Help Change Music In My Country

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Feb 02 - 05:41 AM

That is the right address but I don't seem to be able to make an active link?

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Feb 02 - 06:06 AM

The other current thread about this is the one about the Shellback Chorus being stopped from singing in a railway pub - You Can't Sing Here

I suspect that most people here agree that this is a silly and damaging law that needs changing. It would be interesting to know whether many people have actually done something to help bring that cahnge about.

For people in the UK that would mean taking ten minutes to fax their MPs - using

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Feb 02 - 06:18 AM

That went walkabout in mid message.

What I'm suggesting is that people in the UK send a fax to their MPs, via fax yourMP, which is free, and you don't even need to now the name of the MP, because the site takes care of that.

And people not in the UK, I suggest that you write a note saying that you would sooner spend your holidays in a place where informal music is encouraged rather than penalised, and you will probably not be coming to England for any holidays until the law has been properly sorted out. (It doesn't matter that you have no current plans to come here anyway, that wouldn't in any way effect the truth of that statement.) And why not send it to Tony Blair? - he'll send it downstairs to the relevant minister.

And when you've done one of those two things, if you post to the Mudcat saying that you have, it might encourage other people to do the same.

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Feb 02 - 05:21 AM

Link to the Commons debate on the subject, 27 February 2002. Hansard.

A satisfactory reply from the Dept?

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Mar 02 - 02:01 AM

Stockport Council

Law abiding Jubilee toolkit

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Mar 02 - 02:04 AM

Nominate for the 'Two in a bar' awards

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Mar 02 - 07:20 PM

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport sent a letter to Weymouth council on 4 Feb clarifying the aims of the proposed licensing reform.

The answers to the three questions you raised are shown below:

1. It is not planned that the new system will give an exemption to any forms of entertainment. The proposal is that all activities to be held on a Premises Licence (including non-amplified music) would need to be revealed in the operating plan put for approval to the licensing authority. The authority could only impose conditions on the Premises Licence which protect public safety and prevent disorder, crime and public nuisance.

2. We are committed to introducing a Bill on this matter as soon as Parliamentary time permits. We are hopeful of getting a slot for the Bill in the 2002-2003 legislative programme.

3. Under the new scheme there would be no place for the "two in a bar rule".

So, the general rule would be none-in-the-bar. The present legislation says its purpose relates only to safety and noise. But that hasn't stopped local authorities applying excessive, inconsistent and costly conditions for bands. Having talked with some officers of his local council on the subject last January, Steve Rubie, proprietor of the 606 Jazz Club warned the Musicians Union that:

"... each licensee will be required to make the choice, at the point of application, as to whether or not they want to add Entertainment to their licence application. Should they decide not to, for whatever reason, then that premises will not be licensed for music of any kind. In other words, the '2 in the bar' rule will be gone, but if the applicants, who may have had duos for possibly years, do not fully appreciate the situation and just assume that they still don't need a licence for duos, and so fail to apply for one, then they will lose the ability to put on live music altogether.

"It is also quite possible that a number of venues that have put on live music in the past may be required to make so many changes under the new regulations that it's not worth their while, and will subsequently stop the provision of live music. The biggest problem, it seems to me though, is that licensees really need to be educated to the fact that even if they only want to put on music once a year, say New Year's Eve, then they must still add 'Entertainment' to their licence at the point of application otherwise it will not be possible'.

"... it could be a great boost to the promotion of live music if handled properly, but it does seem to me that if not it could actually backfire and lead to fewer, rather than more, venues promoting live music."

Is this the best way forward?
Will it cost more for the 'premises licence' to host live music?
Why can't there be a presumption in favour of incidental live music in bars and pubs, unless the council can demonstrate convincingly that this is just not feasible in a particular premises?

Why can't we adopt the Scottish licensing regime?
Most bars there can provide live bands during permitted hours with no additional fees or conditions - and the same safety and noise legislation applies in Scotland as in England and Wales.

Fax your MP from the web via this free service: www.faxyourmp.com

Or snail mail:

House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Mar 02 - 07:14 AM

Despite all this proposed major reform we seem to be stuck with the definition of public entertainment, for purposes of licensing, as music and dancing.

That one form of art or expression should alone be singled out as only permissible after a fee is paid by a third party to a local authority is an unfair disincentive to music making, and not specifically addressing the stated goal of the licensing.

The standard conditions applied to the current licences apply to non-musical entertainment like hypnotism.

The term public entertainment needs to be redefined as to cover all forms of public entertainment.

If (some) music related activities are seen to present a specific problem, not presented by other forms of public entertainment, such as noise this is the area that needs to be (and is), addressed by other legislation.

Many forms of musical activity do not in fact present any appreciable noise concern, but the current and proposed law makes no distinction. A licence refused on the grounds of noise will also prevent music not presenting this.

Many forms of musical activity taking place in pubs, many of them provided by and for customers, not only do not present any appreciable noise concern but should be considered as conventional public entertainment. The current and proposed law makes no distinction.

Other non-musical forms of entertainment provided in pubs by licensees or by and for fellow customers are not subject to any unfair disincentive or to a third party obtaining an additional licence. Examples are quiz nights, darts and so on. Satellite TV, is also currently exempt from this requirment.

The current public entertainment licence is a tax or a music licence. If one art form or expression is to continue to be considered differently to others under reform, then this element should be referred as a music and dancing licence (or tax). For that is what it is.

Many of the 95% of licensed premises that do not hold PELs, are also currently providing safe premises, on a regular and on a casual basis, for small-scale musical activities. It will act as a disincentive for these premises to continue proving this, if they have to submit specific operating plans, make additional payments to enable music making to continue and are also subject to any alterations required. Many of which relating to noise, may not be necessary or applicable, as not all music presents noise concerns.

It must be recognised that existing legislation has made these musical activities safe and ensured the interests of the public. And that in Scotland, no additional licence is required.

The actions taken by many local authorities, to the detriment of musical expression, in strictly interpreting and enforcing current legislation, does not fill one with much confidence, when the whole responsibility for licensing is to be handed over to them.

Musical expression should not continued to be singled out and placed at risk by being used as a scapegoat, when the issues and concerns are noise, crime and other social problems.

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: InOBU
Date: 22 Mar 02 - 07:24 AM

Hi Shambles... great work you are doing mate. I think we are at the point when, for those living off shore, you may wish to post a list of email addresses for another round of "Why would we visit Britain if you..." emails from us - and a few please touch on these points in your emails outline. Cheers, Larry

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Mar 02 - 01:38 PM

Thanks Larry. You are right, our Government are just not listening to the right people. Those of us that care, wherever we live, are going to have to find ways to make them listen.

The key to this is that the department responsible for public entertainment licinsing is also responsible for encouraging tourism.

This department are under the impression that not many people are concerned about the effects of this reform on music making. They may be right? There may not be many of us, so those that do care are going to have to 'pull out all of the stops'.

Department for Culture, Media and Sport

Tourism Division

2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5DH

www.culture.gov.uk

Tel [phone] Fax [phone]

ronnie.bridgett @culture.gsi.gov.uk

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Mar 02 - 02:00 PM

News for visitors wishing to play in UK.

That one form of art or expression should alone be singled out as only permissible after a fee is paid by a third party to a local authority is an unfair disincentive to music making, and not specifically addressing the stated goal of the licensing.

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Mar 02 - 02:22 PM

Can I re-cap a little here in case anyone has missed it. The proposed "reform" is, if you plough (or, in the USA "plow") through the Hansard (Parliamentary debate), if I correctly understand our government: -
1. All public entertainment with any live component, whether on unlicensed or licensed premises or whether in the street or fields must be licensed.
2. That includes all music.
3. They do not plan ANY exemptions.
4. So three, two, or even ONE musician singer or storyteller, with or without any amplification, will be criminal.
5. So will Karaoke (hooray).
6. So will discos with MCs.

Not sure what they plan to do about juke boxes, big-screen TV or big-screen video.

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Mar 02 - 02:55 PM

FOLK MUSIC IN PUBLIC HOUSES AND PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT LICENCES

Thank you for your letter of 2 March to Richard Carbon concerning the recent adjournment debate, folk music and the current public entertainment licensing system. I have been asked to reply on his behalf.

Mr Carbon appreciates your concern with regard to his comments on folk music and regrets any offence they may have caused. They were intended merely as lighthearted banter during typically boisterous exchanges in the House of Commons on the issue of public entertainment licences. Richard Carbon was standing in for Dr Kim Howells, the Minister for Tourism, who unfortunately had to be in America to promote Britain's hospitality, leisure and tourist industries in this Golden Jubilee year.

Dr Howells has a personal commitment to all forms of music, including folk traditions from around the United Kingdom and beyond. His department's support for folk is delivered primarily through the Arts Council of England, which has been happy to engage with the development of the English folk music scene over recent years.

The folk music constituency is making increased use of the Regional Arts Lottery Programme and the National Touring Programme to support its work. The Arts Council directly funds two development agencies for the sector - the Folk Arts Network and the Association of Festival Organisers - both of which provide information and resources to the sector.

One of the most influential agencies in the folk music sector, Folkworks, is a key partner in the emerging and innovative development at the Arts Council lottery funded Music Centre Gateshead (over £40 million). This dynamic development incorporates the first Folk Music Degree course in the United Kingdom and symbolises the folk music sector's ability to renew, refresh and strengthen its position within the cultural life of the country.

Dr Howells shares your views on the current restrictions relating to the provision of entertainment in places such as public houses. I can assure you that the White Paper proposals for reforming the licensing system, which can be read or downloaded from our web-site, (www.culture.gov.uk/new~responsibilities/liquor index.html). offer a more flexible and simplified system of licensing for alcohol and public entertainment and will promote greater opportunities for musicians and other performers.

Under the reform proposals, the current requirement for separate licences for the sale of alcohol, public entertainment and late night refreshment will be replaced by a single integrated system whereby venues will be required to obtain one premises Licence to cover all such activities from the local council. When considering whether to introduce conditions on the premises licence, the local council would be required to obtain any views from the police, local residents and other interested bodies before coming to a decision. This procedure would allow musicians and other performers to submit comments to the council in support of any plans by venues to provide live entertainment. The new system would allow the operator to put forward plans for entertainment activities which local councils would be obliged to consider favourably, and would only be able to impose conditions based on disorder, safety or nuisance factors.

I must point out that the sole purpose of having licence conditions is to ensure safety, minimise nuisance and prevent crime and disorder, and we would expect local authorities to take these factors into consideration when considering any applications for public entertainment licences, particularly during the Golden Jubilee. However, we are aware that local councils have considerable discretion under the existing system for public entertainment licensing with regard to conditions and fees and acknowledge that there are inconsistencies which must be addressed. The councils have been formally advised that their conditions should be relevant to venues and that the replication of regulations which may contribute towards higher fees being charged should be avoided. This department is continuing to liaise with the councils on this important matter and is looking into the possibility of offering further guidance on public entertainment licences in the near future.

In order to ensure consistency and fairness across the country, close controls will be placed on the powers of local councils who will administer the proposed new streamlined licensing system. Dr Howells is committed to bringing forward a licensing reform Bill as soon as Parliamentary time is available.

You may be interested to learn that this department is marking the Golden Jubilee by placing before Parliament a proposal to relax the alcohol licensing hours, which will allow public houses, nightclubs, restaurants, registered members' clubs and bars to open for an additional two hours on the evening of 3 June until lam. We are confident that this proposal will be enthusiastically welcomed by industry and the general public, allowing a greater freedom to choose when and where to celebrate.

The major licensing reforms, also, will provide a major boost to tourism by sweeping away considerable red tape and making our cities and towns more attractive to visitors from the British Isles and abroad. I hope that my letter allays many of your concerns.

Yours sincerely

Ronnie Brldgett

Alcohol and Entertainment Ucensing Branch, Tourism DMslon

The major licensing reforms, also, will provide a major boost to tourism by sweeping away considerable red tape and making our cities and towns more attractive to visitors from the British Isles and abroad. I hope that my letter allays many of your concerns

It does not allay any of mine, how about you? I fail to see how this can be sweeping away any red tape either.

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Mar 02 - 03:36 PM

I can read bureacuratise, if not speak it.

THat says

"There will still be licences for everything, adn if you don't get one of our new giant licences you can't do ANYTHING.

And in case your local council is too soft, we're going to regulate the system centrally".

Oh shit!

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: Snuffy
Date: 22 Mar 02 - 08:32 PM

I've got no objections to requiring a licence (and payment) for commercial provision of music or any other entertainment.

What kills it in England is the 1793 law case which says that members of the public are counted as performers. This kills any inpromptu sessions and singalongs, and regular folkie meetings wehre people meet in a pub and take it in turns to sing for their own enjoyment and no payment.

This is what we must direct all our efforts to overturn.

Under the present "two in a bar" rules dad and two kids singing happy birthday to mum in the pub is illegal, because there are three "Performers", and under the new rules even one person singing would be illegal.

Pubs don't need a licence to provide a widescreen TV to showw a rubgy match, which can broadcast 40,000 people singing "Swing Low", but if 3 of the people in the pub join in then it's illegal.

This is the rule that has got to be abolished. There ought to be a lot of good publicity to be made from the Jubilee - If a publican allows customers to sing "God Save the Queen" he is liable to a £20,000 fine.

The Daily Mail could have a field day about Labour Killjoys preventing the loyal people of Britain expressing their devotion to the monarchy.

If we kill this one, the rest of the rules ain't to onerous, either new or proposed.

I'd be happy for promoters to have to pay £20,000 for an evenings licence to stage an amplified rock or rap gig in a pub, but when it's the ordinary paying customers who are banned from singing, then we are nowhere near living in a democracy.

WassaiL! V

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Mar 02 - 08:45 PM

The new licence will be a combined one. The present liquor licence, which costs £30 for 3 years, with the PEL which varies from £00 to £0000 for a year, depending on which council is making the charge.

In effect the new licence is providing an increase in liquor licence with the addition of the already much higher charge for PELs.

The financial burden is increased, the red tape is increased and liquor licensing (presently dealt with by magistrates court), is now to be the responsibility of the very same local authorities, whose enforcement and strict interpretation of current PELs has caused the present problems for folk clubs and sessions in particular.

And this is reform????

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Mar 02 - 09:05 PM

What kills it in England is the 1793 law case which says that members of the public are counted as performers. This kills any inpromptu sessions and singalongs, and regular folkie meetings wehre people meet in a pub and take it in turns to sing for their own enjoyment and no payment.

I am in complete ageement with the promlem as spelt out above but the facts need clarifying a little.

The 1793 case law is being quoted by authorities to support the claim that members of the public making their own music is public entertainment requiring the licence.

To do this they just simply ignore far more relevant and recent case law from 1899 where a licencee was found not guilty of providing public entertainment because customers were making their own.

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: InOBU
Date: 22 Mar 02 - 09:07 PM

To Ronnie Bridgett:
Good day,
I realize that different nations have different traditions governing free speech. However, I would urge that you reconsider your opinion on the licensing of folk music in public houses. In both our nations folk music has provided government a picture of the common perception of important issues, and as the songs in the folk tradition pass into history, our cultures are enriched.
Of late there is a trend towards totalitarian capitalism, where in the free enterprise of our parents day is replaced with a "make profit on everything that moves" trend, which has, in the United States, resulted in irreparable damage to culture from theater, museums to entertainment.
The troubadour tradition, which predates all our traditions of government, has always been a seeding process for culture, classical and popular. In the US, Bob Dylan, for example, was one of the many performers who began his career as a busker. My wife and I visit England and Ireland frequently, and we do, to a great extent, to enjoy the traditional culture of your nation. I have seen how, in Quebec, the licensing of busking led to a decline in folk music, and with the realization of licensing, there is again a flowering of folk performers. England has given the English language world such a great gift in traditional music. I hope you decide to cultivate it, rather than attempting to reap the profit before the crop flourishes. Allow Bob Dylans to flourish, and when they are rich and successful, you will do much better to tax them at that point, not when they are struggling in the pub... Now I realize you will point out the tax is against the pub, but the decline of available venues is a tax on the performer.
All the best, and respectfully yours
Larry and Genie Otway, New York City

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Mar 02 - 06:55 PM

Two things - the requirement for licnesign for public entertainemnt applies not just to licensed premises beru also to unlicensed ones - and even free ones in private houses if the public are admitted.

Second off - damn the profit - what about the folk music?

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: InOBU
Date: 23 Mar 02 - 07:08 PM

I completely agree with you Richard, but when talking to the apes who have pound signs instead of little black dots in the center of their eyes, something so beautiful as the musical heritage of your nation means nothing to them... you have to raise their hopes of filling the coffers... Cheers, Larry

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Mar 02 - 04:23 PM

The latest letter to Michael Portillo MP from Dr Howells, makes a new and rather important observation (in bold). Mr Rubie's concerns are posted earlier in this thread.

Thank you for your letter of 17 February, enclosing one from your constituent, Mr Stephen Rubie of ……………………, who is the licensee of the 606 Club. Mr Rubie has expressed concern over the current public entertainment licensing laws.

Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the adjournment debate in the Commons as I had to be in the United States of America to promote Britain's hospitality, leisure and tourist industries in the Golden Jubilee year. However, I am aware of what was discussed at the debate.

Although it would be inappropriate for me to comment on individual cases, I would like to take the opportunity to explain the relevant law. There is no current restriction on the number of musicians or dancers who may perform together in licensed premises if the licensee has first obtained an appropriate public entertainment licence from the local authority. However, under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 1964 a public entertainment licence is not required if music or dancing is performed by less than three performers on licensed premises i.e. the 'two in a bar rule'. The rule is intended to apply to public performances put on by a public house to entertain the public and should not prevent ordinary people singing together or dancing in public houses.

The purpose of licence conditions is to ensure safety, minimise nuisance and prevent crime and disorder, and we would expect local authorities to take these factors into consideration when considering applications for public entertainment licenses, particularly during special occasions such as the Golden Jubilee.

Local councils have considerable discretion under the existing system for public entertainment licensing with regard to conditions and fees, and it is acknowledged that there are inconsistencies which must be addressed. The councils have been formally advised that their conditions should be relevant the venues, and that the replication of regulations which may contribute towards higher fees being charged should be avoided. My Department is continuing to liase with the councils and is looking into the possibility of offering further guidance on public entertainment licenses in the near future.

As you know we are planning a comprehensive reform of the alcohol and public entertainment licensing laws. Details of the proposals can be found in the White Paper "Time for Reform" published in April 2000, which can be read or downloaded from our web-site address (www.culture.gov.uk/new-responsibilities/liquor-index.html). The new proposals will provide a more flexible and simplified system of licensing for alcohol and public entertainment and promote greater opportunities for musicians and other performers. In order to ensure consistency and fairness across the country, close controls will be placed on the powers of local authorities who will administer the proposed new streamlined licensing system. It is my intention to bring forward a reform Bill as soon as Parliamentary time is available.

I should end by mentioning that we are marking the Golden Jubilee by placing before Parliament a proposal to relax the alcohol licensing hours, which will allow public houses, nightclubs, restaurants, registered members' clubs and bars, to open for an additional two hours on the evening of 3 June until 1am. I am confident that this proposal will be enthusiastically welcomed by industry and the general public, allowing a greater freedom to choose when and where to celebrate.

Dr Kim Howells MP

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Mar 02 - 04:45 PM

The rule is intended to apply to public performances put on by a public house to entertain the public and should not prevent ordinary people singing together or dancing in public houses.

Dr Howells's above statement is welcome if inexplicable and a little late for the many "ordinary people" who have been prevented and are still being prevented from singing together in public houses.

Perhaps he could be asked to explain exactly how the Government are going to ensure that no more "ordinary people" are prevented by local authorities from singing together in public houses?

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 02 - 02:10 AM

I thought that Steve Rubie's concerns were posted here but I can't see them, so I will post them here now.

Steve Rubie, Proprietor 606 Jazz Club, Chelsea
e-mail to Andy Knight
Deputy General Secretary - Musicians Union
Wed 30 January 2002

Caveat re Government's proposals for two in a bar reform

Andy

I just had a very interesting chat this morning with a couple of guys I know pretty well from the Council (Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea) who deal with Licensing and Building Regs for this area. In fact they just popped in to approve some minor work here, but we got chatting about the new licensing regulations which are likely to be announced in November and implemented some time next year.

As I'm sure you are aware the intention is to transfer all licensing to local government, which will include liquor and entertainment as well as food. Every premises that sells food or liquor will be obliged to re-apply for their license under these new regulations. The way they see this being implemented is that each license application will be basically divided into 3 "modules", Food, Liquor and Entertainment.

This means that each licensee will be required to make the choice, at the point of application, as to whether or not they want to add Entertainment to their license application. Should they decide not to, for whatever reason, then that premises will not be licensed for music of any kind. In other words, the"2 in the Bar" rule will be gone, but if the applicants, who may have had duos for possibly years, do not fully appreciate the situation and just assume that they still don't need a license for duos, and so fail to apply for one, then they will lose the ability to put on live music altogether.

It is also quite possible that a number of venues that have put on live music in the past may be required to make so many changes under the new regulations that it's not worth their while, and will subsequently stop the provision of live music. The biggest problem, it seems to me though, is that licensee's really need to be educated to the fact that even if they only want to put on music once a year, say New Year's Eve, then they must still add "Entertainment" to their licence at the point of application otherwise it will not be possible.

Is the Union planning any sort of campaign to ensure that those who are affected by this, primarily pubs and restaurants (most Clubs, like us, are already in the "Entertainment Licensing" system) are aware of what's going to happen and what they need to do to ensure the provision of live music in their venue? It could be a great boost to the promotion of live music if handled properly, but it does seem to me that if not it could actually backfire and lead to fewer, rather than more, venues promoting live music. Anyway, sorry to go on but I thought it was maybe worth bringing this up now, before any concrete decisions are made by Government.

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 02 - 10:46 AM

Weymouth (and Portland) folk festival. Organised by the council. Go to tourism then events and festivals for details.

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Apr 02 - 06:16 PM

The following question from Hamish Birchall and reply from the DCMS Ronnie Bridgett is of interest.

But the Government now proposes that, in addition to the risk assessments employers have a statutory duty to undertake (taking into account all activities in the workplace), 'all activities to be held on a Premises Licence including non-amplified music would need to be revealed in the operating plan put for approval to the local authority'.

Do you envisage licensees being required to declare whether or not customers will sing - unamplified - for their own amusement?

We do not anticipate that premises licences would have to include such an element.

This does seem to contradict Mr Bridgett's earlier reply given to my council (see earlier in the thread). If it is the latest thinking it should be welcomed but needs to appear in the Government's proposals. The problem being that without the principle, of the right to make music being established in the legislation, it still only needs one of our officials to claim the activity is public entertainment, for us to have go to court to fight it, exactly the same as now.

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 01:54 AM

This is Mr Bridgett's earlier answer to my council.

It is not planned that the new system will give an exemption to any forms of entertainment. The proposal is that all activities to be held on a Premises Licence (including non-amplified music) would need to be revealed in the operating plan put for approval to the licensing authority. The authority could only impose conditions on the Premises Licence which protect public safety and prevent disorder, crime and public nuisance.

The more folk that write and ask for clarifcation on this particular matter, the more chance there is that it will be 'firmed-up'.

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 11:49 PM

It appears it is time for a change.

http://www.daimaru.com.sg/English/Main.asp?ID=55

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Apr 02 - 04:39 AM

The above link is to page advertising nappies (diapers). To change babies.

Time for Reform (Goverments proposals).

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Apr 02 - 02:32 PM

Mr Bridgett does not seem to see any contradiction as he has later stated.

"The questions put and answers given concerned performance and spontaneity, and are entirely reconcilable in that context. The issues will give rise to definitional matters which the draftsman will be required to address on constructing the Bill".

I think this means that one question used the word entertainment and the other did not. So both get answers but none of us are any wiser as to the true position.

Neither question in fact used the words spontaneity or performance.

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Apr 02 - 03:11 PM

Latest from Hamish Birchall.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport have issued a press notice today headed:

KIM HOWELLS PLEDGES TO REFORM THE 'TWO MUSICIANS RULE'

The pledge was made at the MODAL 'non-mainstream' music conference in Sheffield. The press release should be available on the DCMS website: www.culture.gov.uk - but when I checked at 6.25pm this evening (12 April) it was not yet there. In the copy I have obtained he says: 'I am firmly committed to the reform and modernisation of our archaic and at times, wholly stupid, licensing laws. I do not need persuasion that the "two musicians rule" is outdated and pointless.'

He adds: 'Simply abolishing the two musicians rule is not enough. Abolition would remove the exemption and make it harder and more costly for pubs to put on singers and other musical performers. Our approach is to simplify and integrate the licensing regimes so that it is easier and less expensive for pubs to obtain the necessary permission to stage musical performances. These reforms have to be introduced through primary legislation - there is no quick fix.'

This is a step forward. About two years ago a DCMS civil servant told me: 'if you are hoping for a Ministerial statement you won't get one'.

In this latest press notice Howells again says that reform will come only 'when Parliamentary time permits'. At the conference he did apparently suggest that a Bill in November is very likely. The DCMS also issued a fuller text of his speech as a separate document, with the caveat 'Check with delivery'. Many of you will know that Howells has a reputation for 'throwaway' ad libs.

The speech text includes this: 'Those of you who wish to campaign about the reforms need not therefore preach to the converted. I was converted long ago. But the more support that you can generate for our Bill among the wider public the better. There are people out there who think the Bill is only about alcohol. It is much broader than that and will bring much greater flexibility for the music industry too. Keep spreading the message and we will deliver on our promises.'

When the Government leaks news of the imminent licensing Bill the press reports focus almost exclusively on the possibility of 24-hour drinking. The Government is responsible for that emphasis and should not ask musicians to advocate on its behalf to compensate for their deliberate omission of the cultural remit.

We still do not know how the Goverment proposes to eliminate the risk, identified in the licensing White Paper, that musicians could lose work as a result of abolition of the two performer exemption. The latest round of consultation (Draft Instructions to Parliamentary Counsel) which went to about 30 organisations including the MU and Arts Council, has already been criticised in the trade press as a retreat from the Ministry of Fun to the Ministry of Law and Order. It would appear, for example, that providing just one unamplified performer once a month in a bar would require prior local authority permission. Licensees would face the same potential penalty (£20,000 fine and six months in jail) for providing that entertainment without first declaring their intention to provide it in the new licence application and getting local authority approval. It is still not clear whether the new licence would cost more if live entertanment is provided.

As with most Government statements, treat this one with a degree of scepticism.

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Apr 02 - 05:41 PM

The full speech, before the spin...

MODAL 2002

Speech by Kim Howells MP

Introduction

Music does so much to add to the quality of life for so many people. Britain in particular enjoys an excellent international reputation for the diversity, vitality and quality of its music.

Music is an important part of British culture and it is right that there should be an element of support from the public purse whether through the Arts Council, local Government funding or the National Lottery.

It is a plural culture: a mixture of subsidy and the free market. The point of subsidy is that it acts as investment, provides continuity, allows artistic risks, sustains the best of tradition, develops new talent, and feeds the commercial entertainment economy.

We are here today to talk about and celebrate music and music makers who work 'outside of the mainstream' and I am delighted that ACE have increased their support for organisations like the African and Caribbean Music circuit, the Asian Music circuit and the Folk Arts Network.

Even more importantly they have made an extra commitment of £100,000 a year to go to contemporary music and they are now supporting a large number of organisations which you may know - like Continental Drifts, Gig Right UK and Generator.

This increase in funding for the 'non mainstream' music sector will continue this year with new support for the Association of Festival Organisers, Jazz Development Trust and Serious, one of the country's leading producers of new music, jazz and world music.

At the same time, your sector thrives in its own right - the number of private sector clubs, festivals, dedicated record labels and this weekend's conference testifies to this.

I know you are the last people I need to convince of music's importance, and that what you really would like to be convinced of is the Government's commitment to music and the music sector.

Well our aim is simple: we want to ensure that everyone, regardless of where they live, their cultural or ethnic background, gender or ability to pay, has the opportunity to experience music.

Public Entertainment Licensing

I know that one of the issues of concern to many of you is Public Entertainment Licensing I note that there is a panel on PEL's tomorrow morning.

Problems with the existing licensing regime

In calling for the reform of the public entertainment licensing system, your industry is of course pushing at an open door.

As a Government, we are firmly committed to the reform and modernisation of our archaic and at times, wholly stupid, licensing laws. It is a Manifesto commitment we have made and will keep.

You do not have to persuade us that the "two in a bar" rule is outdated and pointless. We intend to abolish it.

We published the White Paper "Time for Reform" in April 2000. It pulled no punches about what was wrong with the existing licensing arrangements. It identified the main problems with current public entertainment licensing regime as being:

 too much scope for inconsistencies in the approaches of different licensing authorities, which cannot be justified by real local differences;

 separate licensing systems for theatres, cinemas and music and dancing, producing unnecessary complexity when the main purposes of regulation are essentially the same;

 too much scope for local licensing authorities to impose disproportionate and burdensome requirements on venues;

 duplication of the requirements of fire safety and Health and Safety regulations; and

 fees set at the discretion of local authorities, with some evidence of excessive charging.

Licensing Reform

The White Paper presented a radical package of measures which we remain convinced strikes an important and necessary balance between the needs of business, including your industry, and the concerns of local residents.

Live performers - jazz, folk and others - have no reason to fear our proposals. We consulted very widely on them. The consultation was not limited to the powerful alcohol interests, but also included groups representing the interests of professional musicians.

Let me quote one response to the White Paper. It came from the Association of British Jazz Musicians. They said:

"Remarkably, these reforms could benefit everyone: the brewers and landlords, as well as the present and future employees in the industry; and of course there will be increased opportunities for entertainers, particularly musicians. The reduction in regulation, with consequent savings to brewers and individual licensees, should also mean that there will be more money in the system for the payment of entertainers at a proper level."

These reforms have to be introduced by means of primary legislation - there is no quick fix.

I am not permitted to anticipate a future Queen's Speech, but I can assure you that work on the preparation of the necessary Bill is on-going, and I am optimistic that it will be presented sooner rather than later.

Those of you who wish to campaign about the reforms need not therefore preach to the converted. I was converted long ago. But the more support that you can generate for our Bill among the wider public the better.

There are people out there who think the Bill is only about alcohol. It is much broader than that and will bring much greater flexibility for the music industry too. Keep spreading the message and we will deliver on our promises.

Broadcasting

I notice that the opening session today is looking at the changing face of broadcasting.

Together, the BBC and the commercial broadcasters provide an ever growing choice of music listening.

Starting with the BBC, the success of their programmes should be judged not just on ratings but also on quality, innovation, the ability to challenge and the desire to take risks. They must set the standards for other public service broadcasters to match.

Shows like Lucy Duran and Andy Kershaw's Radio 3 programme and Mike Harding's on Radio 2 are good examples of the BBC fulfilling this role, while the broadcasting of the recent World Music Awards on Radio 3, and their 'World On Your Street' project On the commercial side, there are now over 250 radio stations. Whilst many play mainly chart music, there are a significant number which feature less mainstream music. Take one of my favourites - Jazz FM for example. There is also Ritz, Xfm & the newly launched Soul FM plus many more. In addition, many of the ethnic stations such as Choice and Sunrise who target visible ethnic minorities, play music that you are unlikely to hear anywhere else on radio.

The increased choice provided by the digital age will provide even more opportunities for grass roots music on both radio and TV.

In September last year, the Secretary of State gave the BBC approval to launch three new digital television and five new digital radio services. The new digital radio services include two new music channels, both of which are 'non mainstream':-

6 Music was launched on 11 March and aims to reintroduce radio listeners to the music and artists that have helped shape popular music and culture over the last 30 years or so. The network is not dictated to by the charts but by "a passion for great music". The channel will make use of the BBC's extensive archive and is the BBC's first new national music radio station in 32 years.

A new black music channel, 1Xtra, playing hip hop, R&B and Garage will be launched in the summer. It will concentrate on new artists and again , will not follow trends in the mainstream Top 40.

But the digital future is not just about the BBC. Some of you may be surprised to hear that commercial digital radio already reaches almost 90% of the population in the UK. The Radio Authority have awarded licences for 1 national and 35 local digital multiplexes in the UK, which are already carrying over 200 commercial radio stations, with more to come on line every week. This number allows stations to concentrate on particular audiences, and stations such as The Groove and The Rhythm are examples of this.

The new channels demonstrate the increased variety of audio services that digital radio can offer. We, of course, also hope that this choice will persuade more people to buy digital radios , so that all digital radio channels will benefit from a wider audience.

The BBC's new digital television channel, BBC4, was launched in March. The BBC promises that it will be a place where more experimental music and dance performances can be showcased. It will provide a home for example for Jazz, roots and world music on the BBC and I hope will allow the BBC to show an increasing commitment to music on all its channels.

Conclusion

I would like to thank the organisers for inviting me to this year's event, and I would once again like to assure you of the Government's commitment to all types of music.

I would also like to congratulate you for helping this essential part of our music industry to continue to thrive. I hope the weekend is a success and that you enjoy all the great music on offer.

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Apr 02 - 05:49 PM

And after the spin..........

KIM HOWELLS PLEDGES TO REFORM THE "TWO MUSICIANS RULE" Minister for Music, Kim Howells, today pledged to simplify licensing laws to make it easier and cheaper for pubs to obtain permission to stage musical performances.

Speaking to representatives from the world of jazz, folk, world and fusion music, at Modal 2002, an annual conference for the UK's non-mainstream music industry, Kim Howells said:

"I want to ensure that everyone, regardless of where they live, their culture or ethnic background, gender or ability to pay, has the opportunity to experience live music."

Kim Howells spoke to delegates about public entertainment licenses and their effect on live musical performances in pubs. He said:

"I am firmly committed to the reform and modernisation of our archaic and at times, wholly stupid, licensing laws. I do not need persuasion that the "two musicians rule" is outdated and pointless."

The current rule allows one or two singers or musicians to perform in a pub without the landlord being required to obtain the normal fee-paid public entertainment licence from the local authority.

Dr Howells continued:

"Simply abolishing the two musicians rule is not enough. Abolition would remove the exemption and make it harder and more costly for pubs to put on singers and other musical performers. Our approach is to simplify and integrate the licensing regimes so that it is easier and less expensive for pubs to obtain the necessary permission to stage musical performances. These reforms have to be introduced through primary legislation – there is no quick fix.

"We intend to bring forward a Bill modernising the licensing laws as soon as Parliamentary time permits."

The reformed licensing system will sweep away a great deal of current red tape, which deters many licensees from staging musical and other public entertainment. But it will still provide protection for customers and for local residents who can be disturbed by excessive noise from some premises.

Notes to Editors

The licensing White Paper - Time for Reform: which was published by the Home Office in April 2000 can be found on the DCMS website: www.culture.gov.uk

Press Enquiries: 020 7211 6269
Out of hours telephone pager no: 07699751153
Public Enquiries: 020 7211 6200
Internet: http://www.culture.gov.uk

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Apr 02 - 05:26 PM

I am trying to get a write-in campaign going.

I set out below first my explanation for folk club audiences and thent he letter that I am suggetsing be written, and finally some contact details.

GOVERNMENT BAN ON FOLK MUSIC THIS IS NOT A JOKE

The Threat The government plans a major change in liquor licences, gaming licences, and public entertainment licences. People assumed it would replace the "2-in-a-bar" rule* (which has been used to close down folk music) with something sensible. But it won't. It will replace it with something far worse. Spin doctors mislead by quoting approving comments that had not realised this.

The new law will make it a crime for even one folk musician to perform in a pub without a local authority entertainment licence. No exemptions at all. The only public singing in a pub that will not need a licence will be "spontaneous" outbursts such as "Happy Birthday to You".

Every pub with a folk club or session will need a local authority licence for public entertainment. The rule will apply to private members clubs like working mens' clubs, and so will probably apply even to private folk clubs (where you have to be a member for 48 hours to get in) held in pubs. The government has refused to meet the EFDSS to discuss an exemption.

The government says that the licences will be very cheap and benefit everyone. Yeah, right! The public entertainment licence will only be a part of the premises (liquor) licence. These will be controlled by local authorities. The pub will have to apply in advance (when it applies for its liquor licence) to the local authority with a full business plan for the entire pub operation including showing how often it intends to have public entertainment and of what kind ( so it will have to specify folk music) and what measures it is taking to prevent a public nuisance and to ensure public safety, and so on. We all know how helpful local authorities are, and how low they are likely to set their licence fees, don't we?

These licences are planned to last for the life of the business running the pub, and changes are planned to need an entirely fresh application.

If your club's pub (or club) does not get a licence permitting public entertainment including folk music your club will be illegal. Now imagine trying to start a new session or club or move your present one to a new pub.

What Can You Do? Write fax or email to your MP, write or email the minister Kim Howells, write or email Ronnie Bridgett the civil servant in charge (addresses and a sample letter on the back). Support the EFDSS. Support the Musicians' Union. Support Modal (a non-mainstream music organisation) DO IT NOW AND KEEP AT IT UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT BACKS OFF

*. The 2-in-a-bar rule says that all premises (licensed for liquor or not) need a licence for all music and dancing – but not for live music with only 2 performers (and a recent case says this means 2 throughout the entire evening, so one now and two later, or two now and one punter joining in the chorus is illegal).

Richard Bridge, Forge House, High Street, Lower Stoke, Rochester, Kent, ME3 9RD [e-mail] Dear MP/Minister

I write to point out the damage that the government's plans to reform licensing law will do to folk music and dance. In effect, the present plans will ban all folk music or dance without a licence. This was not expected.

What was expected were sensible rules and exemptions, prepared with more thought than the current "2-in-a-bar" rule, that would not penalise or regulate what did not need regulating. But the government has now made it very clear that ALL "entertainment" in pubs and clubs will need a licence and that it plans NO exemptions, not even for acoustic music (even sessions where players come to take part, rather than to stand out in front and entertain others), or for traditional dance like morris. It just plans (press release 12th April) "to simplify…the licensing regimes".

Licensing is never cheap quick and easy. The whole idea that folk music should need a licence is ridiculous. The "reform" will vandalise an important part of England's cultural heritage, close off the route for amateur folk musicians to become professionals in the music industry of such importance to the UK economy, and reduce the attractiveness of the UK as a venue for tourism.

This philistinism is completely unnecessary. Folk music and dance do not pose noise nuisances or health or public order hazards. Only an extreme control freak could ever have dreamed that they might. The fact that in February the government refused to meet the EFDSS to discuss the problem is almost unbelievable. An exemption of a suitable type is absolutely vital, and I suggest that one for music is easy. All it needs to say is that music provided by (say) up to 100 performers without amplification does not need a licence. Keyboards without external amplifiers or speakers should count as acoustic for this purpose. The general law about excessive noise can deal with extraordinary situations like 76 trombones.

Please confirm that you agree.

Yours faithfully

Addresses Kim Howells – [e-mail] - or The House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA Ronnie Bridgett – [e-mail] - DCMS, 2/4 Cockspur St, London SW1Y 5DH Your MP – www.faxyourmp.com - or [name/constituency], House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA EFDSS - www.efdss.org - Cecil Sharp House, 2 Regent's Park Road, London, NW1 7AY MU - www.musiciansunion.org.uk - 60/62 Clapham Rd London SW9 0JJ FOR HAMISH BIRCHALL MODAL - www.modal.co.uk - Centre for Popular Music, 6 Paternoster Row, Sheffield S1 2QQ

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Apr 02 - 07:04 PM

Refresh.

This is actually the most important thread on here, at least as far as England is concerned.

If the idea of a licence to make folk music or participate in folk dance does not get you US 1st amendment enthusiasts, and you European Convention on Human Rights enthusiasts, I think it should.

If proper exemptions are not introduced, under the new laws proposed, there is a very real risk of English folk music and dance being exterminated.

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Apr 02 - 09:18 AM

Refresh.

I today found out that US lawyers used the 1st amendment to overturn a 3-in-a-bar rule in New York, (maybe a few years back) and there is actually a whole book about the fight.

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Apr 02 - 01:41 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/music/newsid_1926000/1926330.stm.

For the BBC's coverage.

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Apr 02 - 07:50 AM

There are lies, damned lies, and BBC reportage (been there in another context, too).

Sure, a pub will only need one licence. But it will only get a licence to do what is disclosed in the operating plan it files when it first applies. So if it hasn't filed a plan specifying "folk music on Fridays" it will have to apply again (at extra cost) to do that. The plans, incidentally, will also have to specify all the steps to be taken (in general) to safeguard the community.

All together now - "A licence to make acoustic folk music is an oppression. People have made folk music and folk dance since before governments existed. The requiring of a licence for traditional folk forms is cultural genocide."

How about everyone writing to both their MP AND the minister, and all posting to a copy to another thread first to see who is supporting the folk music we all write about here, and second to see whether anyone has some good ideas we can all adopt? How about everyone sending my post above with the draft letter to the whole of their addressbook, and asking them all to pass it on to the whole of their addressbook, and so on.

Do stuff, or in another couple of years there will be no English folk music or dance, only paid for electric musicians producing homogenised and profitable pap.

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Apr 02 - 11:49 AM

04/04/02

Dear Mr Knight MP

Despite all this proposed major reform we still seem to be stuck with the definition of public entertainment, for purposes of licensing, as music and dancing. The proposed changes will not be a reform without a new and more sensible definition of what is or is not public entertainment.

That one form of art or expression should alone be singled out as only permissible after a fee is paid by a third party to a local authority is an unfair disincentive to music making, and not specifically addressing the stated goal of the licensing.

Ensuring the public's interests and making premises safe for whatever activity is to take place, or whatever future form this may take, can probably best be done with a general statement of that requirement, rather than attempting to specify exactly the nature of every activity.

If (some) music related activities are seen to present a specific problem, not presented by other forms of public entertainment, such as noise this is the area that needs to be (and is), addressed by other legislation.

The standard conditions applied to the current licences, and which I assume will still apply to the premises licence, apply to non-musical entertainment like hypnotism or pyrotechnics.

Many forms of musical activity do not in fact present any appreciable noise concern, but the current and proposed law makes no distinction. A licence refused or conditions made on the grounds of noise, will also prevent or affect music not presenting this.

Many forms of musical activity taking place in pubs, many of them provided by and for customers, not only do not present any additional safety concerns or appreciable noise concerns, but should not even be considered as conventional public entertainment. The current and proposed law makes no distinction.

Other non-musical forms of entertainment provided in pubs by licensees or by and for fellow customers are not subject to any unfair disincentive or to a third party obtaining an additional licence. Examples are quiz nights, darts and so on. Satellite TV, is also currently exempt from this requirement. As it is not music or dancing, will it remain so?

The current public entertainment licence is a tax or a music licence. If one art form or expression is to continue to be considered differently to others under reform, then this element should be honestly referred to as a music and dancing element (or tax). For that is what it is to be in effect.

Many of the 95% of licensed premises that do not hold PELs, are also currently providing safe premises, on a regular and on a casual basis, for small-scale musical activities. It will act as a disincentive for these premises to continue proving this, if they have to submit specific operating plans, make additional payments to enable music making to continue and are also subject to more official inspections and are then subject to pay for any alterations required. Many of which relating to noise, may not be necessary or applicable, as not all music presents noise concerns.

It could well prove to be that musical entertainment will still take place, unadvertised and on a casual basis, being driven underground and presenting more problems for the public and enforcement officers. A situation that will not be in anybody's interests, for making music is not a criminal activity, musical expression is a right.

It must be recognised that other existing legislation has made these musical activities safe and ensured the interests of the public. And that as in Scotland, no additional licence is required in pubs and bars.

Musical expression should not continued to be singled out and placed at risk by being used as a scapegoat, when the issues and concerns are noise, crime and other social problems.

The actions taken by many local authorities, to the detriment of musical expression, in strictly interpreting and enforcing current legislation, does not fill one with much confidence, when the whole responsibility for licensing is to be handed over to them. For the present Government has made it clear that the current rule should no be used to prevent ordinary people from singing and dancing in pubs but the Government is just watching while many councils, including mine, are doing just that.

The Government's intention can be overridden currently and also under the proposed legislation by councils declaring such music making to be public entertainment.

The DCMS's Ronnie Bridgett made the follow reply to Weymouth and Portland Borough Council on 04/02/02.

It is not planned that the new system will give an exemption to any forms of entertainment. The proposal is that all activities to be held on a Premises Licence (including non-amplified music) would need to be revealed in the operating plan put for approval to the licensing authority. The authority could only impose conditions on the Premises Licence which protect public safety and prevent disorder, crime and public nuisance.

The following question from is from Hamish Birchall and the more recent (03/04/02) reply from Mr Bridgett is of interest.

But the Government now proposes that, in addition to the risk assessments employers have a statutory duty to undertake (taking into account all activities in the workplace), 'all activities to be held on a Premises Licence including non-amplified music would need to be revealed in the operating plan put for approval to the local authority'. Do you envisage licensees being required to declare whether or not customers will sing - unamplified - for their own amusement?

We do not anticipate that premises licences would have to include such an element.

This does seem to contradict Mr Bridgett's earlier reply given to my council. If it is the latest thinking it should be welcomed but needs to appear and be set in the Government's proposals. The problem being that without the principle, of the right to make music being established in the legislation, it still only needs one of our officials to claim the activity is public entertainment, for us to have go to court to fight it, exactly the same as now.

I accept that this Government is sincere in its wish to reform and improve the current system and its current failures and excesses. I would be most grateful if you could comment on and pass on this letter to Dr Howells for his comments.

Yours sincerely

Roger Gall

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Apr 02 - 11:53 AM

I have copied the above letter to a new thread called PELs - Letters to important folk.

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Apr 02 - 01:31 PM

Just to add to Richard's comments above - Kevin McGrath said on 26 Feb.

I suspect that most people here agree that this is a silly and damaging law that needs changing. It would be interesting to know whether many people have actually done something to help bring that cahnge about.

I have just read that a licensee is currently being prosecuted for holding a session in Greenwich London. I will try to get more detail when I have been able to contact Mick Wood who posted on to the BBC Radio 2 folk site. That site does not permit links or contact addresses so I have asked him to come here.

If anyone should know this Mick Wood, could they ask him to contact me? [e-mail].

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Apr 02 - 06:21 PM

There is also a current problem in Canterbury and I am trying to find time to help.

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 06:27 AM

Does anyone know of this Mick Wood?

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 02 - 06:22 AM

I have managed to find an e mail address, which I hope is the right one. I have sent an e mail and I am waiting for a reply.

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 02 - 07:57 AM

UK catters can be useful TODAY

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 02 - 01:13 PM

Digging this up as I have asked readers of the BBC Radio 2 folk mesaage board to look on this thread for the addresses I am not allowed to place there.

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 02 - 02:52 AM

http://www.englishtourism.org.uk/default.asp?ID=S217L0P2203I2209.

Last night Dr Howells avoided seeing Weymouth and Portland win a tourism award for Excellence in England. It was awarded to Scarborough.

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 02 - 02:57 AM

GOLD AND SILVER AWARD WINNERS:

Most Improved Resort of the Year

Gold Award Winner
Scarborough, North Yorkshire
Contact: Mike Wilkinson, tel: [phone]

Silver Award Winners
Hastings, East Sussex
Contact: Kevin Boorman, tel: [phone]

Weymouth and Portland, Dorset
Contact: Dr Douglas Gyte, tel: [phone]

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 02 - 01:40 PM

David Heath MP, who led the debate in the House of Commons about two in bar, has put down an Early Day Motion (EDM) calling for reform of this 'outdated and just plain daft' legislation in the next Queen's Speech.

The purpose of an EDM is to air an issue that a group of MPs feel strongly about. Interested MPs add their names in support. If a large number do this, it sends a strong message to the Government. This in turn can be very effective in gaining media coverage.

PLEASE WRITE OR FAX YOUR MP ASKING THEM TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION (see below for fax service):

Early Day Motion (EDM) 1182 was first put down on 23rd April 2002 by David Heath

That this House recognises the social, cultural and economic value of a thriving grass roots entertainment industry; notes that entertainment and music provision in venues ranging from pubs to village halls not only attracts vital custom but also encourages cultural diversity and growth; further notes that under the current two in a bar system it is illegal to allow, for instance, three folk singers to perform in a pub; agrees with the Minister for Sport that the current Public Entertainment Licensing system is archaic and just plain daft; and calls upon the Government to reform licensing laws to reduce the cost and bureacracy of entertainment licensing and promote the use of live music and singing in pubs and clubs; and urges the Government to introduce a Licensing Law Reform Bill in the next Queen's Speech.

PLEASE FAX (AND GET ALL YOUR FRIENDS) TO FAX YOUR MP DIRECT on: www.faxyourmp.com Or write: House of Commons London SW1A OAA

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 02 - 06:45 PM

Message By: Mick Woods

Once again the "Two in a bar law" rears it'e ugly head. I help run a small folk club once a fortnight, in a pub in Greenwich, SE London. Last year the landlord received a letter from the council telling him that, they had visited his premises and witnessed three musicians playing.

The letter warned him that he could face up to 6 months in jail and a £20.000 fine for allowing this sort of thing to take place in his bar. We have since tried to ensure that there are only one or two musicians playing at any given time during our session. Last week the landlord received a letter from the council saying, that they had again visited his pub and witnessed several musicians playing. This time they stated a time - 8.50pm. As our session does not start until 9pm what they witnessed were various musicians "tuning up".

The landlord phoned the council, but was told that even if the musicians did not actually play at the same time the Law was still being broken, as there were more than two during the course of the evening. They are now prosecuting. This is a tiny back street pub, the music we play is all acoustic. Has anybody else had any experience of this antiquated legislation?

The answer is unfortunately, yes....... Can we please get together and make sure that no one else has to?

Subject: RE: HELP CHANGE MUSIC IN MY COUNTRY.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Apr 02 - 04:01 AM

No need to change it works right well by me