Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: The Admiral
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 09:01 AM

73,591.... Round 'em up, we're slowing down!

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 09:39 AM

Eliza Carthy's acceptance speech for the Radio 2 folk awards included a demand that everyone sign the petition - this went out on the Mike Harding show last night.
Cheers
Ray

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: BanjoRay
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 07:29 PM

Sorry, that last guest was me.
Ray

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 04:28 AM

New stuff out from EFDSS - on thier site soon, and 2 press releases from PLG, will be going on EFDSS site too and may well be on adac and does4you - if not, adac and 4you please add.

Rushing.

Keep these threads active.

Debate in Hous of Lords Monday.

After that, last stage in Lords (where we have a chance to get amendments passed, unlike in Commons where government has large majority) will be report stage, so I MUST finish drafting all the amendments we might need soon, so other PLG members can check them and we can present a united front....

A little bird tell s me the Institute of Acoustics has protested to the gov't about its unpublished documents being quoted (I add, in breach of copyright) out of context.

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: ET
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 05:25 AM

This to Tessa Jowell, Howell's boss. Have written to her before but had no reply to anything.



15 February 2003


Dear Madam,

Re English Folk Dance and Song Society – The Bill will kill folk arts.

I was interested in your recent comments on culture in Germany and the lack
of Culture in England. I enclose a paper from the English Folk Dance and Song Society (efdss) which makes out a clear case for real deregulation to enable folk arts to flourish.

I know Mr Howells says that his intentions are to encourage folk arts and music but I think whoever drafted the Bill has come up with provisions that will have exactly the opposite effect. (a paper commenting on his "exploding myths" leaflet is also attached.)

I had recently written to you urging the exemption of non amplified music etc from this bill. This, if adopted from Lords amendments, would answer most of the EFDSS problems.

I know that the government has grave and weighty matters to contend with at this time but it would be dreadful if a culture going back centuries was lost by distraction.


Yours gratefully

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 05:58 AM

This from Hamish

Sky News is filming a piece about the Licensing Bill tomorrow, Saturday Feb 22, 1pm in The Globe public house, Morning Lane, Hackney, London E9. Steve Powell, the landlord, was famously prosecuted for allowing members of the public to join in with a duo singing Happy Birthday!

I'm really sorry about the late notice, but Sky only contacted me late this afternoon. If you are within easy reach of Hackney, please come along.

74,183............................

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 02:49 PM

74,529.....................

The Government appear to have moved the goal posts. http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1.asp .

The Number 10 site has been updated. See if you can find any reference there now to E Petitions?

Has this one been too well supported for them?

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: treewind
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 04:29 AM

I find it deeply disturbing that the page describing how e-petitions are valid and recognised by by Downing street has vanished.

This cannot be accidental and it suggests to me that we have a real and dirty fight coming up.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 10:51 AM

This is a copy of a press release issued by the Musicians' Union this morning (Mon 24 Feb). Note that today is not the last day on which amendments can be proposed. There is a final '3rd Reading' debate scheduled for early March. The Bill will go to the House of Commons in mid- or late-March:

Members of the House of Lords are expected to vote today on a series of live music amendments to the Licensing Bill. Opposition Peers are hoping to defeat the Government's proposed legislation that would make even solo acoustic performance illegal unless licensed, abolishing a long-standing exemption for up to two live performers. The Government claims reform is necessary to control potential noise nuisance.

General Secretary John F Smith said: "Given the Bill's exemptions for big screen broadcasts or pub jukeboxes, no matter how powerful the amplification, we have never understood the Government's position. There is plenty of legislation that already covers both noise and public safety. It applies across the UK, and in Scotland no licence is required for live music that is secondary to the main business of restaurants and bars. Similarly liberal regimes work well in Ireland and elsewhere in Europe.

"We accept that licensing may be necessary to control premises that specialise in music or music and dancing. But where live music is secondary to the main business, licensing is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There are many hoops to jump through, including public consultation. Being exempt, jukeboxes and big screens will be the easy option for many licensees.

"Now more than ever we need to stimulate the grass roots of the music industry. Most of our 32,000 members will seek work in this sector at some time in their careers, but never have there been fewer places to play.

"Many Peers have spoken eloquently on our behalf. I would like to thank all of them, particularly Lord Redesdale and Baroness Buscombe. I only hope their amendments succeed today".

The Marshalled List of Amendments is available at the Parliament website:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldbills/021/amend/ml021-i.htm

A number of Lords have put down amendments relating to live music, including Baroness Buscombe and Lord Beaumont of Whitley. Lord Redesdale's Amendments 8 and 12 provide exemptions for the playing of live music that is incidental to other activities (giving parity with the Government exemption for the playing of recorded music in this context), and an exemption for acoustic or minimally amplified live music.

ENDS

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 01:49 PM

No details yet but a phone call from a very excited Hamish in the House of Lords was GOOD NEWS!

I will say that again - GOOD NEWS!

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: harpmaker
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 06:30 PM

Great news! I would say.

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: Mr Happy
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 06:42 PM

what's this good news?- please don't keep it to yourself!

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: The Admiral
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 03:05 AM

Please put us out of our misery - what good news?

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: IanC
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 05:25 AM

I believe THIS may be the good news ... from the BBC ...

Nativity plays prompt Lords defeat

Ministers say nativity plays will not be affected
Fears that new laws would force schools to get licences to put on nativity plays have led to the government being defeated in the House of Lords four times. Opposition peers voted by 169 votes to 107 to exclude schools from the provisions of the Licensing Bill, which is aimed at shaking up the UK's outdated drinking laws.

The defeat came despite warnings the exemption could leave university nightclubs free of licensing controls.

Ministers have accused the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats of propagating "myths" about the bill, especially about its effect on live music acts in pubs.

Schools' exemption

Ahead of Monday's debates, Tory spokeswoman Lady Buscombe told BBC News Online her party backed the bill in principle but believed ministers were squandering a key opportunity for change.

Lady Buscombe said the current wording would make schools apply for an entertainment licence if a nativity play, for example, was attended by more than just pupils' families - because of public safety concerns.

Culture Minister Kim Howells has accused opponents of spreading "myths" "The point of the bill is that it is supposed to be deregulatory but it's not: it's adding unnecessary layers of bureaucracy."

Her amendment, backed by the Lib Dems, excluded "educational establishments" from the bill. But Culture Minister Baroness Blackstone insisted the bill would not impose any extra burdens on schools, who were currently not excluded from licensing laws.

Schools would not have to apply for licences under the new laws if charges for entertainment events were only levied to cover production costs, she said.

"The vast majority of school activities of this kind would be exempt," she said.

Student union fears

Lady Blackstone accused the Tories of being "reckless" because the scope of their amendment would go far beyond school plays.

It could even mean nightclubs run by students unions - prompting concerns about alcohol consumption, noise and drugs - would not need licences, she suggested.

"Just because these activities are taking place in schools, it does not mean the public should not be protected," she added.

Billy Bragg and MPs complain pub singers could be gagged
The government now looks set to try to overturn the defeat when the bill next goes before MPs.

Earlier, opposition parties accepted a government change to exclude religious places of worship from the new entertainment licence rules.

Much of the criticism of the bill has surrounded plans for pubs and nightclubs to get new-style licences to put on live entertainment.

The government is tabling an amendment to its bill to ensure bands and solo acts are not punished.

Human right

But ministers were defeated by opposition peers who backed by 151 votes to 115 a Lib Dem amendment to exclude most unamplified live music from the new laws.

Ministers believe the change does not leave councils with enough flexibility for each case and are likely to try to overturn the defeat in the Commons.

The government suffered a third defeat over a Lib Dem motion to set up a central authority in charge of licensees.

Peers backed the amendment by 143 votes to 111 - a majority of 32.

A fourth defeat then followed as peers backed an amendment that would put a new duty on the licensing authority to protect the "amenity and environment" of local residents.

:-)

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: The Admiral
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 08:34 AM

Ok, fortunately there's a much clearer report in todays (Tues) Telegraph (unfortunately not online so I can't link it) headlines 'Lords pull plug on rule for unamplified music'. First para; 'The Government was defeated in the Lords last night after Peers backed a move to exclude most unamplified live music in pubs from the provisions of the Licensing Bill. The voting on the amendment put forward by the Liberal Democrats was 151 to 115. Lord McIntosh, the Goverment Spokesman said that he was opposed to the amendment because it didn't give the licensing authorities suifficient flexibility to decide in individual cases'.

We're not there yet but we're headed in the right direction!

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 09:09 AM

The whole debate here.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/monday/index.htm

Yes there is a long way to go but a lot of hard work has been undertaken, just to enable us to fight on. Thanks to everyone for that, for without winning these small battles, the war would already be over.

We must keep writing to our MPs. Presenting them with the new EFDSS document will save you a lot of words and possibly ensure that they are now consulted.

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: The Admiral
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 09:21 AM

OK I keep going back to the EFDSS website for a glimpse of the famous document but no sign of it yet. Perhaps they're going to snail mail it to members only? I am a member but I'm not sure that we can afford to wait that long!

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: IanC
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 10:08 AM

75000. Graham MEHEUX 24 Chapel Road Plumpton Green BN7 3DD

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: ET
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 12:58 PM

See also Busking without a licence. Suggest all buskers print this, laminate it and carry it with them to thrust at the music police when they come to arrest you!!

Dear Sir
Thank you for your e-mail concerning busking. I am sorry for the delay in
replying, however I can assure you that under the Licensing Bill busking
will not need to be licensed.
I hope that this addresses your concerns.
Kind regards

Claire Vickers
Alcohol & Entertainment Licensing Branch
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
3rd Floor
2-4 Cockspur Street
London
SW1Y 5DH

Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Email: [e-mail]
www.culture.gov.uk

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: Folkiedave
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 02:05 PM

I have written to the person who wrote it and asked him to try and get a link posted on the first page.

I have also asked him to post on here.

Dave
www.collectorsfolk.co.uk
www.holmfirthfestival.com

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: Folkiedave
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 06:59 PM

Sorry.....that was about the EFDSS document.

Dave

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 07:53 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall...

Yesterday's Report Stage debate of the Licensing Bill saw opposition Peers defeat the Government over key live music provisions.

The Lib Dems teamed up with the Conservatives, winning amendments to the Bill that would exempt certain categories of live performance (incidental, acoustic), and certain categories of premises (educational establishments). For reference, these amendments were 8, 12 and 13 respectively. Press coverage today included 'Lords pull plug on rule for unamplified music', Daily Telegraph 25.02.03, p10.

View the Marshalled list of amendments online at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldbills/021/amend/ml021-i.htm

And read the debate:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds03/text/30224-03.htm#30224-03_head1

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds03/text/30224-14.htm#30224-14_ignore0

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds03/text/30224-22.htm#30224-22_ignore0

This is good news, but it is not the end of campaigning. Why? The reason is clearly stated in the Daily Telegraph report: 'When the Bill is returned to the Commons, MPs will be asked by the Government to throw out the amendment approved in the Lords' (specifically refering to the unamplified music amendment). Direct lobbying of MPs continues to be essential. Encourage them to support the Lords' amendments. If they decline, ask why.

If they say licensing is necessary for safety or noise reasons, ask them to explain in detail what licensing achieves in terms of safety and noise control that cannot be achieved by subsisting legislation. Ask them why subsisting legislation is good enough for Scotland but not for England and Wales. Ask whether the government has evidence that live music in England and Wales is a greater noise or safety risk than in Scotland. Ask them what data for noise complaints does the government rely on. Ask whether the statistics discrimate between complaints caused by live or recorded music. No doubt you can think of better questions.

If enacted, the Lords amendments would mean that live music 'incidental to other activities' (i.e. not featured entertainment), amplified or acoustic, would be exempt. Folk sessions would be exempt, as would a jazz trio or solo pianist playing background music in a restaurant. However, I think it is debateable whether the amendments would exempt a pub that made live gigs an advertised feature. So, while falling short of a total exemption for small-scale performance in this type of premises, the amendments would bring the licensing regime very close to the Scottish example for which the MU has been lobbying.

The Government also introduced two of its own amendments that would:
1) limit the potential criminal liability of performers to those organising their own events (Amendment 218, applies to Clause 134), and
2) Amendment 2 (and 3) clarifies, in their view, the following circumstances:
'Amendment No. 2 makes clear in Schedule 1 that for private functions, an individual who simply makes facilities available, but is not concerned with the management or organisation of the entertainment for which the facilities are used, is not to be considered as doing so for a charge.

In practical terms, that means that an individual—perhaps someone who owns or manages an historic house or other suitable venue—will not be subject to the licensing regime simply because he hires out the venue to a third party, perhaps for a wedding or other function, and that third party then chooses to provide regulated entertainment using the venue's facilities unless the person hiring out the room becomes concerned with the organisation and management of the entertainment.'

And '...A private wedding would have to be a rather peculiar wedding to be licensable, anyway. It would have to be open to the general public, and there would have to be an entry charge. I am not aware of any private weddings that do that. So, that would be exempted to start with. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, asked me about band leaders who negotiate with the organisers. They would not be responsible, and the amendments cover that point. '

However, a close reading of Amendments 2 and 3 (which are somewhat convoluted I'm afraid), does not yet, in my unqualified opinion, make it unambiguously clear that private functions are exempt where musicians are closely involved in the organisation of the entertainment and providing a service for which they charge a fee paid for by those being entertained. The Performer-Lawyer Group will no doubt offer an opinion.
Any considered comments welcome.

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: Mr Happy
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 08:13 PM

75156 Total Signatures, but it's not the end- we ain't won yet!!


keep right on to the end of the road until ALL the measures are put right: clog,step, morris dancing, rapper & sword displays & mummers do's- not for & for including for charity ! but FOR FUN! & Tradition!!

keep adding your names to both the email petition + the hardcopy one!!

in view of latest govt goal-post moving it's probably best to also add your signature to the hard copy ones.

i'll inform grah dixon of this advice + modify me own hard copy petitions to this end.

[cos i don't trust the lying sneakin evil bastards who're trying to shove thhe new proposals in under joe publics nose while he's bein diverted from whats happenin by weapons of mass distraction & running us all into a big war we don't want either!!!]

Cheer up me boys [& girls] let your hearts never fail!!

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 03:40 AM

1. I do hope I speak for everyone when I say well done to Hamish Birchall and the Musicians' Union and thank you to the peers who listened and Stuart Neame for organising the lobby at the House of Lords which may have contributed to the wonderful result in the Lords. So far the applause has not been deafening and it should be. In general only one or two percent of non-government amendments to bills get passed so this is a famous victory - but in a battle and the war is not over yet.

2.   I had circulated a Performer-lawyer group pres release, but it does not seem to be surfacing here so I will past it in below. By my standards it is quite short. Please read it and get ready for the next phase.


"Performer-Lawyer Group
care of: - MacDonald Bridge, Solicitors
Forge House, High Street, Lower Stoke,
Nr. Rochester, Kent ME3 9RD
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Email: McLaw @btinternet.com

PRESS RELEASE
        Date: 24th February 2003

MINISTER DEFEATED ON LICENSING BILL

Government plans to regulate virtually all "entertainment" lay in tatters last night after resounding defeats at the report stage of the Licensing Bill in the House of Lords.

Responding to massive public concern, the Lords proposed that live incidental music should be as free from control as recorded amplified music such as juke boxes, and, specifically, that unamplified live music in places already licensed under the bill (for example to sell alcohol) should not need a local authority licence. Astonishingly the government refused to accept either proposal, but in one of the displays of principle that vindicate a second independent parliamentary chamber, the Lords passed both – and a number of other important amendments.

On the same day the minister displayed his lack of understanding of the points at issue when at a press conference he admitted he did not know what the EFDSS (the key national body representing the folk arts in England) was.

Richard Bridge, administrator of the Performer-Lawyer Group says:

"The overwhelming public view is that the government should not regulate what does not need regulating, and that the public do not trust local authorities to decide when regulations are not needed.   The government has the third reading in the Lords, and the Commons stages, to respond.

If the government is not prepared to accept these changes, this puts the burden firmly on it to come up with proportionate methods, consistent with human rights, for controlling noisy amplified music without destroying other cultural assets.   

Conversely, if the government does decide to live with these changes, or at least the acoustic exemption, then there is much less work left for us to do on this bill. There are forms of music such as jazz, where amplification for some instruments is almost essential, but the risks of noise and disturbance are, realistically, nil. The threat to traditional dance such as Morris dance has not yet been removed. It is not our issue, but traditional pub games such as darts still seem to be under threat."

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 05:32 PM

This petition had a few mentions in the Lords. A little bit of uncertainty over who was responsoble for it and the number of signatures, but the first two are on our side and can be forgiven.

Lord Redesdale These amendments seek to reintroduce the aspect of proportionality, one of the fundamental principles on which human rights are based. There is a reason for introducing legislation in regard to noise control, but musicians also have a right to stand up and perform.
If there was no problem with that principle musicians would not be worried, but their concern is based on past experience. I particularly welcome the petition raised by the Musicians Union which now contains approximately 75,000 signatures. So a vast number of people in the country believe that the issue needs to be addressed.
[Snip]

Baroness Buscombe: The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, referred to the petition that has received over 70,000 signatures. It was based on words put down in an Early-Day Motion introduced by Her Majesty's Opposition in another place. These amendments respond to an overwhelming lobby from beyond Your Lordships' House. The lobby has listened to and watched the Government. It has seen the Government, and it is determined not to be difficult. But there is no question that the Joint Committee on Human Rights should be listened to and the interests of the musicians heard.
[Snip]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey To ensure that licensees are not put off seeking these authorisations by the fear of disproportionate, inappropriate and expensive conditions being imposed by the local authority, we are working with a group drawn from representatives of performers, the music industry, the licensed trade and local government to inform us in drawing up the relevant sections of the guidance, which will provide clear distinctions about what might and might not constitute appropriate conditions to apply to licences that authorise live music. We have already said that a licence for the provision of entertainment, including live music, can be applied for at the same time as an alcohol licence and that there is no additional charge for it. I am sorry to say that the petition and a lot of the claims made by the Musicians' Union are based on that misconception.

I am informed that the English Folk Dance and Song Society are to part of the group Lord MacIntosh refers to - better (too) late then never. See the thread on that one.

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 02:27 PM

75,614.......................

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 11:30 AM

Answers to the 20 myths of Dr Howells, in the following thread. It is long, but will provide all the ammunition required for MPs.

MPs replies to your Emails

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: ET
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 04:11 AM

I have received information from a civil servant in DCMS that busking does not need a licence but a buskers festival does and the organisers could be finded or imprisoned for doing so without a licence. I have sent this e-mail and will copy you in on any reply !


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I am grateful for what you say but I find all this rather depressing to say the least.

I know this is current Government Policy and you might not be able to change much but can I put what you say into a real live context.

I live in a Northern City with a Ferry Terminus to Holland. Its not exactly the cultural centre of anywhere but the City Council do put on a two week annual festival and it does liven up the place and attracts tourists.

Each year for the past 10 years I, with dozens of others, have helped organise bits of this. My part has been to provide a music day, theamed differently each year - sometimes celtic, sometimes English, sometimes folk etc. I do this because I have many musicians friends and I play in it but I am the organiser. I claim a small grant from festival funds to pay the expenses of the musicians but not myself.

We usually play either in churches to an audience of about 20 (no problem now or in the future) but more often in the City Square. 000's of people pass through, some stop for a few minutes and the audience in front of the musicians can range from 10 to 50. The music is all acoustic and so probably carries for about 25 yards (we do not play Japanese Drums and I don't know anyone that does!).

So far so good but from next year either the City Council or myself will need a licence. If I apply for an "occasional event licence" I get a form from the council, send it to them with £20. They pay this into their system and I claim it back as a festival expense and they generate a cheque back to me for £20. I get an acknowledgement of the "light touch" notice and carry on exactly as I have done for the last 10 years. I don't know, and doubt if council officials could say, if my audience exceeds 499 - how far out do I count them-how do I get them to stand still to count - how can I refuse them entrance to the City Square if there were already 499 people there?   That apart I don't put up a notice saying in the event of fire ,exit using one of ten streets of the City Square. The square is paved with paving slabs and unlikely to catch fire because of a couple of fiddle players and a mandolin player.

I am trying not to sound facetious but this is a real situation. I am doing a little to brighten up the City and to attract tourists and money. If I don't get this licence I could be fined £20,000 or serve six months. If I do get the licence it makes no difference whatsoever otherwise then to involve a whole lot of extra paperwork and a money go round.   What I will probably do is not bother. Maybe that will make not a jot of difference but I think there may be people up and down the country in the same boat and a lot of life and colour will have disappeared, I think for no good purpose.

As I started I dare say you are driven by political imperatives but I would be grateful if the things I have spoken off could be brought to the attention of those who are driving this?

Regards

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 12:25 PM

76,039....................

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 06:05 PM

[snip]I have received information from a civil servant in DCMS that busking does not need a licence but a buskers festival does and the organisers could be finded or imprisoned for doing so without a licence. [/snip]I have sent this e-mail and will copy you in on any reply !

With all due respect you are making a simple error here.

That is you are assuming there is some form of logic attached to what is being done.

As you will find out when/if they reply....(15 working days they reckon on) logic flies out the window.........

The DCMS have repatedly insisted that busking will not be made illegal by the Bill. But Kim Howells says 6 japanese drummers will make too much noise in a pub. So they go outside and busk and that;s OK?

From the Sheffield City Giants practice this morning......

At his press conference the Minister admitted to not knowing about the English Folk Dance and Song Society........

The clue is in the name Kim...........(copywrite Alec Brady)


Dave

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Mar 03 - 02:50 AM

76,561..............

The Lords Report Stage continues today and will be dealing with children in pubs.

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 06:54 AM

Anne Perkins, political correspondent
Wednesday March 5, 2003
The Guardian

Moves to allow unaccompanied children under 14 into pubs, clubs and bars were thrown out in the Lords last night, as a cross-party alliance dealt the much-defeated licensing bill one last blow.
Despite conciliatory moves by the minister, peers rejected by 73 votes what the government insisted was merely a move to make venues more family friendly.

Tory frontbencher Lady Buscombe - a mother of three teenagers - argued it would put children at risk from the unwanted attention of older men and paedophiles.

She said it was an issue that went beyond politics. "It is about our children and it is about protection of children from harm."

The bill placed "an enormous burden" on publicans who will have to say how they will protect youngsters from harm when they apply for a licence," she added.

She warned that children's charities had told her youngsters may become "intimidated by the behaviour and environment around them, and in the absence of a parental carer there arise many questions about how the licensee can and should respond to them".

She asked how a landlord should respond "to an upset, unaccompanied eight-year-old turning up in a bar at 11pm asking to be served a soft drink".

The culture minister, Lady Blackstone, whose offer to take the proposals back for more discussion to avoid a vote was rejected, said the bill's provisions had already been widely discussed with children's charities and the police. Her suggestion of a meeting today about the clause with children's societies was also rejected.

Earlier, a bid by Kim Howells, the culture media and sport minister, to restore relations with the Musicians' Union, the bill's most outspoken critic, met with partial success.

The MU refused to endorse the bill, which brings in licensing for the first time for single performers and duos with unamplified instruments.

But they agreed to join the panel which will draw up statutory guidelines on the issuing of music licences.

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: ET
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 02:03 PM

In reply to my e-mail - two or three items aboe, I have had an acknowledgement from a civil servant that she will bring it to the attention of the minister. WoW!

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 06:08 AM

77,009......................

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Mar 03 - 04:11 PM

77,636................

The MU two in a bar website has now been substantially revised and updated, including a response to the DCMS '20 myths' leaflet:

http://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/articles/dcms_myths.shtml

A more detailed section about licence fees is also included:

http://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/articles/mu_opposes01.shtml

(page down to 'Standardised fees alone will not revitalise live music').

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Mar 03 - 04:17 PM

http://tinyurl.com/5qsh

You should be able to just click on the above (shortened) link to the
Western Morning News. The site can take a little while to load.

They have been running a fine and well-supported local campaign
against the Bill and all the articles can be found on their site above.

Petitions and protest forms from over 10,000 readers will be presented by a special delegation, organised by the WMN, to 10 Downing St on Thursday 13 March.

The presentation will be led by a procession of musicians and landlords and a band has been formed and will perform a specially-composed song protesting about the Bill.

In the WMN 8 March 2003. Hamish Birchall, spokesman for the Musician's Union said: "Such a phenomenal response from the people
of the Westcountry illustrates just how out of touch the Government is with these reforms." "It obviously had no idea that the right to make live music is something people would defend so ferociously."

More details from [e-mail]

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 02:10 AM

77,877..........................

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 09:12 AM

78,028......................

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 02:58 PM

This thread is huge and takes some loading. It is however vital. I wonder if it ought to be re cast as this wretched bill gets into the commons....maybe call it Licensing Bill passing through commons, or something wittier?

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 03:10 PM

It doesn't take long to load the thread, if you click on the number of posts, rather than on the heading. The posts are arranged in 50s, and you just open up the most recent one. Or click on the asterisk, and it's reversed, with the latest post right up the top. (What slows you down is scrolling past all the blue list of other PEL threads.)

The petition is due to be handed in on 15th - so the question is, will it reach the 80 thousand mark? With 78385 up now it still might.

Here's a link to the KEEP LIVE MUSIC ALIVE forum

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 09:15 AM

Following from Graham Dixon

Just a few lines to inform you all of the state of play with the petition.

I haven't submitted it yet (it seems to be doing the job where it is.

As well as the 78000+ on line, I have been inundated with hard copies (my postmans got a hernia) there is a pile, about 10 inches high, of A$ sheets all signed.

Interesting point - nice to see that many caring musicians use recycled envelopes.

Although the original date for closing the the petition was 15th March - I am going to let it run a bit longer - Hamish has done a mailout of 30000+ leaflets which should attract more signatures

Meanwhile thankyou all for your support

KEEP MUSIC LIVE

Graham Dixon

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 03:11 PM

79,039.....................

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 02:47 PM

79,236..........................

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 02:56 PM

The Lords say no to kids in pubs. Link to The publican

http://www.thepublican.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=8919&d=32&h=24&f=23&dateformat=%25o%20%25B%20%25Y

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 03:35 PM

One interesting thing is that whhen the Lortds passed the "small premises" amendment, the Government Chief Whip, Lord McIntosh, starting raging on the BBC: 'They have voted for eight-year-olds to watch the unexpurgated Texas Chainsaw Massacre.'

Which of course could only happen if they overthrew this previous amendment about kids in pubs. (And, of course, if they put on the Texas Chainsaw Massacre instead of football, which would seem a pretty good way to clear the bar.)

79235 (going backwards!)

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 04:06 AM

Hi Magrath.

The problem with the small premises amendment is that it does not apply only to premises otherwise licensed, so the gov't is right that anyone could hire a hall and show pretty well anything (so long as it did not infringe the Obscene Publications Act, the Race Realtions Act, etc, etc) to anyone. Slight drafting hiccup, I think, is all (not my drafting). Perhaps it should only have applied to music and dance, but even there I think there is a problem with noise and public disturbance. These things are a balance between Article 8 human rights (respect for privacy and family life (and therefore homes)) and Article 10 (freedom of expression)

The mirror of it is however that movie companies have for decades been working on a plan to link cinemas by satellite to avoid the need to make and deliver expensive prints - and if they do finally get it together there is a real risk (it depends on the exact facts and the aplication of soem tricky definitions in the Broadcasting Act 1990) that the "broadcasting exemption" as it is now drawn (government drafting) will prevent imposition of BBFC classifications there to - in short, 8 year olds will (may) be able to watch whatever there too!!

BTW the effec t of teh bill on darts is in the SUnday Express, page 28.

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: GUEST,ET
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 04:33 PM

The Sunday Express article about the end of darts may bring in more powerful ammunition against this squalid bill so for musicians may be a good thing?

I also wonder, if landlords are all going to have to follow Howells instruction and tick the box on regulated entertainment, why they should not all do that - it will bring local authority jobsworth to their knees surely?

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 06:55 PM

Perhaps someone should ask Dr Howells, if the application is so easy and simply a matter of a tick in a box, why a box should have to be ticked at all?

79,346............................

From Graham Dixon, on the E Petition site.

The success of this petition has already contributed to major changes in the UK Government's Licensing Bill. As originally published in November 2002, the Bill would have made almost all public performance of music or dance in England and Wales a criminal offence unless first licensed by local authorities. The Government said the increased licensing controls were necessary for public safety and noise reasons.

But since this petition was started in December 2002, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has found that a) the licensing regime could violate people's right to 'freedom of expression', and b) that the Government has provided no evidence, as the law requires, of any 'pressing social need' to justify the increased licensing controls.

The Government has responded with a number of concessions. Places of public worship will not now need a license to put on entertainment performances of any kind; garden fetes and private events raising money for charity will also be exempt.

On 11 March the Government said it would accept 'the principle that incidental live music should be exempt'. This is welcome. However, it remains the case that no license is required under this Bill for crowds to watch big screens or listen to juke boxes in any place with a powerful sound system; but an advertised performance by one un-amplified musician would be illegal, unless the premises was first licensed for live music. This applies irrespective of whether alcohol is sold.

The same would apply to any unlicensed performance of dance, whether indoors or outdoors. The provision of 'entertainment facilities', such as a piano, whether for public entertainment or private entertainment for profit, also remains a criminal offence unless licensed.

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: GUEST,ET
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 03:38 PM

But the present law remains dreadful - see Music Police raid the Sloop at Barton, Lincs

Subject: RE: Sign a E Petition to 10 Downing St PELs
From: ET
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 06:57 AM

Please circulate

On Monday (24 March) MPs will debate the Licensing Bill for the first time. If you support the idea of an exemption (or automatic permission) for small-scale gigs, please fax your MP now (suggested text at the end of this message): www.faxyourmp.com. The site automatically identifies MPs from post codes.

The Government will strongly resist the small events exemption won by Opposition Peers on 11 March. This exemption would allow entertainment up to 11.30pm, no more than 250 attending at any one time. The Government's probable line of attack was disclosed in this week's Stage newspaper: '[the exemption] would put children at risk and cause misery for local residents. It wholly ignores fire and safety and crime prevention. Just because there are fewer people doesn't mean there is less risk as there are fewer injuries and deaths.' [quote by spokeswoman for the Department for Culture, The Stage, 20 March 2003, p5]

Ominous stuff. It doesn't explain, of course, how the risk of injury and death is addressed for crowds (children or adults) jumping up and down in front of big screen (or radio) broadcasts and a powerful PA in any place and at any time - no licence is required under the Licensing Bill for this entertainment. It doesn't explain why jukeboxes should be exempt, no matter how powerfully amplified, or that the UK Noise Association says noise complaints from recorded music are greater than those from live music.

Trailing cables, or blocked fire exits - examples put forward by the Government in defence of licensing - could lead to criminal prosecution under separate health and safety legislation. Employers and the self-employed have statutory duties to make risk assessments of their work activities that take into account any risk to employees and other members of the public who may be affected. Failure to do so can lead to criminal prosecution under safety legislation. The police can close noisy or unruly pubs immediately for up to 24 hours. Local authorities can seize noisy equipment immediately, or serve anticipatory £20,000 noise abatement notices.

The Stage also reported that Government will consider 'very carefully' an exemption for 'incidental' live music. But this is unlikely to cover advertised, featured entertainments, even by one unamplified performer in a small bar. A suggested text for your message follows:

Dear MP

Licensing Bill 2nd Reading 24 March 2003 - small events exemption (Sch 1, para 12)

I write to ask that you support the exemption above as it relates to live music. If the Government can allow crowds to jump up and down in front of big screens and a powerful PA at any time and in any place without a licence under this Bill, surely it is possible to allow live music up to 11.30pm, restricting attendance to 250 at any one time?

While the Government's acceptance that 'incidental' live music should be exempt is welcome, it is likely that this would not cover advertised or featured performances, even by one unamplified musician. Under the existing regime, over 100,000 pubs, bars, restaurants and clubs in England and Wales that do not hold public entertainment licences can provide such performances by one or two musicians. This automatic right would be lost under the new regime, even allowing for an incidental live music exemption.

The Government has failed to satisfy the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the Licensing Bill is a proportionate response to a pressing social need to control live music. The Committee also concluded: 'there is a significant risk that the blanket licensing regime proposed in the Bill would give rise to an incompatibility with people's right to freedom of expression under ECHR Article 10, even in the light of the Government's announcement on 3 February [churches exemption] mentioned in paragraph 18, above.' [Scrutiny of Bills - Further Progress Report, Fourth Report of Session 2002-03, HL Paper 50, HC 397, 10 February 2003].

If you cannot support the small events exemption as it would apply to a performance of live music in a restaurant or bar, I would ask that you explain where subsisting public safety, noise and crime and disorder legislation is deficient, such that licensing control for live music is the only solution.

Yours etc