 sj |
||
|
||
Licensing Act 2003 - promise kept
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Licensing Act 2003 - promise kept From: GUEST Date: 09 Jan 04 - 05:56 PM Until the suits shut you down Breezy. |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing Act 2003 - promise kept From: breezy Date: 09 Jan 04 - 07:27 AM hear ,hear. now lets get on with the music. |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing Act 2003 - promise kept From: GUEST,The Stage Manager (at work) Date: 09 Jan 04 - 06:51 AM Thanks to The Shambles for the link. Frankly, this whole thing fills me with dread. The more I read about it, the more irritated I become. I thought at first this was just a public safety issue which had reached a point of regulatory absurdity. But reading some of the recent announcements, this 'problem', which common sense says should never have occurred in the first place, seems to be extending a remit to bodies who are the very antitheses of producing a "vibrant live music scene". The Forum is made up of "members of the music industry, the Arts Council, local authorities, small venue owners and Government" …Oh shit. In my humble, it seems blindingly bloody obvious that if you want a "vibrant live music scene" you need Vibrant Live Musicians, not forums of the Great, the Good and Blatant Opportunists. There is another point that I'd have thought the Arts Council and Government should be only too aware of after the millions of lottery pounds spent on bricks and mortar. This is that the mere provision of suitable venues may satisfy building regulations, but it does absolutely nothing to create or stimulate the artists or the audiences needed to fill them. Anyone care to guess how many times this has been pointed out and ignored in the last 30 years? Pub or "grass roots" music, in whatever form, has gone on for goodness knows how many hundred of years, waxing and waning with the times. It has managed this, I would argue, (Indeed I did a dissertation on this very subject) precisely because it was free of interference from government, worthy institutions, and blatant commercial interests, and not because of them. My one consolation is that whatever legislation is finally passed, for good or ill, I'm quite sure some musician / actor / singer / juggler or other creative "grass roots" performer will immediately find a way around it. A pint and a song, you really wouldn't have thought they could cock up something quite so f****g simple. |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing Act 2003 - promise kept From: Sooz Date: 09 Jan 04 - 04:09 AM Feargal Sharkey was on the BBC Breakfast programme this morning. He said that his group's first task was to find out what live music was actually happening in Britain today. I suppose that means it is up to us to tell them. Can we get in touch with the Live Music Forum directly? |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing Act 2003 - promise kept From: Pete_Standing Date: 09 Jan 04 - 03:46 AM Coo, I'm just a simple folky and now my heads hurts. Having read a biography of Billy Conolly over Christmas, I reckon he's the guy. Tory Blair should know better, wasn't he a fledgling rock and roller? But maybe they need some people to break the law to justify frog marching us up to cash points. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Act 2003 - promise kept From: The Barden of England Date: 09 Jan 04 - 03:27 AM Dave Bryant - According to the politicians when the act comes into force there won't be such a thing as a PEL. That's one of the things they say they're scrapping. It's all going to come under the 'Premises License' which is why they say it will cost no more to 'Tick the box' when applying for a 'Premises License'. The 'Premises License' will have such things as how many people a premises will be allowed to hold, so if your local pub for example holds less than 200 people, then an acoustic Jam Session held there between the hours of 08:00 and 24:00 can have no onerous conditions placed on that premises licence, however the Session and any other live music must first have been written into the 'operating plan', (any other live music in this case could be amplified music, which could be at any time day or night, but that however could have conditions applied but only for 'the prevention of crime and disorder' and/or 'public safety'). On the task force remit, the thing that bothers me is in the press statement it states that 'The survey will be carried out in the first six months of 2004'. As only Draft Guidance has been issued so far, and seeing as the Local Licensing Authorities have 6 months after guidance that is agreed by both Houses of Parliament is issued to get their plans together , then any survey carried out in the first 6 months of 2004 will be totally irrelevant as none of the aspects of the new legislation will be in fact happening until after the First Appointed Day (probably now sometime around July/August which is after the first 6 months of 2004 isn't it!) |
|
Subject: RE: Licensing Act 2003 - promise kept From: Joe Offer Date: 09 Jan 04 - 02:39 AM refresh |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Act 2003 - promise kept From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 Jan 04 - 07:44 PM The Act hasn't come into effect yet, so even if they wanted to the Local Authorities could not implement it, Dave. As far as counting goes, even if they do count the present venues including the two-in-a-bar ones, they aren't going to count the places which arguably bend the law by allowing sessions and suchlike. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Act 2003 - promise kept From: GUEST,Van Date: 08 Jan 04 - 03:53 PM I noticed in the Guardian that one of the things this mob have to count is the number of new venues it creates. Assuming that at present, in the absence of a need for a licence, few pubs etc will have them - once the act comes into force they will have to obtain them. Et voila more venues big success of act! Are they going to count current venues then count future licenced venues not if I know Tony Blair's version of the Labour Party. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Act 2003 - promise kept From: Dave Bryant Date: 08 Jan 04 - 12:27 PM Some time ago, in one of the previous PEL threads I prophesised that LAs would not be in a rush to implement the new act unless they could make a good profit on it. Seems as though I was right - I'm beginning to wonder if it will ever be implemented fully unless the government offer some financial inducements. Perhaps we could push for the implementation of the small events clause (without a PEL) as an interim measure until they actually set up the machinery to enable a PEL to be aquired through the proposed simplified application procedure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Act 2003 - promise kept From: The Shambles Date: 08 Jan 04 - 10:42 AM This link is to the DCMS Press Release. http://www.culture.gov.uk/global/press_notices/archive_2004/dcms01_04.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Act 2003 - promise kept From: GUEST,Bobjack Date: 08 Jan 04 - 05:01 AM You have hit the nail on the head DB. I think Mr Geldof is too remote from the acoustic/folk world as well.I would vote for someone like Mike Harding or even Billy Conolly, now old Billy would give this issue the right national profile. Only in England could you have a system as stupid as PEL'S. What is the difference between six people sat talking in a Pub, and six people sat playing in a pub? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Act 2003 - promise kept From: Dave Bryant Date: 08 Jan 04 - 04:54 AM My only worry is that Mr Sharkey might be more interested in the concerns that face professional musicians rather than those of amateur and semi-pros. Some of the assumptions made about the sizes of venues/audiences might be rather OTT compared with what he's used to. I think all of us on the folk scene would agree that the PEL legislation is "using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut" as far as most folk clubs and sessions are concerned. It would be nice if we could get someone - (Sheila Miller, Shambles, or Richard Bridge for instance) to put our side of the case. If we could only get the "Small Events" exception to be independent of the requirement for a PEL in the first place, we would have most of what we want. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Act 2003 - promise kept From: The Barden of England Date: 08 Jan 04 - 04:25 AM Just to let you know, I agree with The Shambles and have asked for this thread to be moved. IMHO somebody like Bob Geldof would have been better. He is vociferous, has strong opinions and is doing the rounds at Folk Festivals so comes with some knowledge I believe. That would probably frighten the hell out of Tessa Jowell though |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Act 2003 - promise kept From: GUEST,Bobjack Date: 08 Jan 04 - 04:12 AM Dear McGrath, Thanks for that link to Feargal Sharkey. I'm sure we all could think of better suited musicians to fight our corner though.If our Government comes clean on this issue, stand by for another stealth tax to balance out their losses! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Act 2003 - promise kept From: Wolfgang Date: 08 Jan 04 - 03:57 AM Roger (Shambles), I completely agree with you that PEL is a genuine music topic of importance and a perfectly suitable topic for Mudcat, and I personally think it is a topic for the music section. But maybe you understand that I had to grin a bit that you of all Mudcatters now join the chorus of the many who question in a thread the placement of a post or a thread made by others. "This issue now relegated to BS?" "Shouldn't this thread rather be in the BS section?" "Why do we need a new thread on this song, couldn't this post be added to the already existing thread?" I had the impression up to now you didn't like such remarks. You see a difference? I don't. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Act 2003 - promise kept From: The Shambles Date: 07 Jan 04 - 05:53 PM Wolfgang there have been many threads over the years on our Licensing Laws and these have been linked together. As none of them - to date had ever been considered to be BS - I was rather naturally posing the question why John chose to use the BS prefix for this one. He was kind enough to reply and ask for my views - which I gave. As to the thread being moved - this is up to John as originator of the thread to request - if he wishes it. I will respect his wishes but I make no plea for it to be moved - implicit or otherwise. Sadly enough uninformed comments and judgements have already been made about the suitabilty of this vital music issue on the forum - I have no intention of adding to these judgements. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Act 2003 - promise kept From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Jan 04 - 04:15 PM Actually, I'd think it's quite likely that being in among the BS threads might make it more likely to get noticed by people who are interested in the ins-and- outs of this controversy. After all, there are far more music threads than BS threads, as has always been the case (in spite of claims to the contrary in pre-split page days). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Act 2003 - promise kept From: GUEST,efnMagazine Date: 07 Jan 04 - 04:10 PM DRAFT guidance notes have been published. Links to the draft guidance, full text of the act and the explanatory notes are available here |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Act 2003 - promise kept From: Wolfgang Date: 07 Jan 04 - 03:25 PM As the present system cannot produce a satisfactory solution for all of us, an alternative where we are encouraged to respect each other's postings rather than currently where we are being encouraged to complain about, censor and judge them, must at least be worth a try? (Shambles, very recently) Barden of England's decision was to head it BS, that's why it was automatically coming up in the lower part. I guess, one of the Joe clones soon will listen to your implicit plea, Shambles, that this thread may be redirected to the upper part. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Act 2003 - promise kept From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Jan 04 - 02:55 PM Here's Sharkey's musical CV - but these days he appears to be doing this kind of thing. I suspect it's some years since he sang in a pub, but he'd probably have a better understanding of what's involved than the kind of "experts" they normally use. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Act 2003 - promise kept From: GUEST,Bobjack Date: 07 Jan 04 - 11:39 AM I still do not see where Feargal Sharkey fits into all this! Isn,t he an Irish pop star of old, or am I missing something? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Act 2003 - promise kept From: The Shambles Date: 07 Jan 04 - 11:23 AM Kind of you to ask John. My view (for what it is worth) is that a thread on an issue that affects every live music venue in England and Wales deserves to be seen (and be able to be refreshed) by anyone who claims any interest in music at all. The trouble with music related threads started in the BS section is that many people who are primarily interested in music may not even look 'down below' and that these BS threads are likely to be closed. Why Feargal Sharkey? ...'A Good Heart Is Hard To Find'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Act 2003 - promise kept From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Jan 04 - 10:45 AM Well, it appears to have been headed BS by the Barden. I don't actually see BS as relegated or second class - but this is fairly obviously a music thread. The Act hasn't even come into force yet, as Dave Bryant pointed out - they all do seem to be in a terrible state of confusion about this whole thing. I think there's a coded message here from Estelle Morris, saying "That wally Kim Howells made a pig's ear out of this - now maybe we can sort it out". Why Feargal Sharkey? Still it could have been a lot worse, when you think of who they could have called in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Act 2003 - promise kept From: The Barden of England Date: 07 Jan 04 - 10:44 AM Sorry Shambles. I thought I'd bung it in BS as I didn't think it was strictly only about music. It may be an idea to restart - what do you think? Dave Bryant - Because the guidance still ain't out it looks to me that the Justices will still be doing the job in 2005, so much for the extensions between Christmas & New Year, especially as Christmas happens on a Saturday this year. Bah - Humbug! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Act 2003 - promise kept From: The Shambles Date: 07 Jan 04 - 10:12 AM The answer to the question is - d) None of the above? This issue is now relegated to BS?
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Act 2003 - promise kept From: Dave Bryant Date: 07 Jan 04 - 09:44 AM A survey of the state of live music is to take place now the new Licensing Act has changed the rules about where music can be played. I didn't think that they'd sorted out the implementation of the act yet, as far as I know licenses are going to be renewed by magistrates again this year. Also what's happened to the late night drinking extensions - could have done with them over the week between Christmas and New Year. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Licensing Act 2003 - promise kept From: Dave the Gnome Date: 07 Jan 04 - 08:45 AM Interesting to see the quote Now pubs, clubs and cafes catering have to apply for entertainment licences for any form of amplified live music. Suggesting that - a) Unamplified live music is exempt b) Unamplified live music is not allowed at all c) Anywhere without catering is exempt or d) None of the above? Good to see that even people 'in the know' are confused. I sure am;-) Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: BS: Licensing Act 2003 - promise kept From: The Barden of England Date: 07 Jan 04 - 08:39 AM Well bless my soul. The UK Government has actually kept one of its promises regarding the Licensing Act 2003. We are to get a task force with Feargal Sharkey and others. Look here:- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/3369495.stm Perhaps they are moving in the right direction. But - - where is the Guidance? - - still not to hand as I type. |
| Share Thread: |