?

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Aug 01 - 04:00 AM

The sad thing is that events way back in January presented our council with the opportunity to lead the way with a policy that would be popular as well as in keeping with the general way things were moving anyway. I suggested the good PR that would come from this.

They did not to do this and now find themselves leading the way and 'sticking their necks out', in this hard-line approach and trying to get others to follow this example, despite the mess this policy has got them into.

It would be useful indeed to hear from anyone who lives where their council does not have this stance?

The 'blind eye' can only work up to the point where an event is pointed out to an authority. You cannot advertise the event, so as not to risk this. Why should these important cutural events skulk around in the dark, in fear of council officers anyway? It is the elected council members that make policy. Why not get them to do this and 'call off the dogs'?

If you live in such a place, ask them what they will do at this point? For it only takes another envious licensee or a chance remark to bring it to their officer's attention, what will they do do then?

The idea that our council is rare, does not agree with the case book from all around the country, of silly actions taken against licensees that Hamish Birchall is compiling........

I relied on the common sense and integrity of my council, I suggest that you do not rely on yours for too long.

The test is what happens when an authority finds itself in this position? Why not ask your councillor now, before this happens and prevent the machine from just rolling over us all.

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Aug 01 - 04:06 AM

For it is (council) policy and not law.

The Lord Bishop of Oxford asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether, under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 1964, members of the public count as "performers" if they sing on licensed premises; and, if so, how local authorities can enforce public entertainment licensing legislation in a proportionate manner that is compatible with performers' rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, Section 182 of the Licensing Act 1964 exempts licensed premises from the need to obtain a public entertainment licence where the entertainment provided consists of music and singing by not more than two performers. Whether members of the public who sing on licensed premises count as performers is a matter for the licensing authority to decide, depending on the circumstances. Ultimately, the compatibility of this provision with the European Convention on Human Rights would be a matter for the courts to determine. As part of our proposed general reform of the licensing and public entertainment laws in England and Wales, we propose to do away with the Section 182 provisions.

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Aug 01 - 07:01 AM

Exemptions like those for two performers and music for church services establish the precedent that it is the nature of the music that is being considered. These are not exempt because they are considered safe.

Surely it is just as easy for a local authority to stretch the religous exemption to cover customers making their own traditional music as it is for them to stretch the wording of the law to consider members of the public as performers?

For the former will enable traditional activities and the latter will prevent them.

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Aug 01 - 06:35 AM

My local paper ([e-mail]), having published two of my letters, does not appear to wish to publish any more? I keep making them shorter but they still do not appear? The last one that appeared was 11th August (above).

They could just think that no one else cares about the subject or do you think there could be more sinister reasons? I have assumed that there has been no reaction from the public because there have not been any other letters published?

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Aug 01 - 06:39 AM

I know of one other letter sent to the letters page on the subject, that was not one of mine and that was not published either?

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Aug 01 - 06:43 AM

Just because you are paranoid, it does not mean that they are not out to get you...........

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Aug 01 - 09:04 AM

Ever feel you're talking to yourself on this Shambles?

I'm a bit puzzled - this is an issue that should matter to us a lot, the right to sing and play music socially.

Maybe it's that the Americans and others feel it's nothing really to do with them, and nothing they can do, and the English feel that it's maybe best not to disturb sleeping dogs, and most councils don't seem in practice as pigheaded and obdurate as Weymouth, and turn a blind eye.

Which is wrong both times. I draw peoples attention to the other current thread about this Will you write an Email for Shambles?, and I urge you to do just that.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT MATTERS

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Aug 01 - 06:30 AM

Sham, McGra, others (if listening)

I have now got permission from Susanna FitzGerald QC electronically to reproduce her two articles (about PELs)on the strict condition that I do not alter them in any way or fail correctly to attribute them.)

I also have electronic copies of them for the purpose.)

I just wanted to check with Max that it was OK simply to copy two lawyer-length articles about the proposed standard Public Entertainment licences into these threads. The proposed standard terms are 87 pages long and although they are not copied, the articles are one short (by legal standards, several pages of A4) and one long.)

Is it OK just to pop them in here or should I forward them somewhere else (that is to say an elf or something) so you can put a link to them?

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Aug 01 - 07:50 AM

Brilliant.

I'd suspect that it might be better having it elsewhere with a link to it from the Mudcat - aside from anything else, that way it could be in a more readable format, which, with 87 pages is significant. This site, (which Shamnbles gave a link to on

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Aug 01 - 07:56 AM

Something went wrong with that. I was suggesting that this site, on Session Harrassment, might be a good place for it, or definitely for a link to Suzanne's article. (And the link to that Session Harrassment site came from Shambles in this thread, IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS )

Subject: RE: Council Bans Morris Part 2
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Aug 01 - 08:01 AM

Yes Trevor Gilson's site HERE will be the best bet. There is an Email for him on the site. I'm sure he will be agreeable. Not too sure if he is back from his 'Hols' yet though.

Thank you.