Important - Attention All Mudcatters

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Aug 01 - 04:53 PM

Yes tomorrow it is, thanks I think I will need it.

Is THIS (on Trevor Gilson's site) not the final results of their labours?

Dr Manchester has been consulted. he is of the opinion that there is no case law determitive of what a performers is. Hamish Birchall has the details...

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: GUEST,Sheila
Date: 22 Aug 01 - 05:19 PM

E-mailed. Thanks for the links. You made it easy for us.

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Aug 01 - 05:32 PM

Thank you Sheila. I will thank you here as I can't send tou a personal message of thanks as you are a guest.

Will you let us know if you receive a reply and what that reply is?

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: Gareth
Date: 22 Aug 01 - 06:02 PM

Interseting Links - a point to bare in mind is the financial cost to the Council. They may set the licence fee to cover costs - But not to generate income To do so would be beyond thier powers - and a case for the District Auditor. Perhaps some W&PDC resident could make the proper complaint particullay in view of Shambles comment that the Council will not provide the information.

Secondly the cock up in issueing the licence for a short term is definitely one for the Ombudsman - as I understand matters the Publican need not be the one to complain, anybody effected can complain.

By Law the Council has to provide the address of the Distric Auditor, and the Ombudsman's Office responsible.

Gareth

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Aug 01 - 06:50 PM

"There is no case law determitive of what a performabce is" - so why the bloody hell didn't he write a definition in his proposed guidelines for the various authorities to kicjk around and agree on? These academics are supposed to use their brains aren't they?

Rhetorical rant over.

Looking through the House of Lords stuff, what struck me was that, every time they came up with an example of the current law being used inappropriately and repressively, the response from the good Lord Bashem or whatever his name is, was that such stupid things couldn't happen, and they'd involve a perverse interpretation of the law and so forth. And he was talking about the kind of thing the Chief Executive is going to be defending.

Go get 'im!

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Aug 01 - 07:07 PM

I take your point but to be fair, a definition is not the same thing. What it means (I think), is that case law that has not determined what a performer is.

They could come up with a definition but until it was tested in court, it would not be determinative.....

Lord Bash'em indeed.

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: mooman
Date: 22 Aug 01 - 07:50 PM

Dear Shambles,

Living as I do in Brussels (though not a Eurocrat I hasten to add and I am certainly not a legal expert) and while reading through this and other threads concerning this nonsense "law", I wondered whether I might do some enquiring to check whether this outmoded, outdated and patently ridiculous UK legislation infringes some European law.

Maybe someone has already done this but perhaps it could be an additional angle and I am happy to initiate some enquiries if needed.

Best regards,

mooman

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Aug 01 - 08:31 PM

True - but such a definition would be appropriate within what are meant to be guidelines. A council acting within these guidelines would have a good defence against the accusation that it was acting arbitrartily and unbreasonably. And vice versa.

The court could always decide in any case that the guidelines were mistaken in their interpretation of the actual law.

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: Alice
Date: 23 Aug 01 - 12:00 AM

Shambles, I added a couple of messages to the board. I hope it helps. Good luck.

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: GUEST,Hamish Birchall
Date: 23 Aug 01 - 09:33 AM

Glad to see so much input on this thread.

A footnote about the Con Tempo quartet and public safety: in previous years Waterstones in Hampstead had put on live music to accompany book readings on a fairly regular basis. The recent interference by Camden is a first for them.

The public safety issues (of having 100 or so people sitting listening to the readings - or music) would have already been addressed. As a 'workplace', under existing safety legislation, employers have a statutory duty to undertake risk assessments that take into account ALL actitivies on the premises. They must then ensure that appropriate safety measures are implemented.

Irrespective of whether that activity requires a PEL, the local authority is the enforcing authority for this safety legislation. They must inspect workplaces, and if they find that health and safety is not properly managed they have the power to request that improvements be made or that the activities stop until the required standards are met. These inspections may cover 'practice or presentation of the arts, sports, games, entertainment or other cultural or recreational activities...' [para 9, Schedule 1, Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1998].

This same principle applies to pubs or bars - they are all 'workplaces' for the purposes of safety law.

In short, there is a perfectly adequate legislative framework already in place to address the safety issues of live music in pubs. In this context, PELs are merely duplicating an existing provision. This has been the case for at least 10 years.

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Aug 01 - 10:06 AM

I don't think Ken Livingstone should be left out when it come to making out views felt about this kind of nonsense. Especially by Americans and other swho mioght feel that this is a reason to go to other capital cities when on their travels.

Here is an extract from the relevant website for the London Mayor:

Getting in touch by letter or telephone The address of the Mayor and Assembly is:

Romney House
43 Marsham Street
London SW1P 3PY
Tel: [phone]
Minicom: 020 7983 4458

Hours of operation will be between 0830 to 1800 Monday to Friday.

Getting in touch by email
If you have a question that you wish to raise with the Mayor, you should send your correspondence to:

[e-mail]

Getting in touch by fax
Fax number: 020 7983 4057

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: Roger in Sheffield
Date: 23 Aug 01 - 01:11 PM

I know its probably in one of the other threads but the whole passage that the Lord Bassam quote comes from is wonderful - has anyone sent the whole passage (highlighting the important points) to the council?
invite the local authorities not to behave in such a silly manner?

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Aug 01 - 01:31 PM

I presented it personally into the Chief Executive's hands a few hors ago. The important bits were indeed underscored in red. He has got the message now........

He did not appear to know about it. Which is a little annoying as I presented to them via my councillor in January 2001.......

I basically requested that they accept that whether more than two members of the public were performers and to be prevented without a PEL, was now their policy.

I asked them to defend it or change it. They are to consider and come back.

The fact that they are even considering anything is a great leap forward and due almost entirely to your efforts. Please keep the pot stirred??

I will come back with more details when it has all sunk in.....

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Aug 01 - 01:40 PM

The following was sent to WPBC.

Dear Mr Gilmour

I realise that you are paid to emphasise the positive in Weymouth Borough Council's arts policy. But it requires special gifts to reconcile the description 'enlightened and fun loving' with a council that puts local amateur music-making under covert surveillance, and then prevents its performance on the basis of case law from 1793 - even where there were no noise complaints, and no public safety risks.

Any decent licensing lawyer, not under council employ, will tell you that there is no need to interpret the law so restrictively. The handful of 18th and 19th century case law precedents cited in support of the Council's enforcement policy bear little relevance to contemporary informal folk sessions in pubs. Indeed there is one case, Brearley vs Morely (1899), conveniently ignored by Weymouth, which would appear to be in the musicians favour.

In this context, being 'fully committed to the arts' really does sound like rhetoric. What would seem to be a more accurate statement is that Weymouth is fully committed to providing the arts on its own terms, rather than fully committed to allowing the community to make its own cultural life.

The hint of a somewhat patriarchal, and patronising treatment of the local community tends to be reinforced by your comments about Weymouth's 'cultural strategy'. The production of a Cultural Strategy for the borough should follow wide-ranging consultation with the community - not, as your statement implies, the other way around.

A senior Weymouth police officer said to me that he would rather see the council strictly enforce public entertainment licensing conditions in nightclubs than come down heavily against innocuous live music in local pubs.

And one significant fact you do not mention is that the premises that cause most nuisance to local residents already hold public entertainment licences (PELs). That is because having a PEL is an administrative prerequisite before a Late Opening Certificate can be granted.

Yours sincerely

Hamish Birchall

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Aug 01 - 01:42 PM

Well done!

He did not appear to know about it. Which is a little annoying as I presented to them via my councillor in January 2001

Well, it could be that he might find it equally annoying. "Those idele bastards landed me in it!" I can imagine him saying to himself.

Anyway, it sound as if things might be moving. Did he give any indication of when they'd "come back". I seem to remember you wrote something about a consultation process that they put back to happen in September.

Another possible front occurred to me - the Rotten Borough page in Private Eye. The idea of a council stopping people singing in pubs should be the kind of things they'd enjoy poking fun at.

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Aug 01 - 02:38 PM

Even better news. both Allison's and Jacob B's leeters were published in the Dorset Evening Echo today 23/0801...

Plus another one of mine and a photo of poor old Brian, the licensee, (who is now trying to keep a low profile and was not mentioned in any of the three letters).

Thanks again. I think they may come back pertty soon if these letters keep on coming.

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: Gareth
Date: 23 Aug 01 - 04:03 PM

McGrath - Private Eye is a good idea - but if they run true to form, it will be "Bearded Beer Drinkers V The Council" not that that will matter much.

If you go digging on the Weymouth Web site You will find a tourists guest and comment book.

Not a bad place to hit with your comments I Would suspect

In mean time - Polite letters to the local Councillors - by snail mail will help - the address of the Council Office is on the Website. There's plenty of munition on this thread - and cross ref with This Thread

I say snail mail as never underestimate the difficulties that some/many local government councillors ( elected) have understanding and using E-Mail.

Gareth

PS funny example - during General Election Party Offices somewhere in South Wales. Telephone rings Councillor X answers. "I sent [name of Candidate] an E-Mail yesterday, and I haven't had a reply !". "Oh!", says X, "I'll see if it's in the post today. What Colour envelope was it in ?" - Warranted true - I know 'cos I was there !"

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: Charcloth
Date: 23 Aug 01 - 10:06 PM

sent one hope it helps. Charcloth

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: GUEST,illegal musician
Date: 24 Aug 01 - 09:30 AM

just contacted the local council and they say 2 people fine otherwise a PEL needed, I explained why I thought sessions should be exempt but they were not interested, they just enforce the law
Then I tried the local councillor whos advice was keep quiet about it to which I explained that it is the principle. Next stop the MP
What exactly was the law made to prevent?

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Aug 01 - 11:58 AM

Probably designed in the first place to stop people singing songs in taverns in support of the rebellious colonials in America, or Bonnie Princ Charlie or some other 18th century priority...

Essentially, it's there because it's there because it's there - and nobody has made sufficient fuss about it to bring about a change. Inertia.

If anyone reads through the threads about this (which I listed with links on 20 August at 7.21 on this thread, with a couple added in later), especially with the links to Hansard and so on and so forth - they'll know far more about this than any councillor or MP or Minister they'll come up against. So you'll win the arguments, but that's not good enough to win the war.

If keeping the law this way can be made a nuisance, I imagine it'll change, because it's not really to anybody's positive advantage to keep it the way it is. And if it ever gets into a court which has to take Human Rights into consideration, the current law hasn't a chance.

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: Roger in Sheffield
Date: 24 Aug 01 - 01:19 PM

I put a message up on the Radio 2 message board
Please feel free to add more info to it, links and web addresses aren't allowed though

Roger

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: Gareth
Date: 24 Aug 01 - 04:12 PM

Deputising for The Shambles as he has gorn away over the Bank Holiday weekend - Yes he needs a break !!

Herewith the text of the letters published in the Echo this week.

I put the JPG file Roger sent me through "TextBridge v9" and then "Word 2000" Any mistakes are mine.

I will put a Webpicture of the Newspaper up later tonite - if I am sober enough.

Music policy is down to council WILL the borough council please finally explain to the people of Weymouth and Portland why they choose to hold a policy that considers more than two members of public singing along together in a pub as performers? As a consequence this activity is illegal and will be prevented without a public entertainment licence (held by only six par cent of licensed premises) . This stifle policy also prevents Morris dancing on private land. Current legislation does not force them to do this, as they claim. This is made clear in the following quote from The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Home Office (Lord Bassan of Brighton) replying on behalf of HM Government to 2 questions from The Lord Bishop of Oxford in The House of Lords Entertainment Legislation Debate (Monday, December 11, 2000) "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." (I have supplied the council with the full minutes of this debate). This clearly demonstrates that as the licensing authority it is the council's decision and councils policy alone. Why do we have this ridiculous policy? If the Council is not pre pared to defend it! then will they please take urgent steps to change it before many more valuable act activities are lost ? ROGER GALL Wakehan Portland

Make song and dance on policy I HAVE recently learned that public houses in the Weymouth and Portland area are being discouraged from holding music sessions and from having Morris dancing. My understanding is that the discouragement takes the form of requiring the public house to get an entertainment licence for an open music session. On my last trip to England Morris performances and music sessions were the most enjoyable parts of my visit. I look forward to bringing my family for a visit. But I certainly would want avoid any parts of the country where these things were not available. Can you tell me if there is any chance these policies will be reversed soon? JACOB BLOOM Arlington MA. USA

I AM an American Morris dancer folk Singer and music teacher looking forward to a visit to England next summer to make music with friends new and old, not as a paid performer but as a friend among friends. I am distressed to learn that the age-old tradition of making music in a public house is being threatened by what seems little more than bureaucracy . A licensed house can only benefit lit from peaceful music making or dancing, and indeed, could suffer from Overly-stringent laws requiring public entertainment licenses, I strongly request that Weymouth and Portland Borough Council urgently re examining both the legality awl wisdom of this policy and also establish if this policy has been made in the best interests of all the visitors and residents of Weymouth and Portland. I do hope to visit and sins and dance in the home of my ancestors, freely and without fear of reprisal! ALLISON ALDRICH COBB Keene, New Hampshire USA

Hope this HTML works

If it don't can a Muslef/Joclone please fix or delete

Gareth - for The Shambles

and Roger - if you see this over the weekend you owe me at least three choruses of Crawshaw Bailey

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: Roger in Sheffield
Date: 24 Aug 01 - 04:23 PM

I was going to give Weymouth Council a link to the R2 forum so they can debate in public, if the BBC don't delete it first

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: Roger in Sheffield
Date: 24 Aug 01 - 04:37 PM

Gareth any chance you could send me copies of the JPEG? I am putting together some background info to give to my MP and councilor

Roger

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: Gareth
Date: 24 Aug 01 - 05:02 PM

Any other mudcatter wanting the picture PM me but folks

Here it is

Gareth

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: Roger in Sheffield
Date: 24 Aug 01 - 05:28 PM

Thanks Gareth I realised as soon as I posted that I would be able to grab the pictures off the webpage you just put up

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: Gareth
Date: 24 Aug 01 - 08:20 PM

The Shambles is away and computerless untill Tuesday, he has asked me to continue in his abscence - don't know why - there are others who are better at this than me !

And if Catters are being bored by this - well your folk night may be the next to suffer !!

Well thank you all - I've been a bit naughty and checked up the traffic figures on the Website since putting it up.

Nice number of hits but joking apart.

The battle in not won, we need to continue the fight, so if you have a moment or two to spare keep those Emails and letters comming in

The addresses of Weymouth Councillors and the Bullitin Board can be found Here

An E-Mail to the ( [e-mail] )Director of Tourism

An E- Mail to the cheif executive of the Council [e-mail] ( what used to be known as the town clerk

And the Local paper, the Dorset Echo [e-mail]

It takes little effort to copy an E Mail !!!!!!!!!!!!!

NB if the Echo runs true to most local papers the letters section will close for press at about 1700 hrs GMT on the Monday of each week.

Remenber it's not just those bits published that count. Its the continued pressure that counts - this is why we ask you to keep it comming, and spend the odd postage stamp on letters to Councillors.

Have a good, musical weekend y'all

Gareth

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: Roger in Sheffield
Date: 25 Aug 01 - 02:26 PM

Friday afternoon I sent this to Tom Grainger

I am still at an utter loss as to the purpose of taxing pubs (by way of PEL) that support our musical heritage. Do local people realise that council employees are employed for such farcical duties - hardly best value. The lack of response from your council departments seems to suggest you have no answers. Please give me some justification for this mean spiritedness towards people who wish to express themselves musically. I am really trying to understand but I am guessing the Law was created to prevent some problem and folk musicians have not been exempt? Is there no interpretation in the Law for the council to give leeway to folk musicians. I am getting fairly angry about this as no one seems to want to explain the situation to me

Fairly Quickly a response arrived
from Tom Grainger Cc Sue Allen
I'm not sure what you've been told or your source of 'information', but it is entirely untrue to suggest Council officers have not supplied answers or explained why a PEL is needed. One of the Council's Committees had a report and a discussion in June on the subject. Both the report and the discussion were in public. I can supply a copy of the report if it of interest to you- just supply your address.

The issue is quite straightforward. The relevant Act says that if there is entertainment carried out, then a PEL is needed, unless it is covered by certain exemptions. The exemptions covers several things - including some religious activities and performances by less than three people. The purpose of the legislation is primarily to ensure public saftey (eg numbers attending) or noise dosen't become a nuisance.

Where entertainment is regularly provided (eg most weeks) and that entertainment is provided by more than two people, then unless other exemptions apply a PEL is needed. Over 80 pubs in Weymouth & Portland have PELs. The cost to many pubs is quite low - typically #180- pa. The Council has also said that if local musicians have views on how the law should be changed will collate these and pass them on to Government.

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: Mark Clark
Date: 25 Aug 01 - 03:07 PM

Here in the States, I believe such licenses are controlled by each municipality, not by county or state governments. Of course if the establishment is not within the boundaries of a municipality, then the county government has jurisdiction.

It's typical in most U.S. jurisdictions to require a license to serve any alchoholic beverage and an additional license, often called a cabaret license if live entertainment of any type is to be featured. Some jurisdictions have one license for serving beer and wine and another more expensive license for serving liquor. Of course a license to serve any food is another expense altogether.

On top of the licenses, enforcers from the local musician's union may insist that any entertainers working in an establishment be members of the union and be paid union scale. On top of that, ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers) representatives will come around to collect royalties for any copyrighted music performed in the establishment. If the owner doesn't have a verifiable list of titles and times played, they have the option of paying a flat fee to ASCAP sufficient to cover any contingency.

Of course there are also the guys in fedoras and dark glasses who make sure every establishment has a jukebox and a cigarette vending machine supplied by their chosen “service” operation.

And still people gather to sing... go figure.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Aug 01 - 04:26 PM

Just send my previous, unacklowledged email tomian ,ocke with copoy to Tom Grainger, with addition:

I sent this email on 18th August. However, since I haven't had a reply or acknowledgement I am sending it again in case it went astray.

Since sending this I have been doing a certain amount of investigation through the internet, and am a bit clearer about the situation.

The essential question is, am I right in understanding that there are in fact no circumstances in which it is possible to sing or play a musical instrument, (apart from the case where this is being done within a private home with no visitors, or in the course of a music lesson), when this will not be counted as "public entertainment" by Weymouth Council?

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: GUEST, Drinking Mate of Gareth's
Date: 25 Aug 01 - 07:08 PM

Sorry if this seems a bit fuzzy. I've just had pint or so in Gareth's company down in the village pub. He gave me this Wed address to look at.

Now I'am not a folk fanatic, and if you have ever Gareth singing you will know why. More to the point the local drunks started singing, and it was not entertaining.

On the other hand there were 4 of them. Having had G bending my ear on section 182, then the Landlord was in danger of prosecution. That this bunch should have been prosecuted for cruelty to music was a matter any jury would have convicted on. On the general point I agree, about Public Entertainment. There is something wrong, and it's up to all of us to make the protest.

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: Alice
Date: 25 Aug 01 - 09:15 PM

In my message posted to the Weymouth board on their website, I mentioned that I was considering adding an advisory to my website for musicians traveling to Britain to play and sing in public sessions - Weymouth or anywhere else where this is a problem should be known to folk musicians in order that time and money not be wasted on visiting a spot where music can't be played. I have added a link at my website HERE. If anyone could give me a list of SESSION FRIENDLY towns in Britain, where singing and playing is encouraged, let me know, and I will post a list of places where musicians are Welcome!

Alice

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: GUEST,Hamish Birchall
Date: 26 Aug 01 - 04:09 AM

Re McGrath's question:

Even one musician playing is illegal without a public entertainment licence if the 'performance' is open to the public. The legal interpretation of the word 'public' can be a bit fuzzy, but a gig in a nursing home, if it were in the reception area, could be counted as public.

The exceptions to this general rule are:

a) if the music is part of a religious service b) on Crown land c) up to two live performers in on-licensed premises (but be warned: any combination of live and 'recorded sound' which includes MIDI, is illegal without a PEL)

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Aug 01 - 07:34 AM

That's my understanding, Hamish - the problem is to get them to admit that in so many words.

Though in fact it could be a bit more extreme than this, if you go by the resposne Shambles had to one of his letters to Weymouth, when he was told:

A performance of music and dancing taking place in the open and on private land i.e. land to which the public has access only with the permission of the owner, will be subject to SS3 and SS4 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (Schedule 1), which requires a licence to be granted by the Local Authority.

And to me that looks very much as if they are saying that even if the public is not admitted, it could still need a Public Entertainment Licence. For example, if you had something happening on your own garden by private invitation, such as a party or a wedding reception.

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: Roger in Sheffield
Date: 26 Aug 01 - 11:08 AM

One thing I am still not clear on is this
Is the Council able to interpret section 182 sensibly or are they not allowed to interpret it?
Basically is the council(s) behaving badly or are they tied by the legislation?

What else can you suggest I get my MP to look at to enlighten him? I am going to show him the Guardian article, one from Folk on Tap, the Dorset Echo letters page and the Lords discussion.
Also back up this thread I was told The purpose of the legislation is primarily to ensure public saftey (eg numbers attending) or noise dosen't become a nuisance. surely this is a nonsense as both these matters are covered by other laws?

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Aug 01 - 11:24 AM

"The purpose of the legislation is primarily to ensure public safety (eg numbers attending) or noise dosen't become a nuisance." Surely this is a nonsense as both these matters are covered by other laws?

I think the thing is that back in the 18th century there weren't the other laws. But in bringing in new laws about these things, noone ever seems to have thought it worth looking at the old ones - and it's when the two work together that you get this kind of nonsense.

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From:
Date: 26 Aug 01 - 12:58 PM

I've just discovered this e-discussion,and I thought that I'd mention that we run a very successful folk/blues/roots accoustic session in a public house here in Brightlingsea, Essex (now in 4th year)often with as many as 15 musicians playing together (plus free drink and food for performers) in case anyone is interested in joining in, we hold it on the 3rd Thursday every month 8 til 11 pm. For further info, phone me Bill @ 01206304245. Hoping some of you get in touch, cheers.

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: Gareth
Date: 26 Aug 01 - 04:08 PM

Alice - nice, and accurate, coment on your website.

Roger - as I interperet matters in the light of Home Office 2000/13, and Lord Bassam's comments councils do have discretion in this matter.

And know I am of to the pub to have serious words with my drinking mate over my singing !!!!

Gareth

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: Roger in Sheffield
Date: 27 Aug 01 - 07:14 AM

Have I missed something? what (and where do I find) Home Office 2000/13 Gareth?

I have just finished a letter to my MP and have included the relevant documents from the links given here and elsewhere – discussion in the Lords, Guardian article, Dorset Echo Letters etc.

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: Roger in Sheffield
Date: 27 Aug 01 - 01:45 PM

I found 2000/13
so far the jobsworths are searching through the local press, just hope one day they don't start searching the web...it would be hard to deny the evidence of pictures published innocently into cyberspace

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Aug 01 - 06:33 PM

The Council has also said that if local musicians have views on how the law should be changed will collate these and pass them on to Government.

Why?........ Are not the council in agreement with the current legislation, that they claim makes them count members of the public as performers, for the sole reason of preventing sessions and Morris without a PEL?

Good try to pass the buck, but Lord Bassam's reply makes it clear that the buck stops with the licensing authority i.e the local council. Do they not then agree with their own policy?

But whoever is to blame, the next session here that comes to their attention will be prevented if the licensee does not obtain a PEL.

The future of traditional cultural events is also the local authorities responsibility.....What are they going to do about it?

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Aug 01 - 05:30 AM

They have had this local musician's comments for over eight months. I am not aware that these have even been read, let alone collated or passed on to central government?

I was not awake last night. Mr Grainger's reply to Roger in Sheffield, was after our meeting, which was on the Thursday.

He does not appeared to have replied to anyone else?

What's in a name? Maybe he thought this Roger had gone to Sheffield?

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: GUEST,Hamish Birchall
Date: 28 Aug 01 - 08:34 AM

It is quite true that the stated purpose of the legislation relating to public entertainment (Local Government [Miscellaneous Provisions] Act 1982) is to maintain public safety and control noise.

But it is also true that for many years there has been very effective separate legislation that addresses both these issues. We are also shortly to get the Police and Criminal Justice Bill which will give police officers the power to close nuisance premises on the spot.

For most live music in pubs, PELs are duplicating existing legislative provision.

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: GUEST,Hamish Birchall
Date: 28 Aug 01 - 08:46 AM

Expert opinion re councils' separate legal powers to deal with noise and nuisance issues. The following quote is from leading licensing solicitor Peter Coulson, also a columnist for pubs trade paper 'Licensee and Morning Advertiser':

'...the police and local authorities now possess powers to control or curb noise and nuisance, to close premises which are the source of disturbance, or to revoke licences. Justices have the power to impose a restriction order to curtail hours where they think it necessary for the protection of neighbours'.

From Licensee and Morning Advertiser, p 18, 16 August 2001.

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: Gareth
Date: 28 Aug 01 - 01:49 PM

I retrieved the following off the Radio 2 massage/bulitin board,

re: Session legal? - PEL - session tax? Mel McClellan - HOST - 28 Aug 2001 10:33 - 25th post There's been a lot of coverage about PELs in the folk press lately and action is being taken. The EFDSS and Musicians' Union backed a Musicians' Day of Action in July and various groups have been set up, eg. The Campaign For Live Music, to battle the legislation. If lots of us get involved, maybe we can make a difference

Look as if some results are starting to come through

Here is Clikky for Radio 2 board Click here
please note that you will have to register.

And don't forget those E Mails clickkys in thread.

Gareth

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Aug 01 - 02:11 PM

Weymouth and Portland Borough Council. Don't forget to copy your emails to The local paper [e-mail]

Also the WEYBOARD (to be found on the above link), now has some interesting discussions.

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: Roger in Sheffield
Date: 28 Aug 01 - 04:07 PM

Can a new thread(s) carry this on now its taking ages to load

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: GUEST,confused
Date: 28 Aug 01 - 04:26 PM

and I am getting confused between this issue and the mudcat future threads. Can the follow on have a title that is more obvious as to what its about?

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -ATTENTION ALL MUDCATTERS
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Aug 01 - 05:10 PM

Thanks for your help o' confused one.

Click here for Write an Email for Shambles Part 2