UK Government to license Morris Dancing

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 11:26 AM

All Morris Men should need to be licensed (and probably certified as well). They should be rquired to have third party insurance, and have a safety test every year. If they intend to dance on the public highway they should have a Road Fund license as well.

Ducking flying sticks and empty beer mugs..........

Subject: RE: Bans on Mumming and Morris
From: Hester
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 11:26 AM

Doktor Doktor wrote:

>>>Still theres scope for a whole new tradition - the Annual Banning of The Mummers. Suggestions invited for the format of the event! <<<

Oh, that's already a long-established tradition. In _Stations of the Sun_, historian Ronald Hutton notes that:

>>>'Mummers', 'maskers', and 'guisers' were also recorded among the inhabitants of British towns, and posed a problem to law and order because the combination of dark evenings and revellers in disguises afforded marvellous opportunities for crime. This is almost certainly why the custom was banned at Troyes, and at other European urban centres during the fourteenth century. It was explicitly the reason for a municipal order forbidding 'mumming' on the streets of London in 1405. Similar measures were subsequently taken at Bristol and Chester. An Act of Parliament in the third year of Henry VIII's reign prohibited the 'wearing of visors' across England, as 'a company together naming themselves Mummers have come in to the dwelling place of divers men of honour and other substantial persons; and so departed unknown'. The same problem affected Scotland, where a man was hanged in 1508 for stealing 'under guise of mumming'.<<< (p. 12)

Mumming in Newfoundland was banned in 1861, after a group of mummers committed a murder (which apparently had connections to labour unrest). The ban remained in place until the 1970s, when the custom was revived, despite its illegality, by a theatre troupe.

John Forrest discusses the numerous early ecclesiastic and legal bans on Morris Dancing in his book, THE HISTORY OF MORRIS DANCING 1458-1750.

Hmmm... not hard to see why Mumming and Morris dancing repeatedly face bans and/or official regulation, as they are so closely connected with festivals of misrule (predominantly Yule and the May), in which authority is mocked and challenged. The line between such "licensed" misrule and real political unrest/violence is very thin. See for instance Sandra Billington's book Mock Kings in Medieval Society and Renaissance Drama, in which she documents the commonality of imagery and ritual structure in medieval political revolt, festivities of misrule, and later professional drama.

The proposed licensing restrictions in the UK actually provide folkies with an opportunity to renew the tradition of the Morris and Mumming as acts of civil disobedience, political protest and social resistance.

Cheers, Hester

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 11:10 AM

See also EFDSS on the Licensing Bill for links to their site.

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: stevetheORC
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 10:17 AM

license Morris Dancing, Quite right as well bloody dangerouse, any of you attending the Hastings May day Festival will have been frightend out of a days growth by the scarry lot with big sticks and the even scarrier lot wiv scarves. How can you be expected to have a quiet piss up wiv all that noise going on!!!

Same goes for Folk Music Ban it and shoot all the Musicians then we can sit in the pub all day watching football and kicking shit out of each other in peace.

De Orc

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 08:42 AM

The follwing from Hamish Birchall.

Here is a draft reply to the latest from the DCMS for anyone to adapt as they wish:

Dear Ms Vickers

Thank you for your recent email setting out the latest Government position concerning licensable entertainment and the Licensing Bill.

You say that 'spontaneous performance is not licensable' and yet the Performing Right Society (PRS) says that this is licensable. Here is the relevant section from PRS Tariff 'P' which applies to pubs:

3.3 Sundry musical performances Higher Royalty    Standard Royalty

3.3.1
For occasional and spontaneous (ie not pre-arranged or promoted) musical performances, whether instrumental or vocal, by customers or bar employees, the annual royalty is ............................

£83.90 (£82.25)

£55.93 (£54.83)

PRS has confirmed that the song 'Happy Birthday' is still in copyright, so even spontaneous public renditions of Happy Birthday in a pub are therefore licensable. Unlicensed public performance of a copyright work is an offence, so I would be grateful if you would explain why you say that spontaneous performance is not licensable? What action will your department be taking to ensure that landlords pay for the right to host spontaneous performances of live music?

You confirm that a licence would be necessary for Morris dancing in a pub, but that the pub owner can 'simultaneously apply for permission to provide any amount of entertainment at no extra cost'. Unless the pub owner had made his application to host licensable entertainment at the same time as his application to sell alcohol, and this application was subsequently approved by all the necessary agencies, and local residents, he/she will be restricted to 5 licensable entertainment events a year (under the Temporary Event Notice scheme).

Furthermore, obtaining permission to host more frequent entertainment at a later date requires a formal application to 'vary' the licence, a process that is essentially a re-run of the full premises licence application. This involves notification of and approval by the police, fire service, environmental health department of the local authority, planning authorities, local residents, and the licensing committee of the local authority. Your own department has estimated that licence variation will cost between £100-500, not to mention possible compliance costs arising from licence conditions. It is therefore misleading to say there will be no extra costs.

Culture Minister Kim Howells has explained during recent Commons Committee debates that the definition of the performance of dance excludes people dancing for their own amusement.

Does that mean a pub landlord does not commit a criminal offence if people dance for their own amusement on his/her premises? Or would the landlord be guilty of providing an unlicensed dance floor ('entertainment facility') in those circumstances - unless he/she had already ensured that any or all of his floors were licensed as potential dance floors?

These are important questions since many local authorities have prosecuted landlords under current legislation where a few people, or even just one, dance for their own amusement. Last October, two pubs in Soho were fined £5,000 for allowing 11 people to 'sway rhythmically'. I refer you to the report in the London Evening Standard that is reproduced on the Musicians' Union website: http://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/articles/dancing_fines.shtml.

I would also be grateful if you would confirm that under the Licensing Bill a pub landlord would commit a criminal offence if he/she provided a piano for public use and this was not specifically licensed as an 'entertainment facility'. Perhaps you could also confirm that providing a jukebox will not be licensable under the Licensing Bill, no matter how powerfully amplified.

You talk about outdoor events and the 'more informal system of permitted temporary activities'. A present, no public entertainment licence is currently required for events in the open air on public land outside London. Can you explain why your department considers it necessary to extend criminal law sanctions to such activity down to the smallest scale, such as one musician performing acoustically, or one person performing a dance?

Under the new licensing regime, any place which does not hold a 'premises licence' specifically authorising licensable entertainments is restricted to a maximum of 5 temporary events notices are allowed per year per place. Does that mean a village green would be restricted to hosting only five public performances of dance per year, unless it was permanently licensed for such activity by the local authority?

Would the provision of a maypole on a village green become a criminal offence for the local authority, unless it is explicitly licensed as an 'entertainment facility'? If a local authority failed to licence its own entertainment facilities, would the local authority then be obliged to prosecute itself? Perhaps you can explain the benefit to the community of this additional regulation, bureaucracy and administrative cost.

You refer to the recent Lords' amendment that exempted entertainment events where no more than 250 people attend at any one time, and which cease by 11.30pm. You say that the Government has overturned this amendment, although not because of risks arising from unlicensed live music, but principally on the grounds that children could be shown unsuitable films.

Of course, this will happen in any case because of the Government's very broad exemption for broadcast entertainment (Schedule 1, paragraph 7). Films such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre are already broadcast on national television, and since the government wants to increase children's access to bars, unaccompanied by adults, children will undoubtedly be exposed to such broadcasts and more besides.

Indeed, the broadcast exemption allows big screens and a powerful sound system to be set up in any place without a licence under this Bill. An unsuitable person could therefore organise a musical event for local children simply by tuning in to MTV or any of the proliferating satellite music channels. Opposition Peers proposed amendments that would have made such events licensable. Can you explain why the Government resisted those amendments?

You do not mention the recent reports of the Joint Committee on Human Rights which warn the Government that the Bill continues to carry a significant risk of violating people's right to freedom of expression (Article 10 of the European Convention). The JCHR's most recent report on the Licensing Bill (the 7th Report of the 2002-03 session) also warns that the exemption for places of religious worship, but not secular venues, gives rise to potential discrimination under Article 14 of the Convention, and a potential violation of Article 9. I would be grateful if you would explain what action the Government will be taking to address those warnings.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: John J
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 08:22 AM

What's really worrying is that these clowns are running the country.

How many other bloody stupid things are they trying on that we aren't aware of?

I can't seriously believe that 'they' are out to make money from our activities (this is going to cost a lot of money just to administrate), the goverment waste a huge amount of money even on a good day. These characters wouldn't last two minutes in the real commercial world.

A very recent and very local (to me) event: a Job Centre Plus in Wythenshawe, South Manchester, recently moved premises. All the new (less than two years old) office furniture in the old location was skipped / given away. The new location has been fitted out with brand new furniture and equipment at a cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Any manager of a commercial company would have quite rightly lost his job for pulling such a stunt. The Civil Service seem to waste our money like it's going out of fashion. Then they put tax up to finance their sprees.

I just can't take this bunch of lunatics seriously.

John

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 07:15 AM

So, if I was enjoying a pint in a pub and suddenly and spontaneously a whole bunch of oddly dressed men started Morris Dancing, it would be okay? But if they said, "Our dancing starts in five minutes!" it would have to be licensed they could be fined? Morris Dancing inside pubs seems to me to be a chancy thing at best -- ribbons whipping around, getting in your ale and so forth. And those sticks!

Frankly, I don't see the point of the whole license thing, unless it's to make money and give the government even more control.

Come to think of it, Bush will probably reciprocate on this side of the pond because Blair supported his thing. Probably include Morris Dancers in the list of terrorists.

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: Doktor Doktor
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 07:00 AM

As Mumming is generally done to members of the public, it needs a licence whether or not a charge is made, because it's the performance of a play. The bit about "consideration & a view to profit" only applies if you do it to someone in private.

I think .................

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: Alexis
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 06:28 AM

On Mumming, am I right in thinking that Mummers would be ok in a pub if collecting for charity, ie no consideration to them, but not ok if the landlord bought them a pint?
Alex

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: Doktor Doktor
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 06:08 AM

Didn't use to need a licence - per se, although pubs & festivals did and mass dance events that involve closing off streets always have involved a lot of negotiation with the town hall.

The real change so far as I can see is that if you are organising a dance event of any sort (apart from village fetes - but you won't be organising them anyway) you will in future need to ensure that the event / venue has a licence. The exemption from the criminal law is only for performers - not organisers. So if you're the squire / foreman and you feel like doing a summer's evening tour, you now have to decide exactly where & when you're going to do it about 6 weeks in advance. You'll than have to approach all the publicans / village councils on your route to confirm that licences are in place. If they aren't, you'll have to give a temporary event notice to the / each local authority for each unlicenced spot @ £20 quid a go.

DCMS have already conceded that wassailers (carol singers) won't have to go through all this rigmarole and I can't really see whole rapper sides being carted away by the feds - but the letter of the law looks as if it's going to stand. Obvious danger is that local authority prodnoses are going to use it for a re-run of the Cerne Abbas Mumming Scandal.

Still theres scope for a whole new tradition - the Annual Banning of The Mummers. Suggestions invited for the format of the event!

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: Alexis
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 05:59 AM

I'm still confused. What does this mean?

"Furthermore, we have incorporated in the fact sheet the amendment to the Bill which makes it clear that entertainers who performed at unlicensed venues and did nothing else in relation to the provision of regulated entertainment would not be committing an offence".

and it seems that Morris dancing at a pub or specific venue will need to be licenced, but a Morris side wandering about performing impromptu, won't ?

Any help on this?
Alex

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: clansfolk
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 05:23 AM

I thought it needed a license already - For public performances?

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 04:27 AM

i think i speled bisiness wrong, but you know waht i mean.john

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: fogie
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 04:23 AM

John from Hull says it more sweetly than many of us weaker-spleened individuals ever could

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: Greycap
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 03:57 AM

It's really heartening to know that Morris dancing is going to be a source of revenue for the Department of Culture, Media & Sport( DCMS).
I'm unaware of any help or encouragement from them in the past.
I actually started going to folk type venues in the 60's ( yes, I'm that old ) to avoid being corralled into official, overseen, over-directed pastimes.
Now they are here, in my face.I wish they weren't.
What does anyone else feel?

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 03:28 AM

why dont the goverment just fuvk off and mund there own bisiness? i might start morris dancing just to pis them off!, they should be doinf stuff to encourage traditional culture not restrict it , a while ago a bloke was paid £12,000, yes, twelve thousand pounds for kicking a coke can down the street, this was considered art! and folkies are threatened with 6 montyhs jail for playing music? load of shit if you ask me! ps if you want to know aboit the 12, 000 pound thing look at the media gaurdian site, do a search in the art section.

Subject: RE: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 03:26 AM

Anyone in the UK concerned about the Licensing Bill can now lobby their MP and local press directly from the Musicians' Union website:
http://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/welcome.shtml

In addition to a pre-prepared text that can be sent automatically to your MP and the press, the site is running a Poll and a new petition highlighting the findings of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

I am not aware that this petition is limited to UK residents so any help from overseas will be much appreciated.

Subject: UK Government to license Morris Dancing
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 03:18 AM

The latest from our friends at the UK Department of Culture, Media and Sport. Whilst reading this letter, please remember just how hard the Government are trying to make this sound like good news and also this department is supposed to be promoting our culture.

Thank you for your e-mail of 13 March to Dr Kim Howells, about the Licensing Bill. I am replying on his behalf.

The definition of regulated entertainment can be found in the Licensing Bill, Schedule 1. The Bill, along with explanatory notes, can now be read or downloaded from our web site (www.culture.gov.uk ) under New Responsibilities; news; the parliament website.

As you may know spontaneous performance is not licensable. Where a public house has advertised that Morris dancers would be in attendance, a licence would then be necessary. However, this should not prevent dancing from taking place as the pub owner, who has to obtain the new licence to sell alcohol, can simultaneously apply for permission to provide any amount of entertainment at no extra cost.

Outdoor events would benefit from the more informal system of permitted temporary activities under the Bill that requires only a simple notification to the licensing authority and the police and a small fee of around £20.

Although outdoor events would be licensable under the Bill, we will be
encouraging local authorities to licence public open spaces, such as village greens, on which many performances take place. No additional licence would need to be obtained by dancers or anyone else carrying out licensable activities covered by such a licence, although the consent of the local authority holding the licence would be required.

Also, under the Bill the provision of any entertainment or entertainment facilities at a garden fete, or at a function or event of a similar character, is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment. This, however, does not apply if the fete, function or event is promoted with a view to applying the whole or part of its proceeds for purposes of private gain.

You may be interested to learn that Dr Howells recently held a meeting with representatives of the English Folk Dance and Song Society and the Morris Federation, among other Morris dancing organisations, to discuss their concerns.

I enclose, for your information, an updated copy of the fact sheet that explains how the Licensing Bill would affect public entertainment. This incorporates the amendment to the Licensing Bill to exempt the provision of entertainment or entertainment facilities at places of public religious worship from the need for an authorisation under the Bill and our decision to exempt village, parish and community halls from the need to pay a licence
fee in respect of the provision of regulated entertainment.

It also refers to the Government's commitment to exempt schools and sixth form colleges where the entertainment or facilities are provided by the school from the fees associated with the provision of entertainment or entertainment facilities under the Bill.

The fact sheet also contains the amendment to the Bill that clarifies that regulated entertainment would not be provided for consideration and with a view to profit in circumstances where a charity intended simply to cover the costs of a private event. Events that were not intended to make a profit but only to cover costs would not be licensable only because consideration was involved.

Furthermore, we have incorporated in the fact sheet the amendment to the Bill which makes it clear that entertainers who performed at unlicensed venues and did nothing else in relation to the provision of regulated entertainment would not be committing an offence.

There is also a reference to the amendment that was made to the Bill in the House of Lords but resisted by the Government, which provided an exemption for the provision of entertainment or entertainment facilities at events attended by no more than 250 people at one time and which finish before 11.30pm. The Government has overturned this amendment because, in addition to the small-scale events intended to be covered by the exemption, a great deal of potentially undesirable activity would be without any kind of regulatory control whatsoever. It would, for instance, completely undermine the film classification system. Film classifications are currently enforced through conditions on licences. This amendment would mean that any film
showing attended by fewer than 250 people could not have a classification imposed, potentially allowing young children to watch violent or pornographic films with no restriction or control. It would also remove the right of the police to object on grounds of protection of children from harm if an unsuitable person - perhaps someone involved with drugs - tried to organise a musical event for up to local children.

We will be working with musicians' representatives, local authorities and industry, to inform the drawing up by us of statutory guidance for licensing authorities with the aim that venues can put on live music more easily, while protecting the rights of local residents. This follows concerns expressed by musicians that licensees will be discouraged from putting on entertainment by a fear that licensing authorities will impose unnecessary and costly conditions to their licences, such as requesting expensive alterations to venues. The guidance will recommend for licensing authorities what would be appropriate conditions.

The Government has also accepted the principle that the performance of live music which is incidental to activities which are not themselves entertainment or the provision of entertainment facilities should be exempt from the provisions of the Bill, along with the playing of recorded music which is incidental to activities which are not themselves entertainment or the provision of entertainment facilities.

We believe that the Bill will make it more affordable than now to stage live entertainment in the vast majority of cases and increase opportunities for musicians and other artists to perform. In short, entertainers have nothing to fear from this Bill, but much to gain from it. I hope this letter reassures you.

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