kim howells does it again (PEL)

Subject: kim howells does it again
From: GUEST,noddy
Date: 31 Oct 02 - 04:08 AM

first Kim Howells slurs banjo players then he messes up the session in bars with his two in a bar ruling. Now he turns round and citises the Turner Award and its entries. Not bad performance from someone who claims he is a music lover and an art student (3 years at college).
Thank god he does not support football. Thats in big enough mess as it is.

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Oct 02 - 04:54 AM

I hope they don't get rid of him, he is our best asset.

For more details of previous 'clacks' by Dr (if no money changes hands) Howells.

PELs links to all the threads

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: GUEST,noddy
Date: 31 Oct 02 - 06:19 AM

is an asset a small ass?

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Oct 02 - 06:48 AM

Our biggesr ass then?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,823029,00.html

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: Ringer
Date: 31 Oct 02 - 10:59 AM

This time, however, he's right on the button. "...conceptual bullshit"

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 02 - 11:36 AM

Actually "conceptual bullshit" was literally true for the 1998 Turner prizewinner.. I suppose if you're really pedantic you might say it's not clear whether it came from a bull elephant or a ciow elephant.

Sounds like the man knows a bit more about art than he does about music.

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: Gareth
Date: 31 Oct 02 - 11:55 AM

Personally it's a damn good call by Dr Howell's - Oops sorry if he has upset the Hamstead "intelegensia". But then the connection between them and the real world is minute.

Gareth

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Nov 02 - 02:43 AM

Actually "conceptual bullshit" was literally true for the 1998 Turner prizewinner.. I suppose if you're really pedantic you might say it's not clear whether it came from a bull elephant or a ciow elephant.

Sounds like the man knows a bit more about art than he does about music.

I fear that Dr Howells may not be an expert on either music or art, but he does know a lot about the concept of 'bullshit'.

Unfortunatly for us, that seems to be about the only required knowledge and ability, in order to hold the post of UK Culture Minister.

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: Grab
Date: 05 Nov 02 - 08:19 AM

Eh? I may be wrong, but I didn't think Howells was the guy who instituted the "two in a bar" rule. I thought that had been around ages, and they're just now getting it changed. The High Court may have decided to be strict, but case-law isn't anything the House of Commons gets control over.

Quoting from an earlier BBC article:-

"For a simple urban boy such as me, the idea of listening to three Somerset folk singers sounds like hell," he said.

Liberal Democrat MP David Heath had asked what the difference would be between Michael Jackson teaming up with Madonna down the local pub and a group of Somerset folk singers performing.

"If it's a joke it's not a very funny one," said Ian Smith, organiser of the Musician's Union's new folk, roots and traditional music section.
...
Earlier this year, Mr Howells was lambasted for describing all members of the royal family as "a bit bonkers" and saying he prefers guest houses in Berlin to UK hotels at the height of the foot-and-mouth crisis.

The full text of what was actually said in Parliament about folk singers, in context:-

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): Is it not ridiculous that, in the unlikely event of Michael Jackson and Madonna teaming up to do a gig down the local pub, they could so, yet three people singing Somerset folk songs would not be able to do so? Does the Minister not recognise that live music in pubs and inns has the potential to make a major contribution to tourism in rural areas, which we have already said we want to promote?

Dr. Howells: We are straying into very dangerous territory. For a simple urban boy such as me, the idea of listening to three Somerset folk singers sounds like hell. Having said that, the hon. Gentleman is right: music does enliven many pubs and restaurants. It should thrive. Silly rules are preventing it from doing so.

Other links to articles about Kim Howells:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/wales/455758.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/wales/1266901.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/wales/1614283.stm

So his assertions so far:-

English hotels are crap compared to German ones. Having seen a little of both, I'd tend to agree.

The Royal Family are a bit bonkers, choose odd partners and aren't adapting to modern life well. Any arguments with that? I think not.

If you don't much like folk music then spending an evening stuck listening to folk singers will indeed be your idea of hell. Shambles, how much would you fancy a night out at a Limp Bizkit or Eminem gig? Or sat listening to John Cage's 4'33"? Would it be your idea of hell, maybe? Or should we all just listen to Britney Spears as the lowest common denominator, something that's so bland that you can't object to it because there's no substance to it?

In spite of not much liking folk music, he's going to do his job and make sure live music stays live, to get rid of the "silly rules". Works for me.

Ticket touts cause problems at events. Yep.

A lot of conceptual art is bullshit. No arguments there.

Arts Councils should stop focussing on "high art" and get in touch with the real world. Fair enough. The regular uproar about the Turner prize isn't because it's controversial, it's because it's irrelevant and no-one sees why it should exist, particularly since the British taxpayer is funding it.

So far as I can see, the man is running 100% on all those. In addition, he has a sense of humour and isn't afraid to express his opinions. Shame he's not my MP - I'd vote for him every time.

By all means, criticise him on PELs if the new system doesn't meet with expectations, and criticise him if the new system doesn't make its way into this year's Queen's Speech. But criticising him on the basis of having an opinion is hardly valid. Would you rather he was a soul-less drone like most of the rest of Tony Blair's government?

Graham.

PS. Oh yes - and Ian Smith is apparently lacking a sense of humour. If anyone sees him, tell him to get out more...

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: Grab
Date: 05 Nov 02 - 08:22 AM

A further link to what he's said in Parliament about the two-in-a-bar rule (source http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/cm020722/debtext/20722-01.htm):-

Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. However, given the licensing disparity between televised football and live music in pubs—the former is subject to no regulation but the latter is subject to a complicated regulation mechanism—will he encourage members of the Cabinet to look at introducing legislation in the Queen's Speech that will reform the public entertainment licence system and encourage live music and particularly young musicians in small venues?

Dr. Howells: We will certainly look at getting rid of the absurd two in a bar rule. I have looked long and hard at the evidence, but we have never received any to suggest that watching television in a pub causes the kinds of scenes that have sometimes occurred in pubs with live music. Nor, indeed, have we had any reports of disturbances caused by watching television in a pub—we have certainly received some reports of incidents following the playing of live music in pubs. Generally speaking, however, pubs are excellent venues for live music. We want to make sure that that continues to be the case and that there are more venues for live music, not fewer.

Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North): Following that very welcome answer, does my hon. Friend agree that the distinction between two musicians and seven musicians is irrelevant, and that the real issue is the amount of noise? A string quartet or an unamplified jazz group should be perfectly acceptable in a pub, should people choose to listen to them. Does he also agree that more venues for live music would give work to tens of thousands of amateur musicians and increase our country's cultural richness?

Dr. Howells: I am very much in favour of live music in pubs, but I am not in favour of any Minister in Parliament trying to define what constitutes jazz, folk music or any other kind of music. I have been the victim of one man with an amplifier that nearly blew my head off.

Graham.

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Nov 02 - 10:29 AM

He's not a fool, but he's lazy when it comes to doing the minimal necessary homework involved in relation to hius responsibility fir this issue.

And please, could people stop using the two-in-a-bar rule as a shorthand for the problems we're up against. It's a two in a bar exemption, which is silly enough in itself, but at least it's something - and they are planning to take it away from us.

That will mean that any "musical performance" involving even a single person, in any public place in England and Wales(with the sole exception of church services), will be illegal, unless a Licence covering Public Entertainment is in place.

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 02:35 AM

By all means, criticise him on PELs if the new system doesn't meet with expectations, and criticise him if the new system doesn't make its way into this year's Queen's Speech. But criticising him on the basis of having an opinion is hardly valid. Would you rather he was a soul-less drone like most of the rest of Tony Blair's government

Graham, do you really want to bear his children?

I am not criticising his sense of humour or his right to have an opinion. I can take exeption to what he publicly chooses to laugh at, and I can disagree with his opinions. However, I did praise his bullshitting abilities here and stated he was our biggest asset.

I am critising him exactly because the new system is meeting my (lowered) expectations and because it is going to appear in the Queen's Speech.

As Kevin pointed out, if the Taliban's Minister of Culture had introduced a system where no public music making could take place without advanced official permission, I suspect our Government would have complained about it. Dr Howells may even have even expressed his famous sense of humour, at their Minister's expense?

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 02:40 AM

The reassurance Dr Howells gave on Mike Harding's Show, seems to be missing from the quotes provided?

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 02:45 AM

Kim, if I can just go on to some questions we've had sent in from listeners, very quickly, because I do realise you've got to get off to the house and various other things … Roger Gall has emailed us to say, and I quote, "When you introduce this new licensing system, if pubs don't have an entertainment licence, will sessions and singarounds be banned?"

Yes, I suppose they would be. The landlord would need to get an entertainments licence to cover himself or herself …

But this is not for gain, is it, you were talking about …

Oh, I see, I am sorry, I'm sorry, I thought that you meant it would be professional musicians being paid …

No, just sessions and singarounds, people just playing for their own fun.

No, they certainly wouldn't and I'm very keen that we should make sure that that facility is there. There shouldn't be a problem. As long as money isn't changing hands, then there's no reason why they should have to have a licence.

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 02:56 AM

Don't knock Kim Howells on this occasion. It's about time somebody stated the obvious.

Why do we need an ANNUAL Turner prize when every year we have the same exhibits, each one titled "The Emperor's New Clothes".

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 05:48 AM

From a letter of 04/09/02 from Dr Howells to Rt Hon Chris Smith MP.

We recognise the importance of having a reliable definition of what constitutes a public performance and it is clear that if a musician or other performer is accepting money for a performance then it would be regarded as a public performance.

Similarly, it can be argued that any performance by unpaid performers, which was publicised with the expectation of bringing in extra customers and consequently extra revenue to the licensee would meet the definition of public performance.

If a member of the public engaged in a spontaneous rendition of a song on the piano, inviting a sing-a-long [sic], it would not be considered public entertainment.

I must reiterate, however, that even where a performance is regarded as public, the main current deterrent of an exorbitantly set licensing fee would no longer be available and there should therefore be greater freedom for all musicians and singers.

MH No, just sessions and singarounds, people just playing for their own fun.

Dr Howells No, they certainly wouldn't and I'm very keen that we should make sure that that facility is there. There shouldn't be a problem. As long as money isn't changing hands, then there's no /reason why they should have to have a licence.

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 05:52 AM

For circulation

226 MPs have now signed public entertainment licence Early Day Motion 1182. Contrary to my earlier email it seems that Wednesday 6 November will be the last day for MPs to sign. On Thursday Parliament will shut down and the EDM list will be cleared. Parliament reopens on Wednesday 13th with the State Opening and the Queen's Speech. A new set of EDMs will be started. 226 signatures is a fantastic result and is extremely useful in terms of campaign PR. I would like to thank everyone who took the time to contact their MP. (Latecomers can still try faxing: www.faxyourmp.com)

It is almost certain that the Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Bill will be announced in the Queen's Speech and there is every sign that the government is serious about pushing this reform through as quickly as possible. Media coverage is likely to focus on 24-hour drinking in spite of the extensive media coverage of the MU campaign and EDM 1182.

There is no indication that the government has budged on its 'none in a bar' proposals. This has been its position since 1997. Unless there are last minute amendments to the draft Bill, 'none in a bar' will be the starting point of the new regime. Hosting one unamplified guitarist in a restaurant will be a criminal offence without an explicit licensing permission; providing broadcast entertainment on satellite or terrestrial tv will be exempt. Fees will be set centrally, it's true, but local authorities will be empowered to impose 'necessary' conditions on almost every performance of live music, in almost any premises.

The media element of the MU campaign cannot really begin until the Bill itself is published. Our public response will depend very much on the precise content of the Bill and it would be premature to issue any press release until it is published. It would also jeopardise our participation in the continuing Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Bill consultation run by Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Intensive lobbying continues behind the scenes, of course.

We have important allies in the campaign to persuade the government that its approach is unlikely to encourage live music at the grass roots, notably the Music Industries Association (Andrew Bishop, MD of Carlsbro, is leading on this, and generating some very valuable industry publicity), the English Folk Dance and Song Society and the Arts Council. But in the coming months MPs are likely to take most notice of constituents who take the trouble to write or fax. I therefore hope you will continue to take an active part in the campaign.

I will keep you informed of developments. In the meantime thanks again for your help.

Hamish Birchall

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: GUEST,John B
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 08:55 AM

It is obvious that he is 'Sparing with the truth'. Somebody tell me when there isn't going to be 'money changing hands' in a pub. Where is this mythical pub with free beer for all? He says one thing on the Mike Harding show to shut us all up - but couches it in Politic speak. As for the ludicrous statement that 'Television' doesn't cause the sort of scenes that occur with live music - he obviously hasn't even been in one when a football match is being screened.

I have a question here, using the ministers own words as follows:-
"Similarly, it can be argued that any performance by unpaid performers, which was publicised with the expectation of bringing in extra customers and consequently extra revenue to the licensee would meet the definition of public performance"

When the football games are advertised (i.e publicised), if any of the watching throng stike up with the strain of 'Here we go, here we go, here we go' will that constitute on offence?

I do agree that the 2 in a bar exemption is crazy, and always has been, but why use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Acoustic music simply cannot be accused of being a public niusance - whilst in the Ministers own words amplified music most certainly can be. Finally I am given to believe I live in the United Kingdom and would ask why I will not be allowed the same liberty and freedom to play and enjoy acoustic music as my fellow citizens of the United Kingdom in Scotland?

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 09:26 AM

Would it be a defence to say:"No, we're not musicians, we're an installation hoping to win the Turner Prize"?
RtS(only asking! In my case, I'd never be mistaken for a musician))

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 02:03 AM

I do agree that the 2 in a bar exemption is crazy, and always has been, but why use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Acoustic music simply cannot be accused of being a public niusance - whilst in the Ministers own words amplified music most certainly can be

Amplified music can be problem but there are already ways and means of dealing with excessive noise. There must be as all noise does not arise from music. To claim that advanced official permission is required for all and only live music making and that this licensing is the only control is just bogus.

When supersonic airliners were introduced, they were noisy and controls were introduced to limit the problem this presented to the public. I do not think that anyone seriously suggested that these control measures should be introduced to conventional airliners.

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 06:57 AM

Why do we need an ANNUAL Turner prize when every year we have the same exhibits, each one titled "The Emperor's New Clothes".

*Smiles*

On that subject, I wrote a letter containing the following to Dr Howells (via my MP, on 5th August. He has still to reply.

Summary.
I am reminded of the tale of the Emperor's New Clothes. On discovery, which option is the sillier? To continue to strut about naked, or to try and recover some dignity, put some clothes on and try to really improve an unfortunate situation for everyone? Dr Howells may find that if he stopped dismissing every genuine concern and sensible suggestion that is made to him, or stopped using these as an excuse for a light hearted comment, he may find some support, rather than continued to be attacked on all fronts. Many supporters of this Government, who trusted that this reform would address the many difficulties presented by the outdated concept and enforcement of blanket licensing of all but, only live music making, feel their trust was misplaced.

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 28 Nov 02 - 02:53 AM

mr howells is been interviewed on BBC Radio 4 about PEL stuff Now.

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: GUEST,Richard Bridge (cookie and format C)
Date: 28 Nov 02 - 04:24 AM

John, I missed it.

WHat did he say or is there a link to it on a BBC site somewhere?

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 28 Nov 02 - 04:33 AM

He was talking about how the new pel rules will affect churches etc.
Everthing broadcast on radio 4 is kept online for at least a week, for anyone that missed it to listen to, sorry i don't know the website address, but hopefully someone else will.

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: Jeanie
Date: 28 Nov 02 - 04:48 AM

You can listen to it here
Good job they record it - admittedly I was half asleep when I heard it this morning, but he made the whole situation as clear as mud !

- jeanie

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Nov 02 - 04:58 AM

When I on the item, all I get is the 'bugging in Iraq' story? HELP!

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Nov 02 - 05:16 AM

Click on the 'Baseball cap' item, Dr Howells quite pathetic performance was on after.

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 02 - 05:28 AM

There was a definite obscurity about how he spoke, he seems to be trying to obtain as much revenue as possible through the new license, and be as vague as possible as to who should pay it ,and who might be given exemption. He seemed to pooh-pooh the idea of small acoustic ensembles being outlawed, choirs or sessions, and yet does not state definitively how and who will decide on what is allowed. As a politician he is keeping all his options open, he may yet persuade many pubs and churches to pay their fee, when it may not be neccessary. The government needs as much extra revenue as it can get at present.

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Nov 02 - 02:50 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/h2/h2.cgi?state=threads&board=today.day&

The above link is to the Radio 4 'TODAY' progamme message board. Where there are some comments on Dr Howells's performance and where you can contribute........

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: GUEST,noddy
Date: 29 Nov 02 - 11:07 AM

In a recent interview the man himself said that churches would have to have a licence to hold musical events/performances but would be exempt if their was a religious context/content.

Why dont we declare that folk music is of religious significance and get round the licence that way. IE all folk session are religious gatherings ,after all we are free to express our reigion NO MATTER WHICH IT IS.
The alternative is at each and every session you do a hymn .

I am certain that many tunes are of religious origins anyway.

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Nov 02 - 10:37 AM

This from Howard Jones

There is a letter in today's "Times" from Dr Howells, responding to earlier letters from myself and others. He trots out the usual reponse that "impromptu" music making will not be affected, and puts forward a superficially reasonable case that local residents have a right to make their views known. This is of course undermined by the exemption for recorded music and TV, and fails to address why live music should not neverthelss be permitted unless it is shown to be causing problems with noise or disturbance.

Regards,

Howard Jones

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Nov 02 - 10:40 AM

Howells – Letter to Times - November 30, 2002

Intended purpose of Licensing Bill
From the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

Sir, The Licensing Bill would not criminalise impromptu or spontaneous singing (letters, November 27). What it would do is ensure that, where music and dancing are to be a regular feature at a venue, local residents would have the opportunity to air their concerns with the local licensing authority before a decision was made.

The Bill would improve the opportunities for musicians to perform in public venues. The Government does not accept that certain types of music, for example acoustic folk music, are never noisy and should therefore be excluded from the new licensing regime.

The licensing authority would have the power to impose necessary and proportionate conditions in order to protect residents and customers.

The Licensing Bill would allow people to have a good night out and enjoy themselves, while making sure that those that wish to stay in for a peaceful evening can do so.

Fees for licences will be set centrally by the Secretary of State under secondary legislation, and it would be open to her, where appropriate, to set fees at a reduced level for charities and religious groups or indeed to decide that they should be waived.

Some churches fear that disproportionate and costly conditions may be attached to licences. However, under the Bill all licensing authorities would be required to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. And it is intended that this will make clear that it would be wholly inappropriate to attach disproportionate conditions to licences affecting churches and other charitable institutions.



Yours sincerely,
KIM HOWELLS,
Department for Culture,
Media and Sport,
2-4 Cockspur Street, SW1Y 5DH

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: Gareth
Date: 30 Nov 02 - 12:09 PM

Now this whole question of PEL's arose from the actions of certain councils trating PELs as a cash cow.

This new proposed legislation takes that discretion on the size of fees to scales laid down by the S of State.

The problem is not so much the legislation itself, but the need to ensure that Local Authorities act reasonably.

Yes - lobby etc. whilst the legislation is before Parliament, but ultimatley it is the Local Authorities who must be kept under review.

For those of you living in England next May there are Coucil elections in most areas, and London.

Now is the time to lobby Councillors and Candidates to ensure that the Licensing Committees are not controlled by the "Jobsworths".

A point to hold in mind is that if the fees are held at a reasonable level, then the opportunity to empire build, and act as a cash cow is not there and supercilious actions by inspectors will be cost ineffective.

Gareth

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Nov 02 - 01:16 PM

Dr Howells
Some churches fear that disproportionate and costly conditions may be attached to licences. However, under the Bill all licensing authorities would be required to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. And it is intended that this will make clear that it would be wholly inappropriate to attach disproportionate conditions to licences affecting churches and other charitable institutions.

Gareth
The problem is not so much the legislation itself, but the need to ensure that Local Authorities act reasonably.

I agree but, why then have our civils servants (and Local Government Association) been so determined, and permitted by the Government, to include the above institutions, and many others in the licensing requirements Bill in the first place?

Does each Brownie carol concert have to go before the Secretary of State for dispensation, as Dr Howells stated on Radoi 4?

If these institutions did not appear in the Schedule 1 definitions, it would never be possible for local authorities to EVER apply disproportionate conditions.

That I think is what most people, who have first hand experience of 'silly' Local Authority enforcememt nd conditions were hoping for.

This is new legislation, we could surely reasonably expect it to address the disproportionate conditions, if as Dr Howells implies in his letter it has been and IS now a potential problem?

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Nov 02 - 08:59 PM

The original letters published in the Times can be seen on the following. It would be most useful to have some more letters to the Times to enable the debate to continue there. Is there anything you would like to say there in reply to Dr Howells?

Fighting the PEL

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Dec 02 - 10:21 AM

See also

Dr Howells now insults the USA

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Jan 03 - 06:14 AM

I hear that Dr Howells has found the time to write a novel. This may account for his recent rather high profile, or possibly he thinks he may soon be in need of an alternative career and income?

It is due to published soon and he was on BBC Radio 4, on the 5th January, talking about, amongst other things, rap music. Referring to So Solid Crew, as 'those idiots'.

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jan 03 - 01:43 PM

Did he say anything worth reporting? The BBC site doesn't have a transcript, so the answer is probably that he didn't.

But here is a link to the interview with Mike Harding last July when Howells merrily fibbed his way through a series of questions about the government's plans for "reform", making various completely spurious promises (as Mike Harding has subsequently pointed out in a recent letter to the Guardian. And here is a profile of Howells, , also from the BBC site.

One interesting thing is that in the picture on that last link Kim Howells looks an absolute dead ringer for sacked broadcaster and lecher Angus Deayton. And we know what Angus Deayton got up to...

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Jan 03 - 03:07 PM

Do you think he will be having a musical launch of his novel at a Waterstones bookshop?

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: sian, west wales
Date: 05 Jan 03 - 04:03 PM

Under his proposed Licensing Bill, a book launch would be illegal in a non-licensed premises if he or anyone else reads from the book:   that would qualify as a dramatic performance.

sian

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jan 03 - 04:14 PM

Surely telling stories would count as a performance. Which would mean no professional politician could ever speak in a public place again, unless it is specifically licensed for this purpose. That woild include your doorstep.

Maybe there's something to be said for this bill...

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Jan 03 - 04:20 PM

He certainly has a sense of drama and of sheer bare faced cheek, as the following demonstrates.

Dr. Howells: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know that, for a long time, the Conservative Government had a chance to get rid of the rule that has existed for 40 years which says that churches inside London have to apply for and receive a licence for the playing and singing of secular music. I hear what he says, but I hope that he will accept that we do not need lessons from the Conservative party on getting rid of the regulations.

This to justify why he was proposing in his Bill, not that that his Government were to be credited with getting rid of this rule, but that the licesing requirement for concerts in London churches, which he critises the Tories for not scrapping, should be extended to the rest of England and Wales!

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Jan 03 - 05:37 PM

A straight reading might not be a dramatic performance. Film and TV contracts have made that distinction for at least 30 years - when granting film or TV rights "straight readings" are usually reserved on some terms or others.

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jan 03 - 05:46 PM

But a performance doesn't have to be dramatic to be a performance...

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Jan 03 - 02:37 AM

I'm sure Dr Howells would not resist a demonstration of his fine sense of humour?

Sadly this is usually expessed at the expense of the supportes of some art form he is paid to promote.

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Jan 03 - 01:43 PM

In Camden a long-standing gig at La Brocca in West End Lane was busted and the licensee threatened with a £20,000 fine because a music student had been seen jamming with the regular duo.

A few months later, in Waterstone's bookshop in Hampstead, an eminent young string quartet was forced to sit in full concert dress with their instruments while a CD was played in lieu of their performance. The Council had intercepted the bookshop's flyers advertising the live music as an accompaniment to a book reading by the former leader of the Amadeus string quartet, Professor Sigmund Nissel. 100 guests, including VIPs, witnessed the non-performance.

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Jan 03 - 04:49 PM

Details of the latest by Dr Howells in the today's Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,2763,869428,00.html

Are there any cultural forms that he has not insulted?

He does not seem to grasp that he is paid to support culture.

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 02:02 AM

Howells accused of failing to understand that gun culture in black music is reflection of society in which fans live

Fiachra Gibbons, arts correspondent
Monday January 6, 2003
The Guardian

The outspoken culture minister, Kim Howells, last night found himself at the centre of a race row after claiming that the time had come to stand up to the "idiots" of rap culture.

Mr Howells, who previously attacked exhibits at the Turner Prize show as "cold, mechanical conceptual bullshit", launched into an extraordinary attack on black British music hours after the police had criticised the music industry for "glamorising guns".
During a radio discussion on the killing of two black teenagers caught in the crossfire between rival gangs in Birmingham after a new year party, Mr Howells laid part of the blame at the door of British rappers.

"The events in Birmingham are symptomatic of something very, very serious," he said. "For years I have been very worried about these hateful lyrics that these boasting macho idiot rappers come out with.
"It is a big cultural problem. Lyrics don't kill people but they don't half enhance the fare we get from videos and films. It has created a culture where killing is almost a fashion accessory."
He reserved his greatest fury for the controversial south London garage outfit, So Solid Crew, three of whose 30 members have been convicted or are awaiting trial on gun offences.

"Idiots like the So Solid Crew are glorifying gun culture and violence," the minister claimed. "It is something new. I heard very interesting comments about [violence] in Victorian times and thugs on the street. But they didn't have these methods of popularising this stuff. It is very worrying and we ought to stand up and say it."
Rappers who carry guns in their videos are "particularly sick", he said.

Earlier, So Solid Crew were singled out for criticism by Metropolitan police assistant commissioner Tarique Ghaffur, who blamed a "backdrop of music" for alienating young men and encouraging them to use weapons as fashion statements.

But last night Conor McNicholas, editor of the music magazine NME, described the minister's outburst as "deeply racist".
"He doesn't understand the culture. It is this idea again that we have to do something about these out-of-control black people in our streets and the nasty culture they are perpetuating," he said.
"They are deeply racist sentiments. We have to be absolutely clear, the gun culture is a function of urban deprivation and not because of the music. The music reflects the experience of young people and doesn't create it.

"There is more rap music listened to and bought by white kids in Swindon than there is by black kids in Hackney, and nobody is talking about the gun culture on the streets of white suburban Britain."
Mr McNicholas said he was surprised that Mr Howells had chosen to roam so far from his brief, which mainly involves tourism.

"He clearly doesn't know what he is talking about. We have to recognise that these are young kids who are growing up in very difficult environments who happen to make music as a way of expressing themselves and their frustrations. Just because these guys are making music about the situation they are in does not mean they are perpetuating the culture. The music is not creating the problem."

So Solid Crew, in common with many black musicians and promoters contacted by the Guardian yesterday, said they were sick of being tarred with the "drugs and violence" stereotype, and several refused to comment, claiming that debate only reinforced prejudice. Promoter Lance Lewis said it was nonsense to see rap as bloodthirsty and perverse. "No rapper con dones killing, anyone who says that doesn't know what they are talking about."

A spokeswoman for So Solid Crew did say that the rise in gun violence had nothing to do with music. "It's poverty and crime which are escalating. Cocaine addiction is escalating too. They are just reflecting what they see around them. Their music is reflecting society just as Robert de Niro reflected American gangster society in his film roles. They are out there trying to make a positive difference in British black culture."

She pointed to the fact that Ms Dynamite, whom the police have praised for her stance against drug dealers and black- on-black violence, has defended the band, who played a key part in her own emergence.

Ms Dynamite has dismissed as "bullshit" the idea that the garage scene is inextricably linked with violence. "The media have blown it out of all proportion. Garage is a young London scene. That's why people in power are afraid of us and try everything to shut us down," she said. "There is violence wherever you go and the rave is a small part of it. It is a metaphor for life in general."

She also refused to condemn So Solid's Ashley Walters, aka Asher D, who was released from jail in October after an 18-month sentence for possessing a gun. Walters, a former child actor, had been the subject of several death threats before his arrest following an altercation with a traffic warden.

"I'm not one to judge, but he was naive," Ms Dynamite said. "Anyone who thinks they can carry a gun in this country is in for a shock."
Academic Ben Bowling, of King's College, London, who is studying the effects of gun culture, claimed rap was hugely misunderstood.
"Not only Ms Dynamite but lots of other bands like De La Soul and Us Three sing out against violence and drug culture. Rap is a very wide church," he said.

He believed it was unfortunate that Mr Howells' comments had come at a time when "there is a movement on the street and in the music industry saying 'no' to violence". The only way gun crime was going to stop, he said, was for communities themselves to reject it, as had happened in the United States.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,2763,869428,00.html

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: Gareth
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 02:25 AM

Congratulations Roger, that type of attack on the minister, as typified by the Gaurdian, "our culture is always wrong" is just the attitude that is gaurenteed to win friends and influence people in the Ministry.

Gareth

Subject: RE: kim howells does it again
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 05:48 AM

Gareth, we have seen that trying to be nice to the minister and hope he will be friendly does not work.

The Musicians' union won praise from the government for their rational and constructive approach in consultation. But they got no concessions. The government was just playing them along.

This government will only listen if forced.

And if you don't like what the Guardian says, don't blame the messenger.